U ovome radu autori analiziraju jednostrane akte država u pravu mora s posebnim osvrtom na akte slovenskog Parlamenta (2005.) i Vlade (2006.), o proglašenju zaštićene ekološke zone i epikontinentskog pojasa, i o određivanju područja ribolovnoga mora. Tim aktima Slovenija krši ne samo obveze iz odredbi Konvencije UN o pravu mora (1982.) već i temeljno pravno pravilo prema kojemu kopno dominira morem. Iz toga pravila proizlazi da pravni naslov nad svim prostorima mora pod suverenošću, suverenim pravima ili pod jurisdikcijom neke države proizlazi iz naslova nad obalom, a u nedostatku naslova nad obalom ne postoji ni valjani pravni naslov nad morskim prostorima u njezinu produžetku. To pravilo, bez iznimke, potvrđuje međunarodna sudska i arbitražna praksa. Slovenski jednostrani akti pravno su neosnovani i nemaju uporište u međunarodnom pravu. Mogli bi se protumačiti kao stav Slovenije da ti njezini akti imaju primat u odnosu na prava Hrvatske utemeljena na općem međunarodnom pravu. To bi bio refleks odavno napuštene i odbačene doktrine o primatu unutarnjega prava nad međunarodnim, makar kada su samo u pitanju odnosi između Slovenije i Hrvatske.The author analyze in this paper unilateral acts of States in the law of the sea with particular emphasis on the Slovenian Law on the proclamation of the protected ecological zone and of the continental shelf of 2005, as well as its Decree on the determination of fishing areas of 2006. With these acts is in breach not only with its obligations from the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention, but also with the basic legal principle that the land dominates the sea. According to this principle many times confirmed in the practice of international courts and tribunals, it is the land which confers upon the coastal State a right to the waters off its coast. Hence, in the absence of coastal entitlement, ther is no valid legal title to adjacent maritime areas. As a consequence, Slovenia\u27s unilateralacts have no basis in international law. They could be interpreted as Slovenia\u27s position that its internal acts and claims have primacy over Croatian legal rights and interests in the disputed areas. These Croatia\u27s rights and interests are fully based on general international law, especially such as codified in the 1982 Convention. Slovenia\u27s stubborn claims would be a reflex of the long time obsolete doctrine on primacy of municipal law over international law, at least when the relations between Slovenia and Croatia are at stake
