Sonderband 2. International Council on Archives. Dritte Europäische Archivkonferenz, Wien 11. bis 15. Mai 1993. Tagungsprotokolle (1996)
2. Session /Séance. Regional (trans-border) Cooperation / Coopération régionale (transfrontaliere) - Cova, Ugo: The Case of the Adriatic-Alps Zone / Le cas de la zone Alpes-Adriatique (english 145 - français 153)
2. Session/Séance: Cova, The Case of the Adriatic-Alps Zone only from 1797 to 1866). But from the 16th to the 18th century, the core of the ALPE Adria region had been a sovereign administrative unit. That was Innerösterreich (with Graz as capital and former residence)4 which established a tradition of cultural and economic cooperation which went well beyond the time limits of that ancient institutional organization. This may explain why, in the spite of the changes involving states and institutions after World War I and the subsequent, often violent, events which led the various ethnic groups to draw apart for political reasons, Styria and Carinthia (Austria), Slovenia, formerly Carniola and Southern Styria (Yugoslavia), Trieste and Gorizia (Italy) managed to go back, after some early reluctance, to the path of their common life and rediscovered their common civilization and habits which are indelibly impressed in the very character of their peoples. It was then clear that such common elements mattered more than linguistic or institutional differences. A very important problem, which is often neglected, is now worth mentioning. It is well known that the international relations between states are the exclusive competence of ministries and the particular of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of each state. This is fairly evident in a centralized state such as Italy, but is also obvious in federal states where the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs is in charge of the relations, at all levels, with foreign states. In ALPE Adria, in order not to spoil the friendly atmosphere reigning in the regions belonging to different states, this problem was deliberately ignored. As far as Italy is concerned the national government has always played a passive role and has been satisfied, with simply being informed about the working community’s activity5. This also explains why the ALPE Adria institutions merely issue recommendations and do not make formal decisions. An unusual problem arose in connection with the recent splitting up of Yugoslavia and the recognition of the independence of Slovenia and Croatia (ALPE Adria members), as the government of Friuli-Venezia Giulia and the Italian government had for some time conflicting views. Indeed, problems are not evaluated in the same way by those who follow on a daily basis the events involving people living just across the border and by those who assess events exclusively from the point of view of international policy. Not to mention the fact that with Slovenia and Croatia acquiring the status of independent states, there is now a disparity between the ALPE Adria members as two of them are institutionally at a higher level than the regions and Länder, which belong to and depend on a state organization. Apparently, however, although there are differences in status between its members, ALPE Adria has gone on working without any problem, with the possible exception of some delays that may obviously 4 H antsch, Hugo: Die Geschichte Österreichs. Vol. 1. Graz 1969, p. 276-277; Cova, Ugo: Fonti giu- diziarie e militari Austriache per la storia della Venezia Giulia, Oberste Justizstelle e Innerösterreichischer Hofkriegsrat, Ministère per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali, in: Quademi della Rassegna degli Archivi di Stato (Roma 19X9), p. 134. 5 ALPE Adria. Unesemplaremodello (seenote 1), p. IX. 146
