[wodenokoto]

> Allowing some entity to establish a government in your lands just to see what happens doesn't seem like a wise move to me.

It is land that Croatia very actively considers someone elses land. That is why Liberland was established there in the first place. Two countries are arguing "not mine, its yours" about a plot of land.

If anything, this can be used against Croatia to argue that it is in fact Croatian territory

[lolinder]

The reason why both countries refuse to claim ownership is actually really interesting: both sides agree that the Danube should be considered the border, but the Danube has changed course over the centuries in a way that left a lot more land on the east than was there before. Naturally, that means that Croatia insists on using the historical path of the Danube, while Serbia insists on the modern one. For either side to claim the land on the west of the current Danube would be to cede the larger quantity of land to the east.

[josefx]

> It is land that Croatia very actively considers someone elses land.

It doesn't consider the land to be "someone elses land" it considers the Serbian definition of the shared border faulty. Letting people that cite the Serbian definition of the border settle there is the last thing they want, since it actively undermines their own definition of where the border between it and Serbia should be over its entire length.

[lolinder]

Liberland doesn't cite the Serbian definition of the border, they accept both definitions at once. If either definition were given preference there would be no terra nullius. If Croatia were serious about their border claims then they should see Liberland as strictly Serbia's problem.

Edit: I suppose that actually allowing an independent state to settle there would ruin their chances of ever trading it with Serbia for the eastern land, but the chances of that are slim to none anyway.

[josefx]

In the article they directly call out correspondence where Serbia disclaims the region, Croatia wants the exact opposite.

> their border claims then they should see Liberland as strictly Serbia's problem.

They don't want it to just be "Serbia's problem" they want a signed document by Serbia accepting Croatias definition of the entire border stretch.

Also just because both sides do not want to claim the territory does not mean you can leave it entirely lawless. Hell there is a small but popular lake near my home town that the three towns bordering it disclaim any ownership of, which doesn't get rid of the issues surrounding the lake, like the fact that they have to pay for road maintenance and everything else related to it, it just makes it a mess to sort everything out. Police would also drag of any group of crazy people trying to create their own floating country in the middle of the lake.

[lolinder]

The difference with your local municipal dispute is that there's no question that it belongs to a given county. If it were a county dispute it would still belong to the state/province. If it were a state dispute it would still belong to the country.

You only get into full terra nullius when no country will claim the land. Since there is no higher umbrella authority, any police force operating in terra nullius is operating outside its self-professed jurisdiction.

[josefx]

> You only get into full terra nullius when no country will claim the land.

After looking up the definition of terra nullius it seems to be a term historically rooted in colonialism where states could only establish themselves by successfully applying massive amounts of "sovereignty" aka military power against colonial powers.

Given that Liberland seems to be unable to showcase its sovereignty against Croatian invaders it fails the basic test for acquiring land or even official statehood required by terra nullius.

> Since there is no higher umbrella authority, any police force operating in terra nullius is operating outside its self-professed jurisdiction.

And who is going to complain about that? Certainly not an established state.

[anon84873628]

Well it's not a lawless area; some enterprising people founded a new constitutional Republic there.

[tptacek]

No, they didn't. See: the article we're commenting on.

[anon84873628]

There is certainly a difference between "lawless" and "not MY laws" or "not the laws I prefer". In my view the parent comment is framing the situation in an incorrect or at least incomplete way. The residents of Liberland were not conducting activities that would be considered obviously criminal by most societies. And I don't know the details of their legal system but "complete anarchy" seems unlikely.

The Darien gap, China & Myanmar border region, central Africa -- these are "lawless" areas despite having clear territorial ownership.