97/12
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 1997
Public sitting
held on Thursday 10 April 1997, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Schwebel presiding
in the case concerning Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project
(Hungary/Slovakia)
_______________
VERBATIM RECORD
_______________
ANNEE 1997
Audience publique
tenue le jeudi 10 avril 1997, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Schwebel, Président
en l'affaire relative au Projet Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros
(Hongrie/Slovaquie)
____________
COMPTE RENDU
____________
Present: PresSidentbel -2-
Vice-PWeeeramantry
Oda Judges
Bedjaoui
Guillaume
Ranjeva
Herczegh
Shi
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Vereshchetin
Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski
ValRegiastrarina -3-
Présents : M. Schwebel, Président
WeerVice-Pryésident
Oda MM.
Bedjaoui
Guillaume
Ranjeva
Herczegh
Shi
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Vereshchetin
Parra-Aranguren,
Kooijmans
jugeszek,
Skubijugewski, ad hoc
ValenMciGresffier, -4-
The Republic of Hungary is represented by:
H.E. Mr. György Szénási, Ambassador, Head of the International Law
Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Agent and Counsel;
H.E. Mr. Dénes Tomaj, Ambassador of the Republic of Hungary to the
Netherlands,
as-Agent;
Mr. James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law,
University of Cambridge,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas
(Paris II) and Director of the Institut des hautes études
internationales of Paris,
Mr. Alexandre Kiss, Director of Research, Centre National de la
recherche Scientifique (ret.),
Mr. László Valki, Professor of International Law, Eötvös Lorand
University, Budapest,
Mr. Boldizsár Nagy, Associate Professor of International Law,
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest,
Mr. Philippe Sands, Reader in International Law, University of
London, School of Oriental and African Studies, and Global
Professor of Law, New York University,
Ms Katherine Gorove, consulting Attorney,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Dr. Howard Wheater, Professor of Hydrology, Imperial College,
London,
Dr. Gábor Vida, Professor of Biology, Eötvös Loránd University,
Budapest, Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Dr. Roland Carbiener, Professor emeritus of the University of
Strasbourg,
Dr. Klaus Kern, consulting Engineer, Karlsruhe,
asvocates;
Mr. Edward Helgeson,
Mr. Stuart Oldham,
Mr. Péter Molnár,
asvisers; -5-
La République de Hongrie est représentée par :
S. Exc. M. György Szénási, ambassadeur, directeur du département du
droit international au ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme agent et conseil;
S. Exc. M. Dénes Tomaj, ambassadeur de la République de Hongrie aux
Pays-Bas,
commeagent ;
M. James R. Crawford, professeur de droit international, titulaire
de la chaire Whewell à l'Université de Cambridge,
M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur à l'Université Panthéon-Assas
(Paris II) et directeur de l'Institut des hautes études
internationales de Paris,
M. Alexandre Kiss, directeur de recherches au Centre national de la
recherche scientifique (en retraite),
M. Lászlo Valki, professeur de droit international à l'Université
Eötvös Lorand de Budapest,
M. Boldizsár Nagy, professeur associé de droit international à
l'Université Eötvös Lorand de Budapest,
M. Philippe Sands, chargé de cours en droit international à
l'Université de Londres, School of Oriental and African Studies,
et Global Professor of Law à l'Université de New York,
Mme Katherine Gorove, juriste-conseil,
comme conseils et avocats;
M. Howard Wheater, professeur d'hydrologie à l'Imperial College de
Londres,
M. Gábor Vida, professeur de biologie à l'Université Eötvös Lorand
de Budapest, membre de l'Académie des sciences de Hongrie,
M. Roland Carbiener, professeur émérite de l'Université de
Strasbourg,
M. Klaus Kern, ingénieur-conseil à Karlsruhe,
comameocats ;
M. Edward Helgeson,
M. Stuart Oldham,
M. Péter Molnár,
commenseillers ; -6-
Dr. György Kovács,
Mr. Timothy Walsh,
Mr. Zoltán Kovács,
as Technical Advisers;
Dr. Attila Nyikos,
assistant;
Mr. Axel Gosseries, LL.M.,
asanslator;
Ms Éva Kocsis,
Ms Katinka Tompa,
ascretaries.
The Slovak Republic is represented by:
H.E. Dr. Peter Tomka, Ambassador, Legal Adviser of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs,
asent;
Dr. Václav Mikulka, Member of the International Law Commission,
as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
Mr. Derek W. Bowett, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., Emeritus Whewell
Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge,
Former Member of the International Law Commission,
asunsel;
Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of International Law at the
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento,
United States of America, Former Member of the International Law
Commission,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X — Nanterre
and at the Institute of Political Studies, Paris, Member of the
International Law Commission,
Mr. W. Walter D. Sohier, Member of the Bar of the State of New York
and of the District of Colombia,
Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister, Member of the Bar of
England and Wales, -7-
M. György Kovács,
M. Timothy Walsh,
M. Zoltán Kovács,
comme conseillers techniques;
M. Attila Nyikos,
commesistant ;
M. Axel Gosseries, LL.M.,
commeaducteur;
Mme Éva Kocsis,
Mme Katinka Tompa,
commecrétaires .
La République slovaque est representée par :
S. Exc. M. Peter Tomka, ambassadeur, conseiller juridique du
ministère des affaires étrangères,
commeent ;
M. Václav Mikulka, membre de la Commission du droit international,
comme coagent, conseil et avocat;
M. Derek W. Bowett, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., professeur émérite, ancien
titulaire de la chaire Whewell à l'Université de Cambridge, ancien
membre de la Commission du droit international,
commenseil ;
M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur de droit international à la
faculté de droit McGeorge de l'Université du Pacifique, Sacramento
(Etats-Unis d'Amérique), ancien membre de la Commission du droit
international,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l'Université de Paris X-Nanterre et à
l'Institut d'études politiques de Paris, membre de la Commission du
M. Walter D. Sohier, membre des barreaux de l'Etat de New York et du
district de Columbia,
Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., avocat au barreau d'Angleterre et
du pays de Galles, -8-
Mr. Samuel S. Wordsworth, avocat à la Cour au barreau de Paris,
Solicitor England and Wales, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Igor Mucha, Professor of Hydrogeology and Former Head of the
Groundwater Department at the Faculty of Natural Sciences of
Comenius University in Bratislava,
Mr. Karra Venkateswara Rao, Director of Water Resources Engineering,
Department of Civil Engineering, City University, London,
Mr. Jens Christian Refsgaard, Head of Research and Development,
Danish Hydraulic Institute,
as Counsel and Experts;
Dr. Cecília Kandrá_ová, Director of Department, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,
Mr. Lud_k Krajhanzl, Attorney at Law, Vyroubal Krajhanzl Skácel and
Partners Law Firm, Prague,
Mr. Miroslav Liška, Head of the Division for Public Relations and
Expertise, Water Resources Development State Enterprise,
Bratislava,
Dr. Peter Vršanský, Minister-Counsellor, chargé d'affaires a.i. of
the Embassy of the Slovak Republic, The Hague,
asunsellors;
Ms Anouche Beaudouin, allocataire de recherche at the University
of Paris X — Nanterre,
Ms Cheryl Dunn, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Ms Nikoleta Glindová, attachée, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Drahoslav Štefánek, attaché, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Legal Assistants. -9-
M. Samuel S. Wordsworth, avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Solicitor auprès de la Cour suprême d'Angleterre et du pays de
Galles,
comme conseils et avocats;
M. Igor Mucha, professeur d'hydrogéologie et ancien directeur du
département des eaux souterraines à la faculté des sciences
naturelles de l'Université Comenius de Bratislava,
M. Karra Venkateswara Rao, directeur du Génie, section des
ressources hydrologiques, département du Génie civil, Université
de la ville de Londres,
M. Jens Christian Refsgaard, directeur de la recherche et du
développement à l'Institut danois d'hydraulique,
comme conseils et experts;
Mme Cecília Kandrá_ová, directeur de département, ministère des
affaires étrangères,
M. Lud_k Krajhanzl, avocat, membre du cabinet Vyroubal Krajhanzl
Skácel et associés, Prague,
M. Miroslav Liška, directeur de la division des relations publiques
et de l'expertise, entreprise d'Etat pour le développement des
ressources hydrauliques, Bratislava,
M. Peter Vršanský, ministre-conseiller, chargé d'affaires a.i. à
l'ambassade de la République slovaque, La Haye,
commenseillers ;
Mlle Anouche Beaudouin, allocataire de recherche à l'Université de
Paris X-Nanterre,
Mme Cheryl Dunn, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Mme Nikoleta Glindová, attachée, ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Drahoslav Štefánek, attaché, ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme assistants juridiques. -10-
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. This morning the Court will resume its public
hearings in the case concerning theGabcíkovo-Nagymaros Projec.t Today and tomorrow the
Republic of Hungary will present its secondround of oral argument and the Slovak Republic
will do so on Monday and Tuesday of next week.
Before giving the floor to the distinguishedAgent of Hungary I would like to express,
on behalf of all of the Members of the Court, our very warm thanks and profound appreciation
to both Agents, their Governments and their re presentatives for their excellent co-operation
and so ably organizing and conducting the visit whicthe Court made last week to the areas in
both countries to which the case relates. The visit which was made at the joint request of the
Parties was the first such visit in the history of this Court and I am sure it has enhanced our
understanding of the issues we are requested to decide.
May I note that we have the pleasure of eeing in Court Professor Derek Bowett and we
are very pleased that he is able to be here.
I now call upon the distinguished Agent of Hungary to begin the second round of oral
argument on behalf of his Government. I amsorry, not the distinguished Agent of Hungary,
but I see Professor James Crawford, and no less distinguished.
ProfeCssor WFORD:
INTRODUCTION 1.
Thank you, Sir, for part of that introduction. Mr.President, Members of the Court:
1. In introducing Hungary’s reply, I should first mention the questions asked of Hungary
during the first round as well as during the very successful visit made by the Court to the
region. Secondly, I will discuss some points onwhich the Parties’ positions have converged,
and say something about the Court’s role in re lation to outstanding issues of disagreement.
Thirdly, I will outline the structure of Hungary’s Reply. -11-
A.R ESPONSES TO Q UESTIONS ; ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
2. In its first oral round Hungary replied ina preliminary way to questions asked by
Judges Fleischhauer and Vereshchetin. In addition a question was asked by Judge Ranjeva on
the fifth day, relating to the effects of the novision of the Soviet loan. Written replies to
these questions will be provided shortly, in time for a response by Slovakia next week.
3. A number of questions were also asked during the site visit. The Vice-President asked
about the relative costs of production of water through bank-filtered wells as compared with
taking water from the river. Dr.Kern will respond to this today. JudgeRanjeva asked about
the effects of the Treaty on the course of the boundary, including the thalweg. The Parties
agree that the 1977 Treaty was not a boundary tr eaty and that it had no legal effect on the
course of the boundary. We are co-ordinating with a view to preparing an agreed statement
and illustrative map in response to Judge Ranjeva’s question.
4. In its first round Slovakia mentioned a number of studies, which were held up to the
Court and used to support the contention that all conceivable risks of the original project had
been fully studied. Rather than simply disp laying these studies for you to view from afar,
Hungary will actually to refer to their contents. You will find highlighted extracts from the
Bechtel Report, the Hydro-Quebec Report, the Slovak Blue Book and the PHARE Report in
your folders. We are depositing with th e Court the text of the UNDP-WHO Study, among
others. We hope that this will facilitate the task of seeing what these various documents
actually say.
B. Points of Agreement and Disagreement and the Role of the Court
5. I turn to the current state of the argumentsbetween the Parties. In some respects there
has been convergence. For example, with the sole exception of the ungarian response to Mr.
Andriessen (the original of which has beenoldged with the Registrar) Slovakia did not dispute
the authenticity of any of the documents refe rred to by Hungary in its pleadings, including
Slovak Government documents. Nor does it nowappear to challenge Hungary’s good faith in
relation to this dispute. The only express reference to Hungary's good faith was made by
Dr.Tomka, who said that the questions referredto in Article 2 of the Special Agreement “do -12-
1
not become irrelevant if the Court accepts that Hungary acted in good faith”. That is true;
those questions remain, and have to be answerd e. But what is significant for present purposes
is that - faced with my explicit and developed argument that Hungary did act in good faith,
that its conduct was inexplicable on any other basis- Slovakia made no response.
6. On some important legal issues the Partie s have also converged. One relates to the
doctrine of necessity as applied to treaty obligations. For three rounds of written pleadings
Slovakia argued that that doctrinewas inapplicable, now it recants. Another point has even
wider consequences. Slovakia no longer asserts that the 1977 Treaty created rightsin rem or
an objective legal regime. It made that ar gument at some length in each of its written
pleadings. 4 It has now been abandoned. Instead the Teraty is seen as a joint investment treaty,
analogized to a domestic building contract. This change has fundamental consequences for
the Slovak position, both as to the applicable law and the survival of the Treaty. An objective
regime might be thought to create a fundamental lw a for the Parties, a sort of a constitution. A
joint investment agreement is not a constitution,any more than a building contract, and there
is no difficulty in treating its continuing performa nce as subject to the general law in force at
the time. An objective territorial regime would have been relatively impervious to change,
like the Mandate system or the demilitarizationof the Aaland Islands. By comparison a joint
investment agreement is simply an agreement inter partes. There is no strong presumption
that it continues, no matter what changes occur. There is no presumption of interminability.
All these implications attach, unobserved, to the observed change in Slovakia’s position on
this crucial issue.
7. On other points, Slovakia responds not by changes in its position but by - silence. For
example it made no attempt to defend the wholly implausible legal interpretation given to
Article 3 of the Boundary Waters Conventionin the 1990 internal legal opinion which sought
1
CR 97/7, p. 18 (Dr. Tomka).
2 CR 97/4, p. 16 (Prof. Crawford).
3 CR 97/8, p. 41 (Prof. Pellet).
4 SM, paras. 7.21-7.22; SC-M, paras. 2.35-2.38; SR, paras. 2.16-2.17, 2.22.
5 CR 97/10 pp. 63-64 (Sir Arthur Watts). -13-
to justify Variant C. Indeed Slovakia made no attempt in its oral arguments to address the
1976 Convention at all. It repeated its argument that the 1977 Treaty was a lex specialis
7
which excluded the substance of the 1976 Convention. That is all. Hungary of course
accepts that while it was in force the 1977 Treatywas an application of certain aspects of the
1976 Convention - for example it was a contrary agreement for the purposes of Article3,
paragraph2, which entitles each party to half the na tural flow in the main channel. But there
is no indication either in the 1977 Treaty or inthe 1976 Convention that its provisions of the
Convention- which came into forceafterthe 1977 Treaty - were suppressed as distinct from
applied by the 1977 Treaty. Quite the contrar y. Moreover now that the 1977 Treaty is no
longer seen as a regime, it is naturally subordinated to the admitted regime of the Boundary
Waters Convention.
8. The Slovak silence on this point has a further implication. Once the 1977 Treaty was
terminated, Variant C was clearly unlawful under the 1976 Convention. Slovakia has not
troubled to deny the point. But it is of some importance. Assume for example that the Court
were to hold that Variant C amounted to a repudiation of the 1977 Treaty which - Hungary
also having repudiated that Treaty - is no longer inforce. Assume further that Variant C is, in
the special circumstances of this case, somehowconsistent with the principle of equitable use
of international watercourses - a point fleeti ngly and implausibly asserted by Sir Arthur
8
Watts. It would still follow that the operationof Variant C would be unlawful, unless and
until it was brought into compliance with th e 1976 Convention through negotiations with
Hungary.
9. On many other points, of course, there is still disagreement. But you will have
observed how Slovakia has sought to exclude some of the more significant issues from the
Court by implausible a priori interpretations. Such argumen ts are a symptom of extreme
sensitivity as to substance. And the technique is endemic. For example Professor McCaffrey
said the Hungarian Scientific Evaluation in the Counter-Memorial was irrelevant because it
6 For the legal opinion see HR, vol 3, Ann. 64; CR 97/4 p. 82 (Mr. Sands).
7
8 CR 97/9 p. 28 (Prof. McCaffrey); CR 97/11, p. 20 (Sir Arthur Watts).
CR 97/11 p. 23 (Sir Arthur Watts). -14-
was written after 1990 . And the same suggestion was ma de with respect to Phase II of
Variant C — the Slovak post-diversion phase whih c demonstrates, if demonstration is needed,
10
that Variant C is neither provisional nor temporary . But let me refer to three more serious
examples of this genre of exclusion:
* First, there was the remarkable suggesti on made by Dr.Tomka that the Court has no
concern whatever with the question of wate r management, or with the extent of the
11
discharge régime for the Danube . Now it is true that the Special Agreement, although
it contained an express undertaking by the Parties to introduce a temporary water
management régime, effectively prevented the Court from ruling on that temporary
12
régime . The exclusion of the Court’s interimmeasures jurisdiction was a condition of
Slovakia agreeing to submit this case to the Court. But the temporary water
management régime is precisely a régime “pending the final Judgment of the Court”
under Article 4. This has two clear implicato ins — one, that in the absence of Article 4,
in the absence of its express exclusion, the Court wouldhave been empowered to
indicate a temporary water management régime to preserve the asserted rights of the
Parties; two, that its final judgment will berelevant to the question of the future water
management régime for the Danube. Of cour se it is not the function of the Court to
make discretionary decisions about wate r management. But the Court does have
jurisdiction to determine the legal rights and obligations of the Parties arising from its
determination that the 1977 Treaty, including Article15, is or is not in force, and that
Variant C is or is not lawfully operated having regard to the various obligations of the
Parties with respect to the environment. A ll of this plainly encompasses legal issues
relating to the future water management of the Danube.
* Then there was a second example of the ge nre of exclusion. The astonishing argument
made by ProfessorMcCaffrey that Article 27 of the 1977 Treaty prevented Hungary
9 CR 97/8, p. 19 (Prof. McCaffrey).
10 HC-M, paras. 3.115-3.122; HR, paras. 2.90-2.93, 3.64-3.65.
1CR 97/7 pp. 18-19 - the assertion is repeated as Dr Tomka’s first and third points.
1Special Agreement, Art 4 (2), HM, vol 3, Ann. 32. See HC-M, paras. 2.107-2.117, 4.01, 6.32; HR 2.94-
2.105. -15-
from relying on necessityeven if Hungary’s scientific and environmental concerns were
justified , that is what he said. ProfessorVa lki will deal with Article27 tomorrow.
The point I am making is simply this—that to argue that Hungary must,ex hypothesi,
subject itself to serious damage to its vital interests in drinking water resources and the
environment because Articl2 e7 envisages discussions between Government
plenipotentiaries, betrays very little confidence in the substance of the issue.
10. A third example of Slovakia’s genre of exclusion was Dr.Tomka’s assertion that the
Court has no role in this case except to answer the three questions identified in Article2,
14
paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement . All the real management issues, Dr. Tomka inferred,
were to be left to the experts — which means,in its context, the water engineers. People like
Mr. Julius Binder, whose persistent and long-sa tnding attitude to this dispute you may derive,
for example, from Annex 2 in your folders, and who is the person who presently controls the
Danube at Gabcíkovo. Professor Kiss will return to this crucial point shortly.
11. This strategy of exclusion suggests an unwillingness to have the Court enter into the
merits of this dispute, an unwillingness Hungarydoes not share. But the Court will no doubt
itself have the concern that it is called on to adjudicate a dispute with major implications,
economic and environmental, implications for the Parties, for the region and for European
approaches to water management. Courts confronted with a battle of the experts often feel
uneasy, and this may be accentuated when all the experts on both sides are speaking as
advocates! Let me make just a few remarks on this issue.
12. The first point is simple. Hungary does not say that the Court has to make final
determinations on disputed questions of scientif ic fact or opinion in order to resolve this
dispute. But the Court does have to form a view as to the extent and reality of the problems —
and this is easier to do in the context because these concerns have been held in the recent past
15 16
by, inter alia, ProfessorMucha and Mr.Refsgaard , as you will see. Hungary has
1CR 97/9, p. 60 (Prof. McCaffrey)
14 CR 97/7 pp. 17-18 (Dr. Tomka).
15
16 CR 97/3, p. 55 (Prof. Wheater); HC-M, Anns., vol 4 (2), Ann. 11.
CR 97/3, pp. 55, 62 (Prof. Wheater, Ms Gorove); HC-M, Anns., vol 4 (2), Ann. 12. -16-
expressed the relevant threshold as follows — te hCourt needs to be satisfied that Hungary had
valid concerns about vital interests. Valid notin the sense that the relevant damage certainly
would occur; but valid in the sense that th e risks were such that a reasonable government
could not be expected to run them. That threshold was met in respect of both parts of the
oiginal Project. It is met now with respect to Nagymaros and Variant C.
13. The second point is that the Court has its elf the vocation to act in a precautionary
mode, confronted with a degree of scientific un certainty. The Slovak denial of uncertainty is
another and scarcely more subtle example of the genre of evasion to which I have referred.
Faced with scientific uncertainty, but with credible risks and damages—with valid concerns
over vital interests—the Court should act in accordance with the principle of precaution
embodied in the Rio Declaration and embraced, however uncertainly, by
Professor McCaffrey . By contrast you heard ProfessorPellet talking about the enforcement
18
of the original Project through judicial process . That is the antithesis of the principle of
precaution.
14. And thirdly, the Court’s assessment of the diplomatic positions of the Parties in the
period from 1989 must be influenced by its view of the underlying scientific and
environmental issues. If Hungary’s expresse d concerns were completely fictitious, as
Slovakia asserts, if they were incredible, then tehdiplomatic record may be read in a particular
way. If on the other hand they were substan tial, were held in good faith—as Slovakia
appears now reluctantly to accept — if they werevalid concerns in the sense I have explained,
then the position is quite different. On that footing, what happened in the period from 1989
can be seen in a quite different — I submit in itc sorrect and true — light. The story is, briefly,
the following.
15. Hungary in 1989 had legitimate concerns about this major project—combined
concerns as to its costs, its viability, its im pact on the environment and on drinking water.
These concerns were shared by many in Czechols ovakia and by reputable international bodies.
17
18 CR 97/9, pp. 33-37 (Prof. McCaffrey).
CR 97/11, pp. 46-48 (Prof. Pellet). -17-
The concerns had earlier been suppressed unde r the governing system of state science in
which careers could be made or destroyed depending on the acceptability of positions taken.
In the new environment of 1989-1990, the Czechoslovak authorities were initially
understanding about this situation, although they were understandably concerned about the
impact on their investment upstream, an investmenh tardly greater thanHungary's. But within
a short time, the demands of those who wantedthe original Project and peak power prevailed,
and Variant C was conceived by the Bratislava State construction company—I should say
reconceived, because the idea had been studied several times before. It may have been seen
initially as a way of bludgeoning Hungary back to the original Project, but very soon it
became the way to acquire sole control and be nefit over the Danube. The die was cast by the
end of 1990 or early 1991 at the latest. Hungary was offered no choices, by those who made
the actual decisions. Listen to one of them speaking: “We proved as we proceeded with
Variant C that Slovaks are capable of building abig project and this was one of the examples
of how we deserved to have our own State... [The environment] is just a fog around the
problem and the problem is the border... The 1977 Treaty was a problem [for Hungary]
19
because it recognized current borders.” Thus Julius Binder, speaking last month of his own
motivations and aims in constructing Variant C. And he ought to know.
C .Structure of Hungary’s Reply
Mr. President, Members of the Court:
16. In the course of its presentations over thnext two days, Hungary will seek to point out
where possible the areas of agreement or at least of convergence between the Parties, and to
focus on the essential remaining areas of disagreem ent. Inevitably a reply of this kind has to
be selective and responsive; it builds on what has been written and said, which we will not
repeat and do not withdraw. In this context Ishould add that Hungary will reply in writing to
the PHAREProject or to the PHAREReport. But that we have annexed in your folders two
documents which will be annexed to that re ply from Professor Somlyody and Dr. van Rijn,
both of whose names were referred to in the Slovak first round.
19 Reuters World Service, 29 March 1997; Judges Folder, Ann. 2. -18-
17. The structure of Hungary’s oral reply is as follows:
* Professor Kiss will complete this Introductionby analysing the role of the Court under
Article 2 of the Special Agreement, respondi ng to Dr. Tomka’s assertion that all the
Court has to do is answer the questions iden tified in Article 2, paragraph 1, without any
concern for the future.
* There will follow three presentations on theoriginal Project. MsGorove will discuss the
studies relied on by Slovakia to show that theoriginal project had been fully examined
and all problems fully taken into account. Dr. Kern will examine Slovak arguments on
the impacts of the original Project. Mr. Sands will deal with the issues of environmental
law inherent in the 1977 Treaty and in generalinternational law, and with their relation
to the suspension and termination of works.
* There will then be three presentations on Variant C. Professor Nagy will deal with
Slovakia’s argument that Variant C is e quivalent to the original Project.
ProfessorWheater will deal with the impacts of Variant C, and will provide an initial
appraisal of the PHARE Report which, despite the unduly short time available, Hungary
has had independently refereed. ProfessorDupuy will deal with the timing and legality
of Variant C.
* There will then be three presentations on the Termination of the Treaty and Other Legal
Consequences. Professor Valki will deal with the Slovak arguments from Article 27 of
the Treaty. I will show that the 1977 Treaty hs anever been in force between the Parties
to this case. Professor Dupuy will deal with the other major legal consequences.
* Finally, Professor Carbiener will discuss the vital issue of the sustainable development of
the Project Area—the future which Dr.Tomka is so anxious you should not consider.
He will be followed by the Agent, who will introduce and then read Hungary’s
submissions in this case.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, I tha nk you for your attention and would ask you to call
on Professor Kiss. -19-
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor Crawford. Professor Kiss please.
M. KISS :
2. THE SPECIAL AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICABLE LAW
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Juges,
1. Au début de la procédure orale j’avais l’honneur de présenter un tableau des règles de
droit international qui me semblaient devoir êtreprises en considération au cours du présent
litige. Permettez-moi d’y revenir à la lumière des déclarations de nos contradicteurs slovaques,
et cela pour deux raisons. La première est la tenattive de M. l’agent de la Slovaquie de réduire
considérablement les dimensions temporellesdu différend qui vous est soumis. La réfutation
de cette tentative – qui constituera la prem ière partie du présent exposé – entraînera
nécessairement quelques considérations sur lais tuation juridique qui prévaut à l’heure actuelle
et qui devra déterminer les règles applicables au différend. Ces considérations feront l’objet de
la deuxième partie de l’intervention.
Nous nous tournerons donc d'abord, avec votrepermission, vers les allégations de M.Tomka
concernant
I.L A DUREE DU DIFFEREND
2. Qu’a dit M. Tomka dans sa plaidoirie du 24 mars dernier? Il a rappellé, à juste titre,
que les trois questions posées à la Cour au pr emier paragraphe de l’article 2 du compromis
sont au coeur du présent différend. Toutefois, ilentendait réduire le différend à ces questions.
Je cite les propos qu’il a tenus à ce sujet :
“The Parties have put to the Court unde r the Special Agrement specific questions
concerning the actions of Treaty parties at or during identified periods of time
precisely because the answers to those que stions will resolve the dispute between
Hungary and Slovakia. Yes, I repeat, Slovakia”
et, un peu plus loin:
“Those questions are specific – and for good reasons. They require specific findings
from the Court. Moreover, the Court’s answers will settle the dispute between
Hungary and Slovakia. There will be no continuing dispute.” 20
20 Voir CR 97/7, p. 17-18. -20-
3. Cette volonté de restreindre dans le temps la mission donnée à la Cour est nettement
contraire au compromis, mais aussi aux faits de la présente affaire.
4. Quant au compromis, trois de ses dispositions s’y opposent. En premier lieu, le
quatrième alinéa du préambule affirme la volonté des parties de soumettre à la Cour le
différend relatif au projet Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros sous tous ses aspects . Cette phrase qui
établit très nettement l’intention d’aboutir à un règlement global explique non seulement
l’article 2 du compromis, mais le compromis toue tntier et, en particulier son article 5 relatif au
futur régime des eaux du Danube, qui devra être fondésur votre arrêt. Elle éclaire la tâche de
la Cour, mais aussi celle des Parties : il ne s’agit pas de trancher une discussion académique
sur les comportements respectifs de la Hongrie et un Etat disparu, mais de statuer sur la
condition présente et future d’une région
5. Deuxièmement, et surtout, selon l’article 2, paragraphe 2, du compromis, la Cour est
priée de déterminer les conséquences juri diques pour les Parties des réponses aux trois
questions énoncées au paragraphe 1. La Courest donc compétente pour déterminer toutes les
conséquences juridiques, droits et obligations, qui découlent pour les Parties des réponses aux
trois questions spécifiques concernant le différend sous tous ses aspects. M.Tomka semble
croire, à tort, que l’article 2, paragraphe2, n’ a pas d’importance, alors que cette disposition
définit une part essentielle de la compétence et des tâches de la Cour. Bien sûr, si le traité de
1977 est encore toujours en vigueur, les consé quences qui en découlent pour les Parties
devront être précisées : construire ou démolir. Acet égard le Professeur Pellet était tout à fait
clair. De même, si le traité est considéré comme n’étant plus en vigueur, les conséquences
devront être définies en ce qui concerne les re lations juridiques entre les parties, y compris
l’utilisation durable et équitable des cours d’ eau internationaux et l’application de la
convention de 1976. En fait, les deux Parties ét aient d’accord dès la procédure écrite pour
estimer qu’il n’appartenait pas à la Cour de déte rminer, dès cette phase de la procédure, le
montant d’éventuelles réparations qu’elles pourraient devoir payer, ni de se préoccuper des
questions spéciales concernant les modalités de l’exécution de l’arrêt. 21
21 Voir RH, n 159. -21-
6. Toutefois, la tâche de la Cour selon l’ar ticle 2, paragraphe2, n’est certainement pas
limitée au passé, à des questions d’indemnisation et de dommages. Elle embrasse toutes les
conséquences juridiques qui découlent des réponses aux trois questions, y compris les
conséquences pour le comportement futur des Parties.
7. Le troisième point renforce ce qui vient d’être dit : aux termes de l’article 5,
paragraph2e, du compromis, les Partie s devront entreprendre des négociations
immédiatement après que l’arrêt leur a été transmis, pour déterminer les modalités de son
exécution. Si un accord intervient entre eux, le diffréend sera éteint – mais seulement à la date
de cet accord. Sinon, selon l’article 5, paragraphe 3, une des deux Parties pourra demander à la
Cour de fixer, dans un second arrêt, les modalités de l’exécution du premier arrêt. C’est ce
second arrêt qui pourra alors mettre définitivement un terme au différend.
8. On ne saurait donc considéreren droitque le début du fonctionnement de la variante C
représente la fin de la période que la Cour devrait prendre en considération. Toutefois, il y a
aussi tout le poids des faits, celui de l’énorme masse d’eau que depuis son accession à
l’indépendance la Slovaquie a détournée et contn iue à détourner du Danube au détriment de la
Hongrie. Il est peu probable que sans ce dtéournement des eaux du Danube nous serions -22-
aujourd’hui présents devant votre haute juri diction. Comment affirmer dans ces conditions
qu’il n’y a pas de différend à l’heure actuelle , qu’il n’y a plus aucune question litigieuse
depuis la fermeture du Danube en octobre 1992 ? C’est ainsi que nous sommes amenés à
nous tourner vers
II. La situation juridique actuelle
9. Puisque, contrairement aux affirmations deM. Tomka, le différend entre la Hongrie et
la Slovaquie continue, il est important de faire le point de la situation actuelle en droit. Pour
commencer, je voudrais rappeler que le traité de1977 n’existe plus. D’une part, la Hongrie a
démontré l’illégalité de la variante C, dont laconstruction a, par voie de conséquence, mis fin
au traité de1977. D’autre part, la constatation par la Hongrie de cette illégalité dans sa note
verbale du 19mai1992 et les conséquences juridiques que cette dernière en a tirées ont suffi
en elles-mêmes pour mettre fin au traité.
10. Ainsi, il n’y a aucune règle juridique sur laquelle le détournement du Danube pourrait
être fondé et nous retombons dans le droit commun régissant les relations des deux Etats
voisins comportant d’une part un certain nombre de traités bilatéraux et multilatéraux
auxquels la Hongrie et la Slovaquie sont actuellement parties contractantes ainsi que, d’autre
part, le droit international général. Je voudrais me tourner d’abord très brièvement vers le droit
international général.
11. Le premier fait, fondamental, que vous avezpu constater de vos propres yeux lors de
votre visite sur les lieux, est qu’une très ft proportion des eaux du Danube a été détournée.
La Slovaquie produit ainsi de l’électricité sansle moindre bénéfice pour la Hongrie mais à son
détriment. C’est un cas d’enrichissement non seulement sans cause, mais illicite, contraire à
toutes les règles de droit, quel que soit le système juridique vers lequel on se tourne.
12. Comme cela a été rappelé plusieurs fois dans la présente instance, les Etats doivent
veiller à ce que les activités qui relèvent de leur compétence respectent l’environnement dans
d’autres Etats. Il s’ensuit que les dommages à l’environnement doivent être prévenus, en
appliquant, au besoin, le principe de précaution. . -23-
13. La situation juridique qui existe à l’he ure actuelle comporte aussi des obligations
conventionnelles pour les deux Parties à la présente instance. Elles ont été énumérées dès le
premier jour des plaidoiries hongroises.
14. Il convient, par contre, d’insister ici sur certains traités, déjà cités 22: les conventions
relatives aux frontières et leur régime qui défins isent la frontière sur le Danube par le thalweg
du lit navigable du fleuve, ainsi que le traité de 1956 relatif à la frontière d’Etat qui soumet
toute activité concernant le fleuve à un accord spécial entre les riverains 23. La convention
de1976 entre la Hongrie et la Tchécoslovaquie, concernant la réglementation en matière
d’eaux frontalières, a une importance particulière, elle vise toute activité de gestion exercée
sur les eaux frontières susceptible de modifi er les conditions hydrologiques naturelles, et
notamment l’aménagement hydro-électrique du fleuv.eIl interdit aux deux Parties de se livrer,
sans s’être mises d’accord, à des activités de gestion des eaux qui porteraient atteinte aux
conditions hydrologiques conjointement définies. E lle leur impose aussi l’obligation de faire
fonctionner les équipements d’une manière telle qu’aucune d’entre elles ne cause de dommage
à l’autre24.
15. Il y a lieu d’ajouter à ces traités bilatéra ux les conventions multilatérales concernant la
25
navigation et les pêcheries, également citées dans les premières plaidoiries .
16. Parmi les traités plus récents devant être appliqués dans la présente situation il convient
de citer en tout premier lieu la convention de RiodeJaneiro, de1992, sur la diversité
biologique, en vigueur entre les deux Parties.Cette convention impose aux Etats l’obligation
de ne pas causer de dommage à l’environnement dans d’autres Etats, ainsi que celle de
conserver la diversité biologique et d’utiliser ss eéléments d’une façon durable. Aux termes de
l’article22 de cette convention, ses dispositions s’appliquent, même si elles sont contraires à
des traités existants pouvant causer de séri eux dommages à la diversité biologique ou
constituant pour elle une menace. Ainsi, fait exceptionnel qui mérite d’être souligné, des
22 Voir CR 97/2, n 9-10.
23 En particulier, voir les articles 3, 14 et 19 de la convention. MH, annexes, t. 3, p.155 et MH, n 4.29-
4.32.
24 Voir MH, annexes, t. 3, p.227 et MH, n 4.33-4.35
25 Voir CR 97/2, n 11-12. et MH, n 4.40- 4.4 4 ainsi que 4.48-4.49. -24-
règles protégeant des espèces menacées d’extinction et leurs habitats peuvent déroger à des
dispositions conventionnelles déjà existantes.
17. On considère généralement que la convento in de Berne relative à la conservation de la
vie sauvage et du milieu naturel en Europe, du 19septembre1979, déjà citée, et dont le titre
est suffisamment éloquent pour qu’il soit nécessairede dire davantage de son contenu, précise,
dans un cadre régional, les obligations découlant de la convention sur la diversité biologique.
18. Ainsi, nous ne demandons pas à la Cour de ch oisir entre le respect des traités d'un
côté et le respect de l’environnement de l'aurte, mais de faire assurer le respect des deux,
en faisant observer des traités protégeant l’environnement, y compris, bien entendu,
ceux qui protègent les ressources en eau. -25-
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, nous arrivons ainsi à nos
Conclusions
19. M. l’agent de la Slovaquie a souligné avec raison l’importance fondamentale des
réponses de la Cour aux trois questions posées par le compromis. Toutefois, on ne saurait
oublier que la Cour a aussi vocation de déterm iner les conséquences juridiques actuelles et
futures de ses réponses aux questions, conséqueces indispensables pour montrer la voie vers
un avenir nécessairement fondé sur la coopération en bonne foi entre les deux Etats voisins.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Juges, je vous remercie de votre bienveillante attention.
Mr. President, may I ask you now to call on Ms Gorove?
The PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, Professor Kiss. I call now on Ms Gorove.
Ms GOROVE:
3. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT: STUDIES, CONCERNS AND VIABILITY
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the aim of my presentation today is three-fold.
First, I will establish, contrary to Professo r McCaffrey and Mr. Wordsworth, that studies
carried out on the Project in the periods to1989 were inadequate. Second, I will show,
contrary to Professor McCaffrey, that Hungary acted reasonably in suspending in May 1989
and later abandoning its works at Nagymaros, aswell as in suspending works on the closure at
Dunakiliti in July 1989. Third, I will address Dr. Mikulka's arguments on flood control and
navigation in the context of the viability of the Project.
I.T HE INADEQUACY OF THE STUDIES ON THE P ROJECT (PRE -1977 TO 1989)
2. In discussing the adequacy of studies on the original project, Slovakia dealt with
fourperiods: (1) pre-1977; (2) 1977-1988; (3 ) 1989; and (4) the period between 1989 and
June1990. Any studies subsequent to June 1990, and especially to May 1992, it viewed as
irrelevant, with the apparent exception of the PHARE Report.
3. A theme common to Slovak presentations was that economic, not environmental,
reasons motivated Hungarian actions.27 Hungary has never denied that economic issues were
26
27 CR 97/8, p. 19 (McCaffrey).
See e.g. CR 97/8 at p. 18; CR 97/7 at p. 21. -26-
relevant in 1981, or continued to be relevant in 1989 and subsequently. It is Slovakia who
seeks to erect a rigid barrier between economicsn ad environment, whereas the truth is that the
two are linked. The costs of development, includ nig the impact on the environment, have to be
28
taken into account in deciding whether to proceed with development. Throughout the 1980s
environmental arguments were relied on neitherto hide or replace economic concerns but to
shed light on aspects which had been inadequa tely investigated. In any case, Slovakia's
arguments as to Hungarian motivations in the 1980s are irrelevant. As will be shown,
Financial reasons were not the decisive factor in Hungarian suspension and abandonment of
work.
28
See HC-M, paras. 2.14-2.19; Vol. 2, chap. 7.3. -27-
A. The Pre-1977 Period
4. Let me first address the pre-1977 period. Mr. Wordsworth highlighted the importance
of this period, asking were studies done prior to 1977 such that the parties “knew what they
were doing” when they entered into the Treat y? He concluded affirmatively pointing in
particular to three groups of studies: (1) theCzechoslovak Bioproject, (2) a study carried out
by UNDP and WHO on Hungarian water quality management, and (3) a study summarized
in Annexes 23 and 24 of Slovakia's Memorial and in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
1994 Bibliography.
5. I should first briefly summarize what the original project was as of 1977. First, there
was a planned discharge of 50 m 3/s per second during the vegetation period and 0 m/s during
the winter months. Second, a very substantialregime of peak power was envisaged which Dr.
Kern will discuss shortly. All the pre-1977 studies focused on this version of the Project, a
version which Slovakia has never attempted to defend. Thus, it is surprising that Slovakia
31
considers the pre-1977 research to be “the most thorough.”
(1) TBhieoproject
6. Turning to the Bioproject, Hungary has notseen the set of 15 reports, 21 volumes, 72
published articles and 17 non-published works it con tstuted; we do not have it. And this Court
does not have it, because in spite of Hungary 's numerous requests to Slovakia detailed in
Annex 5 in your folders, Slovakia has not produced it. Instead, Mr. Wordsworth referred to a
1984 Protocol of a meeting of the Joint Opera tional Group as evidence that the Bioproject
documents were formally handed over to Hungary. 32A signed copy of this Protocol, 33
however, refers only in one sentence to the handing over of the “plans” of the Bioproject – I
stress the word “plans.”
7. More likely, what was indeed handed over at the end of 1984 was the plan for an
“update” of the Bioproject. Otherwise, why would Czechoslovakia wait seven years to hand
29
UNDP/WHO Project, Terminal Report, No. HUN/71/505-HUN/PIP001.
30 97/8 at p. 36 (Mucha).
31 CR 97/7, p. 47 (Mr. Wordsworth).
32 CR 97/7, p. 44 (Mr. Wordsworth).
33 Annex 8 in your folder. -28-
over such voluminous materials and why would the handover warrant only one sentence in the
minutes of the meeting? Indeed, those i nvolved in the Joint Operational Group in 1984
34
confirm that a plan for an update tothe Bioproject was handed over in 1984. The Bioproject
itself was not handed over. 35
8. But what is the update? In its oral pleadingS , lovakia stated that there were 2 updates to
the Bioproject in the mid-1980s. In its Counter Memorial it stated that the Bioproject Update
was carried out in 1984. In its Reply it stated that the Update was carried out in 1986. The 38
confusions and uncertainties are such that we can doubt whether even the Slovak counsel have
seen the Bioproject or its update or its updates.
9. And, what do we know of the Bioproject? Itsname, but not its content. Since it has not
been produced, its merits cannot be evaluated. Slovakia stated “it would be difficult to
imagine a more complex or complete examin ation of the effect of the Project on the
39
environment”. Well, I can only say that it is possibe l to imagine anything about a Bioproject
no one has ever seen.
34 M. Farkas, OVIBER, Deputy Leader of the Hungarian Delegation to the Joint Operational Group, oral
discussions, 9 April 1997.
35 Ibid.
36
37 CR 97/7, at p. 60.
SC-M, para. 9.78.
38 SR, para. 7.56.
39 SC-M, para. 4.06. -29-
(2) The UNDP/WHO Report
10. Turning to the UNDP/WHO Report of December 1976 described as “comprehensive”
by Mr. Wordsworth. 40 Hungary has deposited a copy with the Registrar. 41The Report is
extensive, comprising three hefty volumes amounting to a few thousand pages addressing
plans for water quality management along the Hungr aian Danube and Sajo Rivers, indeed it is
quite hefty. The Report devotes 4 1/2 pages, 4 1/2 pages to the Project, as well as 3 further
pages of pictures. Nonetheless, Mr. Wordsworthasserted that the Report “shows that prior to
the conclusion of the 1977 Treaty, the Hungarian G overnment must have been fully informed
of potential Project impacts on water quality andwas in a position to ensure the minimization
of impacts in the light of the evidence availabe l.” Mr. Wordsworth is mistaken on both points.
11. Because the Project had not been studied by the UNDP/WHO team of experts, they
recommended that a study programme on the Projec'ts impacts to water quality be elaborated
42
(Illus No 3.1). They found that the Project would cau se significant changes which would
require “preliminaryinvestigations” to be carried out to determine the impacts to water
43
quality. Further, they suggested the establishm ent of a monitoring network in order to
44
formulate a future model. Indeed, contrary to Mr. Wordswor th's assertions about the Report,
the Report supports Hungary's position that at the time of entering into the Treaty there was no
plan to evaluate the effects of the Projecton water quality, no proper monitoring network, and
no detailed studies on the expected effects of the Project.
40
CR 97/7, p. 46 (Mr. Wordsworth).
41 Pilot Zones for Water Quality Management in Hungary, UNDP/WHO Project, Terminal Report, No.
HUN/71/505-HUN/PIP001, referred to in CR 7/7, at p. 45-47.
42 Ibid ., p. I-62; see contra CR 97/7, p. 62.
43 UNDP/WHO Project, Terminal Report, at p. V-16.
44 Ibid ., at p. III-102-103. -30-
(3) Oth Seudies
12. As to the assorted studies listed in Annexs e23 and 24 of the Slovak Memorial or in the
Bibliography of the Hungarian Academy of Scien ces, Slovakia is, if I may so put it, painting
by numbers. In its eyes, large numbersof studies mean that the Project was thoroughly
studied. What matters is numbers, not content. But even the summaries of the summaries
contained in the Bilbliography and the titles of the studies show that very few of them dealt
with expected impacts of the Barrage System. Rather, they focused on technical aspects or
suffered from gaps in data. For example, the UNDP/WHO Report pointed out that although
Hungary and Czechoslovakia had been sharing data for years in the framework of the
Boundary Waters Commission, Hungary could not get access to other data from
Czechoslovakia. The reason: Czechoslovakia had d eclined to join Hungary in participating in
the joint UNDP/WHO study! 46
13. Nonetheless, Mr. Wordsworth claims th at the pre-1977 studies were in line with
international practice at the time, relyingon a sentence from the 1990 Hydro-Quebec Report
47
(Illus No 3.2). But Mr. Wordsworth takes the senten ce completely out of context. The
Hydro-Quebec Report was comparing thedeficienciesof the contemporary studies to those in
North America - not their merits.
14. In sum, the Bioproject has apparently been seen by no one in this Court room. The
UNDP/WHO water quality study devoted 4 1/2 page s to the Project. And assorted studies
listed in Slovakia's Annexes and in Hungary's1994 Bibliography do not begin to support Mr.
Wordsworth's assertions that the “potentialrisks were known prior to Treaty signature”. 48 It
cannot be said that Hungary acquiesced in 1977 to the significant risks which the Project is
now known to pose.
15. Even if Hungary was aware of potential risks prior to 1977, that would not preclude
49
Hungary from pleading fundamental ch ange of circumstances or necessity. If it can be
45 HC-M, paras. 1.24-1.41; HR, paras. 1.66-1.73.
46 Oral Discussions with Professor L. Somlyódy, April 1997.
47 CR 97/7, p. 45, citing Hydro-Quebec, SM, Vol. 3, Ann. 28, at p. 239.
48 CR 97/7, p. 47.
49
As Slovakia argues: CR 97/7, pp. 39, 48. -31-
shown that in 1989 Hungary was reasonable in its belief that there was a probability of
significant risk from carrying out further workon Nagymaros, or in its belief that closing the
Danube could cause significant and irreversible ha rm, it is not relevant that in 1977 the risks
had been envisaged as possible. In 1989 they were real. Must Hungary build a destructive
barrage in 1989 or 1997 because of the inaccuraciesand deficiencies of studies in the 1960s?
50
That would be “enforcing outmoded science” with a vengeance.
1977-1988 B.
Mr. President, Members of the Court:
16. I now turn to the 1977-1989 period. Slovakia formulates three arguments for this
period, painting a rosy picture of(a) the numberof studies carried out; (b) their conclusions;
and (c)in particular the conclusions of the 1985Hungarian Environmental Impact Statemen.t
Throughout, Slovakia also attempts to portrayHungarian actions as motivated by economic,
not environmental, concerns.
(1) TheNumbersof Studies
17. I turn first to Slovakia's attempts to showthat large numbers of studies were carried out
between 1977 and 1989. 51 If one actually reads the studies of that period, it becomes clear
once again that only a narrow range of topics iscovered and that no overall conclusion as to
the Project can be derived from them. As desr cibed by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in
June 1989, of the 340 commissioned research projects, only 24 had addressed water quality,
hydrobiological and ecological topics but “ without giving answers to the questions
52
propounded.”
18. To take just one example, Slovakia mentions numerous studies on water quality prior
to 1989 and refers in particular to Dr. Somlyódy’s study. What did he say in response? “The
contrary is true: only a few, occasional studies were made.” His letter is in Annex 9 in your
folders.
50 Sir Robert Jennings, Foreword to P. Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law (1995)
51 xiv.
Annotated References to the Bos (Gabcíkovo)-Nagymaros Danube Barrage System Project,
52 Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest 1994.
HAS Report, 23 June 1989, HM, Anns., Vol. 5 (Part 1), Ann. 7, p. 135 (emphasis added). -32-
(2) Conclusions of some of the Studies
19. As to the conclusions of the studies in this period, Hungary has summarized in its
53
Reply a number of the studies which raise concerns. Slovakia does not dispute that the
concerns were raised, rather, it attempts toh sow that the problems were resolved, that positive
conclusions were arrived at. This is simply not so.
53
See HR, paras. 1.85-1.91; Vol. 3, Ann. 10. -33-
20. As to Nagymaros, concerns had been ra ised about many factors, including: (1)
54 55
increased sediment deposition; (2) colmatation; (3) consequent damage to bank-filtered
wells, including those which provide Budapest with its water supply; 56 (4) risk to karst
57 58
waters; and (5) harm to flora and fauna along the riverbanks. As to Dunakiliti and
Gabcíkovo, concerns had been raised about (1) significantly decreased water discharge into
59
the Danube and the lack of inundations, (2) likely impacts on flora, fauna and ecological
values of the area; 60(3) negative impacts to surface water quality and dangers of
61 62
eutrophication; (4) dangers to drinking water reserves; (5) the changes in the groundwater
regime with its corresponding effects for agriculture, 64 forestry, 65 and soils; 66 and (6)
67
incorrect assumptions about seismic risk.
5HBo.k, GNBS Water Quality, VITUKI March 1985, summarized in HR, Anns., Vol. 3, Ann. 10.
55
HAS Operational Group, 30 April 1983. See also Perczel K. et al., 17 February 1985. Both
summarized in HR, Annexes, Vol. 3, Ann. 10.
56 HAS, 1981; Berczik-Tóth, November 1981; HAS Operational Group, 30 April 1983; K Perczel et al,
17 February 1985, and the Opinion of the HAS on his Proposal, 28 June 1985. See also B. Hock,
VITUKI, March 1985; L. Bárdóczy, S. Mikolics, VIZITERV, 1987; These reports are summarized
in HR, Anns., Vol. 3, Ann. 10.
5PKer.czel et al, 17 February 1985; Á. Lorberer, VITUKI, 1987; Á. Lorberer, VITUKI, 1988; all
58 summarized in HR, Anns., Vol. 3, Ann. 10.
HAS, 30 April 1983; GNBS Water Quality, VITUKI, March 1985; Report on GNBS Water Quality
Research, VITUKI, March 1985;; all summarzsed in HR, Anns., Vol. 3, Ann. 10.
59 The amount of water to be discharged into the Danube has always been a crucial issue. Studies
examined the possibility of the Danube receiving more water. See e.g., WWF, Lösing, 1986,
excerpts reprinted in HC-M, Annexes, Vol. 4 (Part 1), Annex 3; Report of the Polinszky
Commission, 28 April 1982. Some concluded that even with 500 m /s, there would be negative
effects on floodplain forests; B. Keresztesi, 6 September 1982. Others concluded that the decrease in
the gro3ndwater table could alter the production of agriculture significantly, or that the planned 50-
200 m /s discharge was inadequate to ensure quality of groundwater; see M. Erdélyi, 1983. Others
insisted that the planned mitigation measures would not work, requiring that 600 m /s be discharged
into the riverbed at Dunakiliti; K. Perczel et al, 17 February 1985; Opinion of the HAS on his
proposal, 28 June 1985; Slovak Environment and Landscape Protectors Association, Bratislava,
September 1988; all are summarized in HR, Annexes Vol. 3, Annex 10.
60 I. Daubner, 1981; J. Holèik, 1982; VITUKI, GNBS Water Quality Research, March 1985; Research
Institute of HAS on Soil Sciences and Agrochemics, Report on the works done for VIZITERV, 1986;
J. Czifra, 1987.
61 É. Bartalis, VITUKI, 1978; Á. Berczik, J. Tóth, Remarks concerning GNBS, November 1981; B.
Hock, VITUKI, 1983; J. Tóth, 1983; VITUKI, 29 March 1984; K. Perczel et al, 17 February 1985;
B. Hock, GNBS Water Quality Research, VITUKI, March 1985; J. Németh, F. Skobrak, 1985; P.
Benedek, 1986; Zs T. Dvihally, 1987; T. Kiss-Keve, 1987; B. Hock, VITUKI, 1987; all summarized
in HR, Annexes, Vol. 3, Annex 10.
62 WWF, Position, August 1989, in HC-M, Anns., Vol. 4 (Part 1), pp. 349-354. See also Á. Berczik, J.
Tóth, Remarks on GNBS, November 1981; HAS Operational Group, 30 April 1983; Perczel et al, 17
February 1985; all summarised in HR, Anns,, Vol. 3, Ann. 10.
63 E. Varrók, VITUKI, 1978; O. Haszpra, VITUKI, 1979; I. Daubner, 1981; Á. Berczik, J. Tóth,
November 1981; J. Holèik, 1982; Conference on Ecological Questions related to GNBS, 6
September 1982; M. Erdélyi, 1983; HAS Operational Group, 30 April 1983; K. Perczel et al, 17 -34-
21. All of these before 1989. I do not suggest that all of these studies concluded negatively
about the Project. Nor did they fully analyze all the impacts. The studies of the 1980s
characteristically called for a more detailed asss esment of the issue; many indeed called for an
68
integrated EIA, before as well as after Hungary's 1985 environmental impact statement.
Nonetheless, the concerns raised in those studiew s ere of such a serious nature that they should
have been addressed more fully and comprehenisvely. But when they were not addressed, and
when later studies again raised and confir med the same serious concerns, a reasonable
government would have had no choice but to act as Hungary did in 1989. Slovakia fails to
realize that a thousand parts, disassembled, do not make up a whole.
(3) Hungary's 1985 EIS
22. In this context Hungary's 1985 EnvironmentalImpact Study is of particular relevance.
It is 67 pages long. About 1/30 the size of the 1976 UNDP/WHO Report and about one-half
of the length of the 1989 Somlyódy study. The latte r two studies focused on water issues; the
1985 Study covered about 10 topics or so.
23. The 1985 Study suffered from some major limitations and constraints. In particular, a
major constraint at that time was th e gathering and utilization of data (Illus No 3.3). As
February 1985; Research Institute of HAS on Soil Sciences and Agrochemics, Summary of the
Works so far completed in the field of pedology within the framework of the agreement on the co-
operation between the Hungarian and Slovak Academies, 1986; Research Institute of HAS on Soil
Sciences and Agrochemics, Report on the Works done for VIZITERV, 1986; Research Institute of
HAS on Soil Sciences and Agrochemics, Report on the Works done for VIZITERV, 1987; Research
Institute of HAS on Soil Sciences and Agrochemics, The Expectable Effects of GNBS on Soils
(Summary of works done in cooperation between Hungarian and Slovak Academies), 13 May 1987;
all summarized in HR, Annexes, Vol. 3, Annex 10.
64 Á. Berczik, J. Tóth, November 1981; Report of the Polinszky Commission, 28 April 1982; Conference
held on ecological questions related to the GNBS, September 1982; HAS Operational Group, 30
April 1983; K. Perczel et al, 17 February 1985; Research Institute of HAS on Soil Sciences and
Agrochemics, Summary of the works so far completed in the field of geosciences within the
framework of the agreement on the co-operation between the Hungarian and Slovak Academies,
1986; Research Institute of HAS on Soil Sciences and Agrochemics, Report on the works done for
VIZITERV, 1986; all summarised in HR, Anns., Vol. 3, Ann. 10.
65 A. Berczik, J. Tóth, November 1981; HAS, 30 April 1983; Letter from Keresztesi to the Conference
held on ecological questions related to the GNBS, September 1982; Halupa, 1985; Halupa, August
66 1986; Halupa, November 1986; all summarized in HR, Anns., Vol. 3, Ann. 10.
J. Holèik, 1982; L. Halupa, November 1986; Research Institute of HAS on Soil Sciences and
Agrochemics, Report on the works done for VIZITERV, 1987; HAS Research Institute on Soil
Sciences and Agrochemics, 13 May 1987; all summarized in HR, Anns., Vol. 3, Ann. 10.
67 See Scientific Evaluation, HC-M, Vol. 2, Chap. 6 and accompanying Annexes.
68 HAS, Operational Group, 30 April 1983; HAS Position Paper, 20 December 1983, HC-M, Anne,.
Vol. 3, Ann. 36; HAS Opinion, 28 June 1985, HC-M, Vol. 3, Ann. 39. -35-
Czechoslovakia's National Report to UNCED in1992 pointed out a “[a] chief problem...[was]
the fragmentation of attempts at monitori ng different aspects of the environment....” . As 69
Mr.Wordsworth pointed out, some 30 organizati ons were tasked with carrying out Project
70
research. Hungary too suffered from similar problems and its fragmented database did not
allow for a truly comprehensive study.
24. Furthermore, there were serious constraintsas to what scientists could say. Scientists
were paid by the State; research was sponsored by the State. Critics of the State lost their jobs.
The studies prior to the late 1980s avoided o cntroversial conclusions. They focused on narrow
issues within narrow parameters.
25. These problems were compounded because of the secrecy laws. Many of the studies
were considered “top secret” or for “inter nal use” only and were not permitted to be
71
published. As a result, the contributors to this 1985 Study had to work in isolation of one
another, without access to background contributi ons from other fields. For example, the
scientists preparing the materials on ecologicalchanges would not have access to the studies
72
on anticipated groundwater changes.
26. But what of the 1985 Study's quality (Illus No 3.4)? Mr.Wordsworth called it “first
rate in terms of its substance.” Yet, there are only 12 lines on nature protection in the entire
1985 stSdy and the only natural value in the Szigetköz is thought to be a “single more or less
natural plant community.” In fact, the Study recommends changing the species of trees and
only addresses impacts to fish in the economic context. In addition, there were serious errors
in the Study's underlying assumptions. For example, it states that “the groundwater does not
69 Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences and the Federal Committee for the Environment, National Report
of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, United Nations Conference on Environment and
70 Development, March 1992. Excerpts are contained in Annex 3.
71 CR 97/7, p. 60.
See Statement of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Concerning the Standpoint of the Ministry of
Environment Protection and Water Management, 8 March 1989, in HR, Vol. 3, Ann. 55.
72 See HM, para. 3.52.
73 CR 97/8, p. 13. -36-
74
play any role of importance for agriculture but also significantly underestimates the amount
of sedimentation deposited in the reservoir. 75
27. In general, the 1985 Study provides a somewhat incomplete picture, raising concerns
in some areas, but not addressing them. For example, it noted that groundwater variability
would be lost, but it drew no conclusions. Or, asto upstream impacts, it noted the difficulty of
reliably forecasting the contamination of riverbed fine sediments. And as to the impacts of
the Project on bank-filtered wells, the Study called for utmost care upstream of Nagymaros,
noting that “occasional water quality deterioration can occur.” As to the wells downstream
of Nagymaros it stated that “It is necessary to re-evaluate the former plans and pay utmost
attention to the existing and potential drinking water resources.” 78
28. In sum, the 1985 study was not the comprehensive study that Slovakia described. It is
separate from major constraints of the times. In fact, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
recognized its limitations in June of that year, satting that: “The incomplete state of ecological
79
research has not ceased to exist with the completion of the EIA.”
74 1985 EIS, p. 16.
75 3
1985 EIS, p. 41 ("70-75 million m during 100 years which is 1.3 cm/year for the total area of the
reservoir."); see contra Phare Report, 1995.
76 1985 EIS, p. 40.
77 1985 EIS, p. 44.
78
79 1985 EIS, p. 44.
HM, Vol. 5, Ann. 3; see also HM, paras. 3.53-3.54. -37-
II. HE R EASONABLENESS OF H UNGARIAN C ONCERNS IN 1989-91
29. Turning to the critical year of 1989, the question that has to be asked is: if so many
concerns had been raised and no comprehensive study carried out, why then did Hungary
agree to a Protocol in February 1989 accelerating the investment?
30. First, as described by Professor Crawfo rd, the content of the 1989 Protocol was
actually agreed to on 12 January 1988, at the pl enipotentiary level, after two years of
negotiations. Second, when the Protocol was agreed upon, the Reports and Studies were for
the most part not allowed to be published, asI have already described. Although this was still
the case in 1989 - the ban on publication - NGOsand other bodies became more resolute and
began to violate this publication ban.
1 Nagymaros
31. What happened between early 1988 and Ma y 1989 which led to Hungary's suspension
of works on the Nagymaros Barrage? The studiessummarized in Hungary's Reply reveal that
a large number of significant concerns were ra ised in that period which supplemented and
expanded upon the concerns raised in the early and mid-80s. 81Information was gradually
becoming public; scientists were beginning to have access to studies in complimentary fields.
32. Although Dr. Kern will deal with the subs tance of Hungary's concerns with peak
power production and Nagymaros later this mornn ig, describing the studies in further detail, it
must be noted that the production of the first reports by an independent organization was of
82
critical importance. The March and May Reports of Infort/Ecologia confirmed the
seriousness of the concerns of Hungarian sc ientists, recommending suspension of work at
83
Nagymaros.
33. Further studies completed between the initial suspension of construction on
84
Nagymaros in May 1989 and October 1989 again confirmed the gravity of the danger to the
80
81 See CR 97/4 at 17 (Prof. Crawford); HM, para. 3.71.
82 HR Annexes, vol 3, Annex 10.
HM, vol 5 (part 1), annex 5.
83 HM, vol 5 (part 1), annex 6.
84 HR, paras 1.86-1.91; HC-M, paras 2.27-2.45. These reports included, for example, the Hardi Report,
the Report of an Independent expert group set up by the Hungarian Government, the Reports of
Various Ministerial Expert Committees, a Report of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and a
Report of the Hungarian Ministry of Environment Protection and Water Management. -38-
Budapest bank-filtered water supplies. Not onlywere there volumes of Hungarian studies, for
example the World Wild Life Fund's August 1989 Report concluded that construction at
Nagymaros must not be completed. And as to the 1989 Study of Dr. Somlyódy he described
that the Project could cause potential erosiondownstream of Nagymaros causing a thinning of
the filter layer.86 This, in turn, would have grave c onsequences for the Budapest water
supplies. Professors McCaffrey and Mucha have stressed that Professor Somlyódy suggested
two options to avoid risks to the Budapest wate r supplies. But I again refer you to his letter in
Annex 9, where he points out that the option ofhaving a to build one barrage after another to
compensate erosion is not really an option. Indeed, it was irrealistic.
(3) Dunakiliti and Gabcíkovo
34. Pre-1989 studies relating to the upstream sector suffered from the same limitations as
affected studies of Nagymaros. They did, how ever, lay serious concerns related to the
impoundment at Dunakiliti with its correspondi ng large reservoir and the significantly
decreased water discharges into the Danube with the Danube receiving no more than one-tenth
87
of its traditional amount . Although Dr.Kern returned to the substance, substantial
confirmation of these concerns was provided in 1989, for example in the March and May
INFORT/Ecologia Reports, and again in the August 1989 WWF Report. Both independent
reports recommended that work be stopped.
35. Dr. Somlyódy, cited by Slovakia to show how carefully everything had been studied,
had this to say about the adequacy of studies for this sector(Illus No 3.5): “we selected three
fundamental problems for illustration: (I) the [dissolved oxygen] regime in the Mosoni
Danube; (ii) eutrophication of the planned Dunaik liti Reservoir and (iii) the possible impact of
the reservoir inundation on groundwater quality. We ra ised twoquestions (for each case): (a)
are impact assessments available? (b) if not,can we exclude potential negative impacts? The
85 HC-M, vol 4 (part 1), annex 4.
86 HC-M, vol 4 (part 2), annex 13, at 576.
87 These studies are listed and summarized in detail in Hungary's Reply: see HR, para 1.91 and vol 3,
annex 10.
88 HM, vol 5 (part 1), annexes 5, 6.
89
HC-M, vol 4 (part 1), annex 4). -39-
answer was “no” to all six questions, clearly indicating that water quality issues were largely
overlooked.”
36. Czechoslovak institutes were beginning to express their views. An expert team of the
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in Februr ay 1988 found that unfavourable effects because
of groundwater levels were likely to be experienced. 90 In September 1988 the Slovak
Landscape and Environment Protection Associato in recommended a larger discharge into the
91
Danube bed. The Biological Section of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences warned of
the endangerment to the aquifer from the impoundment and the threat to the ecosystems. In
fact it recommended the abandonment of Nagym aros in order to diminish the overall
92
ecological impacts of the whole system.
37. To summarize, by the second half of 1989, there were serious grounds for concerns.
Hungary did not act unreasonably in seeking to en sure that further studies be carried out, and
that no irretrievable steps be taken in the meantime.
(4) Relevance of Economic Concerns
38. But what of the Agent for Slovakia's cl aims that Hungary suspended and abandoned
Nagymaros for financial reasons that “Hunga ry put economic concerns ahead of water
quality.” The distinction is a false one, but the sa ttement is also wrong in fact. The economic
calculations of the time pointed in the direc tion of continuing with the Project - although
without attempting to factor in the longer-term environmental costs or loss of other values.
39. The National Planning Office prepared four economic analyses at the request of the
Hungarian Government in 1989 (Illus No 3.6). 94 Its Preliminary Report prior to Hungarian
suspension concluded that the financial expenditures would be greater if Nagymaros were
abandoned. And prior to Hungary's abandonment,the Office issued its final report concluding
that “there is no significant difference as regarsdinvestment costs between the original project
90 Summary in HR, vol 3, annex 10.
91Ibid.
92 HC-M, vol 3, annex 43.
93 CR 97/7, p. 21.
94
See Norgaard, HR, vol 3, app 4, at 174-177. -40-
95
and the abandonment of the Nagymaros barrage.” The Office that was advising the
Government could not have been more clear.
(5) Hungarian Requests for Further Studies in 1989
40. Counsel for Slovakia complained of H ungarian inconsistency in not seeking a
96
comprehensive assessment or EIA to be carried out in 1989. But this is precisely what
Hungary did. Studies and reports were ins tituted by the resolution suspending works at
97 98 99
Nagymaros; the two Prime Ministers; and another Government resolution. Moreover, the
Hungarian Deputy Prime Minister wrote tohis Czechoslovak counterpart requestinginter alia
that intergovernmental expert groups be established to review the conditions under which
water quality requirements of Article15 of the 1977 Treaty could be met. 100 Subsequently, the
Hungarian Prime Minister suggested third pa rty involvement in a joint comprehensive
environmental study 101which was renewed in 1990, and again in 1991.
95
Report, p 7.
96 CR 97/8, p. 10 (Mr. Wordsworth).
97 HM, paras 3.75.
98 HM, para 3.78.
99
100 HM, para 3.81.
HM, para 3.82.
101 HM, para 3.85.
102 E.g. by Prime Minister Nemeth in January 1990 (HM, para 3.105), and March 1990 (HM, para
3.108). -41-
(6) The Position from Fall 1989 - May 1992
41. Now what of the period after Hungaryabandoned Nagymaros and prior to May 1992?
Did evidence confirm Hungary's views? Prof essor McCaffrey focused on the Bechtel and
Hydro-Quebec Reports which he described as the “best evidence of the period of the
foreseeable environmental impacts of the Project.” 103 By focusing on these tworeports,
Professor McCaffrey ignored no less than 27 Hungarian studies prepared in 1989 and no less
than 45 Hungarian studies prepared between the years 1990 and 1992, on which the
Hungarian written scientific analyses before this Court have relied. But let me take only the
two Reports he did deign to discuss.
42. The Bechtel Group spent less time at the Project sites than you did, Mr.President and
Members of the Court – they spent threeda ys. Unlike you, Bechtel was only provided with
“summaries” of most of the studies. Noneth eless the Bechtel Report expressed its own
concerns, many of which are excerpted in Annex 6 of your folder(s Illus No 3.7).
43. For example, as to the Nagymaros reach, Bechtel warned of the likelihood of heavy
metals concentrating in settled sediments and late r dissolving into waters drawn into the river
bank supply wells” 104 and forecast a reduction in well capacity. 105
44. As to the upstream reach, Bechtel was much more cautious than Professor McCaffrey's
presentation portrayed. It queried many important aspects of the Project, highlighting the need
for additional studies particularly on water qualityand water level fluctuations. It spoke of the
need for modelling and further measurements. In particular, Bechtel considered a need to
formulate baseline conditions for monitori ng impacts to groundwater and suggested a
106
two-year data collection programme. Indeed, it showed that even as of 1990, the
recommendations of this 1976 UNDP/WHO Report had not yet materialized.
103 CR 97/8 at p. 21.
104 Bechtel report, p. 2-12.
105
106 Ibid, p. 2-17.
See HC-M, para 1.79. -42-
45. A review of Czechoslovakia's 1990 PHARE A pplication indicates that Czechoslovakia
itself came to similar conclusions that risk s to surface and ground water quality could be
107 108 109
substantial and merited extensive study, as did Professor Mucha, and as did the EC.
110
46. As to flora and fauna, Bechtel noted that “potential impacts to biological ...
resources may be significant, and planne d mitigations may not be sufficien.t..”
111 112
(Illus No 3.8.) It called for additional data on “other wildlife species”, and on fish . It
forecast “permanent” damage to the natural vegetation along the Nagymaros reach. 113
47. Professor McCaffrey also ignored Hydro- Quebec's crucial caveat as to one of the
major limitations of its study: that “the info rmation given does not allow a judgment to be
114
made” on the Project's environmental impacts . Nor did he mention any of the other issues
on which Bechtel or Hydro-Quebec had reservations such as archaeology 115or seismology
116
(Illus No 3.9) .
In conclusion, as of 1989 there has been no EIA, orits equivalent, carried out for the original
project. Studies prior to and after 1989 confirmed the reasonableness of Hungary's actions.
III. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE PROJECT -WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO N AVIGATION AND
F LOOD C ONTROL
48. I now turn to the issue of Project viab ility, which was barely addressed by Slovakia in
its first round. I will address briefly two of the Project benefits which Slovakia did seek to
highlight: flood control and navigation.
107 See HC-M, vol 3, annex 48, at 8.
108 Mucha, 1990, HC-M, Annexes, vol 4 (part 2), annex 11; Mucha & Paulikova, Groundwater Quality in
the Danubian Lowland Downwards from Bratislava, European Water Pollution Control 1(5): 13-16
(1991); HM, Annexes, vol 5 (part 1), annex 11.
109 CEC, Fact Finding Mission on Variant C, 31 October 1992; HM, Annexes, vol 5 (part 2), annex 13.
110 See also HC-M, para. 1.140
111 Bechtel Report, p. 1-7.
112 Ibid., p. 1-12.
113 Ibid ., p. 2-46.
114 Hydro-Quebpe.c,290. Excerpts are contained in Annex 7.
115 Bechtel Report, p. 1-7.
116 Hydro-Quebec, HM, Vol. 5 (Part 1), Ann. 9, p. 252. -43-
(1) Flood Control
49. Slovakia spent considerable time in its vdieo and its presentations showing the terrible
damage from the flood of 1965. But there was no response to Hungary's primary point: after
the 1965 flood and before 1977 Hungary and Czec hoslovakia had brought themselves largely
into compliance with the standards necessary to handle the 100-year flood. Slovakia has never
challenged the insufficiency of the 100-year floodstandard, nor has it denied that the Project's
highest standards were only necessary to offsetthe increased risks from the Project itself.
50. Rather, it points to the Joint Contractual Plan and miscellaneous OVIBER brochures
to support its contention as of 1977 flood controlwas still a serious problem. It stresses that
the stretch below Szap poses a special risk toSlovakia, a point highlighted during your visit.
51. Of the studies listed in Slovakia's Memo rial, not one study focusing on flood safety
standards was prepared after 1967. While the Joint Contractual Plan was being drafted using
those studies, the two countries were reinforcing their dykes to incorporate the agreed-upon
standards. By 1977, most of the flood protection work had been completed. Had there been
no Treaty, the work would have proceeded in accordance with those standards. The flood
issue is a smoke screen.
52. As to the problems downstream of Sap, a se ctor where work in accordance with the
100-year flood standards had not been comple tely finished before 1977, Annex 4 in your
Folders contains recent correspondence on this i ssue and this demonstrates that Slovakia's
allegations are unfounded.
53. In sum, Slovakia has ignored the state of flood control work as of 1977. Aspects of
flood control were included in the 1977 Treaty onlybecause they were necessary to offset the
additional risks caused by the Project itself. Apart from that, flood protection was neither a
motivating factor nor an objective justification for the Project.
Navigation 2.
54. I turn briefly to navigation. Dr. Mikulka dd not refute: (1) that the overall importance
of navigation has been in steep decline, especia lly relative to other forms of transport such as -44-
road transport ,—you saw how few ships are on the Danube; (2) that a channel with
dimensions different than those reco mmended by the Danube Commission is indeed
118
navigable ; and (3) that the Hungarian stretch is indeed navigable for most of the year.
55. What did Dr. Mikulka say? Without a ny new support, he argued that the Danube
Commission recommendations are binding, 119 that Variant C avoided the most difficult
120 121
section of the Danube ; and that traditional river-training measures do not work . In its
pleadings, Hungary has already explained that the Boundary Waters Convention quotes no
legal obligation to comply with the recommendations 122 and that only one sharp bend in the
123
Danube which was problematic prior to 1977 which is affected by VariantC. Further,
Hungary has provided evidence that a variety of traditional river-training measures can
124
improve navigability and sustain ecological values .
56. In sum, in terms of navigation, it cannot be argued that the Project was essential to the
improvement of navigation, or even that navi gation contributed significantly to Project
viability.
57. Mr. President, Members of the Court, thank you for your attention. Mr. President,
may I ask you to call on Dr. Kern to revisit the substantive scientific issues about the
original project which underlie the reports Slovakia has enumerated, and whose content I
have referred to briefly
The PRESIDENT: Thank you so much Ms Gorove. I think the Court might now
suspend for 15 minutes and then we will proceed to hear Dr. Kern.
The Court adjourned from 11.25 to 11.40 p.m.
117 CR 97/3 at p. 70.
118
119 CR 97/3 at p. 69.
CR 97/7 at p. 30.
120 CR 97/7 at p. 30.
121 CR 97/7 at p. 31.
122 HC-M, para. 1.183.
123
124 CR 97/3 at p 68; see also HC-M, vol 2, chap 2.2.3 and Laczay, Vol. 4 (part 1), Ann. 8.
See, e.g., Delft Hydraulics, Frederik Harris, VITUKI, Danube Environmental and Navigation Project
Feasibility Study. Rajka-Budapest Stretch B1: Szap-Ipoly Mouth. Final Report, August 1994, on file
with the Court). See also Laczay, HC-M, vol 4 (part 2), Anns. 7 and 8. -45-
KEDRr.N
4. THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT
Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is a pleasure to address the Court again, especially
after the joint experience of the field trip.
1. In this presentation I will discuss: first, the planned design and operation of the original
Project, and secondly, Hungary’s concerns of harmful impacts, which had and still have a
reasonable basis.
I.D ESIGN AND OPERATION OF THE G/NP ROJECT AS ENVISAGED
BY THE 1977 T REATY AND STILL VALID BY 1989
2. With regard to the original Plan, Slovakia would have the Court believe:
125
(1)that Hungary bases its concerns on an outmoded version of the original Project;
(2)that peak operation was an open issue, similar to peak operation in other European
rivers, and even ready for abandonment. 126
(1) Discharge Distribution
3. In fact the Joint Contractual Plan cont ained a detailed water balance, fixing all
3
discharge values which either party was en titled to withdraw from the reservoir. 50 m/s were
3
to be released into the Danube, and 200 m/s during the vegetation se ason, but only “in case of
necessity”.
4. The discharge distribution was part of the 1978 Joint Contractual Plan. It was never
changed, not in 1989, not in 1992. No other discharge proposals were ever communicated to
Hungary by the Slovak Government. Czechoslova kia subsequently investigated three sub-
variants of Variant C. One was based on 50 m 3/s per second for the Danube, a figure described
as according to the 1977 Treaty. This was in 1991, according to Slovakia. 128
125 CR 97/7, p. 47; CR 97/8, p. 17, 19, 34, 35, 36.
126 CR 97/7, p. 28; CR 97/8, pp. 26, 38; CR 97/10, p. 14.
127 SM, Vol 3, Annex 35.
128 CR 97/4, p 80 ff.. -46-
(2) Underwater Weirs
5. What about underwater weirs? The Joint Contractual Plan (1978) did envisage the
construction of bottom sills in the riverbed, if necessary, not underwater weirs, because an
early study revealed that weirs would preventnavigation in case of emergency and hinder the
release of ice. The plan was therefore dropped. 129In June 1989, the Government
Plenipotentiaries agreed to study the constructo in of 7 to 8 bottom sills, with only 1 m height
130
above bed level. This is quite different from the underwater weir which you have seen, and
this bottom sill would not have re-establishe d pre-dam water levels. There simply was no
agreement to build underwater weirs in 1989.
(3) Peak Operation
6. You will find hardly any information on peak operation in the Slovak pleadings. I
demonstrated, however, in the first round that large-scale peak operation governed the entire
project design. 131The envisaged peak discharges de termined the number and capacity of
turbines installed, the size of the power canal and of the reservoir. And peak operation
required a second dam at Nagymaros.
7. The peaking modes described by Hungary were accurate in magnitude and not
“extreme” as stated by Slovakia. 132At mean flow conditions daily water level fluctuations
133
would have been more than 4 m at the confluence near Sap and over 1 m at Komárom.
8. What is extreme, however, is the magnitude of peak operation underlying the Project
design. Peak operation in other lowland rivers like the Rhine and the Rhône is limited to
values which are an order of magnitude smaller than in the original Project, even taking into
134
account the difference in natural discharges. Additionally, peak operation was planned at
Nagymaros towards the free flowing river section around Szentendre Island. 135
129
130 HR, vol 2, chap. 7.1.2.
131Ibid.
CR97/3, p 26 ff.
132 CR 97/7, p. 28.
133 HC-M, Vol 2, Table 2.4.
134 CR 97/3, p. 27/28.
135 Joint Contractual Plan, Summary Documentation 0-1-A, 1978. -47-
9. What is the conclusion in terms of peakoperation? Large-scale peak operation was not
merely an option of the Project. It governed the entire project design. It was calculated by
Czechoslovakia to produce 55% peak energy, 30% semi-peak energy and less than 15% base
energy. To listen to Slovakia the other week, such a calculation could not have been made;
nothing had been agreed.
II. HUNGARY ’S CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF THE O RIGINAL PROJECT
10. I turn to Hungary’s concern about the impacts of the original Project. What does
Slovakia have to say about this? I will first address the Project’s impacts on the Budapest
water supply on Szentendre Island, then the im pacts of peak operation at Gabcikovo, and
finally the threat to water resources and biodiversity in the Szigetköz reach and along the
power canal.
(1) The Threat to the Budapest Water Supply
11. On the last stop of your visit you sa w a few of the 559 bank-filtered wells on
Szentendre Island that supply Budapest with drinking water (Illus No 4.1) . There are two
main concerns here: reduction of yield, and deterioration of quality.
12. The first concern is related to the deep ening of the riverbed, which reduces well
capacity due to the shallow layer of sand and gravel above the rock. A 30% yield reduction
was already experienced by the Budapest Water Works due to Project-related industrial gravel
mining. 136This is nearly four times as much as earlier estimates.7
13. The second concern refers to water quality.Deposition of fine sediments on the natural
filter layer may cause deterioration in the qualityof the extracted water, as experienced by the
138
Budapest Water Works in the late 1980s.
14. How are these concerns related to the planned Nagymaros barrage? The Nagymaros
barrage would have retained almost all sand and gravel as well as a part of the fine particles
usually flowing with the water(Illus No 4.2). Mr President, Members of the Court, you may
136 HC-M, vol 2, chap 3.6.4.
137 Joint Contractual Plan, Report 0-3-2.4, 1978.
138 HC-M, Vol 2, Chapter 3.6.2. See Laszlo, F., Z. Homonnay and M. Zimonyi: Impacts of River
Training on the Quality of Bank-filtered Waters. Wat. Sci. Techn. 22(5), pp. 167-172, 1990; ref. in
H-CM, Vol 2, Chap 3.6.3.1. -48-
recall, from the visit, that the riverbed is very sensitive to change and reached a delicate
balance only in the last 5 years. It is well know n that erosion is likely to occur below river
dams and Slovakia itself expects “intensive erosion processes ... after completion of the
Freudenau project”. 139Due to the lower gradient of th e river the erosion may not be as
intensive as round Vienna, but it is very likely to occur, with serious consequences for the
water supply.
15. Slovakia’s counsel states: “it was not certain that there would be significant erosion,
given the huge amount of riverbed gravel th at Hungary had already dredged from this
reach”. 140But there is no reason to assume that the remaining sediment would not be picked
up by the flow. On the other hand, part of the fine sediments in the Nagymaros reservoir
would be periodically flushed during floods, and resettling of fine materials along the banks of
141
the Island is likely.
16. Both processes are linked to the very existence of a dam at Nagymaros and are
independent of the kind of peak operation envisaged at Gabcikovo. They were significantly
underestimated and even unknown in 1977. In th e early 1980s, the Budapest Waterworks
undertook a comprehensive study which resulted in the so-called Research & Development
Report, from which Professor McCaffrey concludd ethat the authors “in no way suggested that
142
the construction of Nagymaros created a graveand imminent peril to the water resources" .
Let us examine the paragraph to which Professor McCaffrey refers:
“The only remedial or control strategy that remains available for these northern
subsurface drinking water resources is to maintain water recharge conditions by all
means. In the opposite case, in the case of further damage to the filter zone, the
deterioration of the complete drinki ng water resource must be taken into
consideration in the long term, a process that might lead to the abandonment of the
system. The channel regulation do143tream of Nagymaros must be planned with due
concern for the above hazards.”
139 SR, Vol 3, p. 226.
140 CR 97/8, p. 38.
141 HC-M, Vol 2, Chap 3.6.3.1.
142
143 CR 97/8, p. 23.
HM, Vol 1, App 3, p. 430. -49-
17. This statement is as strong as it could have been at that time. It does not confirm the
Project Plans. And there was no other detailed investigation that would have denied these
serious risks, as Ms Gorove has shown.
18. If the system would fail, Slovakia would simply have Hungary build another barrage
144
below Budapest, and then another one, and then one more, and so forth.
19. Another, more serious alternative would be to withdraw and treat surface water. In
response to a question raised by the Vice-President, Judge Weeremantry, I briefly outline the
implications of this option. The associated inve stment costs would be twice as high as for the
installation of bank-filtered wells. The treatmenf tacilities and the running costs would be 5-10
times as much as for bank filtration. In case of serious pollution, water withdrawal would have
to be stopped, and due to shorter warning times this might occur too late, so there is a
considerably higher risk of polluting the drinking water. Overall, the system would be both
more fragile and more expensive.
20. In conclusion the risks to the Budapest water supply were considerably underestimated
or even unknown in 1977, but had become appa rent in 1989 when the construction works
were halted. They are all the more evident today, as demonstrated in Hungary’s pleadings.
Slovakia has provided no evidence to show that thee srisks are not real or that they could have
been avoided at reasonable cost. Our arguments on this aspect are unchallenged.
(2) Impacts of Peak Operation at Gab_ikovo
21. In response to Hungary’s concerns as to anticipated impacts of peak operation,
Slovakia offers nothing on the substance, but seeks to dismiss the argument on formal
grounds. It says:
145
(1)the peaking modes presented are extreme;
(2)Slovakia was ready to modify or ab andon peak operation if it proved to be
damaging; 146
(3)peak operation is normal practice throughout Europe. 147
144 Prof. Mucha, comment during site visit April 03, 1997.
145
146 CR 97/7, p. 28.
147 CR 97/10, p. 14.
CR 97/7, p. 28. -50-
22. In fact, the magnitude of peak operation pesented in the Hungarian pleadings was not
extreme, but represented a variety of peaking modes which were studied during the Project
design.148
23. Large-scale peaking characterising th e operation at Gab_ikovo would most likely
result in damage to aquatic habitats over the length of the Nagymaros reservoi(rIllus No 4.3).
Daily water level fluctuations would destroy riparian habitats all along the reach. Daily flow
reversal in tributaries would cause deteriation of water quality, no matter how well sewage
149
water was treated.
24. Abandonment of peak operation after a tr ial-and-error phase would require the
construction of Nagymaros, with the risks alerady described. Two dozen large islands carrying
valuable softwood forests would be simply drowned, an aspect known by both parties in 1977,
but not considered to be a serious loss. Th e same would happen to the Roman ruins only
recently discovered. Abandoning peak power, if itproved to be detrimental, would not avoid
the damage caused by the construction of Nagymaros.
25. What about peaking elsewhere? Peaking m odes in the Rhine and Rhône are one order
of magnitude lower than envisaged in the orig inal Project. They do not cause the sort of
impacts the kind of peaking envisaged for that Project would cause.
26. Finally, there are no studies on the imp acts of peak operation on flora and fauna.
Slovakia has provided evidence of not one study, and insufficient research was also done of
the impacts on water quality.
III.IMPACTS OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT IN THE S ZIGETKÖZ R EACH
27. I will now briefly recall the anticipated impacts of the original Project on water
resources and flora and fauna in the Szigetköz reach of the Danube.
(1) Impacts on the Groundwater Regime
28. The groundwater flow regime and groundwaterrecharge would be greatly altered due
to the impoundment in the reservoir and the drop of water levels in the Danube. Due to the
148
Modes 900, 1500, 2000 and 3000 in HC-M, Vol. 2, Fig. 2.5 and table 2.4; HC-M, Vol. 4(1), Annex 6,
149 respectively.
HC-M, Vol. 2, Chapter 3.3.2.2. -51-
large reservoir, settling of fine sediments was expected with long-term degradation of water
quality. Floodplain habitats would suffer from te hdrop of surface and groundwater levels. The
river’s size and velocity would be reduced, the side-branches would be completely cut off.
Inundations of the floodplain would occur no mo re than once in ten years or less. The
floodplain and river ecosystem would lose thei r character and a long-term decline of the
natural value of the area would be inevitable. 150
29. What is the view of Slovakia on these issues? First of all, it seeks again to dismiss the
151
argument on a formal basis: “the claim is based on the fiction of the original Project”. But
the central elements, the discharge regime and th e regulation of the main riverbed, have never
been altered. They remained applicable in 1989.
30. Besides pointing to a minor editing error, which did not affect the substance and was
152
corrected in the Hungarian Reply, Professor Mucha said onlythat the year 1993, which was
used for calibrating the prediction of watr elevel drops, was one of an unusual drought. This53
may not be true on a long-term data basis. However, the analysis was done in 1994 for the
Counter-Memorial and the year 1993 was the onl y full record available for calibrating the
drop of water levels after the diversion. Again, there is no substance in the argument.
31. In terms of loss of natural sub-irrigation, Slovakia misrepresents Hungary’s
154
argument. It was correctly stated in Hungary’s oral pleadings that the loss of natural
2 155
sub-irrigation in the Szigetköz amouns t to an area of more than 100 km. The affected area
includes regions which used to experience soim l oistening from groundwater even at low-flow
conditions, and others which wherewetted only at higher water levels. 156 Slovakia, however,
2
selected only those 19 km of the total impact area which lost permanent contact with the
groundwater. It sought a contradiction in the Hungarian argument which does not exist.
(2) Impacts on Surface Water Quality
150
151 HC-M, Vol. 2, Chapter 4.
152 CR 97/8, pp. 36/37.
CR 97/8, p. 36, not referring to HR, Vol. 2, p. 86.
153 CR 97/8, p. 36.
154 CR 97/8, p. 37.
155 CR 97/2, p. 58; CR 97/3, p. 46.
156 HC-M, Vol. 2, Table 3.5. -52-
32. Concerning water quality, the parties agree that in general, Danube water quality has
improved in the last 20 years. However, hi gh levels of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
remain, so that the water remains susceptible to hypertrophic conditions. 157 This has led to
order of magnitude increases in algae. There has been a change in the composition of algal
158
communities and their seasonal occurrence.
33. Peak algal activity depends on the coincide nce of flow and meteorological conditions,
3
and varies dramatically from year to year. Peak values of chlorophyll-a of up to 200 mg/m
159
have been observed. And increases can continue to propagate as the flow travels
downstream. Peak values of chlorophyll-a in 1990 and 1991 exceeded 120 mg/m at Medve, 3
for example. Thus, the simulated increases due to the Hrusov reservoir 160are disturbing,
particularly as further increases could ha ve been expected due to the Nagymaros
impoundment.
(3) Impacts on Groundwater Quality
34. In terms of groundwater quality, there is a simple contention made by Slovakia: no
161
surface water quality deterioration - no problem in the groundwater. However, even if there
were no concerns with water quality in th e Danube, there would still be a threat to
groundwater quality by degrading of fine organic materials settling in the reservoir, as is
162
confirmed in the PHARE report.
35. The PHARE Report predicts that no signifc iant deposition of fine sediments will occur
along the former riverbed in the Cunovo Reservoi r. Whether or not true of Variant C, the
prediction is irrelevant to the original Project. The Dunakiliti-Hrušov Reservoir would have
been larger in size by about one third, and peakoperation would have been associated with a
complete stoppage of the flow for 18 hours a day on about 100 days of a year, considerably
increasing the opportunity for fine particles to settle.
(4) The Original Project and Riverbed Degradation
157
158 HC-M, Vol. 2, pp. 61, 62.
Ibid.
159 HC-M, Vol. 2, Chap. 3.3.1.2.
160 CR 97/3, p. 50.
161 CR 97/8, pp. 37/36 and CR 97/11, p. 33.
162 PHARE Project, Final Report, Vol. 1, Dec. 1995, pp. 5-8. -53-
36. What about riverbed deepening? Slovakia claims that erosion has deepened the river,
163
and that the Project saves the desiccating wetlands. What actually happened? On this graph
(Illus No 4.4), taken from the PHARE Report, you s ee the observed lowering of low-flow
water levels indicating the deepening of be d levels within 17 years until 1990. On Slovak
territory around Bratislava the drop was most pronounced, reaching 1.5 m in this period and
resulting in navigation problems, including limited access to the Bratislava harbour, as you
heard during the boat trip. The PHARE Report concludes that “it is evident that the 'natural'
164
sediment transport in the Danube cannot be responsible for the degradation of the river bed”
and that it would take 500 years to erode the sediments that have gone from this reach over
just 17 years.165 The explanation is given in the upper pr at of the graph which shows that some
15 million m of sand and gravel were dredged over th is period on Slovak territory and is just
the location of the port where most of the gravel was dredged and the drop of the water level
reached the maximum value. If we look at thetime series of dredging you may notice that the
start of large-scale gravel mining coincided exactly with the signing of the Treaty (Illus No
4.5).
37. What would have happened if no dr edging had been done? The PHARE Report
suggests an answer. The dashed line in this graph from the PHARE Report indicates the
position of the low-flow water levels as calculated without the impact of dredging(Illus No
166
4.6). What we see is that the river would have been perfectly stable around Bratislava which
is upstream of rkm 1860, and that erosion wouldhave caused nowhere more than 50 cm water
level decrease. At some sections of the Project reach, aggradation would occur.
38. This not only contrasts greatly with the in formation given by Slovakia on the field trip
and in the oral hearings, it simply undermines the whole basis of Slovakia’s argumentation.
That is (i)erosioncaused the riverbed deepening due to river training and dams upstream; (ii)
hence, isolation of side-branches and partia l desiccation of floodplain habitats was caused by
163 CR 97/7, p. 36.
164 PHARE report, Vol. 2, pp. 10-22.
165
166Ibid.
PHARE Report, Vol. 2, Fig. 10.13. -54-
167
riverbed erosion; (iii) the Project was necessary tostop erosion and save the wetlands. On
the contrary, it was rather the Project itself or its expectation tha ctausedthe problems.
(5) Impacts on Flora and Fauna
39. With respect to the impacts on flora and fauna the parties disagree entirely, I am afraid.
Again, Slovakia insists that the original Project plans underwent fundamental changes before
168
1989 in order to reduce adverse impacts on the environment. On this basis Slovakia seeks to
avoid discussing the environmental impacts that would result in long-term degradation of
valuable wetlands.
40. Slovakia also suggests that Hungary misl eads the Court by presenting maps of the
169
potentialand not the actualvegetation. It was obvious from the visit that a large part of the
Szigetköz is covered by managed forests and agricultural land. Nonetheless, this area still
comprises many valuable habitats sheltering rare and protected species, as pointed out by
170
ProfessorVida five weeks ago (Illus No 4.7). The use of a potential vegetation map is a
common tool in landscape management to indicat e the potential habitat conditions of a given
location, independent of present land use. It is at the same time a valuable instrument to
compare different management options, and this is how it was used and correctly presented.
41. Comments on this graph showing the actua l species of the forest in the active
171
floodplain in pre-dam conditions are most remarkable(Illus No 4.8). Slovak counsel states
“the green area is not natural woodland as one might think having listened to Hungary’s
172
experts. It is a specially planted hybrid poplar forest...”. If we look at the legend and read
what is given for the green colour; that is exactly what is says: “hybrid poplars”. So, the
information of the map is clear.It shows the pre-dam distribution of forest species in the active
floodplain. Again, what is the substance of the argument?
Conclusion
167
CR 97/7, p. 36; CR 97/10, p. 56.
168 CR 97/8, pp. 34, 35.
169 CR 97/8, p. 34; HR, Vol. 2, Plate 5.2.
170 CR 97/2, p. 67ff.
171 HR, Vol. 2, Plate 6.1.
172 CR 97/8, p. 34. -55-
42. To conclude this presentation on the nature and the impacts of the original Project, I
want to make three points:
(1)Slovakia denies the existence or changes thcharacter of key elements of the original
Project, such as maximisation of en ergy production with large-scale peak
operation, and keeping discharges to the Danube and side-branches at a
minimum not exceeding 200 m/s. 3
(2)It was not fully understood in 1977, butevident by 1989 that the Nagymaros barrage
would seriously endanger the well fields on Szentendre Island. This is the
second conclusion.
(3)Final implementation would have threaten ed damage to the groundwater resources in
the Szigetköz and endangered natural and cultural values in the entire impact
area.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, I wi sh to thank you for your kind attention. Mr.
President, may I ask you to call on Mr. Philippe Sands. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Kern. Mr. Sands please.
Mr. SANDS:
5. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION OF WORK
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I wsih now to deal with Slovak arguments on the
suspension of work at Nagymaros in May 1989, n ad subsequent acts. My presentation will be
in three parts. I will begin with the law oe environment, which provides the context for the
application of necessity under the law of St ate responsibility. I will then reassert the
chronology and foundation for Hungary’s acts. And finally I will address the issue of
necessity as it arises from the law of Stat e responsibility in relation to suspension and
abandonment of work. -56-
ERREUR ! SIGNET NON DEFINI .I. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND THE STATE OF NECESSITY
2. Mr. President, necessity arises from the law of State responsibility taking account of
the Parties’ rights and obligations under the 1977 Treaty and general international law,
including in relation to the environment. The ws of State responsibility and the environment
are necessarily connected, the former providing the framework of applicable rules, the latter
guidance on conditions of application in cases of the environment. My conclusions can be
simply stated: (1) under the 1977 Treaty the Parties had a legal obligation to ensure that the
Project was consistent with environmental protection requirements as they evolved after 1977;
(2) by May 1989 those environmental obligations required the Parties to obtain, and entitled
Hungary to insist upon, further studies; and (3) hfailure to agree on further studies created a
state of necessity under Articles 15, 19 and 20 ofthe Treaty, and international environmental
law, including prevention and precaution. By May 1989 the necessity for further
environmental study and appropriate environmentlaprotection had emerged in law and, as Dr.
Kern and Ms Gorove have shown, it had emerged in fact. Necessity justified suspension at
Nagymaros. In the face of Variant C the cond itions for the application of the doctrine of
necessity were fully reinforced to justify abandonment of Gabcikovo and, ultimately,
termination of the Treaty.
(a) The Parties’ environmental rights and obligations under the 1977 Treaty -57-
3. To begin with the Parties’ environmen tal rights and obligations under the 1977 Treaty.
In fact there is a large measure of agreementbetween the Parties on the principles, but not on
their application. First, they agree that the protection of the environment is a matter of
profound importance and that the Court has a "precious opportunity". We can but repeat the
words of the Agent for Slovakia: “les préoccupations liées à l’environnement sont de la plus
173
haute importance” . But they disagree as to how the Court should give effect to that
importance.Second,they agree that Articles 15, 19 and 20 of the Treaty are very relevant to
the case, but they disagree as to their meaning n ad effect, and how they relate to the objects of
the 1977 Treaty. For Slovakia the object is quite simply "the construction and operation of the
System of Locks" 17. We would add: in a manner consistent with environmental
175
protection . It is not that these rules prevent the Parties’ from accomplishing the Treaty’s
176
objectives . It is a case of compliance with environmental protection being an essential part
of the Treaty’s objects. Third, the Parties agree on the profound evolution of international
environmental law after 1977, but they disagree on what this means for the Project. And
fourth, they agree that Articles 15, 19, and 20 re late to other principles and rules of
international environmental law, but they disagree as to how. I will deal with each point
briefly.
Articles 15, 19 and 20
4. To begin with Slovakia treats Articles 15, 19 and 20 as having had an essentially
procedural function, providing nothing more th an a basis for further agreement on the
substantive norms to be actually applied. In H ungary’s view the three Articles do considerably
more. Each establishes a substantive obliga tion: to protect the waters of the Danube
(including groundwaters), nature and fisheries (Illus No 5.1) . From time to time this is
accepted by Slovakia. Professor McCaffrey said of Article 15(1) that it contains "the
substantive obligation to 'ensure ... that the qualitof the waters of the Danube is not impaired
173
CR 97/11, p. 55 (Amb. Tomka).
174CR 97/7, p. 57. (Prof. McCaffrey)
175CR 97/3, p. 14 (Prof. Nagy).
176
CR 97/9, p. 22 (Prof. McCaffrey). -58-
177
as a result of the construction and operation of [the Project]'" . I would not put it any
differently. But he was unwilling—or unable—to draw the consequences of this for the
Project, or to the application of necessity. Perhaps I can help. Articles 15 and 19 establish
mandatory substantive obligations. They did not ak sthe Parties to "use best endeavours" or to
take "all appropriate means". For the Project to be consistent with environmental protection
either Party could insist on agreement on the lv eel of environmental protection. That approach
is consistent with Article 3 of the 1976 Conven tion, which provides for a "no harm" rule from
which Slovakia has not demurred, and which, incidentally, is the lex posteriorsince it came
178
into force after the 1977 Treaty . Slovakia said not a word about the substantive obligations
of Article 3.
5. Professor McCaffrey did make a belated effort to persuade the Court that the
translation of Article 19 in the United Nations Treaty Series was inaccurate, the word
179
"obligation" should be replaced by the word "requirement" . It is perhaps late to begin
fiddling with official translations, particularly where a treaty is no longer in force. But if
fiddle we must then we are perfectly happy to follow the suggested change. To our
understanding the word "requirement" is broader:it refers both to legal "obligations" and also
requirements of fact. Law and fact combined to give rise to a state of necessity in May 1989.
6. Turning from substance to procedure, we agree that the Articles also established
procedures for the two Parties to agree preciselyhow the obligations were to be applied. How
was this to work in practice? The question is absolutely essential. It goes to the heart of this
dispute — what happens if there is disagreemet non the specific environmental standards to be
applied to Project design and implementation? Slovakia says thau tntilthe Parties had agreed
through the Joint Contractual Plan on the content to be given to Articles15, 19 and 20 those
provisions could have no prac tical effect. The Parties were bound to apply only those
standards which had been previously agreed. They were locked into the existing Project—
177CR 97/7, p 53.(Prof. McCaffrey).
178The 1977 Treaty entered into force on 30 J une 1978; the 1976 Convention entered into
179ce on 28 July 1978.
CR 97/7, p. 56 (Prof. McCaffrey). -59-
Nagymaros, peak power and so on—unless both Parties agreed otherwise. So either Party
could block the adoption of newstandards, irrespective of whether or not they were required
to ensure compliance with the environmental obligations or requirements. Substance is
subordinated to procedure, according to Slovaka i, absence the emergence of some new norm
180
of jus cogens . And without agreement Slovakia says— through its principal environmental
lawyer—it is in effect immaterial whethe r Hungary’s environmental concerns were well-
founded or not. The Project proceeds, no account is to be taken of those concerns, however
legitimate or well-founded. There is a Slovak contradicti on: how can this approach be
consistent with the commitment to the substanceof environmental standards, to a preventive,
precautionary approach? Articles15, 19 and 20 es tablished clear, substantive obligations,
which provided for the incorporation of norms ofenvironmental protection and I now turn to
these.
The Development of International Environmental Law
7. Much has been said by both Parties a bout the development of international
environmental law since 1977. The distinguishedAgent for Slovakia signalled his country’s
attachment to these new rules as reflected by “les nombreuses conventions auxquelles [la
181
Slovaquie] est partie dans ce domaine”. Professor McCaffrey provided the Court with a
detailed exposition on “Environmental Law”. But the Ambassador and the Professor seem not
to have consulted. The Professor made not a single mention of any one of the environmental
treaties to which the Ambassador appeared to be referring. What happened to the 1971
Ramsar Convention, requiring “wise use” of wetlands? What became of the 1979 Berne
Convention, requiring protection of endangeredspecies? What of the 1992 Rio Biodiversity
Convention, giving primacy to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity over other
treaty obligations?182 No Slovak speaker could bring himself to refer to a single substantive
rule of international environmental law – other thanthat affirmed by this Court last year in its
180CR 97/9, p. 39 (Prof. McCaffrey).
181 CR 97/11, p. 55. (Amb. Tomka).
182 See Article 22(1): “Les dispositions de la présente Convention ne modifient en rien les droits et
obligations découlant pour une Partie contractante d’un accord international existant, sauf si
l’exercise de ces droits ou le respect de ses obligations causait de sérieux dommages à la biodiversité
biologique ou constituait pour elle une menace”. -60-
Advisory Opinion. And that Opinion – entirel y consistent with the preventive approach
advocated by Hungary which counsels actionbeforedamage arises – suggests that this Court
is ready to assume the responsibility of building upon the landmark award of the 1941
decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in theTrail Smeltercase and updating it for the next century.
In fact, the only instruments mentioned by Professor McCaffrey in his exposition were non-
binding, although this did not prevent him from characterizing them as being part of
international environmental law. We were referred to Agenda 21 and – at great length – to the
Rio Declaration. We are happy to be guided by these. But what of the other pertinent such
instruments that we have addressed, for ex ample, the 1989 Economic Commission for Europe
Charter on Groundwater Management, which commits both Parties to protecting the vital
resource of freshwater, and which requires decisv ie measures to be taken for their protection,
including EIAduringand after any project. Not a single word.
8. Mr. President, Slovak counsel said in another context, “ce n’est pas sérieux”. 183By
1989, certainly by 1992, these treaties and instrumen stof international law imposed “powerful
184
constraints” for the protection of water and biodiversity. They were well established. They
were clear and many were legally and formally bn iding. They had to be applied in the original
Project. But they had been abandoned by Slovakia.
9. The absence of all reference to environmental treaties was certainly a surprise. But it
was not the only one Professor McCaffrey had for us. His presentation was titled
“Environmental Law (including the Law of Watercourses)”. Astonishingly, he made not one
mention of the rule of “equitable utilization” even though we addressed it at considerable
length. ProfessorDupuy will return to it tomorrow. Are we to infer from this silence that
Slovakia considers neither environmental treaties nor the rule of “equitable utilization” to have
any relevance whatsoever to this case? Thiswould be a strange proposition from any source,
but especially so when it comes from the distn iguished former Special Rapporteur of the ILC,
183
184 CR 97/9, p. 52 (M. Mikulka).
The words refer to the International Court’s recently expressed view of the environmental protection
provisions contained in the 1949 Geneva Conventions: see Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the
Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996. -61-
whose remarkable work on “equitable utilization” received the stamp of approval from the
Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly only last Friday.
10. The Slovak approach moreover is to ignorearguments that we have made, but address
those we have not made. So Professor McCaffrey made numerous references to jus cogens,
185
attributing to Hungary non-existent arguments, assertions or implications. Infactwemade
only one argument which might be said to resemble a jus cogens type of claim: the
implications in practice of Article 22 of theBiodiversity Convention on the effect of the 1977
Treaty. 186But of course that too has been ignored.
11. Slovakia did make rather more of the pr ocedural norms. Let me address just two:
Environmental Impact Assessment and th e precautionary principle. By 1989 the
Environmental Impact Assessment had emerge d as the accepted means for ensuring that
projects of this type did not cause untoward environmental damage. We have never argued
187
that EIA was a peremptory norm of international law. EIA was inherent in Articles 15 and
19 of the Treaty as well as the 1976 Convention.How otherwise could the Parties fulfil their
obligation not to cause damage to the waters of the Danube or to nature? That EIA was
required is confirmed by the practice of the two States themselves: as we have heard, certain
environmental studies were carried out, even if they were inadequate, even if Slovakia is
unable to locate some of them today and even if the bioproject is located somewhere in
Slovakia, wandering lonely as a cloud beyond the reach even of Mr. Wordsworth. Ms Gorove
has explained why those earlier studies were in adequate, in particular by reference to the
standards required by the 1987 UNEP Principles to which Professor McCaffrey professed
attachment. The studies do not reach those standa rds. And of course there was no pretence of
an EIA at all on Variant C.
12. As to the precautionary principle, it is sufficint that both Parties accept that they were
and should be guided by it. We have no difficulty in joining Slovakia in its reliance on the
formulation reflected in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration. We have never said that
185
186 CR 97/9, pp. 24-5, 31-2, 33, 39-40, 41 (Prof. McCaffrey).
187 See supra. note 10;
CR 97/9, p. 39 (Prof. McCaffrey). -62-
precaution isjus cogens, 188 or that it established an “iflexible, absolute standard”, or that it
itself acted to terminate the Project. What we do say is that precaution is simply applied
common sense. In the face of scie ntific uncertainty as to the likely consequences of an activity,
where serious or irreversible damage is likelyto occur, decision-makers should adopt sensible
cost-effective measures. Those conditions are satisfied here: (1) there was scientific
uncertainty in 1989 and in 1992 – Professor Mucha said so, the PHARE Report said so, Mr.
Refsgaard said so; (2) the Project risked se rious environmental damage, Czechoslovakia’s
national environmental authorities said so, and its national report to the Rio Conference in
1992 said so, as you will see from the extracts in your folders. 190 (3) The most cost-effective
measures to be taken were further studies on th e impacts of the project, especially Nagymaros
and peak-power and the avoidance of irreversilb e measures such as the damming at Dunakiliti.
Build Now, Investigate Later was simply incompatible with the precautionary approach.
13. In sum by 1989 and even more so by 1992 in ternational environmental law provided
further clarification of the obligations incumbent upon the Parties by operation of Articles 15,
19 and 20. It did so by establishing more specific standards for the protection of flora and
fauna and freshwater resources, and biodivers ity and providing techniques to assist in
informed decision-making such as EIA and precaution.
(c)The relationship between Articles 15, 19 and 20 and other principles and rules of
international environmental law
14. I turn now to the next key question. Howdid the environmental provisions of the 1977
Treaty and general international environmental law relate? In our view, very simply, but
effectively. As new environmental norms emerged, whether through treaty or custom, they
became applicable either directly as lex posterior or indirectly through the interpretation and
application of Articles 15 and 19. It is in this sense that the 1977 Treaty was an evolutionary
instrument whose precise obligations evolved ovretime. Whilst able tounderstand the logic of
this view, Slovakia seems unable to apply it. So it says (1) the Treaty was consistent with
188
189 CR 97/9, p. 33 (Prof. McCaffrey).
190 CR 97/9, p. 34 (Prof. McCaffrey).
CR 97/6, p. 15, at footnote 45. -63-
international environmental law in 1977; (2) international environmental law evolved over the
next 15 years; (3) the Treaty was consistenith international environmental law in 1992; but
(4) international environmental law is not integrated into the Treaty. The logic of those four
propositions is simply not clear. But integrationdid not mean, as Slovakia claims, that these
norms automatically brought the 1977 Treaty to an end and we have never suggested that.
What it did mean was that through the produral means provided by the 1977 Treaty the new
norms were to be operationalized into th e Project. No doubt both Parties could agree
otherwise, could conceivably agree not to apply a new norm which was imposing costly
obligations for the protection of water or ngered species, or evennew studies. But if new
requirements were imposed for the protection of nature or water resources, or new scientific
understanding made the existing system significantlymore risky or damaging than previously
known, then at the instance of either party something had to be done. That is consistent with
international environmental law and practice, as reflected for example in the activities of
Canada/UnitedStates International Joint Commsision, which applies through Article 4 of the
1909 Treaty analogous obligations to those in Articles 15 and 19 and the Boundary Waters
Convention. The 1977 Treaty imposed no deviation frm the “community of interests” or “the
perfect equality” of the two riparian St ates identified by the Permanent Court.e 1977
Treaty did not allow either party to impose itswill on others. But nor did it create immutable
norms.
II. T IMING O F HUNGARY ’S SUSPENSION AND ABANDONMENT
15. Mr. President, I turn now to Hungary’s invocation of necessity. The Slovak and
Hungarian interpretations of the facts differ markedly, although both sides rely on the same
documents. With a sense of elided innocence Sir Arthur Watts referred to the “appalling
situation” facing Czechoslovakia, its sense ofshock at Hungary’s actions. Imagine Hungary’s
position, faced with a permanent refusal by its partner to study the environmental
191
192 CR 97/9, p. 26 (Prof. McCaffrey).
Case Concerning the Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder,
Judgement No. 16 (1929), PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 23, p. 27. -64-
consequences of the downstream sector – unl ess first construction was completed and the
plant put into operation. Faced with that attitude, what was a reasonable State to do?
16. The Slovak presentation had two objectives: (1) to show that Hungary had by mid-
1990 without any shred of justification aba ndoned the Treaty; and (2) to show that
Czechoslovakia was willing to discuss all asp ects of the Project. The facts support neither
contention. Hungary treated the 1977 Treaty as having full legal effects right up to May 1992;
Hungary sought a negotiated solution within th e framework of the 1977 Treaty; and Hungary
acted reasonably and diligently in its conduct.
17. The intransigence was Czechoslovak: pointblank refusal to contemplate any deviation
whatsoever from the construction of Nagymaros, the original Project and peak power. An
intransigence from which the Slovak party has shown not the slightest inclination to deviate
from during any stage of these hearings. I can put it very simply: (1) Hungary never suspended
the 1977 Treaty; (2) Hungary did not aba ndon the Treaty in mid-1990; (3) until the
termination of the Treaty in May 1992 all act s of suspension and abandonment related to
works, not to the Treaty; and (4) suspensi on and abandonment of work was justified on
environmental grounds, which were made all the more pressing by Czechoslovakia’s early
start to Variant C.
18. Suspension of work at Nagymaros on 13 May 1989 cannot hardly have come as a
shock. It was preceded by a January 1989 SlovakGovernment resolution expressing concern
193
about the environmental impacts of the Project, and it was followed by three meetings
194
between the Parties on environmental issues. Czechoslovak behaviour after the initial
suspension was hardly consistent with thatof a victim in shock. Although you would hardly
be able to divine this from Professor Pellet’s chronology, since he made no reference
whatsoever to the crucial period of discusso ins which took place between termination in May
and the close of conduct proceedn i gs and negotiations on 20 July 1989. Then in that period
Czechoslovakia willingly, actively and positively participated in a promising series of
193
194 HM, para. 3.67.
195 On 3 March, 8 April and 3 May 1989: HM, paras. 3.68-3.69; HC-M, paras. 2.31-2.34.
CR 97/9, pp. 43-4 (Professor McCaffrey). -65-
negotiations which recognized the legitimacy of Hungary’s environmental concerns.
Czechoslovakia agreed to establish and it then participated fully in the scientific expert groups
to consider the suspension of works at Nagymaros. When their work concluded, on 19 July
1989, Hungarian experts proposed further jointresearch. The Czechoslovak Party opposed it,
concluding “all risk related problems were solve d, and that they could be corrected during the
196
further continuous construction of Nagymaros”. That this approach characterized every
subsequent Czechoslovak act. It continues tocharacterize the Slovak approach. The idea that
“all risk related problems were solved” beggars belief, and provides ample testament to the
view expressed in Czechoslovakia’s 1992 Report to UNCED that as of 1989 environmental
information in that country was incomplete, fragmented, not critically assessed, and poorly
interpreted leading to the wrong conclusions. 197
19. It was the Czechoslovak approach at the conclusion of the work of expert groups –
Build Now, Investigate Later – which necessita ted further suspension of works at Nagymaros
until 31 October 1989, together with suspension ofthe works at Dunakiliti which would have
led to imminent diversion. 198But there was no suspension of works at Gab_ikovo on 20 July,
199
as Sir Arthur Watts stated. As Dr. Kern and Ms Gorove havedemonstrated, to have started
building in the riverbed at Nagymaros, effectivelyirreversibly, to have agreed to a system of
test operation would have been irresponsible , and the more it was looked at, the more
problematic it became. In that region floods were largely under control. Navigation could be
and is managed by other means. At Nagymaros, concerns over the protection of vital water
interests easily crossed any threshold of necessity. The concerns about the Dunakiliti-Hrusov
reservoir were also serious and substantial,as Slovak and independent sources confirmed. By
mid-1989 the concerns as to the long-term environmental threats also crossed the threshold of
200
necessity. Many of the concerns still ex isted in 1992 according to Mr. Refsgaard and others.
196
Aide-Memoire on Consultations of the Scientific Experts, Budapest, 17-19 July 1989, HM, Vol. 4,
Ann. 18.
197 Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences and Federal Committee for the Environment, Czechoslovak
National Report for UNCED, Prague, March 1992, at p. 38.
198 HR, paras. 3.32-3.33; HM, Vol. 4, Ann. 149.
199 CR 97/10, p. 52 (Sir Arthur Watts).
200 CR 97/10, p. 45 (Mr. Refsgaard). -66-
And of course the concern was greater for the oirginal Project than Variant C. There were and
are also major concerns forbiodiversity– a word Slovakia could only bring itself to pronounce
201
once during the entire week of its first round of oral presentations.
20. Professor Pellet sought to persuade you ofCzechoslovakia’s flexibility, its willingness
to conclude a new agreement on ecological guarantees, to consider further agreement on
202
limitation or exclusion of peak power. His co-counsel referred to this proposed
“abandonment” at least 12 times in their pleadings. But the picture ProfessorPellet painted
was incomplete. There was no “offer” to ab andon. He did not refer you to the conditions
attaching to Czechoslovak flexibility: it was dependent upon Hungary's immediate
commencement of preparatory work at Dunakiliti; it was accompanied by the express threat
that unless work resumed Czechoslovakia “w ill be forced to commence a provisional,
substitute project” on its territory; and it made no mention of suspension or review of
203
Nagymaros. Hardly an offer, Mr. President, or a situation in which it could be said that “la
204
Tchécoslovaquie avait accepté toutes les exigences de son partenaire”. And of course by
then preparatory work on Variant C was underw ay, establishing the further necessity of
avoiding possible unilateral Czechoslovak action.
21. It is in this context that Hungary terminated some of the private law contracts
associated with Nagymaros, but not all of them,in particular not those developing the tailrace
canal or for flood protection – another fact Professor Pellet omitted to bring to your
205
attention. The Government resolution of 27 Oct ober 1989 did not affect contracts at
Dunakiliti, despite Professor Pellet’s apparent confusion on the point. 206 And Czechoslovakia
had not by December 1989 accepted “l’engagement deconclure l’accord sur la protection de
207
l’environnement” as he claimed. By the end of October the die had been cast: what was on
201 CR 97/11, p. 36 (M. Mikulka).
202
203 CR 97/9, p. 45 (Professor McCaffrey).
204 HM, Vol. 4, Ann. 28.
CR 97/9, pp. 46-7 (Professor Pellet).
205 HM, Vol. 4, Ann. 150.
206Ibid.
207 CR 97/9 p. 47 (Professor McCaffrey). -67-
offer was the original Project or unilateral divr esion. Nothing else. Modification of the Project
or prior environmental studies were not on offer.
22. When on 30 October 1989 Hungary proposeda draft Treaty to amend the 1977 Treaty,
208
to eliminate peak power and abandon Nagymaros, no response was received from
Czechoslovakia. Neither Professor Pellet nor SriArthur Watts felt the draft Treaty was worth
mentioning. In view of that silence the Hunga rian Prime Minister proposed further studies
209
prior to the abandonment of the 1977 Treaty. Again Czechoslovakia showed not the
slightest willingness to reconsider, never mind abandon, Nagymaros. Slovakia continued to
insist on Nagymaros last month in this Court room. It’s insistence on the life of the Treaty
reflects commitment to a dam at that locationN . ever did Czechoslovakia propose, as Professor
210
Pellet claimed, that in February 1990 its willingness to negotiate was “sans préalable”. No
authority is provided for that statement.
23. Nevertheless, throughout this period Hungarian work did continue at Dunakiliti and
Gab_ikovo. Hungary continued to expend large sums of money on the upstream sector. The
211
Joint Operational Group continued to meet, five times in 1990, eight times in 1991.
The Czechoslovak Plenipotentiary, Mr. Kocinger,continued to address his opposite number.
Nothing in the records show that Czechoslovak aiin fact treated Hungary as having abandoned
the Treaty. In 1991 Hungary spent 680 million fori nts in connection with the Project. The
212
formal handover of works at Gabcíkovo occurred at the end of 1991. Hungary continued to
participate in meetings of the Plenipotentiaries under Article 3 of the Treaty, fully accepting
that it provided the framework for discussions on the Project’s future and any compensation
payments which might have to be made. Theseacts are simply inconsistent with abandonment
of the Treaty in mid-1990, as Slovakia’s Agent claims. 213 Slovakia in fact makes a fine
practice of confusion, between suspension a nd abandonment, between the works and the
208
209 HM, Vol. 4, Ann. 30.
210 HM, Vol. 4, Ann. 32.
CR 97/9, p. 49 (Professor McCaffrey).
211 Joint Operational Group Reports (1990, meetings Nos. 73-77); 1991, meetings Nos. 78-85; 1992,
meeting 86).
212 HR, paras. 3.34-3.38.
213 CR 97/7, p. 11 (Amb. Tomka). -68-
Treaty, between Dunakiliti and Gabcíkovo, betweenNagymaros and Dunakiliti. In July 1989
Hungary suspended work at Dunakiliti, not “construction work on Gabcíkovo” as Professor
McCaffrey claimed. 214 Suspension of only a part of theworks in May 1989 did not and could
215
not constitute suspension of the Treaty, as Professor Pellet claimed. Abandonment of part of
the works in 1990 did not constitute a repudia tion of the 1977 Treaty, as Sir Arthur Watts
claims. 216
24. At all times prior to May 1992 Hungary accepted the Treaty was in force. But if
Professor Pellet is correct and Hungary’s earlier acts constituted a repudiation then inevitably
so must Czechoslovakia’s implementation of Vari ant C. If a failure to act can constitute
repudiation then so must an act which is plainl y inconsistent with the international agreement
to which it purports to give effect. Yet we heard nothing whatsoever from the Slovak side to
address our arguments concerning its repudiation.The inescapable logic of Professor Pellet’s
position is that by mid-1991 at the latest both sides had repudiated the 1977 Treaty and on this
approach the Court simply has no need to decd ie whether Hungary’s termination was effective
or whether the 1977 Treaty survived succession.
III. N ECESSITY APPLIED
25. In the context of these facts I can turn finally to the question of whether Hungary was
entitled to invoke necessity to justify suspen sion of work on Nagymaros in May 1989, and at
Dunakiliti in July 1989 and subsequent acts. My task today is easier than that of Professor
Dupuy last month. 217 He was faced with the old Slovakposition: “‘Necessity’ is not a ground
for suspension or termination”, adding forgood measure, “Still less can be found a ground of
218
‘ecological necessity’”. The Court will have noted the new Slovak position, its 180 degree
about turn on this issue: “la Slovaquie n’a év idemment jamais dit ou écrit que le droit de
responsabilité ne presentait aucune pertinence pour cette espece”. No less than seven times
214
215 CR 97/10, p. 15. (Prof. McCaffrey).
216 CR 97/10, p. 19 (Prof. McCaffrey).
CR 97/10, p. 19 (Prof. McCaffrey).
217 “Les règles de droit justifiant la suspension et la terminaison des travaux par la Hongrie”, CR 97/3,
pp. 76-95.
218 SM, para. 8.13.
219 CR 97/8, p. 41 (Prof. Pellet). -69-
did Professor Pellet put to the Court the new Slovak position, as if to impress upon us that the
conversion was neither provisional nor temporary.
26. Slovakia now embraces the Hungarian view. Itnow says that not that we were wrong
in principle to invoke necessity for suspension, but that we applied it wrongly, or we have
221
not satisfied the conditions for its applicability. Having abandoned his earlier position
Professor Pellet thought he found a contradiction between me and ProfessorDupuy, and, of
course, what better way to obfuscate his own inconsistency, it might be said? But Professor
Dupuy and I were not in contradiction. He addressd enecessity to justify suspension of work in
May1989. I addressed necessity to justify termination of the Treaty in May 1992. The
circumstances of necessity which applied in May 1989 were all the more applicable in
May 1992, given Czechoslovakia’s unilateral constu rction of Variant C and the imminence of
diversion, without an EIA, in contravention ofSlovak environmental law, and with no prior
communication of information to Hungary. Ther e is no contradiction: necessity may be
invoked in respect of suspension of works and termination of the Treaty.
27. His sense of “embarras” really does not excuse the attempt to reformulate our
arguments. We have never said, for example, that the law of responsibility and the law of
222
treaties are “interchangeable”. What we do say is that it ma y be unlawful to take certain
measures in the context of a treaty obligation unless the illegality of that fact is excluded by
application of one of the circumstances fo reseen by the law of responsibility, including
necessity. We reaffirm our view: “the conduct of a State may at one and the same time be
223
justified on the basis of the law of treatiesand the law of State responsibility” . The Parties
224
agree that necessity may in principle justify suspension of works to preclude illegality. The
question for the Court is whether the conditions,as reflected in Article 33 of the ILC’s Draft
Articles have been satisfied in this case.
220 CR 97/8, p. 42 (Prof. Pellet).
221 CR 97/10, pp. 10-18 (Prof. McCaffrey).
222 CR 97/8, p. 42 (Prof. Pellet).
223 HC-M, para. 5.22.
224 CR 97/9, p. 60 (Prof. McCaffrey). -70-
28. The Parties agree on these conditions, but they disagree on their applicability in this
environmental context. The firstcondition is that suspension of work in May 1989 should
have been the only means of protecting Hungary’slegitimate and essential interests. It was. It
was the only way to stop construction of Nagymaros and guarantee Budapest’s water. Given
Czechoslovakia’s intransigence after July 1989 Professor McCaffrey can hardly claim that
Hungary had ignored a treaty partner willing to conduct joint studies, slow work at
Nagymaros, and limit or exclude peak power 225Czechoslovakia never once proposed the
suspension of Nagymaros, and Slovakia continues to argue for it today.
29. The secondcondition, that suspension must safeguard an “essential interest” of
Hungary, was evidently satisfied. This is indispua tble in the light of Articles 15 and 19 of the
Treaty and general environmental law. Professor McCaffrey agrees that ecological interests
are not “essential”. But he focuses on the absence of studies requiring suspension. Why
environmental necessity cannot be invoked to justify further studies to reduce uncertainty is
unclear to me. The approach is pragmatic, c onsistent with precaution, cost-effective, and
within both the Parties' capabilities. It fulfils all the requirements of Principle 15.
30. The thirdcondition, that there must have been in May 1989 a “grave and imminent
peril”, was also satisfied. We are perf ectly happy to apply the test proposed by
Professor McCaffrey: “the party invoking necessity must have more than unsubstantiated fears
that something might happen sometime”. 226 When read with thepreventive and precautionary
approach to environmental harm to which Slovak aiclaims such attachment it is difficult to see
how much earlier, or how much more immine nt, the activity which would have caused the
harm – the completion of Nagymaros and its bri nging into operation – must have been in this
case.
31. The fourthcondition is also satisfied. Slovakia says that Hungary has contributed to the
occurrence of the state of necessity by failing to study the issue of risk to Budapest’s water
supply. This fundamentally misunderstands envi ronmental necessity. It has always been
known that the original Project posedsomerisk to the bank filtered wells and to nature. What
225
226 CR 97/9, p. 63. (Prof. McCaffrey).
CR 97/10, p. 12. (Prof. McCaffrey). -71-
was not known was the extent of that risk and its consequences. The necessity arose in 1989
because of changes in the understanding of comp lex ecological processes, as well as changes
in environmental obligations which we have described. These pointed to effects which were
significantly beyond what had been foreseen in1977. They were not in Hungary’s control, in
the sense of Article 33. They cannot preclude the application of necessity.
32. Fifth , and finally, Hungary’s invocation of necesisty did not impair an essential interest
of Slovakia. 227ended up characterizing the Treaty of the original Project as a “building
contract”. Having done so Slovakia can hardly clam i that its interest in completing the Project
as originally envisaged can outweigh Hungary’s essential and vital interest in safeguarding
drinking water supplies.
33. If the conditions for necessity were satisfied in May 1989, as we say they were, then
they were also satisfied for the suspension ofwork at Dunakiliti in July 1989. The imminence
of the diversion of the waters at Dunakiliti, coupled with the emergence of genuine concerns
about the impacts of the diversion on the Szigetköz region and its underlying aquifer, all of
which have been subsequently confirmed by Hungarian, Slovak and independent science,
created a situation of necessity. In the cas e of abandonment all of these factors when
combined with the refusal of Czechoslovakia to even discuss the future of the downstream
sector or peak power operation, continue to gvie rise to an enhanced state of necessity.
IV. C ONCLUSIONS
34. suommarize:
1) Articles 15, 19 and 20 imposed substantive obligations, requiring the Original Project
to be consistent with environmental protection;
2) the rules of international environmental law became applicable to the Project aslex
posterioror by interpretation through Articles 15, 19 and 20;
3) Articles 15, 19 and 20 and the rules of international environmental law required the
Project to be implemented in a manner wh ich protected water resources, flora and
fauna and biodiversity applying EIA and precaution;
227 CR 97/9, p. 63 (Prof. McCaffrey). -72-
4)by May 1989 changes in the state of e nvironmental knowledge and the Parties’
environmental obligations under the Treaty and general international law were such
that new studies were required to address the growing uncertainties associated with
the original Project’s environmental effects;
5) the situation in May 1989, and Czechoslovaka i’s refusal to engage in studies, and its
continued insistence on the original Proejct, Nagymaros and peak power, and then
Variant C, gave rise to and perpetuate d a state of environmental necessity; and
finally
6) all conditions for necessity under the law of State responsibility had been met.
In these circumstances, Hungary was en titled to invoke necessity in May 1989 and
subsequently. Mr. President, Members of theCourt, I would like to thank you once again for
your kind attention and ask that you give the floor to Professor Nagy. -73-
The PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, Mr. Sands. Professor Nagy, please.
ProfessGrY:
6. THE CHARACTER OF VARIANT C
Mr. President, Members of the Court!
1. The Parties disagree about the constituentelements and the essential character of
Variant C. I will therefore briefly address thisissue and in particular the supposed provisional
and reversible nature of Variant C. -74-
T HE FORCES BEHIND V ARIANT C
2. Slovakia’s counsel carefully avoid presenting Variant C as a two-phase investment.
But it was. The first phase neared completi on in 1992 and essentially meant the unilateral
diversion of the Danube. The second phase, with am l ost twice as much investment as the first
is still under construction as we could see while swiftly transported past the construction site.
3. The hydraulic structures of phase one were extensive. A long dyke of 10 kilometres or
more from Cunovo to Dunakiliti separating the main riverbed from the waters of the Danube
which now flow in the lower part of the Cunovoreservoir. The dam closing the main riverbed
at Cunovo. The by-pass weir which should have discharged the waters according to the
temporary water management agreement which never materialized. Twenty floodgates. The
loss of the flow of the water at the Cunovo-Dunakiliti stretch, which I also mentioned among
the Phase 1 features of Variant C, is describeby Slovakia as “a direct consequence” of the re-
228
siting of the dam. For most observers the loss in water flow is rather the consequence of
Slovakia’s keeping the weir-gates closed. If the loss of discharge was an inevitable
consequence of the dam, Czechoslovakia and Slovakia could never have complied with any
discharge regime whether suggested by the EC, agreed by the Parties or based on the
judgmentofthisCourt.4. A novel element in the Slovak oral presentations was that the
structures were built at Cunovo out of “car eful respect for Hungary’s territorial
229
sovereignty” . One may wonder where they would havebeen constructed if the respect was
not so careful.
5. What requires more attention is Phase 2 of Variant C, a subject on which Slovakia is
virtually silent. I had been ready to counter arguments justifying Phase 2. Explanations as to
why a temporary and reversible solution should have three larger weirs, four turbine-generator
units, and even a slalom route. And why is the shiplock there? To cruise till the underwater
weir?
228
229 CR 97/11 p. 15 (Sir Arthur Watts)
CR 97/11 p. 15 (Sir Arthur Watts) -75-
6. Substantive legal arguments would have been welcome. But there were none. Instead
Slovakia described elements of Variant C whichwere put in place after October 1992, that is
230
the whole of Phase 2, as being not relevant to the this case. I will return to that point.
7. Let me now review how those elements of Variant C which Slovakia considers
relevant did emerge. According to Sir Arthur Watts they are the result of an inevitable
sequence of actions, none of which was desired or initiated by Slovakia or Czechoslovakia. He
said: “[I]t was no wish ofCzechoslovakia’s that Variant C had to be applied – that course was
forced upon Czechoslovakia by Hungary’s conduct” 231“Czechoslovakia could not accept”
232
that work be stopped while negotiations were to be held. “There could be no question of
leaving things as they were.” 233 “In 1991 there was no possibility of suing Hungary for
234
compensation.”
8. According to Sir Arthur, the gravity of events became even more compelling. By July
1991 Variant C “in all circumstances was the only option if the Project was to be saved.” 235
“Czechoslovakia’s decision in November 1991 to proceed with Variant C was entirely
236
reasonable – indeed, unavoidable.” In October 1992 “Czechoslovakia was left with no
choice” 237 – it had to commit what it did. Indeed, he asks, whose faults the adverse changes
238
were. “They were Hungary’s fault” is the verdict.
9. Did Hungary really force Czechoslovakiato dam up the Danube at Cunovo? Of course
not. It was the wish of Czechoslovakia implemented against repeated protests of Hungary.
10. Was there no question of leaving things there?Well, if it was true that the construction
of Variant C only started in November 1991, asSlovakia still claims, and whatever was built
before, belonged to the original Project then leaving things there – for a while, not for ever,
just as long as the required studies were carried out – was certainly possible. But
230
CR 97/11 p. 15 (Sir Arthur Watts)
231 CR 97/10 p. 51-52 (Sir Arthur Watts)
232 CR 97/10 p. 54 (Sir Arthur Watts)
233 CR 97/10 p. 56 (Sir Arthur Watts)
234
235 CR 97/10 p. 57 (Sir Arthur Watts)
236 CR 97/10 p. 59 (Sir Arthur Watts)
CR 97/10 p. 60 (Sir Arthur Watts)
237 CR 97/10 p. 61 (Sir Arthur Watts)
238 CR 97/11 p. 16 (Sir Arthur Watts) -76-
Czechoslovakia did not suspend the constructionin order to follow Hungary’s suggestion to
investigate the Project. Not for a single day.
11. Why construct, rather than litigate? NowSlovakia says that “There was no possibility
239
for suing Hungary for compensation.” It sounds like a sentence from the Hardi Report – but
240
in the wrong context. The Hardi Report, published in 1989, was not a State document, or a
State supported document. Eight years ago thatReport had referred to the prevailing doctrine
of socialist States opposed to the jurisdicti on of the International Court of Justice for
ideological reasons. It merely expressed the commonplace that in international litigation
jurisdiction between the States had to be based on their expressed consent. By 1991
circumstances had fundamentally changed. Hungaryhad decided to deposit its declaration of
acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction according to Article36 of the Statute and pledged
allegiance to the rule of law forming the ba sis of democracy. It accepted the Court's
jurisdiction before Czechoslovakia diverted te hDanube. Why could Czechoslovakia not invite
Hungary to sign a special agreement? Did Czec hoslovakia attempt to bring Hungary to an
impartial judicial authority? No it didn’t. Theargument that a legal claim was not possible is
devoid of any merit.
12. In fact, there was no initial need to sue, since Hungary itself offered to settle the
outstanding financial matters. Hungary was always prepared to negotiate compensation for
241
losses ensuing from the state of necessity. The Hungarian offer was never formally
discussed. Never.
13. However, according to Slovakia, Czechos lovakia was forced to consider the
completion of the Project on its own. Variant C was apparently the only option and it was
unavoidable.
14. Let us pause here again. Was it the only option and was it unavoidable? We were told
that a series of variants – including the halting ofthe Project and restoration of the area – were
239 CR 97/10 p. 57 (Sir Arthur Watts)
240
Government Commissioner of the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Barrage System, Studies and Investigations
to Support the Decision Making. Working Stage II Summary of the Investigations Outlined in the
241 Annex of Government Resolution 1071/1989 /VI. 15/, Budapest, 1989 (In Hungarian)
CR 97/4, at p. 35 -77-
“carefully studied and assessed for feasibility, w ithout any preconception to the suitability of
242
any particular variant.” The Slovak pleadings did not reveal when, and to what extent these
options were studied. The last month Hungary finally learned from Slovak counsel that this
was no more than “the stuff ofbureaucratic option selection” . But at least it shows that there
were other options. And they show that th e selection of VariantC was not based on a
systematic impact assessment, economic analysis , or consultations with Hungary. And that it
was opposed by the Slovak environmental authorities. Even ProfessorMucha admitted that
the seven alternatives did not start from a de mand for meeting ecological conditions, but were
defined through political considerations. They were randomly selected and incomparable, he
said.244
15. Nevertheless counsel for Slovakia now claims that Variant C was the only option to
save the original Project. Therefore, proceeding with it was not only reasonable but
unavoidable. But Variant C did not save the Pr oject, it terminated it. Nothing could have
proved that more compellingly than Slovakia’ s own oral presentation. Saving the Project
ought to have meant reversibility. Variant C ought to be a temporary technical solution. It
should be temporary and reversible in order toeven remotely evoke the idea of saving a joint
investment. The word “temporary” hardly ever o ccurred in the justifications for the legality of
Variant C. This was a wise choice. How could Slovakia use the word “temporary” when they
knew you would be able to see the structuresthe following week. Dr. Mikulka in a television
programme broadcast on 6 April referred to Va riant C as technically durable but legally
provisional. The counsel for Slovakia took up the Hungarian argument according to which
245
Variant C was meant to be permanent and aske d if Hungary would have built it differently.
That was the end of the counter-argument. Instead the Agent for Slovakia thought the Court
might be interested to know that a group of banks had been assembled in 1995 and 1996 to
provide assistance to Slovakia. “Evidently, those banks arrived at a favourable evaluation of
242 SM, para 5.14.
243 CR 97/10 p. 59 (Sir Arthur Watts)
244
245 HC-M, Annexes, Vol. 3, Annex 50,
CR 97/11 p. 18 (Sir Arthur Watts). -78-
the Project”,246 he said. The Court might also be interested to know whether the investment
proposal submitted by Slovakia for the loan incorporated a reference to the Project’s
reversibility, or its provisional or temporary nature. Did the financing bank know that within
one year VariantC might be rendered usele ss by the decision of the Slovak Government
implementing this Court’s judgment?
16. Only hypothetical arguments concerning c ounter-measures and references to the
Special Agreement as well as to decisions in the past preserve the relics of the idea of
reversibility. The facts speak for themselves. Your impressions must speak for themselves: the
ride along the ten kilometre “provisional” dyke leading to the Cunovo complex; the quick tour
of the “provisional” installations; the denialof access to the “provisional” hydropower station.
Clearly the builders of Variant C did not meanit to be provisional. Variant C with its second
phase, entailing new weirs and turbines, is no moreprovisional in intent than it is the saviour
of the original Project.
17. So what is it, if not a temporary, mi nor addition until Hungary gives up its “dogged
247
insistence on terminating the Treaty”? – to quote Slovakia once more.
18. Efforts like claiming that Variant C was in large measure the same as the original
Project because “the very term Variant C show s that it is but a variation of the original
Project” 248are not convincing especially since Variant G was the “no-project” option. 249
Slovak efforts at minimising the cha nges at Cunovo which occurred after 1992 by
characterizing them as “alleged” and “not relevant to the question of what Czechoslovakia was
entitled to do in October 1992” are barely more convincing. Is the operation of VariantC,
Phase 2 by Slovakia not an element to this di spute? Certainly, yes. Did we visit alleged
structures, listen to unnecessary explanationson Variant C as it operates, including the Slovak
recharge system which commenced operation in 1993?
19. Mr. President, Variant C as it stands nowis not an approximate application of the 1977
Treaty. It is not a joint investment with joint control over the benefits and the impacts of the
246 CR 97/7 at p. 14 Dr. Tomka.
247
248 SC-M, para. 5.76.
249 CR 97/11 p. 16 (Sir Arthur Watts).
SM, para. 5.23. -79-
power station. It does not apply the environmental guarantees of the 1977 Treaty. It was not
built and is not operated with Hungary's consen t. The original Project would have caused
much harm, but with Hungary's consent would have been legal at leasitnter partes. Variant C
may bring financial benefit to Slovakia and may in some respects cause less environmental
damage than the original Project, but it carries an incurable deficiency: it is illegal.
20. Its true nature can be restated: it is a new activity, a unilateral investment, a grave
violation of treaties in force between the Parties, a threatening sign for all co-riparian states.
Variant C is based on the power of controlling t sides of the river and on the belief that the
wrongdoer can not be sued. This conviction de termined Czechoslovakia’s response by not
accepting the Hungarian offer to ba se this Court’s jurisdiction onforum prorogatum as
envisaged by Hungary’s submission on 23 Oc tober 1992 inviting Czechoslovakia and the
Court to investigate the legality of Variant C.
Mr. President, Members of the Court! Thankyou so much for your kind attention. May I ask
you, Mr. President, to call on Professor Wheater.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, Professor Nagy. Professor Wheater, please.
ProfesHorATER:
7A. IMPACTS OF VARIANT C: ISSUES OF AGREEMENT
Thank you, Mr.President. Mr.President, I note the time and perhaps you would be
kind enough to interrupt me when you feel we should make a break. -80-
Mr. President, Members of the Court,
1. During the field visit, a pertinent comment was made by members of the Court. The
scientific presentations have focused on differences between the Parties, but on what do the
scientists of the two Parties agree? In responI will attempt to clarifythe points of agreement
and disagreement, and the associated evidenceb , y reference to Variant C and its impacts, both
actual and predicted. Today I will consider firs t, the value of the natural system, second
concerns for the environmental impact of Va riant C, and finally, evidence of impacts.
Tomorrow I will consider long-term impacts and the implications of the PHARE report.
2. I turn first to the points of agreement and the value and functioning of the natural
system.
A. THE V ALUE OF THE NATURAL S YSTEM AND ITS FUNCTIONING
3. The ecological value of the area affected by Variant C has been stressed by
Hungary. 250This view is strongly supported by Slova k scientists and the PHARE team, for
example:
- for the side-branch system of the active fl oodplain, it is said that “The area is of
251
outstanding importance”; and
- for the main river, “The Danube River Sy stem ... [is] a major habitat for rheophile
fish species and an important ecological corridor for [migrating] species”.
And Mr. Refsgaard described the floodplain areaas “a very unique landscape of outstanding
253
importance”.
4. The importance of the groundwater resources of the Szigetkoz is clear. 254For the
Slovak area, Professor Mucha comments 255that “groundwater in the upstream aquifer is of
immense importance to Slovakia. “
5. The essential role of natural variability of the hydrological regime was described by
Professor Carbiener, who described the “pul se” of the floodplain system. Mr. Refsgaard
250
E.g., HM, Vol. 1, p. 139; CR 97/2, pp. 65, 78.
25PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995, Vol. III, 9-5.
25Ibid.
253 HC-M, Vol. 4 (2).
254 CR 97/2, pp. 65.
2559R/11. -81-
concurred: “The ecological functioning of the floodplain is governed by the dynamics of
inundation, flushing and groundwater level fluctuations”. And the PHARE report reinforces
257
these comments, as shown behind me(Illus No 7.1).
There is therefore clear agreement on the valu e of the region in terms of water resources,
landscape and ecology, and the essential role of the dynamic hydrological regime.
B. Concerns for the Environmental Impact of Variant C
6. Let me now turn to some of the concerns for the impact of Variant C, beginning with
surface water quality.
256
257 HC-M, Vol. 4 (2).
Vol. 2, pp. 12-3 to 12-5. -82-
1. Concerns for Surface Water Quality
258
7. The Court will be familiar with Hungary’s concerns for water quality deterioration,
for example due to enhanced eutrophication in the reservoir, main Danube channel,
side-branch system. The PHARE report echoes the concerns. The objective of the water
quality modelling of the reservoir is “to asss es whether eutrophication problems in the Hrusov
259
reservoir can be expected or not. “
8. For the main Danube channel, the PHARE report is clear. The change initiated by
Gabcikovo “will affect the hydrodynamics of th e old river significantly. Reduced flow
260
velocities and water depth in the Old Danube may induce water quality problems”.
2. Concerns for Groundwater Resources and Quality
9. Concerning groundwater resources and groundwater recharge, the PHARE report is
also clear:
“If siltation of the reservoir bottom takes place this might lead to significant changes
in the infiltration pattern and hence also to the entire groundwater flow regime on
261
Zitny Ostrov. “
Concerning groundwater quality, Professor Muchaconfirmed in 1993 that “The construction
... causes new problems for Slovakia because they affect the quality of ground water....
conditions may occur which would make gr ound water unsuitable for certain purposes”. 262
And the PHARE report says, “A major issue on Zitny Ostrov is the potential change in
263
groundwater quality after damming of the Danube”.
10. It goes on to explain a principal cause for concern for groundwater quality, “Fine
organic material may accumulate in some parts of the reservoir creating a reactive sediment
layer. The river water recharging the aquifer ha s to pass through this layer, which may induce
264
a change in the chemical/biological composition of the infiltrating water.” It also identifies a
258 CR 97/3 pp. 48-51.
259
260 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995, Vol. 1, p. 5.19.
261 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995, Vol. 1, p. 5.12.
PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995, Vol 3, p. 3.26.
262 HC-M, Vol 4 (2), p. 494.
263 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995 Vol. 2, p. 7-1.
264 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995 Vol.3, p. 5-1. -83-
previously overlooked problem, “the occurrence ofhigh nitrite concentration (NO2) which is
265
highly toxic.”
11. In sum, the PHARE report confirms Hungary’s concerns for groundwater.
3. Concerns for ecology
12. As to ecology, the PHARE report also confirms that the upstream reservoir and
Gabcikovo plant “have major impacts on the hydrological regime and the ecosystem of the
region.”266
13. In summary, the PHARE report clearly demons trates that these important concerns for
surface water quality, groundwater, groundwaterquality, and ecology were shared by Slovak
scientists in the 1990s and remained unresolved. If we turn to the Blue Book shown to the
Court by Dr. Mikulka, but not opened, 267we can read, on page 36, that the Danube and the
floodplain on both sides of the river downstreamof Cunovo have been “strongly influenced by
the construction of ... Gabcikovo. The water level regime in this region is of vital
importance.... Only a few topics of the very complex problem of the water level regime have
been addressed”. Professor Mucha confirms the concerns for groundwater quality, stating in
1993 that “Many problems in this area are as yet untouched; the answers are completely
open.... The pattern and rules of this complicated ecosystem is still hidden behind a veil of
268
mysteries”. What clearer confirmation of Hungarian concerns could one ask for?
14. In answer to your question, there is agreement among the scientists as to the value of
the natural resources and the existence of important potential threats to those resources.
C. E VIDENCE OF IMPACTS OF V ARIANT C
15. Mr. President, I turn now to evidence of impacts of Variant C. There is a consensus
between Hungarian and Slovak scientists thattime-scales of response can be long. One only
265 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995, Vol 2, p 7.3.
266 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995 Vol. 1, p. 0-1.
267
268 CR 97/11, p. 26.
HC-M, Vol 4 (2), Ann. 11. -84-
269
has to turn to Dr. Mikulka’s Blue Book. In addition, there is now significant evidenceof
change in a number of important respects. And there is agreement on many aspects between
Hungarian and Slovak scientists, as I shall explain, but not with Slovakia’s counsel.
1. Surface Water Quality
270
16. Concerning surface water quality, Hunga ry agrees with Professor Mucha that an
improvement in water quality at Bratislava has been, not unexpectedly, accompanied by an
improvement in some water quality indicators downstream. And that sedimentation in the
reservoir has improved others at least in the short term. However, chlorophyll-a has doubled
downstream. And what of the reservoir se dimentation? The 1996 Transboundary Water
Commission report that he quotes shows "that concentrations of mercury in suspended
sediment exceed limit values at all monitoring locations. And we note that two requests for
joint measurements in the reservoir were denied. 271Surely this is an indication of Slovak
concern for the quantity and quality of reservoir sediments.
Groundwater 2.
17. Let us consider groundwater. Concerninggroundwater quality, Professor Mucha tells
the Court that “the main factor influencing groundwater quality is the quality of water in the
272
Danube and its side arms”. But this is not the view of the Slovak scientists contributing to
the PHARE report, as just described, or H ungarian scientists, or the experience from
international studies such as Altenwörth. I refer him to page 7-1 of volume 2 of the PHARE
report where the groundwater quality objectives are set out. A primary concern is that
sediments will settle, degrade and change the ch emistry of the groundwater recharge, and that
269 CR 97/11 p. 26.
270 CR 97/11, pp. 31-32.
271 Protocol of 60th and 62nd Meetings of the Water Quality Protection Working Group of the Hungarian
272 Slovak Transboundary Water Commission.
CR 97/11, p. 33. -85-
loss of groundwater dynamics will compound theloss of oxygen. Even if surface water does
not deteriorate, water passing through the sediments can be of very poor quality.
18. He also tells the Court that “groundwaterquality in general has not changed”, but we
would not expect a general change, given the slow response of the groundwater system. It is
necessary to look close to the reservoir for the first signs of long-term change (as indeed he
273
suggests), and these may take several years to appear. Detailed PHARE monitoring was
undertaken because existing wells “did not allow for a rigorous and detailed study of the
274
ongoing biogeochemical processes”. What does this monitoring show? A zone of low
oxygen waters with manganese concentrations an order of magnitude greater than drinking
275
water limits. What does Hungarian monitoring just below the reservoir show? A trend of
reducing oxygen and increasing manganese concentrations, well beyond drinking water limits
(Illus No 7.2). Professor Mucha’s response to such problems 276 is to redefine “pollution” to
exclude iron and manganese. But according to UNESCO definitions, the loss of drinking
water quality is clearly and unequivocally pollution. 277
19. Concerning groundwater levels, Professor Mc uha presented a Table of Hungarian data,
from wells outside the active floodplain(Illus No 7.3). He claimed that this showed a rise. But
these were not data from the whole year, as implied by its title, only from selected periods of
one week in each year. To take one of those wells, we can see the full story (Illus No 7.4).
While remedial measures have had a minor impact here, peak levels are still reduced by more
than 1 metre from 1991, and the amplitude of vaa rition is around one third of the former range.
For a similar position inside the active floodplain (Illus No 7.5), we see a much more dramatic
273 CR 97/8 p. 36.
274 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995,Vol .2, p. 7-2.
275 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995, Vol 2, p. 7-5.
276 CR97/11, p. 33.
277 UNESCO 1992, International Glossary of Hydrology. -86-
effect. Peak levels, even after remedial measur es, are 3.5m lower. The amplitude of variation
is less than one quarter that of 1991. How does this compare with the Slovak side?
278
20. The PHARE report is clear: “After the damming of the Danube the fluctuations of
the groundwater table has been reduced drasti cally in a large area.” What do the PHARE
3
simulations indicate for the side-branch system? If we consider 400m /s in the main Danube
channel, in comparison to the pre-dam statet,he PHARE report predicted “Groundwater levels
decrease... throughout the area, but especiallyin a zone near the Old Danube..... the reduced
279
groundwater dynamics is considered to be undesirable”. Curiously, when this section is
summarised in Vol 1, and reported by Professor Mucha the conclusion is reversed “when
filling the river branch system the groundwater lv eel was brought back to the pre-dam level. “
But the attached simulation of the situ ation in Figure 5.1 of the PHARE Report(Illus No 7.6)
shows cleardecreasesin groundwater levels in the side-branch system and beyond.
21. Hungary does not dispute that groundwater levle s have risen close to the reservoir, and
that they may have recovered to levels prior to the adverse impacts of Slovak dredging and
groundwater pumping. However to have high groundwae tr levels, at or above peak historical
flood levels on a permanent basis, as shown by this well ( Illus No 7.7), is problematic. High
water levels, without natural variability, will create permanent swampy conditions, with
adverse effects on natural vegetation, agriculture, and the local villages.
22. So what is agreed concerning groundwater? Itis clear that the groundwater levels have
been raised in the vicinity of the reservoir tohigher levels, but that natural variability has been
lost. It is agreed that the Danube channel act s as a drain and, in consequence, groundwater
levels in the active floodplain have been dram atically lowered. Hungarian predictions and
278 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995, Vol 2, p 5-44.
279 PHARE/EC/WAT/1 FINAL REPORT, DEC 1995, Vol 3, p 9-39. -87-
experience are that, away from the reservoir, groundwater level increases due to remedial
measures are limited, and that a significant loss of variability has occurred. Slovak data and
simulations are consistent in showing major d ecreases in groundwater in the area of the side-
branch system. Slovak scientists agree that most of the natural variability has been lost.
23. Concerning groundwater quality, Profe ssor Mucha agrees that poor quality
groundwater can be expected next to side-arms due to the decay of organic sediments, 280but
281
only in side arms with littleor no flow. Hungarian data show extensive occurrence of poor
quality groundwater recharged from the side-arm system, despite enhanced flows following
remedial measures. Curiously, Professor Much a fails to mention the major concerns of
Hungary and the PHARE project for reservoir se diments, and their degradation, topics to
which I shall return tomorrow.
280
CR 97/11, p 33.
281 CR 97/4, pp 65-66.
t18/HS/CR97/12/cw -88-
Mr.President, given the time, I think I should finish there and resume my speech
tomorrow. Thank you for your attention.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, ProfessorWheater. The Court will now rise
and resume tomorrow at 10 o'clock.
The Court rose at 1.15 p.m.
__________
t18/HS/CR97/12/cw -89-
CORRECTIONSTOTHETRANSCRIPT:
SPEECH12:EVOLUTIONSCIENTIFIQUEETDEVELOPPEMENTDURABLE
(Roland Carbiener)
Add footnote at end of para. 2:
AMOROS,C.& PETTS,G.E., 1993: Hydrosystèmes fluviaux, Masson, Paris, 1993;
DECAMPS,H.& NAIMAN,R., 1989, L’écologie des fleuves, La Recherche 30, No. 208,
310-319 p.; MERMET, L., (réd.) Innover pour une gestion plus écologique des fleuves -
Rapport au Ministre de l'Environnement, Paris, 105 p.; CARBIENER, R., organis.
Colloque International “Forets alluviales européennes” Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg.
1980 Public 1984 ed. cramer (Veduz); PETTS G.E. edit. Regulated Rivers, Périodique
paraissant depuis 1985.
Add footnote at end of para. 13:
MAIRE, G. & SANCHEZ PEREZ, 1992, Influences des aménagements hydrauliques de
Rhin sur le fonctionnement hydrologiques des forets riveraines d’Alsace: d’exemple de
secteur de Rhinau. Bull. Soc. Industr. Mulhouse, No. 824, p 67-71.
Add footnote at end of para. 15:
CARBIENER, R., 1989, Rapport à M. le Ministre de l’Environnement sur les
compositions lessinielles avec ou sans phosphates et la protection des milieux aquatiques,
182 p. et annexes.
Add footnote at end para. 16:
DUPRAT A.,VALENTIN, L. & SIMLER L., 1979, La nappe phréatique du Rhin en
Alsace, Sciences Géologiques 60, 226 p (Strasbourg); CARBIENER, R.&
TREMOLIERES, M., 1990, The Rhine Rift Valley Groundwater - River Interactions:
Evolution of their Susceptibility to Sollution, Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management, vol. 5 375-389; CARBIENER,R.& TREMOLIERES M., 1993,
Chimodynamics of Groundwaters, a Macroscale Example, Proceed. Internat. Workshop, p.
13-0 - 13-9 (Strasbourg); SANCHEZ J., 1992, Fonctionnent hydrochimique d'un
écosystème forestier inondable de la plaine du Rhin. Edit. Centre de Recherches Eco-
Geographiques, Strasbourg, 176 p.; ROECK, U., TREMOLIERES,M, EXINGER,A.,&
CARBIENER,R., 1991, Utilisation des mousses aquatiques dans une étude sur le transfère
du mercure en tant que descripteur du fonctionnement hydrologique (échanges cours d'eau
- nappe) en plaine d'Alsace. Bull. d'hydroecologie appliquée 12. p 95-109.
t18/HS/CR97/12/cw
Audience publique tenue le jeudi 10 avril 1997, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Schwebel, président