[igor_varga]

As someone who grew up and lived very close to that area I find this free-state territorial claim attempt deeply disturbing and here are some reasons for that.

Probably most important is psychological one since there was a war and violent clash between disputed sides in the 1990s and that land was claimed in very similar manner like this guy is attempting now. Coming there with such claims is very wrong and locals and authorities from both sides will be irritated by such attempts.

This guy's sad interpretation of current dispute situation would be something like: there is a free piece of land and everyone is invited to claim it. That is far away from reality. There is a dispute about that area but that doesn't mean that it doesn't belong to anyone and that it is not controlled. At the moment land part access is controlled by Croatian police and river access by both sides. Legally that land still belongs to Serbia and that comes from last legal border agreement between two sides which is constitution document of Yugoslavia dating from 1974. Borders between countries were defined back then very precisely but that document is subject of dispute from 1990s till now. Dispute and border changes were caused by war, politics and riverbed changes.

Both river and land were used for years by locals as a result of agreement between disputed sides in order enable local population to access that area without too much hassle by the border police.

Now, thanks to this idiot, locals are banned from using it any more. Besides collecting a lot of money for his agenda from similar people like him around the world, that is the only concrete result of his actions.

[paxcoder]

The BBC article claims Croatia doesn't want the land because claiming it would validate Serbia's interpretation of the borders leaving Croatia with less land over all.

I can't find the relevance of years 1974 and 1990 in the wikipedia article[1]. The article describes a long-standing dispute last addressed in 1948. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia–Serbia_border_disput...

[igor_varga]

You are right about the long-standing dispute and arguments from both sides. I was referring to 1974 since that was the last time two countries agreed on document where borders were mentioned although in a very general way. That constitution was also foundation for succession rights and deeds of federal republics after declaring independence.

I mentioned 90s since that was the fist time international commission was involved in trying to help in determining the borders. But it was all in vain since one side states that border is determined by data based on cadastre and one is claiming that the river is the border. The riverbed changed during the years and that created fertile ground for political manipulations.

[jdmichal]

> Legally that land still belongs to Serbia and that comes from last legal border agreement between two sides which is constitution document of Yugoslavia dating from 1974.

That was my initial thought also. One side proposed a new border, and the other side didn't accept. That does not mean it's free land; that means that the status quo continues.

It seems to me the moral equivalent of offering $1 for a house, being rejected, then thereby claiming it's free for the taking...