INTERNATiONALCOUROFJUSTiCE
GABC~KOVO-NAGYM PARJOST
(EIUNGARYISLOVAKIA)
REPLY
SUBMITTEBY TEE
SLOVAKREPUBLIC
VOLUME1
20JüNE1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERI . INTRODUCTiON ...................................................
.................
l
SECTION 1. A Brief SummaryofSIovakia's Case .................................2.............
SEcr'lo~ 2. BriefAnaIysisofthe "ScientificCase" Now Presentedin the
Hungarian Coun ter.Memoria1 .......................................................
SECTION 3. The ReIevanceof Hungary's "ScientificEvaluation"to its
Thesisof '*EculogicaNIecessity"in Hungary'aLegaIArguments ......1.4.
A . TheGrounds UponWhich a StateJustifiestheSuspensioor
Temination ofa TreatyMustHaveExisted attheTimeof
SuchSuspensioflerminationandMust beShownto Have
Motivatedthe StatinMakingitsDecision ....................................
B . Tu SupportAnyDecision tu Temiriatea Treatya StateMust
Provethat theGroundsfur itDecisionExistedinFact;
It1sNot SuficienttuShow the StateHada"ReasunablB e eIief"
that the GruundExiste.........................................1.......
............
C . InLaw. however."EcologicalNecessity"1sNot Recognised
asa ValidPI= inJustificatiofthe SuspensioItlTermination
ofa Treaty................................................
..16..................
SECTION 4. TheInterpretationofthe SpecialAgreement ........................16..........
A. Article4:The IssueofaTemporary WaterManagemenR t egime......1.6.
B . Article2:TheDefinitionoftheIssuesto bePut tutheCourt .................
SECTION 5. TheStructure ofthis RepIy ........................................20..........
.....
PART1
THE LEGAL ISSUESTHATSTILLDIVIDE THE PARTIES ........3..
SECTION 1. The Relationshipbetween the 1977Treaty and the
RelatedInstruments ...............................................4.
.................
A Agreements Linkedto the 1977Treaty............................24....................
B. OtherRdatedInstrumentsandOtherRelevantAgreements ..........-30.....
The Reiationshipbeîween the f977Treatyandthe Principles
SEcrro~ 2. af GeneraIInternationaILaw.............................................................-.3 A. The PrincipIesfGeneral intematiuhalLaw Do Not Jtistit&
Disappearanceor ModificafionofthkObjector
Purposeofthe 1977Treaty,Norits Iermination.....................7.......
B. ThePrinciplesofGend ~ntemafio$aLlaw Can Asçistin
lnterpretinghe1977 Treaty andinDetemiining its
PreciseIntent...................................................2...............
C. The ViennaConvention andGened InternationaLlaw................0....
SECTION 3. Conclusions.....................................................
55.................
1
CHAPTER m. THE RULE OFTEE LAW OF THE ENVJRUNMENT ...............7....
I
SECTION 1, Introduction..................................................
...7.................
I
SECTION2, Hungary'sMircharaetrrisntion d ~fo{akia's AttitudeTownrd
the Environmentand InternationalEnvironmentalLaw;and
Hungary's Own Failure toProtectthe ..................58.........
Hungary'sArgumentConcerningthe ~nter~retation of Article15
ofthe 1977 Treaty...................!.,/.. 63
Hungary's Use of "GeneralPMciples bf~nvimnmentalLaw". .......66..
A. HungatyrA s rgumentConceming"NeyRuleswhichhave
Appeared Since theEntq intoForceofthe 1977Treaty" ............67........
I
B. Hungary'A s rgumentthatVariant"C "sIllegalunderRules
of GeneraIInternationalLaw.................................... .73
l
C. Assumin t8atGeneralPrincipleofIpternational
Environmenta law Are Applicablein,thCase,
Hungary ActedInconsistentlwiththosePrinciple..................74......
l
Hungary Failedto Observethe~rincid~oefPkr Notificationand
ConsultationinRelat.ontoitsSuspenIionandAbandonment of
NagymarosandGabcikovo .........I..............................4................
HungaryFaiIed to Providea~eamn4 and DocumenteclExplanation
of its SuspensionandAbandomen tofNagyrnarosandGabE iovo .....76
I
D. The 1977 Treatyis Consistentwith&eral PrinciplesofInternational
EnvironmentalLaw;Those PrincipIes SupporttheReliefSoughtby
Slovakia................................................................................
SECTIO 5N. Conclusions. ..................................................
.8..................
l
CHAPTER IV. THE LAW COVERNING m~ VAL~ITY OFHUNGARY'S
SUSPENSIONANDABANDONMENTOFWORKS AND
PURFORTEDTERMINATION OF THE 1977TREATY ............83........
I
Hungary'sRelianceon"Necessity "asa IroundsJustifyingits
Breaches...................................................
...8.................
TheWorkof theinternationalLaw~odrnission onthe Law
of Treatie.................................................
...9.................. The Work of theInternationa LlawCommission on
State Responsibilit y........................................................93.
CHAPTER V. ITfE INVALIDITY OF THE LEGALGROUNDS INVOKED
BY HUNGARY FORITS SUSPENSIONANDABANDONMENT
OFWORKSAND PURPORTED TERMIHATION OF TETE
mAw ....................................................... ***.*.*..*101.
SECTION 1. Introduction.. ................................................-..........--.-101
SECTION 2.
TheAllegedJustifications ................................,................IO4
B. The PJlegedFundamenta l hanges inCircumstances ...... .........--.1 IO
C. TheAilegedViolations by Czechoslovakio afthe1977
Treaty and itsRelat ed Agreemen S.............................. ........113
Variant "C" DoesNotBreach the 1977 Treaty,butImplements
it inPart ...............-.-.-,............. ....... .. . .. . . 1 14
CzechoslovakiD aid Not Breach hy Provision ofthe 1977
Treaty or itsRelatedAgreements .........-...-........................1 16
SECTION 3. TheRelevance of Article27of the Treaty ..................................17.....
CHAPTERVI. THE LEGALPRINCIPLESSUPPORTINGTHEPROCEEDING
WITH ANDPUmG INTUOPERATTON OF ,
VARIANT "C" BYCZECHOSLOVAKIA. ...,.........-.--.......---..12 1
SECTION 1, Underthe 1977 Treaty .................,...................................121
A. ApproximatA epplicatio ..................................................2........
..
B. The Duty to Mitigate. ................ ................ ..... ..... ....133.
SECTION 2. Conformitywith Of her Relevant LegalRuIes .................. .......,.137
A. SpecificTreaties.. .............................,..,....,........,....,....137
B. Customary Law.. .........................................................142
THEEVENTSAND CONDUCT OF THEPARTIES =
AND THE APPLICABLELAW - RELEVANT TU
ANSWERING TEE QUESTIONS PUTTO THE COURT
UNDERARTICLES2(l)(a), 2(1)( b )d 2(l)(c) OFTHE
SPECIAL AGREEMENT .............................................................. CHAPTERW. AR~CLE 2(11(a):WEETHERHUNGARYWAS ENTITLED
TU SUSPENDANDSUBSEQUEN~~YABANDON, IN 1989,
THE WORKS ON THE NAGYMARQSSECIION OF THE G/N
PROJECT ...................................................
....................
SECTION 1. Introduction........:..............:.............................2.5.........
SECTIO N. TheDispritedInterprefafion ofthe EvenfsPrecedingthe
Suspension ofNagvrnaros ........................................157............................
I
A. Project fimation: The 1485EIA..!............................-.58........
B. ProjectAffirmationT:heHunganan ~ariiamentar ~mlution of
7 October1988 ...............................................1.2.
...............
I
SECTION 3. Hungary'sSuspension af Nagymriros on 13May 1989 ................6.....
I
SECTIO N. Eungary'sAbandonment of ~a~~rnarhs on27 Ociober 1989.........169...
1
SECTION 5. Contlusionain the Light oftheApplicable Law......................178.....
1
A. Hofthey1977Treaty.............................................9...........
Agreementor Acquiescence : ota Defence........................80......
I
AilegedPriorBreach by~zechoslova'kiaN:otaDefence .............81...
1
"EcoIogica ltatof Necessity":Not ApplicablenFact or
inLaw. ..................................................
.-1.2................
l
GeneralPrincipleofEnvironmenta law: IfApplicable,
Hungary'sViolation...........................................1.5....
...........
I
B. Hungaiy'oAbandonmentofWorks atkgymarus Constituted
a Breachofthe 1977 Treaty......................................8...............
1
Agreement orAcquiescence:No ~efdnce..........................7........
AllegedPriorBreachbyCzechoslovaka: No Defcnce ..............187....
"EcoIogicaIStatofNecessitytt:Not ApplicablinFact
orinLaw ...................,. ....I.........................1.%..............
I
GeneralPrincipleof Enviionmentaldm: IfApplicabie,
Hungary'sViolations.................................................
......................
1
I l
I CHAPTERVIII. ARTiCLE 2(1)(a)WHETEERHUNG~RY WAS ENTITLED,
I IN 1989,TO SUSPEND AND SUBSEQUENTLYABANDON
THE WORKS ON THEPART OF THE GAB~IKOVU
SECTION OF THE PRUJECT FOR W~ICH THE TREATY
1 ATTRTBUTED RESPONSIBILJT TYU1HUNGARY ...................1.I.
! SECTIO N. Hungary's SuspensionofWorkon 20J?I~ 1989.......................2.......
SECTIO 2. I
Sectionof the Project.............................................0..
................ SECTIO N. Condusions in the Lightofthe AppIicabIe Law ......................202...........
A. Hungary'sSuspensionofGabCikovo Constituteda
Breach of the1977 Treaty .........................................0...........
AllegedPior Breach byCzechoslovakia:Not aDefence ..............04.
orinlLawca.....................................................
.2.4...............
GeneraIPrincipIesof Envirumental Law%Applicable,
Hungary'V s iolation............................................-2.7...
..........
B. Hungar)tf Asbandonmen t fWorks atGabEikovo
Constituted aBreach of the1977 Treaty ............................20.......
AiIegedPrior Breach byCzechosIovakiaN :ot aDefence ............-209....
"EcologicalState of Necessity"Not ApplicableinFact
or inLaw ....................................................
...O...............
GeneraP l rinciplesof EnvironmentalLaw:If Applicable,
Hungary'V s iolation.............................................21.....
........
CEiAPTER US. ARTICLE2(1#b):WRETHERCZECHOSLOVAKIAWAS
ENTITLED TU PROCEED, IN NOVEMBFR 1991,
TU THE "PROVISIONALSOLUTION" AND TU PUT
INTO OPERATION FROMOCTUBER 1992 Tm§ SYSTEM .......213.
SECTION 1. Infroduetion.....................................................
..13...............
SECTIO N. The 1991 Negotiations: Hungary'sPersistencein Pursuingits
Sole Aimof Terminatingthe Treaty and Formalisingthe
Abandonmentof the Project;Its Unwillingness to Compromise;and
Czechoslovakia's Attempts to Table Alternative Provisional
SolutionsforNegotiation..............................................1.............
SECTION 3. CzechoslovakiaProceedswith the ProvisionalSolutionin
November 1 991......................................................22.................
A. CantinuedCzechoslovak Attempts tuReach aCompromise
Agreement ....................................................
-..2................
B. The Conditionsof EC Involvement.................................2.7..........
SECTIO N. Hungary's PiirportedTermination of the 1977Treafy ...................1...
SECTION 5. The Purpaseof the FiIing of Hungary'sAppiitafion to
the Court....................................................
.......3.............
SECTION 6. CzechoslovakiaProceedsto Put Into Operationthe "Provisional
Solution''(24-27 October1992)........................................3.4...............2
SECTIO N. Conclusions in the Lightof theApplicable Law ......................235........... ..vi- l
I
A. CzechoslovakiaE 'sntitlementtu Proceedwiththe
"ProvisionaSolutionirNovernber 1991...........................................
TheLegaI B& forProceeding witdthe "ProvisionSiolution.....-236
I
Proceedi wnghthe"Provisional of ut InNooW "ay
ForectosedtheJointResrirnptionoffheGabEikovoSectio...........39
1
B. Czechodovakia' sntitlementoPut1ntoOperation the
"ProvisionalolutionfiornOctober 1992...........................................
The Effecof Hungaiy'sPurported enn ni n oathon
1977 Treaty..................................................4...................
Hungary' snabiliinLaw toClaim ,ven inError,that
WasItçelfaBreachsofthet1977Treaty................................................
I
ProcecdingwithandPunirigInto 0~1rationthe "Provisional
SoIt~tionDidNut VioIateAny OtherProvisionof
InternationaILaw............................................244..
.....................
I
CHAPTER X. ARTICLE2jl)tc): THELEGALEFFCTS
OFTHENOTIFlCATION ON 13MAW 1992 OFTBE
TERMINATIONOF THE TmATY &Y HUNGARY ..........................
I
SECTION 1. Introduction...................................................24..................
I
SECTION 2. The IrregularityandNullityof~un~ab'l Notificationof
19May 1992........................I.........................
.4....................
SECTION 3. The BypotheticalEffecfsof the Notification19 May 1992..........52..
I
A. The 19 MayNotificationCouIdNot, fnAny Event,HavePut
an Endtu theTreaty.,.......................................................................
I
B. The "Temiination"Could, iAny ~vdnt,HaveHad
No RetroactiveEEect..........................................255..........................
CRAPTERXI. MTRODUCTORYCOMMENTS ON ~UNGARY~ s
ANALYSISOF THE SCIENT~C FA~TS, RELEVANT
OR OTHERWISE TO TRIS DISPUTE; ...........................2.3...........
SECTIO N. The Message UnderlyingHungary'sFo!uron "Uncertainty" ........2.4.
I
SECT~N 2. Hitngaq's Attempts toPortray theGA Pruject inthe
Most UnfavourabIeLight ........................................2.6...................
I
SECTION 3. The Rtlevanccof Variant "C" in ~ermdof Recarding
EnvironmentalImpact ..............................................
..................
I
SECTIO N. OtherScicntifisEvaence Relied on by Slovakii..................................CHAPTERXII . ALLEGEDPROJECTIMPACTSRELEVANT TO
BUNGARYS LEGAL ARGUMENTS .................................9.......
SECTIO N. Water Resources .....................................................7...........
A. TheBank FilteredWater SuppliesDomstream ofthe
NagyrnarosSection ..............................................-.80
...............
B. The Water Resources of theZitn);OstrovlSzigetkozAquifer ..........82.
TheReservoi r...................................................2.3...............
TheOIdDanube ...................................................87.
...........
TheSide hm Systern............................................-29......
.......
SECTION 2. SoiIs.Floraand Fauna ...............................................295....
.................
Soil......................................................
......9...............
FIoraandFauna .................................................3..
...............
Fish(Ichthyofauna .)..............................................0...
...........
SECTIO N. Seismology and Earthquake Engineering ............................-3........
A. Priar Study;UpdatedStandards andthe Extensive
Experience ofCzechodovakia (and Slovakia)inthe
Constmctionof PowerProjects ..........................................................
B. TheFlawsinHungary's 1994 "ScientificEvaluation"
ofEarthquak e is.................................................14.
............
The Komarno Earthquak ef 1763:TheNewAuthoritative
ReassessmentIgnored byHungaq .....................................................
Hungary'sGreatIyExaggerated CalcuIationof theKey
Factorof Acceleration.............................................1......
........
C. UnknownFaultLineNeareriscotorGabEikovo ...........................1.......
D. The SupposedGabEikuvo FauItLine ................................1............
E. Hungary'sRefusal tuAcknowIedge theEvidenceof
Important Safey Measures Taken ....................................9..........
F. ConclusionsT: heG/NProject1s Locatedin aRegionThat
IsNeitherSeismicall y ctiveNorAtHigh RiskofDamage
FromEarthquake .................................................1..
.............
CBAPTERXIII . PROJECT~PACTSNUTRELEVANTTOHUNGARY'S
LEGALARGUMENTS ..........................................2..................
SECTION 1. AllegedlyAdverseImpacts toAgricultureand Forestry ...............323...... SECTION 2. Hungary's ArgumentsBased On ~ivekbed Morphology ................1.
I
SECTION 3. TheAIlegedlyUnnecessaryBencfits:Energy,Navigation
and FfoodContra1 ...............................................33..
..............
A. Energy....................................................
...................
B. Navigation....................................................341...................
The Ageed Needfor Additiona l1u8d Control....................3........
I
Hungary'FsaIseAccusation that~ari'ant"CuHas
CausedFlood Risk Problems .....................................5..............
I
PART IV
I
CHAPTERXIV. THE REMEDLAL POSITION ..............................................................
! SECTION 1. JudiciaIRemedies ...................................................
.................
1
SECTION 2. ResponsibilityforUnlswfulConduet .!............................,..6.........
SECTION 3. Remediesin Relation tothe ~x~~oitatidnof Shared
NaturalResources ................................................3........................
I
SECTION 4. The Quantificationof tosses..........................................7.............
l
SUBMISSIONS ..................................................
.......................
VOLUME n REBUTTAL OF VOMUME t OF TEE HUNGARIAN COUNTER-
MEMURIAL
ANNEXES 1-12
VOLUME m DATA AND MONITORINGREPORTS (1995) ILLUSTRATIONSLIST
IllusNo.
IllusNo.R-1 GabZikovHo ydroelectric Mer
PowerPlantandLocks - Chap.1
Photograph(May 1995);
PortrayalfNagymaros
HydroeIectricPowerPlanand
LocksundertheOriginal roject
<1988officia1Hungarianbrochure)
IlluNO. R-2 SlovakSidehs Mer
Photographs-May 1395) Chap.I
Illus.NoR-3 G/NProject Befure
Chap.VI1
Illus.NoR-4 G/NProject: Before
ActiveAlluvil loodpIain, Chap.XI
NorthernBankFiltered
I WellFieldsSupplingBudapest
IlluNo, R-5 GroundWaterObservationWells Para.11.20
in SIovakia
IIIus.No. R-6 Cornparisonof DanubeWaterQuaIity Para.12-18
(OxygenContentand Demand)befureand
&er Darnming
Illus.NoR-7 BiotopeMonitoringAreas; Para.12.30-
A,B,C+D ForestMonitorinAreas; Para.12.34
Soi1MoistureMonitorinAreas;
UnsaturateZoneMonitoring Areas
Illus.No. R-8 AquaticBirdsSightedin Para.12.44
I kB,C+D GabCikovoSectionofG/NProjectduring
March -August 1494andMarch 1995;
BlueHeron;WhiteEgret;PurpleEgret;
Osprey;WhiteSwan; Cornorant
IIIuNo. R-9 ThousandsofYoung FishGatheredforFeeding Para.12.45
inthe AreaBehindanUnderwaterGroyneinthe
OldDanube(rkm 1847). photo: April1995)
IlluNo.R-10 Hypothetical arthquakSourceZones Para.12.72
ProposedinHungary'"sScientifEvaluation"JlluNo. R-11 DistanceBetweenGround Water Para.13.05
LevelinSubsoilandSurface
IBus .o.R-12 InundatioLeveIFrequenq Para.13.15
I
IIIuNo. R-13 DredgingVolumes :km 18501700 Para.13.22
I
IIIus.No. R-14 EiirupeanRiverNavigationNetwork Para.13.36
(UN PublicatioN, ov1994) CHAPTER 1.
1.O1 This Reply issubmittedin confumity with the Court's Orderof20
December1994andrespondsto the Counter-Mernorioal Hungaryof 5December1994. Itis
appropriateto begin this Reply byinformingthe Court of two developments thathave
importanceforthiscase.
I.O2 Thefirstisthaton 17Match 1995,Hungary demolishedthemEer dam,
thatisthetemporaryp, rotectingwallsurroundinheconstructionsitatNagymaros.Thesite
isnowinundated bythe watersoftheDanube.
r.03 The second is thaton 19 ApriI1995, thetwo Partiesconcluded an
Agreement concerningcertaintemporarytechnicaimeasureand dischargesintheDanube and
Mosoni branchofthe ~anube'. Under this Agreement,Slovakiawill increasetdischargt
intothe Mosoni branchof theDanube to43 m3/s(subjectto the hydrologicaandtechnical
conditions iAnnex I tu thAgreement). And the dischargintuthe main riverhedwill be
increasedtoan annualaverageof400 rn3isinaccordancewith mlesfinAnnex 2thereto).
1.04 Further,Hungarywill construct an underwaterweir at rkrn 1843
l
(cunstmction tu be completedi50 days). Monitoringof the effects of these improvements
wiilbe subjectujoint assessment,andanydisputesoverperformancewillbe resolvedthrough
thegoodofficesof theexpertsofthe CommissionoftheEuropean Union.
1 1.05 TheAgreementis of a temporarycharacterpendingthejudgmentofthe
Court, and iswithuut prejrrdictu the Parties1kgai positions. It entered into foone
signature. A Declarationby Hurigarof 19 April1995, and a Note VerbaIe inrepIyhm
Slovakiadated 3 May 1995, make itcIearthatthe Partiesare not agreed on whetherthjs
Agreement fulftihesobligationsofthePartiesunderArtic4eof theSpeciaAgreementunder
I
AgreementbetweentheGovernmentf thRepubiicof Hungaryandthe GovernnoftheSIovak
RepublicconcerniCertaiTcmporaryTechnicdMeasureandDischargeintheDanubeand the
MosonBi rancof thDanube.Annex1. I
whichthe presen dtisputis beforethe ~oürt~. For thereasonsexplainedinitsNote. Slovrtiùa
1
takesthe view thattheAgreement of 19 April1995 isahagreement for atemporarywater
I
management regime (-1, and accordinglydocs qlfil thecornmitmentin Article4;
Slovakiaregards the subjectmatta of the -19April 1995 Agreement as identical with the
I
subject-matterofthe'I"WMRcoiitemplated inArticl4.
I
1.O6 It isnecessa reyagain, turestatewbat thiscaseiiabout and whatthe
essentialissuesin disputeare3. Thisnecessistems fi-omLe fact thstin its wnnenpleadigs
I
ta date, Hungary has attempted to transform the case into a debate over ecological or
l
environmentailssues,and to obscure therealissues,whicharethoseput to the Coun in the
SpecialAgreement.
I
1.O7 The essentialissuesinthis case'aIdtpend upon the 1477 Treaty,freeiy
1
concluded betweenHungaryandCrechoslovakia.Thisis ieflectedinArticle2 of the Special
Agreement, whichgivesprimacy to theTreat nrequiring IheCOUR todecide "onthebasisof
I
theTreatyand niles andprincipleof generalinternationlaw ...".And on that basisthe core
I
issues requiringdecisionare: (i) whether Hungarywas enIitleto suspendand subsequently
abandon theworiq and (ii) whether, in the faceof ~un~kry*s conducg Czechoslovakia was
entitledto proceedwiththe "provisionas lolution"(VariAt "C"). Al1the other issues are
I
subordinateto,or consequentialupon, thosetwo coreissues. Hungarc yannot,and doesnot,
evade the factthat itcondüct was primafacie inbreach of the 1977 Treaty. Asthe SpeciaI
Agreernenf rnakesclear, the cnrciaI question is whether Hungaxy'ssuspensio annd Iater
abandonmentofworks,followed byunilateranotificatioO!!terminatioof theTreaty -patent
breachesprimafacie - couldbe justifieinlaw. Theevidenceinthiscasehas to be relatedto
thatprecisequestion,and nottreated aspart ofa generald'bat, overthe environment.Thus,
I
the caseis fundarnentallaycaseabout the 1977 TreatyIinterpretedand appIiein accordance
withthe lawof treaties.
f I
BotItheNoleVerbaleandtheD6cIarafifoimpartofAnnexI.
3 I
A fuIIersurnmaqofSIovakicaseisgivtninSlovakiasounter-Mernorip, ras.1.03-1.22. 1.OS Hungary would havethe Court believe otherwise T.he 1977Treaty
becomes entirelyperipheran Hungary's pleadings- whether because itwas terminat byd
Hungary4,or because it confersno rights on Slovakia(as opposed to the now defunci
Czechoslovakia)5,or becausecontemporary principlesof "environmenta llw"predominate
over thecIearTreatyprovisions6.Conssquentlyf,orHungaryt ,heissuesinthiscase aise, not
under the Iawoftreaties, bun& the gened lawof State responsibilio,rmoreaccurateiy,
Hungary'sversionofthatIaw,thus affordingacompIete defenceto Hungary byvirtueof aplea
of "ecologicalnecessityor if thafailsHungarymay be liableindamages,but cari have no
obligatioto pcrformthe Treaty.
1.09 In realitthisnovelpleaaccordswithneither the lawnorthefacts. The
law knowsnosuch plea and,in fact, suchenvironmentaolr ecologicalproblemsas Hungary
nuw envisag eere essentiaIIyforeseenandstudiedpriortothe 1977 Treaty. Certainly,the
Treaty partiesin 1977 did riot assume they had identifieciand solved each and eveq
environmentalproblem. They recognisedthat in securingmajor benefitsin terms offlood
protection,navigationalimprovementa , nd clean energyproduction,thwe would be some
drawbacks. Virtuallyno majordevelopmentscheme is without some disadvantage. For
example,Czechoslovakia had to acceptthat thereservoirupstreamof GabEikovo couldonly
be builtifCzechoslovakiasacrificeda large areaof itsterritorfor this purpose. Parties
invariablacceptsomedrawbacka ssthepriceof other,substantilenefits.
1.10 But the Treaty partieswere satisfiein 1977,afterlong and intensive
study, thatherewere nomajorenvironmentalhazardsthat mightcaIithe whoIeProject ifitu
question;andthey were çatisfiedthat sucenvironrne dnrtaIbackas might emergeduring
constructionandoperationcouldbeminimised byappropriatreemedialmeasures. Hungaryre-
aftirmedtheProjectafierits EIA in 1985, againin itParliamentaryResolution of October
1988, and again inFebmary 1989 by signatureof the Protocol acceleratinpProject
performance (at itsownrequest).
.i
HungarianMemoriaC,haptc9;HungariariCounter-Merno,aras.5.23-5.48.
G
-bid.paras.7.44-7.87; HungariCounter-Mernorial,ara4.10-4.38.In fact, the roof
"environmentaw"islargeitostretheimportancofsuchagreements,ottooverrithem. Sec.
ChapteIIIbelow. 1.11 Thus, Czechuslovakia(and now Slovakia)have never accepted that
Hungary'spIeaof ecoIogicaInecessityhadanyred foundationin fact. Nofhinghas changed
theiroriginaiviewthat Hungary'sinitialsuspension,and Iaterabandono,fwork usnderthe
Treat yas motivatedforeconomic and politicalreason shichthe law didnot permit and
whichCzechoslovakia couldnot acoeptbecause of the9'nonnous damage such scceptance
wouldcauseto the Czechosto vaople.Itis oneofthe oniesofthe casethat,inessentiais,
r
thepiesentposition-Le.,thereservoirhe bypapscanal,dabfikovo,but npNagymaros -was
I
proposed by Hungar)litseIin October 1989'. The envirumentai risks,suck as theyare,
wouIdhavebeea essentiaIIythesame under that Hungarianproposalas they now are.ïhese
I
risksarevastlinfiatedinHungary'spIeadingand scientificaynproyen. As suggestedinthe
I
section that foIlows, they based uponspeculation rater than hardevidence. No State
could be expectedto abandon years of work, and investmentsof hundredsof millionsof
dollars,onsucha basis.
SEC~ION~. Brief Analvsis of the "~cientificCase" Now Presented in the
Hun~arianCounter-Memoriaf
1.2 One of the striking features of the original HungarianMernorial was
that, although the Hungariacaserested essentialon a!pleaof "ecoiogicalnecessity", the
scienùfc evidenîe forsuch a plea wu not presented id that Mernorial. Part of that
Mernorialgave only a "provisional"'ccountof theriskrandadmittedthe task of proving
thom riskto be "adiEcult task,withmany uncertaintied"'Belatedly,Hungary'sCounter-
Memorialnow attempts to providethe evidenceor proofwhich, properlyspeaking,should
havebeencontained in the Decfaratioof 16 May 1992 andin its Mernorial.Infact,No-
I
thirds othe Counter-Mernorialia demonstratian ofHungaryts"scientifcase"*'a case on
7 Cenainitherearsame differences.UndVarian"C"th1reseivoirsmaileandtheDan& is
darnrn edCunovorathcthanatDunakilitiInfactheyresenflowinto thold Danubebedis
greatunderVarian"CMthanunderthe1977TreatyschemeIdadditionasparofits propoinl
October1989, Hungary envisagean agreementon 1environmentaiguaranteeand thir
Cz¢choslovakaaspreparetaccept&, para8.13.1se1.below.
8
HungariaMernorial,pa5.08.
9
m., para5.04.
10 I
-e.HurigariCiounter-MemoiaChapterIand3;Vol.2,IpassiandVolume4 (Fartsand2).whichHungary did not and could not relyat thetime of termination,sinceit depend osn
evidencedatingfiom 1994.
1.13 Yet asa demonstrationitfails,andit doesso principaIIybecause it is
purelyhypothetical.This isbecausethescientificpapersutiliseby Hungarytakehypotheses
basedonthe"OriginaP lroject"andportraysrisksofdamage whichmi& occuron thebasisof
such speculation. Theydonot provethat the hypothesisisvalidfor this Project, whichwas
mueh modified asmpared with the "Original~roject"" .and they do nut prove thatany
actualdamage -or evenrealrisk- hasinfactmaterialised.Itis quiteremarkablethatnot one
ofthepaperssupporting Hungary's "ScientifiCase" is ableto demonstratthe realityof either
riskordamage by referencto actuai,ernpiriclataproducedby scientificinvestigationofthis
actualProject. For Hungaq there alwaysremains"agreatdeaIof uncertainty over the extent
tawhichtheenvironment willbe affectedintheshortandlong ternibytheProject..."12
1-14 The reasonswhy Huugary haschosen ta baseitsscielitifassessrnenotn
"predictions"rathefhan actualscientifrtesting or mmurements are for Hungay toexplain.
Clearly,ihasbeen possiblefor theIastthreyearsfor actualmeasnrements tobe takenso that
scientificconclusioncouldreston hardevidencerather thanpure"prediction"13 It. is onsuch
real datathat VolumeIII hereto, whichevaluatesthe actual environmentalimpactof the
GabCikavo sectionthrorrghVariant"C",is based.
1 Nevertheless,the "ScientificEvaluationof the GabEikovo-Nagymaros
BarrageSystemandVariant C",offeredas Volume 2 of Hungary's Counter-Mernoria and
cIearIydesignecitu providethe scientificbasisfor Hungary'spleaof "ccologicainecessity",
aboundw sith predictionrather than proof, with guesswork ratherthan certainy. As its
introductionstresses, the studyis designedto assess not acmal but simpIy"potential"
consequencesorimpacts,and the uncertaintisexplainedaway,disarminglyi,ntheseterms:
II
Astathe ProjectmodificationsandHungaUSCofthewncepf ofthe"OriginaP'rojec,, para
I1.IObelow.
12
HungariaCounter-Mernori a,l.2, p.3.
13
Slovaki fr,its parhasattempteto providethe Courtwith haevidencederivaifromactual
empiricatudies. AsidefroVolume IIIheretoseeforexample,"Impacof Waterwarkosn Soi1
and AgricuIturS,lovaCkhunter-Memarial,nnex23 -an aclrrsmdyof mils atfitnjOstrov
between1990-199(tvith reswhichmust I>cdIy appIiabItotheHungarianSzigetkoz).Ah
"GaMikovo-WWF theProarr dons"byProfessor ucham., Annex 24,utiIisingdfrom 1993. "Theabundance ofissues and data on theone han! and thelackof knowledgc
andinformation in certaifieldson theotherleaves a great deaIof uncertainty
overtheextentto which the environmenw t iIIbeaffectedinthe shortandlong
ternibythe Project, and whether or not these 'changes can bt cansidered
acceptable1'."
Thus, togive buta fewexamples" , scourinand sedimentaccumulatio nouldbe expected to a
I
certainextent,probably affectingbank filteredwaterwe~k .."15. "Groundwateq ruality...is
expectedto decay ...[but] predictimare highlyuncertain!.."."As to theimpact ofdamming
I
on surfacewaterquality:
"Most of theseimpacts seem toleadto negative cimges, althoughtheirorder
of magnitudesarehard to quanti@(giventhe preslenlevelof knowledgeand
otudiesperfomed). Therecanalso be positivwadrquality changer ...."
The nncertaintyis portrayedas inherentin the very subjecttter for "theevaluationofthese
systernsis highicornplex,and even with a currentstateoftheartcapability ..a high levelof
prediction uncertain tyinevitabIe." But,as PartIIIofthisRepIyshows,this "uncertainty "s
I
greatlyexaggeratedby Hungary. For in relation tu rnattersiike water quality,oreffecîson
!doraand fauna,once a detailedmonitoring system is in place,impactswillbe detectedasand
whenthey occur. And, if nominutechangesaredetected,thecatastrophicconsequenceswill
simply notoccurin the future. Thekind of"uncertainty"evoked byHungary does notexist.
1-16 Mureuver, whilstsuchuncertainty isaIIegedto be inherentin the whoIe
Treaty Pruject(which was neverfuIIycornpleted), it seerns beequaIIypresentinits partid
implementationin Variant"Cmw , hichhas beenbuiltand operationa lorthreeyears. Nor is
18
-id,p. 87. And. inrelatioIOpossiblechgginof tbelboefthe DoM*ilitiR~auoir"..the
physicaieffecofconsoIidaîiand ~Ioggingandchenfi degradaiio..canonlybe prsdicte...
processesof sedimentransporarecornplex,andpredictifiareinevitablyuncertain"@.115).
Hungqtr refusaltoparticipainthePhare projectcouio!lyaddto thisuncertaint:ec,Slovak
Mernorial,para4.63-4.68Sec .h. para11.03, g.,below.Hungaryany moreconfidentabout the predictionsconcerningits own water supply to
Budapest hm bank-fiIteredelIs:
"Tt istherefore evident that, althoiighuncertain,predictions indicatea
potentiallS~~OUSthreattotheBudapestwatersupp1y ..j9."
InvirtndlyeveryareauncertaintypersistsThe chemicalandstructurac lhangestosoilscannot
be dernonstratedbutody "expectePzo. In relationtuthe productionofwheat "it ievident
thata simpleinterpretatiunofobsewed dataisnot possible"2'The assessrnenofthe ri& of
earthquakesissubjecttothe qualificatio:A fulstudy of riswouldnomally berequired ....
Such a studywould be extremelycomplex andisbeyondthe scopeof this repor?." And,
again,"thereishowever,IittIedatatosensiblyassessmaximumcredibIeeventsonthe bais of
otherthan aprobabiIisticapproachnZ3.
1.17 The Hungarianemphasison "risk" isno doubt due to the fact that
Hungarycanprove no actuaI damage. Arsattempt tuprovedamagecan be assessedbyany
Court on thebasisof hardevidence-orIack ofit. Onceinthe reaImof"riski', urigarydearly
hopes topersuadethe Court thatreasonableconjecturewillsuffice. As willbe demonstrated
laterthe lawdoesnotallowthe non-perfomance ofa treatyon the basiof "predictions"r
"hunches".
1.18 Perhapsthe most stnking featureof aIIisthe failureby Hungq to
utilisetheevidencewhichis availablof theeffectsof Variant"C" on matterssuchas water
qualityandgroundwaterlevels. That,at least,wouldhave removed some oftheuncertainty.
1.19 It is communground that the efFectsofVariant"Cu are not rnarkediy
19
HungariaCounter-MernoriVol.2, p.117.
10
-bid.,p. 176.
Z3 -bid p. 207.dissimilartu the eRectsof the GabEikovosectionofthe originalGfN Projectt4.Given that
l
Variant "CMis approxirnateerformancet,he cornparabili&betweenits effectsandthe eEects
anticipatedunder theTreaty Projectis not surprisingI~deed, Variant"C" ispofirayedby
Hungaryas lessenvironmentaId Iamagingin several.spects2'.But why,itrnay be-asked,are
I
data on waterqualityand supplynow usedby Hungalysdnfined to the Hunganan sideof the
1
oldDanube, andtheevidenceordata oftheimpact ofvadaIt "CM on theSlovakside ignored?
Chapter3 oftheHungarian ScientificStudy,entitled"~urfbeandGroundwater" , essmtiaily
confined tothe Szigefküz and adjacentareasonthe Hungarian$de2&.The CoIour Platesn
I
show the hypotheticaldifferencingruundwater levels,bIforeandafterthe implernentationof
Variant"C" ontheHunnarian sidem.
1.20 The answer liu inthe factthai,oh the Hungarianride, the remedial
I
measures planned for the Project,and even the remedh Iasures recommuided by EC
Experts -the irnpkmentationofa rechargesystemandthe construction of underwater weirs-
havebeentotallyneglected(until the Agreementof 19 April1995). The underwater weirs
recommended by the EC Expertswouldrequirethe cooderation ofboth Parties. since dtey
I
wouId straddIethe bounda~ in the rniddleof the riverbIdof theoid Danube. On its part,
Slovakiahasundertakenmeasuresthat have dramaticallidprwed the sideamis ontheSlovak
side,whichhaddeterioratedover manyyearsprior to thé TreatyProject. Theserneasures
I
involve puttinginto operationan intakecanalat ~obrohb~f(takingwater from the bypass
canal) and the constmction of hydraulicstructuresinthe sidearms. It isthis diference,
I
between adively takingmasures to irnprovetheside ami) andwater Iwels, as Slovakiahas
1
done, and doing virtuallynothing,as Hungaryhas chosen to do, which explains the stark
contrastbetween conditionson the two sides. Thus, th4 Hungarianpolicy has been quite
24
-iid.,5:"Aimostthesameeff~ts cak expectewith thlperarionoVanantC." And:"Tfiereis
notmuchdifferenceinhydro-morpholo imgicatletweentheOriginalProjdesignandVariant
Cl(p.30).
"
& m., p. 74"...fmrnthe viewpint oeutrophicalid, VariCnshouldix considerd less
unfavorrtabkthan VariantA."AIso atp.75: "~acten'o~o~iqudity for1993 suggestan
improvement." ah, m., p.45.
26 1
-bid..pp.301.Hungaryhaddl thedatagiveiotheECExperts.
27
-bidVol.5,Plate3.13and3.14.
28 TheEC WorkingExpertsin theirreportof 2 Novcmber1993 [SIovakMernorid,Annexhadno
diEcrrIty inevalrrafinghth sides. deliberatelto perpetuatethe evidence of damage. It is the more remarkable that those
I
responsiblfor the "ScientificEvaluation"whîchfurmsthe cure ofthe HungarianCounter-
MernoriaslhouldhavefeItable tocontributetufhiapreçentationofa half-tmth.
1.21 Thisexplainswhy the Hungarian "ScientifiEvaluation"isai suchpains
tuinsisthat undenvaterweirs do not works . Yet thisconclusionis reachedon thebasisof
"experÎencesfrornthe upperRhine at the barrage ofRhinau", atthough infact, the Rhine
barragesarequitedifierentfur theyare surf2tce eirsnut underwatwweirsand deai with a
quitedifferenflowrate(15 m3/sinsteadof 200 m3/sor more). Theimpression Hungaryseeks
to create isthat underwater weirs are an irrelevant,unsounddistractionintroducedby
SIovakia. But infactthe PIenipentiarieofthe two Parties,meetinginBratisIavon8-9June
1989,agreedtu buildthesestructureson the bed ofthe oIdDanubeaccordingtu a Hungarian
designM. Andthe EC Experts,in approving theirconstructionhad no doubt thattheywould
bebeneficialThe Hungarian thesisisinanyeventnowdiscredited by Hungary' swn conduct.
Pursuantto the Agreement with SIovakiaof 19 April1995 , ungary isnow constmcting an
underwaterweir atrkm 1843.
f-22 Tndeedthis refusaltolook at the factsof the actual situationtypifies
what canonly be describedas a "perversity"ofapproachin the Hungarian "Scientific
Evaluation". It not simplytherectimrnendationsofthe EC Experts on rechargesysternsand
underwater weirs thatarerejected as counterproductive. We Iearnthat, as far asflood
protectionisconcerned, "therewas andis no needfor the GM ProjectW3'. Thisis entirely
contrary fo the experienceand considered decision ofboth Governmentsin agreeingthe
Project in1977. It is entirecontrarytu the conclusionsof the HQI report insofaras that
reportnotes themarked improvement ascompared with theposition in196S2. But, most
importantlyt,he Partieshavenotaskedthe Courtinthe SpecialAgreementto decidewhether
'9
-ee,HurigôriâCornter-MemoriaWI, .2, pp.35-37sec .m, m., pp.153-154. But,seeIhe
admissionthaunderwaterweirs raisewaterlevel(ibidVol. 1,para.3.27) anthatthey&
prevenriverbedegradatioW., Vol.2, p.5).
30
SlovakMernoriai,Anne58.
31
HrrngariaCounter-MenioriVoI.2,p.5.
JI
SlovakMernorial,nnex28(alp.77).thefloodcontroIschemecontemplatedby the Treatypartièswas good or bd. Thewhole he
I
of argument isessentiallyirrelevant.
1.23 The very temporvy darnage tu fi? fisheryin the main chmeIU -
I
anticipateclbyboth Treaty Parties - ispresentedwithout even a hintthat, possibty,the
1
Governmentw s ere preparedtofacethis temporaq loss ilreturnfor themajorbenefits from
long term irnprovements to fisheries,hm power droduction, flood protection and
improvements tu navigation.Thevalue of frshallegedlIostduetu Vanant "C" isinthe order
I
of $65-93,00 f0r1992-9334. The production ofdectricitjatGaEikovo in1992-93 of 1900
1
GWbhas a value of3,410 millionSK -or approximatel y113 millionU.S. dollars. Evenfor
purposes of improvingnavigation,thebarragesystemandthe navigationcanal are saidtobe
quiteunnecessary apparently"traditionalrivertrainingmehtods"would have sus~ed~~. This
I
is directIy contrarto experience(and, again,stictly iIelevanttu Hungaryk case). The
DanubeCommissionhadcharacterised the~ratislava-~uddles stretchas the worstdong the
wholecourseof theDanube,with fulnavigationpossible$ Bratislavfor aboutone-sixth of
the yeaP. Itiscornments such asthese Hunganancodrnents, bordering on the quixotic,
I
whichput into questionthe wholevalueof this "ScientifrIE~aIuation"~'.
1.24 The other remarkablf eeatureof ~ud~ar~' sScientifiEvaluation"is its
I
insistenceon theneedfor an EnvironmentaIlmpact~ssebsment(EIA). Chapter 7 thereof
I
illustrates the developmenof the concept of an EIA, bhI as its Table7.1(at page 239)
illustrates,thpenod 1970-1975 showedthe introductionof theconcept in the USA, with
1
systematicproceduresbeing introduced in Canadaonly in 1984. The first EC Directive
I
requiringits usinthe EuropeanCornrnunit yame in 1985,'andtheWorldBankintroduced an
Operational Directive onIin1989. On these factsalone the lackofjustificationfor accusing
I
33
HungarianCounter-Mernoriaol.2, Chapt5.4.
34
SuçhlosscsarstmnglyconlesteSq, para.12.46, -g.,blelowandVol. 11,Cornmeiopp.191-
194ofHungary'"sScientiEvaiuation".
35
HungarianCotrnter-Memori, ol.2,40.
36 1
&, SIovakMemonal,para.I.4eta., and para6.145, a.
37 I
Thiswepticirrnis reinforby theseernininelevancof/muchof the material. Forexample,
biodiversiisillustrabyreferenctotheAinRiver(France)thMissouriandMississippRivers
(U.S.A,andthe Volgamwsia).Are thesreIevan"modelsforthestretchtheDanuk? Thisisa
questionneirherposnoranswerui.theParties tothe GM Projectof not havingundertaken an EIAprior to 1977 is self-evident.
As explainedin Slovakia'sMernoriaPandCounter-Mernoria1t3 h', pre-197 studieswere
thoroügh and extensive. The importantissueis whetherthe stridieswhich couIdreasonably be
expected priorto 1977 weredone, notwhattheywerecaIIed.
I.25 Hiingaryessentiallyarguesthat the legal requirement ofan EIA was
mandatoryin 1989, with the result thainthe absence of anEIA eitherTreaty Party could
terminate the 1977 Treaty. It isa novel argumenf, not to be found in Hungary's 1992
Declaration. The purpose of Hungary'snew emphasisappearsto be threefold:first. and
foremost, itmarks a shiftinHungary's formerargumentcontainedinits 1992 Declaration and
Mernorialthat "fundamentalresearchandinvestigationswereneglectedandnot carriedoutuqg.
Because this hasbeenshowri to be manifestlyuntrue, Hungarynow seeks tu show that no
studiesof the righrkrnd have ever been catriedout. Second,it isusedto justify Hungary's
suspensionof works in 1989, which is now categorisedas a refusa1 toproceed"without a
proper EIA"~'. The Hungarian Counter-Mernorialneglectr tu mention that in 1989 the
HungarîanGovernent infact repealedits existingEIAlegislatiun, whichit did not repIace
untilfouryearslater,inJune 1993". Third,itisused to deny(implicitly)thefuturepossibility
39
SlovakCounter-Mernoripal,r4.02,etseq.
40
Hungary's1992Declaratio, lovakMernoria,nnex 17(atp.292).It is notedthatHungaqdevotes
severalpangraphçof isounter-Memoria l criticisingSlovakia'sresponseto thiscontentionwhich,
infheSIova Mkernorial,vrassimptoshowthatavast nuaberof studieswere inde"carriai out".
Amrdisg toHirngay,'ItIhissuggeslsthatmmehowthenmber ofGudiesis-tient ...", regmess
oftheirquaIi~andtindings.Sec .ungarianCounter-Memorîd para.1.26. ButSlovakimggests
nothingof the sort. SlovakCounter-Mernoriapl,ra4.04. IfHungaryconsidersthe SIovak
responsesimplisticthcan onlyrefltxacriticisonto Hungary'onginai contentiowhich was
indeedsosimpleastorcIattothequantumof researc,otitsquality.
'' HringariaCounier-Mernoria, araL.38.Inils afrensosatainthi spproach, iingarisfacd by
the obstacl&ai,ar therelevanttirne, thecarroutofan EIAwas notestalilishedinternationd
practicandaIsothatHungarydidIiot in factreqanEIA.
42 -eeA,nnex 2,hereto.ofanyoperation ofthe Projectuntiltheatlegedinternatiodap]racticof completing an EIA is
met43.
1.26 Obviously,this new emphasis is rneaninglesswithout cornpelling
evidencethat the paststudiesof the Projectand,in plirtidulaH,ungary'sown 1985 EIA dÎd
notconstitute asuficientassessrnent4. To thisend,theHIngarimCounter-Mernoria relies
onChapter 7 of its"ScientifiEvaluation" and Annex 23 of Volume 4. which ded in gr&
1
detaiI with the need foEIAs for largedams and contain1acritiqueof the 1985 ETAon the
I
basis of certain large dam criteriB.ut ,according tothe technicalassessrnentcontainedin
1
Hungary's Annex23, theG/N Project isnot a largedam p+ject: "theG/N Projectis more like
a mediumscaleproject6 ." And, asHungary'A s nnexcontibues:
"The sociaIand environmental e&ts oflarge-scaleprojectsare muchgreater
than those of small and medium sized pmjects .i.Smalland mediumscale
projectsarethebestforsustainable resourceuse andfor reductionof disastrous
effects4."
1.27 Two cummenfs mrt be made Fi'% Hungary har nlways sought to
Ï
present the G&i Project as aunique and uniquelyIargeproIect. In Annex23 to Hungary's
Counter-Mernorial itis evenstated:"therearernanysimildrcontroversial ongoingprojectsin
I
planningandconstructionphasesal1over the world ...~arhada Projeot(India),G/N Projed,
Tucurui (BraziI) and MahaweIiGanga(Sri Lanka) are some ofthe exampleshm this
category." Thus, a confusioniscreatedbetweenthe G/N Project'simpactsand those ofother
As tothequestioofestsblis itednationlractice,un d prrsentEC directiv1985/337 athe
basis oa tnandatoryEIA syçtem ial1the Member StafgsofththEC. But EC praciice is not
inlernaiiu~plracticeaLhedirectiveinanyeverequir FIsSoniyfor those proje-suchasriil
refiiierics=rd nnclearp-aIistedin annex 1.Thereisno mentiond hydr~l~ciricprojectsin
amex I. In aneventlhedirxtiveevensixy- afkradopLon,hadsti Iotken hI1yimpiemwted
ina11theEC MemberSkites. SeAnnex 2,hereto.
14 Hungaqsidestepsaconsideratiof prcviousstudbyclai&ingthafthesare notavailsbta ifor
evaluation.ThiscornpIeteyais.k, para.11.21beIow1
45 Thesetwopiece areprduced bythesame
universi9 andcontainsubsmtidly
sarriliversdonofw.,,VoI.4partt2fAnnexn23. Vol. 2 (Chapler isareduce and
46
HungarinnCaunter-Mernorial,a4. (Par2),Anncx23 (aIp 8.3).Variant"C"ir, murse,even
lesaslargedamprojecfortheVariant"C"reservoiis two-thithesizeoftheDunakilitireservoir
andthereisnoNagymaro section. l tmly largebarrageschemes(especiallyasthe Annex proceeds to examinesuch projectsin
considerabledetaildweIIingonthe allegedenviromeritaI damagethey havecaused).But it is
morethanrnisleadingtu createsucha confirsioas ianow explgned.
1.28 TheNahada projectinvolvesthe construction of 30major dams, 135
medium sizedams, and3,000 smalldams, It involvestherelocationof morethanone million
people andan uveraIiresewoif size of350.000 hectares. Tucumi isbuiitin a tropicd rain
forest and ha flooded 17srnalltoms and viliagesunder itreservoirof 216.000 hectares.
Mahaweli Ganga requiresthe resettlemenof 25.000 people, andthe destmctionof large
numbersof animals and plants,many of whichareonlyfound in SriLanka. By contrast,the
Dunakilitireservoirwas tocuver only COOU hectares The GCN Project involved no
resettlementwhatsoever..And ithasan erivironmentdimpactwhich doesnot even approach
thesamescaIeastheotherprojects.
l
1.29 Second, as rnentionedabove, Hungary pruceedsin its "Scientific
Evaluatian"(and itshm 23) toanalysethe pas1impact studies oftheGIN Project, andin
particulathe 1985EIA, on thebasisof Iargedam EIA critenak., GiNisjudged as ifit were
a mega-project,when clearly itis not. But even applyingthis inappropriatecriteria,the
conciusionisthatthe 1985 EJA is a"wellattempted"document and thatit "canbe calledan
EIStt (environmenta1impact tat te ment) F^'rther,arcurding tu the critiqcontaid in
Hungaty'sAnnex23, the examinationin Hungary's 1985 EIAofPruject impacts on"human
beings,floraand fauna,soilwater,air,climate,landscape,materialassets, culturalheritage"
canbe classedas "A",thatis"genera1I yell~erformed .o importanttaskslefiincorna~ete"~~.
Insum, the 1985EIAwas a document, ahead of itstirnein terms of EIA outside North
ArnericaS\wwhichttnyearL satercanrrutbecnricistu a materiaextentandwhich showed the
i
Projectto besustainable.There issirnplno justificatiand no maning toHungary's daim
that no ETAon the Projectwas ever carriedout5'. It is disprovedby its own "Scientific
"'
M., Vol.2, p.248andVol.4Part 21Annex 23(atpp.890-89).Thereareadverçcnticismin
thespias, buOteyarevetunccrnvincingaseentobeûfa prmedural.o1asubstantinam.
49
Ibid(app.903and907-908-emphasisadded).
50
ItisrscallteatasfotheCzechoslovastudies,includingt"Bioproject,eHQIreportfound
theswerecumyarabIeiththoscaniuioutinNortArnerica&. para. 23,kIoiv. Evaluation"andits own amexes. It wouldbe truerto sa!thatno EIA was evercariiedout
l
thatsaidwhatHungary wanted ito say.
1.30 But perhapsthe most aurprising asp1ectof Hungaryk emghasis on the
1
need for an EIA isthatHungar tself made proposaisreIatintuthe G/N Projectwith far
1
reachingenvironmentac lonsequences in 1989-1991 withoutattemptingany environmental
l I
1 impactassessrnenot fitsownpmposals.Hungaryld secisidninMay 1989 tosuspend work at
I Nagymaros had serious environmentalrepercussionson what Hungaryrecognisedtu be a
I
single, integratscheme". Hungary'sdecisiontu extend the suspensionto the entirGM
Project in Iuly1989 had evengreaterimplications for !he environment,asdid Hungary's
decisionto terminatethe Treatyin 1992,andthen tobedinactualdernolitionof the works
already completed atNagyrnaros5'.Yet atno stage d\d Hungary undntake anEIA to
I
dernonstratethat its proposwere environrnen accepItybleThe recordof Hungary' swn
l
conduct thus makesit dificuIto bdieve in thesincentyofHungary's criticismoftheG/N
Project,onthe ground thatitwas conceivedwithout anadequate EIA. Apparently,Hungary
produced a reportin1993 - areportnot so farproduced in thicase- whichHungary's own
I
independmtexpertshavesaiddow"notsatisfythebasicrduirernents andshouldnot begiven
thename EIS"(EnvironmentalImpact tat te men.t)^^
SE~ION3. The Relevanceof Hun~arv's"~cientific Evaluation" to its Thesis of
"EcolopicalNecessitv"in ~unearv's Le~at Ar~urnents
l
1.31 Thefunher questionanses of whethei Hungary's"ScientifEvaluation"
would assisik IegaIargumentseven if that evaluationwas soundandobjective. Slovakia
sutirniitwould not,forthreequiteseparatereasons.
52 The Iettof theCzechosIovakPrime Ministof23 April 1992 detailsome oftheharmful
environmentaieEefausedbythisstrsperis.Iova~emhrial, AnnexOS.
' I
Tiie CzecIroslovakGavcrnmeiitdid ifseif comma studyof the environmentaland cost
implicatioofdemolishingal1Treatystructusuilon klovaterritortheconclusiwasthat
suchasiewas environmentaynsupportabl. ec.nnex31hereto.
54 I
&, HungarianCounter-Mernoria.l.4 (Part2). Anne/p847). A. . The Grounds Urion Which a State Justifies the Suspension or
Termination of a TreatvMust Have Existed at the Time of Such
Suspensionflermination and Must Be Shown to Have Motivated
the Statein Making itDecision
1.32 It is obviousrhat this new"ScientifiEvduation" of 1994couId not
havebeenthebasisof Hungary'd secisioto suspendthe Project- andthe performance of its
Treaty obligations-in 1989, or toterminate the Treatyin 1992. Decisionsto suspendor
terminatetreatiesmustbebona fidethat istosay basa! onan hofiestbeliein thefacts which
lieatthe basisof the ground invoketu justifythe decisioand thatcannot be thecase if,at
thetirneofdecision,thosefactsarenot bwn.
1.33 The scientificbasisfor Hungary'sdecisionswould have to rest on
Hungary's 1985 ETA, on OVIBER's comments of 29 March 1989 on theEcologia report,on
the BechteI reportofFebmary 1990, and on the HQI report of December I99UÇ5. As
explainedinthe SlovakMemorials6 n,oneof these aflordedanybasisfor apleaof "ecoIogicaI
necessity.
B.
that the Grounds for its Decision Existed in Fact; It 1sNat
Suficient to Show the State Had a "ReasonabIe Belief' that the
GroundExisted
1.34 InHungary's Counter-Mernoria tlere is the repeatedassertionthat
Hungary reasonablybelieveda situationof ecologicalnecessity existed. Indeed,Hungary
suggeststhat the issufor the Caurtis whether Hungary"wasreasonablein believing ...that
therewas a substantialIikeIihoof majorrisksanddamages ...".'
1.35 This cannotbe t-ight.Where terminationis justifiedby referento a
prior eventor condition - A., materia1breach,impossibilityof performance,fundamental
change of circumstances,ernergenceofa new peremptory nom - thepôrty teminating must
show that thement or conditionhasoccurredin fact. It hasneverbeen the law thata party
5s HungananMernorial,Vol. 5 (Part I), Annex 4; SlCounter-MernoriaAlnnex15; Slavak
MernoriaAnnexes27 and28.
56
Slow&Mernoriaip,ar8.28and,sec .enerallW., Cliapte2.
57
HrrngxiaCounGr-MernoriaI, ar1.47.Ss,dm, M., para1.51.hadonly to show that it haa"rcasonablebelicfthattheb was,for example, aprior mataia
I
breach,or animpossibilityof performance ,ra fundamantac 1hange ofcircumstances.Still
lessdid Hungaryhave a "reasonablbeelicfthat it wasSubstantiallikelythatthese events
wouldoccur.
I
1.36 So, tao,in thiscase,what HungarybeIieved -wbether reasonably or
unreaçonably- is entireiyirreievant.Evenif "ecologi ecessitywere avalidplea,Hungary
wouldhaveto provide thatsuchnecessityaxistedasa fact,
C. In Law, however. "EcoIogicaINecessitv" 1sNot Recorrnised as a
Valid Plea in Justifiriatian of the SusriensionfTerrnio n~taion
Treat?r
1.37 In any event,the law recognisesnb such plea. As demonstratedin
Slovakia's~emorial", the ground of "necessity"is lot recognised as a ground for
r
çuspensionfterminationin the law oftreaties.Nor isit possible for Hungary to invoke
"necessity" as a "circnrnstance precluding wrongfulness" under the Iaw of State
1
responsibi~ity'~. ot onlydoes the lawof treatiesnot recognisesucha plea inrelationto
treatyobligationsbecauseof theoverridingneed to protl'tthefundamentalnom pactasunt
servanda,buteven interms of Article33 of the ILCDraa on StateResponsibiIity, ungary
1
could not meet the stringentreqirirerntfthat Article. Suspensionlteminatiwas not the
I
"onlymeans"ofsafeguardingHungary - ArticIe33(l)(a)I it necessarilyirnpaan"essential
interest"oCzechoslovaki a(I)(b); was implicitlexcludedbythe 1977Treaty -(2)@); and
Hungarycleariy"contribute coitheoccurrenceofthe statbf necessyt -(î)(c).
SECTION 4, The Interarefationof the S~ecialA~reement
1.38 The Hungarian ~ounter-~emorih continues to maintain an
interpretationf theSpeciaAgreement whichisat variancdwiththetermsof thatAgreement,
and whichSlovakiacannot accept. The issues centre An two provisions:Article 4 and
Artide 2.
- - - -
58 SlovakMernoria,ara8.61etseq.
59 -eeS,lovakCounter-Mernoral,r10.36,gtçes. A. Article 4: The Issueof a TemporarvWater Management Repime
1-39 As willberecalled,Article4 providesas follows:
"f 1)the Partiesagreethat, pertdithe finaiJudpent of theCourt, they will
estabiish and impIement a temporary water management regimc for the
Danube ".
And, of course,thisparagrap h oesnotstandalone. Paragraph 2 makes itclearthat, pending
the estabIishmenofa ?WMR, ifeitherPart)believes"itrightsare endangered" recoursemay
behadtoconsuItation, tothe expertisof the EuropeanCornmunity,but to theCourt.
1.40 This position makes eminentlygood sense. The elaboration and
implementation of a TWMR is ahighlytechnicalproblem and in no sensea legal problem
appropriatefor reference toacourt of law. It was for preciselythireason thatthi wsas a
matter tube resoIvedby the Parties,with the assistanofthe technicalexpertsappointedby
the EC. Indeed,it was inherentlyunIikeIythat the Parties would have sought tu involvethe
International ourtina technicaprobkrnofthis kind.
1.41 Fromthis itfollows -and,as willbe seen,theterms of Article2 confirm
this-that it wasnevercontemplatedby the Partiesthat theCourt would be corifruntedby an
aIIegatiuof"breach" ofArticle4. Beingin the natureofa pacturnde wntrahendoa, it wauld
be dficuIt inanyevent to seehow faiIureto agreea TWMR couIdbe a "breach"attributable
toone Party.
1.42 Itistheviewof Slovakiathat the Agreement of 19 April1995 is,infact,
an agreement on a TWMR because iternbodiesal1those elementswhich the Partieshavehad
under discussionsincethe signaturofthe SpeciaIAgreement. The issuesof the dischargeinto
the oldriverbedof the Danube, the technicalrneasuresneededtu ensuresupplytu the ri&
(Hungarian) sideanns,and the rateof dischargintothe Mosoni branchof the Danube -these
werethe issues discussedinthe context ofa TWMRunder Article4, andthese are precisely
the issuessertIedby the Agreementof 19 April1995. Moreover the role of the expertsfrom
60
Notethetermsof thePreambl"cornmitmeai appl..sucla temporarwatermanagemen regime
... shalbeagrd betweentliParties." the European Commission in Article5 ofthennu ~~dtment is essentiallythsame asin
I
Article4(2)ofthe SpecialAgreement.Final@ ,inceinitIow decIarationHungary envisages
terminationof the 19 April1995 Agreement asthe resdltofa successiveagreement under
Article4 ofthe SpeciAgreement hisoonfums thattheyhavethesamesubjectmatter.
I
B, Artifle2:TheDefinitionofthe Issuesfobe Put fothe Cuurf
1.43 Anicle2 of theSpecialAgreementIdlfines theissuesto be decidedby
the Courtexclusivelyin paragraphl(a), @)and (c)~'.Thoseissues do not includeanything
arisingfrom the TWMR,or hm a faiiurto agree or i!nplsmentaTWMR The SpeWal
Agreementmus1be construed as a whoIe. The Hungarianinterpretationseeksto construe
Article2 ina way whichistotallyinconsistentwitArticl4, becauseforHungary theanswer
tu the question put tu fhe Court in Arti2I(1) (b)isthat Variant"Ci'- the "provisional
solution- was unlawfullyconstructec,nd hm thatHu~!~arc yoncludesthatthe statusgyp
-antemustberestored6'.
1.44 Hungary notesthat, althorrgh Article 2(1) of SpeciaI Agreement
I
identifiesththreesubstantivequestions puttothe Court, this is foIlowedbyArticle2(2)
whichrequaststheCourt "todeterminewhatarethelegalconsequences ..includingtherights
andobligationsforthe Parties[arisifromits Judgment] ..."63Hungarysuggeststhatthis
differentiatisbecausethe questionsinArticl2(1)didnot anse betweenthepresent Parties,
! I
but rather between Hungary and CzechosIovakia, whereas ArticIe 2(2) deals with
ctlnsequencefor thepresentParties. This suggestionis unacceptable.The CourtwouId be
l
disinclinedtoadjudicatethe IegaIissues concerninga P1rtynot before it. Moreoverthe
travaux wréparatoircelsearshowthat, inthe earlyHungariandraftsHungaryalways saw the
l questionof theconsequencesarisingfromtheCourt'sanswe!to themain,substantiveissueas
1
a separatequestion. But at thisstageHungary was negotiating with Czechosiovakiaso
1 identifyingthisasa separatequestioncuuIdnot possihaveimpIiedthat the three substantive
I
questions concerneciCzechoslovakia,ut the "consequentiaIquestion concerned SIovakia.
l
61 ThespecificquestionsraiseclinArticle2(1)oftAg~mcntalareaddressedinPartII,below.
I
I 62 HungarimMemurial.para1I20.Slovakia,as a sovereignState, didnot then exist:therewas but one Party,and that was
Czechoslovakia.
1.45 Then thereis a furtherissuerelating tu Article 2This &seshm
Hungary's attempttouse whatHungaryregardsaslegalprinciples relatintotheprotectionof
the environmentto overturn theexpressprovisionsof the 1977 Treaty. Hungary seeksto
justify this attemptthebasisofthe referencetu "principlofgeneral internationailawin
Article2(1)of the SpeciaAgreement. But theargumentis tutdrymisconceived. The phrase
used in Articl2(I)is: "TheCourt isreqütstedtu decideonthe bais oftheTreaty and niles
andprinciplesof generalinternationalla...." Thusthe SpecialAgreementenvisagedthat
suchniles andprinciplecouldbe usedto assisin theinterpretatiof the 1977 Treatyandto
supplementthe Treaty provisions,wherenecessary,and nottuovede them asa kind of&
conens. The ideathatthe PartieswouIdcarefullynegofiatedetailedtreatyprovisions,aIex
s~ecialis,andthenagreethatthesedetailedprovisionswouIdbe overriddenby undefinedniles
and principles,siftheywere jusCO- isinconceivable.The rnatteisfurtherelaboratein
Chapter TIbelow.
1.46 In the finalanalysis,however,it becornesclear that Hungaryinvitesthe
Courtto relyan neitherthe Treatynorthe "principlesf generalinternationlw". Hungary
inreaiityinvitesthCourtto makea politicaljudgmentaboutwhether thePartieswererightto
strikethebalancebeken economicbmefit and envirorunentaimpactonwhich theyagreedin
the 1977Treaty. Inthe secondparagraphto its "ScientificEvaluatiHungar contendsthat
the"assessmentof the relativeimportanceof economicbenefits and environmentd impactss
ultimatela politicalissue".Thimaybe correct,butit isprecisnetforthe Cour todecide
this "politicalissue". Nonetheleintheintroductionto it"ScientificEvaluation", ungary
placesbefore the Courta seof scaIes(abalance)with econornicbenefion the une side and
environmentalriskon theother side.Inthe succeedingchapters,Hrrngarythen seekstu add
weightstotheriskside whilsremovingtheweightsfitomthebenefitside.
1.47 Thus, the Court is to be distractedfrom the strictrequirements
engenderedby theIegalconcepts in the Vienna Conventionofthe Law Treaties,and even-
were it appiicabIaw -the Iawof necessity. The SpecialAgreementrequestsfromtheCourt a
legalandfactualassessmentofHungary'a srgumentsof a materiabreachof Articles15and19
of the1977 Treatyoranecologicalstateof necessity,ota consideratioof the overallrnerits of the Project. This emphasisinevitablyexcludes an ithtatiun to the Court to cal1 kt0
1
questionthe expression of the sovereignwill of the 1977 Trcatypartiesin theirdecisionto
I
select,constructand irnplemen he GM ~roject~~.
l
1.48 More07 in arternptingto p~acdbefore the Courta balance of
I
environmentalandeconomicissuesqndindaimingthatthe(economic benefitsareinsubstantial,
I Hungarydeliberately seeks to enlargeandextend the "en1ironmenta il pact"and to disguise
the absence of & breachesby Czechoslovakiaof 4 1977 Tnaty or a gaJ stateof
"ecologicalnecessiq". But,for SIovakia,it is essenttolseparatetheProjeci impactswhich
might conceivablyhave a legaIbearing on the disputefiAm those rhat cIearlydo not. For
I
example, the economicimpactthattheProjectmight or &It not havein terms of reduced
cropyieldfor agriculturef,orestor Bsheriesis irrdevantIHungary's caseand rnustbe kept
quiteseparatefiomanyenvironmenta rlisks. TheTreatyphies were atfulllibertytusacrifice
I
crop yieId or areasaf forestry in exchangefor energy bdnefits{althoughSIovakiafinds no
I
evidenceof such a sacrifice)Similarly,the realisationorotherwise the expected benefits of
1
! theProjectin ternisofenergy,navigation and floodcontrolis irrelevanto Hungary'scaseand
mustbe keptseparate.The Treaty partiesconsideredthatltheProjectwas thebest meansof
achieving hesegoals andthi eannot bechallengeci.
SECTION S. TheStructureof This Rel~Iv
1.49 Volume I of thisReplyis dividedinlo fourParts. In Part 1,Slovakia
examines the issuesof internationalIaw that divide the Parties, re-exarniningin turthe
appIicabIIaw (Chapter II), the roleofenvironmentalIaw(~ha~ter III) andthe prevaIenceof
the IawoftreatiesoverprinciplesofState responsibiliyntLisparticulardispute(Chapter IV).
l
In ChaptersV and VI,Slovakiareturns totheinvalidityofthe groundsreliedon byHungary
foritsV~~OUS breachesof the 1977 Treatyand reconsidersI'he legaliof Variant"C"in the
Iightofclaims madein Hungary'sCounter-Mernorial. Part
I(ChnipterçVI1 to X) tums to the
specificquestions oflegal cntitlernentposed in Articles241) of the SpecialAgreementand
I
M 1
Hunga-iyconteststhisIntheveryfirsparagraphof Chapter1ofifs Counter-Mernoril,ungary
contendsthatthe"meritsof the Projareindd "inissue,.heclaimevenking madethat itis
Slovakiathahasinsistedth~iç shouldlxsoinitsdiscussionof theProinitsMernoriaim.,
pan IVOI.But bis i6t0ta1vvmng ThewholecmphasisiniheSlwak Mernoria-l whîcsmphaar
Hungary specific catcise-ison theexistenceoff1977 Treatjapactum,andfie factthatthis
Treatyis10beperfarmed. e,forexarnpIH,trrigarnouriter-Mernorp,ara4-111rmponds tu thesequestionswithspecificregartutheeventsand conduct oftheTreaty parties
betweenMay1 989 and May 1992.
1.50
In Part III(Chapters M to XII), Slovakiaanalyses the defects in
Hungaty'psresentationofthescientificfacts,relevorotherwi toethisdispute. Hungary's
anaIysisor,more particrilariyi"ScientificEvduation",iaIso responded to in Volume iI
hereto, whichhighiightsanaddressesthe allegedlyscienfificassessrnentandconclusionsthat
Hungav has presenred tu the~ourt'~. Both Part IIIandVolume turn tothe detailed
assessmentsof theactualimpactsof Variant"C" ,ampiledby morethan 40 SIovakscientists
and expertsand drawingfrom researchprojectsanddata beingpreparedand collectedmainly
as a partof a comprehensiver ,outinemonitoringsystem establishedby Slovakia. These
assessment sonn Volume IIIhereto. Finally,inPartIV (ChapteXIV),issuesrelatingto the
remedialpositionareaddressed,foIIowedbySlovakia'Submissionsw, hichremainunchanged.
65 ForfurtheexplanatinstoHiingarysverapresentatis,ealsopara.11.O(andfn.15,below.
66
The secondparofVolumeII containstheAnnetothisReply.CEAPTER II. THE APPLICABLE LAW
2.01 Theessentialaim of thisChapteris to respondto the unsubstantiated
legalpostulatesonwhich the linofargumentin Chapter4 of Hungary's Counter-Mernorial
relies'and in thenext Chapter of this Reply,Hungaq'sapplicationof these incorrectly
cunstruedpnncipIestu thespecifiareoaftheIaw ofthe environmentwiIIbe addressed.
2.02 Following faithfulthe approachused extensivelyin its Mernoriai,
Hungaryinvokesin supportof its lineof argumentw, ithoutany attemptat differentiatia,
broad mixtureof rulesandlegalprinciplesofdiversetype,originand date. In itselsuch a
wayof proceedingmaynot necessarilybe incorrectandit iscertainlyarguabthat:
"According toArticle2 of the SpecialAgreement,the Court isrequesied tu
decideonthe basis ofthe 1977 Treatyand rulesandpirncipiesofgeneraI
internationlaw,aswell as suchothertreatiesastheCourtcan findapplicable.
Thismeans thattheCourt'stask isto considerboththeTreat otherrelevant
treatieandthe mlesand principlesfgeneralinternationaaw y.,,
2.03 But IegaInoms can have a differentIegal efect dufor example,to
their dateofentry inforce (Iexposteriorprioderowt)or whetherthey areof specificorof
genera lpplicatio(-1 -andit cannotbe correctto applythenoms
irrespectivof this difference. Similaritis not acceptableto createimaginarypriarities
arnong noms thatare ofequalranksolely forthe purposesof a specificase and a specific
seriesoff&s. YetHungary,inthe present case,frequentlyresortfo suchquestionablemeans
of appIyingIegal rules. As shawn in Section 1below, Hungary distorts orignores the
reIationshipsetweentherelevanttreatiesand, inparticdar,the interreIationbetween1977
Treatyand its relatedinstrumentwhile,as demonstratedin Section2, Hungaryattempts to
establishthe precedenceof the customarypnnciples,whose existenceit asserts,over those
conven~ionarl ultsat bindtheTreatyparties.
1
"Hungarykgal Position".
2
HungarianCounter-Memonal,ara.4.20. SECTIO1 N, The Reiationshin berneen the 11977 Treatv and the Related
Instruments
2.04 As alreadynoted inthe Slovak~ounter-~emorial~ , ungary'slegal
I
analysesarebas& on a cnriuusconception ofthe chtonoiogyofthe relevant agreementsand
I
2.05 Equally curious,Hungar yow apdliea a distinctionnot foundin the
Hungarian Mernonab l etween,on theonehand, whatit AI "ASgreements linkedto the1977
I
~reat~"'and, on the otherhand, 0th "relateciinstrIments;and yetHungary does not
estabIishwhat the consequericesof this distinctionmaybe andin any event employs the
distinctioinconsistent~~'.
A. Agreements Linked tothe 1977~katy
l
2.06 Whileinits MernoriaHl ungarywasremarkably reticentiitsdiscussion
ofthevariousagreements implementin gr rnodifyînthebasicTreaty of 1977i,nifsCounter-
I
Memurial it at Ieast recognîsestheexistenceof these agreements,while atthe sametime
atternptingo minimisetheirimportance7 . hus,Hungary Suggestsa distinctionbetween:
"..twodifferentsetsof treaties"thebasicTreaty"of 1977 asamendedby the
I
Protoc01of 1983, both ofwhichrequiredratificationand,on the otherhand,
the AgreementonMutual Assistance,asamended I[in 1983and 19891,which
was ina simpIifieformand didnot requireratificati."
3 See,e.&SlovakCounter-MemoriapIa,r1.4and 2.74.
4
HungarianCounter-Mernorp.188.
5 I
ibid.,para.4.0Ar thesame tirne,Hungaryadher10(yithout expressoacknowIedgingthe
dinincrionmadbySIovakihan "Agreenienttshat skrnmedfmrnTreatyl'and"otrelevant
agreemenisSec .lovakMemoriaI,ara6.24,aW..
6
lnitsCounter-MernoriS. ovakpiaintedutthat~un~a&sdistinctiwas contriveinorderto
conceatheobligatocharacteof theProjwt'sagresch+uleand Hungary'fundamentarlolein
estabiishingthe schedule,especialiythe agreacceler theeworkin February1989
SlovaCounter-Mernoripalra.2.91).
7
HrtngarianCounfer-MemorpI,ra4.06.
8
-bid. 2.07 The purposeof sncha distinctionis nomystery,andHungary's Counter-
MernorialexpIains this purposeimmediatdy fier it rnakesthe distinction. Iis tu asserthe
superiorstatusof thebasicTreaty of 1977to that of the 1977Mutuai Assistance Agreement
and theProtocolsamending it:
"Itisclearthattheseagreements couldnotmodifytheTreaty itseltheyhad to
be - and were - instrumentsto furtherits implementitionin pursuance of its
purposes9 '.
From this,Hungary goes sufar asto drawthe concIusionthat these "secondary instruments"
couIdbesuspended byone partyif theywere not adequateto "ensurethe fiIIIimplementation
of theprincipaltreaty". Theseargumentsencorinter anumberufubstacles.
2.08 In the first place, the principlon which Hungaryrelies is entirely
invented. An agreementthat enters into force simplyupon signature(accord en forme
simplifiée )s for examplethe 1977 MutualAssistanceAgreement, does not havea stahis
inferiorto aforma1 treaty(en formesolennelle)suchas the 1977 Treaty(enteredintoon the
same day').Accrirdingto Article11 of the ViennaConvention on the Law of Treaties,the
consentof a Statetu be boundby atreaty maybeexpressedeitherby signature,by ratification
or by anyother meanaif so agreed;and the meansof expressingagreementhas noIegaI effect
on the meaningand IegaIvalidity ofthe treatyor agreementH . Besides,in the presentcase,
ArticIes2 and 3 of the1977 Mutual AssistanceAgreementmodifythe principleofthe equd
divisionof worksand of hydroelectripower generatedunder the Project (provided for in
Article9 of the 1977 Treaty itself). InfactWungary expresslyrecogniçes thisfact in its
~ernorial'~,althoughcontrary toalllogicit goesback on itearlierassessrnentinits Counter-
Memorial.
'O ibid.,par4.07.
"
See inthisregard,JCornbacau,edroitdestraité,aris1991,p.40; NguyenQuwDinh, a ai-,
kit inkrnniiona~ublisParis1994p. 144.
IZ
HungarianMemorialpara.4.22. 2.09 Nevertheless,itis entirely correcihat the 1977 Mutual Assisfarice
Agreement, as amendedsuccessiveIyin 1983 and 1989,"I!A apudy technicalcharacter"1 :it
essential&implementedthe basicTreatyratherthaa ma IiSfinif,as thefirst phraseof its
preamble indicates:
"The Government of theHungarian Peoplh ~e~iblicand the Governent of
the CzechoslovakSocialistRepublicstarting frok the Treaty(...) signed in
Budapest on 16 September 1977, forthepurpose bf theeffectiveconstruction
14 II
oftheGabCikovo-Nagymaros SBastrrhgavedecided... .
From thiswording -justas from thecircumstanceisnwhichtheMutuat AssistanceAgreement
and its Protucols were conciuded - itiscIearthat iheirbasic purpose was the effective
I
impkmentationofthe 1977 Treaty,witbwhichtheywereinseparably integrated.
2.10 As a consequence,axceptwhereexpfessly provided atherwise, th1377
I
MutualAssistanceAgreement (as amended)mustbe regarded astheexpressionoftheintentof
theTreatypartiesto irnplementtheTreatyand oftheirexdressagreement asto how to do so.
It is,therefore,neitherreasonablenar legallyrelevantJO distinguishthe Treatyfrornthe
agreements to whichit islinked,as Hungaryatternpts to do. In particular,tismorethan
dificultto argue thatthe 1977 Agreementhas any relationto Articles 15 and 19 ofthe
~reat~'';butif,forthesakeof argument,it wereacceptedthat thiswas thecase,it would be
necessarytu regardthe 1977 Agreement as expressingtheParties'&fier agreement astu the
meansofimplernenting theseprovisions,andas beingno Iessbinding onthe partiethan the
Treaty'sArticlesthernselves,
1
2-11 In addition, it mustbe noted that:itis entirelyincorrectto say, as
Hungarydoes, that:
13 HungariaCounter-Mernoriala,r4.06.
1s I
ArticIes arid19 concenirespccljveIy,"protectionowaterquality"and th"protectiof
n~fore'',whithe1977Muml AsrislanceAgrecmsntandlis iueecssiamendmenu,onthe one
hmd, esrablithe precisework schedule aon,ttiotherhan& mdify thedivision of work
responsibiIity. "Untd thebeginning ofwork on VariantCbySlovakia ..[tjhesuspension only
cancemedsecondary instruments heapplication ofwhich inthecircumstances
couldnot ensurethefullimplementationoftheprincipatlreatyI."
This is nomore thanan ex ~ost fact orgument devisedspecificdlyfor the needsofthiscase
andhavingnofegal orfactualsupportwhatçoever.For while at thetime Hungarymayhave
announced its "suspensioofworks"atNagymarosand thenat GabEikovo withoutreferring
expresslyto anyparticulaagreement tis neverthelesunarguabl ehat:
- Czechoslovakiraepeated l denouncH edungary'asctionas violationof
the 1977 Treaty,inperticular1w,hiIeHungaryconsistentlydefendedits
actions on the same treaty basis", and without once making a
distinctiobetweentheJTreata yndthe so-calle"secondary instruments"
as inowattemptsto do;
- In its 1392 DecIaration,the Hungarian Govemment again reIiedon
exacîk the çamearmments in atternptingto defendtheIegaIityboth of
its decisioto terminate the Treaty andaf itsearliersuspensionsof
worksatNagymaros and thenatGabi5ikovol;g
- Even in its Coiinter-Mernorial,Hungarytritujustifj the validityofits
suspensionson the &s ofCzechoslovakia'ssupposedvioIations
basicTreatyof1937~';
- Similarly,Hungary has consistentlyand explicitly arguedthat the
purpose of itssuccessive unilateral suspensionof work was tu put
pressureonCzechosIovakia tu agreetu modifythe basicTreatv;
16 HungariaCounter-Mernoripal,r4.07.
I7
-ôe,HirngarîMernoriaV,ol4, Annexes23,28,1and79.
18
M., Annexes24,25and 74.
19
-bid.Mnex 82 (atpp182 -833.
20
HungariaCounter-Memoriapl,ra.4.06. concwied theconstructionwork foiwhichHungarywasresponsible , y
I
virtueof thesamebasicTreaty of197721 .
2.12 Thus, itisbeyundquestion that the1977 basicTreaty (as mended) arid
I
the 1977 MutuaIAssistanceAgreement (alçoas amendedin 1983 and again int989) fum an
inseparablewhole -of whichthe JointContractuai Plan(JYP)is very mueh apart. Therefure,
itcannot be seriouslysustainedthatthe suspensionof works "onlyconcernedsecondary
instruments"t:hesuspendedworks arethe very objectof thbasic Treatyitself.
l
I
2.I3 According tuHungary,the JCP "hadsuch stafus aswas givenit by the
I
1977 Treaty itself"'. SIovakiadues not contestthis proposition,which ispreciselytu the
I
point:theJCP'sIegaI statusis cIearandunquestionably thIt ofa conventionalinstrumendtue
to itsincorporatiointothe TreatybyArticle1 (4) thereop.
2.14 The fact that this instrumenthas nu!!been fomally registeredwith the
UNSecretand hasnosignificancehere. bt, the JCP is mentiund severaItirnein the1977
I
~reat~*~, rhus meetingthe public notice requirements ofArticle 102 of the UN Charter.
1
Second,it wouldhave been absurdif not impossible to registertheJCP: itisanextremely
voluminousdocument that wouldfil1 awholelibrarysheif and, hence,its publicatioin the
UnitedNationsTreatySeries was entirelyimpracticable.Moreover,its registration would
have semecilittlepurposefor, asHungarycoisectIy observes2',the JCP has beencontinually
I
modified and revised,reflecfingthe essentiallyflexibInIture of the GN Projecf and ifs
adaptability,inter dia, inthe sphereofprotectionthe environment.
21 Sec n this regaHungarianMernoriaVol.4,Annex 48.
'' HrtngariaCounter-Memoria,ara.4.08.
l
23 Sec .IovakCounter-Mernorial,r2.58-2.72.
1
Infaci,it ismentioneArticll(4);Article3((3) and(4)Articl4(1)(2) an(3);Article53)
(4). (and(9): Article7and(2); AniciLZ(2)Anicle1441~(2) an{3); Anicle 15(1);Arl$cle
Article25;anArticI25f1). 2.15 Thisbrings out three fundamentalcharacteristicof the 1977 Treaty
(and itsrelatedagreementsonwhich thePartiesarein agreemen t althoughthey do notdraw
the same conclusionstherefrom2:6(i) thaacornplex ofconventiona algreementsis involved;
(ii) that they areconsistentwenvirumental protection;and(iii) that,essence,theyhave
the characteofa framework ireatycapableof evolution.
2.16 Nevertheless,Slovakiawas surprisedto discoveron readingHungary's
Counter-Mernoriat l,hat Hungaryappearsto questionthe objective nature - and h
character- ofthe 1977 ~reaty". Sice Hungq givesnojustificatiofor adoptingsuch a
surprisingpositionSIovakia- havingsetfurthinits Counter-Memurial a deiaileexplanafiun
on thispoint28-seesnopurposeat thisstageinaddressingthisissueonce more, ssveto point
outthatitiswhollyincorrectto claimthat:
"Slovakiadoes not contendthatthe 1977 Treatywas anobjectiveregime or a
'reafreaty .Ir
2.17 Tu the contram the 1977 Treaty, = exceII hean cle .he
characteristiosfatreatyinrem of aterritorialndlocalisedcharacter.Itcreatesan objective
internationalegime,one of whosecharacteristicssthatitisnotaffectedby State succession.
Thisissuewas also dealtwith at somefengthin Slovakia's Counter-Mernorial .fandwhen
Hungary responds, Slovakiarespectfullyreservesthe opportunity to develop its position
2s
See,HungariaMernoid,para.4.10,gm.; andSlovaCkornter-Mernoriara.2.04gjçeq.
27
InthecoursofdescribitheMandate AgreemenforSouthAfncaas "characteribyitsobjective
nature",Hungaryadds"Onthe othehand,the1977 Treatywasanordina rylatertreav...."
HungariaCounter-Mernoripal,r.95.
l8
SlovaCouriter-Mernorpara.2.45elssq.
29
HmgarianCounar-Mernoriapara.5.44. HungqseemstohavearrivaaithisconcIusi(infn41,
p.213)onth eais oaamment intheSIovakMernorial herewas indicatedfh"thdoctrinof
appraxirnaepyiicationnafIirnittotreatieeablishinaregirninrem". Brrrthiconcerned
onIan anaIysofposifiveIawanddinotirnpIythat 1977Treaqharan.& pemnam chcter.
30
SlovaCounter-Mernoripara.3.25gtm.implementandmake more specifrcertain provisioof theTreatyitselfa5. It is necessasr
toexplainthesedistinctio-sudess Hungaryseekstuperpetuatethisconfusionat aIatei date.
2.21 Of particulaconcer s Hungary' tseatmentof the 1976 Boundary
WatersManagementAgreement,whichit contendshas not been "in anyway affectedbythe
events of 1989-1992"~ a~ ,which itcontendswas violated by puttingVariant "C"into
operati~n~~.HungaSspositionhere cdlsfur anurnberofcomments.
2.22 I;ir Hsungaryjustifiesthe cvntinuingvdidiofthe 976 Agreement in
respectofthe commun stretch of the Danubeon the basis that "it is a treatyretutheg
regirneof a boundaryn3'.Wle this concIusionis correct, it is equaIlyvaforthe 1917
Treaty,for both aretreatiesin remon the basithattheyestablishedthe obligationsof the
partiesin regardto watermanagement39. If the 1976 Agreementis atreatyin remfor this
reason- whichSlovakia doesnotquestion -so tooisthe 1977 Treaty,which,moreover,also
dealswithboundary matters.
2.23 Second, asSIovakiahas aIreadyshowna, the 1975Agreement contains
general provisiomthat the 7977 Treaty implements,makes more preciçe,or modifies,in
certainrespects;and iisnot onIythose provisionthatarenot subsequentlymodifiedby the
1977Trcat).thatcontinuetobind the parties. SucaconcIrrsionappIieseqriaItu the1948
Danube convention41 andthe 1958Danub eisherieson vent i on^^
2.24 Hungary's peculiaconceptionoftheeffectof conventionalbligationis
alsoseenin itsrelianconvarioustreatieswithoutbotheringto questionwhether theyare in
Sec.IovakCounter-Memaril.ar2.73gt%.
HungarianCounter-MemoriIara..09.
m., paras6.63-6.66.
m., p.140,fn17.
SeeChap.V ofthc 197Treaty.
SIovaMkemoriapara6.43,ga; SlovaCounter-Mernorii,ra2.82, m.
-ceH,ungariaCounter-Mernoral,r6.67,gm.
-bid..para.6.7sm.force ornot or whethertheyarebindingon the partiesu,and without explanalionas tu the
way in which theymaybe relevanttu thepreserttcase,or ta how they havealIegedIybeen
I
violatedbySIovakia,or in what specificwaysthey are regardedas supportingHungary's case.
I
Such is the case, for example,with the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact
Assessrnentina Transboundar ~yontefl, the1992 Rio Convention on Bioiogical~iversity",
and the Convention on Cooperationfor the ProtectionandSustainable Use of the Danube
River,signed atSofiaon 29 June 1994.
2.25 Hungary has placedgreatemphasis on the last of theseexamplesin its
~ounter-~ernorial~where itStatethat:
"By signingthis instrument,Hungary and SIovakiahaveindicated their general
acceptance of the principlesand mles which are tu be applied for the
consmation of the qualityof the water of the I~anube and in the aquifer
connected toitand for theprotectionofnature47."
2.26 As is evidentfrorn this Reply anh Slovakia'sprevious pleading~4%,
Slovakiais infullcornpliancwe iththe prînciplecontainei inthe SofiaConvention.Indeed,
theHungarian Counter-Mernorip alovidesnoevidence tothecontrary :
- First,asthereis,quiteobviously3 no
questionof"'vestedrights'to harm
the envir~nment"~~,there is no question eitherof the eEea ofthe
I
adoption of a new convention tu Iegitirnisex pst facto Hungary's
I
failurto respect its priortreatobligations. Mer ratification(wtiich
has yet tu occur),the Sofia Convention wiIIrequire the parties to
13 Itmustbe notedinthirespectfhaHungarygoesao faraltoinvokethe 1977Treatitselfaffêr
purportetcrminatioandmaintainthatVarian"C" @utintooperatioafterthe"terminatioiin
contradictiwith the "terminatedtreat&, e, para. 10.107and SIovakCounter-
Mernorial,aras3.02-3.03.
44
-9e HungariaCounter-Mernoriapl.,L9fn39.
45
-ee ., iM., para.4.23.
.rG
&, ej.m., par%.4.28-4.3and6.19.
I
" I
& ParIII.belowandVol. III,hcreSce .l=,SiovakCounter-MernoriCl,hapterVII.
19
HungarianCounter-Mernorial,ra4.36. "adapt" - "on the basisof equdityand reciprocity" - agreemena tsd
other arrangementsthat may be found to mn contraty tu the
Convention'sprinciples50.Butthisappliesonlyto what the partiesare
to dointhe future5',issubjecttomutual agreement, anddepends onthe
situationexistingat thedateof entryinto force of theConventionfor
both Parties;
- Second under Hungay'sinterpretationof Article18 ofthe 1969 Viema
Convention on the Law of~reatiea~, the meresigningof atreaty (-
forme solennelle)is assimilatedtits ratificateven thoughody the
fatterallows it to enter into force. Such an assimilation is not
acceptable,for it eliminatesany distinctionbetween the effects of
signatureand of ratificationJ3the sole obligation resulting hm
signature is"to refrainfrornacts which woiild defeatthe object and
purpose" ofthe treatynot tu carryiout;
- Third,Hungary'p sortraya1oftheprovisionsof theSofiaConvention as
appropriate"guidelines" bindingon the encounters the same
objectionsas doHungary's use of "generalprinciplesof international
law" - itfailsto refiemost particularlyhe relationshibetween these
principlesand the treatiein force between the ~arties". Further,
SIovakiacannot agree that "[tlhe essentialdisagreementbetween the
Partiesis astu the future"". As withany case before the Court,this
50
m., paras4..36-4.37.
51
Sinceas amatterof principtreatprovision"donotbind apariyin relation anyactorfact
whichtwk placeoranysituationwhiceasedtoexistbeforet&te ofen@ intoforcofthetreaty
withrespecttothparty'(ViennConventionontheLaw ofTreatieArticl28).
52 HungarianCounter-Mernorip,ra4.38.
SecN.orthSeaCantinentSheIf,Judnatnt.ICJ Rewds 195p.3atpp.25-27.
54 HungarianCorrnrer-Mernor,ara4.39.
55 SceSection2,whichfollows.
-
56 HungariaCounter-Mernoriap,ra4.39. dispute- submittedpursuanttu a SpeciaIAgreement - concems an
ackradisputethathas&sen and continuestoexistbetween the Parties.
2.27 Hungary'sportraya1of the Sofia Convention is justone of many
examplesthat mightbe cited to illustrathe incorrectnd, attimes,almostperverse useto
whichHungaryputsconventionaI law,which itpresentsasa potoourri,mixingtogether onthe
samelegalfooting andwithoutanyattemptatdifferentiatiotnhefollowing:
- Internationaconventio notsyet in forceteaties in force but nofor
theParties,andtreatieinfîtforc endeffectbetweentheParties;
- Recommendations ofinternationalorganisations(govemmentaand non-
governmental)a;nd
- Non-conventionaml ultilaterailnstrumensuchas the1975 FinalAct of
theC.S.C.E.andthe 1992 Rio Decl!!rationn,ot tomentionsingledraft
artides-such as rhat oftheiLC onI the Lawof theNon-Navigational
Uses of Intemational Watercoursek. Cain of these instruments
I
continuallyreappearinHungary's pleadin othersseerntu vanish;but
I
ineach case,thequestionastu thejuridicalvdue ofthegivenagreement
anditsapplicabiliyo thiscasemust be satisfied.Hungaryhas noteven
attemptedto dothis.
2.28 Inessence, the principleof "pick and choose" seems tu underlie
Hungary's legaiapproach.Not udy duesHungaq, infact,reIyonconven~iunap Irovisionsofa
I
very diverse nature andimport, whetherin force or not, generai or specific inscope,
irrespectivof date,but Hungaryal- presentsthese pia?isionsas ifthey conipteù against
I
principIes of general international law, rhe cnstornary natofe which Hungary affirms
(alihough,in general,without anyjustification). Amongal1these rules,or "pseudo-rules",
Hungatytakes itpickirrespectivof anyhierarchyexistingbetweenthem inthisprecisecase.
57-
Sees.g.HungarianCountcr-Mernorip.ras4.23-4.250;courseSlovairdm nocduiy Uistbe
ILC4 draftmay constiiuan auhoritarivegaiemenofIcustomaryIawor of& Zegeferenda
developniensut.inânevenfilcaIrnorbesrrbstiororcontradiiraties force. SE~IUN 2. The Relatianshiti between . the 1977 Treatv and the
Princides ofGenera1InternationalLaw
2.29 Hungary attempts to justifj its "pick and choose" approach by
ernphasisinthatArticle2 (1)of the SpecialAgreement callsonthe Court "todecide onthe
basisofthe 1977Treaty and nilesandprincipleofgeneralinternationalla^"^^.
2.30 This 1st expressionfollows a commun furnula freqrientlyused in
agreementsbywhich Statesreferdisput testhird-partsettlemerrt. et Hungaryurgesthatit
be interpreted in a nuvel way. WhaHungaq seemstu be arguin isthat byincludingthis
phase inArticle2, thePartieswere askingthe Court toappIy anv principleand rulesof
generalinternationaaw, withoutregard totheTreaty, ortu whether amle would beappIied
retroactively,or tother principlesand niles ofequalrank,such as thatof specialis.
Hungary citesnoauthorityforsuch asweepingandunprecedented interpretatioand forgood
reason:suchan interpretationis incompatiblewith the Parties'requestthat the Courtalso
decideon the basisof "theTreaty".Hungary'sinterpretati-nputforwardforthe firstimein
itsCounter-Mernoria1-appearstu be that, whethor not theTreaty iinforce for theParties,
theCourt mayignoreif infavourof suchgeneralprinciples and nile ssHungarywouldhave
theCourt appIy.ThisthePartiesmanifesflycouIdnot haveintended.
2.31 As is well knuwn,the "generalruIeofinterpretationof treatieisset
forthin Article31 of the ViennaConvention,whichprovides in partthat a treatyis to be
interpreted"inaccordancewiththeordinary meaning to begivento the termsof thetreatyin
theircontextandinthelightof itsobjectandpurpose".Indetermining the"ordinarm y eaning"
to be given tothephrase "nileand principleof general internationallawin thecontextof
Article2 (1)of the SpecialAgreement, that phrasecannot be viewedin isolationhm the
words thatprecedc itLe, "the Treatyand ..."Whenreadin this context ir becornesobvious
that the phrase referstu sunile snd pincipiesasareapplicableby virtue of other rulesof
internationaIlawand which maysupplementbut not contradict the Treaty. Suchother rules
includethoserelatingtuthe law oftreatiesnilesconcerningthe relationshipbetweenfreaties
andgeneralinternationallaw, ruleof internationalesponsibilit,ndthe like. Onlyif such
otherrulesindicatethata principlor wle of generalinternationalla- includingthelaw of
58 -
Seee.g.W.. paras4.01,4.20-4.and6.17. -36 -
the environmen -tapplyinthe particulacaseshonld itsrelevancebe considerd bythe Court.
I
Otherwise,the Partiesmust be regarded ashaving avenI the Court unbridIeddiscretiontu
disregardthe Treaty andto pickand choosehm the entircorpus of des andprinciplesof
generaIinternationallaw-aresuItthatdefiesreason.
2.32 But this is not to say that the "rulesand principlesof general
internationaIlaw"havenorole toplay inthesettlementofthisdispute.
2.33 Inthisregard,Hungary makes a cdcature of Slovakia'spositionwhich
it allegis:
1
'>...thatihe generalinternationallawr-lother thhnpactasunt servanda- are
irrelevanttthe presentcases."
The general rulesofinternationallaw arerelevantfor ad leaîttwo reasons:(i) theSpecial
l 1
Agreement envisages their applicationand (ii) evenwere this not the case,the Courtin
I carryingout itsfunction"todccidein accordancewithintdmationaliawsuchdisputes thatare
submitted toit"appliesthe differentsourcesofIawset ou1inArticle38 ofthe Statuteofthe
I
2-34 But it doesnot foIIowfrom thisthat thePartiecaninvoke,andthat the
Court is tu applyno matter what principIesor ruleof internationallaw, irrespectiveof the
particularsituatioand without anjrconsiderationof their rneauir,ature,the dateof their
I
entry into force, and without takinginto account whether they are afgeneralor specific
character. Inthe present case,it isnecessary to take special account ofthe niles of
internationallaw applyingto the relationshipbetwcen custornary niles and treaties,with
l
particulareferenceto the 1977Treaty. Inthisway,the principlesof generalinternationallaw
can assisinthe interpretatioandidentificatiooftherneakng of theprovisions ofthe Treaty
(dealt withbelow in sub-sectionA) so long as they do kt modify theTreaty, as Hungary
contends theycan do (sub-sectionBbelow).
59 Ibidpara.20;see.h, paras4.01and4.21.
- A. The Princiriles of General International Law Do Not Justifv the
Disa~~earanceor Modification ofthe Ohiect orPurposeof the 1977
Treatv, Nor itsTermination
2.35 According to Hungq:
"Throughou itsMernorialS, lovakifocuses,to thevirtuaexcIusionofal1other
arguments ,n thelaw of treatie.... Withinthe law oftreatiesitfocuses,to
thesubstantialexclusionofother eIementsof thattaw,on the nom pactasunt
servanda6 "
And it addsthat Sluvakiarnakesthe mistakeof presenting this nom "notas a rule butas a
'r~~irne" But.thereisnoreason forHungary tobe indignant;the 1977 Treaty isinfactat
the centreofthepresent case,andhence,as SIovakiawiIIshow more specificaIin Chapters
IV and Vi below,thelawoftreatiesformstheessentialbasisof thecurrentdispute,whetherin
terms ofthe validityof Hungary'ssuspension,abandonmena tndpurported terminationofthe
Treatyor, equally,the validitof Czechoslovakia'esntitlementto proceedwith and put into
operationtheGabCikovo sectionof theProjectthroughVariant"C" (& in awaythat wasas
faithfituthe Treatyas waspossibIeinthecircumstances).
2.36 Not ody isthe performance and the purportedtemination of the 1977
Treatytheverysubjectof thiscase butalsu,by virtueof Articl2(1)of theSpeciaIAgreement,
the Treaty is theprimas. sourceofapplicable lawb3. Hungary, whiîh has itself frequently
invokedthe ~reat~~',does not question thifactany morethanit questionsthatthe Treaty
was dulyenteredintoandremainedin fiil1 forceand effectuntilits purportedterminationin
May 1992~~. In such circumstances,it is hard to see how an analysisof the Treaty's
performance(andits purportedtemination)couid escape fiom the applicatioof the law of
treatieswhosejuridicalregimeis dominated by theprinciplepactasunt servanda.As the ILC
recalledinthe final commentaryonthe provisionsof itsdraftartides that wereto become
Artide 26 ofthe 1969ViennaConvention:
Hurrgarianorinter-Mtmori,ara5.03;se,dm, M., paras20 and4.01.
62 m., para.6.04.
63
&, para.2-29,gtse.above.
64
Sec n.43,above,andpara.5.34,m., below.
65
Hungman Counter-Memona l,187,fn.5. I
"Pactarunt servanda -the rulethattrsaUesare binpg on thepartiesandmust
be perfomed in goodfaith - is the fundamentalprincipleof the Iaw of
treaties."
Ami theSpecialRapporteurS , irHLimphreyWddock, emphasised its"suyrerniemportancei".
2.37 The firstconsequence of this"univkrsallryecognised"prln~iple(as the
secondclause of the Preambleto the 1969 Viema Conventionrecalls) is that,irom the
momentof enteringinto force,the 1977Treat becarne théIawfor theparties,wen as totheir
relationsintese underagreementsand rulesthen binding!m them,whether of a conventional
or custûrnarycharacter6.'
2.38 In order to arriveat this conclusiod,there ino need ttopostulate the
intrinsic superiorityoa treatyover customary rules,a thesis that Hungary would seem
l wrongIy to attnbuteto ~~uvakip. It is suffrcientmerelyto applythe two generalpinciples
pursuantto which thehierarchy of noms of internationa aw is organised:lex posteriorwriori
derog- and specialiaseneralibusdero~ant'~. In the $ment case, the 1977 Treaty is
unquestionablylex specialisinrelationto anyrelevantcudtornary rule thatmay havebeen in
forceptiorto theadoptionoftheTreaty.
2.39 DespiteHungary'scontentionstu the contra$', the same condusion
I
follows equallyforgeneral pinciples ofinternationallaw If a customary charader thatmiy
haveappearedsubssequentto the 1977 Treaty'scunclusion.
66 CommentarytoDr& Article23,ReportsoftheCommissiontotheGeneralAssembly,Ydk ofthe
InternatioLlawCommission1,966, Val.Ip.211.
67 6th ReportontheLawof TreatieYcarbaok of the ~nterkitiLlaw Commission,1966.Vol II,
p. 60.
68 %, intturegard.C. Rousseau, miinternationoubli=\.1.Introductietsources,SireParis,
1971,p. 343(witnurnerousxamplesoftheabrogatioofdstomarynilesbya treaty).BastidLes
trait&dan1avieinternationak, Economica,Par1985p. 167;P.ReuterIntroductionaudrodes
Traités,P.U.F.,Par1985p.1If.
69 HungarianCounter-MernaripIa,r6.03.
I
70 & in lhir regath.Rouruau. G.&., p 343: Nguyen&oc Dinh,gt&. d., p.116; S.Sur,
"Lamuturne",Jrrrisclasdiedroiiniernariona,asc13,bara.112.Htingaryitseifrccagnimthe
appIicabiIyftheseprincipl&, HungarianMernorial,h. 10.93).
I 2.40 It iscertaidy possible, given thabsenco ef any hierarchy between
customary nilesandtreati testaconventionaplrovisionmightbemodified orabrogated by a
subsequenc tustomaryrule. However,thispossibilitisgivenrecognition by Statesonlywith
the greatescautionas seen,forexample, intherejectionduringthe 1969 ViennaConference
ofthedraR Articl38 submittedbythe ILC,which read asfollows:
"Atreaty maybe modified By subsequentpracticeinthe application ofthe
treatesîablishintheagreement ofthe partieIOmodifyits ."
2.41 Inany event,forsuch aresutttuoccur, anumberofconditionsmust di
be met:
-
The customarynom rnusthave the same object as the conventionai
norm thatitisintendedtoreplace;
-
Ttmust havethe same ora greaterdegreeof specificitothedse it dl
beofno effectduetu theprincipIsepecialiageneralibderomnt;
- The customary nom must, ofcourse, be the resuIofa consistentand
firmtyestabIisheSfatepracticethat has not been contradicteclbythe
bilaterl ctionof the Statesin question,failingwhicitcouId not be
opposableeven if(as ishighiydoubtful)it wouldotherwise have been
applicable;
- The Partiesbytheir conduct must have demonstrated that they have
optedtu repIacthe treatystipuIationsbythe necustornaryrules.
2.42 These conditions area Iong way from having beensatisfied in the
presentcase. Inessence,the new generalprinciplesinvokedby Hungaryare drawnfium the
emerginglawfortheprotection oftheenvironment.As SIovakia has shown7'andwiiIdiscuss
furtherinthe nextChapter:&, theseprinciplesdo not havethe meaningascribedto themby
'' YearbODoftheInternatioLlawCommission1966,Val.II, 236.
73 SlovaCounter-Mernorialras9.47-9.100.Hungary; second,they are farlessfimly establishedthmHungary aserts; and tm, there is
l
no contradictionbetweenthese pnnciples and the 1977katy. Morecver, their objectand
I
purpose are quitedistincfrom those oftheTreaty.
I
2.43 Mthough concern fur theprotection oftheenvironmentwas not absent
from theminds of the partieto the 1977 Treaty - apointon which theParties agree74 -it is
clearthiswasnot theTrcaty'o sbjectand purpose. HungaJ hasclearlyadmittectlhistobe so:
"The object and purpose of the Hungarian i>eopletsRepublic and the
CzechoslovakSocialist Republic inmncluding the 1977 Treatyareaccurately
stated in the prearnble. They were essential14two-fold, economic and
srrategic3."
It is indeed sttikithatthe sectionoftheHungarian~edoriai devoted tothe examinationof
I
"The Object andPurposeofthe ~reaty"~~fails tu mentionthe question of the protectionofthe
environment.
2.44 Obviouslyt,he conclusioncannot bedrawnfiom thisthattheprotection
of theenvironmenh t asnorelevance hereorwasbarredfrombeing arelevantconsideration by
the 1977Treaty.As the Court haspointed out:
l
" ,..a mIe ofinternationaIIaw,whether custornq or conventiona1, dues not
operate ina vacuum; itoperatesinrelation tufactsind inthe contextufa wider
frameworkof legalnilesofwhichit foms only apsp ."
Thusthe relevantcowentionalrules must beinterpretedinihe lightofand inthe wntext ofthe
1
"wider framework"; but this in no sense leadsto the radiIallydifferentconclusionthat the
principlesof generalinternationallaw,thatmay havedevelepedin fieldsrelated to the Treaty,
I
couldleadto itsmodificationor the disappearanc c fitsodjectand purpose. Yet thisis what
I
Hungaiy'sreasoningirnplies - accordingto which reasoninethe emergingrequirernent osfthe
l
74
HirngarianMernorialparas. 4.56and 10.88:HmgarîanCaunter-MernoriaI,para. 4.2; SIovak
Mernorialpara5.134;andSIova Counfer-Mernoriap,ra2.27,glçeq.
7s I
HungarianMernorîaIp,ara4.04. This. rifcourisno1a fomplete salement owwhattheTreaty's
objectandpurposewere.See.SIovaCounier-Mernoriapara.2.12.
I
77
Intemretatiaoothe Aereemeotof25 March 1951between lheWHO andEwt. Order of 6 Jonc
1980,ICJReports1980,p.67 ap.76internationallawof theenvironment wouId justifand evenrequirethe abandonmen tf the
G/N Projectas ajointinvestmentb,eingtheveryobject ofthe1977 Treaty.
2.45 Murepreciselyand contra? to the implicatioofHungary's argument,
Artide 19of theTreatyoffersarecognitionofthe obviousfactthat constnrctionofthe Project
willnecessarilyhavesomeimpact onthenaturai conditions-aswould theconstructionofany
damof significantsize. As shownin thefollowingchapter7',theArticledoes not requùe the
partiestoensurecompliance withtheobligationsfortheprotectionofnatureevenifthismeans
not constructing the Project. Rather the partiesare tu ensure compliance with those
obligations "arisinin connedion with the construction and operation of the Systern of
LUC@ It.The constructionandoperation of the Prujectis,afier AI,thefundamentalabject
and purpose of the Treaty. Detailsas to preciselyhow naturewas to be protected dunng
constructionand operationand thedutiesof thepartiesinthisregard,wereto be spelledout
intheJointContractuaP l lan.
2.46 The sole hypothesisunderwhichit wouldbe possiblefora new normof
generaiinternationalaw tu prevajlandtu nulli@the 1977 Treatyor certainof its provisions
would be thatenvisagedbyArticle64 ofthe 1969ViennaConvention, whichdeals withthe
"Emergence ofaNew Peremptory Nom of GeneralInternationaL l aw"(JusCogens):
"Ifa new pcremptory nom of general internationalIawernergesany existing
treatjrwhichis incodict withthat normbecornesvoidandteminates. "
2.47 Here,itisnotonlyunarguablt ehattheprincipleofgeneraIinternational
lawinvoked by Hungaryhave no such peremptory characterg-Oand Hungarydoesnotdaim
thattheyhave;butalso Hungary,more thanonce, acceptsquitespecificallytheoppositeFor
78
Seepara.3.31,ga., below.
''
Thisistheunoficid translatimadebythe U.N. SecretariaIn fact,thoriginalSlovakand
Hungarialextwouldbe betttranslatthiway: "TheContractiPartiesshathroughthemeans
specifiintheJointContraclullanensuremrnpliancwiththerequireme~sortheprotectiof
riatuwhich ariseinwnnectiowiththecoastmctioandoperationothesystemof lxks".a
paras3.31-3.3kIow. I
Hungary ernphasisetshe"~elf-evidmt" ~aliditof the1977 Treatyrightuptu the moment of
I
itsuniIateraInotificationin 1992purportingtu teminate the Treaty:
- "Hungary heldthe1977 Treatyvaliduntilitsteminatiod2II;
-
I...theTreatywas in forceuntil i992,wmething Hungary hasnever
deniedg"3
- "until the beginningofwork onvF~ C JI,Iovakia,the continued
validitofthebasicTreatywasnot contcsted .
Thisis aclearadmission that in 197,and in 1992,the 1I77Treatywasnot inconflictwith
any nom ofjus comnsfor had itbeenthe Treaty would havebeenrenderednul1andwould
haveterminatedautomaticallywithoutany actrequiredofeitherTreatyparty.
2.48 In anyeverit,not being@ cogens, any such custornarypinciples of
generalinternationallawcouldnot havetheeffectofrnodikyinogrnullifyngthe Treaty. They
may, on theotherhand, be used ininterpretintheTreaty -butnotto thepointof placingin
doubtitsobjectandpurpose.
B. The Princitiles of GeneraI 1ntematiuna1 Law Can Assist in
Intemretinethe 1977Treatvand i'nde ter min initsPreciselntent
2.49 Underthe guiseofinterpretation&, ngary infact devotesconsiderable
energyand ingenuityto usingthe custornarypinciples b feneralinternational law inan
I
attempt tuneutralisetheapplicatioof the 1977Treary. Faithfultu its techniqueof "pickand
81 Ht~rigarCounfer-Memariapara.2.49.
82 -id.
83 M., p. 187fn.5. choo~e'~~ ~ndwhileat the sametime notingthat "the Court' tssk isto considerboth the
Treaty,otherrelevanttreatiesandtherules and principlesof generalinternationlaw",and
thattheCourt must "takeintoaccoiint"new des that haveappeared sincethe entryintoforce
ofthe 1477~reaty'~,Hungary actuallyusesthe prîncipleand niles, not forthe purposeof
interpretintheTreaty,but toopposetheTreaty and drainitofanysubstance. Hungaryoffers
threedifferenbases forthetime atwhich thetreatymust be interpretedB7T.hesewouIdseern
tobe quitedistinct,butHungaryamalgamatetsheseinorder to challengethevery objectof the
Treaty(the validityofwhichit haspreviouslasserted):
-
TheTreaty must be interpreted inthe Iigof the ruIesin forceatthe
moment ofconclusion;
Itmust be interpretedinthe Iightothepinciplesprevailing atthetime
ofinterpretation;
- Andtakingintoaccounttheevolution of thelawduringthepei-iod ofthe
Treaty'sappIication.
2.50 Exceptfor the fact that the second and third of the above principles
overlapinlargepart,SIovakiadues not disputetheirapplicabilitBut it must bestressedthat
theycannot be appliedindiscriminatelp,articularyincethe first princjofeinterpretatiois
clearlyincompatiblewith the second and the thirdones;they cm ody find applicationin
diEcuItcircurnstances, hereasHungarymixesthemcontinuousiy.
2.51 There isnoquestion that:
"Anyinternationa nstmmentsmustbe interpreted inthe lightofthe prevailing
internationallaw, bywhich the partiesmustbe taken to have chartedtheir
COU~S$' .*!
85
&, para.2.28above.
86
HungarianCounter-Mernoripal,r4.20and4.23(emphasiadded).
1 87
-bid.,para..1i-5.13.
88
M. Hudsoti,citdm., para5.11,Slovakianeed only note thattheinterpntationof atrea& isnot thesameas its revision#-
whatever the generalpiinciplesreliedon, an interPretalioof the 1977 Treaty cannot be
adopted which would"go beyon dhescopeof itsdeclar durposesandobjectsUg0 . nother
words,the principles ofgenwal internationa law in foce atthe moment of the Treaty>s
condusion may servein makingmore preciseits meaning, and tofit1in possiblegaps ,ut
cerfainlnrittuconfradicttheTreaty.
2.52 Thisappliesequnllyto such new prhciplesthathaveernerged sincethe
Treatywas enteredinto.No matter whattheirrelevanceday be,thesepinciplesmaybe used
I
tu interprethemarner inwhich theTreatyparties(andthePartiesto thisdispute)must carq
out theirobligationsunderthe Treaty, but not neutralisethese obligationsoeven Iess, tu
prevent the acccirnpIishmentof the Treaty'sobject and purpose. This requirementis,
moreover,inconforrnity withtheprincipleof theprimacyto begivento the Treaty's text"in
the lighofitsobjectand purpose" , hichisthecardinaml leofinterpretatioset ouin Article
3 1j1)of the1969 Y iennaConvenîion.
2.53 Withinthegenerai framework thusdstablished , rnayindeed becorrect
incertainspecificsituationsthat:
" ..an internationalinstrument hastuheinterpryted and appliedwithin the
fiarneworkof the entire iegal system prevailing at the time of the
interpretation"l
2.54 But, in citingthe abovepassagefioh the Coun's AdvisoryOpinionin
the Narnibiacar?, Hungaryfails tomentionthe Court' explanationsfor reachingsuch a
I
position,which make cIearthat this principlecaonIybe appIiedwith caution andin special
situations.Inthisrespecttwo considerationsare essential.
89 % IntemrnatiofPace Treatie(second~hass~d\isoS O~inion1C.J. Repor1950.p. 22at
p. 229; anCaçe Concemina ri~htsof nationof the UnitedStateof AmericainMorocco,
Judment ofAugust27th1952:I.C.Remrts 1952.p. 176p.196.
I
PI
LegalConseauencesfoStateof theContinu& Prescnceof Swih AfiicaNamibiaSou& West
Mrical notwi~starrdSecuritvCounciResolulion276 ri9701. AdviOpinion.I.C.J.Reports
1971 p,12atp. 31,
92
HungariaCounter-Mernoripa,ra4.22and6.12. lbydefinitionevo~utionary"~~ C .ommentatorh savenoted that theCourt in thacase "Ientifs
support tu this concept that certaprovisionsof a treatymay beinterpreted and appIied in
Iightof internati lwnaalithas evolved anddeveioped sincethetimewhen thetreaty was
concluded",but havecautioned that"[i]t bashoweverdoue so withincarefuIIycircurnscribed
1imitsnW.
2.57 Althoughit shouldnotbe put endirely to one side,the principlsof
evolutionaryinterpretationasonly a subsidiarroleto plil ithepresent case. Regardlessof
Hungary'sarguments itcannotoperate to revisethe 1977ITreatyby insertingnew obligations
intotheTreaty thatthe partiescouldnothaveintended to createatthetimeit was concluded.
I
Hungary "invokes" a wide vanety of "fundamenta p?rinciples"ranginghm "the dutiestu
perfonn thorough environmentalimpactassessrnentand /o conserve biological diversity"to
"thei-ighttu lifeand ...the righahealthy andecoIogicaIIysounden~ironmcnt"'~~.SIovakia
willtake a close lookat the existenceand reIevanceofthese principlesin the next Chapter.
I
But, inany event,Slovakiahasgreatdifncultyinunderstandingtherelevanceoftheseconcepts
in interpretingthe 1977 Treaty, al1the more since Jungaiy simplyidentifiesthem as
"fundamenta pliincipleswhichave ..ernerged't'Obu'tdods notrelatethemto specificarticles
of the~reat~"~.
2.58 This rnethodof proceedingis al1khe more unacceptablebecause it
requires that the evoIritionarjirnethod of interpretati(par "renvoi mobile"} be appIied
indiscrirninatetu thetreatyas awhole. The staning pointmusibe, asthe Couri hasclearly
98
LepalConsequencesforStateoftheContinuedPresenceof SouthAfricain Namibi(SouthWest
Africa)notwithstandi~ecuritvCouncResolutio276 ($9701,AdvisorvODinionI.C.JRewrts,
1971 p.31.See .lsoAegeanSea Continentalhel~udmnkntI..C.Remris 1978,p. atp.32.
I
Sirlan Sinclair,TViennaConventionontheLawof ~Atia, Manchester,ManchestUniversity
Press1984,pp.133-140(emphasisaddedr
1m HungarianCornfer-Meniorîal,a4.24. I
I
Sec,cg..M., paras.4.23 a4.24. exp1ainedlo3,hata contemporaneous interpretatiomust prevaiexcept wheretheprovisions
ofthetreatyareby theirverynatureevolutionary.
2.59 Ciearlytheobject ofthe 1977 Treaty,whose aim wu the construction
of theGM Project asa joint investrnen duIes,ot Ml withinfis exception. Its objecis
fixedne variehm by avalid agreementbetweenthe partiesand cannot be modified by the
appearanceof any new principleof generdinternationallaw whatsoever-exceptwherethe
principlehasthecharacterof a nom ofjus cogens. This isnot thecase here,andHungary
does notclaimotherwise lo 5.heTreaty doesnotlenditselftoany suchinterpretationthe
partiesagreedtoundertakea jointinvestmentandthey areobligedsoto do.
2.60 Tt ishowever acceptedthat thisis not tcasewith regardto themeans
bywhichthe abjectwasto be realisedwhichis ofa tmIyevolutionarynature as reflectedin
theTreaty itself,t"fiarneworkn "atureofwhichbath Partiesaccept. Itsprovisionscouldbe
-and had to be - supplementedand adapted,in the lightoexperience,through the agreed
provisionsoftheJointContractuaPl lan(JCP).
I 2.61 Moreover,theTreafyindicatedhow such a continualadaptationwas tu
be achieved,systernaticarefening tu the JCP and, in particular,in reltoithe"technical
specification(Articlel(4));the dischargein the waterbalance (Article 14); thmeans tu
ensureprotectionof waterquality(Article15(1))and"cornpliancw e iththerequirernentfor
theprotectionof naturewhich anse in connectionwiththe constructionandoperationof the
System of Locks"(Artide 19)'" - Thus, it was throughtheagreementof the partiesin the
form oftheJCP thatCzechoslovakia andHungaryhadforeseenrliecontinua1adaptationofthe
Treaty tuthe dificulties theymight encounter in carrying out their joint inve(agood
exaniple being Article 7(1) concerning the "emergence of unforeseeable gealogicd
conditions") andin the changinginternationcontext(including itslegal aspects)17 This
O3
l See .aras.2.54-2.above.
IO4
-otethatChap~r1oftheTreatisentitIed"Purpof?heTreaty".
ID5
Bec,para.2.4above-
106
3.34,ra.,Ibelow.e UnitedNatiorTreafySericsisimperfatandriotfoilowedherSec .ara.
107 See,SlovakCounter-Mernoria,ra2.20-2.26.
- adaptationcouIdbe madewithoutanyparticular diRcuIty due to the flexibilitytheTreaty
I
until 1983'~t~hat is untiI the priu~tiof' ungary firIdamentdlychangea dnd itwas no
longer willintoadaptthe Treatyto the ewlving circuhstancesandthe generalprinciples
applicable,choosinginsteadtoseek tomodiQthe Treatyandthen,purely and simply,toput
an endto it withoutregardtoitTreatypartnerC, zechoslovakia,
2.62 SIovakiadoesnot claimthat themeansof continua1adaptatioprovided
I
by the partieinthe 1977Treay eliminatesthe relevanceof generalprincipleofinternational
I
Iaw that mayhaveemergedsubsequently tuthefaskof int1rpretingthe Treaty;but theraiethat
such principlesmsybe calledontoplayis restricted. thi'regard,it shoulbe notedthat:
"Abody of detaileddes isnotto belookedforincustomary internation law
whichinfactcomprises a limiteset ofnormsfor eIsuringthe co-existenceand
I 109.r
vitalCO-operatioofthe rnembersofthe internatiInalcornmtinity
i The JCPand,subsequently,the otherinstrumentsagreed betweenthe Plenipotentiariesindicate
!
the manner in whichthe Treaty parties intendetucarry out theframeworkTreatyandthe
I widernorms. It isonlyif (andto the extentthat)notmerelytheTreatystrictosensubut also
theJCPfailto giveeiTe otgcneralnormsthatthesemay becorneapplicable,andthenody if
!
theyarenot incontradictionwiththenilesexpressiyagreedbetweenthe Treatyparties.
2.63 In short, Slovakiamustagainpointopt thathe 1977 Treatycontainsits
1 ownmechanisrnsfor evolutiunand adaptationand isconsistentwith environmentalprotection,
1 1
not oniybecausethe partieshad thisinmindat the timetheTreatywasentered intobut also
as aresultofthe evolutionof theconceptionof envir~nme~!tpalotectionundertheProjectby
theendofthe 1980s -and even asithasfurther evolvedupto thepresenttime. SIovakiadoes
notthus, inprinciple,disagreewithHungav'scontentionthat:
I
" ..the Treaty itself allowedfor the applicatolnnuch mles and principIes
[i.e.'thedes and principIeof generaI internationIaw'],aspeciaIIyfor the
!
! 'OS Hudgaq pointout tha"[a]consolidatedIof agreedm ificatiotothe JoiContractuallan
adoptaibefor31 Dccember1984 lis74 amendrnentto the original,includingsuchçignificant
1 changcsasmovingthesiteof thetail-racecanalalterithe isolationmehoinrhehead-race
canal".HrtngariCounter-Meniorî, ara.2.22 I
lW
! Delimitationof the MaritimeBoundarvGuIfofMaine Ara.Jud~rnent I.C.J. Rew1984,p.
245atp.239. implementatioonf thetwo articleswhichare themost importantforthepresent
issueArticle15 and 19"0;;"
and that
" ..thereis nocontradictiobetweenthe 1977 Treatyand generalinternational
lawl'l."
2.64 However,it rernainsnecessaryto bearinmind thatArticles15and 19 of
theTreaty arenot themain abject andpurpose of theTreaty and containno expressreference
to rulesand principlesof generalinternationaIiaw;whiieeachof theseprovisions doe sefet
specificalto theJCPinregard to themeans of theirimplementation.
2.65 Inits Mernoriai,Hungatyseize usponthephrase "therequirementsfur
the protection of nature"contained inArticl19, cIaimingthat thisphrase imports into the
1977 Treaty:
" ..independent internationalbligationforthe protectionof naturepursuant
tuother agreements orcustomaryinternationallaw,whether these existedgrior
tuthe 1977 Treatyor arme ~ubse~uent ."~''~
In theHungarian Counter-Mernoria tl,eseindependen"tob~i~ations"" expand tobecomethe
entirebodyof environmentallaw principles,andapplynot only to Article 19,but dso to
&ticle 15 -and,apparently o other unspecifiedprovisionsofthe Treatyas welI.
2.66 Suchan interpretationoesfar beyond thecIeartems ofthe Treatyand,
as a consequence, of the "generalruleof interpretation"et out inArticle31 of the 1969
ViennaConvention.Inaddition,it entirely invalidatetse factthatthe is specifieand
thar themeans ofensuringthe qualityofrhe waterinthe Danube andof the protection of
nature are cIearIydesignat-dtheyaretu beestablishedby andthrorrghthe JCP.
--
l 'O
Hunghan Counter-Memonal,ara.4.21.
111
-d.,para ..16.
" HungarianMernoriapara.5.25.
Il3
ASindicatsahve (fn.79)itshouldbenotethatthereisinfactnomentionof"obligationnthe
SlovakandHungariatextsof tTreaty,whicbothspeakof "requirements", 2.67 As s rasult, the Treaîy (togeth+ with its associsted agreements)
providesfor sufficicflexibiliinorderthatadjustmentd can bc made tothe Project,asand
l
when needed,and itallowsits adaptatioto new generdIpinciplesof internationalaw that
maygovem shouldthe Treatypartiessu require In anyltventan interpretatioofthe 19n
Treaty "within the fiarneworkof the entire Iegd qstern prevailingat the time of
I
interpretati~n""~wouIdriota,d muid not,resulin anyradicaiiynewcornmitmen tsto the
l
meaning of itstermsorthe obligatioofthepartiestherednder.
C. TheViennaConventionandGenemlIntentatianaI Lriw
Slovakiahasshown thatthe legai betweenHungary andSloMkia
2.68
aregovernec iy whatwas6eely agrd inthe 1977 mustjustifyitssuspension,
L.
abandonmentandpurported terminationfthisTreaty lawoftreaties.
2.69 InSIovakia'siew,the principlsftreatyIawthatare reIevantothi case
aredl tobefound intheViennaConvention ontheLaw ofTreaties.Hungary ,eekingtoapplythe
ViennaConvention whenit suitsitcaw, butto denyitsapllicabiliwhenit doesnot,contends
thattheVienna Convention"mot directlybeappIiedinthIegd disputeof the1977~reaty'"'~.
(Thiswas becauseit enteraiintofurcefor both partiesaf1977.) At thesame the, Hungary
statesthat "theConvention,atthe time ofitsformulatiopmiailyconformedwith customary
la^^l6
I
2.70 SIovakiahas takentheview thattheViema Conventiondaes apply inits
I
entirettu the presentdisputebecausby itacceptanceofthe 1989Prutocol,Hungq "afbned
1
the substantiobiigationofthe 1977 Traty" -and theViennaConvention wasbytheninforce
forbothparties1 17. gatyrejectsthis argument,declarithe 1989 Protocoltobe oniy an
amendmen t theMutualAssistanceAgreement; thatprotodls inanyeventdo not "rubstaniively
II4 1
Le-1 ConsequenmsforSratesotheContinucd PresenofSouthAfricainNamibia(SouthWest
Mica) notwithstandiSecuritCounciRemlution276 (119701.Advison,OpiniI.C.Reprtç,
1971.p .2atp.31.
Il?
-bidpara5.59. rwnact" thetreatyitsee and thatthetriennaConventiondues not operateretruspectivelyHa.
Slovakiamakes no suggestiothat theViennaConvention operatesretrospectivelNor are
Hungary' ostherargumentsconvincing.The 1989ProtowIis not a free-standininstrument,
unrelatedtothe1977 Treaty.We its purposwas indeedtoamenda scheduleofwork,that
scheduleof workwasworkto be doneunderthe 1977Treaty.The 1989Protocolcannotbutentail
an aErmatianofthe substantiebligationofthe1977 Treaty.Inconctudingthe1989Protuad,
whichamend4the 1977Mutual AssistancAgrement,whichitd implemented the 1977Treaty
hm which it is in~~arabld'~the Treaty partiesinfac ted their cornpletreaty
arrangements.Anyotherconclusioniwhollyartikid.
2.71 The 1977MutualAssistance Agreemen andthe 1977 Treatyareinreaiity
indissoluble.Hungaryitselhasacknowledged thatthe 1977Treatyis "partofa rnatrkof ...
treaties".mItisnottobe assumedthatanamendmen to atreatisgovemed by oneset ofrules,
whiIethetreatybeingamendedandmother treatytawhichiisinextricabrelatearegovernedby
diKere nles(iftherareind& aridiffererices).
2.72 In any event, and notwithstantd hensaveats in Hunws 1992
Declaration,thereappearfrom the pldings to beno fundamenta dl:sagreementetweenthe
Partieon theapplicabiliyfthe1969 ViennaConvention.This is becauseHungary"recognises,
as the Court basitselfrepeatedrecognised hatthe Conventionmay inmanyrespects be
consideredas a codificatiof existingcustomaryinternatiollw'"12'. Moreover,Hunpy
acceptsthat"[tlheisthennodifficultyinusingtheVienaonventiona aguide ta thcontenof
I perd internatiolaw"In-
2.73 Evenif theViema Conventionis not direct apyplicabas mch both
Partiesrecognisthatits provisioas tothe groundsfor terminatioofa treaty relieciby
Hungary -fundamenta blreach,impossibiyfperformancerebussicstantibu-representlsothe
- -
118 HungariaCounter-Mernoiara5.Oandfn.4.pre-existigarai *urternatioawion th= matters.Hungaryhas hadnohesitatioinreiyînun
I
theViemaConvention whenit hasservtditspurposetudo W. Thus the1992 Dechrationrefers
I
in tems to Article 631) on frrndamentdchange of circurnstance and~it,andyses the
nquiiementsoftheMema Convention.Irefe toshicle k(1) ontheobjktr.andpurposesofa
1
treatand toArticl60(3)@ )nmatend breachtosupportitsarguments1."Hungaryalsolooks
toPartiH oftheViennaConventio nofindsupportforthehateralsuspensionofconstructioat
Nagymarosandlata atWiovo. Thus,bothPartiearelweed thatitisthe provisioof the
ViennaConventionthatapplto thosjust5cationoKeredbjHungary12'.
I
I
2.74 The Vrema Convention on the Law ofTreatiescontahs,inArticle 65,
ipporimtprocduraI provisions,whichSIovakiabelievesHungq has not cornpliaiwith. The
Iegd consequencesof rhisnon-cumplianare discuss fedtheunin ChapterX hereto. The
1
precifsornhlatioof theprocedure;Obe compliedwithunderArticl65 maynot simplyreflect'
1' I
existingproceduralulesof wistornaryinternatilaw;hkwwer, the conceptsunderlyinthe
entiretof ~rtic65 doindeedrefiectwellestablisprincibies.Hungarwoulciappeartoshare
thisview,forinthelastparagraphof the1992 ~eclaratioitmakesreferace to meeting"her
I
obligationeçtabliçhbyArticle65 of thMenna ConventIoqtu setîledisputesarisihm a
treatybypeaxfulmmit. Far fia nherebehg anysuggestIntha Atrfic65 inoi bmdingupm
Hungary,aspost-1977non-customaryIaw,HungaryackriowIedgeifselTUbeunderanobligation
baed onthiçclause,
2.75 Hungaqrightlydiscernsanunderlyingurposeof Articl65 tobethatof
settlingdisputesbypeacefmeans.Indeedt,he~ommentad onthe textofwhat wasto becorne
Articl65saysthattheILC hastaken:
".asifsbssisthegentralobligationgtateunderi+rnationd Iawto'settlerheu
internationaldisputesby peacmgans insuch amver that internationaipeace
andsecurîtyand justicearenot endangeredw' w is enshrinein Article 2,
paragaph3 ofthe Charter,and themeansforthe%Ifilmetf whicare indicated
iArticle3 ofthecharteriz"
12' Sec ,IovaMernorial,nn17(atpp301-302).
lZ4 -3idatpp.302-303.
1
12' The Parliareofmm in disputoverwhethther& eh underLhslawof Staierespomia,liry
mer grounforferminaofatreatnamdyihaof"nmiQ't. Onthiss,C.haptIV,Iielow.
116 1
Ymk ofthe~ntemtionaILawthnmissi1966VoLII, .262.'Ihusanabruptteminationof a treaty, withoua tbee month periodfornot8catioq andan
opportun@ forresponsthereto,wasseen asinimid tothedu@ tuset& disputepeacefirily.
2.76 Therewere other reasonstoo - reasonshavingtheirroots ingenerai
internationailaw-for theprocedura olbligatioof Articl65. In thelira place,as Speciai
RapporteurSirHumphreyWddockpoint& out,thereexist edsbstantiaiStatepracticedenying
automaticIegd &ect toa undateratamination.HaWIg referretuthestrung oppositionofmany
Statestoanysuchsuggestion,SirHumphrec yontinud:
"lnthe FreeZones Case .eventhedairnantstatetookthe positionthat eitherthe
agreementof theotherPartyora decisioofa wmpetent tribunalwasnecessarytu
bhg about the faminationof a treatyon the bais of the rebus sic stmfibus
doctrine'.7
TheSpeciaIRapporteuc ritdofher authoritto the sameeffect. Thenon-automatic &ect of a
declad terminâtio61sexactlywiththerequirernentthat noticebegivenandtheagreementofthe
otherpatrybesou&
' 2.77 Moreover - andthiswas apoint ofcriticaiimportancforthe ILC - the
procedur rquiremenfsof Article65 were a guarantee agallisditrary behaviour. The
Commentary towhaiwas thenDr& Article62 statedthat:
"Many member osftheCommission regarde.thepresentarticlasa key articlefor
the applicationof theprovisionof thepresentpartdding with the invalidity,
teminationorsuspensionoftheoperationoftreatie .s12g
Furthe:
."Govments in their cornrnents ppearedtobe at one inendorshgthegeneral
objectofthe article, nmely, the surrriundingovariousgroundsof invatidity,
terminationand suspensionwith procedurd safeguard sgainsttheir arbitq
applicatiforthe purposeofgettingriof inmenient treatyobligations9.ti
127 2ndReportntheLawofTreatieW.. VoI.11963p.87.
128 &id. IW.V01.1p1.161.
f
Ir9 hid. -54 -
It wasimportan tohavean:
I
"..expresssubordinatioo f the substantiveightsuïsing underthepraviçiom of
thevariousafiicletothe prdure p-ribed in thelpresemartide andthechsb
on udaterd actionwhich the procedurecontains wouId,it was thought,give a
substantialneasureofprotectionagaina purelyarbi'hry assertionof thenuiiity,
terminatioonrsuspensionoftheoperationofa treaty "
'i"
2.78 There was a widespre aonsensusthai parties,by negotiating and
concluding a tmtyf "havebrought thenselvesinto a relat;omhiipnwhich there areparticuIar
obligations fgoodfaith"13. Indeed,SirHumphreh yaddier explainethatthe objectof these
provisionws as"toputthebona ftdesoftheclaiman ttatetoteetest"13'.
2.79 The "rquirernentof guodfaith"underlieandpervade thewhole of theIaw
oftreatie~'~~PistheCourt hasnoted:
"...the law oftreaties ..requiresa remunabletirnefor withdrawal fium or
terminationof treatiethat&tain noprovisionre&ding the durationof their
~didify'~"
2.80 It may thus be concIudedthat the entiretyof Part Etof the Vienna
Convention isthe applicabllaw,binding on both partiesin answeringthequestionsput to the
l
Court forresoIution.
132 ibid1963,VoI.1,171.
-
133 Militw andParnmiIiwrAvnivi(iinand aeaiiiNimm I~icanm u.UnitaiSutesof Amerid
JurisdictandAdmissibiIiJ. dmentICIReports1984p.34atp.4M.
I
134 ibid S-,alsolntemretatinfîhAmment of25 Wh 1941betweenUieWHO andEmt Adnsoly
OpinionICJRe~ort1980,p.7atp.%. SECTIO N. Conclusions
2.81 Article2(1) ofthe SpecialAgreement callsupon theCourt "todecideon
thebasisof the Treatyandmlesand principlesofgeneralinternationaIlHW ,sweIIassuch
other freatiasthe Courtmayfindapplicable".
2.82 The firstobvious consequenceof this is that the 1977 Treaty is
applicablin anivingata resolutionofthepresentdispute. Further,it cabe saidthatsucha
formuiationis quitediEere hnm othersfound incompromisin a few other cases. For
example, in the Case Conceminn the Land. IsIand and MaritimeFrontier Dispute El-
Salvador/Hondurâs ),eCourt was cal14on IO:
" ..take into accountthe ruleosf internationallaw applicablbetweenthe
Parties,incliifknffherepertinen['s'y a Iieu']theprovisionsof the General
TreatyofPeace .
Such a fom ofwordscould raisdoubts astu the applicabilioftheTreaty. But thereis no
suchpossibilitinthepresentcase: byvirtueofthe SpeciaIAgreement, the 1977Treaty isnot
onlyapplicablebuthaspriorityofplace.
2.83 Further,afrarneworkTreatyisinvolvedhere, which must beread and
appliedincanjunctionwith a largenumberofreIatedagreementsthat implement itby making
morespecificitstermsand,incertaincases,byrnodiGingit.
2.84 The 1977Treaty Mf organisethe ways and means of its continuous
adaptation,notablythrough itsrelianceforimplementation theJointContractuaP l lan. The
Plan'sflexibilitypermitsand facilitheetakinginto considerati-ninsofar athepartiesare
in agreement - aany evulution in generaIinternational Iaw, pariicuIainyregard to the
protectionoftheenvironment.Andin practictheJCPhasperforrned weIItheroIeestabiished
foritby theTreatyparties.
135
SpeciaAgreementktweenEI SdvadorandHonduras ,4May1985 , ee,exin Land.IsIandand
MaritimFrontieDispute(El Salvador/HonduJ,dgrnenI.C.JRewrts1992,p. 35atpp. 352-
358. 2.85 Ta theextentthatthiaisnotso, thepossibitiwould nof be excIudedof
I
considering thegenerd principleof intemationd law Iin interpretingthe Treatyor even
completingit.Butthis can onlybeenvisagedin a framework thatis compatible wittheterms
I
of the Treatyitself,without atternptto raisedoubts(A Hungaq atternptsto do) asto its
I
objectand purpose -whichis-to car7 out the joint iIkstmentof the partiesin the G/N
2.86 ln addition,andin any event, thITreaty" ~nterpretatiocannot be
carriedout "in a vacuum". If principlesof generalinternationallaw have a particular
relevance,itisf&, because they arepartof thepositiveiaw applicablbetween theParties -
and Hungaly invokesmanypinciples that arenot pan thefeof- and second, becausethey can
Ise relatitedtu one or more specific provisionsof the Treaty - whereas Hungary has
I
systematicaIIyvoidedindicatingtu which Articleof theTreaty a particularprinciplethait
invokesisrelated.
2.87 Hungary'sstrategyhasonlyone aim:tu "neutralisethe 1977 Treatyand
escapefrum itsclearTreatyobligations. Thisis done eitherbydedaring thaiis nolonger in
I
force,or by its attemto emptyitof a11substancethrough recoursto pseudo-Iegalprinciples
1
thatundermine itsprovisionsorto highlydebatablprincipleof interpretation.Perhapsthiis
the mostsimpleadmission thatcouldbemadeofthe importanceofthisinstrument as towhich
Slovakia once more recalls,witthe greatestinsistencethatit isand will remainthe iaw
betweenthe Partiesand theessentialeIernentfthesolutionofthisdisputebeforetheCourt.
2.88 Finally,in answeringthe questions to theCourt,alongsidethe 1977
Treaty,PartIII of theViennaConvention (initsentiretis
theapplicablelaw.CHAPTF,RIIL TEE ROLEOFTHE MW OF THE ENVIRONMENT
SEC~ION 1. Introduction
3.01 Inits Counter-Mernorial ,urigaryonce again atternptsto supportits
positionbyrelyinon thegened internationalIawofthe envirurimeatndby refeg to avarie
ofnon-bindinginstruments1
3.02 SIovakiahas shownthatthesourceof the Partierightsand obligationsn
thiscase is ifactthe 1977 ~reat#, thatanyprinciplesofgeneral internationallathat are
inconsistenwith theTreaty,whetherthey arose prioror subsequentto its conclusion,do not
ovenide thespecificobligationofthePartiesunder thatagreement;3and thatthe Treatyitseif
containsrnwhanisms for respondingtu my changes in the fachial situationin thestateof
scient& knowledge as it relattothe G/N Pruject(acharactensfiof theTreaty Hungary dso
recog~ises)~. NevertheIess,Hungary in ifs Coiinter-Mernorialcontinueto cite almost
indixriminately varieq of instrumentsreIatingtu the environmentin perd or international
watercoursesin particulrn supportof its arguments,ithoutattemptingto explaintheilegal
relevance. Inshort, Hungaryseems intentuponusingtheseinstruments rnanydating&om the
1990s,as astandardforjudgingconductengagedinbyCzechoslovakia andSlovakiaingoodfaith
implementationoftheir obligatioundwthe 1977Tmty -eventhoughthat conduct occurred
priurto thadoptionoftheseinstmments,di ofwkch areeithernon-bindiriornot relevantu the
presentdispute.
3.03 Butthere isamoresubtleand pervasivestrategthatHungary haspursud
throughoutitspleadingtodate thatSlovakiwishesbneflyto address.Thatstrategyisto attempt
to @ve theCourttheimpressionthatHungary isconcernedabouttheenvironmen btutSlovakiais
not, andthat thipurported lackof concem bas led Czechoslovakiat,henSIovakia,to pursue
I Hungmm Cornter-Mernonapara..IO,!m.
2 SŒ,g, Chpters1 and ii, a&,ChaprerVI ofSlov;lkislemuria1ndCbpter IX of SIovakia's
Cor&-~ernorial.
3 Se,e.g,Chapterl,bove.
4 Seee.~,SlovaCounter-Mernorpia,a..06,9.07 a9.10andHungariaMernoriaplara4.21,6286a4dle4bbdly a projectthat woulcauseseriouandYrepparab hbarmto theenWument indisregarof
theirobligatiounderinternationlnvirumentailaw.
3.04 The presentChaptedi begiqin on 1,byaddressingthisatternt y
Hungary to castCzechoslovaki andSlovakia inthe roleof the environmentavlillain,andby
showinghow itis infactHungary thalhas Med to protectheenwonment. Section2 then
examinesHungary's argumen concedg theinterpretatioor/ Artide15 of the 1977 Treaty.
Finaiiy,Sectio3demonstratewshyHungary' sseof "gene/dprinciplcofenWonmentallaw" in
thiscaseimisguided.
SE~ION 2. Huneam's Mischaracterjsation OE SIovakia'sAttitude Toward the
Environmentand Inteniatioaal~6vironmentiilLaw: and Hunpawts
OwnFailure toProtectthe~nvironment
l
3.O5 Slovak ias alreaddernonstrateiIatthe factsdo not supporteither
Hungary'c sontentionconcernintheenvironmenta eiffectsbf theProjortits insinuatiantshat
CzechoslovakiaandSlovakiaweretientonpursningaprojecttheyknewwouldhe enW.onmentaJIy
disastrous.
3.06 Moregenedy? Slov&i has certaidYneversuggestedthat isomehow
1
doesnot acceptnilesofinternationllwconcerningtheenvironmenat,ndinfacttakesprideinits
record with regardto ratificatiof recentinstrumentsiithatfield. Withregard to the
environmenta ionsideratioisvoked by Hungaq, Slovakiarecallthatithas alreadyidentifid
factorsotherthanconcernfortheenvironmen thataremoreplausiblemotivationsforthisaction
by ~un~ary~.
3.07 Withregard tuSlovakia'sbservariceofinternationalenvironmentaiIaw,
Hungary initsCounter-Memuridbeginsifsdiscussiof tt-branchofinternationlalwbystating:
5
Slwak Memoiai.Chaps.ïand V;Slovak~ounter-~e~ori, hapsW andVm; and PanIli,
below.
6 1
Forexampie,Slovakhas raifiai blb tConventiona?blogid DiversilyantheFrammrk
SubstanmthaDepletet&nef Layero29oJtm1990.don Amendmen tothe Montrealro-1 on
7 SI& Mernorialara.3.3gm. "The contrasbetweentheHungarian andSlovakMernoriais on the issueofthe
internationallawoftheenvironmenitstark.hile SlovakiaclaimsthatVariantC
isgood for theenvironmeno t ftheregioqit appearsequaiiytoclairnthatthis
benefiison itspara volunfatyactand thatgened internationaw imposesno
relevantobligatioonitinthisregard"
1 Theclearimplicationhereis thaSlovakiais wearinblinkerthatcauseittobe obbviousboth to
the environmentac lonsequencesof itsactions and to itsobligationsunder international
environmenta law. Using a techniquethatit resorttooften,Hungary setsup strawmen by
l
mischaracterisiboththefactsand SIovakia'sositioonthelaw.
3.08 Withregard tothefacts,Hungaqconveniently skipsoverthecrucialpoint
that theriverienvironmen tas deterioratigapidlywellbeforetheProject'inception9 The
reversaof thisdegradatios oneof theprincipalenefitofthe ~roject'O.nius thePmjectwiii
permit- andtu the extenptossible,givenHungary'snon-participatina,s aIreadypermittd-
enviromentaienhancements. inthisimpurtantseristhe Project,whichVaîant"C" partidlyand
approximateliymplements &, "goodfor the environmeno tf the region"". By refiisinto
participatintheTreatyand perforritsobligationshereunderH,ungaryisinfacîtheonewhois
harmingtheenvironmen tftheregion.ItisnottheProjec(orSlovakiat)hatiscausingtheharm.
3.09 In the samevein,Hungq StateinitsCounter-MernoriaithatSIovakia
makes "theremarkable claim that VariantC has done littleorno 'sign5cant'damage to
~un~ar~"". This "clairn"shardly"remarkable .s notedabove,one of theobjectivesof the
Projectasithas developedis theprotectioandenhancernen ofthe environmentthrough,inter
-ia, the improvernent f surfaand groundwater ari dherevitdisatiuofthe dned upbranch
~ystem'~.It iin fact ues own seif-seningr&d, until Apri1995, tubring water into the
8 HungariaCounter-Mernoral,r4.10.
9
ThedeteriorawnasdueprimarioerosioofthbedoftheDanubeitseiftaud aycornplof~~UYOIS
-thcoquent loiverhofLhemer tableandthedyng uofthebranchsysieSec .lovaMernonal,
pam 1.57,m.
11
SincVarian"C"isnomorethananattemptoimplementheProjaasneartaspossibintheabçenŒ
oHungq's pmicipationiaciuevthesamebenefiasthatportioftheProjawu14 albeiinsome
mp3.s inamorelimitway.See .haptersIIad Xm,below.branchsystemonifssidoftheDanube thatitoblamefar environmental m itha suffered
inthat region.Hungary'srefiisalwas bason fearsexpresserepeate inlyhe Hungarian
Parliamenandelsewherethatmnstructingundetwatr eih mighweakenHungary'p sositiin
thepresentdisputeM.Oniyaflerthe conclusion the aIrw of 19MApile19n9willthe
rechargofthebranchçyttemontheHungarîansidenowbeboarible,makintheProjoziappeato
I
bewhatitis-benekialtutheenWumentof theregiuqonbothsidesoftheriver.
Ï-
3.10 Thus,ratherthanbeincaused by ariant"CMany hm tothebranch
"r
systemontheHungarian side,includiigassociground waterhas infacben self-inaicted.
ThedeliberatnatureofthisactionbyHungaryconsfitatclearviolationofits obiigmderns
Articl8 afthe Convention BiolugicDiversi&ofJunt5,199215 A.rtic8eisentitled"In-situ
Consedon" andrequires,ntedia thaeach Part"(d)Promotetheprotectionof ecosystems,
nahiralhabitaand themaintenancefviablepopulationsf spaiein naturdsurrounding...
[and](f) Rehabiiitandrestoredegradeecosystemsandpromotethe recoveryof threatened
species,interdi% through the developandnirnplementhtiof planosrothermanagement
I
strategî..."16SincethefloodplaiForesandthe branchsysterweredryuigoutpriortothe
inceptionoftheG/N Project,Hungarywouldhave had thse obligationseven inthe Projeet's
e
absence.The Projectenablethe revitalisaof thebrlh systerthroughthe worksto be
constmctedl7- intedia,an intakestructuratthe ~unaIiliweir,forwhich Hungarywas
raponsiblqandtheundmater weirstobeconsimned ithéoIdbedof Danube. Yet,untdApril
I
1995,Hungaryhadrefusectiorestorewattoiffiverbran~Iesytheseoranyothermm. This
refusahasresultein:
-
A failuby Hungarytoprotectthe&1ystems and naturahabitainthe
branchsyrm and thuto maintaiviablepopulahs endm to fhatareai
andespecidfy
14
ManvarHirla,March1894,SiovCounter-Mernol,nnIx33.
16 -nidArt.8(dand(0.
l
17 & cg.SlovaMernori,ara.2.87. ah.para11.10bek. - A Mure to rehabiiitaendrestorethedegradedecosystemsofthe branch
system;
both incIearvioIationoArticle8ofthe Conventionon BioIogicalDiversity.By f&g tobring
waterintothebranch systemonits sidethroughthesestnictureHungarjrdso violatd th1977
~reaty" .
3.11 As tothe qualitofboth surfaceandgroundwaterthat might be aeFected
by Variant"C" fhe Endingsof theEC Working Group of Expertsand the resuIofmonitoring
containedinVolume II ndicatethatnosignificanmpactson surfse orgound watwqudityhave
occurredorareexpectedfromVariant "c"' ex,eptforbeneficialnes. Thereforearfiombeing
a "rernarkab caim" bySlovakia he lackof hm to HungaryassociatedwithVariant"C" is in
factborneoutbythe evidence2'.
3.12 Thesecond hd of mischaracterisationungaryempIoys inaneffort tu
distortSlovakia'positionconcernsSlovakia'legalarguments. Slovakiamust note thatitis
mystifiedathowHungaq couldhave cuncludedthatSIovakiais claimingthatthebenefitsof
Variant"Cttfor the environmenof the regionareon S~ovakia'part "avoluntaryact". While
SluvakiamightweIIhavetakenmeures tu restorethe branchsystemonitssideof the Danube
even had therebeenno 1977 Trew or BiodiversitConventioni,thas dways ben Slovakia's
positionthathe restoratimeasures permittebyVariant "C"arequired bythe 1977Treaty.
Slovakiahasnotinventedthemout ofthinair.
3.13 Hungaryhrther seek tsportraySlowka as beingrinmindklof itsIegd
obligationinitskitement ,uotedabove,thatSIovakiaappas tu daim I1thgrnerd intemationai
lawimposesnorelevant obligationon itwithregard to thenvironmenitntheregionofVariant
"CH.Hungary thenstatethatSlovakiamakesthisclairinpart"byclaimingthatthe1977Treatyis
a Iexsnecidis.whichcontaineditown regirne,howeverinadquate, on thesubjm,"andin part
18 See-,g.SlovaMernonal,aras.6.13140.
-
20 Slovakiasctumiementtm ht "HungarIESnotshown'çignifIchamiad Ir yaria"CI'.lt.
SlovaMkemoria,ara7.85Tht ah reniaime."byassetmgthat ddupments in theinternationlw of tl emiromnentarethe pmductof 'di
~aw<andthattheiymposelinleorno constrainosnstatact{ontt.l
3.14 histmethatSlovakiahaspointedoi th& many oftheinstnimentcitd by
I
Hungary as evidenceofmles ofintemationalenvironmentaiaware non-bindingstatementand
I
declarati~ns~~.But thisinfacblesidethe pointrince,asdemonstratinthepreviousChapter,
therelevanrightand obligationsfthePartiederivenothm thegeneraiinternationllwofthe
environmentbut frornthe 1977 Treaty. Moreover,the !egirneofthe Treatyand itrelated
instrumentsis hardly"inadequat" dealwithenvironrnenk considerations. ungaryhasirxW
extolled the Treatyas behg "consistentwith the maintenance ofwater yudty and wirh
enWomenfd prutectiongeneral~~"~.
3.15 But even if the Treaty as conclddedin 1977 could be considered
"hadequate " ytotiaqstandardosfenvironmentairotectiaitishd~y astatirigicdocument.
I
Hungaryreccignisedthisqudity in its Memuriawhen it Iharacterisa!th1977 Treaty as"a
fiameworktreaty,onewhichauId bcmodifiedor adjustedby agreementinthe Iightofchanejng
1
circurnstances".Slovakiahasiikewisemphasisedthatrathethanconsistingoa setofhardand
fastniles,th1977 Treatyconstihiteaflexiblfiarnework!b paermitthepartiestorespond to
development ss theyunfoldwhiIeachievintheessentiaobjectandpurposeoftheTrwVas set
forth in Artide"e. Therefore,Hungary'ssuggestionthal the regimeof th1977 Treaty is
I
"inadequateas faastheenvironmen isconcemedis bothself-contradictand inaccurate.
3.16 Finallythas neverbeenSlovakiaidsositiothatthegeneralinternational
lawof theenvironment"impose[sl]ittlenoconmaints onslateaction".Thati- likaenybranch
of internationalI-wdoes imposesuch wnçtraintsiaxiornaticWhat SIovakiaduesmaintainis
I
that the mattersheratissuearegovemedby the 1977Treaty,whichis entirelyconsistentwith
generaiprinciplesf internationenvironmentallw, rathethan by a givenbranchof general
21 HungananCounter-Mernoria,a.4.10.
'' forexamplSfova Courifer-Mernpalra1.31.
23 I
HungarianMemanal, ara41.6% Jso,W., pas-6.28and10.73.
24 m., para4.21. 1
25 l
-eca,.,SIovaCounler-Mernoralra9.06,9. 07d9.10.internationIlw -avastIydifferenpropos~i u ndy 10 theextentkat thesare matte= thatare
-otcovered bytheTreaty muldgeneralinternationallwsupplementtheTreaty'psrovisions.
3.17 To sumarise, Hungary criticizethe 1977Treaty as king "hadequate"
withregardto theenvironmentw, bleatthesame timepraisingtheTreaîyasbeingconsistentwith
envirumental protection.Hungatyhtther seeksinmorembtIebutpervasive ways tu characterise
SIovakiaas a countrythatdoesriotfakexriuusIythe internationiawof the environment.This
insinuatioSIovakiafIatIyrejectZtione thingtomaintainthatafreatyisnotsuperdai byniles
of gerrerdinternationlaw,whichSIovakia doesin thicase i;isa muchdifferentthingto clah
thatthose rule simposelittlor no constrainon stataction"asa generalproposition,which
SIovakiahasneverdone. IfeitherPartyinthepresentcase hasindicatedtharulesof international
lawdo notconstrainitsactionitis Hungaryb, yvirtueof itshavingfiouteditsobiigatiunder
the 1977Treaty.
S~crro~ 3. Hun~arv'sAwument Concernin~the Intemretation of Artide 15of
the f977Treritv
3.I8 Both in its Mernoriaiand in its Counter-Mernoid, Hungary argues
strenuouslthatArticle15 ofthe 1977Treatyshouldbeinterpretetdo includegroundwater.That
articleprovides,inrelevantpar"The ContractingPartiesshallensure,bythemeansspecified in
thejointcontractuapilan,thatthqudityof thewater intheDanube isnot impairedasa resulof
the constructioandoperationoftheSystem of~ocks"~~ . ungaryarguesthatthephrase "water
of the Danube"shouldbe construed "broadIy..suastu includethe subsu&cewater relatecito
i...12. SluvakiawuId obse~e that the"ordinarymeming"29 of "waterof theDanube" wmId
seem tobe surfacewater flowing in thebed orchanne1of the Danube; Hungagr as much as
confinns thiin ifsreferenceto"wbsurface water relatedru if,2,- relatedtowater "in he
Danube. Thisis logicalsinceifthequaiityof surfacewaterisnotimpaired,hatofgroundwater
willnotbe. Infact,Slovakidoes notwishto challengHungaqsinterpretation.
26-
Theextentowhch newly-fomdprinciplsfgenerainternationamaywbeuçedtointerpatntniier
agmmentiscsamind inChpkr IIalmye.
28
HungarianConter-Mernamip. 4.12(emphasadded).
29 ViennaCanvgntiaridieLawofTreatieç,Artic1(I&lhatpaiagmphprovidain pari:ma@ SM
k interpret..inaaxirdmΠwith theordinmdng tobeaven IOthetemrsofdre inttteir
contcxtndinthelightofitsobandpurpose." 3.19 Slovakiamust-rd, howevert?hatitdoeskd Hungws use ofmfhûrity
insupportof itsargumentrathermyst@ng. Hungaryreliesupon variousdocuments of the
I
InternationalLawCommission -theCommission' s994 Reportand extractshm rqorts oftwo
ofitsspeciarapponeur rto "supporLtitsassertionasto scopeof Puticle15...13. Wc
Slovak haano quarrewiththe contenof thepassage suotedfiom thosedocument syHungary
- passageswhich simplyretlechydmlogic realigl - SSl!~a.kiapuzziedas to how Hungaty
befievethosedocuments arerelevantotheinterpretatioofthe1977Treaty.Hiingary citethem
not asevidenceof ~aw~ ~ut,from di thatappears>only as endence of the fact- now weII
understood- that=und wateria usudly interre1atwith surfacewater. This isyet anofher
exampIeofHungary's indiscriminaeseofa widevarie@ ofmurcesofvarying authoritativedue.
3.20 Slovakiamust, however,take ex ptionto one conclusiondrawnby
l i
Hungatyfrom thesedocuments.Mer quotingextensively fiom theILC'swmmentary and fiom
theconclusionofthe1992 DublinWater oder rend H'u&~y states"Thesetextsundedinethe
lackofmeritof Slovakialdegation thathequalityofthe daterintheaguiferinthe areaswhere
I
the hydropowerplan tas tubebuiltwuId beensurd bysimplemonitoringder the construction
I
was finishe".SIovakiawouIdmakethefoIIowing observatians-
3.21 FA, Slovakiahasneverdleged that waterqudityin theare ianquestion
I
couldbe "ensurdby simplemonitoring."Thispropositionisabsurd on itface. Monitoring is
necessarytoascertaiwhatthegualityofthewaterisata giv+ momenti;tisa meansof measuring
1
waterquality,notünprovingor "ensuringt. Slovakialpos(tionhasaiwaysbeen thatthe careful
"rnonitofingofwaterqualityinmnnectionwiththeconstniCtionandoperationof the Systemof
70 HmgarianCornter-Mernor,ara4.13.
31 The firsi Fge,takenfromtheILC' sommentarto anide2 ofiisdmffarticleson intendonai
wakmurus, dacnbs thedifferet pomnrs afihe iena/aelementsothehydmlogiccycleThe
mnd, aaexcerphom threporoftheIiiternatCaonfereionWaterand thEnvironmenht,elat
Dublifrom26to31Januaq 1992emphasim theimportanefprotectgroundwter. Andthethird,
aquotfroma qmrtofoneoftheILC'spialrapporteuonwtercourseP,rofessrchwebelshethen
wasconcludeshareportsiscussofgroundwatedescribi&itsinterrelatiipisurfacWr.
I
32 Asdirrusadipan 2.56g-q..aboveHmgary do mtis aretobeinterpretdinLghtof
thelawprwailinat thtimeotheinterpretati. uas indicdiHungary not#Ferthese
documentssaidencofprwding laiu.
33 Asexerpted anNoiemexed totheSand ReporofthWs ISpeciRapporfeur. - 65 -
I
Lacks"(thequotatioisfiomparagrap h ofthesame Articl15to whichHungary refers)inot
ody reqnireby the1977Tra& butis necessaq toprovjdecurentdataon waterqualitsothat
anypossiblprobIemc sabe detd atan eartstageandmasurescm be takenimmediatelu
addresthem.
3.22 Second,ithasiikewisneverbeenSlovakia'sositio-nor hasitbeenthe
practi ofthepartieb the 1977Tmty - îhapotentiailmpactofthe Projecon waterqdty
neednotbe evduatedinadvance,butcoulk appropriateyddrd ody "&erthemnstniction
was finished".Slovakhasrepeatee dmlphaisedtha thenumemus studiesconducîeby both
Treatypartiespriotoandduringtheconstmctionof theProjectbelieanyimplicatithatthey
tooka "build-it-nof, r-it-laapproach. AU possibleimpactof theProject-incIudingits
possibleimpactonwaterqualie -werecar&lIy and thuruu~y studiea numberof fies, by
the partithemselvesand by independentenfitie'3In its MemoridSIovakiahasdescribed
adjustments adetotheG/N Proje -ctreventivemeasure- to optimisthequalityof ground
watersupplyinwellsandwate~works~~ .husHungws characterisatioofSlovakia'positioin
thiregardisatfiesmisleadirig.
3.23 m, SIovaki aasshownthatthequaIiîofgroun dakr hasnot suiFer&
asa resultof theProjecsperatioqandthe EC WorkingGroupof Experts has confimiedthis
findinasdo theresulofmonitorincgontainexiinVolumIIIhereto3'.Andfourthiisalsoclear
that negativeimpacupon graun dateroccurredas a resultof Hungarysuspensionmd its
abandonmentof work on the ProjectAny resultinghm toground wateristhus amibutable
soIeItoHungar y
1 3.24 In sum,Hungary'asrgumentconcerningArticl15 ofthe 1977Trwty is
unnecessarof uncertairelevace, afactudlyunfounded.It isunnecessayintherespectthat it
SlovakMernoriparas2.W-2.1(0describg es onthe projectimpactof tGM Syçtemon
surfaandgrounuater).
Sardiemnducfedimh priormhquent tathemnciusionthe 197Tmfy aredid inSIovak
Cornter-MernorilapterIV.
36
SlovaMeniorid,ara..4and5.46.
37
-eeparas12.08and12.14klow.devotesmuch spaceto a pointSIovakihasnot conteski,k., thagmund wateris includein
l
Article15. Itis ofuncertairelevanceinits indiscrimitse ofa varietof instrumentfor
I
purposesthatareto Slovakia,nclearAnd iisfdy lnfoundedinitsmischaracterîsatofn
both Slovakia'sositioand the regimeof th2977 Treatyconcenringthe protBctioofwater
quaIity.
SE~N 4. Hunvary'sUseof"General ~rincidesofEnvironmentalLaw"
I
3.25 In itCounter-MernofiaHiungq onceagainhsiststhat theobligationsof
I
CzechoslovakiandSlovakia-andp ,resurnabI,suwn,aswelI -inrelatito theGN Projecare
govemed by generd pinciplesofenvironmenlad8. AccordingtoHungaryt,heseconsistofthe
"internationalwniles..inforcedurinthe wholelifetimdf theSystemofLocks ..includ[ing']
thosenewruleswhich have appearedsinctee entq intof1!~ ofth1977~reat~"~~. Iuingq's
Counter-Memoridbasesthisargument on threesources:kick 2 ofthe SpecJ Agreement;the
1977 Tream and the decisioof theCourt inthe Namibiacase4? Slovakiahas expiainedits
1
positioninChapterIf ofthis~e~ly~',aswell asin bothofits previoupleading shat,his
argumentis not supportedin law,policyorcornmon sense. Slovakiahasalso demonstrated,
however,thatits conduct in relatito the ProjecfasJell as that ofCzeîho~lovakiqhas
I
nevenhelessbeen inconformitwithapplicableniles ofgeAerd internationalIawrdating fothe
er~îronment~~.Moreover,Hungary ha failetuuEerconvincingscientimidenc tosupportits
claimsconcemingenvironmentalhm or thethreatthermb. Hungary'psost hoc "Scientifjc
Evaluation",belatedsubrnittwdititsCounter-MernoriLal,resentitbesteffortbutdoesnot
beginto çubstantiaitsclaimsasshow in Part IU,below,and inYoIumes IianandEhereof.
Slovakiahasshownthattheevidencethatdoesexistofthe&d, recordedimpacfsofVariant"C"
I
dernonstratesthat ithashad,andwillcontinuetu havebeneficidimoncthe environmenitnthe
38 HungarianChunter-Memoal,aptIV,SenioCn(2)"~enekPrinciploofEwiromentla$.para.
4.20g=.
40 bid.para4..04.22.
-
53
SIavaCornter-Meniara,r9.47,gsoq.
44
See.artIIWow. regionq 5Theonlyexception to thi skitofflairs hasbeen causedbyHun&s &sa1 to take
themeasures necessary(andrequiredunderthe Treatyt)o suppwater tothebranch systemonits
side. 'Ibirefirsdhs preventedthe Projecfiomproducingbene&theresimilar tu theunes th
havebeenrecord&onthe Slovak side&.
I 3-26 Thus,Hungws argumentconceming the applicabiloyfgeneralprinciples
of internationalnvironmenta i w is, iany event,moot. But sice Hungary inits Counter-
l
Mernorialpersistsinattemptintofindbasesforthe argument,Slovaki611 onceagainaddress it.
l
Thefo110wing sub-sections ilfi& touch brieflupon twopointsthat are examind in depthin
I other Chaptersof thisReply:Hungary' srgument conceniingthe relevanceof"new mles"of
generalinternationlalw(subsectioA)'~, discussein detailinChapterIlabove;and Hungary's
argumentthat Variant"C" isillegalunderrule of generalinternational w (subsectionB)~',
I
I examined in Chapter VI below. Two additionaa lspects of Hunges contentionsconceming
generd phciples of internationalenvirumenial Iawwitlthebe exmined: Hungary'sfdure to
I
observethose principles, ssumingarguendo th& they are applidlle (subsectionC); and the
consistencyofthoseprhcipleswiththe1977 TreatyandhencewiththereliefsoughtbySlovakia
1 (subsectionD).
A, Hun~arv'sAmment Concemine "New Ruleswhich haveAppeared
Sincethe EntrvintoForce ofthe 1977 Treatv"
3.27 As indicatedabove, Hungarybases its argumentthat "new rules"of
internationaelnvironmentallwareapplicablienthiscaseon three sources,he fistof whichis
Articl2 ofthe SpeciaIAgreement. Slovakiahas discussd the SpeciaIAgreement,and in
pariicülar tinterpretatiofArticle2 thereof,Chapters1 andIiofthe presentRepfy.
I 3.28 ThesecondsourcecitedbyHungaryinsupport ofits argumenconcerning
the applicabo ifniewymlesofthegeneraiinternationlaw ofthe environmentisthe1977 Treaty,
sp~ifidly AnicIes 15 and 19. CharactcrîsticdlyHungary fails ro specify the wnductof
45
-bid.
46
-3e SlovaCounter-Mernorpal,8.O1.
47
nirsargumenitmadeinCh 4,SectioC,ofHungaryisounter-Mernoril, s.10-4.27.
48
ThisargumenismadeinCh 6.Section(ZfofHrtngay'Cornter-Mernorains-6.186.41.CzeçhoslovaioaorSlovakiatawhichit seek soapplytheFr-. Inaddition,Hungarynowhere
I
explainshow (hisreliarion the Trmtyis compatiblewiih itsdaim thattheTreat has been
terminated.
l
3.29 Lris Counter-MernoriaH, ungaydes the flatassertion,withoutfirfher
explanatioqthat"[il& casesh., inthe cas ef buthMicIe I5 andArticle191theapplicable
internationIawmles arethosewhichareinforceduringthewholeMetirn efthe SystemofLocks
..includ[ingt]hosnew ruleswhichhaveappearedsincetheentryintoforceofthe2977~reat$"".
Slovakihds thisargumen to behighiyUnplausibaled,in/inyevent,whollywithoutfoundation.
3.30 FA, zspoinnteout inChapterIIabbve,neitherhicle 15 mr Article19
containsanyreferenceto nileorprincipleof generalinternatiollw. Article15doescontain
two referenceo otherinstrumentthataretogovemtheirndlernentatioonitsprovision:heJCP
baragraph1) and"theagreements on froniierwatersifke bctweenthegovemmentrof the
Contrading Parties(paragaph2). Ttis obviousthat neitherofthese referencesincIudesrulesor
pnnciplesofgerrerdinternationalIawAs shom inChapter IIabove,thoserulesand prulcipIe~
1
may, undde rertaincondition,e relevanttothe interpretatinftreatyprovisionsbut cannot
amendthem.
l
3.31 AsforArticle19,"Prothon of Nature"theor@ expressreferenceithis
articlis, oncagain,tu the3CP. Article19,as trandatein the ULrnitdationsTreatySeries,
providesinhlI;
"TheContractinPgartieshalf,hroughthemeanssp cifiedinthejointcontractuai
plan,ensurecornpliamce iththeobligatiosorthe qotection ofnatuaishg in
connedionwiththeconstmdion and operationofthe Sjistoflocks."
3.32 SIovakiafirswishe o redI the faktthat thetranslationof Artic19
containedin the UnitedNationsTreatySeriesis,incrucial1espects,not accuratdo.A more
accuratetranslatinftheoriginal iovaand HungariavnersLn,oftheTreatyisthefollowing:
l
49
HungananCounter-Mernoral,.4.1(ernphassdded).
50
-eeparas.2.45-2aboveandfn.rcIevaoArt. 19'straIslation. "TheContcactingartiesshall,throuthemeansspded intheJointContrachial
Plan,ensurecornplianwiththerequirement fortheprotectioof naturewhich
anisinconnectiowiththeconstructioandoperatiooftheSystemoflocks."
3.33 Thi translatim&es cIeathatthe partituthe1977 Treatydidnothave
independenIegal"obligationf"rtheprotectiononatureinmindatdi infomiulatingArt'~19.
Instead,heyrecognisethatitwas notpossibltoforeseeindetaiaioftheways inwhich nature
mightneed tobe protecteduringtheconstructioandoperationoftheProject. They therefore
Iefithemselvesthe flexibilsitytherartic letseTreaty,tuproridein the JCPforspdc
seps tu betakenoprotectnature,asthneedarose.
3.34 Even if the translatiinthe UnitedNationsTreaty serieis utilised,
Hungary'isnterpretatinf thephrase"obligationortheprotectioof nature"iserroneousas
demonstrated in ChapterII &ove5'. In addition, applicatiof the fundamentalmle of
interpretatianthe1969 ViemaConventionisilluminating.Whenthe words,"obligationsfor the
protectionof naturaregiventheirordinmymeaninginthecontextofboth therestofthe artide
andtheother articlinChapterW of theTreaty(Article20), andinthelighttheobjectand
purposeofthe 1977Treatyasawhole,severalpointsbecornclear:
- The phrase "ensurcornpliancewiththeobIigationsfor the protectionof
nature'' ustbereadincunjunctiowiththephrasesimediateIy pr~ding
and followingit,namely,"throughthe means specified inthe joint
contractualplan"and "arisinin connectionwith the constructiand
opmion offhe Systerof locks".When rad inthiscontextArticle19
clearlycontemplatesthat ifsgened provisionswillbe elaborateduponby
agreementbetween thepartieintheJCP,whichistu speciethernannerin
which naturwas tobeprotect deringthe"constructionandoperatiof
theSystem ofLocks".
- Fumsingupon a difere ast- of thecontextofthe phraseinquestion,
obligationcaruioflegallyspeakirig"arisehm the constructionand
operationof aproject.Tbey ansefromniles oflaw. Forthephrase to
have meaningit must thereforbetaken toreferto obligatioderiving Eom theJCPthat "&se1'in the~Lse ofbeinguiggered ortadg intu
I
play,byWtue ofthecunstmctio n doperatiooftheProject.
- ItissttikhgthaArticl19,unlikbiththeother&ide inChapter W and
Articl15,containsno referenctoany speczcagreementotherfhan the
JCP. Sinc eothof the other articdesIingwith environmentaissues
definethe parties'obligatiointms of the JCP or other specifïc
agreements,iseems highiyunlikelthathe partiewouldhaveintended
thattheirobligatifortheprotectioof"nature"-aterm thatifarmore
vaguethan "waterqrrality"<Arti15)or"fishinginterests"{Art20)e-
be definedby generd internationallaw. This is especidtme shce
"obligationforthe protectionof natuunder generalinternationaIlaw
were evenlessclearlydefinin1971thantheyaretoday.
- I
Conversefyn,nowherelseinthe Treatyasgenerdphase Iike"obligations
fortheprotectionof nature"usai.isthereforedifficulttu believethat in
thi snecaçethepartiedecidd top thattheirobligatiowouldbe
governedbyunspecifiegenerai protectioof "naturea,term
thatcouldbeunderstoodquite inotdefinedintheTreaty.
-
Sudianinaerpretatiowouldmake tksphrasea cornplaemody inthe
Treaty,whichothenvisespellsouth1partie'bligationsclearlyintext
P
or referto otheragreementtshat do soor - in thecaseof the Joint
ContractualPlan- wiUdo so. On /he othehand, itwouldbe entirely
consistentwiththe patternestablishedinnumerother provisionsofthe
TreatyforkicIe 19tu be interpretu mean that tpartiewould agree
on thestepstabetake toprotect"nature"intheJCPand thatthesesteps
wouldbetaken, ssnecessary,uringIheconstructioandoperationofthe
Projeci.
3.35 Therefore,when interpreteaccardi tugthe standards of the Viema
1
Convention,Articb19cannot havethe meaningthat Hungaryassignsto it.Inparticulzit, e
burdenthatHungatywouldplace onthewords"obligationfdItheprotectioofnature"inArtideonethat thosewurds,especidlywhenrd in theircontextandinIightofthe abjeand purposeof
the 1977Treaîy,çimplmot support.
3.36 The thkd sourcecitedbyHungary insupportof itsargumentcondg
the applicabiitofnewlyemerginggeneraiprinciples of internationenvironmenta iawis the
Namibia case. Hungary hasrernoved hm its contextthe statementof the Courtithiscase
concerningthecircumstancesunder which a treatymay be intwpretedinthe lightof the law
prevding atthe timeaf the iriterpretatiThe prsent case ivufvingas itdoes apractically-
orienbdagreementforthejoint developmen tfan internationl atercuiirssa farcrykm the
Namibia caseand theCuvenantofthe League ofNations.WIt the meaningof the conceptin
Artide 19 ofthe 1977 Treatyare notrigid,theydonot remoteIyapproachthe statusofthose
containedinArticle22oftheCovenant w, hichincludethatof "thewell-beanddevelopment "f
thepeoplesinquestionandthatofthe"sacredtrustofcivilisation. sdiscussedigreatedetailin
ChapterIIabove,theseconsiderationcastgravedoubtuponthe applicabiliintheptesentdispute
ofthe exceptioidentsedby theCourtin theNamibiacase.
3.37 It hasbeen noted in ChapterIi above that Hungarjr"invokes"a wide
varietyof what it characterisas "hndamentd principles". In kt, these "principle"ary
sigiificantlyfiumonanotherintems of bothfheirIegastatuand theirimportarlce5'. Someof
theseconcepts arequite newand are based untreatiesfsuch asthose of environmentalimpact
assessrnent(1991)" andbiologicaldiversi(1992)'~)- some of whicharenot in forcewhile
otherswereinforce at thetimethe 1977 Treatywas concluded (suchastheright toKi). Still
othersare controversiato this day(suchas the "righttota healthyandecologicallysuund
52 Hungman Counter-Mernorimi,4.24.
53 ConventioonEnvironmentalpl AssessrneinaTransboundaCyontex25Februar1991.
54 ConventioonBiologicalDiver5June1992.en~ironment)~E '.veto theexted wchphciples mayhave1 "ernerge they wouId mt uvmîde
or inariywaydter theprovisionof the1977 Treaty.
3.38 Inany event,aninterpretatioofthe1977 Treaty"withinthe hmewurk of
the entirelegasysterprevding at thethe of theinterpretafio-"whichwouldpresumabib yein
1
themid- 1990s- wouIdnotresultinany radicalnyewunderstandin asto themeaningof itsterms
or theobligation sf thepartiethereunder. As Hungaiyr!Iognises, theTre.aty"was consistent
withthe maintenanco efwaterqualityandwithenvironmend lrotectiogenerally"56 I.naddition,
Slovakiahas dernonstratetdhatthe Treatytogetherwith ils associa tgrdementsprovide for
suficientflexibilthatadjustrnen tanbemadeto theProj't as andwhenneededJ7.Thisis *me,
I
for exampleof the Treaws provisionson monitoringQArficIe 15, para. 2)" andon the
I
establishmentofa joint cooperativernechmisrn(theGovernent Plenipotentiarie-sArticle3) to
I
ensureongoittgcoordinationandwrnmunicationwithregard \Odl aspectsoftheProject,including
environmentdunes5'.
Inmpponof theexisknceofthi srightHungvy referd para. 10.2ofits Mernoril ~ I y
rnemingp. 10.38)niat paragrapdm notexplaithe'onginoftherighbutmc~ly des toan
"emsrginhuman tip a theuivimnmnit.u~he frmnoteioJhpage inquestion quotations
hm the Sldholrn andRioDaiarations, neiofwhîchlerç toa"rÎghIOenviormentofmy hd
The Expris GroriponEnviromentai LawtheWorIdCommissiononEnvironmentandMiopment
mnçluded:"Itmot besaidhl the fundamentahlm bght loanadequakenvironment
constituaeweiiefablishedrightunderpreinfernatio\iw.As amtteroffac tterareasyetno
tr~atitvhch providfora specifhuman ri@ to anadquateenvironment."RD. Mm & J.G.
Lamrnws ,nvironmentaiRotecrianandSusfainDevdoodent, Graham& Tm-- NghoE,
LoadonlDordrechtBnsto1987p.40. BirnirandBoyfpiit outfhaf"nomty refersexplicittthe
riglto adeanlenvîronmenatsan individualrigP.~i+e & A.Boyk, IntematlonaiLaand the
Environment,Chndon k, ûxforâ,1992,p. 191. Amrding tth= authors,"[tlmorecornmon
view. isthanoindepsndenri&&toadent environmen t yetbeoome parofinternatioliw..."
M.. p. 192.&, alsoP.-M.Dupuy,"LeDroiA laSantéet /ProtaftidelEnvironnementt, R-1.
Dupuy(ed.),TheRi~htoHdth asaHum Rinht,Alphenaan den Fùjn,1979,340,arguing,interdia
that unltherightolifsucharightinatinherenintheh+ conditio; lnoq"CanjuringUpNew
Human RightsA Proposal orQualControl",8ArnericaJournalfInternatioLaw (1984),p.607;
andJacobs,Human Rights.Remri(978),pp.170-173.
56 HungariaMernoria lam 4.21.
57 Slw& Cornter-Menioriduas.2.20-2.2andpims 4.06-9.07!
I
58 Thispmviçionkdi- interdiainWwak~ourrer-~ernkal. para.4.%,wiim iisnoiedtha te
operatioofiirnaniroriqstenihasken evalrür&redmbl$inboththeBecIrt1eportandinthEC
Wofig Groupreporof2 Novernber993.
'9 l
niejointmpnaüve nicchanisstablirhebytheTm@ isdth in SlovCounier-MenoMp Lara
9.07. B. Huneaw's Amment that Variant "C*' is Illwal under Rules of
GeneralInternationalLaw
3-19 InChapter6, SectionA of its Counter-Memorid,Hungary spec%alIy
addressews hatit tem "theiilegalofVariantC undergened internationalIaw". SIovakhas
shown in thiandpriorpleadings , ir hatthelawapplicable inthiscase is th1977 Trw,
second,thatVarian"CM isnothingmorethantheresultofCzechoslovakiaasplicationfthe 1977
Treatyinasapproximat e TashioasitcouId&er Hungat-fsundatera indtiniawfrabandonmerit
of its obligationsundethat agreement;and thi rhdt Variant "Cu,being an approximate
applicationfthe1977 Treaty,haseffecthatareeitheidenticawiththosethat wuuldhaveben
producedbyimplementatioo ftheWikovo section asoriginalynvisaged(eg., thechanneling
ofwaterthrough thebypasscanal)orsmallerinscopeleg., thesizofthereservoir).Therefore,
Variant"C"mot beregarded asbeingunlawful,inceitisanimplernentatiofCzectioslovakia's
andSlovakia'obligationsundetheappIidIe Iaw,i&.,the 197Treacy.
3.40 Slovakia hasfurthedemonstratetdhat,asHungaryhasitseifrecognised,
the 1977Treaty"wasconsistentwiththe maintenanco efwaterquaiityandwith environmental
protectiongenerally"a;ndth, unsoprïsin@yinlighrufthis last-rnentrocharacterisofcthe
Treaty,heconduct ofCzxhoçIovakiaandSIovakiahm the concIusionofthe 1977Treatyto the
presenthasin any eventbeenconsistentwithprincipIeasndniles ofgeneralinternationallaw
concerningnaturalesourceandtheenvironment.
3.41 InChapterVIbelow, SIovakiaexaminesHungary'scontentionsconcehg
generalprinciplesof the Iawofinternationalwatercourses,highIightingthe fact that Hungaryhas
madeno mention ofa keyaspectof the principof equitabland reasonableutilisation:ofat
equitablparticipation.SlovakitheredemonstrateshatHungaq actedinconsistentlwiththat
principlby uniIaterdIyabandoring work un the GIN Project, whichconstituteanagreed
expressionof what constitutan quitableand reasonableutilisationof the Danube. SIovakia
hrther shows inthat Chapterfhat its conduct thatof Czechoslovakiahasat a1timesben
consistentwiththepnncipleof equitable utilisaiself,as welas with that of avoidanof
significahm to otherriparian StatesandthatHungws cornplaintc soncerningtheeffectsof
Variant"C"arewithoutfuundation.
Hl HungnriMernoriapara..1. 3.42 Thereforee,venif thesegened p&Iplesof internationaienvironmentai l
lawareapplicabl enthiscaseSlovakiahasactedconsistendwiththem,whileHungary hasnot.
l I
The foilowingSectiowül examineHunges behavbr inth! iigofothw pnociplesofthelaw of
C. as su min^that General ~rinciril&of InternationalEnvironmentai
LawAreAnplicable inthisCase,~un~arv Acted Tnconsistentlwith
thosePrinciales
3.43 Hungary relies hcaiily in ifs pl&dingsupon general principlesof
internationalenvirumenrailaw, nomithstandingthatthe presentcaisgovemedby the 1977
Treaty.SlovakiahasdernonstratecnChapterIlthatthosepIciplesmaybeinvokedin su~p0t-tf
theTreaty to thedent theyareinhmony withit butnot 10contradicttstenns. Moreover,to
I
the extentthose pinciplesare applicablis,Hrrngaryrather than CzxhosIovakiaorSIovakia
i
whuçeconducthasnotben inmnformiv4th them.
i
I 3.44 The presentsub-sectionwill focuupon two principlesof the law of
international atercourses,a field that Hungaryincluda within the areaof international
enviromrird Iaw: the prîncipIeof prier nofificationand consultafionconcenVngpIanned
I
masures, andthe principlerequiranStatetoprovidaarem1nedanddocumentedexpIanation of
actions that would delaythe irnplementationy anotherState of plannedrneasureson an
internationwlatercourseThe presentcaseillustrasrarnaticallowimportan theobservance
of theseprinciplcan beto othcrStatessharina watermk. As SlovakiawiiIdernomlrafein
Chapiers VIImd VlII below,Hungq failed utterltoobservethe principieswith regafo its
I
suspensionandsubsequentabandonment of both NagymarosandGaEikovo, causingsubstaritial
harm toCzechoslovakiaandSlovakia,
Hrinpsrv Failedto Observe the ~kncirileof Prier Notificafirin and
Consultation in Relationto its S'usriensioand Abandonment of
NawmarosandGabEikovo
3.45 Thereisnow littdoubtthatarequirdtnenot priornotificationofplanned
activitthatmaycause hm tootherStateshasernerged' agmeral principlof international
I
Iaw. Inthe mntext ofshard fresh waterresourcesthe dr& articlesonthe Iaw of thenon-
navigationaluseof internationalwatercoursesadoptedby the InternationalLaw Commissionun
Isecond read'mg in 1994 finish the latesauthoritativevidence of the generaIprincipls of
internationaaw governingtheutilisatiofthosermurces.
3.46 TheCommissio ntas articl p rsvidein essencethat when a State
ripariato aninternationwlatercours(a llwatercoursState"isplanningmmes relatdto the
watercoursethat rnayadverselyaffecanotherwatercourse State,itmustprovidethepotentially
affectedState withpriornoti&ationof ifspImd measu~es~ . ~Ifthenoaed Statehds that
impIernentatioofthe planswouId causeitsipi5wit harm or violatethepnncipleofequitabIe
utilisation,thetwStatesmust"enterint o mltations and,ifnece-* rtegotiafionsithaview
toan-ivingatanquitable resoiutioofthesituation.Theconsultationsandnegotiationsaretu be
"conducte d nthe baistht each Statemuain guod%th payreasonableregard ta therightsand
legitimateinteresoftheother tat te"^^.
3.47 Hungarymade no pretence of notifYingCzechoslovakiaprior to
announcing itsunilateralecisionsto suspendNagymaros and Gabcikovo, respectiv1,and it
failedsimiIarft, no@ itTreatypartnersbeforeabandonin hese sectionsof theProject.A
fortioriitdidnot consuItwith its Treaîy partnerpriotutaking these Itis hardly
newssarytu note theiroriy:onthe one hand , ungaryfdsely accusesCzehosIovakia ofnot
notiSfinIlungay dits interittproceedwith Variari"C" anundertakingsrnallerinmpe than
theone to whichHungâtyhadalrezidyagreedo;n-theotherhand,Hrrngaryitselfded tu provideits
6' Drafiarticlon thelaw ofthe non-navigatiousasof intemationwatercowses,eprt of the
InternatioalawCommissionn theWorkofItForty-Sixhion, &urnentA149/1a 0ticI12atp.
260 (1994). Asirni fîrcîpl, utoneof mori:generalappIicabiIctytaineinthe 1992Rio
DcclaratinnEnvironmenand Develapment.Princi19oftheRioDalaratioprovida:"StatsW
providprioandtimeinotificatnndrelwaninformatioopotentidlyaffd StatesoactMtiethat
mayhavea significadverstranslmundaenvironmentffectandshalIconsuitwiththoseSat an
&y stagandingûcdhith.DocumenA tICUNF.15115.1, 13Jme 1992reprintin31International
LE& MateriaIs74,atp.879(1992). AmrdingtoHungq, theRioDeclarati"ndlecttheemerging
mnscnsusof memkrsoftheinknÿitiona1aimmunitywith =@10the basicprincitokspromolai,
both indiuiduaand mIt&eIy." HungarianCorner-Mernoria,an. 7.28. ai=, theECE
ConventioontheProtectionmdUseof TransboundqWaterwurçeandIntemationalLakaHem
March17,1992A,rt.9(2)f&nt& in31intemtiomlLemiMaterials131f1392).
Of mm, Hunpy twsundera va &Iigati~toprovidepnor ndcatianafand tomnsuItwith
CzPchoslwakimnŒrningitsplanstsuspenandabandonNavos andGabEikovuondeArticl3(c)
and(d)ofthe1976Agreemen tetweenCzechosiwakiandHmpy ontheManagenieno tf Boundaq
Waters-anobligatwhichitbreache,sshowninChaptcrs andVm, below.
62
ReporoftheLC, 9.&.,Articl17atp.273.
63 The September-Octobe989 negotiaticoncerni GnaMikovoweredirectatwhen andon what
conditionsHungaq'uniIaterasluspenmightbeended.Czechoslovakiaasgivennopriornotice
of,andwasnotconsulteoverHungary'sbandonmen ofGaMikovo.Treatypartna withpriornoticatioand M oppottUmttydICOIWI w~ithregardto theanionsii
took that werutteriantithetiiatotheProjstthat haradeenaged to byboth Staresandin
I
wfüohCzechoslovakihaadalreadyimestedsubstmtidly.
1
HunyarvFaiIed ioPmvide a~enshnedandDocumentedExpianation
of ItSsusaensionand s band on m ofn tevmaros and GiibEikovo
1
3.48 TheInternationalawCommissio n kalsorecogni theta decisiobya
wstercourseStatthatwi~~iev-itablelayoraitemeasuresb-4 by motherwatermurse State
shouldnotbe takenlight1orwithnn good fsitcommunicatiow niththeotherState.Thehes
I
drattarticlesoninternatiowlaterwunes accordin& providethat theaffectaState mustbe
notzed of such a decisionandthatthe notificationto be accompanied by a substantiated
enpIanatioofthe raons therefof4.nie Commission reasonedthataight torequirethe other
Statetodelayimplernentafinfitsplans"justifherquirernent..that th[State&g for the
delay]demonstratitsgood far thshowingthatit hasmadea seriouandconsideredassessrnent
of theeffectof theplannedrneas~res" A~substantiatexlplanatioistheleastthatcanbe
expectedhm the Statcausingthedelayoraiteratiasa demonstratioofthatStategoodfaith.
Thisis allthmore truewhen theactioninquestionwill,se significatarm and violatethe
prînciplof quitableutilisation,whichwerethe e~ectudon Czechoslovaki and ~~ovakiaof
I
Hungary'ssuspensioandultimataebandonmen otfbothNagymarosandWikovo.
64 Article1ofîheCommission'sraarticle dedth the kp1bya Stafht hasb-e.riofïEof
masurespfannebyanotheSute. TtprovidesifthnoIotiSrallïndthal implemeritaf the
plannemm woddmure isigniiirantiorviolathclpnnnpofquiidde utiiïzaüistom
inforthenotiFyStatandprovidethSutewib "ad-,enfed explanafw!ir~gforthewns
fothefin&gLt.Anic15,par2,ReporofiheInwnationpw &mmissiononthe WorofItsOS-
SixthSessi=n&.,atp.270.The~rotiSfatispermittpdrquirthenofiiyhgSkitetowndthe
imp1ementatnfthphnad mm foa periofsix thiisinadditiontotheinitiai
six-month al~oi~frthenoufi~iat10shdyihe nowng tat .eec.rtsi(a)and
I7(3W., atpp.257and247,qxiively.
65 -bi(emphasisdded). D. The 1977 TreatvisConsistentwithGeneralPrincidesofInternational
Environmental Law: Those Principles Suptiortthe Relief Sou~htby
Slovakiir
3.49 Hungary arguesinitsCounter-Memuriatlhat "theCciurcannotacceptthe
mainsubmissionosf Slovak iiraispeaofreparationpmse] thecontinu& operationofVariant
C -letalonethecompletionoftheOriginaPlrojec- wouldprovokeirreparabd lamageandcreate
majorriskstotheenvironmeno tftheregion.."66.Thiscontentionisfactuaiunfounded andaiso
contradictother positionstakeby Hungary.Moreover, as Slovakiahas repeate drdy,
Hungarfs argumen f ofthiskindareIegal irrlevantinthiscase:the governinlaw isthe 1977
Treaty;Hungatyhasnotestablished,norcouldit establi,itheragroundforIawfuIIs yuspendmg
or terminatirtheTreatyundertheViennC aonventionut anom ofju sovensthat would render
theTreatyvoid. Ttbearsemphasi hat,aswithitsotherarguments,Hungary makes no attemptto
fram thiscontentioin terniofeitherViennaConventiongroundsforterminatioonrjuscogens.
Instead,ides emotionalappds bd on vagueand misleadingreferencetu doctrineof no
relevmce to fhiscase Its argumentshould nclbe countenanced forthis orfor the foiiowing
additionalreasons.
3.50 Hungary cannotatthe sametimecordïrm thatthe1977Treatyisconsistent
with environmentaplrotectionandclaithatthe completionof the Proje-tascalledforbythat
veryTreaty- "wouldprovokeimparable damageandcreatemajor rîskto the environmentof the
regionqk.6in fan,it is Hunws abandonment of the Projecithat posesenous theats tuthe
environmeno tf th=@on6' -fhreatsthatwould have mataialisein severedamagebut for the
implementatio ofVariant"c"~'.
66 HungariaCaunter-Mernoria,a.7.26.
'' See,ah,SlavakCounter-Mernor il,a9.04etsq. Slovaiuahasdm dernomûamtihatsincits
Gduct, awellasthaofCzechoslwakia,asbeenicornpliane ittheTreatythroughoutfoUows
thamch ronducr ken consistewith"environmentirolectigenerallS;lovaluhasfiuther
slioithatihasaiskn in mnfornliiywithgenprincipls of intematenvimnmeritIw. See,
gerieraSIovaMkernoripas. 77.72-7.TndSIovakCornter-MernoC,hapIX.
69 -bid.,pm. 5.52-5.61. 3.51 Fu~her,asSlovakiahasdemonsfrateinthisandprbr pleadings70,ither
I
Variant"C"northeOriginaPraje wcould'"rovokeirreparablamage" or"mate major riskto
theenvironmen tftheregion".On thecontrary,sSlovaki'hasshown,theProjectasorighdy
envisag aedd as provisionalimplernentd througtiVariant"C" - which permits,g.,
1
revitaiisatnftheentireDanube idanddelta-isfarmorebeneficidtu the enWoment ofthe
regionthanthe"donottiUigppruac hdvocatedbyHungary -whichwouIdresultinthecontinusi
progressivedegradatiofth eiverinecosysteminthebraidaisectioofthe Danube. Hungary
1
inany casehadnoconvincingscienticvidenceofthekindsof environmentalarnagor nsksto
whichit refers,eitherwhitwk itsaispensioandabando!unen dtecisioorwhen itpirported
toterminatehe1977Treaty. Italsfailetoconduc ihestuldishaticlaimedwue neede asto
I
possibleffectof theProjectotheenvirument.The "ScimtificEvduation"beIatedIyasembIed
byHungary andpresentaiinitsCounter-Mernor lîaiwisMIS farshortofestablîshignything
more thanthemostrernotepossibilofsuchdes, asdemonstrate dnPartDJ andinVolumes II
andII IothisReply.
3.52 Inanatternpt tu support its thesi%Hungary invokesthe "notioof
I
sstainabIdevelopment"as containedin the Rio DecIarationarguesfhat that concept ais
hmonious combination ofrherighofeach Statetuexploiifsnatur desourceswith idutytu
protectheenvironmen tfother~tatd"". Slovakiisinfulagreemenwt iththisStatemew,hich
perfectlydescribthecombinatioonfenvironmentapirotectiand economicdevelopmen tto
saynothhg oftheprotectioagainanaturalisasteand ohdrbenefit-schiwed byHungary and
Czechoslovakiin the 1977Treaty.k SIovakiahasshown, farEom beingincomistentwiththe
reIieitseeks inthiscase t,e conceptof sustainabledevelopmerrtis infact given concrete
expressiointhefom ofthe GN proj+xt.
3.53 Hungarybetrays itdesperatioin th mlaenerin whichit concludesits
1
Counter-MernoriaI l.rwrts to pejorativecharacterisationtheGM Projeci (calIinita
"dinowuirn7')ndof the perioinwhich the Proja was plannedand the1977 Treatywas
70 -SeeinpartidaChapX, Ibelo,ndVolsIIandIn, hereof.
71
HunganaCounter-Mernoral,ra.7.29.
72 l
SE, e.SlwakCornter-Mernorparas.04-I..
" Hmgarh Couriter-Memoiai,7.38.concluded(refenhg to itas "anothearge,inwhich any consideratioforthe protectioof the
environment was systematidy underestimated and subordinatedto a narrow vision of
deveiopment ...7). Hungary goesso farastu characterise lovakiacsaseasamounting "to a
requesttu thCourt toreturntothisancienrégrneinvklation ofthe law,bothasiwas andas it
hasfiirtherevo~v&~~;iteven instnicttheCourtthatir"i sod itseIfto appayprecautionary
approach"' 6whateverthatmaymean inthecontextofthiscase.
3.54 Butderisivecommenta srenosubstitutforcarefulscientifsîudyor dose
Iegd analyçis.SIovakimus1emphaçis yeetagainthe foilowinghdamentd points:&st,the fici
thatanagreemen tasconduded annmber ofyearsinthepst, eveninanotherera,isriainandof
itselaground foritsuspension,erminatiow invalidiunderthelaw oftreatietu tu uphoId
the1977 Treatyonthe groundthatit "cornfiom anotherage",an"age"thatexistedlessthatwo
decades ago, wouldimperilthe stabilitofinternationalgreementsandthus of the relations
between States. Second t,e 1977 Treaty-by Hungary'sown appraisd,is"cunsistenwith ...
enviramental protection"if,asçeemsobvious, by calling the originalProjaa "dinosaur",
Hungary intends fo suggestthatitis nat consistentwifh envirumental profectiog Hiingary
contradictistself.Thi,henotionthatenvironmenta plrotectiwas systematicdlignoredatthe
time the 1977 Treatywas concludeà,in additioto being legallirrelevantisdemonstrably
inaccurate. Slovakiahas drawnthe Court'sattention to the impressivenumberof studies
conductedbythepartiestuthe 1977Treatypreparatortu itsconclusion,manyofwhichdeahwith
environmenta~lnsideratiom~'. Furtheras Hungary isfondof emphasishg", the Treaty i~If
containsprovisiondirectespec5callytothe protectioofnot onlywaterquality(Articl15)but
aisonature(Article19).One ofthegreatironiesof thiscaseisthatHungaryw, hichcondemns
whatitcharacteris esthelackofconcernfortheenvironmen dturingtheperiodinwhichthe 977
Treaty was preparedand mncluded, was itselfunwiliintu undwtake appropriateldetaiid
environmentai studiecosncerningtheeffects of the Project until it mpiledits"ScieritSc
Evdtgian" intheautumnof 1994. And fourth,Hungq gives such sweepingmeaning tu the
74 m., para.7.36.
75 Ibid.,para.7.37.
-
76 M.
17 a Slow&Mernoriapi. 2.IO,fS.
78 Se. Hungarianounter-Mernoria, ..21."precautionaprinciple"th^it wouidthwm most publicdwelupmentprojas, especialinthe
fieldofutergyprod~*odp. As Slovakiahasdemonstrat&,the Projecas irnplmentedbythe
TreatypartiesandbyClechoslovakiandSlovakia sinc~#n~aq's withdrawails fuiconsistent
withaprecautionarapproach.
3.55 Hunw's argument conceniingwhat it refirs as "the rd remediai
writext"shouldthmeforebe dismi4 ascontradic tsinger argumentsand as Iackingin
1
reasorgfachialsubstantiatnnd legaifoundation.t isa desperatand misguid apdpeato
emotionthatshouldreceivenocreditancourtoflaw.
3.56 The foIIowinconclusionmaybedrawnfromtheforegaingexamination
ofHungary' usseinitCouder-Mernorio af"generalnncibleof environmentallw",including
thelawofinternationalatercourses:
- Firstand forernosimfar as fhosperincipIsrge un co-ripariStates
I
theneed forAgreementst,he 197Tr- metthatne&.
- Thosegenerdprinciplesdo not eonsiitutetheapplicalawin this case;
thatlawis mntainedinthe1977Trea!!. However,evenifuicb prhc@es
areÎnsome way releva tntydo notadvanceHungary'scaseno,rarethey
in anyway inmnsistentwith that of SlovakiInfa, ifariflhin&they
reinforcthesoundness,fromthepointof viewof environmentaIlwand
policy,ofthG/N Project.
- L
Slovakiawodd underiineonce againthat the "generdpnnMpIesof
enviromentai Iaw"invokedby Hungaq are,bydefinitiogeneral. They
I
are hardlysüitedtu reguIatithe obligationsof the Treaty partins
1
relatiotoa projectofthewrnplexitoftheGiN System,and indeehave
ineffecbeengivenspecificexpressioitheTreatyandthePmject asit
hasdeveIope-d.
79
&. gcnedy,SIovaCorner-Memariaiaras.0-9.94.- In thelatteregardthe Treatyisalex srieciafiom whichsubsequently
developuiggeneraI principIesorrIdnot derugate,even ifthey were
somehow applicable.
- In the presentinstancehowwer,they are applicabieto interpretthe
intentiofthePartietothe 1977Treatybutnottochange it.
- YetSIovakia hasshom that,inanyevent,the conductofCzachoslovakia
andSiovakiathroughouthasbeenconsistenwithsuchpriricip1e.s.
- Moreover, Slovak haasdemonstratedhatit isHungarthatis iviolation
oftheveryprinciplesiasçerta,sweIIassomephciples -suchasthatof
quitable participat-thatitconvenienlignores.
- Findy, Hungary'a srgumentthatthe Court shouldnot grantthe relief
requesteby Slovakiabecausethe 1977 Treatistaintedbyold regimes
and renderd obsoIetby newtrends, isboth misplamiandudounded.
Thereis nolegabar -derivinfiuminternationalenvironmenlaw ormy
othebranchof internatioliw -tugrantingthereliefSIovakrqüm.
On thewntraryto gransuch reliefwouldbto giveeffectothenom of
pactasuntservanda.The environmentahlorrorparadedbyHungary have
abmIutefyno bais in fa; onthe contraryseriousandimpartialstudies
have foundenvironmentaaindwaterqudiîy benefitbm the ProjectIn
addition,Slovakiasubmissionsare&IIyconsistenuiiîhand areindeed
supportedby, the concept of sustainabledevelopment,contraryto
Hungary'usnsubstantiatdassertion.oacceptHungary'asrgumenwt ould
beto encouragetherepudiationftreatiesonthefiimsiestofpretem. 'HAPTER IV, TRE LAW GOVERMNG TAE VALIDITY OF MGARY'S
SUSPENSION AND ABANDONMENT OF WOIUCS AND
4.01 Inrespondin gotwo of thequestionput tothe Courtunder Articl2 of
the SpeciaAgreement, thePartieshavegiven not onlydEerent substantiveamvers but have
appEed differet Iesofintemationaiawinarrivinatthosemers.
4.02 The Court wiUfind inthe earlierpleadinsome arguments on the law
applicableoansweringArticle2(l)(a) ("whethetrheRepublofHungary wasentitleto suspend
andsubsequentl ybabandoin,1989,theworks on the Nag)marosProjectand on thepartofthe
GabEikavoProjectforwhichtheTreatyattribut&responsbi IOtye RepublicofHungary")and
Articl2(1)(c)("whataretheIegaleffectsofthenotificati, n19MayI 992,of thetermindon
oftheTreatyby theRepublicof~ungar~") '
4.03 Some of Hunws justifications for suspensioabandunment and
terminatiooftheTreaty arebd onthelaw of treaties: thedebateonthecm bejoinedatthe
Ieveof substance.Butsome ofitjustificati-wherethelawoftreaties providenoassistanc e
arebasedonthelaw ofStateresponsibili$.
4.04 Inits Courtter-Memuril ungaryrefertu "Slovakia'attempttuexclude
the Iawof stateresponsibili..inthe mandate ofthe Court inthe presentcaseor in public
internationllwmoregenerally"3S .lovakifindsthiwayof puttingthe mattecurious.Thefact
1 Pariîdar refe~maybe made to tarpenrs onapplicabfawaiv. 8.09-8.2oftheSlovak
Memorial;anparas.19and10.03-10 oft7eHungarirurMernoriaflwthappEcabIIeaistobe
dedumihm thesubamtivejuçtificatiosuspensioabandonmentandteminatio&advanmiby
Hungayf;paraIA3-1.0and9-95-9.1of1theSlovak&unter-Memariand paras5.M-5.22 the
HungariaCounfer-Mernom.
2
Slwakih2salreadrawnattentitothfacthatthsmixandmatch"approaccanleatotheadoption
ofcuriopositions.Forexamplsimdtaneourelianon Artic60 of th1969ViennConvention
md oncountermeasurem îhaHungq isat onandthe sametimcdeclaringits termitobeon
Iawfubyrman ofmateridb~h; and protectfromcategorisaasmt IawfuIbytheIawofSute
rqmmibiQ on çounterinemra.
3
Hungarianornter-Menior, a5.08.thatArticl2(1) oftheSpdd Agreemenr tequestthe~ouk to decide"onthebasisoftheTreaty
andrules and principleof generalintemationallw" doesLot rnean thatthmfôre Hungaty car^
seet u juste its suspensioandterminationbyreferenceta both treatlaw and the Iawof SWe
rerponsibiiity.It simpmeans thattheCou* willlook atthe 1977Tresty itseland at the rules
I
and principlesfgenerd internationalaw todetermine whatis theariplicablaw. SpaceIawis
aiso partof generalinternationallw: Article2(1) hardlb tums thatinto "applicablleaw"to
determintehelegalityor otherwisoftheconduct oftheparties.
4.05 Slovakiahas some dinicultyin uiderrtanding the assertion thait is
"atternptingoexcludethelawof Stateresponsibili..inp!blicinternationllwmoregenerally".
Thiscaseisçoncerned withthe adjudicationfcertasi pecikcpointsputto theCourt,anditisin
relatiota these-andîrpeciallyto questions2(1)(a)and ofrh~ SperirlAgeernent -ihat
SIavakiabeiievesfhatinternationIaw indicatesthe answeraretubefu'ounidn the applicationof
I
theprînciplesftheViemaConvention on theLaw of TreatiesThi shardIyexcIudÎng thelawof
Statereçponsibityinpublicinternationaalwgenerally.
4.06 Againstthisbackground Slovakiaha8thoughtitusefilto addresstheissue
I
of theapphcableIaw inrhiscase.In ChapterIIithasaddressedthe issueas it appIigendly in
the presentlitigationZnthisChapter, SIovakiafocuseson the applicabllaw to determîne the
legality or otherwiseof Hungary's suspensionand abandonment
of works and purported
terminatioonfthe1977Treaty.
4.07 Hungaryusefullygroupsin it~ernbrial its groundsof justificatioas
enunciatedinits1992~eclaration'.Fundamentc alangeofcjrcurnstmces andmateridbreach can
4 See,ibid.p. 10.03whereHungarydiçtinguishtwogroup sf "material brea-the "pIanned
conmiction"oVarianC" (inden5)ad otheraiIegbreach8.Hungaq makw norealattemptoshow
thathelattercou-evenicorrec-arnounttmalenabreachhentitlingterminaunderMcIe 60 of
theViennaConvention.Butit doenotadvancanyarguml inrelationtoth= allegeb-ha by
SlovaIathatiwasentitledresponbdywayofcountemeasu~esndethelawofstatresponsibilS.o
herethePartiesarin amment thaHtungary'argument'md or Ml by ~ferenc10 the Vie-
ConventioontheLawof Trraiia. residiiybe perceid as reliane on the Iaw oftreaties. But Hunds leadingargument -
"necesity"-isunambiguoustsy aidtube agroun forterninationby referelitu Articl33 of the
ILCDr& Articleson State~es~onsibilit)S.
4.08 Slovakia does not seek to "exdude state responsibity in public
internationallawgenerallyn,orindeed evento draw rigiddivisionbetweenStateresponsibiity
and the lawof treaties.Iovakiastatedat theveq outset:"There cm beno artScid andrigid
separationofthelaw oftraies andthe1awufState responsibiG ry6
4.09 Butnot everynom ofinternationallwisapplicabl o everycircumstance.
Slovakiaadheres toits positiothatthe approachto applicablelawmust be suchthat: "Noms
emanaimE gomthe differenbranchesof intemationalawmustsupplement and supporteachother,
notrende each othermgatoryf ."
t
4.10 Theissue isthis: Doestheground ofnecessity8as itis elaborateinthe
I
law ofState responsibiliy,titleHungary tosuspend,abandon andterminatethe 1977Treaty'
Slovakiaisconvincd thatthemsweris to begivenby applyîng the Iawoftreatie- and that the
fawof Sfate res~onsibiliitsetfdoesnot çuggest otherwise.In other words,the lawof State
responsibiliasitreferto theconcept ofnecessitdoesnotpurpor o providea separateground,
overandabovethoseelaborated in theVienna Convention ,ojustifyterminatioof treaties.The
evolutionofconcepts regardedas withinthe Jawof Stateresponsibiliispraceedingexactlyin a
marner thatsrrpplernen tnd supportsthe existinglaw of treaties. Idoes not purport - as
Hungary'sinappropriateuseof it wouIddo -torender nugatorythecartfirllfashioned provisions
ofthe ViennaConvention.
5
Hungaryalsorelid on "subscquentmposedrquirementsof internationaliawhichjwt@ iîs
theIatvotheenvironmeandinkrn?tionmtercriums,thbreachofrvhic(ifcoddwkoshown)isahut
saitcbeagroundforterminaticin.OnrhisçeeChpers Iand Iiabwe.
7 Ibid.
-
8 Assumin&armendo lhatHungarybelid thatsuca statof nmity exist ttherelevanltimeand
lhathjeaiveiydidexis-butwhch Slovakhasshownno110bethemse.Lee p.ras7.53gtm., 7.69,
-~.,8.3t,g~..~da51,~~.,~1~. 4.11 Hungary' uggestionthat"necessiti(asa propergroundforterminating
the 1977Treatygoesconsiderab lqrondwhgt haf,=vebef& ben suggeste dnthedebat abeut
theconect relationshpetwee tneIawoftraties andthelawofState responsibity.
4.12 PartV, Section 3of theVienna~dnvention dealsonlywithtermination
andsuspensionoftheoperationoftreaties.Terminatinnd suspensiobecauseofthe misconduct
of the othetreaty partis dealt witinArtide 60. Article60(1)of the 'iriemaConvention
I
providesthat: "A materidbreacof a bilateraltreatyone ofthe partiesentitiestheothto
invokethebreachas agound for terminatinthetreatyor suspendiitsoperatioinwhoIeor in
pari."The term"materiablreachisdefinedinArticle60(3). NothininArticle60, oinPw V,
Section3generaJioyftheViennaConvention ,ddressesheduestionofwhat otherernediemsight
beavailableorbreachesofnon-materidprovisions.
4.13 Mat thenistherdationstiipbetweentheIof Stateresponsiibiyindthe
lawof treatieandwhichis applicabllawforthequestions,thatheCourt mustdetermineinthis
case?
4.14 The broaddemarcationbetweenthelaw of traiesmd theIaw of State
responsibiliisclsu enou&. TheViennaConventiondds with,interdi%thepdtted grounbs
forterminatioandsuspension.Andthe law ofStaferesponsibilyealswiththe convences of
a terminatioorsuspensionthat is unla*. Thisnahirarelationslbehveenthelawof treaties
and thelaw ofStateresponsibiliyas wellillustratby théfindirof theCourt inthe Teh
HostagesCase that:
"Successivand stillcontinuhbreache sy Iranof /tobligationto theUnited
StatesundertheViennaConventionsaf1961 and196
ledto:
"..conclusionswhictlof wro mfinwrms oftheintebationd respombilitofthe
Iranianstatevis-&-sheUnitedStateof Arneric".TheCourtfoundthat dueto breachesof relevantreatie(as welias ofgeneralinternationallw),
Iran
"..hasincurredresponsibilittowardthe UnitedStates. As awnsequenceofthis
hd'mg, it clearlyentailsanobligatioon the part ofthe hian statetu make
reparationortheinjurytherebycaiised..."
4.15 Although thicody describetheessentialrelationçhii,does notfûiiy
cuver its entretbecause the ILC itself,whendiscusshgwhether thed& Kema Convention
shouldinclde provisionson the lqalLabiIitarisingfrum aMure tu petform treatyobligations,
had statdthatthisquestion
"..involvesnotonlythegeneraiprincpilesgovemingthereparatiot nobemadefor
abreachof a treaty,budso thegrounds thatmay beinvokedinjustificatioofthe
non-performanc uefarrayI0 ."
4.16 TheILC decided to putto one sidedificult issueofState responsibiIity
(andofStatesuccession andofthe outbreakofhostilitie)nd providedinArticle73:
"TheprovisionsofthepresentConvention shd notprejudge anyquestionthat may
anse ..frumtheinternationairesponsibiIyfa state."
4.17 It has sornetimes eensuggested thatArticle73, readtogetherwith the
dictumcited in paragraph 4.15 above,means that the ILC itselfwas signallinthat separate
gaundsfor terminatioonfatreatymightsornehow existundertheIawof State responsibityl'
4.18 But nothinginthe textsofthe ILC dichrror Article73 suaest this-nor
dootherconsiderations.
9 UnitedStateDipIornatand Cansr~IartaffiTehran.Judgment. 1.CRerxir1980,p.3,atpp.42-
43(para90).
YearbookoftheinternationLaw Commission1964,Vol.IIpp.175-176,para.18.
11 -M, P.Weil,"Droitdetrait&edroitdelaréspmsabililé"t,ernatioLlawinanEvolvin~ World,
LiberArniconrmEduardoJiminezdeArkhapa,VoI.11,523-525. 4.19 The dicturnofthe ILC refemdtg the fhct thatjustificatifor
performancedght dm beamatterofStateresponsibùityI etheraStatincursresponsibityfor
violatinaprovisioessentito thea~cornplishenof theobj& orpurposeof thetreat(Article
I
60(3)0) mayindeedbe a matterofStateresponsibiliîy.Audess it is, exception6eeffium
I
reçponsibilforits materidbreachhen the injuredpartywilientitIetûterminatethetreaty
underArticl60(1).
But thiisnotatdItheme thinas sayi nhatthereareswarate arounds
4.20
forteminationbeyonctihoseindicatintheViemaConventionT . he LC's dictudoes notrefer
I
toadditiond terminationgroundsbeiagmatterMlingwithinSbte responsibii-it refeto an
entireldEerentmatter,thatofnon-performan(tehatrnightncertacircurnstanesadtheother
i
partytoterminate)And toreadArticle73riallowingaddit'onglounds forterminatio,eyond
1
thosesetoutintheViennaConventioq isturad intothtextwhatissirnp1notthere-How does
thestipulatithat"thepresentConventioshdInotprejudgeanyquestiothatit&t &se ..frum
I
theinternationalresponsibiyf ame" mm this? "Aquestionthat mightaris..fiom the
internationrlesponsibilyfa state"is not,onanynormal!eading,anacknowledgnentthatthe
l
lawof internatiorlsponsibiloyfStatemightprovideadditionml oundsfortermination.
4.21 Not ody dothe textofthecelebrateILCcomment andofArticle73 not
I
sust& sucha conclusionbut both the wntext and indeedthe travaux prkparatoisuggest
1
otherwîse. The rd debatehasben -until this ca-e out therole of the Iaw ofState
responsibiliyn thefaceof the undeniabfactthatArtide"60 addressesoniysuspensionand
teminationofthetreatyformaterialreach.The questiondfremediesforanon-materiibreach
(indeedevenofan importanbreachofa provisionnot essentidfortsecurinoftheobjectsand
I
purposesof thetreaty)is simplynot ddt with under the Viema Convention. It maybe thatthe
1
Iaw ofStateresponsibilyillhavearoletoplayhere;butn ithertheViennaConventionnorthe
work of theILCon Stateresponsibilityuggeststhatin doingit isenlargingthepemiittd
groundsforsuspensionortermination.
4.22 Instead,thelawofcountemeasures mayplaifspartasa rezponsewhich
I
thelawofStateresponsibilidyeclarnon-wrongfultoa nonmateridbreachof abilateratireaty.Thiswas exactlytheimportofthe Air Services case'' i, whichthe arbitratorfsoundthat the
actionofthe United Stateswas a permittedcounterrnare to a b~eachof a tteatprovisionby
France. France's breachof treatywas neverdetermina tu be "material"the importaricof
proportionality1i3 the applicatioofthe countermeasurew s as ernphasised;ndthe Tribunal
thought itimportan thatthecountemieasurew sereexactlydirectedtowardssecuring fiiUtreaty
performanc beyFrance.TheUnitedSfates didnotsee heremedy oftermination.
4.23 ItisirtthiwsayttiatArticle73 oftheMenna Conventionandthe Iawof
Stateresponsibilityan be understoodto be hmonious andmutualIy supportive.TheIaw of
countermeasurer snayberelevantto answeringatreatyquestiononwtiichtheViennaConvention
isdent -nameiy, how may a statrespondto anon-materiablreach. Asone writerhasexpIaind:
"I n iewofthe somd poliq reasonsfor preseknga deterren u minor aswell as
tomajortreatybreaches thereferencetso materialin thetextshouldbe rd not
as excludinentireltherightto respondto minorbreaches butsimply asameans
to ensurethatminorbreaches arenot usd asa pretextfor denouncing a treaty
which has becorne inconvenientor for srispendingpedomance of more than
proportionai ."
4.24 Thespecificatioofthegroundsforsuspension or terminationormaterid
breachindicatesthatsuspensionandtermination werenot Iefito be availablefor non-material
breachbyvimieofsomeparalled l welopmen tn thelawof StateresponsibilitHEquallyb , ecause
the ILC had so carefuIIyconsiderd whethertoindnde forcm eqieuregenedly as a groundfur
12 Case Concerninathe AirSeMces Apreement of27 March 1946 (UnitedStatev. France)54
InternatioLawRmrts 305 (1978).
13
Thecountemeasuresadtohave"am degreeofquivalencewitthallegebreach";d, atp.338.
14
L.Damoxh "RefaIiatorAhifraiio- oBoth? The1978UnitedStates-FranceAviationDiç74te",
AmencanJod ofInternationaiLa9'd)85,a1p.'190.
IS
"My a shingentlimitatoftherighttrespondtoabmchwith unilaterabrogatioofhe idmged
treatyisiaccordanweithreciproasttheunderlyiprincipand withthprecepotf proprtionality
governinal1reqmnçetointernatiwlngs. Terminatiosthemoçtrigomusrem* atthdis@ of
theinjurestatbuby nomeanstheonlyone.Therefor,isnotatailexaggeratosaythatinordeto
jristputtinanendt5thewhok mty, thebmchmust itd be ofakindLhatdoepradcalfthat." B.
Si- "Rdectiomon Mcle dfolftheViertConventioonhe LawofTreafîsandiBBackgrad in
GeneraTntemaîionLaw",20 herrei~hischeZeitscfii#finthcheRecht{19705,atp.29.To the
sameefa D.Gr& 'Tkiprocily,ProportionandfdreLawof Treatieç':34 VirPJoda of
Intcm?tionIaw(19942)75atp.3M1,terminatio,uthad ultirnatyecidethatonlysupeervt&imposribilioyfperformancshould
bea groundunderArtic61 forsuspensinrterminatio/,isnottabesupposedthat"necessity"
1
isresefveasagroundjrrstimgterminatiundertheIawofStateresponsibility.Thisnothing
inthe texisofthe Viema ConventionCmcludi Angticl731,orthe draftarticlon State
I
responsitïionynecessitor thetravautotheVernaConventio ort,eILC'swork on State
responsibilt,atleatotheseconclusion. ndreasonsofpolicdsodicta oteerwise.
l
The Work of the InternationiLaw Cornmission on the Law of
Traf ies
4.25 The relationsbetween thelaw dfStateresponsibiland the law of
treatiwasconsiderd onmanyoccasions.
4.26 SirGeraIdFimaunce addressedthmatterinhis4thReportin1959,and
wouIdhdeedhaveincludeditinhisarticles"CircumstanwjsusCing non-performefatreaty"
and "Consequencoefandmeansforredressforbreachof$ treaty". Hisdraflarti18and20
wouldhaveentitlenon-performanocrnon-observancefaltreaobligatibywayofreprisaolr
reciprocit ne'?Commentaryto McIe 18 ("Non-performanceyway of Ie@t'iatereprîsds3')
I
makes itdear thitWB notbeingsarggestthatapxty couIteminate thtreat- thawas stilI
dependentupuntherebeingafundamentalreachofthetreatyThe treatwouldrernaiinforce,
evenif non-performancefa particulrrovisiornighbe allowed. FoFitanaurice,is draft
articlesexactlycontemplcaseswherethebreachwas nobfundamentaandwherethereforeno
passibilioftemination arosAnd indeedhisdrdiarticlIS(5requirdthat non-perfomme
basedun aIegitirnrepnsd mustceas essaanasfheotherpaty resnmedits performanofiB
treatobligations17.
4.27 Withregardto "necessity",~itnnaustatedinthe Commentarytohis
I
drd article17dealkg wîth ernergencymditions, that he did not considerthagenerd
doctrine of necmity shoube includedamong the groundsjristifyîngnon-performofca
I
16 Y- ofîhInternatialawCornmisio1959Vol11, 4546,
17
-bid.,p67 I. treatytg.He didreferseparateltomajoremergenciesarisingfiomnatura lauses.Paragraph 3of
his drafiarticle17 providedthat,unless the emergencyrendersfirrtherperformanct eotally
impossible errninatinthe treatyby reason of superveningirnpossibiftofperformancet,he
emergmcy couldjuste onlytemporarynon-performance.
terminationofa trq unlessit fiII withinthe groundo sf supervening impossibilitof
l perfomance' g
4.29
Questio rnstinto therelationshipfthe lawofStateresponsibiitwith
thatofthelawof treatiesappearedagaininthe1964Reportof SirHumphrey Waldock.in draft
artide55 onpactasuntsemandaW , aldockproposed theinclusionofa paragraphstatingthatthe
Glure of aSfatetu cumplywithitsobIigationisngood &th engagesits rapomibity udess this
fdure isexcusableunderthegenerailulesofStateresponsibilifl. Nowherewas it suggesiethat
an excusablreason furnotcomplying withanobligationdso gavethenon-complying statearîght
oftemination orsuspensionofa treaty.
4.30 It isstrikingthat,when the ILC,in its 1964 Report tothe Gneral
Assembly ,ote thatithaddecided toexcludefrom itscodificatioofthelaw of treatiesmatters
reIatetu thelawof Stateresponsibilit,referretogrounds thatcouldbe invokedtojustifnon-
performance.There was no refererrcatdl tureservuigforthelawof Sfaterespomibihtyfurther
entitlementtoterminateorsuspenda trea$' .
4.31 Agaiqinits 1966ReporttotheGeneraIAssmbly,theILC(inparagraph
31) notedthatthe dr& articleson thelawof treatiesdidnot containprovisionsconcering the
internationrlsponsibiliofa StateforitsfiIuretoperformatreaty obligation.Butagain,there
18 W., p-G, para77.
19 -bid.
W Y-k oftheInfernatiLlw Cmrmïssio 1964V,ol.U,p7.
21 -aid.,p175-175.was noreferencetu suspension ortermination. ~rofensI~ go (ashe then was) Mica&
passantthathe wss reseningthequestionofwhether a tr&.tyooulbe terminam ia reailof
I
Stateresponsibiliq.He oEeredna explmation andthe entiretyofthe rest ofthe travaux
préparatoir esfactrejectthpossibilif.
4.32 It istrue thatin its comment& to Articles39-42 of the Viema
I
Convention,the ILC statedthatit haddecided notto inIude "the possibleimpücationsofa
successionofStatesor of the internatilesponsibilofyb&te inregardto thetenination of
traies"" . But itisdear that thILC was m. in thibief phrase,resening thquestionof
I
whetherStateresponsibirymuld ofer additionagroundrI' terminatinag treaty. Thisphrase
fdows closely on a commentwhich cle~lyindicatm theIbntrary. Referrinto Article 39(2)
whichpmvided that"Atreatymaybe terminate..onlyas 4resultoftheapplicationfthe ternis
I
ofthetreatyorofthe presenarticlest,eILC statd:
"(5)Thewordslonlythrough theapplicatioofthe bresentanicIeand 'onlas a
resulofthe applicatiofthepresent usedr'IspectiveiYnthetwoarticles
are alço intended tu indicatethat the gounds of invdidity, temînation,
dmunciation, wifMrawaland suspensionprovided lforinthe dr& articlesi
exhaustivofdI such aounds,aparthm my speciaims expresslypruvîdefor
inthetrq itseP4.II
Theprovisioninthe lastlinedidnosay"apar fom any specialasesexpresslprovidecforin the
treatitseifobythe lawof statresponsibifity".
4.33 ~he perd rescwatiothatcame to beaccomplishedin Articl73 infan
I
foilowedupon adebatethatwasdmostentir& onSfatesuccession. At theIastmomentProfessor
I
Lachs (as he then was) propos& bruadening fhe formulato inchde a rderenc te State
responsibilitya;Ago adde dfuher referenctu med h~sfilities.~
22
Yearbooof theInternatiLlawCommission,1966Vol.1PartII,p. 302, p31..
23 Ibidp.237,para.5.
-
24
-bid.(ernphsdded).
I 4.34 The travaux ofthe Vrenna Conventionthuscunfirmthe textsof Articles
42(2),ArticIes54-64ari AdrticI73 thal the groundforsuspending orterminatinga trmty are
indeedonlytho'seenunciateinthe ViennaConvention.Suchreservations asmayhave been made
forfrituragreedwork on thelawof StateresponsibiIitonot detractiom thifact.
The Work of the International Law Commission on State
ResrionsibiIity
4.35 Hungaryis misguidedin insisting thathe law of State responsibility
providesitwirhitsIeadingroun ofjustificati-necessiS. Indeed,itisdoubiymisguided:fist,
becausethelawof Stateresponsibiityirseasitisevolvingintheworkofthe ILC ,oesnotmake
aclaimthatnecessityentitieaStateto terminata treaty; andsecondly,becauseInanyevent the
ILCtscriterifor"necessityarenot metinthepresen tase.
4.36 Article2 ofPart 2 of the draftarticlesState responsibilityadoptein
1983provides:
"..theprovisionsofthispartgovernthelegd conwuences of anyintemationadly
wrongfiilact of a &te, except where and to the extent thatthose legal
consquences have beendetemined by other ruleof international.law reiating
specificdlytuthe intemaiiondlywrongtùlainquestion2."
Insofarasoneoftheconsequenceo sfmateria lreachisconcerned- therighttoterminat- thahaç
surelybeendeterrninebdyotherrulesofinternation aw relatinspecificalyo theintemationaily
wrongfrrlactinquestion,asthose containedinthe MennaConvent ion. SincePart2 attemptstu
indicatwhenandhow a Staternay respondby countemeasures to a breachof aninternational
obligation,includiabreach oftreat we,rnayconcludethatcountermeasure dso nocountenance
suspensionortenninationofatreatyarisinasa responsetoamateriablreachthereof
4.37 This was specificaiaffimed inthe.Commentruyto Artide 16 17,bythe
SpecidRapporteurP ,rofessorRiphagenw, hosaidthat:
26 Y~utioooftheInternatioalawCommissio1983,Vol.1,art2,p.42.
27
ArticleIb(a1provi'73eprovisiooffliprcsentaAcis shnlprejudganyquestiothamy arise
inregar10(a)thinvdiditerminariandçirçpwisioftheoperatcfireaiies." ". itisnecessartoindic athetfdlsoutsidethdope ofthosearticle-inother
words, fieldd internationdlyron&fuactsand/o{legalcomquences therd in
regardtowhichthosemicles arenotevenmeanttu be residunrles.
l
Onesuchfieldof legal consequencesisforme.bylthe legalmnsequencesof an
internationaiwrongful act on the level ofth? invaiidity,terminationand
suspensionof theoperationof treatiea,matterdealtwithinthe 1969 Vierina
v on vent .ion^^
In an interestingcornent,the Spsd Rapporteurobsehed thatArticle73 of the Vienia
Conventionwas "sweeping"a,ndthencontinued:
I
"Inpointoffact,Par2ofthed& inifs entiretwasIbasedonthepremise thatthe
questionofinvdidity,teminationor suspensionoItheoperatofa traq assuch
issituatedona quitediEerenIegd planefromthat of the Ieconsequence a in
ternisofaliowedor presuibedconductof State- h anintemationallwy rongful
actz."
1
Further,it is madeexpliinhiscommentsthat what was reserredby Articl73 ofthe Viema
Conventionwa exactIywhat ididnot purparttodd with. Accurdinglyd,rdi artic16as
submittedby the SpeciaiRapporteurreservedthe questionof the invalidity,terminatand
suspensionof theoperatiooftreatiu. Wherea matter, IcoveredbytheMennaConvention,
the reciprocamuitesy shouldbe extendedbyindicatingthat thmatter was rwr~ad tothat
instrument3'
4.38 Thedr& article6-16 ofPariTwo p/oposedbyProfessor Riphagenmer
-ia)were referreto theDraftingCornmitteebytheComrdissionat itsthirtseventhandthirty
I
eighth sessions. Artic8ereferstu suspensionof performanceofan obligatioby way of
reciprociv(withacloseIinkbeingrquired); andArtic9erefertosuspensionofpediomanceof
1
obligationbywayof reprisai(withproportionalityeingrequired). iscleafrom thetext of
thesearticlthattheywere dhed to ternporaryon-perforkanceof specificobligation$not
28 Ymk oftheIntemtionirILawComniçs1985V~1.1Pan1,p.15.
I
30
i89isMeeting,0May 1985Yeadmk oftheintemetiodlw Commission,985Vol.1p.93,pari.
13. to suspensionofa treatas awhoIe -stilIesstoitstemination.The more ment text ofArticle
1 13'speaksclearlofthe entitlemen"nottocorn*'lwithoneormoreof itsobligatiotowardsa
state..asnecessarytoinduceittocomply withitsobligation s(Thisassumes,ofcourse, that
theobligationsontinue-andif theyaretreatobiigationt,atthetreatyhasnotbeenterminated.)
4.39 There isthusno suggestionthattheiaw ofcountemeasures enviwes the
recognitioofany newground ofsuspensionor terminatioofa treaty beyondthosedesigna& in
theVienna Convention.
4.40 Mthough Hungary does dtege breachesoftreaty by Slovakia,iseeksto
justifa rightto terminatthe1977Treaty because ofthesebreachesbyreference to theVienna
Convention rathethanto countermeasures.
4.41 ItiHungary's mainjustificatifortermination"necessity "thatismost
insistentlyroutedinthe iof Stateresponsibiity.TheIL€ hasacknowledged that "gravdanger
tu the..ec~logicdpreservationofailorsome dits territo'couldconsfituta "nsessity" wfich
a Statemightuse "tojustifyifact~''.~ That Stateof neceçsitCs,however,subject.tomany
conditionsincludingthe imminentcharacteof the dangerthe impassibiIiyfavertingit byany
othermeans,"andthe necessaritempo- natureofthis .3y dehition,necessiîy
cannot bea ground -evenwithinthelaw ofStateresponsibiliyfortemUnatin gtreat Ay.din
none ofthe casesrefèrredo bytheLC wherenecessitywas usedtojus@ non-performanc ofa
treatyobligatiowasnecessityused toteminate thetreag5. Andof courseitiswellestablished
3f Subjec10=rt;un conditionstariment.areno1metithr-s
l
33 Rqrf of theILConthetwrkofit2nd mion, p.35Y,-k oftheIntemationaiLa#mmissio&
1980,VOLI.P,artp.3.
34 -bid.,p.pam 14.
I
35 Anglo-Portuguesisputof1832, 1UnitedNatioRmW of Internatilrbi-aA\ÿardspp.280-
281;Oçc;irhin Judmenf 1934P.I.C.J.SeriesANo,.63,p65, ap.89;mf Nationalofthe
y n i i B d 2 , p. 176Theyareàî& aiReport
oftheInternatioLiawIJomrnisson theworkof its32nd=ionYeartioooftheInternatiolaw
CommissionV,olII,ari2pp.40-42.thata Statemay notrelyon "neîessi$"to teminatefinAcid obligations,eveifitseks to
I
postpanepaperit. This he ofcase to was referredtoby theILC whendiscussingitsdraft
articleonecessie.
4.42 Slovakiconclude sh& necessit-den iftheconditionsforitinvocation
aremet - is notregardein thelaw of Stateresponsibiiyshavingthe abilittoterminatean
obligationA fortiori,isnotregardaievenwithinthelawof StateresponsibiIiashahg the
abilittoterminatanobligationenteredintobytreaty,whdsetermsaregovernedbytheViema
Convention.
4.43 Nui oniydoes the Vrenna onv ven ttelndetemine ndiaustivelthe
I
circumstancein wIiica treatymay be suspend& or tennina (Aedtic73 not indicatinmy
I
contrq conclusion);butastheLC continuesits workoncountmeasures andon necessity,it
equallyassume thatiisa fomulatingadditionairoundskr thesuspensionandterminatioof
treaties.
4.44 PolicyconsideratiosupportthesecI'wfindingoflaw. IfaStatecould
I
betotallyexcusedhm perfoming atreatybyrelianceona justifkafionithedr& Articleson
StateResponsibilit, hetreatywinolongerbe perfomable1 lief&ctothimeans thatthefanar
precludingwrungfiiinebhgs the treatytoanend"" .The 9LC deIiberateyrew verynmwf y
thegrounds for suspensioand teminationinthe Viema knvention, wishing topreservethe
I
stabityofinternationcontfactsIn commenchgwhatis now Article42,theCommission stated
thatiwasdesirable:
". asa safeguarforthestabilityoftreaties,to undeiea generalprovisioat
thebeglluiiof thisparthathevaliditandcontinuace inforceofatreatyisthe
normalstateofthingswhichmay be setasideonlyon theprounds andunder the
conditionwrovideforinthepresen trtic1e."
36 m., pp.3'1-%.
37
D.W.Greig, atp376.ProfeçsorGreigspof"fiemlisfactory natuIhiratdt".
IThereisno reasontosuppose thatwhattheysocaretiillachievedwithone handtheyarethrowing
awaywithfheother.
4.45 The sarneconsiderationosf stabiliandgood faith alsounderiiethe
deliberatelyestricteraftinofArticle61 on Irnpossibiltf~erfomance~~ . hereStateshave
freelyenterd int reatiestheyareentjtledto believethe treatwilIcontinueinexistencesave
insofarasthey haveexpresly agrd otherwiseor insufaras the terminationandsuspension
provisionsofthe%ma Convention provideotherwîse.
4.46 .In its ~ounter-~emorial~~H , ungaryreturnsto the theme of the
relationslibetweenthe lawofStateresponsibilitynd theIaw of treati-butoReninterms so
broadthat theyhaveno relevanceforthe issuethatthe Courthasto determineunderthe Speciai
Agreement. The questionsposed are not whethercertainspecificvidationsofobligationsby
Hungaryunderthe1977Treatycan bejustifiebyrelianceonthelawof Stateresponsibility4'ut
whetherHungary was justifiedin suspendinand terminatintheentire Treatyby invokingthe
ground ofnecessity.
4.47 Hungary claims that the incampletenessof the Viema Convention
"especiallyithregardto claimof invaliditys,uspensortermination isrecognisdandappIied
intheRainbow WamioC r ase. Slovakbeiievesthisnoto beso.
4.48 It is nottobe thoughtthat the RainbowWarriorahifrationiscompehg
authoriv thatthe laofSfateresponsibiliauhorisesapaiq tuatreav tu teminatethattreaty on
groundsotherthanthoseenumerated intheViennaConvention. In thatcase,theFrenchremovaI
of two officersfiomthePacificislandwheretheywereservingtheirsentenceappeared to violate
theagreementthathad bwnmadebetweenFranceandNew Zealand.TheTribuna here stated
that:
-, D. Bowett,"TreatsndStaRwponsibilit",élmgaMiclielViral137-145,ap.139.
40 HungananCounter-Memonap l,ara5.03-5.22.
TowhichSIovakia'mvertwdd stibelnthenegqtive. "..thelegalconsequenceo sfabreach ofa treaty,i+ludingtheterminationf the
circumstancesthat may exclude wmngfiilness (yd renderthe breach ody
apparent )ndthe appropriatremedie orbreach ,resubjectsthatbelongto the
customarylaw ofstatere~~omib'dity" ~
4.49 in that cm, France reliaion the dodrhe of distressto precludeifs
wrongfulnessin breactringtheterms ofagreement. But it didnot seek (as does Hungaryin
invokingnecessityto terminatthe Treaty.TheTribunald!dnotacceptdistress as anapplicable
gound'' andfounddher r-ns forprecludim wgrongfùlnessn thepartofFrance. Fractcewas
I
absulvedfium future performance becausthe treatyhadtemiinat merding tuitste- but
France siIhad a dutyto makereparationsfor the breach. Theuncertainbsis of theAward is
rrnderlurebythefactthattherehadbeen matena lreaches06theagreement.Thatthe law ofState
responsibilidyidnot,onthesefactsabsolveFrance fro mhdtreatybreadiwas etnphaised bythe
dutyFrance had tomakereparationA . tthesame tirne,the'bligatito retum theoEcers ensied
I
when the threy earpend fortheirdetentionranout. Thiswasnot a grotlndbasedinthe Iawof
I
Staterespomibilitbutpreciselon tmty Iaw.AndFrance was absolved$om futureperfomce
ofthe agreement.
4.50 Nothing fiom these verysingukrfiddings -which arecertakdyopen to
l
crîticis-nis authoriryfor the propositionthat necesishow tu be regardaias a ground for
I
Iawfùilyterminatina freafl. The Tribunal irnpIythatdistress,hait&sied, couid exciude
wrangfirlnes-but asa responseto achargeby NewZealand ofmateriaibreach ,otasa basisfor
adaim byFrance toterminattehetreaty.
42 RainbuwWarriclrINeZealandY.France),82InternatiLawmrts (1990)499atp.551,
" W., atpp.553-555Norws n-ity fmd toappitoihasAmances.
ProfessWrcii,ihiupositiooftheRainbowWarrior~nu,lasemthat"Leb-h ofTwty II'&pas
regiparle droides traitniaipar dela reçpo~dFi@: "Droitdesmiréser droide îa
respansabili",b hmm JiménezdeAkha 523,atp528. Siomkiak1ie-vthitsbefartm
braaa cIaiforther-ns seau1in dis Chapter. Ban$evenf,naneofhofesçor Wehargumenfs
areinfacargumentin supponftheIawof Stak rcpnsibilily pmvidinggroirndsforteiof an
treatjradditiothciintheViem Convention .heyare9 direcftojustificatsorbreacrather
tha nroundforterminatio. ungarclaimremainsond anymnt poinoflegaauthorit,reven
debte. 4.51 In itsCounter-MernoriH alungaryreferto many propositionson State
responsibilithathavenorekvance tathepresentissue, It citesEse statementtbatthe origin
ofanobligationdoesnotjustiS,thchoie of onefor mfreparatiun#vera~other~.~But îhiILC
comment was neverdirect atdthe issueof whethernecessity could provide a groundof
terminationfa treaty,outsideotheVienna Convention.Again,itscitatioofArticl17(1)- th&
the originof aninternationaobligatiobreach eyda State doesnot affectthe international
respunsibiliofthat -qually takesonenowhere. Hungay teusthe &art that irelieson
thecustornaryinternationlaw oftreatiesinordetu demanstratetheIawîulnessofitsconduct-
butnothinginthecase turnon thiat a114'.
4.52 Nor isoneled ithatdirectioby theargument thattheinternationllwof
Statereiponsibity admitofnodistinctioninresponsibilasitapplieto delictsandwntractq in
contrattu muchdomestic ~aw~~ L.eavingaidewhether thisisanaccurateescriptionofdomestic
law -wherethecurenttrendis oftentowards asingle"Iaw ofobligations",thepointdoesnot
advancernatters.Thehct thatthereisindeedalawofresponsibility,hichappIietoviolationsof
treatiesandnon-contractualobligatialikesimply doesnot answerthe questionofwhetherthe
gruundsfor temination ofa treaty are therefore guverbydprovisionsoutsideof theVerna
Convention.
4.53 By contrast,Slovakia'srgumentson the relationshbetweenthelaw of
treatieandthelawofStateresponsibilityredirectepreciseltotheissuesbeforetheCourt.The
Iawthat govemsHungary's claimedjustificatioformspendingandabandoning woks andfor
rerminating th1977 Treaty isthe Viema Conventioon the law oftreatiesThisis becausethe
ViennaConventiobbyreference to itsterrandto ittravauxpréparatoirecsl,earsoprovides.
It is furthersbecausethelawon Stateresponsibilii,cludinspecificalthelawonnecessity,
45 HungariaCounttr-MernoriaI,pa5.16.
47 ad, para5.05,andfn4. Hungaryreiterasheinapplicab ofiheVietuiConventiotothe1977
Traty.SlovakboahnotethaHungaryhasdevelopnoargumentdsependetponibisandai3ïrmthe
comemessofitown analysistheSfwakMenlorial,ara6.59See,inths rem para.2.68,a.,
aime.
48 Hungarianunkr-Mernoriapm. 5.19drawinontheRainbw Warrior tvard.clearldoeswt intendto afurthegroundforterminat?onorsuspensioof amty. The law
of State responsibility, assumes thatthe Vienna Conventiongoverns suspensionand
l
terminationftreaties. APTER V.
HUNGARYFOR ITS SUSPENSIONAND ABANDONMENTOF
WORKS AND PURPORTEDTERMINATiON OFTHE mATY
SECTION 1. Introduction
-5.01 Hungary considers that it is relievedof the obligationto rebut
SLovakiaisdiscussion ofHungarykviolations ofthe 1977Treaty set out in the SIovak
Mernorial. Its pretextis that Slovakiahas exarninedseparatelyHungary's internationally
unlawfulactions,on the onehand,and Hungayis atfempfs atjustification the other hand,
butwithoutreIatingonedotheother.
"There is...Iittto be saidon thisscore,sincethe SIovakMemurialIimits
itselto the repeatedassertionof Hungariannon-compIiancewith treaty
provisions,withoutbotheringto examinethelegalgroundson whichHungary
claimedta beacting(theseareonly examined ina subsequentchapter,andthen
onlypartially."
And in afootnoteitis added:
"Theillogicalityof theSlovakMernorialnthispointappearsclearly from para
6.90:
"It isnot the purpose of this Chapter to deal with these so-called
Sustificationsi.sufficetu show thatsuch aunilaterd terminatiothat
dates tothe 1977 Treaty ..isper se an extremdy senous breach of
well-estabIishedand fundamenta1prinripIesof general international
law."
It hardlyneedssayingthatuntilit hasbeenshownthat a purportedtermination
is unjustifithatterminationcannot be describedasabreach of international
lad ."
5.03 Itis surprishgto find suchastatementbeing made by Ifungary who,
1 HiingariMter-Mernorial,para.5.24
2 -bid., 16,p.207.elsewhere,attachessuchimportancetu the lawof internationarlesponsibiit$Tnaccordance
I
with theapproac cqrnmody followed whereissues of ~esponsibiliareinvolveciitwould
appear logicalin the most elementarysenseto detednI: W, whether,prima &&, an
internationallunlawfulact hasbeencornmitted second,wbethercircumsiances -exkt that
I
nonetheIessexcludethe rinlawfulnaturof theact. Itis&IIthibasisthat the firsectionof
I
the ILCtsDrafi ArticlesonStateResponsibilityproceed,haPters I-IVof whiohare devoted
l
tu variousaspects of internationalyrongful acts bySIates,whileChapterV dealswith
"circumstanceesxcludingwrongfulness"H. owever,asexblainedinChapterIV abme, thelaw
of Stateresponsibilidoespot provideaground forterminationoftreaties.
5.04 This approach,neveriheless, isn&Iess appropriatefor the law of
I
treatiesRegardless ofHungawspa~icular aversionto idthecardinalprincipland pointof
T
departureforthisbranchof lawis themaxim: Pacta-4-ts rvanda.Theprinciple beingstated,
however, itiscorrecthat:
" .,thinneeds qualification. A partymay in certainIimited circumstances
denounce orwithdraw frum atreatyor the operati&ofa treaty rnafura time
besuspendedo , rthetreatymayterminate4."
Butthis isa questiononlyof exceptionto thebasicruleAnd, hereagain,it is bothlegitirnate
I
andlogicaltu startfir smt, thebasicprincipleinordertoascertainithere isaprima facie
I
breach, and second,in thicase,whetherthere are anycircumstancethatjustify thconduct
inquestion.
5.05 Two conclusionscan clearlybe drkwnbom the objectionraisedby
Hungary as toSlovakia'smethod of proceeding 5n.the first place, it clearlyfolthat
I
Hungary hasrecognised that.prima fa&, it acted in violationof its conventionaIobligations
I
arisinghm the ,1977Treaty and the agreements Iinkedor reiated to it. This is an
3 &e,ChapterIV,aMve.
4
SirRokrt Ienningand SirArthurWatts,Oppenheim'Internationlaw, 9th ed., Longmans,
London,1992p. 1256emphasisdded.
5
-eepara.5.02abave. 1i'
unambiiguws acceptane of the materiainatureof thebreachd and "a recognition as tu the
imputabilitoyf...theactivitiescornplaineof".And from thisitfolIows,secondly, thatthere
is no pointinthisChapter in returningtothebreaches: theseareadmittedandrecognisedby
Hungary;the only question remaining to be dealt with here is whether exceptional
circumstanceexist tojust'@them.
5.O6 Although the HungarianCounter-Mernorialis rather uncIearhere, it
appearsthat Hungarycontinues tordy on thesamethree arguments to justify iageneral way
the vaIidityofthe prima facie breachesconstifnted by its suspensionand abandonment of
worksanditspurported teminationof the 1977Treaty:
l
l - Analleged"stateof necessity";
- An aIIeged fundamentalchange of circrrmstances;
- Ailegedbreaches of the 1977Treaty by Czechoslovakia.
It isnoted thattheverystrangeargument based on impossibilitof performance containedin
theHungarian Mernoriasleems tohavebeenabandoned initscounier-~ernorial'. However,
the latterdevotes,once more,manypagesto an attemptto show -againstal1logic -the lack
of reIevanceof ArîicIe27of theTreaty,dealing with"Settlemen tfDisputes".
5.07 SIovakia has responded to these arguments at iength in its previous
pleadin&. It is riunettiebsuse61 to re-examine them inthe Iightof thentw IegaIarguments
and,in particular,the new presentationofthe facts contained inHungary'sCounter-Memonal.
6 Since,dcfinitiondaccordingIo ArticIt 50of the Vienna Convenniyanmateriabreachmay
juslifthterminatioorsuspensi oothefreafyThe paradoxhereis that Hrrngaryinvukeowns
breadres.
7 MiIiraw and Parami1it;iwActivities in and A~ainst Nicamicarama Y.United Statesof
America)Ment% 3udamentI.C.JRems 1986p.14.arp.45.
8 HungarianMernoriapl.ara10.41-10.58.
9 SlovakMemonai, ChapteVil;SlovakCounter-MernoriaC, aptX. -104-
SECTION 2. The AlIe~edJustifications
A. TheA1Ie~ed "Stateof Necessitv"
5.08 The use intheHungarian Counter-Mernori afl the "stateofnecessity"
asa meansto justifyviolatioof the 1977Trestyis ver)odd. Whilethisconcept wasused
byHungaryin itsMemonal tojustifthe terminatioof tde~reaty", initsCounter-Mernorial
it is usedonly in relationtothe suspensi ann subsequent abandonment ofworksT' -
I
althoiigh in essence Hungary Iimits itsetu referringback tu its Memonai - declaring
I
"groundless" the Slovakassenion "thai Hungas, did nÙt believe thaa state ofnecessi@
existed"12a,nd discnssibriefiyody "two pointsofa moregeneralcharacter"I3. The fir ist
1
ubscurelytitled: "Theinvocatioof necessityand simplyrepeatsthe argumentsmade inthe
l
HungarianMemorialt ;hesecondfocuseson:"The reievanbeofArticle27oftheTreaty"
l
5.09 Slovakiaconsidersthatnecessityisnot aground in lawfat suspending
I
or tenninatina treaty. As showriinthepreviousChapter,the Iawgovernirtgthe vdidity of
Hungaryrs suspension,abandonmen atnd purportetemination ofthe1477 Treatyand related
I
agreements isthe lawoftnatiesand, clearly,necessityhot a justificationrecognisby the
1
Iaw oftreaties14.
5.10 Nonetheless, and with the aim of;providinga completeanswer to
I
Hungary'sargument,SIovakiawill demonstratebelow that, in any case, there was no
"necessityinthepresent case.
5.11 In itMemurialS ,lovakîadmonstraied thatHungary didnotbdieve, at
I
the moment it unlawfully suspended,abandoned itsperFurmance under and purporteiltu
10 HungariaMernorial,aras10.06-10.40.
11 HungananCounter-Memona para5.25,ea. l
12
m., para.5.22.
13
-bid.
14 I
-eep,ara4.07g m., para4.27g,a., abc. and para8,51.1a.,beIow. terminatethe 1977Treaty,that a stateof necessityexistedl'Inresponse, Hungary adoptsa
tone of indignation,daimiltg tregar dhisasanaccusationof badfaith,whiIe atthe same
tirnehidingbehirrdthefact that variausNGOs activeinthefiddof the environmentshared its
concema ThisfaiIs to respond tu thequestion astu whether or natthe initiativestakenby
Hungarybetween13 May 1989(the suspensi ofon orksat Nagymaros) and 19 May 1992
(the notificatioof termination) were foundedon EItrngayts genuineconviction that the
completion of the ProjectwouId createa major ecologicd risk and that this mets the
requirementsofthe defenceof necessityunderthe Iaw ofState responsibiIity. Slovakihas
shown thatthe responsetothisquestionisnegative;Hungary has failedtu show theopposite;
it, infact,recognisthat "therealisatiooftheProject ..posedanenorrnous financial urden
whichthedeteriorating statbudget couldhardlyfinance"I6w , hichis noalegitimatebasisfor
invuking adefenccofnecessity.
5.12 Itis importantto explainoncemoretheexactsignificance of Slovakia's
l ,-
approach.Itis notargued thatHungary did notinvoke as itsreasonecologicalimpactsof the
Trtaty praject. Hungarydid surepeatedlyhm May 1989 onward(althoughit must be
recaiIedthat tttwas ody three rnonthsafieHungaryhadobtained theformal accelerationof
rhe work schedule - in the Protucol of6 February 1989 - aIso onthe basis ofecoIogical
arguments).Nor isit Slovakiasoint thatHungarydid notconsideritselfto haveanyoption
butto take unilateralctionsinviolationof the 1977 Treat-which,aRerall, betokens a type
of "necessifyifonly in iteveryday (not its legasense. Hungary nolonger consideredif
convenient tu meetitsfinancialobIigationand,knowingtharfinanciaiconsiderations did not
constituteagroundto escapeitslegalobligationsI7 t,hetefareturneto environmentairisks".
In short,Hungary"disguised" asituationofwhat itconsideredwas "economic necessity"as
oneof an "ecologicalnecessity". Like the sorcerer'sapprenticeHungarianauthoritiesfind
themselvesoverwhdmed by themuvernent theiractionshadtriggered. Theirargumentswere
raken upwith enthusiasmby organisationsactivein the defence of the environment- al1the
15
SlovakMernoriaparas8.29-8.57.
16
HungarianCounter-Memona p,ra2.10.
17
See,-g.,Se~ianhans, SudgrnentNo.14. 1929P.C.I.J. SerieNo. 20, pp.3940,ar Russian
IndemnitCase U.nitedNatioRewm ofInternaiionaIArbiAwards.XI,p.44.
18
-ee,theHardi eporofSepternber989(Hungarian ernoria,aI.5(Par11,Annex8,whoseIogic
was similtothatoftheMarjaietteof19May 1984.Sec .lovakMemonal ,ara.3.37& a., and
SlovakCounter-Mernoripal,rs.29,gm.mon so becauseecologicalissueinCentraland EasternEurope,and particuIarin Hungary,
1
hadbecome a powerfulfactorinthestniggleagainsthe communist regirnes.
5.13 According tu Hungaryitself, the excuse of necessi@ cari ody be
inv ked under thestricteofconditions,whichinclude:
"(1)theabsolutelyexceptional aturof theallegedsituation;(2) theimminent
characterofthe dangerthreatenina major interekof the State[;]an(3) the
impossibiliof avertingsuchadangerby0th md!sw .'
5.14 Slovakia hm shown in its Counter-Mernoria lat none of theçe
conditionshasbeen metinthecunentdispute2'.And thisdernonstratiois rcpeatebelow in
the finalSectionsof ChapterVI1 and VIII. The new "ScientificEvaluation" offeredby
Hungaryinno sensemodifiesthisconciusionas isamply demonstrateclin VolumeTiofthis
RepIy;mureuver,Hungaryinnoway showshow the problemswere perceivedin 1989; it ody
I
riestu show how theycould be presentedin1994 for thesalepurposeafIitigation.
5.15 Furthemore,Hungary rnakes no htempt to linkthe findingsof its
I
"ScientificEvaluationset outin Volume2 of its Counter-Memurialtu a Iegalthe0rj.that
wouId estabIishtheir relevancein terof justifyinHungary'sbreaches of the1977 Treaty
I
and its relatedagreements,thematerialnatureofwhich Hu recognises2'
5.16 Hungary claimsthat:
"Atthe time when suspension ofwork was decidh on,Hungary anticipatecl
severedamage tofloni, faunq agricultuand syi?icultureinthe region, and
had conceni over the seismic integritof the ~Project. But, above aI1,
irreversibledamae was foreseenwhichcouldaffectthe drinkingwaterfor
millionsofpeople2.1,
20 SlovaCounter-Mernoriparas10.40-10.60.
2f I
Seepara.5.05above.
I
HungafiaCaunter-Mernorialra.5.27. -roi -
Butthis isnot so:Hungarynowheredemonstrates thattheseallegedrisksactuaUyexistedat
the time. Nonethdess,Hurigary suspende and abandoned the works and purportai tu
terminatethe Projecinbreach afal1iTreatyobligations.
5.17 Aswillbe fullydemonstratebelowin PartIII(asweU as inVolumes II
and IIIofthisReply)- andonly highiighh tere -thefactsonwhich Hungaryreliesentirely
faitu estabiishthe three princbaseson whichit claimstojuste itsinvocationofa "state
of neces~it~"~. Thesbases conccrn:(i) drinkîngwaterquality;(iif earthqrise k;d (iii)
the"anticipatedeveredamage to florafauna,agricultuand sylviculturintheregion".
5.13 Firs tstudrinkingwaterquality-andHungary'spleadings arefocused
essentiaIonBudapest'd snnkingwater -thefoIIowingconcIusionsareevident:(itheaquifer
underlyingthe region of the Project,which Hungarywrongly fears may be irreversibly
damagedby theProject,is the sourof drinkinwaterforBratislavasutirilvinotone drov
tuBudapest andhas in no way been affecte3adversdybyimpIementationof the Project; and
(iithe Project is not shotu haveaffected or be capableof affectingin the ieast the bank-
tilteredwells downstreamof Namaros thatare the only upstrearsourceof Budapest's
drinkingwatd4.
5.19 Second, the attempt in Hungary's "Scientific EvaIuation" tu
demonstrate a"stateofnecessity"bas4 on the riskofdamagefrom earthquakes (and the
allegedfailureoftheProjectto meetappropriatengineerinstandardsinthelightofthisrisk)
relies on incorrect(and as to its importance,greatly exaggerated)data and unproven
hypotheçe Ts.e "ScientifEvaluation"caIIsfor more study on the basisof thelackof
adequateinfornarionavaiIabIteu theauthoofHungary'sanalpisinVoIume2 of its Counter-
Mernorial,even thoughthisinformationhas been in Hungary'spossessionfrom thestart as
jointparticipanitnthe Projeand atthe sametime the"ScientifiEvaluationignoresrecent
studiesthafaredirectlyrelevant tu its riskassessmensnch asthe widely accepted 1991
reevaluatiodownward of the magnitudeof the 1763earthquake atKornhrno,which isthe
onlyhistoricaIIyrecordedearthquakof importancin theregion. Thus, E-Iungar'naIysiis
scientificainvalid;andtheinformationavailabltoevaluateearthquakeriskandengineering
24
-eepara.12.03,H., andI1Iu. o.RA,appearinkfore ChaptXi,klow.standards,particuladas tuthe safety odykes ,aseiihernot been examinedor hasbeen
deliberatelignored2'.Thenis no questionthatthear inwhi chtheG/N Projectis located
isrelativelyinactiveseisrniandlthattheriskof earthiuakedamageto thecritintoaltof
the Projectisrelafivelylow. The applicabledegree of rîskwas caref5lIycalcrrlatand
reevaIuatedin the Iighof new scientificknowledgeand technoIogicaIadvances, and the
1
designandconstructionoftheProjectwasbased on appropriatelypdatedstandards.
5.20 Thirditis clea-not leason the basiofactualdataofover two years
l
ofoperationof the GabEikovosectioofthe Projec- thai0the fland faunainthefioodplain
1
regioncan be (and on the Siovakside havebeen) restoreto theirpre-1960s conditioby
taking(inter-a) the stepstosupply waterto thesidea!ns contemplateclundertheProject
(alreadyatthe timeHungary began to breachthe Treatjin May 1989). This is proven by
actuaIdatataken frornthe Sluvaksideams, which havebeen suppIiedwith waterand have
been rejuvenated. In confrast, Hungary's"ScientificEvaluation"is based on an entirely
theoreticalanalysis,whoseerrorandomissionsarepointéc lutinPart IIIandin VolumesII
andIIIof thi~epl~~~.
5.21 Turning,then,tuthe strict conditions consideredessentid in ordertu
1
invoke"neces~ity":~&' therewas certainlno situatiohereof an "absolutelexcepticmal
naturet':
- As tudrinkingwater, the Project posednoriskataHtu the drinking
1
water ofBudapest(or anyother town or village);the situatisin no
way exceptionalandHungary'salleLation, hichis no morethan"that
I
25 FormoredetaiIedexplanat,ee,para12.54,S., bel0.
56 1
&, para.12.25gm., klow. Astaagricultuandsylvinil(iorest@,theonIdamageshown
wasfhatnniicipnandacceptbaithTreafy partiesin enlriiig Treaf-mainlyfhuscfor
thereservoandtlicanalofforeseareasand agricultulands (the latterksolelonthe
Slovakside). No sciebasiforpredictingaotheradherimpactsasaresuloftheoperation
oftheProjecthbeenshown.a, para.13.1,gm., beloh.
27 1
Secpara.5.13aboveSN,alsoSlovakCounter-Memori, ara10.41-10.60. therearebothpositiveandnegativeeffe~ts"~',hardlyseems to suggest
otherwise;
- As tu earthquak eisk,the relevant regiisnot seismicdiyactive,and
earthquakeFiskwas fullyaccounted forin thedesign and construction
oftheProject;Hungary'a sllegatioof"reasonablgerounds forconcern,
reviewand remsessrnenotf riskswuId not constitutea situationof an
absoInteIexceptionainature;
-
As to florand fauna,thereisna evidence oflikelyadverseeffectthat
were not eitheracceptedin advance by the Treaty parties (k. ,y
definition,unexceptional),or capaofernitigationor eliminatbynthe
measuresp1anned undertheProject.
5.22 Second, as to the "imminentcharacter"of the danger,there was no
l
dangertu the quality ofdrinking water; no highriskofearthquakedanger,and none not
adequately anticipatedand reflected the Pruject'splans and construction;anno danger
threatensthe flora,fauna,agricultureandforestsnot acceptedinadvanbeythe Treatyparties
or capableof beingavertedor mitigatedby implementing the Project'smeasuresplanned(in
particularo supplydirectwater recharg nto thesideams).
5.23 Thir dhe conditionof "avertinthedanger by othermeans" cm apply
only tothe allegedthreattodora andfauna, etc. The expetienceof two yearsroperation of
the GabEikovo sectionunderVariant"C"demonstratesthat othermeansareentirely effective;
andHungaryseemsnow tohaveacknowledgedthis by signing the Agreementof 19 Apnl
1995, under whichwater wiil now be srrppliedbydirecrtcharge tuthe sideams (and flora
andfauna)onthe Hungarîanside.
5.24 In anyevent, Slovakiaconsidersthat, asa matterof law, thestateof
necessityinvokedby Hungary doesnût constitutegruunds forsuspending or tenninatinga
treaty. Initsaim togive the fuilest responsetu Hungaryslaims,Slovakiahas nanetheleçs
28
HungariaCounter-Mernorial,ra1.92SIovak doesnotacceptheclairasto"negatieffects"
-ee,para12.02, ses .,ow.examined these claims using Hungaryisown criteriAnd on the basis ofits "Scientific
1
Evaluation".Inthelightof thiexaminationi,t is clearthat neitin 1989, norin 1992, nor
I
today,doHungary'd saims,(whichlack any jundicalbasii)findsupponon thefacts. If there
I
was indeed a"stateof necessityq,wascaused firstbythe processofdegradationprierto the
Project,thenbythe ptolongediuspençionimposed by Hungq; instead,it was the Projectthat
I
attempted to dealwith the probIem s andtheProject's partiaiimplementationthrough the
implementationof Variant"CM hasin partremediedthese.
The AI1e~ed Fundamen ta1Chan~esin Circurnstances
5.25 Hungary statesinits~ounter-~emo{al thaithasoffered,inChapter10of
itsMernoriai,its argumentfor terminatioof the 1977 ~keaty"forcause, k., for one ofthe
rearonsreferredtoin0th provision[otherthan hicle 541ofthe ViemaConvention,such as
I
breach (ArticIe60), imposibii otfperformance{Article 61) or fundamental.change of
ckcumces (Article62)"". Itcommentsthat"The SluvakMernoria givesoniyaratha cwwry
amnt of these." Slovakiis contento refwthe Cowt tbits argumentsoflaw at pages333
through342ofitsMernoria aindalsotopages 303through 318ofitsCounter-Metnoriai.
5.26 IisnotabIethatinitsCounter-Maorial, Hrrngq merdyreitemtes certain
I
assertionswithout oncrelati themtu therequirernentosf thViema Conventionandwithout
attemptingto reiütetheIegalargumentsf SlovakibasedontheVienna Convention.
5.27 Hungar)lC'shunter-Memoialoffersthree"fundamentalhanges". Thefit
I
isthe politicalchangesinEasternEurope. Hungaryreferstu the endinof contra1ofthe Soviet
1
UnionofEasternEurope,thefailing afthe BerlinWall,theterminatiooftheWarsawPactand of
COMECONt,he withdrawao lfsonet troops,free electionb,andthe endof the Cold*a$'.
Hungaqinsiststhat thesewere morethan "intemalpoliticalc~anges3'niey were hdd. But a
I
recitationof mumeritousinternatioivenfsduesnotconstihiteaIegdargument toshowthat, by
29 HungarianCounter-Mernoriala,5.41.
30
-bid.,par5.46.
31 1
Slovakireierrto"intemi plifical chaatpara..7ofipMernariabl,ecnatthat timehadno
ideathaHrmgarywodd wishtoder 10evenfwhoIIex?emdto fhparti daf'onshias#ndnttirrg
am&-.referencetothewell-developedinternationalIaon furidamentai hang ef circumstances,they
wereinanywayrelevant to aclaimed justificatto terminattheTreaty. In whatwaydothe
endmgoftheWarsaw Pact,orofCOMECON, orthe fdlinoftheBerlinWall - "notleasbecause
of the accessHungary provided toEast Gems travellinto the westM3' - constitutea
fundamenta clhangeofcircumstancwe ithinthemeaningofArticle60 of the MennaConvention,
havinga b-g on the 1477Treaty? Thisisneverexplaind.
5.28 Nor can thisabsenceofIegd analysibemade good bythe comment that
Hungary doesnutactudlyclah thabytherndvesthesepoliticd chmges constitutafundamentai
changeofcircumstanceisnrelationtothe1977Treaty - but thatheyarean"essentiaplartof the
overallsituationHJM. anyelementscan beintroducedtodescribethe"overal lituation-but a
mereaccumuIatio nffactorsdoesnotconstitutea fundamenta lhange. Itstihas tobe shown
thatthetotalityofthefactorsbm ontheTreatyinthe senserequirebyArticle62 oftheVienna
Convention.
5.29 Hrrngq emphaises as one ofthe factor-though apparentlynot asone
thatwuId standdone -thatthe 1977Treatyhadbeen condudedunderCUMECONS auspicesand
within its econornicsystem. But the relevantlegal consideratiis whether COMECONS
disappwce ended theraisond'êtrandoriginaiobjecoftheTreaty.SIovakia hasddt withthe
legairequirementin itMemonalandits~ounter-~ernorial~ ~butHungaryhas yet toadvarice
any legaiargumen it;erelyrecitescertainneweventsasithatalonesufficetoallowternination
ongoundsoffundamentalchange.
5.30 Hungaryoffers aliçtof factorsthat apparenara mmeancumulative~ytu
amounttu a "fundamentaichangeofcircum~tances~~S.umeof themclearlyaresimply arehearsal
ofargumentsadvancedunderother heads: the "increasinindicationsthatit would be
environrnentalldarnaging"(afornula thatmay be thoughtto be Iessthan thatrequiredfor
"necessity"nsupportof whichHungaiyhasadvancedcatastrophic predictioncoupledwithan
admissionthat"mere possibiliofarisk"shouldberegarded assufficieevidence).Referenceis
32 HungarianCounter-Memoripara.5.46.
33
-bidp.ra5.47.
34
SlovakMernoria,aras8.71-8.7SlovakCounter-Memaripl,ras10.66-I0.7I.madetu the "economi rcationality"of the Project. one Treaty partydoes not sharetftat
I
perception;even take wnith "thendof the CoId War, etc."3 thi,wouidnot amount to a
I
findamenta chang efcucurnstmcesa, Slovakiahasshown inits~emorid~?
5.31 Hungary againinits~ounter-~emoha l akesreference, thecontextof
anargumentbased on fundamenta change,to "thejustzedrejectioofthe Nagymaros Barrage,
whichbrought withitthe coilapseoftheconceptioof a'sine andindivisibleperationalystem'
"37. Slovakiahas alreadyinitsCounter-Mernor aiadres thiretnaxkable ;and nuw
I
deds indepthbetowwiththecircumstance surroundhgHungws suspension ofitsobligationat
I
~agyrnaro?. Itmay herebe nufedthat-inview ofthefactthatitsactiowas takenwithno prior
notification,Iabne consultatioornegotiatio- Hmgarywasdone in detemiring whefher fhc
I
"rejection"ofthiscrucialelemeritof the Prujecwas 'Ijustifi&'.ungary's handonment of
l
Nagymaros removed animportant elementof the "singleanindivisiboperationasystem"and,
accordingto Hungary,the "rejection"orked a fiindamentaclhangeof circurnstance,stfying
Hungary interminatinthe Treaty.Accordingtothislinof Jgument,then, apartyto streatcm
justiQtheterminatioofthe treatybybreachingit,theninvoktheconseguence sfthebreach asa
fundamentd chang oecircirrnstancdO.The argumentmakesIa mockeryof thedoctrineof rehs
-icstantibuinparticular,andtheIawoftreatiesigeneral.It astransparenattemptbyHungq
I
ro profifrom tsown wrong,which isprohibitaiby, interdia,the ViemaConventionontheLaw
I
of Treaties: "A fundamentalchange of circumstancesmay not be invokedas a ground for
termùiaiingorwithdrawingfiomatreaty ..@) iftheninddmdchangeistheresult ofabreach
by the partyinvokhg iteitheofan obligationunderthe leaty or ofany other international
obligatioowed to anyotherpwtyto thetreatyM 4'
35 HungariariCairnter-Mernop.ra5.46.
'36 BIova k emonalpara8.69.
37 Thisquatatiishm McIe 1, paragraph1of th1977Treaty.Hungaim Counter-Memoridp,ara
5.47.
38 SlovakCounter-Mernorai,ra10.73-10.75.
39
&, Chapter ,below.
40
See,SlovaCounter-McmoA p,. 10.73.
41
Viem ConventionontbLawof TratiaArt,62(2)@). 5.32 Moreover,it shoufdnotbe forgottenthatHungary wu prepara etdone
pointtu pceed withthe TreatyProljecttGabEikovoa ,ithou&refiisingto procd with Îts
obligationat~ag)rnaros~~. It cleardid conside rhe Projecas"singleandindivisible"r
even thatitown abandonmen tf N-OS constifutaisucafundamenta clhangaestudeny di
purpose tothe 1977Treaty.TheonlyPartythat wouldbe entitlto reIyon argument s nthe
1 "indivisibiitftheProjectaitsochoseisSlovakia- mostcertainlyotHungar y
5.33 Amongthefactorslistedinthe"combinationofeIementsUthat itot.intato
fundamentaichangeofcircumstanceis"thappsrentlhye~ocablt determinationfCzechosIovakia
to proceedtounilaterdiversioofthe Danubew, hichitseputanend totheideaofjointcontrol
andjointinve~tment" ~S~lovakihasfullexplaine heprovisionanlaturof Variant"C",andthe
possibiliofresumption ofjoint contrulajoint investmenifHungarjrwÎIfuE1 its obligations
underthe
C. The Alleeed Viofationsbv Czechoslovakiaof the 1977 Treatv and
itRelatedA~reements
"As toterminationof the1977 Treaty forbreach,byfar themost important
breachreliedonwas the continuedandactiveinsistencebyCzechoslovakia on
constructinandoperating Varian t~ ~1
It ito thiassertionthatSIovakiawiIIdevotethe majorpariofthis Section. However, in its
Counter-MernoriaH l, ungaryretums tu itsdegations of violationsofseveral individud
provisionsofthe 1977Treatyand itsrelatedagreementsa,ndtheseaIsowillbeaddressed.
42
%para. 8.13,am., andparas.8.53-8,elow.
43 Hmgxîm inmer-Mernoria,ara.5.47.
45 HungariaCounter-merno r,ara.5.48. Varisnt"Ce Does Not Breaehtke 1977 Treaîv. but IrndemenQit
-n Part
5.35 Hungary'psldings rnakeaimostno attempto dernonstraeow Variant
"C"was alIeg&Ia brwh ofthe 1977TreatythisearoeI5ndsmentioniniîsMernoriaandin its
'Cortriter-Memuril,though Hungarysathe matteistobe addrd inChapter546 ifisonce
1
agaihardIyaddressed. heheartofHungaq'sargument sn Varian"CM inetthatitwas iüegai
underthe Treaty,butthat iwas üiegalunderwhatHuAgary aliegestobe requirementosf
customaryintemationlawandinternationalvironmeridIL,.
5.36 Thermn forthis isnothardtuEnd:Variarit"C" iscldyabest-possible
applicatiofthe 1977Treatynotaviolatiof it.
I 5.37 The Iawfuineof Variant"Csbyrekrence tothe 1977Treaty hasbeen
I
l explainebySlovakiaiits~ernorial"andinits~ounter-~~rnorkl.Itisfunk analysedinthis
5.38 Somebriefprelimuiaryointsdi, hdwwer,be madehere In Hungay's
I
view,the contingentpIannandthecommencemeno tfmnstnrction of Vari"C" constituted
j violationsofth1977Treaty- evenbeforetheprrttingintooperationofVari"C" inOctober
1992~'.Siovakia'sositiisthatCzectioslovaiaegan, fullnotihtioconHungaiy,a study
ofpossiblvarianticaseHungary shoulultirnateyaio r&.uneperfôrmancocftheWikovo
section of theProject. Thiswas wntingencyworkwhosdgoodsens e asmnknai by the
termiriatianofthe TreatybyHunginMay 1992.
5.39 Hungaq declar hsat"the6rstoffic'althrof a unilatersolutioin
1 August1989 withthediversiooftheDanubein 1992fom ?1nebarelyinterruptdontinuumtt.J1
47 SIovakMemariapa 7.11,s;s.
" SlovakCounter-Mernoral,r11.0etsea.
49 -ee,ChapteVIbelow.
I
In HringaiaCounrer-Mernori,ar2.93.gm.Tostudy whatone mighthave todoifa treatisterminaîebyone'spartner(who hasgivengood
causeforsuchanxiety)inota breachoftreatyThe Court hasbeenprovidedwithdetailofthese
preparatorstudk un possiblevariant^ ^ udiesbegm inthe wh~mnof 1989,and Hungq
itxK was briefedonthern and had itself studiedthein7390; inFebniary 1991 theywere
discussedinthe SIovaa knd Hungtuian Academies of Scienceandin thesummerof 1991
Hungarianofficiavisitedthesite.Duringthe 1991negotiationw,hereHungary' soleaimwas
togainCzechoslovakiaa'sreemen o terminattheTreaty,theargumen thatamateria lreachof
the 1977Treatywas beingcommittd byCmhoslovakia throughits study ofalternativevariants
was nutmade byHungay,who sough tmhoslovakia' sgreemen totheTreaty'stermination.
5.40 Work ontheselect eariant idnotinkt beginuntilNovember1991~~,
thoughHungary wks toasserthatconstructiohadbegun earli55.
5.41 The fact that the sudies, constructionand implementationwere an
"unbrokec nontinuum"so faas aitegebrwh oftheTreaty wa~ concemed,is evidencedbythe
veryterrnsoftheSpecialAgreement. Articl2(1)@)refersto Czechoslovakiproceedig tothe
provisionaiolutioninNovernber199I, andputtingit intooperationinOctob1992. Hungary
thuscIdy recognisedthedistinctphase-andtheIegdsi@canix thereof.
5.42 Itremainthe côsethatuntiINovember1991Czechoslovakia Iimitd itself'
to study,discussion,negotiatiand contingentconstructionBy thetimeVariant"C" was
irnplementedH,ungaryhadissueditsnotificatofterminationftheTreaty -preciselthecause
of Varian"C" moving hm a contingenqplantu actu imlpiementationt,hoiigh ifsprovisionai
natureremainedunchangai,asismorefulIdiscus çelwin ChaptesIX.
-- .-
52
&, SIovakMemorial,araS14,g seq.
53
SceSlovakCounter-Mernoral,r5.68.
54
See,tChronclogofDecisioandAction,lovakCounter-Mernoii,s.No.CM-16,p.284.
55
-eepara9.06kIow. CzechosIovakiaDid Not Breachhny Provisionofthe 1977 Treatv
oritsRelated Aereements
According toHungaryi ,tsconduct:
5 -43
"...has tu be considered in the context of the wrongîul acts previousljt
committed byCzechoslovakia. Inparticular,thlreason Htingaq reliedon a
stafeof 'erivironrnentaInecessity'first suspend the work and then tu
terminatethe1977 Treaty isthatitwas confronte'ditb a situationcreatedby
Czechoslovakia b'reachofitstreatobligationss6'
5.44 Threecornmentsmaybe made. as soofien,Hungary confbses
I
two IegaIargumentsthat arein fact quitt dist-nitarguIents as tu"necessity"o, ntheone
hand (which it is repeated onmure does notconstitutea ground for tenninatind')and an
the other hand,its claimsas to Treatyviolationsby ~zechoslovakiawhichrnightjustify
suspensionand thentermination inaccordance withthepknciple of Article60 of theVienna
I
Convention on theLawof Treaties.Neitherthe legaideIattnor Hungarytslegalarguments
canbe heIpedby such confusion. Second, Hungaty ody invokedthis argument f~rthe first
l
tirne inits1992 Declaration,and this attempt to justi~ the suspensia ond subsequent
1
abandonmen tfworksbyallegedTreatyviolationsby C echoslovakia hasnot beenpursued
7
save for in the currentproceeding Itfollows that~unIar~ hasin no way respectedthe
proceduraalndformalconditionsnecessary toeffectthe ~u$~ensioof atreaty byressorof its
violationbyanother par$'. Third, Hungaryoffersno new arguments inthis areand simpiy
I
refen back(withoutspecificrefermçe)to Chapter6 ofits~ernorial*~.Thus ,Iovakiacan do
Iittimorethanto referto itsownresponse toHungaryts cl imsitcounier-~ernorial~'.
1
5.45 Howwer, itmsybeadded that~rticles15and 19 ofthe 1977 Treaty
I
are entireIy consistent with the generalprinciples af internatilnvironmental law, as
56 HungariaCounter-Mernoripalra.5.07.
57
%, para.5.09, above.
59 HungarianCounter-Mernorpl,ra5.07fn7.
Mi SlovakCounter-Mernorpli.iras.1IO9.09.Hungaryaccepts6'and as Slovakiahas establistieab~ve~~.As Slovakiahasçhown,bothit
andCzechoslovakia havescnipulously compliedwithsuchprincipIes6 .3
Secfion3. TheRerevanceofArticIe 27 of the Treatv
5.46 Hungarydevotes severalpagesof itsCounter-Mernoria tl discussing
the "relevanceof Article27 ofthe Treaty" , hichconcems the "Settlementof ~is~utes"".
AccordingtothisArticle:
"1. The settIement of disputesin mattersrelating tu the reaiisatioand
operation ofthe Systernof Locks shaIIbc a function of the government
[plenipotentiaries].
2. If thegovernment[plenipotentiariesa]reunableto reach agreementon
the matters in dispute, they shall refer themto the Governmentsof the
ContractingPartiesfordecision."
5.47 Inresponsetu the SIovakassertionthat HungaryfaiIedto makeuse of
thesemechanism s,ungary arguesthat:
"Inpracticethe systemof Plenipotentiaries andof regularcommunication
betweenthepartiesoperatedin a relativeflexibleway65."
Thisis su -and it is preciseIythis fiexibilitythasuwusekl. Butthe probIemduesnot Iie
there.Instead,itisthat inspiteofthe mer& ofthis means ofsettIementH, ungarystood inthe
way ofitsappIicationandbnitallyended it byendinn gegotiationsoverresumptionof part of
theProjectinearly1990 and inpurporting to terminatetheTreaty inMay 1992~. It cannot
be maintained thattoconfine negotiationto terminatingthe ~reaty~~- which was Hungary'ç
soleaiminthe 1991 negotiations(besidesgettingCzechoslovakiatu stopworkon the Project)
61
HungiuianCourtter-Mernor. ar6.16.
62
-ee,para3.18g W., above.
63
-bid.
"
HungarianCounter-Mernoria,aras.51-5.38.
61
M., para5.33.
65 See,Part II,below,passim.
-
67 &. para9.07, W., below. 5.50 Thisconfirms that,whatevereffectstheunilateral"termination"ofthe
TreatybyHungarymayhave had,Hungary breached its Treatyobligationsin refusingto
resolvethe disputereçuItinhm itsserieofactionsinaccordance with Articl2p.
5.51 Hungary would have the Courtbelieve,in thus insistingon the
obligatorynature of the recoursetothe means ofsettlementprovidedby Article 27 of the
1 Treaty, that SIovakiwas resewingforitseIf"avetoovermodification o the ~roject"~~.
5.52 Once more, it must be stressaithat the prubiernis not asHungav
presentsit.TheTreaty,signed andratifiedbyits parties alregularity,mustberespected by
them. Theprinciplepactasuntservanda createsat the veryleast,such apresumption. Of
course,noIegaImle preventsthe partiestoa treaty mutuaIIyagreeingtusüch modificationas
arejointly agreedtube necessary.It is in respanto thisneed thatthe miiItipIemechanisms
forcontrolandconsultationdIowedfor intheTreaty exisp andwhich,inpractice, Iedtothe
frequentmodifications ,daptationsoradditionsto theProject.But absentsuch an agreement
or while it is pending - and itmust be recalled that,contrary to Hungary's claims,
CzschosIovakia fthen Slovakia)never soirghttu rejectsuch a possibilit-the Treaty müst
continue tu apply. If there ia "veto",it operates theperiod ofapplication of the
Treatyon thegroundsthat"everytreaty in forceis bindingupon the partiestitand must be
performed by them ingood faith"".
5.53 But it isquita differentsort ofveto that Hingary cIaimshûuld be
applied:not against the non-application of the Treaty but, on the contrary, againsi its
implementation. If such a theory were to be accepted,the stabilityof IegaIIybinding
agreementswouldbe calledinto question andtheveryfoundationsof internationallawwould
beshaken.Suchobviously cannot bethe law.
As Slovak iilIdemonstratbelow(para.10.09, et seq.),Hungfaileto respectreasonable
deadlinebetweethelimeofitnotificatiandthedatoftheailegetreattermination.
73
HungarianCounrer-Mernoriaira536.
74
-bid.,para.5.35.
75 ViennaConventioon theLawofTreatiesArticle26. CsAPTERVI. TEE, LEGALPRINCIPLESSUPPORTING THE PROCEEDING
WITH AND Pü'ITlNG INTOOPERATZON OFVARIANT ''C"BY
CZECROSLOVAKIA
SECTIO 1. Underthe 1977 Treatv
I
6.01 The IawfulnesofVariant'%" cm ody be assessiby referenctu the
entirehistorandcontext.Itisthathistorand contextthatdefinetheappropriatappiicabIe
noms andallowsassessrnetfthereasonabl efthsiapplication.
6.02 Thesequence ofeventthatledinNovember1991 to the6rspreparations
forVarian"C" andtoifsputthg intooperatinOctober 1992,icIdy expIainedinChapterZX
beIow. AcarefiiltrackthroughthedipIomaticistoryfiomthend of1989 unt3October1992,
Ioohg atthe entireofthe ficand examirihgthefiltexîof relevantdocuments,showsthat
proceedingwithVarian"C" was accin-uerice of Hungary'sabandonmenoftheTreatyand its
resoluteandpublicstatedresolvnevertoreturnto itThepurportedteminationof May 1992
madeitinevitabthattheWikovo sectionshould beputintooperatioby meansofVarian"t C".
6.03 The damming of the Danube,the diversiofpart of itwaters on to
Czechusluvakteintory,andthe locatofthemajornavigationchanneinthibypasscanalwere
dl erivisagednthe 1977Trmw. Hungaryhad sinceJuly 1989,whenit suspend& work at
Dunakifitjt&eneverysteto preventhishappeningW.hen Hungq saysthatihad tutemiiriate
theTreaty"tuavoidanypretexforthediversion,it affithatbyMay 1992itbelievedtheonIy
way haüy to ensurethat the Treatyobligationswonotbe implementedas to temiinatethe
Treatyinitentirety.
6.04 Thisisthebackgroun doVariant"C",andtoCzechoslovakia 'slieinits
entitlement,wisomanydelaysendured,w muchdreadybuilt,suchvastmm aIreadyxpended,
tu çeetheessentidobjecoftheTr* implemented.Ithasexplainedtu thCourihowVariant
"C" wasdesign& 15securetheobjectoftheTreaty,inthfaceof Hun&s refusaltoperîurmifs
I HungariaCiounter-Mernora,ra.5.30.treaty obligations&od seme and quitable considerationsundertyingthis doctrineof
appro~hateapplicationhadban artiailatbyJudgeLau!erpacht inthe Advi- Opinionon
I
AdmissibilitofHearings ofPetiionersbv the Cornmitteeon South West AEca2; and the
pertinenceohisobsewationsfor thefactof fkscas heavebeenput tu theCourtinSlovakia's
~emorid~ .
6.05 Hungary' response o Czechoslo 'a'insisienupon itslegd righto
securetheobjectiveofa Treatyinwhichithad fuWed alitsown obligations,reinterestkg.
";
-,,if contendsthat Varia"Cuwasnot infactcompatiblwiththe abjectand purposeofthe
I
Treatyfbecauseit wasmilatemincharacter.Buthe ohjas itmrs -thedammingtucreate a
reservoir(dbeit ansmder =aie thanerrvisagedh,ebypassmal, the newnavigationcharnel,
I
are envisagainthe Treaty.And theody reasonsVarian"C" seares thesa@ objectives
1
by aunilateractisexactlybecausHungary refusetoperformitsownobligationofdamrningat
Dunakilitaiiowinthe Projecto proceeonthebasisjointlyagreedintTreaty.
6.06 It is equaiîyabsurdof Hungary,having abandon end purportai@
terminatôthe integratedandcooperativeTreatyPrajeta,proclaimVarian"C" ascontrq ta
the purposeof the TreatybecausetheTreaty "was tuprumotejointIy anintegrated anCU-
I
operativeprojectn No.rwi it ba &us argument forHtIngary,whorefisedtocouperatein
the implementationof Treaty obligatioto3invokeA~c/~I 3, 7 and II in supportof the
propositiothatonly"CO-operativactbySlovakiawouldb$approxirnat towhat wasenvisaged
intheT~I$ .Slovakiahaspmvidedsubstantivenswen tot1spointinit~ounter-~ernorial~.
6.07 Hungaryoffers as a separategroad for Variant"C" not to be an
I
appropDataepplicationofthe Treatythe allegathat iisirreconcilawith the water quality
and envirumentai protectionobligatiinsArticle15 and 19. SIovakiahas providai ample
evidencetoshowfbatVariant "C" ifullyinaccordwith~rticle15 and 19.andhdeed wao the
I
2 AdmissibivfhearînmoptiüonenbytheCornmitton~a?tWertAma. Advimw (hinionofJune
lst19561.C..erxirts19p.23 p.&.
3 SlovakMernoria,ara7.11-7.33.
4 1
HunganaCounter-Mernoria, 6.1.
5
md
6
SIovaCounter-Memarial,par1.04I1.07.ody wayresponsibltyo complywiththoseArticlesand to protecttheenvironmen itthefke of
Hungary'sdecisioto walkaway Eom a projecinan admced &te ofconstruction. Varlan"Cu
hasben, on baiance,beneficitutheenvironment anditsfuü benefitcan be madeavailableto
Hungary too ifitchooses to take the necessa stps forthe benefitof itsown people and
enviroment7.
6.08 Hungq repeatinitsCorinter-Maorialthattherewereinanyevent"vital
diferenc betweentheOrÎ@ Project and Variarit"Cufa pointdreadymade initsMernoriaalt
paragraph1.16)thatprecludehelattebeimgan approximat applicationftheformer.
6.09 What are these "vitdfirences"tu whichHungaryrefers tu show that
Variant"C" isnot anappruxirnat appIicationofwhatwas envisagedin the Treaty? Hungaiy
refenthe Courtto it~ernorial.'Slovakiahasalreadyr+iiedatparagraph 11-07ofitsCounter-
Mernoriap l,ointiout theonlysignificat ifferencwerethe redudonin sizeof thereservoir
and rhechangd locationofthe ddg ofthe Danube,madeabwlutely nezessarby Hungary's
rehsaI mmpletethe dam on itsown tenitoy. No structurawere erectedoutsidethe territoq
envisagedintheTreaty.Theobjectives offloodcontrol,improvement innavigationa,ndenergy
production ,real1metbyVariant "Cu on thebasisenvisagedinthe Treaty. Moresatisfactory
ground water1eveIscan be achievedonce the rinderwaterweirsare operationaland arenow 1
achievedthroughthe directrechargesyçtern.Ody p& productionis not achievd. And thiis
duesolelytoHungary' abandontneo nfNagyrnaros.
6.10 Hungary =tes tbatapproxirnataepplicatiistheody SIovakargumen to
dernonstratethano contradictionexisîabetwethe operatioof Variant"C"and the obIigatiom
of the~reafl. Therneaning of thicommen tsnot clear.Whether ornot contradictionsexist
betweenVarian tCHandtheTreaty isarnatterfobjectivandysis.Ifthey donot,thedoctrineof
7 -9e SIavak#unter-MemoriaI,as. 8II and 11.08g çeq. EfungarwiIIin facbene&hm
revitalisanthebrancheçee,theAmment of 19Apnl 1995Annex 1,hereto.Furth, urinhis
visitoBudapeson 25Januaq 1995PrimeMïnisteMeCiarexp& hitvilling tnesicussthe
circunistanswhchHungar myightparticientheconomicusesoGabi.ikwo.
8 AIpara6.81dits Counter-Me~noiIngq refe opara 1.116ofiMemotid.Siovakitaketsk ta
meanpara1.16oth eemoriaI.
9 Hun& Counter-Mernoria,a.6.103. approximate appliation my be applid. It k not the principlthatestablishewhether the
proposed applicatiisapproximat -onlyth* ifitisi,ma) !awîullbeproaeded with.
6.11 The mattermay be expIaindthus:thebuildim gfWrkovo isintegralto
I
theProject. The1977 Treatyprovidaifora diversioofwaters betwen thebypass canaiandthe
oldriverbed ,ndthe 1947 rotoc co flrtherstipulatethit waterswereto beprovided tothe
Mosoni Danube.If theseimportanctonditionan bemet, and ifenvironmentaflctorsarefuly
takenintû accûunf,then Wikovo an stibe operatedwithout cooperationhm Hungasf-
I
NaturaIIy- and exactIyas had ben notai by Judge Laute'pzht in the PetitionerCase -
1
approxirnataepplicationecessarientailsaninabilittoputthe contractintoplacepreciselas
envisaged" .ItisHungary kat hasstoppedthe dam beingkilt atDunakilit(ithougitisbuilas
I
n&y aspossible).AsitwasHrrngq thapreventd thehl1impiementatio onfthe1977 Treaty*
I
it doesriolieiifsmouth tucornplainthatVariant"CL fiIlmmksistenw iththeobjectivesofthe
Treaty,andadheing to aUotherimportanctonditioninthedreaty-isnotattheplaceenvisaged in
I
the Treaty.
I
6.12 Hungaiy deniestheexistenceofany suchprincipIeonwhichSIovakia may
I
rely. Slovakiahas pointaiedtthedoctrineas expiainedin1JudgeLauterpacht tpinionin the
PetitionesCase asmtirdyconsistenwithestablisheprinciplk12.
# l
l
I 6.13 The reason inothardtu find. It isvidy withoutpreceden tora State
I
tu breach,anduideedrepudiate,a major treatfor the cons!tmctiof an on-goingmoperative
projet, andthento tela courtthatthePartywhichhas fulfilled
obligationandmadeaii of&
capitalexpenditures, nendstherightsofthe violatingStatdby causingtheagreedwork tobe
I
completal aibat itmay. Quitesimplyt,he cornplaiiso remarkabI asalmoçtneverto beheard
I
- andtherehasbeen nooccasionfortheCourt tupronounceupon or elaborateponthematter.
6.14 That iswhy the issuemustbe deal/withas one of principle.Some
I
introductorypointsarein order.The firspointthatis tobe madeis that itisofnorelevarice
Io
HungarianMernoriaVol.3,Annex3.
II
AdmisçibilivfhearingsouetitionbvtheComrnittcenSouthWestAfricaAdvisorOainion:of
June1st.1956LC.J.Rewrts1956p.23 atp. 467.
I2 SIovakMernoriai,ar7-21,gtseq.whateverthatJudg Leauterpachelaborateheprinciplienaseparateopinioqheandfhe majority
reachg thesameoutcome inth& casbeydierentroutes.Thereisnothinginthernajoritypinion
thatrejectstheprinciple.Itiimpdoesnotrelyon it.The principlisthuseithegood orbad.
Thesecond isthatindl thcasesconcemingSouth Africacommenchg HiththeAdvisoryOpinion
of 1950,theCourtitself(albeitwithoutemployithetennassuch) didin factseekto securan
approximataepplicatioof the mandattreaty,inthfaceof SouthAfnais refirsdtu perfomits
obiigationsthereunder.
6.15 The third introductopoint relatetu the fact that the Courin the
PetitioneCsase,wasundeniabl yacd witha speciaregirnet,hatofthemandateJ3Themandate
was anobjectivlegalregime.ContraqtowhatHungary asserts,SlovakiadidnotinitsMernorial
sugges thatSiHerschLauterpach "taflrmedthfundament allethata Statconfionteci ith a
breachoftreatycan"imposesomeapproximatio to performanceontheother Inthefvst
place,SlovakiabelieveitsactiononVariant"C" is fulfinconfomiitywith principiand with
internationalIaw. It haneed toshow a "fundamentai Ieofpositivelawu.On thecmfrary,it
is forHungary,thepm inbreachofitsTrWy obIigationstoshow on what mleof international
Iaw itcm base& remarkabledaim that disregarofifs obligationsentitltoidemand non-
performanceof theobjectof theTreaty. By itsnon-performancaStatehasensured thatihas
avoideditsobligation. hatiegalnorrnstipulatshatnon-performancentitleaStateto more-
namely ,otheentireMure ofthetreaty? Thiisnota legalbenefitthisoffereas areward for
non-performance.
6.16 h November 1991, when Czechoslovaki began constructionwork on
Variant"C" , ungaryhadlongsincefuIIyabandonewdork onboththeNagymaros &ion andthe
GaEikovosectionT5.CzechosIovaki waasklIyentitldiopruceedwirhapproximataepplicatiuat
thispoint- a processthatwas in fact hlly reversible.In May 1992, Hungaq purporteto
terminatthe 1977Treaty.Czechoslovaki aasthusfuIyentitletoproceedto puttheprovisionai
solutionintoapplicatthroughthedammingoperation carrieoutfrom24-27October1992.
13 AdmissibiIofhearingofMtiorrerbbrheCornmitteeonSotrfhWestAfrica.AdvisowOpinofn
Junt1st.956I.C.JRewrts1955p.23.
15 Hrurga~ybandons workon bthNagymarossectioon 27Octokr 1989 a~don theGabCikovo
sectiontheendofJune1990,at tlatest. 5.17 IftheTreatyhadbeenIawhiiykmhaIad byHungary inMay 1992> then
thepuning Uao efeçlof Varian"C" inOder 1992&ut be explainedasan approxinwt
I
applicatiofthe Treaty. ButiasSlovaL antenck,thekreatywu notlawhiiytemhated in
I
May 1992thenthesituatioinOctober1992 wassimplytlp one pait- Hmgq - hadreM
performanc efitTreatyobligationBy what"nileofpostiveinternationllw"is ientitle,n
i
additiono insistththeTreatyitseIfnotputintooperatibn?Thatisinessencto giveexactly
I
thatpowerofterminationoa Statincircumces in which imaynotl&Uy tehate.
6.18 What Slovakiacarefuilsaidwas that,aIthoughtheCourt,and Judge
I
Lauterpacht,werefa& wiîha treatyeztablisagregimeinrem,ttierewerereasonofprincipl~
and poliqtu susest that thdoctrinshauldhave a wid r appbcationTtis tru- as Judge
Lauterpach observe.-thatinwhathe terrns"anordinatytreaty",satisfacisofkensenird
t
throughdamages.Butthis dl notinvaria bemy. Slovakiashowedthatinthe presencase,
while compensationfor financiaifoss andquantifiabhm wouId be needed f,nancial
compensationalonecouldnotthenand cannotnow,eradicattheenvironmeritalm of Ieaving
I
the wu& of the Projectianunfrnishestate;norcan iguaranteefloodprotectionor cm it
guaranteethe draugdepthsrequirebythe Danube~omm!issio norsaFenavigation;norcanil
I
&w the movemen iorn maifirdenergytusecure,clan, renewabeomesticenerB1'.
6.19 And thiisexactlybecaustheG/N ~kojojesnot "anordiiary" Treaty.It
is,asSlovakihaselaborateindetaiintheCounter MernoRa]i,ndeea TreatycreatinrightS
rem 17.~tispractithesortofcontractrelationshnwhickapproximateapplicatiisthemost
-
approptiatway forward,ndviofatenorightsofthpartyinbreachofitsobîigations.
1
6.20 The staRinpointfoan malysisofthépruicipleofapproxiraepplication
I
isanuthe rririciethathewrongedParty isentitltubeput inthepositioasithewrong had
I
notbeen committed.It isthusentittuseethe objectofthetreatsecured.Ina treatihrem
theobjectsofthetreatywiilnotbemerefinanci rofit,anbereforethedoctriofapproximate
16 SlovaMernori,ara s.27-7.33.
I
l7 Swak Counler-Mernorii,ar2.55-2.38Iisnofmm+ conlraitHmgar)isNitenieafpara
5.4ofitConterMernorihatSlea dm no1antendha\ the19TreafyirnofobjpRine@nc
creatiri&& rem.ftiabluteiy cIar fSIo-s CountMernaritlatidŒsS. applicationilihava particulrertinenceT.hi siincipl,nunciatedyJudge Lauîerpach tnthe
PetitioneCase,5nds ampIereflexioindumesticlegd systerin relationtu contractsthat arenot
"ordinarycontractsuItis clafy tobe seen operathgin diverse14 systems inconstmcfm
contracts, hicharobviouslyaparticularpyertinetndogy totheTraty fortheconstructioof
the Wkovo-Nagymaros Project. Whereonepm to acontractrefus to performat dl its
constructioobligation,heinjurepar& isentitlto ccimpleteheworkoriginallassignedto the
otherpariyunderthecontract. Thiism, forexample s theFrench lawon buildincontra-, in
theEngIishlawonbuildingconfmcts,andintheUnitedStateslawonbuiIdingcontracts.
6.21 Indeed,thesuggestionthat thc dchlting pwty may stop the work being
done,byclaimingittobe iIIegatodo so,hds absolutelyno mention.On thecontrarythe Iegd
principieenfithg the wrongd partyapproxirnattoycorngletethe contractis d&t witinthe
wntext of mitigationanddamages -thatisto Say,thepoint atissuehasbeenthe dutyof the
wrongfulpartytopayforthecornpletio nythewrongedparty of thecontractbligationswhichit
shouIditselfhaveperfonnedThe enlitlementotucornpletcis not evwntested, butistakm as
thenaturaistartingpoint
6.22 ThusinRadford v.De ~roberrille~thedefendanthadmntracted tocany
l
out workon hisown landwhichwould benefitheplaintifsand.Thedefendan ted to carrout
hisworkobiigationunderthecontract.The Hrg h ourtheldthatinthesecircumstances:
"Theplaintifwas entitldto claimdarnagesfor breachof that contracwhich
wouldcompensate himforthe costof carryinout on hisown land.as nearl~as
passiblethatwhichthedefendanhtadfailedtodo19".
t The Court expresly rejected the idea that twasea "criticaldiferencbetween a contract
betweenAandB to erecabuildinonB'sland anda contracbetween AandB tu erecta buiIdig
l
onA'sland. IfAcouldsecurebroadlycomparablb eenefitfrotheconstructiontakingplaceon his
own land,thenhewas entitlto putthatinplace(andrecoverdarnagesforit)inthe eventofB
failingtu do the workonB'sownland.TheCourtspokez5 ofcarnper~tiunbeing"toenabIIehim
tocanyout, asnearlyaspossiblqforhirnselfwhatthedefendahad faiIetodo forhim".
18
1AI1EndandLawRmrts 33(19781.
I9
ibidap.34(italis ddedf.
20
-Ibidatp.41. 6.23 Revertinto thepropositinhatadong& partyisentitledtobcput inthe
positioth& itwouldhavebeeninifthewronghad notocaifredtheCourtsaid:
"..theody fhingthatwillputhaplaintiineppro$mateta ygood a positionas
thatinwhîchhe would havebtm iftheGO- hadbeen performedwould be an
award ofthe arnountequireto enablhim tohavdtheequivaienwt orkdone on
hissideofthewali2 ...".
The phintiifwaSLICE~SS~Inseekindamages "fenablehirto do,asnearfas possibI, hatthe
defendanthasfdedto do"2Z.
6.24 Emden's Constructio~ag confiA1 the me phciple. Râerring to
incompléte ork,iStatethatamongvariousalternatihead fordamagesisincluded"thewst of
I
recteng or wmpIetUig thework". Itis,say she Imed furthor,"the generaimie"that the
I
wrunged partyisentitltormver the costofcompletiigthework,"suchwst to beassessa etd
thetimethatitîwareasonableorhimtocarryoutthework".
l
6.25 The constructioncontracIaw ofIreland is thsame. Ln Mumhy Y.
Wedurd County~ouncil" , LordIdce O'Connor spokeof thelosincIudingthecostof doing
1
theworkwhichinbreach ofcontracthedefendan tasfdeddo do1'. eadded:
1
"1have &eady mentianai thecaseof the plaints whodaesthe workkimself
beforhe sues:1cmot SR thatit matiersthathediwithouthisbeingunderan
obligationtdo it.Merdl, hecontractai forvduable considerarhatishouId
bedune."
6.26 This is exactly the position in which Czechoslovakiafound itself
1
CzcehasIuvakiwaas&Uyentitled,havingifseIfmadevast expenditsconnoztionwiththe1977
I
Treaty,todo itselas nafy aspossible,whatHungaryhad GIed to do. And thereisample
authoritthatHungarymust meetCzechoslovakia'ostsindoingso.
21
m.. alp.44.
-bidatp48.
23
(1994),VoS.154-160.
24 2IrishReports(19l), atp.240. 6.27 Far fiom enunciatina doctrinethai "ivktdy unheard
Judge
Lauterpach tad ùitrodrreehto consideratioofan internabondtreatyinrem anotion thatis
cornmonplace in domdc contractswhere the wronged Partycannot be put by money
compensationaloneinthepositionofthewrongneverhaving occurred.The practicissotamiliar
thatit couldproperlbetermôd a "generaprinciple"ithinArticle38(l)(coftheStatuteof the
Internationalourt-thoughSlovakia remainosftheviewthat iisHungary whichhasto show a
mleof intemationalaw astu why,hawig refird tuperfomi,itisentitlto stopSlovakiahm
çecmingthe objectivof astiiexistitreaty.
6.28 The entitimentofthewrongedPartytacumpletethe construction -even
thoughthecontracthad indeedassumed performancewouId be bythe defaultingpmt- isshpiy
assumaiin al1the Ieadingtextbookson constructionlaw,and the matteris subsumedin the
discussioofdamages.ThusKeatinn on BuildinContractss,ays:
"Wherethe contractorMs to cornplete, the mare of damages in theht
instancis the differencbetweenthe contractpriceandthe amount itwould
ady costthe employerto cornpletthe contracworksubstantidlv asit was
oriPinalluintendaand in a reasonabIemarner. andat the diest reasonabIe
0~porr~nitJ."
Further,wheretherehasben "srrbstantcumpIetionna, plaintifcarmver for canyingout the
rmainbg works inarasonable manne?.
6.29 The positionintheUriitStatesisthesarne.Thewronged partyis entitled
tocornpleteperformanc efthecontracwork and torecovercoststherefo"thatwiiî puhiminas
gorid a positiashewouldhavebeenhadtherebeen nobreachH2'T . hisleadiigtextbostates
that whereone partyfailtu keepits agreementunder a constnictioncontract, the masuof
damagestu theotherpq:
"..isdwaysthe mm thatdl puthim inasgood apositionasifthe contrachad
bm performed. Ifthe defectis remediafiom a practicalstandpoint, recovery
25 Hun@ Chunter-Mernoraia.6.65.
26 5thed1991,p.202(emphasisdded)See,alsoMertenv.Home FreeholCo.1921.2 Kin& Bench
526CourtofAppeal.
27 -bid.
28 WilliçtonContracts3ed.(I968volIIS.1363BuildinContracs.340. generdy WUbe based on the market prie of cornpletingor correctingthe
perf~miance~ .~
6.30 WiHistonreferapprovingl yuthesummaq oftherulegivenby acourt3':
l
"Th eundamentalpruiciple M underlie the decihonsregardiigthemasureof
dmages fordefectsoromissions intheperformanlof a buildingorconstruction
contractisthatapartyisentitletohavewhathe contractfor oritsquivalent..
[theaggiievedparty]is entitletothe cosiof malhg the workconform tothe
contract."
631 Thesituationisno differenin civillawjurisdinions.The French Code
Civilprovidesin Article1144that where thereisanobligationde fairethat has not been met,
performanciesauthorisedofthat obIigationbythewrongd Partyattheexpmseofthepmy who
sbdd haveperformed the obIigatiod1.
6.32 AsJiidgeLarrterpachpaintedout inthePetitionerCase, a refusabyone
partyto performitsobligations ilnecessarilyntailcertaindeparhirebytheinjured partyfiom
the origmi tms of thetreatywhen itcorne isselto perdlmthose agreed obligationsHehad
29
m., atpp-344-345b, aisoKevstonEneinetinrCorn . Vu.îsr196Md. 620.78 A.M 191 for
thepropositithatwhen apartyto abuildingcontractf&lsperfon oneof theremedieto the
othepaq is tocumpItttheantractandchargthecos t thewrongdxr.
JO I
Shclv.Schmidt16.4CaLAm. Zd330,33P02d.817.76 c~rLcIeni359 US 959,3L.M
2d 7ffi,79SCt.739.
I
31 S.1144providthat"Le crhcier paaussiencaçdtinexItian, ttre au4 fairexecutlui-mZe
I'dIigatiauxdépendudébikur"':Thedtor may al=,in caof inexalionbeauthorid fohave
the&ligation execudmIf alfheex-petroftkedehtorlamkki trans.S.144 oftheFrencCivil
Chic addrm aUkhds ofobligations.Whileaçlmowledgbattesituatiofdebtoand ncditoais
notidentitothesituatiofthpartiinthepresentasetisanalogousIn"ordinayontractacourt
ordermayfirsbeneeded, uinwses gwemedbycornmendl law orincaswof urgency,otictothe
defauitsunim. B.Nichias,TheF~nchLawof Conu 24ded.(1992 )tp.217. Hungahadample
notichm Cmhoslovakia ofitintentitopm withVarian"CuifHungaqrepudiatedüintention
ofperforminitobligations.
On appmximataepplicatitmighbeu&d torefetok2lk oftheRusçiaCivilCodewhichprovik
asfollow- "hsas efnon-pe~ommce by theobiigeofan~obliga~tocan)routarpaifc ti& the
&Iigeeisentiflicaq outhibsskattheobIigeapm, ,da othenviçprovidedfbyIai vrthe
con= orto de& damges." The Civil Cbof theFFSR, 1I Jme 1964asamendai. This
entiflemet &med inArtide397oihe1994CiviCde ofTe RusianFdemlion (bans. 19byW.E-
Bda, interLis,ondoanndMomw). Thip simides'lntheyent oftbe fadm D psrfanmabli@on
bya debto..m filUi1 wuk ..the Mtor sMl hayetherighwithi anmsmable pïod to
mmmissiondiefirtfrlrtfthe~ligatino{si"chm" iclqrly intendthi remw fora
pri~ortofuEi bjhliowrtsortsunIwsifoIIowothenvisero mhw,otherlegaactst,econtrao,r
theessrncofth&digaiioand 1demand hm thdebtorardpensationrne- expensesndoher
loçseincurred." :.
- 131.'-
1
spoken of the needfor performance bythe non-violatingpartyto "be appliedin a way
approximatinmgostcloselyto ifsprimarobjectandnote thatthatensuredthatwhat wasbeing
dune was&hg eEecttu th nstrument,andnotchanging it3.
6.33 ,Inthiscontextiisstrikinthat,inthecontractlawofpubiic utiliti,ven
where apartyisunableto perforntscontracthroughnohlt of itown, asubstitutperformance
bytheotherpartywiiibe allowed(providethatdoes notplacesignificantyeavieburden osnthe
non-defaultinparty), Thus,in the Cariadiancaseof Placer DeveloprnentLùnited Y.British
3
ColumbiaHydro and Power uth ho ri.tthedefendants iowerlinewas dam& by a lad
strikeoftheplaintesemployees.Three weeksIaterthedefendan tavingfiaiIdo repaiBe hes,
theplaintifîenterdnt0thedefendant' sroperty, ithoutpermissioand wmpletedtherepair of
thepowerlines. TheSuprerne Court ofBritishColumbiafoundunacceptablt eherefusaiof the
defend& "fofakeanyriskatdi,nomatterhowremote, tu honouritscontract". Suscient weight
had ncibeen giventu the duty the defendantowedthe pIaintiand tu theplaintis mounting
monetary fossesIn thecircumstancetheplaintifwasentitleitseEtu secureperformanceofthe
contractobligatithathadbeenthe dut oyfthedefendant.
I
6.34 This principIewouIdseerto be afortioriwhen iisnot theactsof ttiird
partiethathadmadeperformanc ei%cuItforHungq.
I
6.35 Slovakiaconcludetshissectionbysubmitting:
-
A paq wrongd by non-performanceof a contract byanotherpartyis
entitld tu beputinthepositiasifthedefauIthadnotoccurrd.
-
In "non-ordinaqcontracts", ndparticularlnytreatieandcontractsfor
objectiveand continuing regimes, and for rights Lm rnoney
compensationwiIInotsecurethatentittement.
32 Admissibilof hearinasmtitionerbvtheComrnitton SouthWestAfricaAdvisowO~inionof
Jiinst.1956LC.1.Remrfs1956,p23 ap.#: andSlovaMernorialara.71.
33 45BritisCbiumbiaawRemris329 f1383). - in suchcircumstancest,he wongedpartyisentitIBi&If tuperfom the
I
contractobligatios hichshoulhhe beenperhrnedbythedefaulting
I
psrtyasapproximatea lspossibltIthetreaiyorcontract,andto secure
theobjectsandpurposeosfthattreah orcontract.
-
ThisprincipIe referrdtobyJudgeLauterpacht inhisseparatopinionin
the Petitioners and reflectsa generaipnnciplealreaây weli
establishein the constructiandpublicutilitielaw of d'ierentiegal
systems.
- ~y mm, there isno rule or bnerd p~np1e of iaw to ruppon
1
Hungary'c sontentiothaa partyindefaulof itsobligaticms insistthat
thoseobligationbenotperformed, Iitcast,byanother.
- In particular, Hungatcannot cIaim that Czechmlovakia,and now
StovakiahaslostitenfitIementu securthe objectsofthe1977 Treaq
1
becauseVariant"C"isnecessarinobidenticto whathadbeenenvisaged
iHungary hadperfonneditsobligatidns.
- Varian"Cu isinal1essentidscIoseappruxîmatefo what was envisagai
underthe 1977Tre. addingnoburdensforHungary-
- And iwas undertake nt reasonabletimegivingHungary ample timeto
reconsidertsattitude.
- Accordingly,utody was Cz~hoslovakia hlIyentitldtopro& wifh
1
andto haveputVariant "C"intooperation, utHungaryis liablefothe
costs.
34
Adrnissibiofhmringsowlitionebv thCornmitteonkouthWestAfrica.AdvimnOoinianof
June 1st.195I.C.Re~orts1956,p23. B. The Du* tu Mitbaie
6.36 Without everactuallydenyingtheexistenceof aduty to mitigate, ungary
seek ts cast doubtonit. It is suggestetdhatit is notageneral principlof internationaIlw,
becausetheexamples thatSlovakiahad citedininternation ribunal sctuaiireferredto,orwhere
basedin,municipa aw. But a generapl rincipeflaw, tobeappfied byaninternationa libuna l
and bythe Internationl ourt- underArticle38 ofih Statuteisexactlya principlthatispresent
inmostdomatic wstems3 5
6.37 So it is noteasy tounderstandwhatIegaIpoint Hrrngq is making at
paragraph 6.105-6.118 of itsCounter-Mernoriai.11scornplaintappearto be that the princiesi
onoccasionapplied byinternationtarlibunalt,houghstemrninfgrommunicipallaw. Inanyevent,
itisclearbeyond doubt thatthisis a generalprincipofcontractlawrecognis ieddiverseIegal
1 system~~ .~
I
6.38 The fact that the matter has arisen only occasionallyin international
tribunds is withoutIegd relevanceAndthe matterissciruutineiyaccepted thatit iody whcn,
veryunusudly,it ischdlenged -asdso withHungary's deniafhatan aMeved paq isentitledtu
peform itselfthe obligatiofa defaulfingpartnuina mntract forrîghtsinrem - thatthe matter
fds forresolutioin inremabiondlitigation.
35 Sec . ald&, "GeneraCl ourseonPublicInternatLlaw",106Hame Recueil(1962-10p.54; Lord
McNairin IntemationStatrof SouthWesAfiia. AdvisorOpinion:I.C.J.Remr1950,p. 12atp.
148.k, dso,LordPhillimore'smiement immthe ofdimion & theAdvimxyCornmitteofJurists
on Ar!38(I) CC1,Pr& verhm of fiePrdnw of theCornmirte(June16-JS 24, I9m,L.N.
PubIication355.
36 Forthepmpsitianthatthisia parof Engish,herican andGem laivçeeTreiteI,Remdis for
Bmch ofContract-aComparative munt (1988p1180.Sec aiseAIT.254pam 2 ofthGerman Civil
Cde, Art254 oftheRussiaCivilCode,rt88UniforrgLawon ththIentemtional SaW,of Art.77
UnitedNationsConvention ContractsfortIntemationale of Goods.On fhedutyto mitigain
SouthAfrica(Roman-Dutch la)w, Joubert, enerlïinciploftheLawof Contract1987)p. 254.
Sec .lso,thCzechoslwakCommercia lode513/91whch entereinto&ecton Januar1, 1992and
whichisstill in eEinSfwakia. Articl384 providesi,nalia"(1)A pemn facingthethratof
damagesisobIigattakjngin1aoanintheciem ofthemse,toiakemeasure se- toavert
thedamageortomitigateit. Toblighasno dutytwmpensate thedarnaglhawas sud duetothe
failureoihedamagedpersontofuifhisobligation.(Theobligorisobligetopayaii costhat the
othcpaq mayIiaveincurredinordtoMl itobligatiosnder(l)." -134 -
j~&cation"~'. Thisis to oversimpi@. Siovakiahas alreadyshownthat the entirtemenfto
approxirnataepplicationofa treiscloselyrefatd tu thessuof dekk in non-performance.
And becausethe defltultpartywiilberquird tu payfurIossand damage* it idso dosefy
relataitotheissueofmitigationThe puttingintplaceofIthe Treatyobligationmaydsobe the
I
bat wayof mitigatingthelm anddamage occasion4 tudafeby Hungary'srefirdtuperfonnand
purportatienninatioofthe1977 Tmty.
6.40 Therelationslihasbeenclearlyexplhned:
IWO dwbt themare of damagesandthepkintids dutyand abiiîytomitigate
arelogicallydistinconcepts... But tu sumeexient,at Iat, they aremirror
images,pafiiwiarlyicase ofdamage so rreach8fcontract;furthe mare of
I
damages cm be,very fiequently,arrivd oniyby postulatingandansweringthe
question,what canthisparticulpIaintifeasonablkdo toaIIeviathis 10sand
what wouldbethe costtu himofdoingsoat theim$whenhe coul rrasonablybe
expeetedtodo i..[A]lthoughthetwo conceptsof~easureand mitigatiwmaybe
lo&idy distinct,1doubtwhrothe,tanyrate intheconterofa contractuaiclairn,
fheycanpraclidy be treateseparatelbecausetheknquiiyito what mm would
berequiredto puttheplaintinthesamesituation$ thatinwhichhe wouldhave
ben ifthecontracthadbeenperformed a,lmostneîe~sarilyinvolansenquiryas
towhatsurw nouldbereasonably requiredbyhim dornitigabyputtinghirnself
intothatposition"
6.41 Itisgenedy ampted that an act inmitigafionmayindeedbe anact not
wholly identicatothe originalcuntraît, but dosely retotit. As notedin Famswurfhon
~ontracts" :
"WhetheranavailablealternativeüansactiknanaiPropriatesubstitutedepends
on many fadors, includithesimilariof the perfomancethatthe injur edrty
dl receive."
Inthe caseofHoehneDitch Co.v. JohnFloodDitchCO.#, thedefendanth,avingagreedtocary
the plaintifsaterinitsditchsubsequentlyefusedtodo d. Theplaint biilforitseia new
ditch and changedthe poinof diversion.Thedefendant caimedthat it wasnot liabletu pay
37 HwgarkmCornter-Mernor iara..13.
38 R;fdfod.DeFrdxNille1Il EnglandLaRemrts33f19781ap.44.
39 (1982atp.167.damages becauseoftheplainWsown wrongfblact .he SupremeCourtofColorado held thathe
ptallitBsaccouIdamount toreasonablstepstakeninmitigatian:
"Weare not preparedto say...thatthe pIaintE,aa matterof law asappIied
thereto,dinothavea Iegd righttu constnacnewditchandchang tee pointof
diversioaftethedefendanht adrefirstu cmy theplairiWsappropriatio1i.e.
wat4 asby contractithadagreeto do4 "
Thepertine ofchesep~ciplestothefactsofthepresentaseisapparent.
6.42 h iofcoursenght,asHungarycontends, thatthedutytu mitigatemot
authorisanillegaact.Butit cm cettainIustiStlheselectiof aIawfiioptionbyone partyin
thefaceofnon-pwformanc eytheother.AndSlowdia hasalreadyshow thatina situatisuch
as theWikovo-Nagymaros Project,the optionto performasnearly aspossiblethe Treaty
obligationswas both Iawfuland ifacta mitigationofother even greaterIossethatwouid
otherwi bseorneby C~hosIovakia, andnow SIovakiqforwhichHungarywuuId beIiabIe.
6.43 AsforArticle27ofthe ILCDraftArticlesadoptedon2ndReading onthe
LawofNon-Navigationa UlseofInternational atercourse(swhichHungarexpresslyrecognises
tu reflecigenerd internatiolaw), SiovakiabelievethatVariant "C" doeshded mitigate
damage caused by Hungaryfor Hungary (asweIIasfor Slovakia).This is exactbmse it
approximate performancoefthe1977Treatyw, hichinturnwasagreedtoby thepartietoprotect
both State-Hungary asweU as Czechoslovakiafrom thecatastrophof repeatefloods(which
arespecificaly entioneinArticl27).So even thoughitisnottheapplicabllawinthiscase4',
Variant"C"dues confornwithArticle27oftheILCDraftArticles.
6.44 Hungarymakes two fiirtherpointsrefa~go actioninmitigatioFirçtit
prefers"a negotiatedsolutio...balancingthe shareof costsand benefitsamongthe two
parties....Slovakiahasalreadyobserve.inits~ounter-~ernorip thatHungary'ssuggestions
41
m., atp.169.
42
-eepara2.2aime.
43
HwgananCornter-Mernorial,6.106.
44
SlovaCounter-Memoria,ara7.122, a. for"bdanchg theshan ofmas andbenefits"ars norelatiowhatevertotheactualandnal vas
lossesamahedbySIovakÎ aathehands ofHungaq.
6.45 Hungatyalsoappears to ~ug~est~~thatactionin mitigationsomehow
becurnesudawful when "the treatbindio righe twopartiescontainsaprovisionestablishg
negutiationaa regulapracessforimplemenfationftreatyobligation-a remarkabI comment
I
fiom the Statpartywhichhad purportedtoterminatthe reatyfivemonthsbefbrethe putting
r
intooperatioofVariant"C".Hungary reitemteagainapparentlbyeliwinitrelevantotheissue
of mitigationt,hit"repeatedlyoughtwaysof resolvingtheissue".Slovakiahasshown,in its
I
~ernorial";~ounter-~ernorial~and inthis~e~ly~'thafarfium=king ways ofresohg the
I
issue,fiomeark 1990dl Hungarywas inkrestedinwasthenegutiationof theterminationof the
Treaty@utnot the meliorationof anyobjectiveidentifienvironmenta plroblems);anddlit
was interestinlitigatingwasVariat C".
C. Canntemeasures
6.46 BecauseCzechoslovakiwaasandSlolakia isentitledto securetheobjects
andpurposes oftheTreatyfortheWikovo-Na~aros ~kljectinthefaceofHungaty'fsdure
to perfom its obligations,Slovakidoes not see Vari t "CM as a counte&easure. A
iin
countmmre isarnc~~urejurtifyangtaten~n-corn~~ianwkeithoneor moredits obligations
I
towardsanotherStatewhich haswmmitted an internafionIwrongfUaIdg. SIovakianeed so
justificationfornon-wnnpliawithitsobligationtsowardsi~un~~,as it hasmmplied4th d
i
! suchobligationsi,ncludhgwhenimplementingarian"Clt.however,Slovakiahasalreadyshow
initsCounter-Mernori hlatevenifVariant"C"wasan actbf~zechoslovakiinnonoompüanm
1
withobligationsowedtu Hungary,icould infanatülbejusfifias amuntemeasure Slovskia
I I
45 HungananCounter-Mernoia, 6.14.
49
ILCDr& Articl11,AICN.4L.480.25Ju1993. SECTIO2 N. ConfarmitywithOther Relevantbal Rulq
6.47 Slovakiafiaalreadyamplyshownthat Varian"t C"does not confiiwith
any ofthetreatierelevantothe internationiontiebetweenHurrgq and Czcehoslovakiat, en
~lovaki2~.
6.48 Slovakiahasalsoshownthat Variant "C" is fullincunformitywith the
1975Baunday WaterManagemen tgreement~').Hungary rehirnsto someof thesemattersin
its~otrnter-~ernorial~~ItcitesArtic30 of the1976Agreement, whereby the@es arenet
tocmy out watermanagementactivitiewithout mutualagreement. Butthe 1977 Treatyexactly
representthat''mutuaalgreement",andto thatextent~ipplementsthegeneralprovisionsofthe
1976 ~~reement~ .~
5.49 Hungarymgge~ss4 thatas the 1975 Agreementappliesto al loundary
watersand not oniytotheDanube, the 1977 Treatycouldnot representhe "mutuaalgreement"
foreseeninthe 1976 Agreement.But Article3(a) ofthe 1976 Agreement doesnot speakof a
singlemutuaIagreement. Ii rderstumutudry agreed conditions.Ifi,nrelatiotuthe Danube,
therewaslatermutualagreementonwatermanagemeri ty Vrrtueof the 197Treaty,then those
activitiesinthe1977Agreemen tere hlly compatiblwithArticle3(a)of the1976 Agreement,
notwithstan tdattheydidnotregulatedlboundary waters.
6.50 Hungarywntendsthat Article 3of the1936 Agreement was violated"by
not givingdue noticetoHungaq of the constructioof Variant"Cma,nd by not enteringinto
consultations".lovakiwasnotinfact bound byanyduty toconsultfuliy.Thedutyto consultis
a general principlof watercourselaw. But itishardlyincumbentupon a partyseeking
-- -
'" Se, SIovaMernoriai,par7.48-7.62;SICountr-MemoM, m. II. 11-11-18,
51 SlovaMernorialara s63-7.1.
52 Hungarianounter-Merno¶ s.534.56.
IT si, SlovMernord,p. 5.44.
54 HungariaCounter-Mernoriara6-66 approximak appiicatioofa treatybecausof non-performancbeyanotherParty o beundera
dutyto wconsulthatwongdoer. ut inanyeventSiovakiQ lhasshown that~ungary was indeed
notifiedthatcontinuesuspensioandabandonmen otfit&bligationwsouldenid an alternative
sufutionbeingfound" andthat Hungary was fullyaware ofthe corsiderationbeinggiwnby
Czechosluvakiato alternativfrovisionadutiod6. As forthe deged Mure to mdt,
Sloval<iaasalsofui iyidencedCmhoslovakia'wsillingnIatdl timestoconnilto estabiion
thebasisof sciwitif-dies whethergrnuineandsignifidanptroblemsdid existandhow to
I
addressthem.Tks hasbeen show bySIovakiainChapferIV ofitsMemonaii ; ChapterY dits
Cain?-Memanai; andin cvnriderablCn.! ifiapiers WImd VIIIofthe preieifRrply.
6.51 Finaii, ungarycornplainhatVariant"C" wasnotforeseenbythe 1976
I
AgreementB . ut Variant"C"isthbespossibleapplicationofth1977Treatywhich = agteed.
1
I As suchitfullymetsthe nquirementofArticlf(a)oftheI1976Agreement notwitktandinthat
Hungaq hasmade itnecessaqbecauseofitsfailuto canydutthosemeasuresitcontracteforin
I
I 1977.
6.52 Varian"C" isaisfuIIcompatiblewiththe 1948DanubeConvention.
6.53 InitCouder-Memod Hungary claihth&Varian tC"violateArticle3
ofthe 1948Danubeconventions7.ThefirstparagrapohfArtpk 3 stipulatetshat:
I
"The Danubian Stateundertak eo maintaintheir sections ofthe Danubina
navigableconditionfor rivergoingaon,theappropriateections,foseagoing
I vessels,to carryotheworksneceçsaryforthemairitenancand improvemeno tf
navigationconditionandnat toobstructor hindenavigationonthe navigable
channelsof the Danube. The DanubianWes ?hall consuit the Danubian
Commission (Art.5unrnatterseferredtu thisarticle."
I
I
6.54 Hungaryappears to arguethat the 1977 Treatyis not relevantta the
implernentationfArticle3oftheDanubeConventionas"imdroverne nftnavigatiisnotone of
the majorobjectivesofthe 1977~reaty"". To support:hb vinvthe preambleisW. The
55
SecS.IovaCotinter-Mernor. ra5.25and5.68.
56
-bid.
57
! HungariaCounter-Mernorial,ra6.676.74.
5% M., para6.71.referencto the developmentof watermurces andtranspor n the prearnblwas certainly
understoodtuembraceimpravednavigation.Artic1eofthe1977Treatyisrepletewithrefermas
tu navigationandIocks. ChaptVi ofthe Treatyisindd erititl'Navigation". Iteqdy
c1m fiom Articl18(1)thatnavigatiowas verymuchpart ofwhat the partieswereagreing
upon.Further ,othHungaryandCzechoslovakipaerfectweU hew oftheDanubeCommission's
recommended depthand haveundertaken tocumplywith this. They conclud@that this
cornmitmenmt uidudybe metby theG!N Projm. Bofhpartieaisoknew that theProjewauld
improvethe navigabilofytheDanube fiorn 12daysperyear tu330 days. TheTreaty Project
wouldthusgrdy improve navigatioand providegreat ereetY That both partiwereaware
of,and haddetermineculpon,thesenavigatioimprovement s undeniable.Andit is notfor
Hungaqtorequire theCour ttcal1thiintoquestion.
6.55 Hungq points taArficIe18(4of'the1977Treatyandproteststhatunder
Variant"C"there is nownointernationlavigatiointhe mainbedof the ~anube'~. But the
Projectexactlyenvisagedthenew,hprovedinternationnlavigatibeingmoved out of the old
bedinto the newcanal.Hungq merelyprotestswhatit jtseagreedto. Nothinginthe 1948
DanubeConventionprohibitaithe transferof internationalnavigationhm the mainfiintoed
thecanalandindeedtheDanube Commission hadapprovedtheconceptofthe ~roject~'.
6.56 Nor doesanythinginVariant"C"-sacloselybasedon what wasintended
intheProjec- violateArtic3.The Danube Commission wmnotifiaiaboutthedammin ogfthe
Danube, toenabletheimplementatioof Varian"C". No rnemberof theDanube Commission
(saveHungaq) questionethenghtof Czechoslovakio transfenavigatiintothecanai.
6.57 Onlyinternationaniavigati(as envisagein the 1977Treaty) is now
excludedfiomtheoldrivert>&While thuse hasforthemoment ben lostofsomeIandingstages
for pleast~reboano,cornmerciaiports ohahaors have ben intefird with by Varian"C"
(therebeinnone) -and nothinghashappenetdhatwasnot envisagedbythe 1977Treaty. And
suchimpactasthereisuponHungary'" sright"etweenrkm 1852-1811innpak managemenits
duesotrleu Hunguy'som resulterefusaioirnplemenits977Treatyobligations.
59
M., para.6.68.
"
See ,lovaCounier-Mernoal,ra.16,wherdetaiaregiven. 6.58 Hungary is alsweiiswarethat th&secund stageofVariant "C" allows .
I
routefor nangationwithintheold riverbed- andthe dedignof theundenvater weirswiil not
I
precludethis. Slo&a has ben systernatidy fiKIlingiIs obligatiunder the 1948 Danube
~onventio~~' an$the pertinentuestioniastohow Hunv I wil"ensureunuttempted and safe
navigatioun theDanubeuauntheN~aros mur, givenitrefusato doitthroughtheagreed
I
mechanismo sfthe1977Treaty.
6.59 Hungarydso cIaimsthattheDaube FisherieAs greementof1958 hasbeen
I
violatgiby SIovakiain the putthg Kso operation ofV& 1tC1'5nd referspa~ialariy to
I
paragraph 3sand 4 oîArticle 5 of thatConvention.lIdngary asçens thatSlovakiahas not
I
safeguardethemigratq moments of6shandsafeguardd theû breeding
6.60 The migrationand breedi ngfishisindeedan importantmatterandifs
I
protectionwiIIdepen dpon theparticu claumstanm. lIfdamsor similarworks Mock the
migratio,routesof anadromous species,suchas idurgeon,salmon,seatroutand herringthen,
accordingto sorneexpertMews,a specia"8shpass''woulcn(eedto beconstructed.(However,
eventhenthe"6shpass"maynotbethebestsulution ithereisaIarg upstream are afstatiunary
I
water,suchas aresemir, whichhasa disarientaticfectonIigrationpatterns.)Butno purpose
issewd by theconstructioof fishpassu UilowIand zonIes,herethere islittiemigrationof
anadmtnous fish,and wherelitophiispeciesdo notrequirjmigrationthmugh the wholeriver
In the lightofthese consideriat, d bearingin mindthe existenceof
6.61 I
water worksontheLower~anube~~ and waterworks on theUpper~anube~ ~nord purpose
61 Itisal=notimblthaHtungvyinitpleadinsvoidsaürefhnceIOthewnd para&rapofAmclc3.
whe-: "Theriw W may withintheownjurisdidiundertakerks forfie mainterrariceof
mvigation,theexecuofwhch içnmitafedbyurgent nunforeseninmmmcw."
I
$2 Hungarianornter-Memona,ua.0.74.
l
63 Forsxpencomment tothiseffectpr10Ursignaturof th1977Treaty, 1.Basil"Information
on effectivoffishleadsfromthfishingstandpotot eirneedinfuture"1974)Procesdings
fromthe ConferencofIchthyologicSect.oPatincSR: J. HolEik,"Watstnichirand their
impactonftshing"f,19PrxeedrngsfromtheConferenbfIchthyoIogSection,PatinSR,
I
6.1 ThatisIronGate1andII iRoniania.
lwas servedby a fishpass.As fortheCunovoweir,withinVariant"CH , permanentnavigation
lockthatispresentlunderconstructionforboatsandsports-vesselwiil makeitpossiblefor fish
thataccidenay 5ndthemselvei sntheweirduringtheirmigrationperiotopaçsthrough.
6.62 In order to ensure environmenta conditionsthat guarantee normal
spawning itis desirabltoconnectthe branchsystemson both sidesof theold riverbedof the
Danube - thais ,nSzigetkozanddsoin thelefisidebranchsystem.Thiscm bedune ody bythe
constructioof underwatewreirs intheoIdrive&&. It isthus ofconsiderablimportancethat
Hungaryhas now agreedtu constructatrkm 1843 one undenvater weir,on the bais ofthe
Agreementof 19 Aprii199566.Thissubstantiawlcirstructurw,ithitsro& slippagewiiifully
guaranteefishmigrationbetweenthe branchsystemof Szigetkoz and theoldriverbedandthus
addresstheprublem dudedtu byHungary atparagaph6.77 ofitsCorrnter-Memurial.
6.63 Slovakiahasrepeatedlystressethe needforthe (agreed)constructioof
severalunderwaterweirsintheoldnverbed ofthe~anube~~T . hiswouldnot onlysolvethe entire
problemof Eshmigrationbetweenbothbranch systemsandtheoldriverbedb,utitwouldincrease
the dîversityof habitats fofishand pcisibIebreeding gruunds. It wouldal% mate an
unpreedented exampleofrestoratioof oirginairiverhabitat.
6.64 Ttmaythus beseen thatVariant"Cm isnot hcompatiblewith the 1958
DanubeFisheries ConvenSron and thaîit behovesHungarytu approvememures, anciitsefto
engagein measures,tusafegrrardthe migratornovernentand spawningof fishonthissectionof
theDanube.
65 Agrment betrveetheGovern~nent ftheSiova kepubricand Goveme~rtofthe Republkof
Btingq ConcerninCertainTemporaq Measriand Dischargesin Danube andMosoniBranch
ofthDwuk, 13April 1995.Annex 1,hereto.
67 Infact, thEC expertrecomrnendd atleasttwoweirs-sec . C WorhngGroupreportof 1
Decemkr 1993HungarianMcmorial, ol.(PartII),Anne19(atp.816). 6.65 Hungaq inits Counter~emorîall refento "Slovakia'Asrgumentthat
i I
1 Variant"Cuwas lawfulapxthm the1917 ~raty<'". Sloyakihasrathersaidthat VMant "Cuis
I
iawfU1by referencetu the applicablIaw,the 1977 TreIty. The pufikg hto opetaticlby
Czechoslovakiof the CabEkovo sktian ofVariant"C" ildpolawfiibyreferaiceto customsiy
internatiolaw.
6.66 Hungary does nutpersistwithits argumentthaithereasperernptriryrle
prohibitin8 the diversofnboundq rivers. Rather,itcornplainsthat thediversionisnot
wnsented to. FurtherH, ungarysaysthattheTreatywasconsent toa diversionthatwas not
utdateral,ut wastooccur intheframework ofthejoint integra tysdem6'.Hungary thususes
itown violationas thereasonfor fiirther"withdrawinconsentgiven tothe entirety othe
The SlovakMemonal examinedthe LakeLanouxandDiversionof the
Meuse cases toshowthatVariant'CHwouldbe consonant with generaiintemationallap.
! Hungary findsdifferencbetweenthe casesthatitdeemscriticai. It is of coursetthatthe
l
1 divert&waterinthe Lake LanouxCase was tu beretord tu the RiverCao1 beforeit reached
I SpanishterritotBut thereisnothinginthcas batitm on that poin-thecaseconcernecij,ust
as here,the impact ofthe diversionon Spaidsclairnsa! a riparian". Indeed, the Award
1
! emphasise hattheprincipleofterritoriaslovereigyield1 thelimitationsfinternationallaw,
I
bothbyreferencetu theAdditionAct and otherwiseandthatcomprehensiveagreementsmustbe
songhtn.
69
-bid., para.6.43.
70 SIova Mke~norî,ara.7.43, S.
l
1 il Further. ungaryemphasüet40h dcviatio-but aiibidkmof W m thebs of agreernenc
1 includialofthmajorinstallations.
I
! 72 Lake tanoux Ahilratio(FrancY.Svainl24 Intemtio1ILawRmm 1953 101,atp.119;
Unif& NationRcmm ofIntemiionaifiitral AtvI957)h 285.TiieAd mer ernphash that
i ccinçuItatsndnegofiafiosmm begenwne,mut compiythtthemisafgd faiand musnotbe
I merefonditiw".
I I 6.68 Hungaryintroduceslongpassage srom theLakehoux award to show
thaton"a carefiIreadi it "contradictsthe SIoc~aim" .~~heydonothing ofthesortW . t
thepassage atpage303of
indeedshows ithat,udke HungaryS ,painmadeno unsupporteddaims ofa diminutionfwaters,
pollutioduetothediversion, raliegatiosftiskbeyond thosein"otherworksof thesamekind
which todayarefound dlovertheworld". The Courtwilldetermine hetherinthepresentcase,
suchcIaimsar ed on arimnd sciwirzcevidence.Butthaibct wi hardtymake LakeLanoux
les thanauthorityfwhât itdetemhd on theclaimsbeforei-merely,that solonas thewaters
arereturned,even substantialhangesin river flow requireno conseof the otheriparian.
Variant"C"entailinnosubstantiadliminutinfthewaterstowhichHungary is entit(although
HungarywilI infactbe receivinmore waterthan isrequiredbythe 1977 Treaty),nor cauimg
puIIutioofthe retrrmedwaters-norpresentingriskadiEere ondertothuseknownelsewhere,
theLakeLanauxprincipldel apply.
6.69 Hungq dso introducescitatio(fro mages306-307 and 311 of the
Award)inwhich theTribunalrefertutheobligatiotonegutiateandto thesuspensionby parties
oftheexerciseoftheirrightinorderthatthenegotiationcansucceed. But thisitu takethose
passagesoutoftheircontextinamost misleadingashion. Inthepresencasetheagreemen t the
1977Traty -alreadyexistsHungary reliesontheseextractforanentireldiierent proposition
îrom thaintheAward -nameiy,tucontendthat,notwithstandianexistingagreementone party
candernand thaanotherpartysuspendtheexercisof itsrighinordertunegoliatethedemise of
theagreemen Tt.eparagaph irnmediatepyrecedinthosecitedbyHungary (frompages306-307
of 12UnitedNationsReportsofInternationAlrbitral wards1957)makesthepoint. Itreads(in
EngIishranç~ation~~
"IneEect,inorderto appreciatinits essencthenecessitfor prioragreement,
one mustenvisagethe hypothesisin which the interestedStates cannot reach
agreement. Insuch case,itmust be admittedthattheStatewhichis normally
competenhtaslostitrighto acaloneasa resultofthe unconditioand arbitraq
oppositioofanotherState.Thisamountsroadmittinga'righof assenta'rightf
73 HungariaCounter-Mernoriala,..48.
74 24Internatialw Report(1953atp.128.ThathepassagecilbyHunpy isbutammponen part
ofwhathasgne More nirtSn k fromdieFrencvenioncifedin tbiy afpam 6.53("...Lia
pratiqueinternationbutno1fmm uzeoftheEngIishtranslainfn.59 ("Intemfianal pdce
quirw ..."). - 144-
veW, which at the discretionofons#e paralyseshe exmase of a territonal
juridictioofanother.
Thatiswhyinternationpalactiprefertoresorto lesextrernsolution..."
I
6.70 Read propedyincontext,thesp-es explaiexmIy whyHungarymay
I
notIegalIholduptheimplementatiooffheT-. Hungar1 ,hichrefirstu negotiatanything
buttheterminatioofitsobligation, aassenin g"righdfveto"overaproje cowhich ithad
I
agreedina treatyItdeniedtoCzechoslovaki(andthen~{ovakiat)hei"normalu>mpetence o
ad, "as a resukof ..Nn&s1 unconditionaiand artiitraryopposition...". Huwasry
I
eEmivefydeploying"arigtofveto",anddemandinga "righof~ssent".
I
6. 7 AS forthepassagcitedbyHungaq 4t paragrap.54,footnot60(drawn
fiom page 311 of 12 UnitedNationsReport of lntema!ionalArbitrAwards. 19572 itir
I
noteworthy thatthe Tribunasd, of the suspensionofthe firl exerciseof righduring
negotiatiom, thaif"engagements"to do this "weretulbindth unconditionalluntilthe
conclusionof anagreementt,heywould,bysigningthem,hse theveryrighttonegatiate;this
cmot bepresumedt' .xactlW. Czahoslovakiaofferetdnegotiateenvironmentguarantees;
ittoleratedforthre ktI yeardeIayindamming andituridertootompt whafevermeasures
I
thetrilaterdcommissionmighpropose.Ifiwas requird unmnditiondytastopal Iorkonthe
1
ProjectuntiHunws agreementwassecurec i,enSlovakiawouldhavelostboth the rightto
negotiatandindeedtherighto completthePmjectas provideforUitheTreaty.
6.72 Not ûnIydaesthe texof thepassagecitôdby Hungary<hm page 3If)
qua@ the propositionthatheparti eustconsenttothe suspensioof theirfùlirightsduring
negotiation,ut so do the fàcofthe case. Beforethe b e went to arbitratFrancehad
announced athreemonthsuspensionwhila ~pwia~~ixexidommissionprepd propods. ut
I
whentheSpeciaiCommissionterminated its wu+ havingben unabletuproducean acceptable
I
compromise,Franceresnrneditswork.TheTribunalsimplynotd, withouanyadversecomment,
that"theworkhad bythedateofthepresedjudgmentbeen ldgelcornpiete..i7. 6.73 Hungaryin its Counter~ernoria1~~ cornplainsof CzechosIovakia's
undngness toengage in"rndgfiil negotiations"B. uttherecord clearlyshowsth&theonly
negotiatiothatwouId be "rneariingfuorHungarywerethosethatwouIdIead tuthetemination
ofthe1977Treaty. D wasfhusHurigarfs conduci thatwas"incompatiblewiththegoodfaith to
achievanagreement" t, whichtheLakeLanou xribunahladreferred.
6.74 h for the Diversionofthe Waters fiom theMeuse Case,Sluvakia notes
that, whiteHungaryapparently elievesthe1977Treatyirrelevantasthe appIicabIIawfor this
case ,twishes@ emphasise thatth& case concerned"the particulartreaty obligatinnforce
betweenBelgiumand ~etherlands"~. Thatis ofcoursetrue, though iis widelyrefmeû to -
includinintheworkoftheILC on watercourses- asinanyevent closelaccordm to general
iritematiunallaw. BSIuvakiaisçatisfietoobservethatHungaryappreciate thatwhen afreaty
existitisindeedtheprovisionof thattreatythatfatoliappIied.
6.75 The nilesand pnnciplesof generaiinternationIlawarerelevantfor the
purposeofinterpretinthe1977 Treaty ,utdonotmehow replacectearTreaty tem. Itisthe
mlesand prUicipIeofgenerd internationl.ainefft atthefime ofthe conclusionoftheTreaty
tuwtiichrecourçeshouldbehad to theextentnecessaryu interprettheTreaty'stems. The 7977
Treatyisalexspecialifiomwhichneither contemporaneou norlaterdevelopingrulesofgeneral
internationllwwouldderogate o theextentthattheywereapplicabl eody acontrarynonnius
cogenswouldhavethiseffect. AsHungary hs itselfragnised,the 1977Tr* "was consistent
wiîh the maintenanceof water que and with environmentalprotectiongener~yit'8. The
conductofCzechosIovakiaand SIovdia hm thewndua~n of rhe1977 Treatytothe presenthas
in anyeventbeen consistentwith principleand rulesof generalinternationaaw concerning
I
1 naturalesourcesandtheenvironment.
t
6.76 InrespectofVariant"Ct inparticular,Hungaq identifaenumberofwhat
itreferstoas "custornarryules"whose "salienceand speczc applicabilityitcIaimsto have
76 HungariaiCounter-Merrior,rurt.55.
77 -bid.para6.6I.
" Yeahk of theIntemtionaILawCommission,974Vol.IPartil187.
7g HungarianMemoriaI,ara.4.21.dmonstrated iniis~emorial." Among theseis "thep~î/p~eofthe rea~onableandquitableuse
of transboundatnyaturalresuurces",which Hungaryclail, Slovakiaregards as "only a 'sofi'
nom".80 Once againhoweverH , ungarymischaracteriseslovakia'çosition,whichwas cleariy
statedinitMernoria lSIovakihaasnoqume1 withthepropositionthatevolvininternationaaw
I
does indd requîrerasonable and quitable use of mch sharedremurces Ireferrinto
transboundarynatur resources]"". Hungaryneverthelm devotesthe ensuhg sixparagraph so
an atternptto demonstrate thatthis principle,andits sbdc expressionin the context of
intemationawlatercourses, nstitutasprinciplofinternationllw." Itistellinghowwer,rhat
thmghout itsdiscussiooftheprincipleHungarydoesnot: somuchasmention a keyelemeritof
theconceptasfiamedby theU: thatofquitahie participation.
6.77 TheprinciplissetforthinArticle5of theILCs dr&articles on thenon-
I
navigationaul sesof internationalatercourses,wkch is entitld "Quitable and reasonable
I
uthtion andparticipation".Theprincipleof quitable andrasunableutilisatioismntained in
paragaph 1of the article. Paragra2, whichIaysdom the principleofquitable participation,
providesasfollows:
"2. WatercoursS etatesttaiparticipatnthe use,developmentandprotection of
an infernationidwatercourseinm equitabIeand rasunable manner. Such
pimicipationinchdesbvththe rightto utilizethwaterconrse and the duty to
I
woperate inthe protectionand developmentthereucas providedin thepresent
articles."
6.78 Themeaning ofthe conceptof equitahlparticipatiinelaboratedupm in
theILC's cornmeritaqtothisprovision:
'' HungatiaCounter-Mernorpia,a6.18and6.19.
80 m., para6.21.
82 Hirngrim Counter-Memaripa.ras.5.224.27. HoivevIungaygws hoad fhjsarguînkt the
principof quitablulilisatalinkmaional watem- ("alradbebogal logarai inkrnational
Iaw"athetimerhe1977Treaiwasconduded.m., m. 6.28Aç suppororthispropositireferto
thewrk oftheInternatiLalwCommissioninthfielofin)ernatioalatefçouna;ythisworkdoes
notpurportofi xçpecificdorevena generatirneframe hethisprincibecam pattofgenerai
internatiolaw.Thefus lieai oftheprincipinth$3 workms ina 1982reporofaspnal
rapporteuiwas thenemMed in fhe articlesadopbytheCommissioon readingin1991
andon smnd dng in1494.
I
Rep~roftI~ILCon thWork ofItsow-SixthSessiop.218,docrimentA149(0994). "The cure of this cancept is cooperation betwenaterwurse States through
participation,on an quitableand reasrinablebasisin measures, works and
activitiesairdatattainingoptimd utilizatioof aninternationawl atercoum7
consistentwith adquate protectionthereof Thus the principle of equitable
participati...recognizesthat,asconcluded by technicalexpertsin thefield,
cooperativeactionby watercourse States is necessatroyproducemrtximum
benefitsfueachof thern,whiIehelpintu maintaiartquitabledocation of uses
andaffordiigadequateprotectiontothe watercourseStatesandthe international
watercourseitsef...Thuswatercourse Statehave a righttothe cooperationof
otherwatercourseStateswithregard to suchmattersasflood-controml easures,
pollution-abatetnentogrammesd ,rought-mitigatipnlanning,rosion controi,
diseasevector cuntrolfiverregulatio(training,he safeguardiigof hydraulic
works and enW.omentaI promion, as appropriatenderthecircumstancea Of
course,forgreate esfectivenesst,he detailsofscooperativeeffortsshuulbe
providaifor inoneor morewatercourseagreements.But the obligationand the
correlativrightprovidedfor in& a',graph2 are not dependenton a spec5c
agreemenftortheirimplementation.
6.79 The detailsof the cooperativeefforts Hungary and Czechoslovakia
regardedasappropriatefortheaitainmentofoptimd utilisationoftheDanubewereprovidedforin
the 1977 Treaty.Thatagreemenw t asobviouslypremid upon theactiveparticipationf both
partiesin the construction,maintenancand operationof the systernof Iocks. Hungary's
repudiaiionofthe 1977Treatysigna114ifsrefusatu participate,contrarytu both the Treaty and
the mtereflectedinparagraph2ofhicle 5. Thecruciaipointthatparagaph 2 expressesis th&
achievemeno tf aequitabl ellocatiof theusesand benefitof aninternationalatercourseto
say noth of optimalutilisationthereois virtuallyimpossiblein most cases withoutthe
participatiof thestatesshaimgthat watercourse.Hungaryhas preventedthe achievemert otf
optimalutiiisatioftheDanubebyabmdoningNagymarosa ,ndhasdeprivedCzechoslovakia and
Slovakiaoftherequitabl eharesbyrefusingto participaenanybasis,letaloneanequitableand
reasonabIeone,inthecompletionandoperation of works relatingto the GabtikovosectionIn
addition,Hungary'sfailutaparticipateasmadeifimpossibletu ensure"adequateprotection"of
thewatercourse:byrefisingfortwoyearsto râchargethebranchsysteronitssideoftheDanube,
Hungary has harmedthe ecosystem of the watercourse in violation of Article 20 of the
Commission'd srafi articlesg5In sum, the "rightof Czechoslovakia and Slovakia"tothe
85 Artic20oftheCornmisiond'srafiartieei,e"Protectinndpreçewatinfecosystemsp,midw
asfollows:"Watemuw StateMI, individidIorjointlprotecandpreservethe-stems of
internatilmercorrrçem., p280. measures ..riverregulation
couperatioonf[Hungaryw ] ithregartosuchmattersas
(trainingt,hesafeguardingfhydrauiiwcorksand hasbeenvioIatedby
Hungary' r&sd tu participaentheanainment Danubethrougti the
G/N Project.
6.80 As farasthe applicatioof theplinnpleof equitableutilisatiitselfta
I
Variant"C" is concernai,Slovakiahas once againmadeits pusifionclearhm theoutset:"...
I
Variant%' hIIy confum to itwhiIeHurigary' esntireconduct,fiom 1977 onwards,hasbeen
unreasonabIeand inequitable".86In itsCounter-MemonalI , ungaryclairnsthatSlovakia has
violat thd principlof equitableutilisatithroughthe operationof Variant"CM. Before
addressultghischargefSlovakiawoutd recaItwo pointsfir tattt.e 1977Treaty isaconcrete
I
Vnplemematioo nfthe prùtciplef quitable andr-*able htilisation,and thus was designtoi
provideeae hartywithareasonablaendequitablesharof thebendcialuses ofthe~anube*;~and
1nd thatVariant"Cilhasbeennothingmore thanagood &th attemptbyCreîhoslovakia (and
I
thenSlovakiafto implemnitthe1977Treaty as nearlas poy ible&er Hungws abandoment of
itsobligationsthere~rrde,~
6.81 In thelightof these pointsitis ironicthatHungarywould claimthat
Slovakiahas violatedthe principlofcquitabIeutilisationt)rou& ifs acquisit"of'exclusive
I
controIovertheproductionof electrîn citiy,tionandwatIrdischargeina vitacommun reach
ofthe Danube". The Projectisstillfullycapable(exceptfkheIsckofNagymaros) of providing
I
each paty witharearona anldequitablshar ofthebenefi$a lsesoftheDanube;itisHungary
1
that iobstniaingitsom reali~ion ofthosebeneficidusestvgh itscominuedrefisaltoliveup
I
tu itoobligationsunderthe~reaty'. Hungary,havingabandIned theperfomance of itstresty
obligationscm hardiybe heardto cornplain of cuntinuedperformance by its treatpartner,
performanct ehatwas as closeto whatwas cdld for underthe 1977Treaty asHungary'n son-
86 SIovakMenioria,ara7.74.
87 m., para.7.77.
88 W.,para. 7.11etm.
89 Morwver,even undepresenlconditio, IovaPrimeMinisterMeEiarinvitedHungr10takepart
inutilisationof GabEikovo,meatherebthe setdemen&ftheBungarîaçharein thelectricity
produced(takinintoaccountthpcrcentagof investmenrealisaeddcompensatiofordamage
cause.)aproposathathasremaineunanswerodtinow. participatinouldpermit."Exclusivc eontrolisanoddwayfor a paty toreferto thesituation
thatresuhswhenitabandon sttreatyobligations,Ieavitheotherpartytocarr oynwithoutit or
der rnassive'damage.
6.82 Hungary alsohds a violatiooftheprinciplofquitableutilisatiin that
"SIovakiahas placeditselin the positionof exercisinmanifoldpressureon itsdownstream
neighh~ur"~. But inthe Lakehoux award,the tribunadeiared that "theis not.. .inthe
generdlyaccepredprinciplesofinternationallawrulewkch forbidsaState,actingtuprotectits
legitimateinteresfios,placingitselina situationwhichenablesitin factin violationof its
internationalbligations, to da even seriousinjury to a neighbouring stateMP1. Hcre,
CzechoslovakiaandSIovakiawere "actingtapratect[theirlIegitiminterei snco"nplethgthe
Projectasnearlyaccordirituplan astheymId withoutHungary'sparticipation,as explainain
ChapterV. In brie(Hungary'asbruptabout-facen 1989ànd theabandonmenitn mly 1990 ofits
worksundertheProject lefCzechoslovakia andSlovakiawithno choicebutto protect,intdia,
theirsubstantidinvestrnt m serioudeterioratiandtheircitizenhm potentidy devastating
flooddamage. Mureuver, asSIovakiaha demomrated,it has causedHungq no "seriouinjury"
and isnot"inviolatioofitsinternationobligationsA"ndfindly,atnotime hasCzechoslovakia
or Slovakia"exercis [eadlfolpressureon its downstreamneighbor" nor does Hungary so
claim. It rneredatesthatSlovak hjas"placeditsein thepositionof doing so- butthisisa
situationthLake Lanoux ribundrgcognisedtu bea commun featureomodem Me,given"man's
gro~ng maçteryuftheforcesandsecretsofnatrrrettg2.
6.83 Hungary furtherclaimsthatSlovakihascreated "asituatioincompatible
wiîhtheinherent'perfeequdityof rightscharactensingthe comunityof interestwhichiat the
core oftheprincipkofquitde use"93.Thequotation ispresurnablmyat tobe fiumtheRiver
case,althoughthePermanen Ctourtdidnot theruse thisprecisphrase. Itinstearefd
to "theperfectqualityof alripariaStatesintheuseof thewholecourseof the riverandthe
! Hmman &unfer-Menional,para1..3
91 LakeLanow Mitration Fmce v.Swinj. 24 InternatLlawRemrts I195T),. 101atp. 126,
YearboooftheInternatialawCommissio~1974p.194,ap.196para. ofaward.
92 -bid
93 HIIII-i Cornter-Mernorairr6.1. -150 -
exclusionofany preférentprivdegeofany oneripariantateinrelatioto thothers"". Y& as
Slovakihasalread yointedoutg5,iisinkctHungary thatdestroyethe"perfecetquality"fthe
partiethathadben elaborateindetail the 1977Treatyb yssertithe "prefertntpnvilege"
ofbrînghg theProjectua hdt.
6.84 Hungary pmceeds tocornplaiofthe"dramati dcecrea inehequantityof
waterreceivedonHungarian taritorysinceOctober1992j1%a,nd ofthefact that"theadverse
consquencesresultingEum theoperatioofVariantÇ aredirere nnbothsidesofthe rivertEg.
I
Slovakiahasshow that ttheextenttha ttidecreasewa!snot the resultomeasUrestowhich
Hungary had agreedinthe 1977Trw, it wastheiesuiollHungws own refusaitobing uater
intothebranchsystemon itssideofthe ~anube" . Slovakiahasalso shown thatthebasisfor
Hungaiy'sappraisaofthe natureofthe"consequenc essuljhgEom theoperationof VariamC" -
1
it1994 "ScientifEvaIuation-istoaIittltooIate:it flawedIegaI iIthatHungaryobviously
I
codd not have relieduponitin decidinto abandon its Treatobligations; andit is flawed
fachialinthat idoesnotsquarewithotha scientifapprai!aosftheeffectsofthe Projebased
onactuai
6.85 Findly,Hungaryassens thst~&dt 1 ''C "has createda situafun that
constitutthearchetypeofaviolationotheobligationottdcauseappreciabloer simifichmt
toanother watercoursestate"I.' Characteristicahy,w6ver, Hungarydoesnot speofy the
I
"ham" thatVariant'C" issupposedto havecaused. SIovaIihas addresse he issueoffactuaI
"hm" ingeat detd inthisandotherpleadin ags wilkt do soagain here' ."For p&nt
I
94 Temto"alJurisdidoftheIniemfiod CommisionoUiedwr Oder.ludmentNo 16.1929P.C.I.J..
Sens A,No.23,p.5atp27.
PT Ibid, ar..33.
- I
98
i SlovaCounter-Mernorpal,8.11.
I
l I
l -9e PartIIndVolsIIandIïh.retaSee.alSIovakCornfer-MernaiaI,8.21,ga., conŒming
I theactiircordaimpacfsofVht "C'.
1 i 101
I HungarianCouter-Mernoral.,6.3(emphasiisoriginal).
! 102
ChapteWs andVm ofSlovaCounier-Mernor=i;dm, CChapteri-XIIielow.
!purposs Siovak wil co&e ÏtseItu notingthefulowirig:Hungaryacceptedinthe2977 Treaty
a "situatio"ubstantialyquivaleno theone prducedbyVariant "C" ,ny"hm" toHungaryis
self-inflctedthatHungary refusedtotakeadquate measures fortherechargeof thesidearms;
andin any event,itisin factHungarythat hascaud substantihlm toCzechoslovaki aand
SlovakiainwalkingawayfiomitsTreaty obligationand forcinitsTreatypartnerto attemptto
saIvageitsinvestrb nen&tg theentireburdenofcornplethgtheG&ikovo &ion it&
6.86 Not odydoes Hungarydistortthe factud situation,it aIsomisappliesthe
Iaw. It&st dixussesthe obligationnottucause significatami at grea1tength loa3ifthîs
principlhad beenchallengedbySlovakiaw, hichithasnot. As Hungary correctlobserves,the
EC initsworkon theIaw ofthenon-navigationualesofinternationalatercourshsasconcludeci
thattiisobligatioisone ofdue diligence.AccordingtotheCommissiont,heobligation ofdue
diligenc"insotintende.toguaranteethainutil'izigninternationalatercourssigdcant harm
wuld not occur""'. Thuq "[i]tis anobligationofcondue not an obligatioof re~uk"'*~.
Furthermore,the Commission has expressalthe obIigationnotu cause si@cant hm as "a
W. aimed atavoidingsignifiantharmasfa aspossiblewhiIereachinganequitabIe remitin
eachconmete case"'". TheCommission explainedthat arti5lof isdraftmicles,swing foith
the obligatioof equitablutiIisati,idnotby itself"providesufficientguidancefoStatesin
caseswhere hm was a factorandthat:
"..thefacthatanactivityinvolvessignificatarm,wouldnotofitselfnecessady
constitutabais forbarringitIn certaincircumstanclequitablandreasonable
utihtion' ofan intemationaiwatercoursemay stiHi-nvolvesignificanthm to
anotherwatercorrrsefate. Generallinsich instanc thespriricipof quitable
andreasonableutiiiitian rernaintshe guidingcriteriuninbdancingtheintatests
hellf7 -11
-
I03 ElungaiaChunter-Mernoriaras.6.344.39.
104 Reportof the InternaLiawCommissionontheWork ofIts Forty- p. 237; A/49/10
(19941citinintedia, P.M.Dupuy,La m&ilit& internationees Etatmur lesdommages
v a u e et indimielle(19)nd "La mpnsabilite internatiees EtapourIes
dommagesa& parlespciHutioîmrdronliem",inOECD, Aqm-ts iiitidioudeIa mlIution
immfrontiér(e1977). 6.87 ThustheCommission recognisethataregime ofquitableand reasonable
docation oftheusesandbenditsof aninternationi atercoursmay end somehamitu one or
I
more oftheStatesharinthewatermurse. Theobjective,howeveris"reachingm quirableresuk
I
ineach cuncretecd. Thi s precisetthestateofaffairsroduad by the 1977Treaty: each
partyagreed toaccept,certainphysicalaiteratiwithinits temtory,whichHunga~yis now
characterishgs "hm", inexchang eorthemanifoldbendts thePmjectwouldproduce forit.
Thereforee,venifHungarywere oMe toshow thatthe Proieehadcausedit Ygwficanthann,Us
wouldnotestablisa breacbofanobligatiobySlovakia.Itwould insteabeviewed intheovd
Gontextofthe regimeofequitabIeutilisawhichHungaqhelpedtodeviseandcanstmct,and in
wfUchHungaryis fieetu participate.
6.88 Furthemore, there no quesfiongut thatC-tioslovakia and Slovakia
1
haveexercisedduediiigencetoavoidcausinghm. As Slovakiahasshow in additionto the
numerous îtudis undertaken theplanninoftheProjectikeKCzechoslovaki sahidi endumber
ofalternatiresponsestoHungaq's abandoment of thedject pnor toselectV iangian"c"~".
l
CzechoslovakiandSlovakiahaveundertakem neasure sdditiontl thoseinthe originalProject
I
to restore the siami systemandtu ensuregood gound waterconditions1og.Slovakia is
I
wntinuing topursueits prograof wastewatertreatrnenandotheractivitituprotect Danube
water qudityIo.And Slovakiacontinuetuoperatethemonitoringsystemtoassisd initsefforts
tomaintaingoodwaterquality.Inwnt- atleartrmti19&nl 1995,Hungary hasdone lialor
nothingtoimproveconditionson itssidoftheDanube. ALd itcm hardlybe çaidthatHungary
exerciseduediligencto preventharmtoCzechoslovakw jdenitwithdrewfiom theProject.
639 ~hislatterpoint14s toHungaiy'sd~aimthat Slovakifailt&u exercise
I
duediligencebecause"SlovakiTntentiondI..causal the eventwhichhadtube preventgd"'''
Hungaryhere referstuthefuIIowingpassageoftheEs commentary inwhich theCommission
I
explainsthe nature of the obligationof duediligen"Mat the obIigationentaiisthat a
I
watercourseStatewhoseuse causesigificanthm wi bed~md to havebreach itobligation
108 SlovaMernorialara5.12,seq.
'O9 Ibidpara5.36-5.46.
111 Hmgxhn Conmer-Mernorpia,6.40H.ungary'iotationisf&emItC'ammenfaryIOdcie 7of
iidFafrticlsetfofinthesentenfoIluwîng.tu exercisduediigence soasnot tu causesi@cant hm ody whenit has intentiondy or
negligenticausal the eventwhichhad tubeprevenîed or has intenfiondlyorneghgtntly not
prevent oehersinitstenitory6omcausingtheeventor hasabstainedfiomabating it" Hungary
is thusineffect,characterizintge completionof theProjectas "the eventwhichhad to be
prevented".Hungaryis thereforearguingin dect that itmayparticipat en thedesigo nf the
Proje conclude a treatythermn, lead itstreaty partnwthrough a seriesof delays and
acceIeratiomw, atchas itspaner efects si@cant alterationof its territoryand expends
substantiaresoarceon itscoristriicobligafions,hen,quiteiiterdlIeaveits partn"hi& and
dry"byrepudiatingthetreaty-and cy fou1wherritspartneattemptstuamplete theProjectina
marinercIoseIapproximatingthattowhichHungaryhad agrd.
6.90 SurelythisisnotwhattheILC hadinmind.Indeed, theentireapproachof
theCommission' dsrafarticleithatofa "hework agreementw"bichencourages statesharing
internationwlatercourseso enterintospecificagreementspplyingandadjusting the principles
containeciinthedrafarticlesto thecharacterisosfthe watercoursand theneedsofthe states
wnmedH2. This isprecis wely the 1977 Treaty does. Buteven ifthe completionof the
Project wwe somehowregard4 as"the eventwhich had to be prevented",Hungaryhrrsnot
demonstratedthat this"event"causai it significanthm. More fundamentdly,in thislinof
argument Hungay atternptstodistrtahceCouri'sattentiofrumthe kctthat iwas Hungarythat
intentiondy taud C~hosiovaliraand Slovakianot merelysi&cant, but srrbmtid hm
throughitscavaliedecisiotoabandon itstreatypartnanditsobligationunder the1977 Treaty.
6.91 Slovakia wishesto make a final observationconcerningHungary's
treatrnenotftheobligatinotto causesignificahtm: Hungary misunderstan dheILC's careful
framingof thiobligationbyignoringtheverypraess theCommissiond 'srafiarticleestablisIfs.
sigriificanthm iscausôdtua watercoursStatedespitethe exercisofduediligencebythe State
vrhoseusecauses thehami,then,"intheabsenceofagreementfo such theIaîterStatitu
wnsultwiththe harmed Statecondg:
'' Sceartic3eoftheCommission'sraarticl,ndcommentarytheret, mrtoftheInternatioalaw
CommissioonnthWork ofItForty-SiShrnion,206, sg.ciment A14911 01994).
ll3 LC, Dr& ArticlontheLawoftheNon-NavigatioUalesoInternatioalatercom,Art.7,pam 2,
Rmrt of thIntemationLiawCommissiononiheWork oflts Fortv-SiSessiop. 236document
A14911(0994(emphaçisdded). "(a)the extentowhich suchuseisquitableandr-&le talàngbto munt
the factoIisteU&de 6;
@) the questioofad hocadjustmmtsto itutin,I design& toeüminatoer
mitigatemy 114it harm taud and, where appropriatet,he questionof
compensation .
I
6.92 Intheht placoefmm, hereth? an"agreemen to[theu se"of
- whichHungarycornplain -sthe 1977Treaty. Even ignohg thatagreement,however -and
l
asswninthatitiCzechoslovak oirSlovakithatiscarisibe harm ,otHunpy -Slovakiahas
dernomatedthatCzechos10vakw iaas dwaysopen to ooIultationand was williitornake
adjustmentsntheProjeco meetHungaiy wneems Itwa!!Hunm thatultimatelypvned this
I
processTheCommissio nxplainthatithe wnsultationho not leato asolutioq the dispute
I
settlemeniprocedurcantallieinthedr&micles apply.Ie dr& artic he srec0gnizthat
thepartimay rquireassirta inc vingatan quitable dbcatioinlightof"thecomplexitof
I
theissuaesdtheinherenvagueriesofthecriteritobeappiied"" 'characteristosfthelawin
I
6.93 Slovakithusconclude sysayhg th4 evenifmstornaiyinternationlaw
l
beapplicabllawbeyondthelimitspecsed above,theprocehimgwithandputtinginto operation
l
oftheWikovo sectionthrougVarian tC"isfuUyinu>nfokty withitrulesandpiinciples.
II4
IbidAmcIe5,refendtoinmkpmgraph (a)isentit"FactoReIevantoEquitabalemnabIe
~Iticm" m., p.231. l
115
-bip.244.CHAPTERVII. ARTICLE 211Mal : HETHER EIUNGARYWAS ENTITLED TO
SUSPEND AND SUBSEOtTENTlLYABANDON, IIY 1989, THE
PROJECT
SECTION1. Introduction
7.01 The Partiesare in agreement that the worksat Nagyrnaros were
suspended by Hungary on 13 May 1989 and abandonedby ResoIutionof the Hungariari
Government on 27 October 1989. The evidenceis absolutelycharthat,thereafter,the
possibilityof Hungaryresumptionof work atNagymaroswas neverentertained,let alone
proposed,by Hungaryor madethe subjectof negotiationsbetween the Treaty parties.
Hungarytreated Nagymaros ashavingbeen abandoneddefinitivein7989 andnot a matter
for discussionother thtu fomaIiseitsabandonment by Treatyamendment(and afiethe
Hungarian Resolution of 20 December 1990,by Treatytermination). In
contrastbothduringand afier1989,Czechoslovakiacontinueto adhereto thecarryinout
of the entireGlN Projeclagreedunderthe 19Treaty,induding Nagymaros,andatno stage
consented to Hungary'suspensionorterminatioof that partofthe Treaty thconcerned
Nagymaros.
7.02 Hungary'pleadingsseekto divertattentionfioitactionsto suspend
andabandonNagrnarus andtu placemoreernphasisonthe eventsconcerningthe GabEikovo
section ofthe Project and Vari"Cu. O#andedly, Hungary'sCounter-Memurialreferstu
the"ustitiedrejectionthe NagymarosBarrage",wronglyimpIyingmutualrejection;andit
totallyignoresNagymarowhenit contendsthat:
I
HungariaCounter-Mernorpara.5.47.Yet theSIovakMernoriam l aybe searchedinvainfor anyaccusationagainstHungaryusingthe
words "bad faith"';such acharacterisationofHiingary'csonduct isentireIythe inspirationof
~un~a$.
SE~TION~. The Disriuted Intemretation of the Events Precedine the
Sumensionof Naminarus
7.05 Slovakia'sanaIysisoftheperiI od77atdwe13nMay1989isfully
set out in itMemonaland~ounter-MemoriallO H.ungary's Counter-Mernoria lkes issue
with much of thisandysis. In particularH, ungarycontests that the reasonsfor seekingto
delaythe ProjectinitiaII-for up tu 10 years- wereessentialiyeconomic not environmentai.
While admittingthatecunomic factorswereinvolve ,H ungary'sCounter-Memoial contends
thatthe"underlyinig ssue"atthetime was "whatto doin caseof scientifiuncertainty"T. his
is certainlynotborne outby the evidence,particularlyhe Marjai letteof 19 March198412.
As SlovakiahasaIreadyshown, this IetteestabIishethat theHungatian Govemmentsought
environmentalargumentstosupport its attemptstpostponethe Projectfor economic reaons;
but its Academyof Sciences failedto produceany environmental argumentssufficiently
meritoriou so behelpfulinthe negotiationswith~zechoslova .kia'~
8 The wor&"badfaith" do notappr in SIovakîalsMernoriind appearonlyonce inS1ovakiars
Couriter-Mernoriat pata9.28-whereSIovak wiggeststhathe"Hunparianpositioçeem u k
thatCzechoslovakactedinbadfaith"(ernphasddecl).
9
k, e.g,HungarianCounter-Mernoriaiara2.05,wherea referencismade topara.4.36ofthe
SlovakMernorialas anemmple of "Slovalu[accusing]Hungaryofabusivconduct". Butthe
referen~istoCzechasIovar kje'tioatthe tirneoHruigarytsabusiveinterpretatiof lfie
rnegtinheId(shortIykfore)20nJdly1989.
IO
SlovakMernoria, hapkrIIISlova kornier-Mernorial.ChapW.r
11
The HungarianCounter-Mernoripl, r2.10,referto the G/Projectas an"enormousfinancial
burden",contendinthathe Projecwasadopte.toa largeextentfor politreasons.& also,
&d.,para.2.14.
'' - Soe,SlovakCounter-Mernori, ar4.21.Aithaugh ilseIfinducinintoevidence t1984 mai
Ierter with its Cotinter-Mernlunm @aras. 2.11-2.13attemptsto porttathe letteas
inslsignifitsingleinternHrrngarianmurnentamong thousandsand Mr.Marjaias merelIhe
MinisterresponsiforfinancialrnatteThe trusituatiwasvery differenandthe1984 Marjai
letteis adaurnenof majorimportance.FoMt.Marjaiwas theHungarianDeputyPrimeMinister
and,assuch theHunganan Chairmanof thetop-levcornmitteoverseeinthe G/N Projecthe
ESTC Cornmittee.
j3 SIovakCounter-MemoriaIpua. 4.13;SIoYa Mkemurid, para.3.32, m. Hmgary was
riltirnaabletodeIatheProjwtforsomefouryears,afomdised inthe1983ProtocoIs. theHungarianAmbassador atHungary 'squestt6.Mr.Marjai explainedthatthe Hungarian
Govemment had just"examined thefindingsoftheapproximateltywo-yearextensiveand high
I
l qualityscientificresearc, nown asthe "EnvironmentaIlmpact Study",which hadserved to
"convincetheParty andtheGovernent thattheconstruct iftnewaterpowerplantsystem
isa sensibluseofthe ~anube"'~.
7.09 TheHungarian accountof thismeetingrevealsthe lackof any biasin
favourofthe Project-inclearestcontradictioo theportrayanlow provided byHungary of a
Government stubbody proceeding with the Project, obliviousto any question of
environmentd impact. As to environmental concern and risk, Mr. Marjai specificdly
ernphasisedthatthepartiesjoint workonthe Project shouibe accornpaniedby continuous
researchand monitoring. As to the public'concem over the environmental effectsthe
impressiongiven is againdirectlycontrary to Hungary'scurrentportrayal. Ratherthan
showing a predilectirintosuppressany oppositionto the Pruject,he said that "opposing
argumentsmust not beprohibired- onthe contrary, we shouldconvincethose who ernphasise
sucharguments". Asto thefinancial-econorniide,Mr. Marjaicandidlyadmittedthe Project
was a "greatburden,a painfulissue";yet, givenHungary'nternationalandnationalinterests
andtheexistenceofthefavourable EIA:
"..we hadno other optionIefbut tucontinuethework accordingtuour treaty
obligation....[T]he tidyreasonableoptionisto constructthe projectjointIy
withthegreatestpossiblespeedutiIisintheachievablebenefittu amaximum.
There is fui1 hamonjr between the Hungarian and CzechosIovakside
conceming this"
7.10 The CzechoslovakPrimeMinisterreplied by callingattentioto the
greatpoliticaand internationailmportancofthe decisiojustreachedbyfiungary following
its appraisof this study. The HungananEIA, he said, respondedtu thequestionsthathad
beenraisedas totheProject'senvironmentaimpactduringtheprecedingyears;andintheIight
of suchresponse,likMr.Marjai,heconcluded that:
15 -
m., para.2.19andVol.3, Annex40, VansIationoaHungarianinternreiortofthm~ting.
% al=,the&&de-Mémoo ifethe disussiofrheCo-Chaimen offie ESTCCarnitteeon 19
Augtrn1985.Annex4.
17
Hewasrefenintothe1985HungariaEIA. AccordintoMT.*ai, thWungxian studfydken
handedovetohisCzechoslovk unterpatn thESTCCornmittee. "Togetherwiih thU [areferen~etothe 1985 EI~]I ...we carmot do dse but
irnplementthe project.During implemmiation, ye naturdly [must] consider
theecohgicd Factors andthe resultsthatwillemergedukg implementation 1"8
l
The PrimeMinister also showed hisawareness of the"vid luestion"of waterquality;and as
I
to theprotectionofthenaturdenvironment, he statedthat "ithatubi eçpeciaIIensuredthat
naturebe conserved asitused tobe"Ig. Thi s uuldrequire,hesaid,thatthe Projectlsptansbe
I
revisedbyagreement, asthey procwd. Thus,Czechos~ovaki waould studythe EIA to see ifit
1
requiredanysuch steps to be taken. He emphasised that, in implementing the Project,
Czechoslovakia: .
"...will takcpainsso that the projectwiI1not haveany unfavourabIe impact
[an] theenvironment. Shouldtherebe new facts and reasons paintingtothe
fad that this isnot ensured,it shwld h ex*d and sdutions woutd be
searchedfor. In hisview ..the ody certainway tu convince peopleaboutthe
advantagesofthe projectisto solvetheseproblems!"
7.11 It isimportantto appreciatethe character of this evidence. It was,
1
according to Hungary, a "[s]trictiyconfrdentialnote of the secretanatofthe Hungarian.
Government"minutingthe meeting. Andwhat was saidat the meeting was nut forpubIic
consumption. The significanceof what took place at this meeting isthat it reds the
following:
- The 1985 EIA was reviewedand itsfindingwere offieiallyaccepteciby
the HungarianGovernment,which pmised theexteriand high scientific
I
quaiityof thisstudy,althoughintems of the econornicburden of the
I
Project the Hungarian Governmentnodoubtwouldhave preferred to
I8
If isud thathisisthHun_gana nmun1 ofwhat~heCzechoslovaPrimeMinistersaid.
l9 I
Inthirrespscitisirn$arîmtonoteUmCwchoslovak PrirnpMinisterefusatobeover-impnssed
byscientifrcfindioflowrisandhisopennesstotheneedtoaddresfullenvironmentacioncerns.
Assurnmarisein Hungary'sccount:
"HementioncdîheOrlikwaterbarrage, hentheyaturalenvironmenturingthelas5-8
yearshad sufïereidcreasindamage. Before constructionthscientisclairnedthat
appearsagreenclorrd.olintinglayeHisownbreactiotothipsroblewashthaattention
shouldhavekn dl& to theissues15yWs ago,
duticln thoseproblems." and now scientistshtoepromofethe see environmental reasons weigh against completior?; and it was
officialltransmittedto CzechoslovakiaasHungary'sassessrnent of the
environmenta lisk oftheProjectandareafiïrmation ofthe Project;
- FolIowing the EIA, the Hungarîan Governent decidedtu proceed
energeticdIytu carr out itsTreatyobligations;andCzechoslovakia was
oficiailyadvisedof and clearlyreIieduponthisdecision;
- Contraryto the assertions in the HungarianCounter-Mernorial
concerningthe repression of the environmentalist groups21, both
Governrnenta stthe highestlevel -as earlyas 1985 - emphasised the
need tuheedsuch objectionsand tu attempt to respondpositively tu
them; for by thattirne environmentalisotbjectio tnsthe Prujea had
alreadystartedto becornea politicalfactorinboth countries;
- FinaHy, bath Governmentsconfirmed in August 1985 that certain
environmentr ailskwerenecessarilyinvolved ina projectsuch asthis,
andtheyspecificallyanddeliberately acceptedtheserisksbecauseofthe
Iow prubabilityof their occurrenceand the rneansavaiIabletu mitigate
such risksshould they appearand, ofcourse, becauseof the Project's
benefits;they concluded that greater attention should be given to
research andmonitoring sothat preventivemasures couldbetakenand,
whereappropriate m, odificatios adeto theProject.
7.12 As alreadyexpIainedin the SlovakCounter-Mernorialf,ollowing the
1985EIA: (i)the HungananGovernent employedArrstrian contractws tu assisinthe work
at Dunakilitiand atNawaros andcalledonCzechoslovakia to accelerate the Project; (ii)
Hungrtryinimediafelyput in motion the acceIerationon irsside; (iii) by an overwheIming
20 TheMarjailetteofMarch1984 provideindispufe avlenceofthis.
21 See,HungarianCounter-Mernoriap,ra.2.24, referritothe alleged "contiminggavermental
practicelboth countrie]gainstdissent,suasdismissalfromemployment,pUce sunieillance,
Irornsearchmest,etc.'citinasçuppar"a publiaiionofanenvironmentgroup whichitfaito
annex.&, alw, Bungary'1988offrcibr~hure,"EnviramentandRiverDams" ,mx 5, hereto.
The brochurdewiks theextensivpubIicdiscussioniHungary oftheProjectattheiime, in
çontradicti1Hungary'spleadings.Thisis notto say that the HungarianParliament was not concerned to give the proper
emphasisto environmenta isues. ButHungary'd sescriptioof its Govemment's reactionto
thatconcemis sirnplmislcading . urtgaryrgues:
"Frorn that momentonwardstheHungarian Governent was akous not tu
neglectthe concernof the populationexpressed by the huge wave of public
protestagainsttheProject,andcommitted itselto actin away consistenwith
thesustainable seofHungws naturarlesources2'"
As already seen above, by 1985 both Governments were paying close attention tuthe
environmentalconcerns resulfinghm new ztpproachestowardenvironmentaIprotection as
wellas those expre~seby theirpeopleZ6.
7.15 In bothits actionstakeninrespect toNagymaros, startingon t3 May
1989, and its action wsith regardto water quaIity masures, the HungarÎan Governent
eiected tuput econornic or short-tem politicconcern aseadof ecologicaI interest- the
very oppositeof what its Parliamenthadcalled f08~ .or the HungarianGovemment had
decided,unlikeCzechoslovakia hat the cost of acceleraticonstructionof sewage disposa1
plants- a nationalinvestmentoutsideof thejointGM Project'sbudget - in orderto petmit
peakmodeoperationunder the integrated Projectcomprisingthe Navaros and GabEikovo
sections,was too high. As a resnlt, it frustrated the foIIow-upwater quality measures
undertaken ontheheels of theHungarian Parliament'secisioninOctober 1988,doing soat a
timewhen ajointproposalto be incorporatedina specialtreathad been drafted,agreedand
was ready forfinaapprovala s Suchacaseof puttingcost andtacticalpoliticalconsiderations
ahead of environmental interests would not have been permitted had the Hungarian
Goverment proceeded with theNagymaros sectionofthe Project and withpreparationsfor
26 Seepara. .06,-W.,above.
27 SeeSIovakCorinter-Mernor.aras4.39-4.4and5.09-5.13foa detail4 andysis ofthex actions
andthe relevdocuments.
28 SlovaCounter-Mernori alras4.42-4.46. EvtodayintheregioofGytiruntreatewastewater
spilintotheMosoniDanubeandtheMa River,whichflowintotheDanubewelldowmtreamofthe
GablZikowoeir,contribumgaterialtothepollutioftheDanube.Thisconditionogetherwith
thebackgroundollutiontheareaof thbank-filtedellthatsuppldrinkinwatertoBudapeçt,
ian irnrnedi andseriouthreatothequaIitofthatwakr. &, SlovaMemoiai, Annex62, a
HungariascientifrcpapofJtrne1989indicatithatheseriouwate treatment probIatGy&
wiI1noixrewfyedkfore1995ormen 2000.Padiamtnt (on theacîeleratedschedulethatHungary hd pushedforadoptionaftsr the 1985
EIA).
7.16 The Hungarian Gounter-Memurial reflectsa great sensitivitto this
evidenceof Hungary'fsnrstratioof thefinalapprovalfo broceed&th theagreed water qudity
I
measures. m, it contendsthatapactumde contrahendohad beenreached and sothe mere
refusalbytheHungarian Chairman tosigntheprotocol oflheESTC Cornmitteeon 3 May 1989
wouldnothavefmstratedtheagreement onwater quaiiy heasurssB .Second, itarguesthat no
I
specificevidencehas ben introducedtu prove Hungary'sIcîualrehsaI tu signthe protocolof
the meeting;andthe HungarîanCounter-Munoriaioffers ihevidencea new document aimed at
I
showingthat it was Czechoslovakiathatfrustratedtheagreementin water quaiitymeasures3'.
1
IhirdtheHungarian Counter-Mernoritariesto deflectattentiofromtheissue by arguingthat
l
theevidenceof therneasures takenin the1980s and 1990$Iby Czechoslovakiaand by Slovalcia
tu deal with waterqualityby constructinwaste dispoîih plantsand improvedstandards of
I
monitoring,set out in theSfovakMernorial s deficientid not showinghow manyplants bave
actuallybeencornpleted3.
7.17 But the centralpoint involvedherehas been ornittein the kIiingarian
Counter-Mernorial. Given theHungarianParliament'sapproval of the acceleratedconstruction
I
schedulq itwas essentialthat tsteps inrelatiotowater Ialit myesures beacceleratedalsu.
The necessaryplantshad to be inplaceand operatingbefoh puttingNagymaros intooperation
I
and beforepeakmode operationcouidbegin,according tothe pre-conditionestablishedby
I
Hungary'sParliament based on soundtechnicalreasons.1 Once the decision to suspend
Nagyrnaroohadbeenunilatmallytaken byHungary, that urdlmcyno longeexistai ithe cyesof
the HungarîanGovernment - the additionalbut nonetheles5 essential,expendituresinvolved
I
could he delayed(andafierthe abandonmeno tf~a~~maros)indefinitelypostponed).Thiswas a
I
29
Hungdan Counter-Mernorial,ra2.1-2.33.
30 1
W., para.2.33andVol.3. Anne44,an EngIisWIatio~ ofa unilateralHungarimaccoofthe
ofHungarytsefus=iosigtheprotom1isfurnishedbyshedc,hereasAnnex5,fheWmsIationofa
Hungarianpressrepodatai 4 May 1989.
" ibid .ras.2.16-2.1The HungarianCounter-Memcrial lbttempttobluthepreciissuehere
byconfusingthispeciftreatwiththeenvironmentagluarantediscussedithelaterOctobe-r
November 1989negotiations.cIearcaseoftheHungarian Governent placingeconumic and short-termpoliticfactorsdead
of environmentalissues.Udike Hungaty,Czechoslovakia (andnow Slovakia)has rnaintained
its programof installingwaste disposal pIants regardlessof Hungary's abandonment of
Nagymaros3'.Hungary hassuppliedno evidenceof itsownsimilar activitietoimprovethe
waterqualityof theDanube; and Hungary'ws aterquaiityexperthave been outspoken intheù
criticisofthisfailurby theHungarianGovenunent tobe concemed with waterqualifl .
SECTION 3. Huneam'sSuspension ofNapvmaroson 13 May 1989
7.18 Inexamining below Hungary'ssuspensionof Naparos (thisSection3)
and its bsequentabandonment ofNagymaros(Section 4), thefoIIowingquestionsmakeup a
sortof primafacietesagainstwhichtu considerHiingary'actions:
-
Whatreasons didHungarygive atthe time?
- CouidHungary then havebelievedthesereasons?
- What was theirinimediacy?
- Did Hungary disclose at the tirne evidence to itsTreaty partner
reasonablysnbstmtiatingthesereasons?
- Didsuch evidencecontainanynew facts?
7.19 The evidenceshows thatHungary's 13 May announcementtook the
Czechoslovak Govemmentby surprise;ndthe eventsprecedingthidecision,ustdiscussedin
32
TO meetHungary'srequestfmare datathecurent statofconstnrciiandoperatiohaskn
furthupdrrtedanisfurnishbydbvakiawith thisReasAnntx7,hereto.
& SIovakMernoriai,par2.105-2.10and 3.52andAnnex 32 (anarticleco-authobyfrof-
Evduarioa").raIsoparticipatin Hrtngary1994 studieon ivaiequalifyin if"ScieritScunilateralctof suspensionorindeed thereafter.Hungary'sactionto suspend constructionat
Nagymaroson 13 Maytookthefom of a GovernmentResolution,which Slovakiahasclosely
anaiysedin its~aunter-~emorial~'. Nowhere does thisResoIutioncal1for a ccirnprehensive
environmentaIstudy ofthe entireProject. Thonlystudiesreferredtutherewere those related
to preparingfornegotiationsto amend theTreaty,inciuding thecansequencesof abanduning
~agyrnaros~ .~
7.21 In itslegd aaalysis,the Hungarian Counter-Mernorialcontends thaf
when Hungmy suspendeclwork:
".. uAseditsrightflowingfrom the 1977 Treatyto ask for the fullandcorrect
implementation of [Articles15 and 19 of the 1977 Treaty]. This was in
confomitywiththe 1977Treatyitselp .Ii
AndHungav goes ontu wntend that thereasonHungaryreIiedon a statof"environmental
necessity" tu suspend work is that "it was confronted with a situation created by
Czechoslovakia 'reachof its treatyobligations.1Inotherwords,accordingto Hungary,on
13 May 1989, Czechoslovakiawas in breach of certainTreatyobligations -presumably a
referencetoArticles15 and19 - and this requiredHungarytu invukea statof "environmental
necessity"asthe basisfor i13 Maydecision.
7.22 But Hungary'sresolution of 13 May makes no referenceto these
Articles,and no claimofbreach was even hinted atby Hungary atthe time. Had Hungary
done so,such a daim wouIdhavebeen disputed atonce byCzechos!ovakiaf ;orasthe events
discussedabove in Section2 show, environmentaIand watw quality issueswhichwere the
concern of theseArticlesothe Treaty, hadbeengivenduse attention.
"
8SlovakCouater-Mernorial,para5.09-5.13.This document. which was not preçentedto
CzechosIovakiatthe time, ficameto SIovakia'sattenrion wthefiIinof theHungarian
Merriorial.
35, iwas onthebasisotheResolrrtion'rthatrtieSIovCkaunter-Mernorolbservthat:
"Thcrcanbe nodoubtfromboththetexandthe tanof thisesoiu~onthatthdecisioof
13May wasseenbytheHungarianGovernmenatsthfirststeptowaadplannedtermination
oftheNagymaros&on oftheG/NProject."Ed., par5.10.
40 HungariaCounier-Memord,para.4.06(fndeleted).
-II %A. para.5.07Tliein.1thi sassagrefergeneraItoChap.5 oftheHungarianMernorial. 7.23 Yet, aside hm this false a~lI/ation of breach what possible
environmentaIthreat could justify suspensionof ~a&maros without agreement, when
Nagymaroswas then some the ycvs awayfrombcing Putintooperation?Taking even the
most direof thepossiblerisksnow invoked byHungaryl ,hatof amajor earthquakeH>ungary
I
hasnever cIairned the riskofanearthquake tu be imminent; itonIyargues(wrongiyas the
SlovakRepIyshowsbeIow)that there hadheen inadequateseisrnicstudyof 'heregion42. Ta
act asHungarydidunilaterallt yo suspendworkat Nagymaros cmot bejustified. At thevery
l
least,Hungary had a dutyto itsTreatypartner,beforeacting,to discusswith ittheissuesthat
Hungarynow daims it believedto requiresuspension, and to bnng tu Czechoslova~a's
attention anydaimedbreaches oftheTreaty.
7.24 In its discussionof Article27 of the Treaty,the Hungarian Counter-
Mernorial atfirstseemsto acknowledge such aduty:
I
"What[Artide 271 said was that the partiesshouldseek tu resolve fheir
disputesattheappropriate IeveI... .11
And the HungarianMemonddevotesattention to thequedionof theobligationsof theTreaty
partiestomnsult andnegotiate inthecontextof itNagyiw~s suspensionu. However,after
layingthegroundwork totiy tjustifysuspensionH, ungar)g!oeson to arguethat:
".. once it became clear that fbture work on tht NagymarosBarrage was
subjectto themost S~~OUS doubts ...it waslawfullr Hungaryimmediately tc
suspen constructionand to seekforthwithtoresolvethe difficultie."~
Andthen, the argumentcontinues,"itwas a matter for thépartiesingood fsithto negoliate
46 i,
with aview to resolvingthedificultie... .
42 Sec,Chapter12Section3,below.
43 Hmgarian C~wiier-Mernorip,ara5.37.
44 HungariaMn erno~Iparas.9.18-9.29.
45 Ibib.,ara. 9.23.
46 m., para9.24. 7.25 But this seemstu resemblethe travelslogan: "Travelnow; pay later."
Only hereitwas: "Suspend now;discrrssIater."And, regardlesof Hungary'sclaims tu the
contrary,thereis absoluteno justificationfsuchan approacheitherunderthe Treatyor
under internationllw. Thesuspensionofwork atNagymaros was likea "boltfromthe blue"
- with neitheradvancenotice nor discussionand certainlwithout agreement. A fortiori,
Hungary'ssuspension was not justifieas a first stein the planned abandonmen tf
Nagymaros.
SELTTO N. HrtngarvisAbandonmentof Nswmaros an 27Octuber 1989
7.26 The perîodof suspensionofwork atNagymaros Iastedbetween 13May
and 27 October 1989, when Nagymaroswas definitivelyabandonedby Hungary. The
HungarianMernorialcontends that duringthis penod Czechoslovakiarefused to address
Hungary's concerns relatingto ~ag~rnaros~~a,nd itgives the impressionthat Hungary's
Governrnenta Rl esolutionabandoninNagymaroson27 October,approvedby itsParliament
on 30 October, followedthe failureofnegotiationsover ~a~~maros~'a , nimpressionÉhat
SIovakiaha demonstrated isentirelycontrarytu thee~idence~~.
7.27 The sequence ofthe relevanteventsbetweenthe13 Maysuspension and
the27 October abandonmentofNagymaros, and their meaning,are straightforwmattersto
explain:
- Czechoslovakia imrnediatelprotestedthe suspensionof Nagymaros
announcedby Hungary on 13 May 1989" ; Czechoslovakiaat once
demanded taknuwthe scientificbasisfor suchasurprisedecision,but
had towait44 daysbeforebeinghanded twotechnicd paperssetting out
Hungary'sreasons(26 June);
'' Ibib.,para.9.28.
48 md .,ras3.10and9.28-9.29.
49 SlovakCounter-Mernorairas. .33-5.S..dso,SlovakMernorial,ara4.12-4.34.
NothavingbeengiveHungary'13 MayResolution, zechoslovwaksnotawarethatiwasthe
firstsinHungary'sbandonmenotNagymaros. I
- At ameeting on24May 1989 betweenPrimeMinistersi,t was agreedtu
I
fm ajoint groupof expertto asIesitheecological,seismicand other
aspectsofNsgymaros;
- On 2 June 1989, the Hungarian~drliarnentgrantedan exemption from
the Parliamentar y esolutionof 17 October 1988 - an exemption
requsstedbytheHungarian ~ovemkent on 13 May - soas to permitthe
eliminationf~agymaros fiom thehroject;
.. A meetingof expertswas hdd during 17-19 JuIytu discussthe26 June
papersofHungary,together wifh Czechoslovakia'r sesponse to them
preparedandhandedtu Hungary (13 July)shurtIybeforethemeetingS';
thecentralpointmade by CzechosIovaki atthe meeting(asset out iits
l
scientifanalysisof 13 JuIy) was that"themateriai containsno new
1
viewpointsforanintervention asradicalasstoppage of constructionof
theNagymaros stageHs2;
- On 20July (theday&er the expdrtsPmeetingended),the Hungarian
Govetnrnent adopted a Resololuti~to "extend" the Nagymarw
suspensionuntil31October 1989" ;[and
SI Appaientinothavinggotthefactssuai&& the HuagarCounter-Mernoriattemptto construc!
ttiprejudicialargument,supposdy illustraring'iyexibility" Czechoslovakia,that the
CzechoslovaexpertallowetheiHungariawIIeaguesoTy foudaystoexaminetheCzechoslovak
repltothe26Juncpapers,produceonlyinSlovakH.ungFan Counter-Mernorip,ra.2.35The
situationwas quidaerent. The Czechoslavakexperts hatowait 44 daysfor a scient&
explanaiiof Hungary's13 Maysuspension,althothelurge nctywhichitwastakenwould
havesuggestethasuchanexplanatiooughtohavebeen fnsfantavailablTo assishemeeting
ofexpertschedulfor17-19July,Czechoslovaaut aresponsintwoweeks'tirne,having
receivHungary'psapersonlon26June.
53 There habeenno advancwarningor diçcussofthi so+Ied "extensio-"rtieexpertshonIy
jus1finishedthrdaysofmcetingsIOexaminea widerangeof issuescuncemitheenvironment.
waterqualityandvismicinvesligatgioins,arbeyondlthquestionof peakmodeapemtionat
GabCikovand thesurpensioof constructalNagymarqs.CzeçhoslovakiahadprMovsly&en
irrfomedincorrectkt, tkeinitiResdution of 13My orderd a suspensiofor onltwo
rnonthsa, SIovakCounter-Mernorial,ra5.09-5.13an5.18(andfn34).In facno tirnelimit
hadken seoutiniheRemlution.m. -
Afsoon 20 July,aftera meetingof PrimeMinisters,Hungary informed
Czechoslovakiaof the contentsofits Resolutioof the sameday, and
Mr.Nkmeth advanced two aIternativeproposaifor delayingthe G/N
Project; however,at the meeting ofPrime Ministers,there was no
exchang eetweenthe partiesthat faintlyresembIednegotiations over
Nagymaros.
7.28 Beforecontinuingwiththe sequence ofeverits,it usefultupausehere
tosurvey thesituatioas istood justafterthe meetingof20 JuI1989 andthe adoptionof the
Resolutionby theHungarian Govemment thatsame day. A joint expertstudyof Nagymaros
had been agreedon 24 May,but no morethananexchangeof papers had takenplace, which
revealedthepartiestobe farapart,thecoreissuebetweenthembeing thatCzechoslovakiawas
unabIeto discernintheHungarianpapersanynewinfo&~atian or dataconcemirrgdleged risks
that had not aIreadybeenstudied andtakenintaccountin the developmentof the Projeci. In
itsCounter-MernoriaH l,ungary assertthat between May and Octuber 1989 "thequestion
raised...was whether to construcor abandon the constmctionof theNagyrnaros se~tor"~~.
But thiswas never a questionputto Czechoslovakia beforeHungary actedon 13 May (and
againon20 Jury)tu suspendNagyrnaros.
7.29 Theeventsbetween20 JuIy and27 October indicate thaHungar yad
alreadymadeits mindupto abandon Nagyrnarosl,eavingonlythe delicatquestionof howto
secureCzechoslovakiac 'snsentto abandonmentto beresolved.The eventswerethese:
- InSeplember1989, the Hardi reportrecommendedthe abandonmentof
Nagyrnarosandlaidout a strategby whichHungary couId do su with
minimaflinanciaandlegalrepercussion~;~~
54 HungariaCorr nfer-Memon,ara.2.37.
'' S_cSlovakCounter-Memorial,paras.5.29-5.32,and T7.eH0rdireprt'smtegywas
expresslybason COMECONprinciples,notnew principleçreflectinchangessmn tosweep
througCentralndEasternEurope.Forexample,therepcontai thisstatement:
"Inaccordancwit hhccurrenandroutinpractiamong CMEA countneswe areobliged
tohonou rbligatiotapaydanmgesonlytothexlentandinthefomi achowIdgedby ris,
everriirtheIomti.HrrngariaM~eniorial,oIpart ILAnnex8 {atp166). * On 4 October 1989,Prime ~inistei NLmeth expresseciHungary'sview
1
thatithadthe "rightandobIigationto suspendwork in the intereof
avoiding undesirable ecoiogicd effects and to commence
negotiati~ns"'~s;ccordinglyhe pkposcd .oint discussions"regardhg
I
technrcaVeconumic concerns pertainingtu the abandonment"of
Nagymarosandthe corresponding Treatyamendment -clearfvnot a
proposai todiscussthe meritsof abandonmenb tutthe technicalmeans
of itsachievement;
l
On 11 Octuber 1989,the PrimeMinistersagainmet -thereisnoofficid
I
record of the meeting, and Hungary has not placedin evidence the
1
documen it cites to supportits versionof what tran~~ired~~ but
acceptingHungary'saccountat facevalue,Hungaryproposed a "trade":
Czechosiovakia would agreeto abandonNagyrnaros and the parties
I
wuuIdagree to environmenta and wIterquality maranteesandtu the
non-peakmode operationof theGabEikovosection - Hungary, inturn,
I
wouId continuetoprepareto closetheDanubeand aftertheconclusion
oftheagreement on paranteesw ouid actuallyproceedto doseit.
l
7.30 This proposed "trade" set the stage for the twu pivotal events
I
urncemîng the abandonmentofNagymarus: fi) the mimi&of PrimeMinirierson 26 Octuber
1989e ,videnceasto whichiscontainedinthe~zechosloval< Verbale of30 October1989
confirrninathe position taken by the CzechoslovakPime Minister at the 26 Octobcr
md5\ and (ii)the Hungarian Govemment'sResolltPon of 27 October abandoning
Nagymaros. In reviewing fhese events, the HungarianCounfer-Mernorialmakes several
I
seriousfactualrnistakein its attemtu explainaway theevidence rhatso cIearlyestablishes
l
Hungary'sbreachesai the TreatyastoNagymaros (andasto GabEikovo ,swell).
5-5 Lettof 4 Oclobe198from PrimeMnisteNémerh ; ungariMcmorid, Val4, Amex 27.
I
57 HungatianMernoria, aras.3.96-3Once again.Hmgar;r afaiIetocompIywithttiR&s of
Courtby~ificaI1y derrintoanunpublishedocumentt'supporticontentiowhich ineither
annexesnorfurnishes. 7
58
b. SlovakCounter-Mernorial,ra5.37-42. l 7.3Z First;relyingonthelackofanagreed record ofthe26 Octobermeeting,
the Hungarian Counter-Mernoria contends thatthe willingnesssubsequentlymanifested by
Czechoslovakiain its Note Verbale of 30 Octuber tu initiaa treaty on environmenfd
guaranteeswas nut made clearatthe 26 October meeting. Thus, su Hungary argues,faced
with continued Czechoslovak intransigenceH,ungq adopted a Resolutiorithe nextdayto
abandonNagymaros, and it seid its Parliament of the question. By the time the
Czechoslovak NoteVerbaleof 30 October was delivered,withits"compromis effer"itwas,
accordingtu Hungary, tooIate.Infa&,Hungary assertsthat theNote was:
"..deliveredat amomentwhentheoffeirna prty couIdbecertain that icouM
notbeincorporated intothedecisionto beadoptedbv theParliament 20hours
-aterS"
7.32 Ignoring this intimation ofbad faith, Hungary'sversionof events is
directlydisprovedby the evidericeproduced by both Parties. For in the vety ripening
paragraph of the 30 OctuberNote Verbaleitself, Czechosiovakiaindicated that it was
"presentingthe position"of the Governrnent of Czechoslovakia"expressed by the Prime
Ministerof Czechoslovakia ...at the [26 Octobermeeting]"60.It isapparent thatthe Note
constituteda formal confirmationof the officia!posititaken earlierby the Czechoslovak
PrimeMinister at the 26 Octobermeeting. There can,thus, bbeno sense in whichtheNote
Verbaleof 30 Uctoberwas delivered "toolate". Infact, Czechcislovakihôd had thethe
since the Il October meeting to considerthe "trade" offeredby Hungary(according to
Hungary'sown account), andon 26 Octoberthe Czechoslovak Prime Ministerformally
presentedan alternativeproposai,whichwas thenccinfimedon 30 October by Note Verbale.
7.33 Second t:e HiingarianMemurialrecounts these events asif therehad
beena collapseof negotiationsby thcnandthatCzechoslovakia hadfailedto address,
-lia,theimportanHt ungarian"goal"of abandoning~ag~rnaros~l.But as Slovakiahaspointed
59 HungariaCounter-Mernoripala,..45(emphasiaddd).
EQ SlovakMemorial,Amex 76.
HungariaMemorial ,ol.4, Annex28.Onceumoreitisnotaithattherisnoagreedrecorofthis.
meeting.
$1 HungarianMemurid, para.3.109.October meeting)directiyaddressed thequestionof ~aharos, offerhg a most reasonable
compromise. At the 26 October meeting, ~zechoslovakiaproposed that ratherthan
abandoning Nagymaros ,orwhich itcould sceno justifdion:0) both sides"would pledge ta
Iimitorexclude peak operation"";and(ii)a slowdom of thewark atNagymaros would be
mutuallyagreed,delayingitscompletion sume 15 months(the periodby which theProtoc01 of
1
6 Febniary 2984 wodd haveaccderatedthe work at Nagymaros) "toenablethe Hungarian
I
sideto usethispmd forstudyingtheecological quedi& and to submitrespectiveproposais
induecourse".
7.34 When such a 15-rnonfhpenod is added tothe existingperiodof the
I
years beforeNagymaroswas to be put in operation,it ikevidentthat therewasmore than
enoughtime toconductthe jointstudieagreed atthe24 meeting64.This wouldhave lefi
enoughtimeto conductanother EIA, as well,which Counter-Memurialnow
I
arguesshould have been carrîedout but never mentionedatthe ti~ne~~.As tupeakmode
I
operation,there were manyalternativetu beconsideredaId evduated; but Czechoslovakia's
proposal was tu the eRectthatboth sidespledgethemselvesto acceptwhateverthe studies
. I
shouldreçornrnend w,hetheritbethe exclusioofpeak mohe operationor afonnof limitation.
The importantpoint was that~zechoslovakia was prep'ed to see the issueofpeakmode
operationpIacedfimI yon the negotiating
7.35 Hungary's actionon 27 October -t e dayfollowingthe tablingof this
1
proposalof Czechoslovakia- bywhichHungary irrevocablabandoned Nagymaros, aswell as
peak mode operationat GabEikavoc,annotbejustified. $irst"necessity"could not possibly
1
have beena factor in the ccircumstançer- especiaiiybiven the Crechoslovakoffer of
- -
62
SIovaCkounter-Mernori, ar5.39.
SlovakMernoria, nnex76.Comvare,HungariantranslatiH,ungariaMernorial, o4, &ex
28:"botpartiewouldobligthemselvetolimitatisrexclusionofpeakhouroperatim&.
" Hungaryhaddso commissioned CheBwhd siriein JuIy1989, and its repwas renderd in
Febmary1990-faclnot thenùriuwIoCzechosIovakia.
l
65 Sggpara.7.20abve, andreltvafn.
l
" ThelonginfervaloftibeforeNagymarowas togointooperatiwoulddm have allowedadequatc
timeforwatertreatmetlanttobecornple tefrepeakmode operatiowentinmeffect,diereby
spreadingouttfinanciastrainforHungaoverseverl .
"î"compromise6'.Second,Hungary's actionrepresentedan outrightfailuretonegotiateon its
part in contradictioto itsobligationunder Article27 of the Treatyand undergeneral
principleand rulesofinternationlaw.
7.36 Asidefromthe seriousmistakesof factcommitted byHungary in its
account of the 26 October meeting, the HungarianCounter-Mernorial'a snalysisof
Czechoslovakia' s0October Note Verbale,inwhichit triestexplainaway the actionsofthe
Hungarian Governent atthetime, ialsuwrong6':
-
It isarguedby Hungarythatthe individual"ecologicalguarantees"tu
constitutethefutureagreementwere notspecifiedby Czechoslovakiain
the Note - but neither were they spectBed by Hungary (who had
mggesfed th in #ffirsfpIace);
- Hungarydaims that Czechoslovakia'p sosition would have required
immediatepreparations for the closureof the Danube - but by 30
Ocloberitwas alreaa too lafeiocary out thiosperation,asHungmy
welfknew, so the dammimgoperrriionhad~~ccessfullybeenposponed
unilafcr~~l&yHrrngary forawhole yeurr;
- The Note, accordingto Hungary,constituted a "blankrefusai to
consideranyamendmen o the 1977Treaty" -but iwas nothing ofthe
&in& ii was a specfpc refufff tt,agee tu the abai?donmenfof
NQ~CI~USw , hjfeaf rhesame time offering fhepfedgetu limifor
exclude pguk mu& opration ad foagree fo fhr slow duwnufwork
thereinorder toallm more thanenoughfimefor thefears expressed
byHungary to befully exploredand&alt withby agreement;
- It aIso"threatened unilateralirnplementatianprrivisionaIolutio-
butthe 30 Octuber ifseff shuws {fiil wm Hungmy wfio was
67
secp.ra7.59, m., klow.
68
HtingaîanCounter-Memaripara2.45. 7.37 Moreover, it isapparent from ihe Note that the possibiliîy that
I
Czechoslovakiamight be for& to take provisional deasurcs was in no wav related to
I
Namrnaros and afforded no excuse at allfor Hungarfs action tu abandondefinitively
1
Nagyrnaros on27 October 1989;thepossibilitywas invokedsolely asa responseto Hungary's
unilateral ctio aflectingtheGabEikovs oectionofthe P!oject.
7.38 Inconclusion, Hungary'sactions tu suspend and then tu abandon
Nagyrnarusreveal:
- Anextraordinary shiftin positiondkng 1989, gredatingtheformation
of a newGovernrnentinMav of 19b0 followinethe politicachanaes in
~ungary" ;
- Hungary's curiouspresumption that, because the Nagymarosbarrage
I
was to bebuiltonHungarian territo , itsconstructiowasa matter for
r
Hungary to decidewi boutagreement,advancenotice or consultation
I
with Czechoslovakiat,he con requt!ncesto be ne@ iated aftemards.
I
Such anattitudeandcourse of conduIt ran strîctlymunter to thejoint
concepttha lay attherootof theG& Projectandwhich,paradoxically,
I
Hungarynowaccuses~zechoslovada(andSlwkia) of havingviolated
I
in proceedingwith Variant "C". It also ignoredthe fact tha the
Nagymarossection ofthe Projectcokisted offar morethanjust the step
I
Mer indicalingthaifHungary shmildactunilateral9yabandon Nagymaros this wouldbein
violationof itsinternatibligations,forwhdamageswould beclaimedthe wenton tosay
that-asto theGaMikovo sectio-ifHungaryi, spiteoFzechoslovae kxpressedwillingksto
enter intoa separateagreementon technicaloperatioriand ecoIogicaguarantees,should
neverthelessfato fulfiits obligatithereand continyeunilateralioviolale thTreatyby
suspendingthe ivorkat Durrakiliti, Czechoslovakiaworrfdtovprocd to We provisional
tnmsures Sec ex1ofNoieVeibaIeof30Qctokr 1988atAnnex76, SlovakMernoriai.
I
Inan atternptoffer"rnorajusilfica foiotn"ialationsof ihe Treaty, Hrus sriughtrefuge
in tlfactihatshangeofregimehad occurredButitmustlbenotedthainthiscas lwasthesame
Governmen teadedbvthesamePrime MiaisteIMr.Németh) a,ndthwrne Parliamenw,hichhad
speededupthe ProjectiFebruary1989thatthenactedto suspentheworksatNagymaros inMay
1989andtoabandon Nagyrnaro nOctober1989. to be constmcîed on Hungarian temtory, for Czechoslovakia was
responsibleunderthe Treaty foa substaritpart oftheworkunderthe
Nagymaros section";
- The good faith effortsof CzechosIovaki ao compromise in ordertu
avoidthe scuttlingof theG/N Project,andits confidencethatifthe
wereallowedforscientificstudiesthebasicstnictureoftheG/N Project
wouldbe maintaine.;
- The willingnessof CzechosIovakia to give ecologicalconsiderations
priorityover economicinterests,intalia,initspledgeevento exclude
peak modeoperationifjustified.
7.39 There is norecord of anyofficia1Hungariarespunsetu the 30Octuber
Note Verbale from Czechoslovakia:evidenty, HungaSs unilateralact of abandonhg
Nagymaros was regarded by itas its answer. Hungary proceededtu abandon Nagymaros,
terminatintghecontractsforitsconstmction,withoutany attempttu explorethe compromise
proposalofferedby Czechoslovakiaa;ndon 30 November,Hungarytabled a proposalthatthe
1977 Treatybe amendedto reflectthe fait accompli -the abandonmeno tf the Nagymaros
sectionof theProjectbyHungary.
7.40 Thisabandonmenw t as effectivebeforany joint studyinto thaileged
risks-!etalone a full-scaleEIAthatHungarynow talks about- could everhavebegun. It
occurred some four montfisbefore the ontside strrdthatHungary wmmissioned to be
undertaken by BechfeI had beencompIeted, even though the Nagyrnaros section was a
principalsubject ofthat study. Meritsactionto abandon Nagymaros on 27 Octuber 1989
(andfhe cancellationofal1wntracts for constmction woat NagymarosinNovernber 19891,
the HungarianGovernent never againaIIowedthe questioof resurngtiuof workthere tu be
considered.No joinstudieswere proposed as tu NagymarosbyHungary, andit neveritself
undertookany such studiesother than the Bechtelstudy, whose resultitdidnot waitfor
beforetakingdefinitivaction-anactionthatsubsequentl y asnot supportable nthebasisof
II
Sac.ua. 7.0above,andIlluNo.R-3,appeanngatthefrontofthis Chapter.the Bechtelstudy. TheissueofNagymaroswas a closid bookforHungaiy,one itnever
allowedtobe reopened.
SECTIO N. ConclusionsintheLi~htoftheA~nIicabILaw
I
7.41 ~tovakihasrhown inChapteIV abovethathelawgovtmingthevalidity
of HungMs suspension,bandoment andpqoried teminationofthe1977TreatyistheIawof
I
treati andha dernonstmtdinChapte r,intealiathathes ection9takenbyHungq arenot
justzedunderthatbodyofthe law. The prsent Chaphmr examinedindetailabovethfacts
relevantoanswe& thetwoquestionsputtotheCourtconhg theNagymaro sectionothe
G/N ProjectinAnicleZ(l)oftheSgecîai greement: hetieinL989,Hungarywasentitle:i)
tasusuendwork ontheNagymaros sectionotheProject, d(iis)bsequentyoabandon work
onthatsection. InthepresentSection,Slovdrawsleg conclusionsiom thosfactsonthe
basisoftheapplicabeawandsubrnitswhaitbelievesbe3theanswertheCourt shouldgivto
thesetwoquestions.
7.42 The fulowingpointshaveanimportantbeariupon thestwo questions.
I
m, theNagymaros sectiowasanessentiaielementof theintegaGCN Project,wkicwas
I
comprisaloftwo &ions, theotherbeiriGaEikuvo;theNagymarossectioninvoivednot ors@
wurkbyHungay inçonstnict ingNamarus stepbutalsa wbmtiaI amountoffloodcontrof
I
workbyCzechoslovakiaunih own thl~~'~. SmndI theNagymwos mion was nmrsry for
thepeak modeoperatiooftheGabtkovo hydroeldc plan/;butequallyitwaan essentil art
of theProject'snavigationandfloodoontrolschemesand dw tohaveproduce non-peak
power. Third,HungaryconcedesinitpIeadingshat,fiomitstandpoin,heG/NProject asa
wholewas notjustifiwithouttheNagymaros Thusthe suspensionandsubsquent
abandonmen otfNagymarosigniicantaffecttheProjeca a?whole.
'' See, ar7.02ndnIw.NoR-3,above.
73
SIovaCkounter-Mernoai,r5.IO. A. Runnarv'sSus~ensionof Nawmaros Constituteda Breachofthe 1977
7.43 Hunws decisionon 13 May 1989 to suspendthe works on the
Nagymaros sectionofthG/N Projectwnstitutedabreachofthe 1977 Treaty.Thereisnodispute
that theTreatywas in fuiforceand effecat that time(aswerethe relatai and associated
agreement shat,interalihadmodifiedthet*metabIforiîsimplernentationk
7.44 Itdl be rded th the1977Treaty andits associatedagreements-in
particulathe1979JointStatuteAgreement -establishjointcooperafivrnechanisrnsurongoing
communication andcomaItationin theirnplementatiand operationof the ~rojtxt'~The 1977
Treatyalsocontainedaspecificprovisio, rtic27,fortheçettlemenotfdisputes.
7.45 The Treatyand relatedagreementsincludedno provisionfor unilateral
suspensionof itsperformance a,ndCzechoslovaki at no timeweed to any suchsuspension.
Hungq's decision was entirelundaterd and was taken &hout infodg Czechoslovakia in
advance,letdone &er c0mIfation ornegotiatiûn.Evenhadthere.beensomeprior indicat of on
Hungqrs dissatisfactio~ith the Projecthiswould not haveexcuse Hdungary'sreach ofthe
l Treatyinsuspendingthework at ~agyrnaros~ '
7.46 As the 1969ViennaConvention on theLaw ofTmties makesclear,the
suspensionoftheperformanc efa treatyobligatiisjustifieonlywiththe consentofthe other
party(Articl57) orbyreason ofapriorbreachby thatotherparty(Articl60).Neithercondition
was fulfil inlhdicase. Hungary' siilurto providepriornotificatito Czechoslovakiaofits
planstu suspendwurkonNagymaros, and tu cunsuItwithCmhoslovakiaconcerningthose plans,
violatedtheTreaty'sprovisioforjointcooperatioasweIIasArticl27 ofthe 1977Treaty.
74 SeediscussiinSlovaMernorialara6.153andSlovaCounter-Mernorparas.9.05-9.09.
''
intentitocommitthebreachAwarenesdsoesnoconstituagreement. awareofthewrongdoer'sconcems; theninthesame breaththq tum around andclaimthatCzchoslovakia'sdemonshted
flexibilyonstitu ateuiwnce inHungary'sbreach.
7.50 Furthmore, Czechoslovakiar'ssponseto Hungarylssuspensionwas not
conhedto its protestitcontinuedto attempttoworkwith its Treatyparnieingood faithas
shown ,ntedia,by itsagreemenattthemeeting ofPrime Ministers n24May 1989to form a
joingroup ofexpertstuasse hesecoIo@d, seismi cndotheraspectsofNagymarosa ;ndby the
cooperationdisplayeattheOctober 26 meeting,where insteaof rejectiHungary's one-sided
proposalC, mhoslovakia offeradmostreasonablcornpromise'g.
7.51 In its Counter-Mernoria Hl,ungaryadvancesa new argument: that its
suspensionofwork was aresponsetoCzechoslovakia a'legebreachof Articles1and 19 ofthe
1977~reaty~'.Presumably t,isisaclah thattheaispaüionof work was a responseto apior
"materiaibreachof the 1977TreatyunderArticle60 of theViema Conventionon theLaw of
Treaties,
7.52 Thisnewargument isuntenabIfeoranumberofreasons. Lrst,thereisnot
the slighteendence ofHungary'shavingcornplaine u CzechosIovakiaofsucha breach atthe
timeof itsdecisioto suspendwork at~agymaros". Second,such a response-b-, unilaterai
suspensionofwork - was not inconformitywith treatylaw,which containssuchprocedural
safepards asrequinng(i)notificatiinwritingofthegroundsfor suspendhgthe operatioofa
treaty(iisettinfort"themeasure proposedtobetakenwith respectothe trwtyandthereasons
thereforWga,nd(iii)waitiaperiodofthreemonthsbeforecarryingoutthemure proposedg 3
19 && para.7.2ea., Me.
fa See,ara7.21.abve-The eariiestevidenceofamsalionking madebyHungaryofa breacof
ArticIcsIf and 19appeartheHungarian1992DedarationoiciaIIy indicatin~IISe for
Hurrgq'spurporfrerminationthe1977Treaty, whiwashandedtoCzechosIovakian19May
1992.
al Sec.ara s22-7.2above.
O2 ViennConventioontheLawofTreatie,rtç.5(1and67.Thesesafeguarsretkusd indetain
para10.09,a., below. 7.55 Under the standardssetout by theInternationahw Commissiun in its
Dr& Articles onSbte R~porisibiIiryhesuspension must havebeen nmsq "tu meeta grave
and imminend tangerwhichthreatensanessentialinteresofthe %teMg9 ; the danger"musthave
been a threatto[anessential]erest at theactuaitime";and the"adoptionby thatState mere
Hungmy]of conductnot in conformitywithan internationobligatiobmding it tanother State
mustdefinitelyhavebeenits onh,means ofwardimg off the extremelygravand imminent perd
which itapprehended I.otherwords, theperdmustnothave beenescapablb ev an^othermeans,
even a more costlyone, that coulbe adoptedin cornpliancewith international~bligations"~.
Furthemore, "theStateinvukingthestatofnecessityiriotandshoiiIdnotbethe solejudgoefthe
existenceofthenece- conditionsintheparticula crasewncemaY9' .
7.56 Second,insofarasHungary usacation of suspensionreiiedantheafleged
lackof adequateshidy,thecomprehensiv scientifstudiestheninthe hando f theTreatyparties
gaveno support totheneedforanysuspension onçuch abuis. Thesestudieswere,principaily,
Hungary's 1985 EIA, on the basisof whichthe Project'schedulehad been acceleratedand
overwheiming ylapprovedby the Hungarian Parliament ,ndCzechoslovakia' 1976 Bioproject,
updatedin I9%~~~.
7.57 Third, even asaccebratd by the Protucol of 6 February1989, the
Nagymarosbarrage was notscheduled togo intuoperationbefor1993 -1eaWigalmostfour years
inwhichto studyanddealwiththesupposedrisks.CIearly i,nthescircumstancesH,ungarycannot
claimthat therwasevidence thata "gravandimminenp terilexiste"atthe actuatirne"imade
itsdecisionHad Hungary notifieandconsultecl itCzechodovakiia n advanceof itdecisionit
wouldhavefound, asitdidthereafter,thatsuspensionwasnot "theonlymeansof wardmgoff1
fhedangers.
a9 htematio~Law Conirr~kion,DraftArtonIStatRespomibiIi,ari1An. 33f"SraofNmty"),
p. (){a)Y-k oftheInternatiLawlCornmissio1980Vol.IIPar2,p.34.
91 m., para.6,ap.50.
g2 See,SIovakCounter-Mernorip,ra.4.06Of course,thewerealsothemanypre-1977andpst-
1977studiesm., para4.04-4.0and 4.094.10.h, aIsothe multipreferenceat theenof
eachChapteof Vol.III,hereto.
93 Sccpara.7.2eta.,he.
- 7.58 Itisdm importanto that,asdernonstr antedSIovak Cornter-
~ernorig, Hunges Resolutionof 13May1989 wasregard&bytheHungarianGovernent as
thefirssteptowarda planndteminationof theNagymrossection ofthe G/N Project;andthe
I
studiesEaüeforinthatRemlutionreIatenottathe envkornentaleffixtofputthgNagymaros
intaoperatiobuttotheconsequenceosfitsabandonment.
7.59 Hunws Counter-Memoi alggestthat(astoNagymaros)thequestions
putto theCoun underArticleZ(l)(aoftheSpcciaAigem!ent shoddbe recastinthefm ofa
determinatio"whetheHr ungarwasreasonablienbeliwingin 1989thattherewas a substantiai
Iikdihooof majornsksanddamages ..fium theoperatiooftheNqgmaros secturespecidy in
peakpowermode'"' .
7.60 The fundamentaldefectsin law ofHungav*~"reasonabIe bdief'test
havealreadybeen demonstratedaboveintheIntroduction
. But evenwerethis thecorrect
legaltest for the suspensiand thesubsequen atbandonmen tn 27 October 1989 ofthe
works at Nagymaros and ofpeak mode operationatGaLEikovo t was reasonablcfor
Hungary tabelieveina"substantilikelihooofmajor risand damage" fromtheoperationof
theNagymarossection andfiom peakmode operation:
- I
The putting into operatiofNagyrnaros,even underthe accelerated
Project formaIagreedinFebmary 1989,was the tu fouryears off
intothe frrture;
- Czechoslovakiahadproposedpostponingthisperiodbyanadditions115
I
months;
l
- Thèrewere no new data or studiestoindic- any risks notalnady
taken into account; but in any event, the deIay proposed by
94
SIova kounfer-Mernorairas5.09-5.13.
95 HungariaCorrnter-Memori,ara. 1.47,
9s SB paras1.34-1.above. Czechoslovakiaallowed more than enoughtimefor therisksdairnedby
Hungq tube studiedand dealtwith, indudinganew EIA ifdeemed
necessary;
Finallyasto peak mode operation,Czechoslovakiaproposedthat both
partie"pledgeto lit orexcludepeak operation"ifso indicatedbythe
studiesintopossibleenvironmentealfd ;thus,anyquestions asto the
impactsofpeak mode operatioareacademic
GeneraIPrinciaIs of Environmental Law: If Ati~IicabIe,Hun~arv's
! 7.61 Slovakiahasshown above thatthelawfulnesofHungaq'sconductfds to
bejudgedby thetem ofthe1977Treaty and thatitsuspensioof Nagymaro was inviolationof
theTreaty.But evenif,as Hungaryargues,thegeneralprincipleof internationelnvironmental
law arerelevanin thisdisput- eitherto interprthe 1977Treat yr as the governinglaw-
Hungary'sconductviuIatedthoseprinciplewel.
t 7.62 As dernonstrateinChapterDi above, Hungary's unilateraiactioin
suspendingworkon Nagymaros was mntrq tu theprincipleofpn#rnotifidon andcomItation
concerningplannedrneasuresthat mightcausesignificanharm tu otherwatercoursestates9'.
Thoseprinciplewsouldapplytoanychangeinthe stahiauo,andby 1989 the Treatypartieshad
suficientlyimplementetheTreatyProjectthatirepresentedthestatuauo. Further, ungaq's
failurto discussitsplansto suspend Nagymaros Golatedthe principlesofconsultati annd
negotiationconcerniplannedmeasures. Theseprocedureosf priornotificationc,onsultandon
negotiatioare fundamentalto the cooperationthat is essential betweenStates sharingan
internationwatercours? .
97
Sec .ara.7. 2g,q.ahve.
Sce,para.3.45,a., above.
Iig &b. priornoticeand withoutany sortofnegotiatio(exceptasto how toobtain Czechoslovakia's
acceptanceto anamendmen tftheTreaty)-and wu definitive.Theonly questihatHungary
was willigtu dias thereaftwas how toget CzechoçIovailta agreeo theabandonment of
Nagymaros. Mureuver,as inthecase ofwspemion, Hungary'sMure tu observetheTMs
mechanismf sorjoint cuoperatioas WU as itsfiduretu giveph notice or tuengage in
negotiationsc,onstituinthernselvsiolatiosfArticl27 oftheTreaty.
7.66 Theevidence clearl&Hshes that Hungarhas no validdefencebd
eitheronCzechoslovakia 'legedagreemenot racquiescence.AtthemeetingofPrimeMinisters
on 11October 1989,Hunm proposed thaagreementbereachedonabandoninb gothpeak mode
operationandthe Nagyrnarosworks- At theirnextmeeting on 26 Octaber,theCzechoslovak
PrimeMiniçterformallrespondd bypurtingforwardanaltemativpropod103 :toslowdom the
Nagymaros works by 15rnonthstu&w firrthertimeforaIIegedprobIemsconcemingpeakmode
operatioto bestudiedanddealtwith-pledgingtoabandonormodi peakoperation ifcalid for
by thesstudies.Buthe refuseto agreto theabandonmeno tfNagymaros,whichofcoursewas
essentidtothe utheraimsoftheTreatyforwhichNwarus hadben designedquiteaside&om
peak modeoperation. Therder, CzechoslovakiapïositionremainedcIea-that theenrirGi'N
ProjeetundertheTreatywastube maintàined'04.
AllegedPior BreachbyCzechoslovakia: No Defence
l
7.67 What hasben saidaboveunderthe sameheadingin relatito suspension
is su6cientudisposeofany daim thatNagparos' abandonment wasjustifiecibeauof deged
priorbreachoefCzechoslovakiaS. uca claimofbreacwas nevermade atthethe byHungary.
I
7.68 The ody relevaneventherethattookplacebetweenthe the ofHungary's
suspensionof Nagymaros(13 May 1989)and its abandonmenof the work(27 Uctober 1989)
relatessoIeItoHungasJssuspension ofthe G&ikovo works atDunakiIitiinJuly 1989. For
followingthat act,inAugus1989,Czechoslovakifairstmentionethepossiblend to examine
'O3
FonnaIlyconfimedbytheCzechoslovNoteVerba Ji30ûctober1989.k, para.7.291 m.,
ahve.
IM
See,cg.SIovak€buter-Mernoripara s..0-5.25,5.50-5and5.77 - 188-
alternatitechnicdsotutionsafprovisionnature.Asidefiomthetac taithismurrd over
I
two yearsheforCmhoslovakia proceedewith the "provisiosllution"05Czechoslovakiats
comment had onlytodo withputtingthOabEikov sectionintooperatiot hadnothingtodo
withtheNagymaros section.
"EtologicaShteofNec~sitv":~odAnriIicabIin FactorinLaw
l
7.69 nie discussionaboveunderthishkg inrelatioto suspensionis
applicabla,fortiotoHunga@ docisiotoabandonN&aros. Indeed ,heevidenceiseven
I
sirongea@st Hungary' esnfitlemt abando n aparos onthesegraundseveriif,arpendo,
a statofnecessityconstimtedIegaIgroundsforthisunilateraifHungary.
7.70 As withsuspensioH,ungaryallegedhelack ofstud~and data,notthe
existencofan"extremelgyravandimminen pteri,sthereasonforitsaction.Thatthewasno
"imminentp&I" wassho~ interdia, bythefkt thinthefac efC~hosIovakials demandstu
know whatnewunstudiedriskshadgivenrisetuHurrgary'suddensuspension, ungaryrequired
44 daystu put together twoscientificpaperswere a mererrihash of aireadybown and
carefullyexaminerisksHungary produceciothinat dldw inthewayof my aiiegeris]or
peri1'06Atthescientifdixussionbetweentheexperton '7-19July1989, was oleathatthe
issuebetweenthemwas notovertheexistencofsomeaIIegd"imminenp td" but overwhether
adquate studies had been condudedinto potdial dks deged to exist by Hungary.
C~chosIovakia"sscientiexpertsmade dear theirview at wch mattershad &&y been
carefulstudied.
7.71 AtthefirstmeetingofPrimeMnistersthat fu1IoHungary'ssuspension
I
(24 May 1989),Czecfioslovakhad mmmiîîed itsefftu egablisaijoint grouofexpertstu
asess ecologid, seismicandothaspectof~agynaros'~'. But&r the 17-19hly meetingof
expertswherethedifferencthatemergedbetweenthe particswasoverwhethertherhad been
l
adequatestudiesand data,the HungarianGovernmend ti not act tolift its suspensionof
Nagymaros and proposetopro& withsuchsttrdiwhik rhe workat Nagymaruscontinud -
- l
105 SI, para.9I.beIow.
Sec .lovakCounter-Mernoalra.5.14m.î
107
btd.para.5.15. duringthe threw more years&fore Nagymarosbecameoperatiomi. Tothecotitrary,Hungary
informed CzechosIovabathe foIlowingday(20Julyt) hai ithad extendedthe suspensiona$
Nagymaros to 31October 1989'0.
7.72 While inhis letteof 4 ûctober 1989 Hunga@s PrimeMinisterstill
complained oftheiackofsubstantivechnicadliscussion,tthemeetin ogPrime Ministersn 11
Octaberhe fumaIIypropod theabandoment ofbothpeakmode operationand the entire
Nagymaros sectiooftheProject(withoiitwaitinfurtheresulioftheBechtd study,which had
been commissioned by Hungary in Jdy 1989). As hasbem d&bd indetaiI&oveLgg,
Czechos1uvaki;iosfficialrespoat the nextmeetingofPrimMinisteron 26 October(conhned
fomdly by Note Vehde on 30 October}was a significastepforwardstowards compru~ni~~
whichoughtto haveledtoHungary' lsftioftheNagymaros suspension. heallegedriskmuld
havebeenstudiedovertheIengthyperiodbeforeanyriskcouldeventheoreticalyavearisen(th&
is, once Nagymarobecarne operational)a periodCzechoslovakiaofferedon 26 October to
prolongby anadditional5 months. AndCzechoslovakie avenplednedto abandonpeak mode
operation- wEch was the sourcof Hungws supposed ecologicaworries- if thstudiesso
indicated.
7.73 Itwas inthe lightof thesefactsthat Hungarsefinîtiveabandonmenof
NagynarosbyRemlutionof 27Octaber istobeconsidered. In November 1989, withoutpriur
notictoitsTreatypartneH, ungarterminateal1contractsortheNagymaros works. ThereaRer,
Hungarymade itclearthattheresumptio nfNagyrnaro sas neithea possibiitnoran issufor
l discussion. heabandonmen tfNagymarow sasaclosed book sofarasHungary wasmncemed.
7.74 Thus,notonlywas thereno threatoan essentil ungarianintere"atthe
actcttrne"thatHungarydecidedtu abandonNagjfmaros,but dso CmhosIovakialsproposaistu
studyNagymarusa ,nd itpiedgetu modî or evenabandonpeakmode operationijustzed by
such studies,demonsiratloncIusÎveIthattherequirementthat "thper4mustnot havebeen
escapabIbyanyothermeans" was notsatisfiI'.
log Hunga~ywilhheldfrom Czechoslovathefact that t13 May Resolutionsuspendingwoat
Nagymaroswas in fact fan unlirnitedperiand, therefortherwas no questionofany
"extensioofsuspensio. , SlovaCounter-Memona lara5.09,açeo.
'O9 Seepara.7.29,M., above.
i
110 & para.7.55.above.
t &neml Princi~lesof EnvironmentalLaw: If A~wIiraMe,Huneam's
Violritions
7-75 AsinthecasoefibsuspensionfNagymaros *ungary'wsnductinrelation
tuitabandonmen tfN~OS vidatedanumberafprinci$eofinternationalvironmentalw
1 men if,peuendqthisbodyoflaw wasinanyuay applicab$.Thus,ashasbeenderno-Vd in
sub-sectiAn above,Hungary'usnilatel ecisito abahdon Nsgymaroswas take nithout
informinorconsultiwithCzechoslovakiiaadvance.ThisMure wasinutterdisregarofthe
principlof pior notificatandconsultatiomncemuid plannedmeaniresthatmighttaus
significtarrtootherwatercoursStates.
7.76 It habeendernomrad thatHungary'unilatmadecisioof 27 October
1989toabando tne~a~~rnios sectooftheG/NProjectcdnstitutabreachofthe1977 Tre.
andthaHungarh yasnovaliddefensetojustifybreach.As breachwaspivotalsincwiththe
abandonmen tf Nagymaras,heG/N Projecce& tohavdany raisod'êtrforHungary.The
abandonmen ofNagymarow s asthua majorsteptowardlkungary'abandonmenotf thentire
G/NProject.
7.77 Amrdingly,theqw~tionputto thedourt in ArtiZfKa) of theSpecial
l
Agreemen ~,tuwhether"Hungarywasentitledt..subsequentabandon,in1989theworks on
theNagymarosProjectmustbe answerdinthenegative.CRAPTERVIII. ARmCLE2{1I(ahWHETHERHUNGARYWASEmED,M
1989. TU SUSPEND AND SUBSEOUENTLY ABANDON THE
WOaKS ON THE PART OF THE GAB~~KOVOSECTION OF
THE PROjECT FOR WHICH THE TREATY ATïRIBUTED
RESPONSIBILJTY TO HUNGARY
8.01 TheResolutionoftheHungarian Governmentof20 July1989initiated
thesuspensionbyHungary ofworks at Gabtikovo. Czechoslovaki aas informedof this
actionfollowina meetingofPrimeMinisters.Thiwas asmuch a surprito Czechoslovakia
asHungary's13MaydecisionconcerningNagymaros hadken; andan evengreatershock.
8.02 Inthis regard,the pre-198b9ackground deaIt with in the previous
Chapter,together with the events in 1989preceding this action, are Iargelyretovant
Hungary' s0 JuIydecisionconcemingGbEikovoand tothequestionwhetherHungq was
entitletususpendandthentu abandonits paof the workaiGabCikovo.
8.03 The key point brought out below concerns Hungarytsessential
acceptanc n 1989thattherisksitperceivtobe involveinregardtuthe GabCikovosection
of the Project(and thevidencein relationthereto)did not then requiremore than an
agreementonecologicalandtechnicalguaranteinorderfowork toberesurned. AsSection
1 demonstrates,Hungary'sofficiaposition with regard to the variorisk it alleged
concerningwaterquality,theenvironmetndseismicconditions,wasthefollowing:
- Hungarywas prepared(andit agreed)promptltoresumethedarnming
of the Danube if Czechoslovakiaenteredinto an agreement on
ecoIogicaandtechnicalguaranteeand
- Hungaryconsideredthat the new studiesihadin hand in September
1989were inadesuate tuguide the Treaty partiesincoping with the
aIIegedrisksinproceedingwith the Project; rherefore,Hungary insisted
that- coupledwith the agreementon guarantee-jointstudies(with
possibleoutside scientificparticipation)sbeuundertakenby the
parties,whiletheworkproceededaGabCikovo. -192 -
Whatappears from Sections1and 2belowis that,afterCzechoslovakiaad fartnalaccepted
theconceptof an agreementon environmenta lnd tec calguarantees, ungaty ahandoned
"i
the GabCikovo sectionbefure evenafternptingtu negutiatesuch parantees, and before
embarkingon joint studies.
8-04 Itisusehl beforeexsminingHrrngary'ssuspensionofworks for whichit
was respunsibleatGabEikovo (Section 1)and itssubsequentabandoment of such works
I
(Section21, to setout the same questionsposed in ChapterVII above in considering
1
Nagyrnaros,makingrrpa sortofprimafacietesagainstwhichto consideHungary's actions:
- What reasonsdidHungary giveatthktirne?
- CouldHungary thenhavebelievedtdesereasons?
- Whatwastheirimrnediacy?
- Did Hungarydisclose at the tirnéevidence to its Treaty pmner
reasonablysrrbstantiatreaçons?
-
Didsuch evidencecontainanynewfkI?
SECTION 1. Hunearv'sSuspension ofWork on120 Julv1989
8.05 No advancenoticewasgiven by ~uh~ary norwas any attemptmade to
consuit with Czechoslovakibeforethe Hungarian Gove!mnent,by its 20 JulyResolufion,
orderedwork atDunakilito be suspendeduntil31 OctobL 1989 (effectivelypostponingthe
darnmingof theDanube fora year,withtheconsequentialffectsthisactiohadon theagreed
SCheduleforthe entireGabEikovosectionofthe ~roject')Czechoslovakia' shock overthis
LI
1 l
&, SI& Memariaipara.4.01,ndSIovaCkaunter-Me~ori, ar5.18th.751,regardinthe
mw "window"offimeauring onlyonceeachy= aropdrheendofOctokraiy Novemkr,
ivhenhydroIogi coaitionsaIIotthedamnringoperatiototakplace.5s dso, para..30,
klow. - 193 -
I
decisionis easilyunderstandable2 U.nlikeNagymaros,work on the GabEikovo sectionwas
nearingcompletion3;andthe jointly agreed operatingplan called for the damrning of the
l
Danubein Iate Octuber of 1989, whichwas to betheinitialstep inthe filIingof the reservoir
I
andbypss canal and thetesting ofthe works at theGablSrIrovsotep. Yet, IikeNagymxus,
I
l becauseof the location oftheDunakilitiweirun Hungarianterritory,with the damming side
locatedonthecomrnor neachoftheriver(andwith theboundaryrunningdong thenavigation
line),thedamming operationfortheGabEikovo sectionwas underHungary's physicalcontrol
and,hence,it wasin a positionto imposeitswill (or inother ternis, it"veto")on itsTreaty
8.06 The immediate,vehementseriesof protestsmadebythe Czechoslovak
Governmentagainstthe Dunakiliti suspension have already been discussed in detail by
slovakia5. Incontrastto Hungary' sctionsconcemingN ' agymaros,whichneverbecamethe
subjectof negotiations, Hungary's20 Julysuspensionof Dunakiliti did lead to negotiations
between the parties inSeptember and Octuber 1989, the detaiIsof which(and theidiemath)
have a directbearîng on the answers to the two questions put tu the Court under Article
2(l)(a) oftheSpecialAgreementinrelationto theGabEikovo section.
8.07 It will be recalled that two alternativeproposals were madeby
Hunga~'~Prime Minister atthe20July meeting6, whichraisedthe questions of haw bng the
suspension atGababEikow valstu lastand under what conditions work rnight be resumed.
The20JuIy Resolutioand themeetingof PrimeMinistethesarne&y arefulIdyiscussatparas.
5.18-5.23oftheSlovakCounter-Mernorial.zechoslovaki'srprisewasalthegreaterbecause,t
rhe Plenipoteatiafevelprioasmces hadbeengiven by Hungary that the 1May decision
concernedonIyNawaros and thaanextensionofthedecisiafasuspendtheGaMikovosxtor was
not king contcmplated.
3 SIova MkemoriaII,Ils a31,referretual para3.27.The situationonthegroirisdepicted
in ULusN.o. CM-IA,appeahg at theendof ChaplerIVof theSIovakCounter-Mernorial.Nolto
completethi sarof theProjectwoulhave lefon Czechoslovaterritoayhugedevastedareaas
wellasuseIessworkforwhichno returncouldeverbeforeçeen.
l 4 Hungaryr 'emarkabI yifferentperspectiveofgravityof itsacton 20 Juiyisreflectedithe
commnt in theHungarian Mernoria(para9.31)that"thissuspensiowas ofa minor character
Immpared toNagvmarosj,sincetheDnnakiIiti weir ifwasfessentiaIcumpIe~e"- a radon
hckîng anyIogic.
5 SIovakMernoriai,aras..36and4.38.
6 SlavakCounter-Mernoriap,ra.5.19andSIovakMernorial, aras.4.35-4.39.However,neitheraltentativeproposedby Hungaryon 20 iuiy contemplatedthat the danunhg
I
operationatDunakiIw itildtak e laceinaccordancewiththeagreedTreaty schedule7.
l
8.08 The Hungarian Counter-Mernoric alntendsthatHungaq's action ts
suspendtheProjectwereanexercisedits ri@ toinsison a "fu lndconrct impIernentskntt
of Articles15 and 19of the 1977 Treaty;and fhat theywerea responsetowrongfirl acts
previouslycornmittedby CzechosIova kthat is,tuCzechoslovakiatssupposed breachof
1
these hiclesS. But,justas inthecase of Nagyrnarostherewas noclaim byHungary at the
time ofsuch breach.AlthoughHungary'a sctionswerez'lously defended inthe self-serving
Hungarian Verbale of 1 Septernber1989(hm whi!h Hungary'a Memonal extensively
I
quote?), this madeno mention at al1of Article15 and 19 of the Treaty, Ieaione
suggestedtheir breachby~zechoslovakia'~.
8.09 This Note of 1 September is of particularsignificancebecause it
explainedthattheperiodof suspensionannouncedbyHungary was forthepurposeof allowing
1
"furtherinvestigatioofthe ecologtcariskentailedbythe projecttotake placerrrgingthat:
"...this periodsuspens itnheIaspossibilityfathetwo [Treaty pmies] tu
confiont thoroughIyandfor al1times the joint wwwith the requirementof
environmentaplrotectionandtothisendto weigh & al1the circumstancvery
carefull.
8.10 Inothw words, whateverstudics fiungaryhad mailable to itat the
beginningof September 1989werenot regarde bdthe HungarianGovernent asan adequats
I
basisfur reachinajoint decisionatowhenandhow tuproceeùwith work on the GabEikovo
( 1
section;moreresearch was requirein Hungary'sview -andthiswas intendedbyHungary to
7 Noi mrprisingCshosIovakia'sresponstothes propo~b inits Prime MinistIakr of31
A~rguwtasgenerainegativek, SIova kenloria, ara.4.38.
I
8 secparas7.21-7.2above.
9 Hungarian ernoria, o4,Annex24;andparas3.88and9.31.
10 RatheritwasCzechoslwakia's entiod a pmriblprdisioiuaiternatjvc(if Hungdid not
remme workontheGabOikovsoection<hcProjeci)Iat+ctedha& cri~ciis nHungarykNa
of 1SeptemkrThe Na dalcIaimedCzcchoslovakisqtfiexenceiHungary'20Jdy d~isio-
inspit ef CzechosIovakirepeateddenidsand protep; and itaoçoçedthe CzechosIovak
Governmenorrefusintonegotia-atatirnewhenegotiatiowerjus $burtosm. - FA, an agreementto abandonFagymaros as well as peak mode
operation;
- Second. anagreement incurporating cornplexenvironmental,water
qiialiand techriicdguarantees;
I
- Third,ifCzechoslovakiaadopted the "suggestion"setout earlieinthe
I
proposal: "HurigarywouIdcontinuetu preparefor the closureof the
Danube, and would actuaIIyclose it after the conclusionof the
agreemen t"
However,Pime Minister Németh added(according to théHungarian Mernorialt)hat"inthe
absence of agreement"the Hungariansuspensionof al1 constructionwould "lastuntil
environmentar lequirements eremet".
8.14 At the next meeting of Prime Ministersun 26 Octuber 1989, the
CzechoslovakPrimeMinisterofficidlyresponded tothe 11Octoberproposal ofHungary with
a most reasonablealternativproposal,which was formaIIycvnfimed by the CzechosIovak
Governmenr initNote Verbaleof 30 Octuber 198914.
8.15 Hungaryrnakesno clairn thaits propozaI was rnereIya negotiating
I
tacticairnedatinducingCzechoslovakia to agreetu the abandonmen otfNagymaros. It is,
therefore,necessarto takea closelookat theimplicationof thiHungarian proposal,and of
Czechoslovskiatsresponse. Hungaryts proposalmustalsc!be interpretedin the light ofthe
subsequentHungarian Resolutionof 27OctoberandNote Jerbaleof3 November 1989.
8.16 Hungary'usndertakingbsoth asto rehming workandto completirighe
darnming of the Danubewere confirmeciinthe Hung?rii!nGovemment's Resolutionof 27
October 1989inthefollowingterms:
"The condition for fillingthe Dunakiliti-Hrure*rvoir is the condusion of
the intergovernrnentalagreement [concemin ggarIntees]. In the event oa
14
Seepara.7.29, =.,above. Czechoslovakstatement of willingnessto concludethe inter-govermental
agreement[being]given, the preparatoryworks on the relocationof the
riverbedofthe[river]coiildbe~ntinued'~ ."
Thiscommîtmentwas again formaflyconfirmeclbyHungary'N s ote VerbaIcof 3 November
1989, insirnilarernis:
"TheprecunditiunoffillinguptheDunakiliti-HniSorv eservoiris theconclusion
of the inter-govermentaalgreement. In caseof a Czechoslovak statement of
intentionabout ...the conclusionofthe inter-guvementd agreement,the
preparatory workof theriverbeddiversionatthe reservoircanbe c~rrtinued'~
Thissecondconfirmationf ,ollowing asitdid Czechoslovakia' csounter-proposamlakingclear
that the Czechodovak Govemment didnotaccent theabandonmen tf Nagymaros,establishes
tharHungary's cornmitmentat thetirnconcerningGàbCikov o ascontingent ody on aninter-
governrnentaIagreement asto guarantees;it wasquiteseparatehm Nagymaros,astu which
Hungary hadalready acted,on 27October. Thisconfirmationah followedCzechoslovakia's
response to Hungary'sproposal, by whichit declared "itsreadinessto concludesuch an
agreement [on guarantees]in a short tirne"providedthat Hungary "startswithout delay
preparatory work un damming the Danube riverbed at ~unakiliti"'~. in spite of
Czec hoslovakia'sofficial position against the abandonment of Nagymartls, Hungary's
confirmationon 3 Novemberof its proposalto resumework at GabEikovo onthebasisof an
agreement on guarantees did not tie such resumption of work to the conditionthat
Czechoslovakia agreetu theabandonmen tfNagymaros by Treatyamendment.
8.17 Neitherside had indicated at that stageanydetails concerning the
provisions of such an agreement of guaranteeslg. ComparingHungary'sproposal as to
GabCikovo withCzechoslovakia'r sesponse,the onlydifferencseemsto havebeenoverhow
soon Hurigary wouId resume the work at Dunakilitiin preparation for thcIosure of the
Danube. But by the date of the CzechosIovakresponse (26 October), this was about tu
l5 Hungary'translatiwronglyusesthe word"reservoiwhichclearlyrnakeno senseand which
Slovakhiaareplacedwit"riveinbrackets&, HungariaMemorialA, nnex150.
16 This rext ~ ~ rthe correction majusahve in the HungariantrarrsIaofothe 27 October
Resolution.
17 SeeSlovakMemorial ,aras4.48-4.49,aAnnex 76.
-
1s Seepara.7.36(firitem)above.
- -198 -
becornea moot questionforIittIeifanytimwas leftinwhichthisoperatiocoirldbecarried
1
outinthecurrentyear,inthelightofthenarrow "windowi oftimewithin whichthedamming
couldbe carriedouttechnicall- barrinwhich the operatiocould notbe undertaken until
October1990.
8.18 Su with the passageoftimesince Hungary's suspensionofworks at
Dunakilitin 20July,anyobstacleto agreementonGabCikovo seemed tohave vanished,and
nothingof substanceappearedto standin theway of théwsumptionof work at Dunaüliti
1
based on Hungary'sproposai tonegutiateandreach agreementon a system of guârantees,
which CzechosIovakiak30 OctuberNote urgedbecompIeted bythe end ofMarch 1990".
I
Hungaryhadundertaken toproceedtocompletethe dammino gftheDanube("actuallycloseit
afterthe conclusionaf theagreement")o,ncesuchanagreementonguarantees was reached.
Itwas inthesecircumstancetshattheSeptember-Octobe r989 negotiationsover suspension
of DunakiIitintheGabEikovo sectionof theProjecameto an end.For, by Note Verbalof
30 Novernber(fcimrding thedraftofatreatytoamendthe 1977Treaty),Hungaq reveaIeda
changeof position.1
8.19 The introduîtary sectiof thedrak treaty tabledby Hungaryon 30
I
November indicated amodificationof Hungary'searlierundertakinby specifyirigthatthe
cornpIetion and operation of the GabEikovo section by Hungary was contingent on
Czechoslovakia'asgreemento amend the1977 Trûltyso d toabandon Nagymaros(yhich of
necessitentaileche abandonmen of peakmode operationatGabfikovo, aswell). In short,
the newpositiontakenby the HungailaGovernment intablingthidrafttreatycamedom to
I
this:
-
Hungary made athreat:if ~hechoslovakiadidnot, by Treaty
amendment ,cquiescein Hungary'sbreach of the 1977 Treaty by its
I
abandonmentofNagymaros and cunsequentlof peakmode operation,
19 1
The Hungariantranslatiof this document rnistakenlyindicatedate suggesteby
Czehoslova ksMaarc199 ralherthanMach1990. SeeHungarimMernoria, ol.4, An28.
- ' 11
Ba.,para3.96,etîingforfhHungasersioofthclEermadebythHungarianPrimeMiniaeat
fhemeetingof11Octah1989. I
21
&îb_.,VolAnnex30. (atGabEikovo)a ,nddid not agreetothe temination ofthispartofthe
Treaty,Hungary woufdnotcarry outitsobligationundertherest ofthe
Treaîy;
- Second,Hungary made a promise:ifthe conditionof thisthreatwere
met: fi)Hungary was "preparedto comp1eteand operatetherernaining
installations";nd (ii) iCzechosIovakia "rnanifestsits intentiotu
conclude an ecoIogicaI-guar aaretment", then Hungay '"will
irnmediatel yroceedwith thepreparatoryoperationsfor theDunakiIiti
bed-de~antin~" ;~~
- Third,Hungaryproposed to substitutea new disputes settlement
provision(presumably toreplaceArticle27 ofthe Treaty). Underthis
provision,a two-ticrprocedure of disputessetthent was envisaged
(subjecttu timeIimits),with uItimatsettlement tobe bycompuIsory
arbitrationrby the InternationCourtof Justice.To these procedures
Hungaryproposedadding aspecialprovision:
"Withoutprejudiceto [theaboveprocedurap lrovisionsand subjecttoparallel
informingthe otheContractingParty,inthe caseof significatangerdirectly
threateninthenaturalenvironment ,he ContractinPartiesshallhavetheright
tutake[any] urgentmeasuresnecessary tuavertdanger even without having
recourseto[theprocedures set furth above]. Thejustifiedexpensesresulting
fromthesemeasuresshaIIbeborne by thetwo Statesinan equd proportion."
Thiswas anobvious attemptto ratifa procedurethat wascontrary to the 1977 Treaty and
was a formal acknowledgment by Hungaryof the unlawfulnessof itsunilateralactsof
suspensionand,inthe caseofNagymaros, abandonment.
8.20 Hrrngary's30 Novernbwproposa1ignored compIeteI y Czechoslovakiats
counter-proposalconcerningNagyrnaros presented on 26 October and confirmedby Note
VerbaIeon 30 October;and it modifiedHungary'searIieproposais for it soughtoIinkthe
22
Dib _r.sumablt, eoperatiof "Mdecanting"astheHungariatranslatreads,referrtothe
operatiofdarnmingtheDanubeanddivertingpartoftheflowof thtothebypascanal.carryirtout of Hungary'sotherobligationsunderthe TreatyconcerningGabCikuvu tu a
I
requirementthatCzechoslovakiaagreetu abandonNagymms andpeakmode operationby
Treatyamendment.
8.21 By the tirneit rcceivedHungarys roposalforamendingthe Ti*,
however,Czechoslovakia was in thethroesof its"Vel?etRevolution",and therewas no
possibiliof dealingwiththe 30 Novemberproposal prirnptlyu, A new Governent was
installin Pragueon 10December1989, anda President aseIe~teon 29 ~ecembe?.
SECTION 2. Hunvarv'sAbandonment of ~ord onthe GabEikovo Section ofthe
Proiect
8.22 TherelevanteventsthattookplaceiRthesix-monthperiod&er the end
of 1989havebeencoveredindetailinSlovakia'searlierpleadings2. hesuspensionof work,
whichinitiallyaffectedonlyDunakili,as extendedtoai1constructiowork byHungaryon
the GabCikovosection and then,de facto, developedk the totalabandoment ofthe
GabEikovo worksbyHungary,cuIminating in the terminatiby Hungàry ofaIIcontractsfur
I
works at GabEikovobythe end ofJune 1990. Ailof these additionalactiowere taken
I
withoutnoticetoor consultationwithCzechoslovakandcertaidywithoutitsagreement.
8.23 As to the negotiatingstancofthe Treatyparties,in his letter10
January 1990 toCzechoslovakia'sewPrime~iniste?, Prime Minist Ner rnetannounceci
anothershifiinHungarytsosition(anastonishinonenotIéastbecausehehad been Hungary's
PrimeMinisterthroughout1989). Heproposedthe following:
-
Thai "we nut holdnegotiationstoIkrdsthe amendment of the rI977
Treaty]"asiniriatby Hungaq's30 NovemberNofe Verbale;
l
23
Sec .lovakCounter-Memorilara5.42,andf72,thereto.
24
InHwigaryt,heNérnethwernmen tasna1replasbyadlu~ti- ~overnentuntiMay 19%.
25 1
Sec .lovakCarrnter-Mernorp.ra.5.43, a., andthe cross referetheretotheSlovak
Mernoriai.
26
HungarîanMemarial, o4,Amex 32. - Butinstead,thatjoint scientifstudies(with outsideassistanceexamine
the "cornplexecologicalefFects"of thevarious partsof the GabCikovo
section "dong with the assessrnentof the present environmerital
situationandtherecordingthereoft;and
- That the commencemeno tf the operationof the reservoir(in other
wordsthe damming of theDanube)and of the GabZikovth,ydroelectric
plantbedependeno tnthe resultsofthe* studies.
8.24 This was a totalrenunciationby Hungary of its proposalsofOctober
1989, even asmodifiedon 30 Novernber.Reduced to itsessentials,Mr. Nemeth's10 Januaq
Ietterputthe 1977Treafy "on huIdn" - insofaras it had not alreadybeen abandoned - its
resurnptionto depend on the agreementof theTreaty partiestu the resultof joint scientiftc
studiesyet to be started. Therewas no furthermention ofresumingwork on the bais of a
guaranteesagreement.However, M. Nemeth said thathe thoughtthese studies couldbe
completedby thefirsthalfof the yearandthat,then, the commencementof negotiationsto
modifythe Treaty wuId begin. He saidnot a word about when resnmption of workon the
GabEikovo sectionofthe Project mighresume, a matterthen under Hungary'sphysicalcontrol
nearDunakiliti.
8.25 WhenCzechoslovakia'n sew Prime Ministerrespondedby welcoming
the "immediaterenewaIof the biIateraInegotiations"Ieadingtuthe "putting into operatioof
the GabEikovoBarrageduring the year 1991 "29, Prime Minister Némethrespondedby
abruptlyshuttingthe door to negotiationinhisletterof 6 March 1990~';and hisview of the
'' The perernptoyharacieofthsdecisionandHungaryZastterntorevelt thestaningpint ofits
discussionswith CzerhosIovarrevededin the=pafdgraphofihe1OJanrtarIetter:
"1 wrirrIikeIo infm youhi theHungarian parSshdI suspendconçtnrctionwork durîthiç
pwid and shdl cldy preçerthe existin'statquo'. 1wouId rmmmend ~e attentioofthe
Czfxho~lovaGovernmenttothesame.
Ourrecommendatio sfoundedupontheinitiativwemade between20Juiyand30 November 1989.
Thus,1would,forexample,remindyou thaton 20July, the HungariGovenunent in one of its
propoçalsuggestethesuspensioofconstructnoorkforapend of3-5yearçandthajointstudies
semeasthebais ofourdecisio".
28 SIovakMernoriaAimex80 {letter15Feb. 1990).Thisnmmrily presiimedthedammingofthe
DanubeduringIakOctakr-eari Novemkr 1990.
29 HungarianMernorial,ol.4Annex 35.possibilitof resurnptioncf work at GabEikovo was ieflected in his statementthat the
1
"handlingof thisissueincludes..the settlemenofthe fkteof a giganticinvestmentfiascoqt.
~ith'inthreemonths,Hungary had terrninateitscontractIorworks at~ab~ikovo~ .' Andby
Resolution on 20 Deocmber 1990, the Hunguîan ~Iemment formdly abandonedthe
GabCikuvs oectionof the ~roject~'Thus,nothingwas Iefiof the GIN Projecfirterms of a
"jointinvestment"anda "welI-bdance dystern".
8.26 Returningto the questionsput to theCourtin Article2(l)(a) of the .
SpecialAgrment, Hungaryclearly was not entitleto handon works onGabBkovo,even
jtidged byitown standards.Hungary haddecIaredin itsote of 1 September 1989 that no
funher stepsought tube takenwithout furthejoinsttudy: andyet itactionto abandon was
r
takenpreciselywithoutsuchstudies. Furthemore,Mr.Németh'ls etteof 6March 1990 - by
which further ncgotiationwas abniptlyhaltedandwhich !epresenteda definitivestep ithe
I
abandonmentof the works - was sent shortlyafieHungary'sreceipt of the Bechtel report.
This new and independentsfudy -cornmissionedin the same manth as Hungaq suspended
works at DunakiTit- in no sense gave scientifsupport for a decisionto abandon the
GabEikovo sectionof theProjec(or,indeed,theNagyma!ossection)". Hungaiyhadsought
funher investigationsof the ecologicalrisks,and thesLad been camed out byBechteII
indicatingthat such riskswere natbar toproceedingwith the Project. Hungaryhad sought
I
ecologicalgarantees, andCzechosIovakiahad agreedto thisproposal. Therewas nobasisfor
Hungarytsdecision toabandon GabEikovo.
SECMON 3. Condusions in theLiehtof the plica cabhwle
l
8.27 The presentChapter has examined iddetailabove the facts relevato
1
answenngthe twoquestionsputto theCourtconcerningtheWikovo sectionoftheG/NProject
inArticle2(l)(a) otheSpeciaAgreement : hether,i1989,Hungary wasentitled(i)to suspend
workon the GaEikovo sectionof the Project,an(5)subquently to abandon work on th
I
section. Inthe presentSection,SIovakdraws IegaIcondusionsfrom thosefacton the basiof
'O
&ee,SlovaCauotcr-Mernoriaan 5.48andfn.80.&, alb Hungary1~99Dalarationpara.14,
HungariaMernoria iol4 (atp. 162).
31
HungariaMernarial, ol.4, Ann153. l
32 1
Ses ,araI1.22hIow,forarebultofHungary'sbçervatiwnceming theBecMe1report.theapplicablawandsubmitws hatibelievetobethemers theCourtshouldgivetoth- two
questions. Sincemanyof the conclusionreachedin Section5 of ChapterVII conanhg
Nqynaros apptyqudly here,theconcIusioserecanbe redud byleferencebacktu Chapter
VIIwhereappropriate.
8.28 By way ofintroductioit,usefuto rd three particulelementsofthe
fiai contextin whichHungary suspmdedand subsequentlabandonectle works onthe
Mikuvu sectionofthe Pruject. Hungasfs abandonmenot Nagymaros inOctober 1989
made peakmodeoperationatWrkovo impossibleSecond,Hungary hadampletewntroi over
theputtingintoperatiooftheWkovo section becauHungarywntrolledtheconstructiof
theDunakiiiti eirandalsothedamming ofthe Danube (tooccuron a common reachofthe
Danube).Third,thetechnid complexitofsthdammin gperatiowere suchth oniya namw
"window" ofthe existaieachyear-at atime offow riverflow-when the Danubemuid Iie
dammed.
A. Hun~arv's SusaensionofGaEikovo ConstitutedsBreachof the 1977
m
8.29 Hunw's dsision of20JuIy 1989tususpend constructionworonthe
GaMikovo sectionofthG/NProjectuntil31October1989 constitutacleabreachofthe 1977
Treat:
- Thereisno disputethat theTrewas infirforcand effeatthethe, as
weretherelataiagreementrnodeng thetirnetableforitsimplernentation.
-
The agreedProjecttirnetablethein&ect includedno provisionfbr
unilatersluspensiofwork,andCzechoslovakiaat notimeagreetoitin
any otheway.
- Hunws decision was entireundaterdand was taken withorrt prior
notificatito,andwithoutconsultationor negotiationwith, its Treaty - 204-
par, and cedy withoutitsgreemer~?~.
8.30 Hungary'2s0Julyactionresultein{hesuspensiofw a yearof workon
I much oftherestofthewovo sectioto carri o&tb y2echoslovakit:hem agrd
I
I Projectscheduthad ded fortheDanulx tobe dammad aI Dunafi U1IateOctuber 1989;by
suspendhgwork athinafi uniü31October 1989,~un~&yaipired thatte small"window"of
I I
the withinwhichtheDanube couldbedamme dhatyear4 missed andwithoutthediversioof
I
1 waterintothe reservoiandbypass canalother elementlofthe Projecto bec&ed out by
Czechoslovakiawere delayed fura yar. Thisdelay, withoutpriorwm?tatiari, d
I
t largeportionofitsTreatyobligatinrelatito the~enioioftheProjeîtfoa year.
AlleeedPriorBmch bv~zechoslovakia:Not aDefence
8.31 Furthereasonsdreadysetoutinthepreviou~ha~te?~,Hufigary'sefence
I
basedon thedlegedpriorbreachbyCzechoçIovakoiafArticl15and I9oftheTreatycanhave
no applicatitoHungary' suspensioofworkon 20 Jul19$9at Dunalaliti,
I
"Ecolo~icrSltatofNecasitv": NotA~dicablein FactorinLaw
8.32 SIovakia'sommentson the defeneeo"necessityinthe previousChapter
in thecontextof Hurigatysuspensioof Nagyrnaroaspplykquallhere:iisa doctrinoutside
I
treatlaw onwhich Hungary'bsreacofthe1977Trq cannotbejustifia!;andevenif,araendo,
a "statof necessity"wera defence,it courioprupedybeinvokedhereunderthe standards
establisheunderinternatioIawforsucha defendS.
8.33 There arehowever,certainFactspdliarto Hungary'suspensionof the
I
GabEikov oectionthatneedto bementioned a,lthougthesamegeneral pointapply toboth
" I
AsinthcrtçoNagymarcimm iCzfxhwIûvakhadkenawareofHungafsintetovnd workat
~abEikovkrwhichiwar mpnsibli ~SUnon),tiwnildlnotmvurd b-h
para7.45above.Sl, also,par7.46, abovregardingtw~uirementunderthe1969Vienna
ConventithatasuspensitobejustifiedmhavethotherTreatypartconsent
34 l
Sggparas7.1-7.52,above.
35
Ss,para7.53efS., above. suspensiontherewasnoeviden ofeanyidentged"graveand imminendt angerto meetwhich
thissuspensiwas necessa try;ewasnothreatto an"essentiaintereattheactualthe";and
actionto suspewas not the"odymeans ofwardingofftheextremelygraveand imminen terd"
whichHungaryclaimaltofd6.
8.34 The 20 Julydecisiotosuspendwork atDunakilitiasthevery dayaiter
thef7-19 Julymeetingofexperts,whichCzechosIovakiahad believedwhenthe meetingwas
callad,watobe devotedtothesubjectftheNagymaro suspension.InfactCzechoslovakihaad
benwon& informeilby Hungarthatthe 13May suspensionofNagrnaruahad been forody
hvomonth?', and henceCz~hosIovakihaoped to gethat suspensionIifted.But the two papers
producedon 26 Juneby 13ung#, sfatingitviewsprior tuthe meeting,relattothe enfie
ProjectnojustoNagymaros.Thesepapers (asanalysedbyaCzechoslovakdocumenp treparedin
two weeks'the inarderto beready forthemeetin gid thediscussioamongexperts at the
l
meeting madeitcIearthatastuMikovo, jusi asfor Nagymaros,there was nonew evidence
1 producd byHungaryof someallegd "imminentperdu3'. The core issueuverwhichthe Treaty
partiesddiEeredfundamentdly did notconcern the actuaiexistenceof cemin identified
environmentadange rforthatwas notwhatHungaq clairne-butwhetheradequatesudiesand
dataexiste.to alltheProjecto proceed.
8.35 Withregard to Nagymaros, asnoted above,therewereseveraiy- in
whichb condrrctthese -dies beforethsectiobecameoperationaiandany ofthe diegai risks
couldariseButthe putingintooperatiooftheGabCikovosectioofthe Prujectbydamhg the
Danube atDunakilitiadbm jointlyagreedto occuratthe endof October1989,three months
away. Itmustbeemphasised oncemorethat thisdammin operationwas controllbyHungary
under theProject.
37
See,para.7.71,aiandrelevanfn.
38
A surprisi1onglperidof 44 dadlerthe Nagymarossuspension,rthanat thtirneobe
suspensiori,gtheurgentgroundsforitsaction byHungary.
39
hashofaldyknownsandmfully studiedposrisk&,iepara7.27,aa.,mabove.tomer¢Ia m -206 -
8.36 When theexperts'meetinendaion 19Juiy -an a note offiuidamend
I
disagreementoverthe issuof theneed furfurtherstudidin orderto prd - itwouldbe
reasonablco haveorpectedthat at thPrimeMuiisterledeltheconsequencesof such a sharp
l
differencefviewwouldhave beenpromptlyconsidereidokdertoformuiat eplanof actio-the
l
sortofdiscussiocontemplatc dyArticle27of the~raty!IThidsidnot hsppen.FoIiowingthe
meeting the HungarianGwunment sdopted a ~esolutioaispendhg di work at Dun&&
therebypostponinthed&g oftheDanube mderfhe agreedscheduIforan entuey=.
8.37 The talOngoftbisactionwasnotdislssed atthemeetingbetweenPNne
MinistersCzechoslovakiwas merelinformedafterwardsYet thethreemorrthrmeg befure
I
thebnefperiod inwhichthedamming operationcouldtak pIacelefiamplethe fordiwaion -
perhapseven fura partiaistudyofthe aiiegerisks. Therewerece-y alternativmeans
availablfor"wardingof'my perceivdperilalthougitmust berepeatedthatiwas thealleged
lackof study,notanyconcreteperil,thaHungary relieobthen tojuste thesuspension.For
example,aftergettingstudiunder way theTreatypartieIght haveagreedthatthe damming
operationshouldprod asschdirled- so asnot tu forfeitwhoIeyear beforeputtingthe
I
GabEikovs oectionintooperatioSinc theflIinof the reservoirandthebypacaridwas asix-
month operation, wfrich occurrd priotu the start ofthe growing season ,ny adverse
environmenta elffecwouldhave beenminimal ;nd thereversalof thedamming was entirely
faible,ifthepartiesodecided.
8.38 Had it ben acting rwnabIy, Hungary would have yinf~med
CzechosIouakiathatithadjustcommission& the Bechtelstudywhose reportwas expected in
Febnrary1390;and thepartimi&t haveagreedto bastheirctionsonthehdings ofthisreport.
Instead,Czechoslovakia asneverinformaiof the Bechtelstudy,andHungaryactedwithout
awaitingitresults.
8.39 Thus,itcm odybe condudedtbat evenifarguaida,a "statofnecèssity"
I
were a defencethatcouldvdidIybeinvokd, it wouldfd totallyithecircurnstancestujustq
1
Hunws suspensioof aüwork atDunakifitt,erebypostponinthedamming of theDanube for
a yearwithdlthecollaterdects ontheProjecthiçactiodsed. 8.40 For the same reasons,if Hungary's"reasonabl eelid'testwere the
applicablegalstandardbywhich tojudge Hungary'sondudm, wkichit cIearfynot, Hun&s
actiontosuspen wdurkatDunakitiwiouIdceItaidfa3tumeeteven that standard. Foron20Jdy
I
1990therewasdeariynobasisforbelievinthatthm was a "çubstantiIiikelihmofmajorrisks
I
I anddamage" fromclosingtheDanube atDunuti - to quottherelevantpartofHungary' est.
Ail thereliableexperstudi ansddatain thehando sfHungary showed therethatwas net a
I
"wbstantilikelihooofmajorrîsksanddamages" . learl, ungarylackecoddence h themu
I
l darmistpapersit hmdd CzechosIodia on 26 Juneinpreparatioforthe 17-7J9dy meetingas
wellas intheEcologiareports,hichinanyeventdeait primadywith ~a~~maros~ ,'HungaSs
l
1 beliefasshow at thameetingwas in its!acJofadquate knowledgeandtheneedforfurther
shrdy,prornptingtu commissionthe Bshtelmdy at thattirneIHungary had wantedto reach
1 aninfmed opinion,itwouIdhaveawaitedtheBechtelrepor(netsch&uIed tobecompleteduntii
Febniary 1990). It wouldhavesuught to gainCzechoslovakia'sgreementto postpone the
damming operatioforayearor tosome otheralternatsuch asjust suggestabove.Perhaps-
l
l quiterightlyasiittumedo-tHungaryfeard thatthBechteIreportwouIdnot supportheactions
itwantedto taktu endtheProject.
GeneralPrincirilesof EnvironmentalLaw: If Aaalicable,Huneam's
Violations
8.41 As inthecas ofifsuspensionofNagymxos,Hungary' csoriduinreIation
to itssuspensioof work on the Wikovo sedion of the GN Projectviolatea number of
pinciplesof internationalnvironmentallaweven assumin& amendo, thisbody of law is
applicabkAs demonstrated eulier,Hun&s unilateraldecisioto suspendwork on the
GabEikovo section wastakenwithout infumingor wnsuifing wifCzechoslovakiainadvance.
This fdure was indisregarofthe principIeof prior notificaandncomltation concerning
plannemeasuresthatmightcausesignifichtm taotherwatercoursstates4.
40 HungariaCounter-merno p,ra1.47.
41 SB,par.8.11abve-
42 See,paras.1-7-6 2,ove. 8.42 Hungary' snilater&sion of20 JU$ 1989to suspendwork atwkovo
I
constitutea clcarbreacof the1977 Treaty.Hungary hasho validdcfencetojus@thisbreach.
I
Therefore,thequestioput totheCourtin Articl2(l)(aof Ie SpkialAgreement ,sto whetha
"Hungq was enitleto aispend..in 1989,theworks ..onthepartof the G&ikovo Proje for
I
whichtheTreatyattribut& responsibittopunga~y]"mustbemerd inthenegative.
l
B. Hunparv'sAbandonment of Works at GaGCkovo Constituted a ,
Breach ofthe1937 Tm@
8.43 ThedateofHungary's abandonmen tf work onfhe partoftheGabCrkovo
sectionoftheProjectforwhichitwas responsibleem to havebeen fixeas "in1989"byArticle
I
2(l)(a of the SpeciaAgreement (althoughitmaybe opento questionwhetherthisdatewas
1
intendedody toapply tothe suspensionandabandonmentofNagymarus andnot tu~rkovo)~
I
CzechoslovakiahasdemonstratedinifsCouriter-MernorialatatIeastbymid-1990,Hungasf had
abandonedWikovo cifactotheEnaidecisiveactbeingtheterminatioofal1relatedcontrad~.~
By Resolutionof 20December 1990, the HungarianGovemmentgaveformalrecognition to its
abandonmen oftheentire~roject~~.
8.44 Thereis m disputethat the Treatwks intuI forcaend eEectat eachof
thesedates.Hungary'a sbandonmen brough to anendailw'rkon theProjecto which Hungaty
had beenassignedresponsibdityndertheTreaty.
8.45 As inthe caseof Nagymarosand the suspensionof works at ~ ~ O V O
(postponingthedarnmino gftheDanube atDunakilitfioawholey@, Hungary providednoprior
noticetoCzechoslovakioafitsintentttakethisactioto abddon unilateralyheremahderofthe
Project.Hungay fkledtu consultor negotiafemerthetakingof that decisiveactinnviolation
I
of theTraty provisionor cooperationandofAflicIe27ofthe1477 Treaty-
l
8.46 AIthoughtherewere discussionssubsequently in 1991 concerningthe
GabCikovs oection,longder Hunds abandonment,these werenot overHun&s remming
-
S8epara.8.25, above.
44
-bid.perfommx of thipsarof its Treajr obligations4'.Thernot the slightestevidenof any
willingneonthepart ofHungary torame anyofitsTreatyobiigatioaftm theiabandonment.
Hungary'osnlypurposein enteringintothe 1991discussions,nd thosethaî foliowedwasto
attempttoobtainCzechoslovakiaasreemen toterminattheTreaty- andto stopCzechoslovakia
fiom continuintoperformitsTreatyobligatiosyputtingthe GaMikovo sectionintooperation
undera provisionasolution".
AlIwed Pnor BreachbvCmchos~uvk aia:Nota Defente
8.47 The fistofHungstrjiargumentsaile& CzechosIovakia'priorbreachof
the Treatisbaseo dnArticle15 and 19ofthe TreatyandisdiscussedinChapterVI1 above,as
wellasreferreto=lier inthissectionaThere isnoneedto repeaherewhy sucha defencefails.
8.48 However,Hungary' sleadingseektogivesome substanc eoa defenceof
priorbreachbasedonVariant"C" byadvanchg thedatesrelevantoVariant"Cl1andby wnjuring
upadiabolicschemeunderwhich Czechoslovak iadlong planneto takeovertheProjectforits
solebenefit,tuthedetrimentofHungaritsenvironmentndevenitsdrinking ate? .
8.49 The artificialityandfdsiithiargument havebeen demonstratedinthe
SIavakCorrnter-MemoriaIa,nd the argumenisfurtherdiscussebeIow in thenext chapter4'.
Howevert ,hemainreasonswhy thidefencefds aresumrnarisedere.
8.50 The defencebasedonVarian tC"as analiegepriorbreachfds because:
- m, itisnot legallyplaustolpicka datpriortoNovember 1991 fora
claimed.reachof theTreatyattributato Varian"CM forArticle2(1)@)
of the Specid Agreementspecifidy identifiethat as thetime when
Czechoslovaki"aproceedediîhtheprovisionaiolution"Ifan actiohad
ben takenatan dier dateinrespecttoVariant"Cl :hichmi@ ar@Iy
45 S~para.9.07,gtw~.,below.
" 6pam.7.51-7.52,7.67and8.31,above.
47
-Seeparas9.01-9.0below.
48
SlovakCounter-Memonal.hapVI andChapIX,below. -210 -
have beeninbreachof theTreaty*the Partieswouldhavfomlated this
I
ArticloftheSpecia Igieementdfirentlyand
Smnd, priorroNovember 1991,ody prehinary plamhgworktoward a
I
"provisionaslulutiohad ben undeItaken;officialappruvof logistid
and hmcid planninwas notgivendy theCzechoslovakGovernrnenutdil
I
25July 1991,weiiovea yearfollowinHungary' sefactoabandonmen oft
GaMikovo anditsterminatiofmn&s to performthework for tiicit
was responsiblnthissectionofthe&jed9.
l
"Emlo~id StateofNeçasitvN:No! Aprdier<okinFad orin Laar
I
8.51 It ievidentthatther-m why th{ suspensionof Mikovo cannotbe
jus~ifiuridera defencof"emlogicd statof nsessity" appfherea forti oncinsiderinits
I
aband~nment~~. m, therewere no pior notice,nodiscussioand no negotiationsoverthe
I
abandonmen otf GabEikovoandnoagreement.ThediscussionsregardingtheWikovo don
of theProjectdunngSeptember-Octobe 1989 weredevotedentireltohowlongthesuspension
shouid Iasbeyond 31 Onober 1989,andunderwhat dnciitions;thereaffer,ntü ~unms
t
abandonmenn t,onegotiatisookplacebetweenthe partiesoverhoworwhethertoresume work
on thatsectionofthe Project.Second i,was the degd absenceofadquate studyand data
I
concerningenvirumentalandotherrisk- nottheestablishedxiste nttee the ofsurne"grave
I
and imminentperîl-thatHungaryreliaiontujustiitsabandonmentof Wiko~o by mid-1990,
whenthecontractsforwork inthatmion of theProjecthabeencanceIIeby Hungary.
8.52 Thirdt,heBmhtelreportwascompletéa dndgiventoHungaiy inFebmary
1993.Itsfindingsdnot supporHungary'asctiontosuspenlandthenabandon GabEikovo. Yet,
fier receivinthisreport,Hungarproccededtoterminatdixusions conceniingGabfikovoand
to abandonthatsectionotheProjeet-and hdeedtheentireL/N ProjectMoreover,the Bechtel
I
reportwas kept secretfiom Czechoslovakia.Thereaflerthe conduçions of BechteIwere
confirmedinthe conclusionsreachinthe entireseparatendependens ttudyofHydro-@&bec
49
SIovakCounter-MenloCl,haps.andW.
I
Iisimporian1ber inmindwhath;ksn sidaulieinthiChapteandintheprwiouChapteasto
whyarallegelecoI~gmte ofnecessii"notadefenaga/nHungaryb'sreaofthTreaty,ndas
tihestandarobe metinordtopladmch adefenm&e, para7.53. gtsabve.JntmationaI (HQI), commissiund durhg ttiiperiodby Czechoslovakiaand completai in
December 1990, ata timewhenHungary fomaily abandonedthe G/N Projectby Governent
Resolution.
8.53 Althoughthe discussiodsurinSeptember-Octob1 er89 didnot cuncern
abandoment, theydidfocuson the conditiosnderwhichwork intheGaMiikovo sectiomi&
be resurned.It herethata pivot evlntowurred.PrimeMuiisterNémeth proposedduringthe
meetingof 11October 1989withhisCmzhosiovakcounterpartthaifCmhoslovakia adopteihis
suggestioof anagreemenbtetweenthemincorporatinegnWonmental,waterqualitandtechriad
guarantees, ungarwould "continuto preparfortheclosureoftheDanube,andwouldactualiy
closei&er theconclusionoftheagreementu 5'
8.54 CmhosIovakia agred tu M. Nheth's proposal atthePrimeMinider's
meetingof 26 October 1989. Itlthoughon the next day (2Ociober),HungaryApt& a
ResoIutioabandoringNagparos; itattheçame fimere-statedthebaion whichitwaswillingtu
pruceedwith the damhg of the Danube"and the fillingofth..rwo?. Thiswas the
"conclusionof anintergovernmentaaigreement[concemingenvironmental ,ater qualityand
technicalguarantees]T "5h2Hungarian Governmen ttated"Inthe eventof a Crechosiovak
statementof willingnessto condude[such an agreement]...the preparatorworks on the
relocatioofthe[river]coulbecontinuedM .S3ungaryreaEmned thiscornmitmenonce morein
itsNoteVehde of 3 November 1991J4.
8.55 Thiseventisgivotainexaminin gungary'deferrceoa "sta~ofecological
rtecessiîy".Hungaryofficiadeclareitswil1ingne(cohd onthreeoccasions)tu prd
with the work atDunakilitiunderthe GabEikovosectionof the Projectif'nagreementon
guarmtees couldbereached.Itundertookevento starthisworkifCzechoslovakisaid(asitdid
on26 October)iwaswiliingtoenterintosuchanagreementon guaranteesThi sfficialposition
direct clytradictthenotionthatthesubsequenabandonmeno tf GabEikovowas necessary"to
51
% para.8.1above.Thisaccorrifthemeeting,of whnoo&ciaIrecorexisfs,bawi onthe
HungrrriMerriorilara.3.96.
52 a para8-16aimye.
53
m.
54
m.P.
- 212 -
meet a graveand imminen tangerwhich threatenoan esçentidaitero esthe tat te"",For
I
Hungary was preparedtu accept -tees asan adquate solutiotu its conmm over
enviromentai, waterquahtyandotherrisks,thurndestingIthe beIiefthat theproblem s ere
capableofbeingresolveundertheT~eaty.
8.56
Even ifHungarS" sreasonabbleliefIiestismnsidere,ntheiighof these
eventsHungary cleardid notbeiiwe(nojustwasnot"dnabla in believingi) 1989thatthere
was a "substantillikelihofdmajorrisksanddamages ..km closkg the Danubeath&ti
(soas toallowforthefihg ofthe [r~oir])". Hungary hab pruposedprndmg withprecisely
tfrisworkonthebasisofanagreementon guarantees-whichCzechodovakia aroepted. Hungds
I
proposaiisevidencethatit beliwedihatthe riskdleged ben manageableand thatthroug ah
systernofgtrxanteeanyadverseeffec ctsldbeavoidedorddequateldye.&with.
l
GeneralPrinci~lesof ~nvironmcndal Law: If Aprilicble,Hun~awf
Violations
I
8.57 Were themnductoftheTreatypartiestobejudged by referenctogened
internationalIaw,rather thanbyreferetowhatthey had ageed under the 1977Treaty (quod
I
-on) ,ungary'sconduct abandunhgWikovo worrldviolatethe principlesof international
I
environmentailaw. Hungary'sunilaterddecisiato abandonthe wkovo sector was taken
withoutinfomiingorconsultinwithCzechodoMki inadvan& Thisfailunwasin uner disregard
of theprinciplsfpriornotificatandconsultatioconCerndgplanned measuretshatmightcause
significat m tootherwatercuursstates.
8.58 Theanwer tothesecundquestionputiothe CourtinArticle2(l)(of the
I
SpeWa lgreementinrespectofGabnkov ioclearHungary notentitlto abandontheworks
1 -
on thepartoftheGabcikovo sectionoftheProjecforwhichthe Treatyattributdesponsibitto
Hunguy.
-
55 Secpara7.59,g sep.,abve. . CHAPTERIX. *
ENITTLED TU PROCEED, IN NOVEMBER 1991, TU THE
"PROVISIONALSOLUTION" AND TU PUT INTO OPERATION
FROMOCTUBER 1992THISSYSTEM
SECTION 1. Introduction
l 9.01 The purpose ofthisChapter istoexaminie n,the Iighofthepleadings
ofthePartiesfilcdtu date,the evideandapplicableIawrelevantuthe two questionsputto
1
the Court underArticle 2(1)@) of the SpecialAgreementin order to demonstrate that
l Czechoslovakiawas entitlto takethese actionsinrelatitothe "provisionasolution". In
frarningthesquestionsthePartieagreedon therefevanceofWU specifidates:
- The datewhen Czechoslavaki aroceededta the "provisionalsolutian":
November 1991';
- The datewhenCzechoslovakia proceeded to put into operation the
"provisionalsolutiohm: Octuber1992w ,henthe damming operation
began(on 24 October)and wascompleted(on 27October).
9.02 By specieng thesedates,Article2(l)(b) emphasisestherelevanttime
period:long aft-randquiteseparatehm -the time when theactionreferredtuin Article
2(I)(a)took place. Forthe eveand conductof the TreatypartiesreIatingdiretuArticIe
2(l)@) concernthepenod startingin Apri1991(whennegotiationsconcerning theProject
wereresumedbetween theparties,aftea lapseof almost18months)andending in October
i
1992,after th"provisionalso1utiwas put int operationa.
I
Sgq,SlovaCounter-Mernorip, r5.88.The workwaspreparatotonarrowingthesize of the
resenioirandobviouhdynoeffecfal ttimon ihefiowaf tteanubeand,&terdamming,no
rnatercffectoitsflow. tas antnfirelyrevermasure. &. inthi egard.para.9.24(and
in.U),IXIow.
2
hthAtheNagyrnarsection(2ûctober1989)antheGabEikovsoection(endof J1990)ofthe
G/NProject. 9.03 As ChaptersWI and MI1 abovehive show Hungary was notmtitled
1
to suspendandthenabandon its worksunderthe Projectin 1989-early 1990. Accordingly,
I
whennegotiationsresumedinApril1991,Hungstry had longbefore,in breachof the Treaty,
ceasedto perfom itsobligationst~procee &dth theprojece.
9.04 The Hungdan Counter-Memona iandidly describesthe situationin
1991 as seen by Hungary, when negotiationswereabout1 torestart. Hungaryassertsthat it
was"self-evident"thatthe 1977Treatywas stilineffect,butadds that:
"In 1991, Hungary stiII saw some chanc ehat the 1977Treaty could be
amendedor terminated by mutual agreement and the partiecoutd agree an
importantrelaedissues...."
That istosay,Hungaryno longerregarded theresumption of the G/N Projectin accordance
I
with the Treatyasa possibiIity.Whatrernainedtube settIedwith Czechoslovakia,according
I
toHringary,concernedsuchmatters as"assessrnentand compensationoflusses,the fate ofthe
installationsalreadycompleted,the resolution of the problems of navigation and flood
protectionand the rehabilitatinf theaream'. The only!proposaHl ungarywas preparedto
rnaketo Czeçhoslovakia asa basisforsettlingtheirdisput-andHungary's sole aimin these
I
negotiations-presumed the total abandonmentof theTreaty Projecî bymutna1agreement.
There isnot a shredof evidencethat,afierit abandonedIa1constructionwurks on the G/N
Project, Hungary ever expresseda willingnes-to resume the Project jointly with
Czechoslovakia.
9.05 It is interesfinghow faithhllyHungarypersistsin its Courster-Mernoriai
I
in followingtheIinetakenin its Mernoriatotry toimputé to Czechoslovakiaa diabolicplot
3 I
Hungary'Govemiental Resolutionof20 DeceInber1990 mrtngarian MernoriAn& 153)
oErcidIy wnfrmed Hungq's refud fo perfbrm IhTreaty,and irorderedthe initiation of
negotialionsotheTreafy'sterminat(iheprionegotiahonofSeptember-Octob er89having
kii tenninatbyHungaq on6March 1990).Priotheretd(lu1990)UK HungarianGwemment
hadconductea studof thvarianttotheOriginalProjPing examinedbyCzechoslovakiand
aa msetingofthEnvironmental inistersof countrie, n5 Septembe1990apresentatioof
thesalternatis asmadebyCzechoslovakia., SlovakIouter-Mernoria, ar,.58.
4 HiingaianCmnter Memoriapara.2.49.
lI the dora andfaunaof Hungaryandthedrïnkingwatw offie peopleof Budapest. Hungary
describesthe developmentsleadingto the "provisionalsolution",the subjectof Article2(1)@)
I
ofthe SpecialAgreement,inthesequiteremarkableterms:
"Theconcept of divertingthe Danubeatthe sectionwhere bothembankments
are underCzechoslovakjurisdictionand of utilisingthejoint investmesolely
for Czechoslovakeconomic purposes,was theunchanned coreof Czechoslovak
a. This amounted to an attempttu excludethe other ripariaState fiom
controIover the upstrearnsectorofthe Project andover the waier discharge
into the boundary river. No doubt some detailsof Variant C were only
eIaboratedlater... Butthisdoes not alterthe fact thatthe deveIopmentsfiom
the firstoffIciaIthrofa unilateralsolutioniAugust 1989 untiIthe diversion
of the DanubeinOctuber 1992 form one bareIyintempted continuum7."
Yet, asthe previous Chapter demonstrates,Czechoslovakia'sairn sincethe suspensionof
I
works inJuly1989 hadbeento reachagreementwith Hungaryso as to permitthe darnmingof
I
the Danubeat Dunakilitito take placeanoperationunder Hungary's control, and tresume
l work on theGabëikovosection witha view soIeIyto ijoin oteration.
9.06 Hungary isobviousiyunabIetu suppor such a conspiratonalview of
eventson the bsis ofdocumentsptacedinevidencebytheParties. Tthastherefore produced
I
itsown "chronolugy of events", açsembledfrom a pot-poumi of press accounts and
I
I unsubstantiatedanalysesmuch ofwhich isneitherevidenceof the aIIegedevents nor relevant
l to the questions putto tCourt conceming the "provisionasolution8. Inboth itsMemurial
and Counter-Mernorial,Hungaryhas attempted, withoutregardto dates,tojumble the events
togethersoto obscure (i) its breachesof the 1977 Treaty prior to the 1991 negotiationsand
(iithe narrowaims of Hungary in those negotiations. In this Chapterthe events directly
relatedto the questions put to the Court concerning Variant "C" will be identifiedand
6 See, SIovakCounter-Mernoriai,4.15-4.1(andin5).
t
8 The Court'sattentiodram inprtrticdtoAnnex 93,onwhich chichronologheavilydepends.
ItpurportsIok a "ase studyby an organisatiwiih a London addressdled "EastWest
EnvironmentLtd.",withoutany atterndescribthisorganisatioqrraIifrwtiforprducing
sucha reviewandanalysisof eventNo referenis madeinthis"casstudy"taanysupprting
docurnentarevidencofanyIund. To offcrthisorof paperasevidencis tnilremarkablet
cannotbe accordedany probativaluat dl:unsupporteassertioncannobe provedby other
unsupporteassertiobypersonshavingnoestablisqualificatiorexpertise. examined; and itwill be shown that Czechoslovakia wz efititled to proceed with this
"provisionaisolutioninNovember 1991andtu putitintooperationhm Octuber 1992.
I
I
S~crrorv2, The 1991 Ne~otiations:Bunearv:sPersistencein pu mu in^ ifs SoIt
Aim of Terminatingthe TreaîvahdFormaliainethe Abandonment
of the Pruject: Ifs ~nwilli'neness tu Cornoromise; and
CzechosIovakis's Attempts to1 Table Alternative Provisional
SotutionsforNe~otiation
9.07 Before the negotiationsof septekber-~ctober 1989 wcre abniptly
I
ended by Hungary inearly1990, theissuesindisputewerbfairlywelldefined. As seen inthe
I
previousChapter,theresurnptionof workinthe ~ab~iko\josectionhad notbeenniledout by
Hungaqat all,in spiofclaimedenvironmenta liskg. InfactH,ungary had proposed thatif
I
anenvironmentalguarantseagreementoouldbereached iiwouldreoumethe damming ofthe
~anube" .
9-08 FaIIowingCzechosIovakiâ1 IsVelveRevolution" at theendof 1989, its
new Prim e inister,nhisfirstletterconcernitheProjec1(15 February1990), proposedthat
the negotiationberewmed. ButHungary'p solichad aiddenlyandfundamaitallychangecl''.
The NémethGovernrnentnow insistedon the cornpleteabandonmen tf theG/N Project,
whichoccurred de factoby the endof June1990with Hungary's terminationof al1related
contracts. The policy statementof the newHungariankmvanment, setout in itgeneral
I
politicaprogramof 22 May 199012 m,ade clearthat the abandonmentof the WN Project
I
(caliingia "mistakenproject")was also the newGovementls policy. It is paradoxicatlhat,
contrary to the impressionHurigq has triedtu give inboth itsMernoria1and Counter-
Mernorial,the pst-revulution Governmentsof each Treaty party in f' reaErmedtheir
1
predecessors' positions concerning the 1977 Treaty and the G/N Project: the new
CzechoslovakGovernrnen trged a resurnptioof the Seplember-Oc otbcr1989 negotiations,
9
October-Novembe1989througitcontroofthe0peratiatDunakiliti.ammingofthcDanubein
'O ~vcnaftes hirthrondilionwasaddeby HungaxyintheI litfftableon30 Novernbe1989
iilCmhoslovakia agreeIOUieabandonmenotfNagjlrnarIhepartienevertheIesontemplatoi
thtdammingoftheDanubeafterLheagreementhadbn reached.&, para.8.9,above.
I
11
1 &, para.8.23,1m.. above. 1
12 S& para.16Hungarian1992Declaration,HungarianMernaV,ol.4, Annex8(ap. 163).
I the new HungarianGovernment reaffinnedits predecessorsbandonmen tf the Projectand
I itaim to teminatetheTreaty.
9.09 But whatnew posî-1989 studiesof enWumenta1 risks hadledtu the
Németh Government' asbruptpolicychange?Theonly studycommissioned byHungary -the
Bechtel study,cornpleteand handedto Hungaryin February 1990,butnot made known or
availabItuCzechoslovakia- lentnosupport ata11toHungary's changeinpolicy. Neitherdid
theHQI report commissionedbyCzechoslovakia.
9.10 Andwhatalternative choiceswere availabletothe partiesin orderto
reachacompromise settlement?Therewas apparentlyno prospectofHungary's resumptionof
a jointly operatalGm Project; for it had beentotdly and irrevocably abandonedby
~iin~ary'~.HtrngarynowIqs stres onthe pruposalsitmade in 1991to enterinto sîudiean
the ProjectpossibleenvironmentaleEects -but thesewere aIwaysstrbjecto the condition
that Czechoslovakiahdt a11work on the Project. With these points in rnind,the 1991
negotiationscabeseen inperspective.
9.11 The resultsof the negotiationsheldo22 ApriI 1991 were setout ina
Joint Communiquéw , hich made clertrHungary's decisionthat the Treaty had to be
terminatedI4.Of the four paperstabledby Hungary,threewere proposals to accomplish
Hungary'saim;only one was a technicalpaperdirectedatsupposedenvironmentaa lndother
risk- and asto it, Czechoslovakwassurprisaito findthatitcontained aafhing new in rhe
wayof scientificfactsbeyunwhat was alreadywellknown in 1989 and before15.Hungary's
Counter-Mernorialnow assertthatin thepenod1989-1990, new studieshad been conducted
by~ungaty'~;but iis curiousindeedthatthe papertabledbyHungary at themeeting of 22
April1991 madenoreference toanysuchstudies.
13 Ofcourse,thsinow apparenr&erthesludofd~runentsivhichinmmy case werenotpubliat
thetirnor knownto CzechosIovakiThe new CzechoslovaGwemment approachedthe1991
negotiatiosopingthatacompromieettlemewas possible.
] SlovakMemorial,Vol4,Annex87. DurinthesediscussiotheHungariasidedescribetheG/N
Projecastheprductof the"megalomaniacndp~eudoscien~carroganceoftheformersocialist
ladersofbotCountries-
'' SecS. IovCounler-McmoriaI,ar5.72.
'6 HungariaCounter-Memona p,ra2.37. 9.12 In view of the absence of progre1ssat the 22 Aprilmeeting(which
fdlowed a ParliamentarR yesolution a few days earlierlimitingthe mandate of Hungws
representativesi7), zechaslovakiasefitHungary a Note Verbale on 18 June 1991 taking a
fuGright positionaboutsettlingthe displltel'. It dled foranother meeting and offered"tu
I
debate any definitesuggestionssubmittedby pungay] dhich mayleadto aresolution ofthe
I
situation".ThisIed to thenegotiationsthattook place dn 14-15 ~ul~~. In consideringthis
I
meeting itisimportant torecallthat,priortothisdate,~z~hoslovakiahad donc nomorethan
1
to conduct feasibiiistudiesintoalternativsoIutionsfurputtinginto operationthe GabEikovo
I
sectionof theproject2'. No çhoiîe ofa pariicularalternat/vhad yetbeenmade; a fanion,no
workhad been begun onany"provisionai solutio n"2'
9.13 At the 14-15 Julynegotiations,Czechoslovakia proposedtheformation
1
of a trilateral commissiontu examinv ariantsof the OriginalProjectwhich each sidewould
17
Innsponse taSlovakias emorialtheHungariancounier-~srnoriiparas2.50-2.53cantenûtbat
ib ParliamentRsesolutiof 16 April 199didnot,as a)matterof HungariaeondtutionaiIaw,
IegalItiethehandsofHungary'segotiatorThisisnotth?viewexpred atthetirnbyHungary's
negotjators% SI& Mernorid .nnex 70,theloinqrwnunîqiré issuedmer the 15ldy 1991
negotiatirinSs dso, Hungary'suniIateraaccountoflfhe 14-1Julynegotiations(Hmgarian
Mernoriai,ol.4,hnex 155(alp.388))whereifiindicalfdthal agreemeto thappointme ofa
trilaterdcommissiotvouirequiretheconsentof theHungarianParliament.Butianyevent,the
HungarianGovernment'R s esolutiof 20 December 1990 had alreadylimitethe mandateof
Hwigary'snegotiafoat the 1991negotiaûona;ungarytsrrevers ialcyand soleairnwereto
obtainCzechoslwakia'agreementto the abandonmentofitheProjectandthe terminatiof the
Treaîy.
18 HrrngarianMeniarial.Vo4,Annex51.
19 SiovakCoumer-Meniaria la. 5.75, S. &, dro, ~ui~arian Mernori. aras3.134-3.13711
is sirikingthinilCorrnter-Mernori, ungaral1butignoresthe 14-15Jdy negotiations.
I
20 Slwak Mernorial. ara.5.76. TheHungaria~ounter-~el(ioriaddsnothingaew toth incorrect
contentionscontainediilsMernoriatlhatHungary hadbeen lefi ithe darkconcerningthese
Czcchoslcwa tudiesacontentioalreadyrebutteinthe~iovakCounter-Mernori(sl para6.07,
eises. S E,alsofn.3,above-
I
" The faclsseoutin para.2.52otheHungarîanCorrnter-Mernorionceming theappmvdand start
ofconstrucfioonVariant"C"arc1olal1wrang.asalready(m intheSIod Conmer-Mernorial,
paras.5.78-5.80. For exampie,the contentionthat dqring the14-15JuIy negotiationthe
Czechoslovakdelegate"announcedhatconstructihad starteon Varian"C"is noonlyincorrect
and wirupportedbyanyevidcncebutalsoignoresUiatmenIplanninworkfor Varian"Cl'hadnot
been authoriçeuntil25 July 1991fier thefailurof the14-15 JulynegotiationçHungary's
contentioir alsoinconsistewith Article 2(1)of thel~pcialAgreement.which~fleets the
agrernentof thPartieslhal CzechosIovakaadnot"pmded to"the"provisionalolutionmtiI
Novemkr 1991,srrbmittothecommissionby 31 July1991~~. Czechodovakia uEered tu trinover alternative
proposabforproceedingwith GabEikovon , onofwhichincludedVariant
9.14 The special relevanceof this offer is that itwas an attempt by
Czechoslovakia to have any deviationsfromthe OriginalProject, as well as the Project's
continuation , adethe subjectofimpartiasltudyand negotiationbetweenthe Treaty parties.
Hrrngary'sresponsewas a complete refusaltu enterinto anydiscussionthat involvedgohg
ahead jointlwiththeProject,using asan excusethe Iimitemandate ofitsnegotiators.
9.15 It hasto be re-emphasisedthatat no tirne afiitsabandonmentof the
G/NProjectwasthere the slightestindicatiothatHungarywas prepared tu resume workof
any kindon the Project. AIthoughHungarydid propose joint (bilateral)studiesof the
environmentalrisks of the ~roject~~,thiswas not a compromis efferin any sense, for
Hungarygavenoindication thatiwasprepared to agreeto resumejointperformanco efwork
on theGabEikovo sectioniftheresultof thestudieswerefavourable.
9-16 Furthemore, Hungary'sjoint study proposed was conditioned on
Czechuslovakias ltoppiridl workonthe Project. This was a newconditionthat, thenceforth,
Hungary irnposed as a prerequisitetu any further studies or the appointmentof any
commission.It isthereforimportanttu examine Hungary'sdemand - irtitiainthecontextof
theJulymeeting.
9.17 As a generalproposition,where two partiesarejointlyperforming a
projectand a disputeovercontinuing theprojecthas arisenthatrequiresfurtherstudy,it may
be a reasonableconditionthatthey agreeto thesuspension offurtherperformancw e hiljoint
studiesare undenvay - provided,of course, thateach partyhas undertaken tu respect the
resuItsof thestudies.Butthiswas hardlythesituationunder theGlN Projectin1991; nosuch
" JointCommuniqu ssu4 on 15July191.SlovakMemorial, mex 90.
23
See .lovakCounter-Mernoriala,r5.75-5.79;HungariMernorial,aras3.134-3.137Con-
totheRulesof CourtHungaq has notfurnish tedoriginaversioof thereparof Hungarian
MinisteMidl onwhichits acmuntof thmeetingreliea,translatiof whichappearas Amex
165,Vol.4, HungariMemorial.
24 See, HutigariaCounter-Memoda p, r..50.
- - 220-
mutualundertaking was envisagedor evenpossibte.Hungary certainiydidnotbmd itseffto
accepttherestlltsorrmmmendationsof suchstudies.
9-18 Itmust be emphasired that th~rekty parfieswere in entireldiEerent
positionsconcerningthe Treaty'sperformance. Hungary had dreadyabandoned the Project
and, though its controof the Dunakiliweir,hadunilaterailypreventedthe damming ofthe
Danube,severelylirnitingthework Czechoslovakia couldperform. Czechoslovakiao , n the
other hand, had aireadyneariycompleted workon rke Gabfikovosection; and it was
continuingto carryout suchworkas itcouldonbothseclions of theG/N Project.Thi sas
work solelyinfulfilrnetfthe agreedTreatyProjectand ~!otinanywayrelatecti oVariant"Cu
or anyotkr variad5.
4.19 Moreover, ther e as no possibili& on 14-15 JuIy of ddng in
I
October-November 1991,except at Dunakiliti, which Hungarycontrolled and continuedto
prevent beingcompieted soas notto allowthedamming envisagedundertheTreatyto occur.
So suspensionof work could notbejustifiecon thebuis 'fany imminent threatof damming.
I
And any joint studiescould easilyhavebeen completedbeforethe next timethe damming
operationcould beundertaken (October-November 1992).
9.20 It isevident,therefciret,hat thewas no justification for Hungarto
I
impose rhisconditiononthe commencemen tfjoint researchx.
9.21 InevitabIy,the14-15 5ulynegotiatiÙns made no prugresstoward the
1
settlementof the dispute. Hungary refused to considekCzechoslovakia'sproposal of a
trilateralcommissiontostudy and subrnitrecommendation olnthevariantssubmitted to it".
25 No ruchworkha*mrnmend priora Novanbcr1991.whei Cachoslwalria(inthewordsofMisle
2(1)@)oftheSpial Agreement)"prooeedeo theprovisipnasiolution".Thesuspensiowork
calledfobyHungaryduringthe 14-1Juiynegotiatioasa conditionojoinsmiies,con&rnd
Czechoslovaworkon the TrearyProjxtnotstudiesintpossiblvariantwhichwerea purely
internCzechasbvakmaiter&, JointCommuniqntof15fdy 1991,HungariaMernorial, ol4,
Anriex155.
'6 AswiIIbeseenklow, Hungaryfubsequenitnsisteon theme conditioofstoppingwor-asa
precuiidittotheapf~intmeatofa trilaterdcommissiand thecondua oftriIaterstudie-
sirnilaIackedanyrationalbasis.
27 Hangary'failuto tableanyalternatearianisundcrsta/dabeinceits soleaim(andmandate)
was10secureCzechoslovaki'greementototalabandonmeotfthProject.CzechosIovaki aould notaccepttheconditionto stopwork on the Project,whicitregarded
as unjustifieclin the circurnstmcesandcleaaimed at gaininganotheryeafs delay in the
damming ofthe Danube.Hence,thepartiesdiddut proceedwithjoint stridies.
9.22 While Czechoslovakidaidnottable forstudyby the proposedtrilateral
commissionanyvariantinvolvingunilateraloperationby Czechoslovakia -under which the
darnrning operationwouId be camed out solely on~zechoslodak temiory rathw than at
DunakiIit- ina certainsense suchanalternativewas a silentparticipaat the14-15 July
negotiations. ForthenewCzechoslovrtGk overnent wastryingtuiaduceHungary w restrrne
performance ofitsTreatyobligationsin the GabEikovosection of the Projectby showina
willingnessto compromise:as Czechoslovakiahadshow in the September-October 1989
negotiationswhenitwas preparedto considerasIowingdown ofthe work ontheNagymaros
section anto negutiateanenvironmentalparantees agreementas toGabeikovo. Ttdeclared
itsreadinesat theJuly1991 negotiations tosubrnalternatiproposaisforproceeding with
GabEikovo for studybya trilateralommission. But, at the sametimeas Czechoslovakia's
interna1studiesprogressed,becarneapparentthata varianttothe OriginalProjeccouldbe
devised underwfich theGabEikovosectioncouldbe operatedwithout Hungarianinvuivement
inthedamming,thusdepnvingHungary ofthe meansof uniIateraIIyreventingthedamrning
of theDanube.Withthecomplete fackof progressin settlithedisputeshown at theApnt
and July negotiations,the CzechoslovakGovernment,on 25 July 1991, approvedthe first
planningactivitiesfor Vari"Cu andHungary was formalladvisedthereafon 30hl?*.
9.23 But it wasmade ciearinCzechosIuvak'ssubsequentNote Verbaleof 27
August 1991mthatthesepreliminary planningsttps concerningVariant"CH didnot standin
thewayofnegotiationsaimedat resolvinthe disputethrougha resurnptiaofthe GabEikovo
section oa 3:
"[Czechoslovakiai]sof the opinion thatsuch decision [the Czechoslovak
Government'aspprovalon 25 July1991 of financialandlogisticalplanningfor
Variant"Cu]does not preclude thecontinuation of talks. Provided the
Hungarianside submitsa concretetechnicalsolution aimed at puttinginto
operationthe GabEikovo systemof Iocksand asolutionofthe system oflocks
2"Se SSIvaCounter-Mernorial,r5.80.
29
See,O@.,para.5.8SlovakMernoria, nne96. basedun the 1977 Treatyin forceand thetreaty(dmurnents nlated tu it, the
CzechosIovak sideis preparedto implement themutually agreed solution."
SECTIO N. Czechoslovakia Proceeds with 1 the Provisionsl Solution in
Novernber 1991
9.24 The firstconstmction work specificallyrelated to Variant "Cs' was
startedby Czechoslovakia inNovember 1991. Itinvo~vkd thenarrowing of thereservoi?'.
Whether Czechoslovakia wasentitledto take thiaction isthefirstofthe two questionsput to
theCourt underArticle2Il)tb) ofthe Special~geernent~' .
9.25 In judging whether ~zechoslovakid was emitled to start construction
l
specificallyrelateto Variant"C" - leavingto one sidet* catastrophic situationinwhich it
founditselfdue ta Hungary'sbreachd2 -therearetwo dpe1ts of specialimportance. m,
this initialaction toproceedwith Variant "C" did not lkssenCzechoslovaltia'sattempts to
I
reach a compromiseagreementwith Hungaryfor the &t completionandoperation ofthe
I
GabCikovosection ofthe Project. Second, the works startedin November1991, and the
l
subsequentworksrelated to Variant "CM, were provisiodd. temporary andreversible;these
worksdidnot preventa returnto the OriginalProject,a& Czechodovakiapledgedthat this
was so whenit proceeded withVariant
30
&, para.9.01 (afn.l),above.
31
Section7,below,wilfocuson thelawapplicabletannue!thi suestionHere,thefacm sapects
wiiibeconsidard.
l
31 Forthreeywrsthenmly curnple GredEiko~sectionhadspi md - thevasexcavationsorthe
resemoirand bpss canaiIayempv and fheir beds andsmunding dikeswere startingto der
danlap asa rmlt. (Ss Slw& Counter-Mernoria laras\5.74and 5.95, dcscribingthe pumping
operationstartedJuly1991 tohaltthiserosion.) Thehustructurecornprisithedams,locks,
weirsaiiddykeslay exposa-gant slabofnon-functiona'lconcrand machinery.Theenormous
investmentmadebyCzechosIovaiu aadnotyetyieldeanypturn atal]andthe prospeFtsof it wer
doingso seemcdremoteatkst as aresulof Hungary'so+ abandonmen otfworkinbreachof fhe
Treatyanditsrefusatûconsidemy propod shortofrermjnatioof the1977TreafyThis wasan
economicdisast forCzechoslovakiafa magnitudequal theenvironmeritalcatastrocreami
by thecontinuai suspensofth eorh.
33
Thc HungarianCounler-MernoriaclntestSlovakiapoiitibas to the provisionternporsand
reversiblnahin of Varian"C" ,ndit proposeastheapp~mpnalteesthenquirementof literally
beingabletoreverttothestatuauoante. a, paras.2.101-2.103.115-3.12and 7.08. Butthe
propertesisa functionlne:cantheOriginalProjectbreshmedin spitetheconstructio-ed
outin ordetooperateVarian"C". Theanmer iscIearl$esa1and Hungaryhas no1demommted
othenvisc. Hungary'cantenlioninpara.3.103thai:"C~hoslovakia dways mainfain4 thatif
Hungary return eodtheOriginalProj~tit wolrIdresfthe stalusqumte", issuppned by no
evidenseatal1andhllken demonrtratetdbeulitrue. 1 9.26 Thesecondpoint has beenfullydealtwithin Slovakia'~semorial~~and
wiIIbetouchedonagain in PartIII.Ttisthefirstpointthat wibeaddressed here.
A. Continued Czechoslovak Attemats to Reach mi Compromise
Apreement
9.27 Czechoslovakia' attempt tunegotiate a setîlementof thedispute was
renewed in theIastofthethree senes of 1991 negotiations,whicbtookplace on2December
199lJ5. But once again, Hungary proceeded to imposethe pre-condition- thistimeeven to
the appointmentof acornmittee -that Czechoslovakiastop al1workto put the GabEikovo
sectionof theProjectintooperation ; nditimposedthispre-conditionin afashion seerningly
calculatedtobe unacceptablef, rit took thium of a IO-dayu~tirnatii~~.
9,28 Indefenceoftheimpositionof thispre-conditionHungary asserts:
-
"IfCzechoslovakiacontinuedits work towards the implementation of
Variant"Cl h,e Cornmittee'sworkwould bemeaRrng~ess ; ~
- Hadwork been allowedto go on, the "activiof theCornmittee would
havelegitimised theunilateralconductof Czechoslovakiaw , hilat the
same time the Cornmitteewould have been actingunder thepressureof
bu11dozer~ ''wnjuring trpimagesofthe da&ng of the Danubetaking
pIacewithinearshotof theCornmittee.
34 SlovaMernorial,ara5.63,eseg.
'' 5% SIovakCouriter-Mernorip,ara5.85-5.8(andfn. 134).Conrraryto theRules ofCam
Amgq hasno1prducd rhe dwurnentonwhich it rIaitoreIyfoits accouofthe2 December
meeting.
36 SlovakCounter-MemonaIp,ara5.86.No doubtHungary'ultimatumwas regardeas particdarly
offensiveby the CzechoslovakGovemmentin thHungary t,en inclearbreachof its Tmty
obligatiohadtheaudacittoimposesuchanultimatumonCzechoslovakiw,howassekingtofmd
a compromissoiutiofor goinaheadjointIundertheTreatywiLh the GabEikovsectioofthe
Projet.
37 HtlngarianMemoria,ara3.144.
38 HungariaCounter-Mernor ia,a.2.66. 9.29 But inDecernber 1991 thestan of the dammingoperationcould not
have begun for another10 rnonths-the 1991 "window" hadbeen mi~sed)~. The oniywork
I
thathadtakenplace up untilthewas tustar ttnmw ihe reservoir, cornpIeteIreversible
I
measure,which Czechoslovaki aadunequivocdIydeclaredItu bea provisionalmove. Thisdid
not stand in the way of the resumption of joint &ration of OabCikovo,including
I
environmentag luarantees-and under anyvariantfrorntheOriginaPl rojecfor doing sathat,
afierevaluationbya trilaterdcornittee, theTrpty partimigh tgreeupon.
9.30 Hungarydues net trytaexpIainwhy*withoutsuch a pre-condition,the
wurkof a trilatercornmitteewouid have ben meaningless;orhow the cornmittee'sctivity
"wouldlegitimise"what it describes as Czechoslovakiz/s"unilateraconduct". Had the
1
cornmitmentin Czechoslovakia'N s ote Verbaleof 27 August 1991 been matchedby a
I
Hringariancornmitmerittu permita triIatercornmittee tevalrratthe alternateproposaisof
both sidesconceming~ab~ikuvu~,andtu acceptitsrecommendatians~ thm an agreementtu
stop workduringthe tirnenecessary forsuchanevaluatlonrnighthavebeen regarded asa
reasonablerequest4'.
9.31 But Hungsry didnat make -and's clearlynot tu mako -
such a commitment.In spie of rhis,CzechasIovakiproceeded with itattempts tu encourage
Hungary toperformitsTreatyobligations.
On 12 December 1991, theCzechos!ovakGovernent look the formal
9.32
decisiontoput theGabeikovosection into operationthrough Variant"Cu, and itso advised
39 a para8.05(andfn11 ,bove.
Se5 pan 7.22,abO~e. II is importtonaiethatCz~~slovakia waronly Qing tostllethe
Gauikovopartofthe disputand%va si1Iintopstpone9 questioof Nagymar~s,evethough
Hungarywaseqdly inbtcachofihis partofits Tobligations.
I
41 Morewer, iis apparen, ad onthetirnerequir odrndpleteothemch environmentalstudies,
bothbeforandafterbyBechtel,HQI,antheEC, thaagryment tosucha preconditionwouldnot
haveputinjcopar orafourthyeaina rowthedammingorLheDanubew. hethal DuIiakiiorby
aniMa1IationonCzechosIovakterriiof it shauldtuouttbat Hungq wnsody engagd in a
dilatotactic. -sis -
Hunga~y~~,But thi inno wayrneantthe end of attemptsto persuadeHungary tu perfom its
TreatyobIigations. Foinhis letteof18 December 1991,theCzechoslovakPrimeMinister:
- Renewedonce more theproposai for the appointment ofa trilateral
committee of expertswhose task wouldbe "the assessrnen tfthe
alternatisolutionsand professionaI/scientqiuestionspresentedto it
by3 1December 199la3;
- Repeated Czechoslovakia's positionthat the question of resolvhg
Nagymaros could beposfponed;
- IndicatedthatCzechoslovakia'psosition"becauseof the highstateof
readine ofsthe GabCikovo plant"was that the GabEikovo section
shouldbe putinoperation;
- Reaffimed thatCzechoslovaki aas "obviouslywillingtoparticipatin
the consideredsolutionofecolugicalpr~blems".
And then came afurthersweetener:
"[CzchosIovakia] declarethat it wicontinuework on the [GM Project] with
the intentionof commwicingoperation of the GabEikovoBarrage, while
committingitselto notundertakeworkintheDanube's beduntit Julv1992" ."
9.33 This furthermove towardcompromisehad no visible effect on the
Hungarian Government. On 23 December 1991, itbluntlyputan end to discussionsofthe
41 -- --
SIovaCounter-Mernoria,ara5.90.
44
Ineffecarenewalofthcornmitmentt environmenguaranteemade inOctobe1989.
"
SlovakMernoria,mex 99(emphasisadded).Hungary'ranslatigelsthedatmng, indicating
JuneinsteofJuly1992.&, SlovakCounter-Memoriaara.5.9(andfn.151).appointment of atrilateralornmitteea.
9.34 Yet even this did oot deter ~:echos~ovakia from coriîiming its
I
concerted efforttoreach acornprornise -6 ina carefullyreasonedletteruf 8January1992,
I
the SIuva Pkrime Ministertook paints u explainCzechoslovakiap 'osition'". He end&by
saying:
"[Czechoslovaki~is wilGng to takeinto consideditionthe conclusionsof the
work done by [the proposedtrilateraicornmittee of experts] in any further
procedures regarding the[GM Project]. Itisalsoknownthat[Czechoslovakia]
is willinpto suspend the provisional solutiononlits own sovereinn tenitow
insofar as [Hungaql is able to find an opportunitv to enter into a ioint
so~ution~ .~
-*cond in a letterof 23 Ianuary 1992, againcarefiillyckplainingCzechoslovakia'p sosition,
I
the CzechoslovakPrimeMinister renewed the proposaliu appoint a triIateracornmittee of
I
experts,and made this firtheroffer:
I
"Provided [the] c~nclusions[of the Cornmittee.]id resultsof mo"toring the
test operationof the GabCikovo partconfirm thatnegativeecologicaleffects
exceed its benefits,the Czechoslovakside isprebared to stop work on the
rovisional solution and continue the construktion[onlvl upon mutual
agreementd 9l
9.35 Slovakia hm dready commented on ithe penierse interpretationgiventu
this Iater in HungaMs ~emoria?'. Insteadof acknowledgingCzechoslovakia's attempt tu
I
compromise, Hringary depicts Czechuslovakia as attempting tu "put into operation the
GabcikovoBarrage byal1means". But what was Hungary prepared tu oRer inordertu settle
the dispute?AbsoIuteIy nothing. Hungarywas not in fact atternptinto negotiateta settleits
dispute with Czechoslovakia at aII;it was trying to put a halt to Czechoslovakia's
46 SIova Ckounter-Memoriapl,ra.5.93In hislettof 23Dlmber 1991,HungarianMinisterMidi
referrcto the "unjustifiabliynflepsition" of the CzechosIovaGavernment , remarkably
inaccuratetatementin the lightof reoord.HungarianMemariai,Vol. 4, Amex 71 (ernphasis
added).
47 HungarianMernorialV, o4,Annex 72.
*"Ernphasis added.
I
S10va Ckounrer-Mernorilara.5.94andAnnex 102 (ernphassdded).
I
50 &id.,para.5.95HiingarianMemoriaI,ara3.151.Thereis nosenseinwhichHungarywasinterested inthekormationof sucha commissio n.
I
was simplymoving onal1fionts-notto settlethedisput- butto stop Czechoslovaki6om
puttingthe GabEikovo sectionof the Projecinto operition bydammingthe Danube (the
I
accompIishmen otfwhichstilllasirnonthsaway).
9.37 As to Mr. And riessen'letteof 10 Aprii1992 referredto aboveS4,
Hungary has interpreteit acontainingspre-conditionlhaCzechodovakia shouldstopaii
workonVariant"C"pkr toa trilaterdcormnisrioidlwment. Not ody isthisincorrect,
brrrHungary aIsoignores cornpletelyother conditionscontaiindMr. Andriessen'letter.
Morefundamentally,Hungarykanalysis failto refleca1properunderstanding ofthe role
contemplatedto be playedbtheECat thetime.
I
9.38 The three conditionsEC participationsout in the Andriessenletter
were theseS5
- That bothpartiefomally nquest E% participatioanddefinethe ECs
mandate;
- Thatthe partiesagreetoacceptthe outcorneof the assessrnentof the
commission(requestedto be fomiddand chaireciby theEC) as the
I
"agreed scientific~eco andoIegda1 for subsequent decision-
making";
-
That eachGovernrnen" twouldnot takeany stepswhilethe cornmittee
isatworkwhichwouldprejudi~e pdssiblactionstobe undertakenon
the bsis ofthereportfindings".
9.39 Hungary'psleadingsfocusonthe thirbconditionof thelettandignore
thesecond. Curîously, oresponsehm Hungary totheletlerhasbeenplaced inevidence. ui
54
Mr.AndrieassentanidenticailebCz~hoslwakiaonIb Aprirespndintoitoralrequest.
ss
HungariaMernoria,ol4, Anne78 (emphasisadded).contrast,the officia1reactofCzechoslovakia,setout initsPrime Minister'slettof 23
Apt3 1992 toHungary'sPrimeMinisterwas inroduce dnevidenceinSIovakiai~emorial~'.
9.40 Asto thefir osMtr.Andriessen'sonditions,theCzechosIovaletterof
23 Aprilcontainea propose jdintfetterrquest totheEC. And Czechoslovakiaagreedto
thesubstanceofthesecond ofMr. Andriessenconditions:
"[CzechosIovakiais prepared to usethecondusion dram and the
recommendations madebythe cornmitteeasthestartingpoinforany decisiuns
madein reIatito theProject."
And the23 AprilIetteadds:
"[Czechoslovakia]is awaitinga sirnilardeclarationby the Republic of
Hungary "
But no suchdeclaratiofromHungaryis onrecordinthiscase,andSlovakiais unawareofany
suchcornmitmenteverbeing made by Hungary. In otherwords, Hungar y ay havebeen
happy to see the formationof a triIatew1 commissionas a means tu ohtain a hdtin
CzechosIovakia'wsorks in implementatiof the Gabeikovosection,but itwas in no way
preparedtube bound bythefindingofsuch acommission.
"[Czechoslovakia]asshownsufficiengood willandreadinessfornegotiations
butatpresentcanno longeracceptprocrastinationsnddelayingtacticsof the
Hungarianside,andthuscannotsuspendwork on the provisionalsolutio...
rTlhereisstiltime untithedamminaof the Danube !i.e.until October 31,
1992).for resoIvinndisauted questioon the basis of agreemenof both
states7"
In shorttherewas suficient time to cornpletethecornmittee'sworkbefore the dammingwas
scheduled tu begin. Anditsprovisionalcharacterand reversibiiityhad bguaranteedby
Czechosiovakia.Hence the continuationof work inthese circurnstanceswouldnot "prejudice
56
SlovakMernori, nnexe108and109.A copyof thlonganddetailedIet, hichreflecthe
intenseeffobeinmadeby CzechoslovaiasettthedisputwassentoMr. Andriessen.
57 Emphasisadded. - 230-
possibleactionsto bundertakeonn thebasisofthe repprt'~findings, sthethird condition
transmittedtohim6y the CzbchoslovaGovernment, Mr! Andriesîenregistwedno difference
1
of view. The presentsquabble raisedbyHungary as to whatthe tenns "provisionaland
"reversiblemean were clearly of no interesttothe EC, which had the Czechoslovak
Government'sspecificcommitmentto abideby thethirdconditionof the lett-tand uniike
Hungary ,o abidebythesecond conditioaswdl. These ,cornmitmentwserealsocontainein
theproposedjointletterattachto Czechoslovakia'stteof 23April:
l
"Both Gavemments expresstheirreadine tsspioceedhm the ~onclusiuns
and recommendationsadoptedbythe joint Cornmitteeofexperts in taking
decisiunsonthe hnher stepsin thisissue. TheGpvernmentsalsoassumethat
there wiIIbenopreliminaryconditionsfor the woftheCornmittee.
1
The Goventnentof the Czech and Slovak~ederklRepublicundertakes,as a
gestureof good will, noto dam the Danuberivérbed on ittenitorybefore
October31, 1992 and itwillthus nottakeany hep whichcould hinderthe
irnplerncntatiof rneasuresrecommendedby thd Cornmitteeofexperts and
jointlagreedon5 ."
By contrast,the EChad no equivalemcornmitmentfiom kungsryas foeithercondition,and
Hungarynevertaok stepsta negotiatajointrequest.
9.43 But there isthe moregeneralpuid to make,as well, concemingthe
AndriessenIetter. Hungary'spleadintrsatthe Iettas if thEC hadmshed toHungary's
rescueto stopthedamming of theDanube. Thatrnayhaje beenwhat Hungary had inminci;
butMr. Andriessen'reaction-even thoughhe mayonlydalereceivedtheHungarian dossier
beforerespondingtoHungary'rsequest-was appropriatelyiscreetandavoidedrequirinasa
conditionofEC participatihat Czechoslovaki topwork on Variant"C" -whichis what
Hungary had specificallyrequested. Ainailofthis thh C was not actinassome supra-
nationalarbitralbody;was rnerelysettirtgout theconditionsunder whichit was pretured
helpthe partiesseftIetheir diattheirrequest.
58
Thsletter'sthni~idiüonwsrcerfainI18oramtasthekm quoan; lest whichHunganow
advancesS. para9.2(andreIwanfil.bove.
59 I
SlovakMemoriaI,nnex108. SECTION 4. Hun~arv'sPur~ortedTerminationofthe 1977 Treatv
9.44 TheHurigariaG riovernment'sdecisiontuterminate the 1977Treaty was
set out in its Resolutioof 7 May 1992, statingunconditiondly thatHungary "nniIaterdly
terminates" the Treatyeffective25 May 1992~. This action was taken withoutHungary's
attempting firsttreachagreemeno t najointrequestto theEC toenlistitsassistance.
9.45 Accordingiy,inhis responseof I 1 Maytu HungaryfsResolution,the
SlovakPrimeMinisterstressedtheneed to "addrest shequestion ofacceptingthe offermade
by the EC Commission tocreate atrilateralxpertgroup"61. He added thatCzechoslovakia
was:
"...convincedaboutthe usefilness and necessity ofcontinued talkswith the
Hungarîan side on theprobIemof the [GlN Project].T wouIdIiketu stressmy
readine tssdiscusswith vou a possiblechanne in thedate of damminathe
Danuberiverbed by theCzecho- SIovak side6."
I
But Hungarynonetheless proceeded with its purportedterminationof the Treaty,making its
announcement on 19May1992 and issuingatthe sametirne its Declaratioastu thereasons
63 Sec,SIovakCounter-Mernoriap,raS.102,efW., fora detaiIeddiscussofthisaction. Chapter
X, klow,examinesin detarheIegd en- of Hmgary's norificaofnilpurp~rtedterminatiof
theTreary.
61 SlovakMcmorialA, nnex111.
62 Emphasisadded.
" Thisactionijustifiai inthtermsbyHungay [email protected]):
"Eventualitixcanreclethat1,avoidanypretexforthediversion.Hungaryhadno
other optrhan toleminattheTreaty."
This isanargunienttharunscountertathectrntentithatCzechasIova pkixedsing witthe
provisionasolutiowas abreachof theTreatyjustiQingHungary'purportedterminatio,or it
suggcstthattheTreatyinfactprovidabasisfotheprovisionaolutioand,hence,hadtobe
rerminatedyHungary forthareason.
Hungary'rsebufofh Iast-minute aitemtomeetinViennawith theEC is detwithin SIovakiats
Co~rnter-Memorip aI,a5.109, gtS., which rebut the contentioset outin theHungarian
Criunter-McmoriIoncemirtgthisnreeting. 9.46 Between 19 May 1992 and the stdrofthe damring operationon 24
I
October, Crechosiovakicontinueditsattemptto nachalcompromise solution:
- On 6 August 1992, the ~redioslbvakPrime finister infomed the
I
HringazîaPrimeMinisterthat he was renewingtheinitiatitu askfor
assistance hm the EC Commission "in seeking a seasonable
compromise solutiotothepresent~ituation";~'
- On 23 Septernbe1992,the CZ~C~O PrImOeVini~teragaiwote to
bisHurigariacounterpartnotingthat thEC had indicatebyletter of
I
30 JuIythat it remainreadytû assibstt"expectsour statesto agree
1
on the extenofthemandateof thetrilaterlommission"h; e proposed
thatthetwo sidesmeet "tospeedilyprepareatjointrequestauthorised
totheEC ~ommission"~ ;~
9.47 On 28 September 1992,the ~un~ariknPime Mnister finaliyresponded
1
to these urgings andacceptedCzechoslovakia'srecomrnendatiotnatthe specialisof our
governments prepare,assoonaspossible[a]jointrequesttobesentto the[EC]and reach an
understandincgoncemingthe mandate of theplannedtrilateral~ornmittee"~.ESled tu a
I
meetingofDeputyForeignMinisters on 130ctober6'.But onceagain,Hungary reimposedits
I
pre-conditioTUthe appointmentofa triparticornmissiIthatCzechoslovakiamust suspend
al1workon the Project. It must be stressedthatthidas Hun~arv' sre-conditionnot a
conditionimposedbv the Itwas naturalunacceptailetoCzechoslovakia.
64 SlovakMernoria,nnex117.
65 Ibb., Annex121.
6s m., Annes 123.
67 l
Sec,SIovaCkounier-Mernorp,ra6.154.17.
68 l
Hungarytisncorrtçcounofihismeetingpointd-ointheSlovakCounler-Metnorp,ra6.17.
Thercwasnoagreedremrdofthismeeting. 9.48 TheIastaitempt atcompromisemadeprior to thestartofdmmhg was
containedinanAide-Mémoir tabledata meeting on 22 Octoberin BrusselsinwhichtheEC
participateclmInthisdocument Czechoslovakima adethe followingundertaking:
"...until the completion of the work of the Tripartite Commission
[Czechoduvakiaw ] ilnotdiverttheflow of theDanubeRiverfrom itspresent
mainriverbed ,nd althe maures which are nowunder way on thetenitoryof
[CzechosIovakia]wiIIensure thatthe whole naturd flow of the Danube wi1I
passthrough theold rivehed70"
Hungary never showedtheslightestinteresinthisofferatthetime.
SE~ION S. The Pumose of the Filinpof Hun~arv'sA~~lication tothe Court
9.49 FurtherevidencethatHungary' soleobject,havingactedpurportedly to
terminatethe 1977 Treaty,was tustopthe puttingintooperation oftheGabEikovo sectionof
the Project is provided byHungaryrfsilingwith the Registrar otheCourt on 23 October
1992, anApplicationagainstCzechodovakia entitled:"TheDiversionoftheDanube~iver"" .
9.50 In its Counter-Mernoria Hl,ungarydisputesSlovakia'sassertion in its
MernoriatlhattheApplication concemed onlythe questionofproceeding withVariant "ciin.
Hungarycontendsthatitproposed:
II..bitngingthe complete case [of theGIN Project]inits entirety before the
Court andnot ody with regardtuVariantc~~ ."
But thisis clearlynot so. As a merereading ofthe Submissionsin Hungary's Application
shows, theApplicationwas directed atstoppingVariant "C". Moreover,Hungarjt's analysis
involvesajugglingof documents thatis seriouslymisleading.
64 GIovakCounter-Mernorip,ras.6.194.2 1.
" SIovakMernoria,nnex 125.
71
HungrtriMemririaIVol.4, Annex102.
72
HungariaCounter-Mernor para.2.84eim~.,referritotheSlovakMernorialara.4.85,a.
73
HungariaCounter-Mernoripal,r2.85seealsom., para7.12. 9-51 Tu beginwith, in its Counter-Mernorial,Hungary claimthat itest
I
pmposed "tubrîngthewholedispute beforcthe Court"iI a letteof6 August1992 fmm its
I
Prime ~inistet'qThisis incorrectsucha propositiowas first madeinaletterof18August
inwhichthe liited objectiveofgoin8totheCourtwas cIearIspelledoutTs
I
1
9.52 In thisletter,Hungatyconiïrmedt1e absenceof negotiationssofarto
settIethedispute:
I
l
"Thejoin Wtiberationofthe disputedquestions;asnot begunbecauseof the
consistent rejection by [Czechoslovakiaof wungar)lfsl reqüest for the
suspensioof thefGlNProject] .."
TheHungarÎanPrimeMinisterthm madethisspecificsudestion:
1
"1therefore proposethat[Czechoslovakia and qungary]mutuallyagree
submitthe disputeover theimplementationof VariantC to the International
Courtof Justiceandrequestadeci~ion~.~
Thiswas preciselywhatthe ApplicatioofHungary subI&ted on 23 October was directeto -
not rhssettlementofthe"whoIedispute" ,sHnngary'sCounter-Memuriad l aims.
SECTION 6. CzechrisIovakiaProteeda to Put into Oaeration the "Provisional
SoIution"f24-27Octoher 1992)
9.53 Hungary hasattemptedto dramatisethedamrning operation,butitwas
aneventthat hadbeen long forecasaridlikeanydamming operationofthiskinditcailedfora
strenuouseffortovera fewdays'time.1twas no morethanthecarefullyplamed step,initiated
aRerCzechosIovakia proceeded to the "provisionalsoiution" in November 199tu put this
systerninto operation.
9.54 LiLe the November 1991 mion, ii was provisional,temporaryand
reversibland didnotprevent areversiontotheTreatyProjectin respectoGabEikovo w,hich
it anywaycloselyresembled.
'4 IbIbpara2.85.HungariaMernorial,ol4,Amex 90.
" I
HungarimMernorial,Vol4, Annex92. The 6 Augusfletter ~ntaioniy anindicatiothat
Hungarymighhavetoremri10ihCouritohaiworkan ~&ant "Cn.
76
-bid. Emphl~sdded. 9.55 Finally,theris one morepoint tobe madeconcerningthe conduct of
the Treaty partiesuptu the §tarof the damming operation. Why was Hungary's action
purportedlytoterminatethe Treaiynottotallyin coritradictionwith theconditionforEC
participatisetoutinthe Andriessenletter?Wasthis notinviolationoftheconditionagainst
taking"anysteps...which would prejudicepossibleactionstobe undertakenon thebasisof
[the proposedcornmittee's]findingsThe answermust be "yes".
SECTION 7, Conclusionsinthe Li~ht of theAririiicabIeLaw
A. Czechoslovakia's Entitlement to Proceed With the ttProvisional
Solutionttin November1991
9.56 The Iegalbasis for CzechosIovakia'saction in November 1991 fo
proceed with the "provisional solution" was t1977 Treaty. This action was the first
concretesteptakên towardsputtingthe GabEikovosectionof theGINProject into operation;
andinArticle2(1)(b) of the SpecialAgreementitwas singledoutas thefirsof two actions
takenby Czechoslovakia concerning the "provisionalolution"on whose legalvaliditythe
Court was askedto rulen. It is uncontestebetween the Parîiesthat the Treaty winfull
forceandeEect atthetimethisactionwas taken.
9.57 Therewere four other particuIarlyimportant factors formingof the
context withinwhich CzechoslovakiaactedW, Hungarywas (and had longbeen)in breach
of the Treatasa resuIof a serieof breachesstartinon 13 May 1989 and cuIminatingin
Hungary'stotal abandonmentof the Project by mid-1990 (given formarecognitionin the
Hungarian GovernrnentResolutionof20 Dccember I990).
9.58 Second, the evidence now before the Court reveals that when
i~egutiationsresumedin 1991 theexclusiveaim of Hungary was to gain CzechosIovakiais
agreement taterminatethe Treatyand tubring theProject roanend. Czechodovakidsaim
was quitediEere itt :stu induceHungary turesurneworkunderthejointIy agreedpIanfor
completingandputtingthe GabEikovo sectionintooperation.The meetingofPrime Ministers
of 14-15July 1991put an end to Czechoslovakiahopes. For Hungarymade itunmistakably
17
-SM,paras901-9-06a,ove.clearto Crechoslovakiathat ifonly negotiatingaim wak tosecun anagnedtemination of
I
the Tnaty and the Project,and it~~ttegoncallyefused 10mnsiderwhethertherewere any
rnutuallacceptableways of proceedingwiththe Gabfiko?osectionon ajointbasis.
l
9.59 This led, thirdIyto the fuma1 approvd inthe ResoIution of the
I
CzechoslovakGoverment of25July 11991forthe financiaand IogisticaIplanninnecessary
before putting GabCikovointo operationunderwhatbecameVariant "CM. The firstaciivity
involvingconstructionwork onthisvariantoccurred inN!wember 1991 - andisthesubject of
thefirstquestionputto theCourt underArticle2(i)(b). /tconcernedreducingthe sizeof the
reservoirby constructina new dyke onCzixhoslovak te~tosf; butat thatsage ir obviorrsly
I
had noeffecton theflow oftheDanube andno impacton Hungarian territo~y~~.
9.60 Thefourthaspect was of aquitedifferentkind. Sorneof thestructures
of thebypass canalhadstartedto deterioratasa resultoflthctwo-yeardelayin theschedulsd
l
dammingof the Danubeand inthe fiIIinofthe reservoirand bypass canal.This calledfor
emergencyprtitectiverneasure such aswere taken inJuIy1991 tu pumpsomewaterhm the
Danubeintothe bypasscand9) as wellasForanimmediatem , oreeffectivsolution.
The LeealBasisfor Praceedinewiih the "PravisionaISolution"
9.61 Until the time when ~zechoslovai<ia decided to proceed with the
I
"provisionalsolution"(in November 1991),there werea Rurnberof coursesof actionlegally
I
availabletoit:
l
- -irsf, tu attempto resolve Hungqis breachesthrough negotiatians;
I
just snch an attempwas madeby Czechoslovakiaduring 1989, but it
faitedbecause thenegotiationswere brought to an end by Hungary in
early 1990,who thenproceeded unilaterallyo abandon the Projectby
mid-1990;
'' I
TheNoven~bS rction\vfollaweby Czechoslwakîaappr~vd,in its Governent ResoIuof12
December1991,toproceetoputinlooperaiiontGaMiko~o sectionundertheprovisiosolution
ofVarian"Cu,anment thawasnnoscheduletabeginuntiItheendoOctober1992.
''
S3 SlovakCounter-Memorip al,5.74. 1 - Second, tu teminate the Treaty by reason of Hungary's materid
breachesand to seekanarbitraiorjudiciaisefilement;
- Third. to continue to perform the Treaty asbest it could in the
circumstances, seeking a negotiated or a judicial settlementof the
damagesresultingfrom Hungary's breaches, and attempting in the
meantimeto mitigatethedamages to bothsides;
- Fourth,to accedeto Hungary'd semandsto terminate theTreaty andthe
Project; however,duringthe 199 1negotiatians ,zechoslovakia made it
clear to Hungary that this option was not acceptable and that it
continued tu insiston the perforinanceofthe Treaty (and the entire
Project) iaccordance with the Treatysterms.
9.62 Thus,thechoice tobe made came down to the second and options,
andin the circumstancesit was,in apracticaisense,nochoice atall. For duringthe fouror
moreyearsrequired to resolvethe disputeifthe second optionwere chosen, not onlywould
theGabEikovo sectionstructures,almost completedin1989, havecontinuedto deterioratebut
aIso the environmenta lnd economiccatastrophe causedfor Czechoslovakiaby I-Iungaryts
abandonmen otf theProjectwould have been unacceptablyprolonged - withboththe Slovak
andHungarianside ms systems continuingto dryup and thenavigationhazardsandflood
risk problems remaining unresolved. Meantirne, damages would be mounting
astronornicall~. Mureover, a studyconducted by Czechodovakia revealedtherestitutioof
thesite toanythingevenapproaching itspre-Treatyconditionnot tu betecfinicalfwib~$* .
9.63 As a consequence,afier Hungary'sreaI intentionsbecame cIear atthe
JuIy 1991 meeting, itwas apparent tu Czechoslovakia that ithad tu proceed with the
"
Therewas also ncertainfabsentanyprovisioin theTreaty pmvidngQra judiciaor arbitral
remcdy, f gettingdisputeresolvd. Thewas noreasontobelievthatHungq wodd wter intn
acornpro miingtheCourtbroadjurisdicttondd with theentirdisputeSee .nthisregard,
Hungary'sHardirepor(HungarianMemonal,Vol. 5(Part1), at p. 165wherethihsigh-level
cornmittemade it clearthat Hungarymuld force Czechoslovakito compromisesince no
internatiolourthadjurisdictoverthedisputewithoutHungarconsent.
81
See .nnex3,hereto.GsbEikovo sectionunder the "provisionalolution"t,hatlito pursucthe -Ld option above.
This was so no#justto dealwith theenvironmenta andeConomic disasteforCzechoslovakia
thatHungary's abandonmentof theProject had brought,but foressentiaIegaIreasonq as we8.
I
For once it chose tu continue to perfbnnthe Treaty rathtrthan to terminate itowing tu
I
Hungary'smaterial breacheq Czechoslovakia had to act inaccordance 4th its decision.
I
CzechosIovakia had the obligation,in cmykg out its Treaty obIigationstu mitigate the
mountingdamagesresuItinghm Hungary'b sreachcs bynot allowingthe emptyresewuirand
bypasscanai and the donnant weir structurestu furtherdeteriorateand by completing and
puftingintooperationthese facilitiesin investmentthrough
the production ofelectrieitysZ. Aboveail, under treatylaw to
carry out the Treatyand to receivesuch the Projectin spiteof
Hungary'sabandonment.For an abandonment a treaty of its obligations
thereunder isnot to be giventhesamelegaleffect as a validterminationof the treaty;
andin the present case,thisabandonmeno tccurred thepurportedtermination of
theTreaty.
9.64 As Chapter VI above has shown, Czechoslovakia's actions were in
accordance with the Iegalconceptof approximate appIicationandthe obIigationof mitigation
I
of damages. To denyCzechosIovakia the rîght tu havesuacted would betu deprive it of ifs
I
iight undertreatyIaw tochoose to continueto performth&Treaty, ratherthan to terminate it
I
for Hungary'sbreaches or simplyto accedeto Hungary's d1mands tu disregardthese breaches
and agree tu terminate.
82 ThesibationofNa~maros wasquitedi£Fèren.inc eorkthtrewasordyinitearIystagein 1989,
Crecho~Iwalriaadindicaicdon 2ûclabr 1989 thafit +ldsccepfadeiayinthatsectionothe
Projecto&w timefoimpactsrudietobefamed out.prilriiy aspeak modeoperationHence,
adelayinprxeedingwithNagmros didnotpresentthhugemnomic and environmeritalproblems
thatexisteaaGaEikovo iftheworkdid notpr-. Nevertheles, Hungq haskn qtrictn
suggea inits pleadingsthafCrechoslovaqrrid intheabandorimenofNagymaros bynot
faiIinfoinsist ontpedonnanr oehispartofthTreaty. This confirmsthefthaifwaç1egaIly
prudentforCzechosIovakaoprd withGaMikovo afteHungary'refus taeven reconsidthe
resu~nptioofwork#asmade plain,sincatGaEiliovoir ?aspossiblefor Cmhoslovaktotake
overandputintoaperafiothissectionthe Prajwitbuf Hungary'sarticipation. Proceeding With the "ProvisionaISoiution" In No Way Furedosed
theJoint Resumationof the Gabëikovo Section
9.65 Czechoslovakia'asctionin November 1991 occurredapproximately a
year before thenarrow "window" of time for dammingthe Danube would permitthe
GabEikovo sectionactuallto beputinto operation(in October-Novembe r992). Thus,the
actionto procd was in no sense a fai atcompli sufar asthe final implementafioof
Gabzikovowas concemed. It hid no effecon the Danube's Bow andcaused Hungary no
damage. But, atthe sarnetirne,becauseofthenarrownessofthis "window"i,twas necessaty
tostartworks inNovember1991, j.eto,proceedwiththe"provisiona slolutioatthisthe in
orderto be ableto put GabEikovointo operationbeforethe endof the followingye#;
otherwisethethreeyears'delayalreadycausedbyHungarywouldhave beenextendedto four
years,withal1theattendanadverseconsequences.
9.66 Butthroughoutthe time betweenproceedingwith thisstepand the final
darnrningoperation- aperiod of 1I months -Czechodovakia repeatedlysought tuinduce
Iiungar)r toresume joint performanceof the GabEikovo section ofthe Project and tu
participateinnegotiatiooverhow thismightbe achievedunder amutuallyagreedplanunder
the 1977 Treaty-the sortof arrangementthatin October1989 Hungaryhadproposed. No
interirstudieshadbeenconductedinthemeantirne thatmighthavealteredoraffectedin any
way the understandingfthe scientiffactthattheTreatypartieshad inOctober1989,when
Hungaryfonnallyproposed to goaheadand putthe GabEikovo sectionintooperationonthe
baas ofagreedenvironmerita luarantees-the subsequenBechtd andHQI studies providing
noscieniifisupportfor abandoningthe~roject84.
9.67 Thus, quite asidefromal1the environmentale,conomic and practical
reasonsenurnerated above in this Chapter,makingiterninentlyreasonableand a practical
83
This concemed,basicallythe constructof the çunovo iveiupstreamof DunakrIiton
Czechoslovterrilog, whhedarnmingoperatiwastotakpeIacethenarrowinofthreçervaîr
andothcrrclateeasures.
"
Indd, thestwostudiesshouldhavbroughtheTreatyparticlosetoanagreemen toprocd
withGabtikovo. -240 -
necessityfor Czechoslovakiatoproceedwith the"provisionaIçoIufion0,Czechoslovakia was
I
also.obligedtuact then inthimsarner inorder toprodt itlegalSght S. Having chosetn u
I
continuetu performthe Treaty in spite oHungarfs breIches,CzechosIovaIcihaad the right
and the obligatioto do so.To havediowed anothery& to passbefore puttingGabfikovo
l
into operation would have been an abdication of those legai rights and duties that
Czechoslovakia had patientlpostpoeedexercisingfor th', yearsin a row intheinterestsof
findingasolutionto allowjointoperationofGabEikovo tdpmceedunder theTreaty. It rnust,
therefore,be concludedthatCzechoslovakia was entitledto pro& with the "Provisional
Solution"inNovember 1991.
B. Czechoslovakia's Enfitlemen t tu Put Tnto Operation the
"ProvisionaISoIution"fromOctober1992
I
9.68 BetweenNovernber 1991 andthe dart of the dammingof the Danube,
I
once againno new scientificstudiesinthe environmenta eRectsof theG/NProject, alleged
earthquake risk,or any other aspectsthatmightin anJ way have alteredor affect& the
scientificunderstandinof the Treaty partiewere undertaken byHungary. No joint studies
eitlrewere undertaken by the Treaty parti-sdue tu the pre-condition irnposedby Hungary
that CzechosIovakiastop its performanceof al1 work Inder the Treaty before even the
appointment of a joint or trilatcommission couidbe agreed. It has been shownearlierin
thisChapterwhy sucha pre-conditionwasnotrewnable Arjustifiableintheîircumstanccs".
Itsimpositiontransformed theensuingnegotiations duringthisperiodinto a charade. For if
Hungarycould get Czechoslovakia toagree to stopwork,Hungary could succeed in gaining
anotherwhole year (due to the "winduw" that controIIedthe damming operation), thus
pûstponing the putting into operation of GahEikovrrntilthe end ofOctuber 1993. Tnany
event, Hungary'sonlypurposein agreeingtu jointortrilaterltudies- aIwayssubject tu (and
hence abnrted by) this pre-condit-owasto WearCzechoslovakia downinto finaIIyacceding
1
tu Hungary'sposition and agreeingto terminatethe Treatyandabandon the Project(asthe
Hungarian Counter-Mernoriia nleflecconcedesg ). ~nliké Czechoslovakia , ungaryhad not
85
Sc,para.9.17,gfXQ.aime.
HnngariaCounier-Memoriapara.2.50. given any indicatioit was prepwed tu abideby the findmgsof any snch jointor trilaterat
studiesS7.
9.69 But the event of greatest interestoccumng between the time
1 Czechoslovakiaproceededwith the "provisionasiolution"and put it into operatiowas
I
Hungary's purportedterminatioofthe 1977 Treatyannounced on 19May1992.
The Effecfof Hunearv*sPumorted Terminationofthe 1977 Treatv
9.70 Asshown beIowinChapter X {where the questioof the legaeffectsof
Hungary's notificatioftemination isexamined o), ofHungaryis19Maynotification
was clearly tocausetheTreaty to ceaseto be in full force andeffeor,toreleasethe
Treatypartiesfrom theirrespectiveiightandobligationsthereunder.As a result,one of the
mainreasonsthatHungaryclaimslaybehind itsnotificatiooftermination-to put an endto
Czechoslovakia'work towards puttingGabëikovo into operationby the end of October
1992~~ - was not achieved. Nor was the legalbasis for Czechoslovakia' suttingthe
"provisionalsoIution"into operatiin any way weakened or aitered. Infact, Hungq's
notificatioftemination was anacknowledgemero rtthe strengtoftheIegaIbasisonwhich
Czechosfovakiwaasactingand its needof anapproximatapplicatioof the 1977~reaty~'.
9.71 However,Hungary'n sotificatiof terminationdidhave an eRect that
relatesdirectlyto the questionof Czechoslovakia'sentitlementtput into operationthe
"provisionalsolution"five months afierwards. For it was unrnistakablthe definitive,
irreversibabandonmen tf theG/N ProjectbyHungq. As such, the nextlogicalstefor
Czechoslovakiacuuidoniy be tu seeto fniitionitsdecisioto proceedto the "provisionai
sohtion"in November 1991. The onIy deveIopment that wouId have made such a step
unnecessarywould havebeen if Hungary,atthe endofthe day,inthe fuiligh ofrecognition
rharCzechosIovakiaftrIIyintendto putthe GabEikovo sectionintooperationunder-Variant
"Cu,would havereIentedand sought tufindwirhCzechosIovakia a mrrtriallyagrebasisfor
87 Sg para.9.1above.
88
HungariaMernorial,aras.10.26-10.31.
"
S-eepara.6.0above.thejointoperationof GabEikovo (suchashadseemedpossible attheendof Octuber 1989).
I
But duringthenegotiationsthatfollowed~zechoslovakiaIsctionof November 1991- just&
d~nng the negotiaiionearlierin1991 -therewss not a hiclteof hopc that Hungarywovld
I
cornearound toacceptits obligationsundetheTreaty.~&ary's =actiow nhen itcame face
I
tofaoewith Czechoslovak iet'rminationopruceeddth1thedamming of theDanube, was
preciselythe opposite-to daclareunequivocalIy
Treatyobligationsthroughitsunilaterlotificatiof
9.72 Thus,having proceededwiththe '\provisionsolution"in Novernber
l
1991 -an actionwhichitwasfûllyentitleto take-~zechsslova hkadaverynason ofboth a
I
Iegal and practical charactto proceed tu take the fIkt step in putting thGabEikovo
hydroelearic plantintopaation by damming the~amtbkI atCunovounder the "provisional
solution"; and by the timHungary had purportedto tehinate the Treaty, Czechodovakia
I
couIdnolanger aRord tu "sleeonthese rights".
Huneary's 1nabiIit-yin Law to Claim, Even in Error, that
Czechoslovakia'sAction to Put variant "C" Into O~eration Was
ltselaBreach ofthe 1977Treatv
9.73 Czechoslovakia'sprovisionasloiut1dnwas in si] respectsthsameas
the agreed Gabfikovoseaion of the Projeçt exxcepwhkre, due to Hungary'sbreaches, a
I
modificationinthe agreed planwasnece~saqinwder tupit it intooperation:
I
- The pIace of dammingwas moved upstrearn hm Dunakilitionto
I
Czechoslovakterritorybecauseof 13&ngaryatbandonmen ottheworks
l
atDunakiliti(andits terminationol:relatedcontracts)preventingthe
damming frornoccumng on~un~aridn territoty;
-
The sizeof the reservoiwas decrdged so as to avoid theneed for
caqing out work on Hungarian territom inthe Iight ofHungqts
abandonment;
- PuttingGabEikovo intoperationwad notan activityjointly sharedwith
I
HungarybecauaeHungaryhad refusedatthetirneto participatinthe Project inmy way or even tu discusshow the "provisiond soIution"
mightbe jointloperated.
Thus, the "provisiona olution"failedto accord with the agreed planody to the extent
preventedby Hungary' s reachesandHungarycannotbe allowed toclaim thatGabEikovo
couId un1ybe putinto operationon ajoint basiswhenitwas Hungarywhorefused tujob in
the operation.
9.74 Under Hungary'c sontentions,these diErences hm theagreed Project
would leadto theabsurdresultof allowingaPartyto a treatyby itown breaches,to prevent
the otherparty,notinbreach, from exercisingthelegalrightsgivento itundertreatylaw to
continueto performthattreaty.Theconclusionmust beothenvise: thatHungary in breachof
the Treaty, which it had definifiabandoned n,ecessàrilis unablto claimin law such a
breachagainstCzechosIovakia (and today againstSiovakia).For thedaim is made under the
veIy same TreatywhichHungaryis in materiaibreach ofand which, paradoxicallit hasdso
purported tu termiriaunilateraIIand its purposeis simplto prevent Czechoslovakîafiom
carryingouttheTreaty. Thislegalpointhasbeen deveioped infullinChapter VI above andin
ChapterX beloww .
9.75 Finallythe resultsofover threeyears of operationof the GabEikovo
section have beentu bring odybenefit tu Hungary, not damage, as well as tu permitthe
reapingof atIeastparof thefloodcontroland navigationbenefitsenvisagedbythe Treaty.
9.76 There is nobar -andthercneverhas been - tujoint operationofthe
Gabtikovosectionon anagreed-upon basis.IfHungaryagreesto returntotheTreatyProject,
nothingstandsinthe wayof returningtotheoriginalplanforoperatingthe GabCikovo section,
possiblysupplemented bythe sortof agreementon environmenta later qualityandtechnical
guarariteethattheTreatypartiesenvisagedinOctober 1989. For from itsinceptionVariant
"Cuwas adopted as a "provisionalsoIution",as isreflectedinthe SpeciaIAgreement; it is
reversibleso as to allowthe planof operation underthe hl1 Treaty Project eventuallbeu
substituted.
90
&c,paras6.05gtses a. , andparas.IO16,gtsa.below. Proceedin~Witk and Puttine Intu Uneration the "ProvisionaISoiution"
Did NatVioIattAny OtherProvisionofinternational Law
9.77 The actions oproceedingwith and puttinginto eEect Variant"C",
1
beinganapproximata epplicatioftheTreaty,do notpreIentanydifferenissueherethanthe
carryingout of the GabEikovsectiounder theTreaty~rojectwouldhavedone. Thus, the
I
discussionaboveinChaptersMl andWI (aswell asthei>artofChaptersIiand IT Ieferred
to there-demonstratintgheinapplicabiloyf sucotherprovisionsoflaw and thefact that,
even weretheyapplicable,hecaqing out of he GN ProjectwouId behIIy consistentwith
I
ihem -appliesequailyhereandrequirenofurtheelaborahon.
9.78 As aresult,Czechoslovakiaasentikletoproceed,inNovember 1991,
to the"provisionalolution(known asVariant"C") and\O putinto operationfromOctober
1992thissystem. .P=R X, ARTICLE ZIfMcl: TRE LEGAL EFFECTS OF THE
NOTiFICATION ON 19 MAY 1392 OF THE TERMINATIONOF
TRE TREATY BY HUNGARY
SECTION 1. Introduction
1O.OI The thirdquestionput to the CourtunderArticle2(1) of the Speciai
Agreementisthefollowing:
"[Wlhat arethe Iegd efecto sf the notificatioon May 19,7992, of the
teminationoftheTreaty bythe RepublicofHungaw
10.02 The verywordingofthis question shows dearly that the Partiesarein
agreementthat itwas onlythisnotificationby Hungaryto Czechoslovakiaof itintentionto
putanendto theTreatythat iscapablei,fataIIof havinglegalconsequences.As a result,the
preparatoryactionsoftheHungarian Governmentsuchas theParliamentarRyesolutionof 24
March 1992' and the GovernrnenRt esolutionof 7 May 1992~, themselves,have no legal
signifrcancefoeitheCzechoslovakiaorSlovakia.
10.03 The 19May notificationreferrtu inArtide 2(1)(cwas comprised of
three separateinstrumenta:Note Verbaleof 19 May 1992; a DecIarationfurnishedwith the
-ote Verbaledated 16 May (the "1992 Declaration");and a letterfrom Hungary'sPrime
Ministerto theCzechostovakPrimM eiristerdated19May 19923.
10.04 One ofthe undeniableeffectof the 19 May notificatioon whichthe
Partiesseemto be in agreementis that,prioto thatdate, the 1977Treatyandthe related
agreementswerein fullforceandeffectandthe obligationsimposedby themon the Treaty
partieswere requiredtube carriedout by them4. Evenwere the vanous legaljustifications
advancd by Hungarjr for teminafion (prior breachesof Czechosiovakia, irnpossibiiityof
performance, fundamentacihanges of circurnstance"stateof necessity"etc.)found tobe
I
Hu~rgariCnounter-MernorV,I.3Annex52freplacinHungariaMernoriai, oI.annex156).
2
-IbidVol.3Amex 53 (replacingHungarMernorial,oI.4&ex 157).
3
SlovaMernoriai, nneI13HungarianMernoria, o4, Annex83.
4 &, HungariaCounter-Mernoril,187,fn5.valid,quodnon,they would notapplyautornaticdlyipso~iure.Article64ofthe 1969 Viema
I
Conventionaside(emergence ofa newperemptory nom oI generd internationallawa,treaty
-assumingtheapplication ofanyof thejustificationsaIvhced by Hungary-can corne toan
end ody aftera precise procedureifollowed,asrqujred by Anicles 65-68 of the 1969
I
ViennaConvention -and onlythenifthe partiewishingIo putanend tothe treatso notify
Of course, whateverds effect.any suchnotification in
the other pariy (orparties)'. I
accordancewith theseArticlescould operate odyasiothe future. Thus, the 19 May
I
notificationcan onlbe viewed asconfirming~un~ary'h recognitionof thevalidityof the
Treatyupuntilthatdate.
I
10.05 Butthe pointsof agreementbetween the Partiesstop there. Hungary
I
contendsthatfheterminationwas IawfuI, rguintgat it19Maynotificationput an end tu the
Treaty. Slovakiaon the othehand, maintaintshatthe notificathadnosuchcfFectsince its
I
reaIbasiswas unlawfuland sincethe requiredpmcedurkswere not observed. But in the
I
presentcasethisdoes notmean that th13 Maynotificationhadnolegalsignificanceatal1(as
wiIIbe shown in thenext Section).In additionforpurposes ofthepresentargument only,
Section 3 will go onto show that evaihadHungaryAcceededin terminating the Trerty
unilaterall-which iscertainlynot thecase- the 19Ma!!notificationwould not, by itself,
resolveal1thelegalproblernsesultinfromsucha purportéd termination.
l
SECTIUN~. The IrreeuIaritvand NuIIitvof Huneam's Notification of 19 May
-1982
10.06 Initsearlierpleadings, Slovakiaha: show that Hungaq'spurported
unilateral temination of t1977 Treatywas in vidarion oitsinternationalobiigations,for
l
which itmay be held responsiblP. InthisReplythe same pointhasbeenmadeagain7. Itis
enoughhere to recallbneflythe reasonswhyHungaty'snotificationwas obviouslynul1and
irregular:
5
SecA.rticIe5X(1469ViennaConvention.
G 1
Secgg.,SIova kernoriaI,par6.814.10 7ndChapterMII;SIovaCkounter-Mernori,hapter
X.
7 I
& Chaps.IVandV, above. - TheTreatycontainsno termination clause, and its verynaturernakesit
obviously impossibletoimpIy arightof termination;
- Therefure, theTreaty cannot be denounced under the des codrfied
under Article56 ofthe ViennaConvention; and itappearsthatHungary
does notso argue8;
- Asa result, Hungq must finda bais outsidethe Treaty tu support its
contentionsregarding ifspurportedterminationof the Treaty;thesecm
onlybe foundin the nilescodifiedunder Articles60 to 63 of the 1969
Convention;
- At theçametime,Hungaryhas not estaldishedthat its "termination"was
inresponse to abreachof theTreaty by Czechodovakia (Articl60}, or
that thereexistedthe impossibilityof performance(Article 61) or an
interven fundgamentaclhangeof circumstance Article62). In spite
of the increasedtensio inthe relationsbetween tkem resuIting hm
Hungary'sviokttions of the Treaty, the two States did not sever
diplornati celationssothatthe questionof the effectofsuch a rupture
ontheTreaty(Article 63)does not arise.
10.07 AccordingIy,the 19MaynotificationIackedany legaIbasis andhadno
effect. Infact, as hasbeensaid,itiscommonlybeIdthat "lesactesunilatkauxétatique sont
[soumis] au respectdesobligationisnternationalqeuis'imposen t leurauteurug.Moreover,
thejurisprudenceisclearthata Statecannot unilaterallmodiQobligationsimposedon itby a
treatyl'.Thisapplies,a fortiori,inthcaseof atemination.
8 &, HungarianCounter-Mernoriap,ra.5.41.
9 Translatio:[TheunilaterlctsofaStatearesubjetothesameinternationalbligatiotowhich
dieSuteialf issubject.Jean-Pa Ju1quéEItmenfspour une théoriedeI'aciuridiam
imernationpub& Librairigénéralee droit elde jurisprudParis,1972,p.162. % al%,
Jean-DidiSicauI1"Du catacfkebligatoiredesengagemenunilatéraux", e an&rde de droit
internafic1r~bIic,979Nu 3p.662.
1O See.Intcrnajiin-alS.ufsSouthWestAfricaAdvisorO~inion.I.C.RJ.ports1950, p128,atp.
141. IO.08 In itsNote Verbaie of 22 May
Hungary's 19Maynotification ,sfollows:
"Havingexaminedthe contentsofthe aboveNo. and the Dedaration ofthe
Governent ofmungq] of May 16, 1992, [i echosfovakia]reaffirms its
positionthat mrrngary]hasnoIegalgrounds tout ~terailterminatehe LI977
Treatyj and the treaty documents reIated tu Thereforethe Note of
[Hungary]ofMay 19, 1992 cannothave any leg effects on the 1977 Treaty
andthetreatydocuments relatedtoit"."
Czechoslovakia'psositionwas reafimed bjritsPrime Mi
;terina Ietteof6 August 1992 tu
the HungarianPrime ~iriister",as weIIasseveraltirne there&r13 . These protestshave
great IegaIweight foheyimmediateIy depnvedthe 19M notificatiof anylegd effect.
10.09 Articl65 ofthe1969 Vienna Con\ itionestablishe"Procedure o be
foIIowed wifh respect to invalidity, temination, withrwd hm or suspension of the
operationofa treaty."Paragraph 1sto3 thereofprovide foIIows:
"1; A partywhich, under theprovisionsof thi iresentconvention,invokes
eithea defectinitsconsenttobe boundby atreai or agroundforimpeaching
the validitof atreaty,terminatingit,withdrawi :fiom itorsuspending its
operation,must notifythe other partieof itsc m. The notificationsshdI
indicaie the rneasureproposeto be takenwith çpecttu the treatyand the
reasonstherefor.
2. If,aRertheexpiryof a penodwhich, exce] in casesofspecialurgency,
shallnotbelessthanthreemonthsafierthe receii 3fthenotificationno party
hasraisedanyobjection,the partymaking the nui :ationmaycarry out in the
marner providedinartic l7ethe rneasurwhichii s proposed.
3. If, however,objection has beenraisedby tyother party,the parties
shaIIseeka solutionthroughthemeansindicated irticl33 of theCharterof
theUnitedNations."
10.10 These provisionsapply,whateverth
reason reIiedon foterminate the
Treaty,to any such notificationwhetherbased on Articlei6or on Articles60 tu 63 of the
Convention.
11
SlovakMernoria,nnex114.
II m., Annex I16.
" See,g..g.,~.,AnnexesI2IandI15. 10.11 It istnre that inits Memurial,recognisi tnegapplicabilitof the
procedure prescribeinArticle65 (althoughfor otherpurposes),Hungary appearsto claim
thatinfactitconformedto thisArticle,sayithat:
"Inlate1991 and early 1992,Hungary gave a seriesof warningsthat unless
worlionVariantC was suspend iedouldbeforcedto considerterminationof
the 977 ~reaty'."
10.12 But, inthe fir pface,thjsort ofultimatum isnotat dl a notification
envisagedby Articl65, whosepurposewas tu inforthe othertreatypar& (orpartiesas tu
the precisre~onsfor theterminationintendedinorderto allowthatpaf& turesp~nd'~.It is
significantin thisregathat the sorof "warning" givenbyHungay -fur example, inthe
Hungarian PrimeMirister'letterof19 December 1991 l6-containedguarded threatsbutwas
farfroma notificatioof thintendedunilateraierminatioof theTreaty.
10.13 Secondly,and most importantlyH, ungarycannotreasonablycontend
rhatatthe endof 1991and beginningof 1992 ihad notifiedCzechosIovakiof itsintentiotu
put an end uniIatera1tu the Treaty f,r throughoutthis pehd Hungary had devoted its
efforts soIdtohaving itsTreatypartneracce~ttheconcIusionofanagreement tu bringta an
endthe 1977 ~reaty"- qnita digere mnttter.
10.14 Nor canHungary hidebehindthe supposed"urgency" of the situation,
astheHungarian MernoriatiriestodotojustiQthenotificationof19 May199218. Therewas
no urgency thatjustifiedreducinto sidaysthereasonable time periodrequiredto precede
the notificatioand effective datefixedin Article6(2), asa minimumof three months.
Despite Hungary'sulrimaturn,CzechosIovakidid notbreakoif the exchmges;the damming
l4 BungarianMernoriai,pa10.100.
lS b, para9.27, m., above.
I6
HungarianMernoria,o1.4Annex 70.
l7
SI,para9.07efa., above.
'' HungariaMernoria,ara10.100.operationcouldonlyoccur at aperiodoflowBow, that inotfor anotheftv meonths". And
I
eightdays before Hungaes notification,the CzechoslovPrimeMinisterhad indicated@y
I
Ietterof II May 1992)"Czechoslovakiar'eadinestudiscnss... possiblechangein thedate
ofdammingthe Danube rîverbeby theCzecho-Slovak side"whichopenedthe possibiliof
thepostponernentforanother
10.15 Inreality,whatoccurred maks itkm thatHungary, anxiousto clin8
to itspretexforactingunilaterall,ntirelyignorethis11Mayoffer. It appearswry much
as itheCzechoslovakoffer infacthastenedtheprocess ifdecisionresultinginHungary's19
I
May notificatiotoCzechoslovakiacontrarytotheapplicable rules.
10.16But this is notto say that th19 ky notificatiowas without le@
1
significance.In its communicationtu the Czechoslovakauthoriries, Hungary confimed,
definitively,rhat it had nointentionofcanyingout its oblunderthe Treaty Ofcourse,
as alreadyrhown inChaptenVI1 and VIII,by susPendi&andthen abandoning theworks
successively at Nagyrnarosand then at Gabi-ikovo,&ungary had breachedits Treaty
obligationand hadbehaved asif, in iview,theTreaty ho longerexistefor itshowednot
the slightestintentiofreturninto performthe Project,evenin part. However,inspiteof
this,froma strictlylegalstandpoi,twouldstiHhavebeeripossib foeHungary foreturnto
the Treaty. The Projecrschedulemaynut havebeenrespected,the prublernsofcompensation
maynot have beenaddresseci,but the Treatycontaineciits ownsysternof of
dispute setriement=, andthese provisionscould have been applied. Wifh the 19 May
I
notification,however,it becarneclearthat Hungarjrwould no longercarranyofits Treaty
obligationsandthat thdoor was finnlyshuto anyarrangements ornegotiationbasedon the
Treaty. And this was so despite innumerablegesturds of good faith on the part of
Czechoslovakiawho neverhad ruledout eithea postponlmen otf the daof dammingor a
possiblere-examinationof peak mode operationor, obviously,of a retum to theoriginal
TreatyProject.
21
See,in particuIar,Andpara2(c).
22
SeeA.rtic27. 10.17 Thenceforth followingthe 19 May notification,nysuchpossibilitywas
wmpIetely excludedandCzechoslovakih aadnochuice butto proceedto put intooperation
the GabEikovosection of the Project underVariant"Cu. For thatwas the soIemeans for
Czechoslovakiatu obtainthe performance - appruximate as itonly couldbe -of the 1979
Treaty,which remained validandbinding between theTreatyparties.
10.18 Thus, although the 19 May notificationhad no effect on the Treaty's
vaIidiryit nonethelessconstitutedthe admission by Hungary of its definitive,irreversible
breachesofits Treatyobligations.Hungarycould not byitseIfputan end tothe Treaty,but by
itsconduct itreveakd inthe dearest possibw leay itsintentionnottu performthe Treaty.
Through the simpleapplication of the principleof good faith,the followingconsequences
thereforefollow:
- F&, Hungôry forfeitedtherightto rely inthe future onthe Treaty
whoseapplicabilityit denied(venire contrfachrm proprirrmnon vaIat);
in particular,thad no rightto attackthe puttinginto operationof
GabEikovounderVariant"C"on the basisthat itwas supposedlyin
violationof theTreatywhoseapplicabilitfyrom 19 May 1992 onward it
had denied(it beingnoted that tdammingof the Danubedidnot occur
lrnti24 Octuber 1992). NevertheIess,Hungary has not hesitaiedtu
make suchan argument; it has attackedVariant"Cl1repeatedlyon the
basisthatitallegedlis inconflicwiththe tems ofthe~reat~~;
Z
-
Second,CzechosIovakia was enfirelyjustifieci,oitspari,to drawthe
concIusion from thewnduct of itsTreatypartner that itconstituteda
definitivrefisal fo carry out the Treaty. But itmust be noted that
Czechoslovakia actedwiththe greatestpatienceso as to avoidbiînging
about an irreversiblesituation. And today, Variant"C" in nosense
standsin the wayof a returnto the stricapplicationofthe Treaty as
mon as Hungary isreadytudo so, andCzechosIovakia hasconsistentljr
stated its intentioto do so as suon as itsTreaty partner agrees,
23 ke,ej.,HungarianMemorialp,ara7.04-7.43HungariaCounter-Mernoriap,ras6.804.81. indicatinitsreadinesa"tu dernonstraenappropriateforthcoming and
flexibIaitit~de"~~.
10.19 Thus, inSlovakia'sview,the cl,! answer to thequestionput to the
CourtunderArticle2(l)(c) of theSpecialAgreementisJhatthe notificationo19 May 1992
I
was without IegaIeffeand thatHungary cannot uniIaterdIyescap6orn its obligatiofium
the 1977 Treaty(and itretatedagreements).However,this notificatigave risetu anew
situationwhich Czechoslovakia(and now Slovakia)are entireljustifiedinrelyingupon.
Therefore,in ordernot to leavc anylegal stone untuked,Slovakia willexamine in the
followingSectionwhatrnighthave been the efMs of thé19 Maynotificationhad itsobject
beenIawfiralndifnuml procedures hadbeen foIIowed.
SECTION S. The Hv~othetinl Effeetsof the ~htifieatiof 19May 1992
10.20 As show in theprevioussection,thenotificationo19 May 1992 was
I
nul1and voidandcouldnot have anylegaleffectonHungary'sTrerityobligations. However,
SIavakiaassumeshere -solelyforthepurposesof providiIangompIeteanswer tuthequestion
I
put tu the Court in Artide 2(I)(c) of theSpeciaIAgreement(atuHringaSscontention) -
1
thatHungarywasjustifiedindoubtingthecontinuingvalidityofthe 1977Treatyunder one or
moreof the basessetout in Article61 to 63 ofthe 1669 Vienna Conventio an,dthatit
oficiallinformeciCzeîhoslovakiaof its intentisoto t-inate withthe requiredadwice
I
notice(auud non). Were this thcase,the 19MaynotificationitseIwould not havebrought
to an end theTreafy(sub-section A beIow);and in addition,the terminatiof the Treaty
I
wouIdnot, inanyevent, have hadthe absolu tensequencesthat Hungarycontends (sub-
d
sectionB below).
A. The 19 Mliv Notification CouId kot,in Anv Eoent, Have Put an
End tathe Treatv
10.21Even setting aside its inttinsic nülliiy, th19 May notification
constituted onlythe firstageof acornplex procedure,'hieh remaineculnfinishedandwill
continueto doso untitheCourt'sJudgment isrendered.
24
SlrivMemoriaIA, nrrI15;seal=,m., Ameses 121,125and127. 10.22 According tothetermsofArticle65(3 )fthe Viema Convention,ifone
partyto atreathasraisedanobjection toa notificaticovered by Articl65(1),"the parties
shallseeka solutionthroughthe means indicatedin Articl33 ofthe Charterof the United
i Nations". And Article66 setsout the proceduresfor judicialsettlement,arbitratiand
l conciliatithatStatesareobligedto foUow "[ilf,nderparagraph3 of Article65,nosolution
has been reacheWirhina pe&d of 12monthsfoIIowingthedate onwhich theobjectionwas
l
10.23 No doubtthe detaiof theseproceduresowes more to theprogressive
development of internationallaw thanto its codification. But it cbendoubtedthat the
fundamentapl rinciplesthatunderliethemarederivedfromlex lata and are bindingon al1
States, ifonlybecauseStatesmustsettletheir internatidlisputesby peacefulmeans. This
hasbeen argued, for example,by the United Kingdom in regard tu the rebussic stantibus
doctrinefand hasbeen acceptedby thecourtz .
10.24 Fromthis,the foIIowingpointemerge:
- Firs the notificationitself producesno legal effecitprovokesthe
objectionofthe othepartyto thetreatyand
- Second, insuch a case,the temination occurs ody if either(i)the
partiesreach agreementorci) a decisiunin favuuroftermination is
made by a body having jurisdictiotoresolve the disputeinsuch a
fashion.
Any otherinterpretatiowouIdhave the effectof introducingan "automatiand irnmediate
rightof unilateraldenunciatio" hichdoes not exist underinternationallaw, as SirGerald
25
FisherieJrtriçdictiw UniKingdom v.IceIandPIeadin OnalArmrnenrrtDs.mumenfs,ICJ
Reports1973,Vol.I,p147-148.
25
Fisheris Juridicto~.cit.Judnrnenol2 Feb1973,IU Rewrts 1973.p.3, app.1% and21.
However,inthacaset,e1961ExchangeofNotespeciftdldled upn thepartitohaverecourse
totheCourt.Sec .m, E.VanEogaerf,"Lesensde ldause 'rebussstantibw'dam ldroit des
gensactuel",R.G.D.I.966p. 71. -2.54-
Fitmauricehas forcefullypohtedoutin hisSecond Reporttuthc IL€ on the Law ofTreaties
as Specid ~a~~ortefl. He addedthat the reco@/ion ofy~ch a unilaterari& of
l
terminationwould be incampatibIweifhinternationalpûliand,in particular, itthe 1871
London Declaratiunwhichcontinues "tobe pariof thewrittenrulesofpublic international
lawu". Inthisregard,theCour tilrd! thatundw the)enn oofthiFamou Dseclmation:
" ..aucunepuissance ne peut sedélier des engigementr d'unTraité,ni en
modifierlestipulationq,u'lasuitede~'assentimd ddesPartiescontractantes,
aumoyend'uneententeamicalew ."
10.25 Inthe presentcase,CzchosIuvaki absed anobjection immediatel&et
it recaivedthe HurrgananNote Verbalof 19 May 19%~'. The same day,the Czechodovak
Vice-PrimeMinister and Ministerof Foreign AffairsfomalIy made a requesttu theVice-
Presidentof the CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunity (forthe "assistanandgood ofices
of [the]Commission to contributo anaccepta boletiobl13. yletterof 6 August1992to
theHungarian Prime Minister,theCzechoslovakPrimeMinisterrenewedtheformaloffer "to
discusstheconditionsof stoppingwork on thesubstitutetechnicalsolution"an"to request
once again the EC Commission tu provide furthet sistance in seeking a rasonable
compromise solutiontuthe presentsituati~n"~'.
10.26Theseproposais were in corûurmi wtththe obligatioofthe Partiestu
seekthe peacefulsetdernentof theirdisputewithrespectto thepurportedtemination of the
Treaty. However, itwasnot until7 April1993 thattheP'nies were ableto reachan accord
on aSpecialAgreementsubmitting thecaseto theCourt.
10.27 It is, thuslefto the Coun todedmine with binding force whether
thereexisted anybasisfor the contentiofHungary as toputtinganend tu the 1937Treaty.
:7 I
AICN.4110 7aa.155.InternatioLlawCornmissiYeartioo, oI.Ip.41.
28 I
&id.,ara.56. l
29
Qwted inLordMcNair,The Law of Trab, ClarendoPress,Oxford1961p 497; thlearned
authoraddthfollowincomment:"îhis sounddoctri..."
I
30 &, paras10.08-10.09,above. 1
31 SIovakMernoriA,nnexl t4Seedm,para.9.43g m., above.
31 I&d.,ndSIovakMemariaI, nnei17. Iftheimpossibleoccurred,andthe Courtrecognisedthevaliditof Hungary'scontentions,it
l
l would cnlybestartinfromthe dateoftheCourt'sJudgrnentthattheTreatywould ceasetobe
10.28 There are severai reasonsfor this.Firs tte.principlpacta sunt
servandagivesristo atIeasa presumptio n favouroftheTreaty'scontinuhgvalidity;ndit
is significain,thiregard,thatthe ILC, whichinitiallhadenvisaged the possibiliof a
suspensionof atreatywhiIethe procedure,now setout in Articl65 of the1969 Viema
Convention,was ninningits in theendabanduned thatidea. Second,toallow the
l
contrarypresumptionwould envisage a 'situat-oextrernelydifficultin mocases,and in
others,absolutelyimpossib-eof aretumto performance of thetreatyifat theend of the
judicia1proceedings,thteminaiion is found udawful, But such a sort of "provisional
terminationmakesno sense atafi.m, thiswouldamount toan admissionthata Statthat
advancesa reasanforputtinganendtu a treatycanalsobe the judge ofits action,wfiichthe
customaryniles codifiedinArticl65and66 ofthe ViennaConvention were preciseaimed
atavoiding.
10.29 Hence, evenwere Hungary's 19 May notificatioto befound vdid -
whichis not thecase,as SIovakiahas shownin Section2 above -itwould havebegun a
processthat wouldcorneto an endody withthe CourtJ 'sdgment. Duringthe timeitwas
pending,the Treatywould continueto be bindingon theParties,who wouldbe bound to
observetheobligationimpostdby itoneach ofthem. Thus,Hungarj wouldhave nobasisfor
requirinthebenet3 of thefaitaccompliihastriedtocreateand whose ody IegaIefect was
torequiretheTreatypartietoseek thepeacefuresolutiooftheirdispute.
B. The "Termination"Could, inAnv Event, Bave Had No Retroactive
Effect
-
10.30 No matterunwhatdateit occurred,the terminatiof the1977 Treaty
couldnot inany eventhavehadretroactiveeffect. Thiscustomaryprincipleof international
lawiscodifiedinthesetermsbyArticle70(1)ofthe 1969ViennaConvention:
33 $% SirHumphreyWddock, 2ndRepurtontheLawof Treaties,Ymhk oftheIntemationbw
Commksh 1963,VolIIpp.87and266. , "1. Unlessthe treat othehre provides or thépartiesoihemise ape, the
terminationofs treatyunder itsprovisionor inlaccordancewith the present
Convention:
...
b) doesnotaffectany right,obligationorlegalsituatiofthe parties
~reatedthroughtheexecution ofthetreatypnor td itstermination."
10.31 Comrnenting on the initial draftf this article, the Es Specid
Rapporteur , iHumphrey Waldock,expressed theopinion thattheseprovisions:
" ...arlargelyseifmevidentndtheir main import&nceis tounderlinethat the
termindion ofa treardoes not inprînciplehave&y retmacfive effecton the
validitofthe actsof the partieduringthe oumdcy ofthe treatynor dissolve
rightspreviouslyacquireunderthe tnaty. The ahlicationof the treatyduring
the periadwhen itwas in forceandthelegal conse uencesfiowingtherefrom
arenotinany way affectebythetreaty'stermination ."
t
Article33(d)ofthe Harvard ResearchDraR Conventionadoptedthe sameapproach:
I
"Thetemination of a treat...does notaffectthevaIidityof@ta acquiredin
cogsequenceofthe performance ofobligationsstipulateinthetreaty."
AndLord McNair,whocitesthistext with approvalin thecourseof exarniningthe practice,
pruposed tuadd tû it:
"..or thevaIidtiyof righacquired intheexercise
of powersconferredbythe
~rea$' ."
10.32 On the basisof this firmlyestablishkprinciple,Hungarymust accept
(and draw the consequencefifim) aIIthat hasbeen done under the Treupytuthe date ofits
I
effectiveterminatio-evengrantingthepossibility,whichSIovakiadenies,that the Treatwas
1
infact ferminatebyHungary -rhatisto sayrightup tothemomentthattheCourt'sJudgment
becornesbinding,and not thedateof 25 May 1992 unilate!-alselectedbyHungaryin its 19
MayNote Verbale.
34
&qational LawaCommissionYearbook1963.ol.IIp.94.1,Comentary of Anide 28, para3,
35 LordMcNair,3 I., fn37,p.532. &, Amenan Journa1of InternafionaILOct. 1935,p.117,
fotex1ofArt. 33(Q. 10.33 To carrythepointa stepfirtherwhat mighttheeffectshavebeenif the
"temination" of theTreatyhad infact fakeneffeasHungary daims, on 25 May 1992? On
that date,the foIlowingsituationprevaiIed:
- The workson the Wikovo sectiohad almost beencompleted - the
reservoir,ypasscanal,theGabeikovo step andtheDunakilitwi eihad
ben constructcd,with orrlya fewthingsleftu be cornpletedand the
actualda-g of theDanube at Dunakilitiernaininu be out
(originalscheduledforOctoberf 989);
- Incontrat, due tu the considerabdelay incarryingout the work at
Nagymarosforwhich Hungary was responsible,andrelatedprojects,the
constructiontherwas farfiombeing completed;
- Czechoslovakia had undertaken prelirninarstudies into alternative
schemes for putting GabEikovointo operation and, beginning in
Novernber 1991, had proceeded to the "provisional solution" which,
however,was not to be put into operatiountilthe end ofOctober
1992.
10.34 These three aspectof theperformanco efthe Treaty presendiferent
problems asregardstheeffects(orwhatmight havebeen theeffects)oHungary's purported
termination. At thetimeHungaryclaimedtoputanend to thTreat yNagymarosbeingonly
about 20% complete- it mightbe maintainedthal, excastu matiers ofincurredliability,the
terninationof rhe Treat-if vali-would haveended Hungary'sobligation tu completethe
works atNagymarosforwhich itwas responsibleundertheTreaty.
10.35 But, as regardsthe works at GabEikovo,the situationwas entirely
different. Thertheworktu be carriedoutbyCzechosluvakiawasabout 90% compIete when
Hungary issuedits19 Maynotification.Thousandsof hectaresof former famland hadbeen
appropriate or theProject. Iwas absoluteloutofthe questiontoallowthingstoremain in
thatstatewithoutcreatingan ecologicalcatastrop-erealand immediate,nothypothetica-
just as iwas out of the questioto returntu the statuquo ante,whichwas technicaIIy,economicdly and finançiallynotfeasibld'. In thisiniatioq Czechoslovakia(and now
l
Slovakia)had the vested rightto seethatthe remaininework to completeGabfikovo was
carried out. Thisconsistedlargelyof the damming of the Danube at Dunakiliti. Due tu
Hungary'r sefusal,thedammingcouldnot takeplaceat thissiteCzechosIovakiao 'sdymems
of ensuring that its rights were respected- without infnngbg on Hungary'stemtorid
sovereignty-wasto proceed to theirnplementatioonf Vapant"C",once itwasconvincect ihat
Hungarywouldnotcarry out itsobligations.
l
10.36 The 1977 Treatyhadbeen almost completely camed out sufaras
GabCikovowas concemed (thanks largely to the efforts of Czechoslovakia); and
Czechoslovakiacouldnot be deprivedof the fiuitsof its laboby theunilateradecision of
Hungatyto endthe Treatyprematureljr. Otherwise ,his wouldbe to annul retroactivelythe
performance of the Treaty by CzechosIavakia and hencI to give retroactiveeEect tu its
temination invioIatioof theprinciplsetout in&cIe 70(1) ofthe1969ViennaConvention.
10.37 Thesarneconsiderationsapplyto thbquestion ofthe validitof Variant
"CH. CzechosIovakiahad proceeded tottiis"provisionals~lrifion~November 1991, asis
acknowledged byArticle2 (I)(b)ofthe SpecialAgreement. Consequentlyd, espiteHungary's
1
protests,this decisioatleastwas takenundertheTreaty,whichunquestionably was at the
timein fulforceandeffect,asbothPartiesadmit37.
20.38 Itisperfecticlearthatitwas preciselybecaus Hungaryknew thatthe
Treaty provided a solid IegaIbais for puttinginto operationVarian"C" thatit attemptsd
unilateralltoputan endto theTreaty. Hungaryevenappearsto acceptthisin its Counter-
l
Mernorial:"Eventually t becameclearthat, to avoidany ~pretexfor the diversionHungary
I
hadnouther optionthan tuterminarethe~reafy''~~A. contrario, Hirngarpositionwould be
that,once the Treaty was no longer in force, Varian"C" would be deptived of a legal
justification.
37 &e,para.10.04above.
3s HungariaCounter-Memoriapl,ra.5.30. 10.39 Such a Iineof argument iscornpletdjrinvdid for the rasons setout
earIier.PuttingVariant "Cuintooperationwas forCzechosfovakia(andthen Slovakia)the
solemeansof avettingtheecoIogicaIcatastrophethawouId haveensued ifthkgs wereIeRin
thestatethat thenexisted,aswelIas the soIe meansofexercisingitsvested rightsresulting
fromthe almostcompIeted GabCikovo sectionoftheProjet.
10.40 Put anotherway, even ifthevalidityof theunilaterlerminationofthe
TreatybyHungarywereto beassumed,nonethelessthiscouldody have legaeffectsforthe
future,whichcouldnot (andcannever)be applicable toNagymaros.Onthe otherhand,it is
certainthatHungary couldnot depriveCzechoslovaki athen Slovakia)of thenghtsaccruirig
tuitfrornthealmostcompletedGabEikovo works. Thesearetherightsthattheputtinginto
operation ofVarian"Cu presewesinthebest way possible,butatconsiderablcost.
1
10.41 Up to this point, the discussion has not addressedthe questioof
Iiabiliforbreach whichmaterialisedbefore the supposedtemination ofthe Treaty. Inthis
regard,iisevidentthat sincethe"terminationhad effects odyas tuthe future;icouId not
"erase"theIiabiIiaccruedbythe Partiesrrto tkat time thruugh their non-performaofthe
Treaty.Hence, thevictirof anysuchbreachis entirelyjustified indemandireparation,As
SirGerald Fitzrnaurichasobservedin his SeparateOpinion to theCourt's Judgment of 2
December 1963 intheCase conceminp t.eNorthern Cameroons:
" ,.it wouldbe quitenormal toaIIegeinrespectofa treatythatwas no longer
in force,thatbreachof it whichoccurred dui-ingits currencyhad caused
damage to the laintiState,for whichthe latter claimedcompensation or
otherreparation,."
The arbitraltribunalpresidedover bE. Jiméne dzeAréchaga w, hicmade theawardof 30
April1990 inthe RainbowWarrior casealsoappliedthisprinciple40.
l
39
NorthCamerms, Judnment .C.JReprts1963,p.15,ap.98. %, Am, ~e Judgmenri&eK p.34,
andrheDissenhg Opinionof Presidt cNairin AmbatieCase,Meri& Judmnl. I.C.J.Rem-
1953 p,10,ap.25.
'O
RainbowWarriorR, evuep~e~alededroitinternapublic,1990n,o3, p. 868, pa106and82
Internakl o~aiewrts(1990)499,atp.55I.Reply,and astheCourtwillsurelyrecognise;and,second,becausein anyeventHungary did
not abidebythe reasonabteadvaricenotice requirementtshare the sineauo non for the
validityof suahnotification.HU NGARY CHAPTER XI. INTRODUCTORYCOMMENTS ON HUNGARY'SANALYSIS
OF THE SCENlTFIC FACTS.RELEVANTOROTHERWTSE
TU THISDISPUTE
11.01 The purpose ofthisPartIII is to examine the scientifandtechnicd
aspectsof the cIaimsputforward atlengthin Hungary'sCounter-Mernoria lhat thProject,
l
whether as originallyenvisaged oras implementedby means of Variant "CM, imposes
l
I "unaccepta risleof damagen s Hungary 'resentatioof evidenceinanattempt to establish
thesealleged"unacceptablr eisks"has,of course,beensubmittedastonishinglylate t,atis,in
l
Iate1994. The evidence on whichHungary ultimatelyreliewas clearlynot before theTreaty
l
partieswhen Hungarytook the decisions that have led to this dispute, decisionsthat
I
necessarilyrequiredfull scientificsupportto have any validity. And, althoughSlovakia
l weIcomesthe opportunity to examine(at last)Hungary's new scientificmaterial,it must be
1
1 recalfedthatthievidence hasonlybeen prepared forthepurposes of thecurrentlitigatioitis
I thusbynomeansimpartial.
11-02 Moreover, as discussedingreaterdetailbelow,the new evidencedoes
not evencorne closeto establishinaverifiablbasisfora stateof ecologicalor anyother kind
of "necessityor evena quantifiableriskthereof;in factidoes not reallypurportto do so2.
l
1 Questionsmust tttereforebeasked(i) astowhat isthe relevan cfHungaryn 'eswevidenc to
I the specific issues of legal entitlementwhich the Couris to considerunder the Special
Agreement, and(ii)as towhatHungary'r sealaimsareinpresentingthe Court witha Counter-
Mernorial far more concerneciwith a contempotary (1994) "scientificassessrnentof the
1 HungarianCounter-Mernoripla,ra.1.Astathepresentatiofthescientiand techniccasein
theHungarianCounter-MemoriaIO IongChapter- 1and3 -aredevotedrespectivta thmerits
(or allegeddemeritsthProjeciandVasian"C". Thesedono1fwus ontheevidenceavaiIabto
theTreatypartiesandreIevtoaconsideraliofiheirlegalentitleasairhedatesmentianain
theSpeciaAgreement-1989,1991.1992. bthertheirmainsourceo"evidenŒ"is whaiscaII ed
"ScientifEvaluation",which forms Volume 2of Hungary'sCounter-MernorialThis is a
condensation(andsometiramere repetiii)fvariouAnnexescontainedinHungary'Volume 4
(Pms I and21,writteinlai1994 andmakingupwhat iscssentidIyHungaryLieIatdnalysisof
whatanEIA (asdefinedbHungaryo)ftheProjs(andVariant"Cu)mightindicate.
1 And,asVolumesIIandIII heretdernonstmi, ungary'svidenceisfundarnentaynderminenot
onlybysuch impartilvidencas isonthe recordbutalby rheactuaimpactsofthe~agikovo
sectioof ~e Projasrecord4fromtheclose monitorioftheoperationof Vari"CM.Project(or Variant"Ct') thanwith an accuratepidure/oI the situation as it existedwhen
Hungary mted unilateralltosuspen adndthen abandon theProject.
i
SECTIO N. TheMessaeeUnderlvin~~uneaks Focus on"Uncertaintv"
1
11-03 A funherconfusi hoasbeencreatebbythe factthat Hungar at one and
thesametirnearguesthattheProjectis withoutanymenti atailandthatanyconclusionsasto
Projectimpactaresubject to greatuncertainty. As to thefirst, rathersurprising(giventhe
I
fact that the ~rea& partiesdearly thought differently{ on the basis of very ansiderable
I
research- andsawfit to investby 1989 hundreds ofmiliionsof dollarsinthe Project), Hungary
l
portraystheProjectas beingwithouta singleredeerning fhture. Not oniywouldtheProject's
impacton the water suppliesto thecapiid citiesof the/two Partiesbe disastrous;not only
would a unique area of environmentailmportancebe destrqed for ever; not only wouM
1
agricultureandforestrybe radicallandnegatively sffected;not onlywouldhumanpopulations
in the localitybe threateneddue to the consîructionof a barragesystem inan allegedly
I
seisrnik~llunstablearea;not onlywouldfish in the~anubl diein largenurnbersl,osingtheir
economicimportance and theiunUsuad 1iversitybut alsothe Projectofferednorealbenefits3.
For navigation,itwas unnecessary and possiblyharmful; floodcontrol couId be obtained by
I
alternativemeans;andtheenergyproduced was quitesirnpiynotneeded.
I
I
I 1.04 Therecanbe no doubtthat the abo+e iswhat Hungary seeksto prove.
I
But, very confusingly,Hungary's perfectlyclear(ifwhol$ incorrect)prediction of negative
impact isnow accompaniaiby an mphasis on theovenude~minu ~ncertaimy involveciin"the
assessrno efncornplexrisksina largeunirnplernented~rojkt of thistypenu. The Coun is led
I
to "the leadingedge of research"and invitedtopeerintoianabyss in which "no one can be
3 I
A gmi exampIe of Hungary'stendenqtaexaggerateenvi~onrnenlaiimpactin the muntenable
manner iscontainein Plat1 toits Counter-Mernorilhispurportstoshow rhe"environmental
impactares",butiocludevas(tractofforesonwhich noIonehas everdaim& Ihc Proj~twould
havethefaintestimpactPlate2thenroduccsexactitheye rnapforheVariant"Cmimpactarea.
This is quiteabsurd.InfacastheHungarianCounter-Mernoriaalpearstaccept,thesignificant
impactwas iimitetothe"iwomain%torscorrespond titgeImtions of twomain barrages",
h., GabeikovoandNagymaros. Hungariancounier-~cmofal,para.1.54.Inanyevcnf. iisclear
fsom thiparagraphandfromthewhoIe "ScientiEvaIuatiqnthatHungaryonlyconsideras reaiIy
worîh attentionthe a1legedimpactsitheSzigetkozareaand thoselo the bankfiltereweIIs
downstreamoftheNagymaros weir.It isthareasthaare highlighted11111s..R.4.
4 I
m., para.1.44. Ofcourse,the GabCikovsectionofLheProjec htsken irnplernentthrough
Variant"Cu. Seepara.11.159 a. ,beIow. t
Iabsolutelycertain"andwhere"levelsof uncertaintyrnaybe very hi@"' . It is as ifHungaryis
sayingthat,correctasit believesiassessrnenttobe, intheevent ofa challengehm Slovakis
(or the EC orany otherindependent source), al1that isdemonstrated (and certaiin s)the
uncertaintyinherentintheProject,facedwithwhich theCourt sirnplycannotaIlow the Parties
to proceed.
11.05 However, thereisno basisinfaci fothe uncertaintyon whichHungary
so heavilyrelies. For example,thereis a degree ofuncertaintyattached tu seismicevents,
eventswhichwillalwaysremain to adegreeunpredictable6.But risksto the environmentand
to waterqualityarescientificaldifferentand arenotsubjectto the sameuncertainty.If the
Treatypartieshad putthe GM Project intooperationand then totdly ignoredany monitoring
and microanalysi sfits effectonthe environmentandonwater quality, itmightweii be that
after10 yearsunpredicted impactswouldbe recorded.However,a riverengineeringproject
such asthis,which iscertaintohave manyeffects(even ifmainlygood, asSlovakiacontends)
on the surrounding fora and fauna, agricultureand forestry, aswelias on water quality,
necessarilyrequiresthe microanalysoftheseeflectsthmugh constant monitoring.
11.O6This yieldimmediate results.Itiscertainthatif,withina shortperiod,
evenminoradverse effectsstartto appear,major adverseresuhs will be seen in (and may
thereforebe predictedto appear)in 10 years- ifno preventive or mitigating masures are
taken. But ifminoradverse effectare detectedsuch remdial meaçures maybe takenandthe
impact of these may,in hm, be immediatelydetermined(and the rneasures alteredif
necessary). But where no changesof even a minor kind are detected by the constant
monitoring,ifcan be predictedwitha suficient degree ofcertaintv that there willno long
term impacts. It isthus inappropriateto placesuch a fucus on the uncertainty of the
environmentaa lndwaterqualityrisksallegedlyposedbythe GN Project.
5 HungarïanCounter-Mernofiai,pa1.43and 1.44.Iisnotedthatfor Hungaryitmot wen k
saidwithceriaithatIeveoIsuncertainar n facrathehan only'may km,veryhigh. tiasif
theGM Projecwerea uniqiielydangerprojcc-andnotthatit is simplyone ofrnanythouofnds
dam projectstheworldarnongst hichit cannotevbeconsidereastechnical"large",seven
HungaryadmitsSee,para.1.26ahve.
6 AIthougtherean lxno doubthat.in tcaseofed-qurrkeriskitheGINProjectregionHungary
hasgrealIexaggemteboththeuncertaintand thIikelihd attachfoseisrnevicnk.a para.
12.56g seq.&. ah, VoI.II,hereto,Intrduction, para.13. 11.07 ButHungarytf rucuson uncertaintyisnotonly scidfically unjustinable;
itisalso- as Hungarymust bemare -of essentialirrelhce to theissuesraisedundsrthe
l
SpecialAgreementw , hichrequire-thexamination ofthelIgaientitlementto cary out certain
specificactions in1989,1991 and 1392. Hungarynonethekssdaims thatthe purpose of its
afterthe event "ScientitiEvaluation"isto "assisttheCourt in perfomiingits task"';but
Slovakiaconsidersthattherealaim isquitedierent.
11.O8 Hiingaryqu'nderIjing message is that the Court carmot order the
h1filment of Hungary's 1977Treaty obligationsthat itcamot findthe implementation of
Variant "Cu IawfuI,becausetu do so, today,is notto be considered acceptab dueeto the
allegeduncertaintaftheProject'simpact ontheenvironrnintp ,articularys"theassetsatrit
areobvîouslyof strategicnationalimportancew8 n*the/ WM~S, the breaches ofthe Treaty
I
realIydo notmatterbecausethere isnoremedyavailable ather thantureturntua stateofwhat
Hungaryconsiders tobe a Ieser or leçsuncertainenvironmentairisk(forHungary), b., the
statusauo ante. The basicgoalsbehind the1977 Treaty,so Hungary's messagereassuresthe
Court,cananywaybe metby other, lessdamagingmesni:the cnergyproduced is not wen
I
neededsuit cm consequentiybeforgotten;the navigatioroute canbeupgradedbytraditional
methods; and floodcontrolcan be achievedbycontinuing !Oupgradetheexistingdikes. But,
for SIovakia,Hungary'snew emphasison uncertainty isno morethan an admissionas to the
Iackof realevidenceto supportitsclaimsofenvironmenta hlarmandconstitutesno morethan
an attemptto coverupthisimportantlacrina.
SECTION 2. Hun~ary's Attern~ts tu Portrav \the G/N Proiect in the Most
UnfavourabieLieht
11.09 A similar"cover up" atternptis madethrough Hungary'sddiberate
I
confusion of the concepts ofenvironmenta1and economic impact, and itsportraya1of the
economic benefrts of the Projecf as being insignificantThis attempt has alreadybeen
discussedintheIntroduction to thisReply,whichhas shownthatcertainessentiallyeconomic
7 , HungariaCounfer-Mernoria, ar1-49.b, dço.VoI.IIhererq Inîrduction.
I
8 liunganan Cornier-Mernorii.o2, p. 1.Thismessageliaim. inpart.behindHungary'new
cmphasisontheneedforanEIA (asinterprebt~edn~ary)EffectiveHungaq weLatadenyUic
possibilofytheProjectgoing aheadwithounewEIAbejng carrieout. Thereishowever,no
suggestithaiHungarywouIdagretoabidebythefindingoan EEIfavourabltothe Project.impactsallegedbyHungaryare notlegallyrelevantto itscase9. In PartIII, Slovakiawill
therefore deaIseparatel{inChapter XII which foIIows)withthose risksthatmighthaveIegd
relevancc:riskstuwaterquaIityandin particulartudrinkingwater suppliesriskstu soilsflora
andfauna;seisrnologicaalndearthquake engineeringrisks. Thisisfollowedin ChapterXIZI by
ananalysis oftheProject'simpactsin areaswhich do not have aprimafacierelevance tothe
IegaIobligationsofHungary and CzechosIovakia (asHungaq sees themunderthe 1977Treaty
and generaIinternational law): the issues of agriculture and furestry, which have been
incorrectlydescribedby Hungaryasareas ofecunomic Iossor environmental catastrophe;
riverbedmorpholog; and, finally,the Project'undoubtedly beneficialimpact in tems of
energy, navigation andflood controwhichis nonetheless contesteby Hungary.
11.10 Inthe Chaptersthat foIIow,it is shownthaHungaws assessrnentof risk
is eitherincorrect,ortendsseriouslytoexaggerateimpactsacceptedbythe Treatyparties,or
deliberatelyrelieson an outdatedconception of the Projectwhichis calledthe "Original
Project". This is essentiaIIythe Projeasof 1977, k., without the remedialmasures that
devdoped subsequently.Theflowintothe old Danubeis stated as50 m31sor 200 m3/sinspite
of the evidencethattheTreatypartieswerewillingto increasethisto350 m3/s,and thedirect
rechargeinto the Hungarian side arms islimitedto 15-25 m31s in spite of the Dunakiliti
offiake'scapaciv of250 mfis. No accountirtaken of the agreementtu constmct underwater
weirsinthe oldDanube;norisaccount taken ofthegreatlyincreasedflows - currentIy40m3fs
- whichthe Projectenables to be divertedinto the MosoniDanubefor the sole benefitof
9 a, para1.46gïa., above.InessenceHungaqencouragestheCourttoadoptan"EIA" approach,
ihat ioiveightiwherheri, iiviewassessintheProjecabinititoday,thProjscdoesor does
not cornituaeviabIe"inteplion ecconorncndenvironmentaobjectives".HungariCornfer-
Mernoriaipara.1.20.Buteconomic issuedo not haveanythi ogdo withthe issuesolegd
entiflenientspeciinthe SpeciaAgramenr, andthe Courtisrroandcannot k chgai with
carryinoutanEIA.fingay. Further, itisalwaysassumedhy Hungarythkt a maximumpeakoperationmode
wouldbe adoptedIO.
I
1I.T1 InadditionH , irngarydevotes a whoIesection of its Counter-Menorial
to a cornparisonbeovee tneGM Project and otherbar& systems ,heobject of whichis to
show how uniquelydamaging to nature and naturalreiourcesthe G/N Roject is". It is
I
noteworthythatthe subjectof the sectioninquestion is thewholeGLNProject; thevarious
aHegationsare mt made in relation to Variant"c"". The implication is thai, even for
Hungary,Variant "C"(that is, the impiementarion of thebabfikovosectionofthe Project on
1
itsown, without the Nagymaros section)isnot an excePtidnab ]arrageproject.
11.12 Inorder toestabIishthe uniquenessofthe G/N Projeci,Hungaryfocuses
I
on fwo distinctivefearures,beingpeakpoweroperationandthe Iowgradientoftheriverinthe
I
Nagymarossection. As tothefirstofthese,Hungaryaccdpts bat: "Peak operationofbarrage
I
systemsis afrequentpractice,evenonlowlandriversuse$fornavigation such asthe Danube
andtheUpperRhine13 ." For Hungary, itisthereforenot the peakoperation modeitselfthat is
I
insupportablebut itsextent,for it isallegedthat th"Origiffalroject"was "plannec o operate
I
Io
IIis notaithattheBechfel~pon war compilaiondie b4is ofpeak operationking a panof Ihe
Project.However,ilnotedItihastrrdrsrecurrentimdenvay trrevis theseoperationalcriteria".
Hungsnan Ccunter-Mem~riaV l.ol4(1)Anon:1 tatp.11).I~irnila artlhe dischargeintiheold
Danube, theBechteireportno~d ha! this "isstbeinge~duated". m. (ai p. 12)NonetfieIess,
Hungatydenies thepoçsibiiityof ProjectmodificatSee,ibid.,Vol. para.1.55. Thisiswiifui
blindness. Itmay be tbatin cerlzucase wsriitearnenFents had not been made tothe Joint
ContractuaPilan,buasHungar iysclacceptshiswas inFe natureoftheProject.B. para.2.60,
-t ses.,above. Morcover, Czechoslovakiaremainai wilhg to see hrther remediaimasures
incorporaidmen afier Hungq's Treaty breach-as isc!eafor example,from its wilIingnfos
acceptan agreementon~Iogical:guarmteeswhich wodd ipevitaw haveinvo1vedaflexibilasto
the issr~essuchasffowrin theoIDantrk ton which HungarynowpIacesçomuchemghasis). See,
para.8.13, a., abve. Hnngary'ssubsqnent failutocohpletesuchanagreement cannotallowt
to argueitscasenow on thebasisofa Projecversionwhikhdidnotaccurately refiectheParties'
intentioatthetimeofHungary' sreatybreaches.
11 Hungarian Counier-Mernoria!, ras.1.201.2L3.
l
l2 II i~allegthatfhe"diBcrencin watcrINsl riGabfikovq .wd forensrgpyroducuon",king 16-
21.5n-sextrerneinfermsofthe"German and AmtrianDmuk reachn. m., para.1.207 .utstep
lieight is not. ofindi~rived uniqomns orenvimnme~talimpact -then areliteralhwidrcds
ofdamsin theworldwith stepof morethan 100m. ln termsof theAustrianDanube,theAschach
barraghas a stepof15 m;on theRhine,the~itmarshei~and Fessenheimprojectshavestepsof
approximatelI6m;on theRhône,theDonzereMondragou hala stepof nearlylm.
13
-bidpara.I.2I1. 11.17 Second, in keepingwithHungary's new focus an theEIA, the claimis
made that Variant "C" was implemented "without ever beirtg subjected to a proper
environmental impact assessrn n ntccordance with reIevantinternationalstandards"20.
Hungary' smphasisontheEIA has beenconçidered ingreaterdetaiIatparagraph 1.24above.
Here itis sufficieto notethatthisiineof argument ismeaninglessonce itisacceptedthat
Variant "C"is no morethan a variantof a Projectthat was subjected to variousimpact
assessrnents,not the leastofwhichbeingHungary'oswn 1985 EIA" .
11.18 Finall~,heaimis to supportHungary'n sewemphasis on theconcept of
uncertainty,whichis clearlyrelianttoa largedegree on the absence of actualdata. Hence
Hungaryspeaksof the uncertaintyinherent in "the assessrnentofcornplex risksin a large
unimplementep dr~ject"~. However,as nord atparagraph 11.O6 above,theuncenainty istu
a considerabledegreeinvented, not leastbecausethe GabEikovosectionof the Project bas
been implemented startingfrom October1992. As a result, approachingthree years of
informationon auai impact isavailablfor anaIysi- ananalysisthat hasin factbeen~amed
out by morethan40 SIovakscientists and expertsandwhichfoms VoIume IIIhereto. And
fromthis availabldata,scientificconclusiocanbe drawn with aperfectIyacceptab blle of
certaint.
Il. 19SIovakîa considers that the evidence of actuaI Project impacts
consfitutesthebestevidenceamilable. WhileHungary's "ScientificEvaluation"also contains
someevidence ofactualimpactsinHungarian territory,thisis regrettaalmostvaluelessasit
isbased on specificalnon-Projecotperatingconditions2.' But, for thelargerpart,Hungary's
approachhas beendirere antddeIiberateIyoretheoreticaI than thatof SIovakia. Indeed,
Hungary hasevengone so faras to questionthe value pIacedby Slovakiaon monitoring,
pointingout thatmonitoringalonecannotensurethequality of groundwater: "Waterquality
20 m., para.3.14.
21 Ofcourse,awide rangof studiwere camedouutfortheçpecificdifferencfVariant "C&.,
relatintothenew&mensions oftheresemoirandthe location of Cunovoweir. & Slovak
Memarial, mex 36.
12 HungariaCounter-Mernori aiI.44.
'3 As wilI brne appareninthe Chptersthatfollow, Hungarrem 10 implementhe rernedid
measureincorporaid intotheProjhaçinevitabcad environmentham, bu1isinno wayan
indicatiofarrticipaProjecimpact.dependu sn the discharg ieto the river, flow vetoci& and othef factors, ratherthan
I
monitoring per se2." Thi s, of course,correct.Butmdnitoringrecords theimpact ofthose
I
factorssuch as dischargerates or flow veiociticswhicdare not fixed but arerathereaYS,
l
influencedvariablesand enablesthese tobe modifiecalpp~opriatel yrfor other remedialrteps
I
11.20 Hungarynonethelessclaimsthatit fs 'lfundamentam l isunderstanding"
I
ta deducefiom the "absenc ef certailargescale chang+sin two years that "no signi£icaa
I
long-termadverse eKect wsilocm"*'. But the purpose oImnitoring isnot turecord "large-
scak changes". To take anexample,for ground water ldds and qualityalone,333 different
I
parameters are measuredon a constant,weekly or mohthlybasis at literallyhundredsof
differentsites in iitny 0strovZ6. Thesesitesartloçated in Mus. No. R-5. Changesinthe
monitoringresults,though apparentiyinsignificantuthe nIn-scientificobserver, would indeed
Iead orpoint to significantlongtem eEectr But lovah h pasitionis thatfrornthe most
I
closelyresearched scientificpointof view, thereare no hgnificantchanges -small or large
I
seale- inthemonitoring result? . And, as noted atparahaph1 1-06 above,where thtre are
noshort tem changes, Iongterm changescannotrnagicallymanifestthemselves outof nothing.
SErrIoN 4. Other ScientificEvidenceRelied oh Bv Slovakis
I
11.21 It iaüeged intheHnngarianCounter-Mernorit ahlat:"Stridieswhich
I
availableto Hungary do not support the conclusion 'that theProject was sustainabIein
24 HungarianCounter-Memaria p. a3.IO.ItisregrettedUIlLHungarysbouldcritic*eequalityof
Slovakmonitoring.M.. para3.09. Thisis bascdn th{ ailegalion theEC WorkingGmup
reportof2 Novemkr 1993found themonitoringsystenfinrespect{onIy)affloraand fauna
"inadquate".Thisis çimpuntme. ThisEC mprf infactnotebdat"[a1preçena hugeamountof
dataare~IIecfed",explaininhow themonitoringsydern"shouldbe suengthenedii.Hungarian
Memotid, Vol.5 (ilAnnex18 (atp719).
?s HungarianCounter-Mernariap.ra.3.16.Hungarypafl io+nt a homficpiciwe- admittedly
withouta shred of scieniijustificati-nin which impactaquire a "synergisticharacter,
reinforciand acceleratieachotherso as10eventualiy"irigoffunforeseeand unconbinabIe
rffectsm"..,para.3.17.Thisislm farremovd fromtherea mpactsand rd issuesindispurin
thicasetowarrantseriaucomment.
I
26 Forthelistof theseparametS. Vol.III, Ch. Table2.
1'7 "Signifiantheremeans nounusualdifferencesthareno4comparablewiththaseobservedinthe
pre-damconditions. environmentaiterms'..." ."Fromthis, it mightbeconcluded thatHungary has not seenfit to
read its own1985EIA, tvhiiiunambiguoudyconcludedthat the Project was environmentaIIy
sustainable. This aside,the purposeofHungarykdlegation is twofdd. Firs itis tobring
attentionto the allegationthcertainstudiesare not "availablto Hungary,in particularthe
364 researchprojects camedout priortu 1974 and summarised in Annex 23 to Slovakia's
Mernurial.The cornpiaintis notody that the sudies "werenotatinexed"b,ut that "Slovakia
has so far refusedto providethem to Hungarydespite its requestsUB. This is a totaIIy
1 unwarrantecicornplaint.It isnot simplythatto annex364 researchpaperisinconceivablebut
Annex 23 is ajc& iist, preparedbyboth CzechgslovakiandHungary,ofthose stüdies camed
out bybofh partiespior to1974. Simpiy,Hungaryha hadthe stndies since their cornpletion.
It is inventiapointofdispute.
I
11.22 Second,Hungary çeeks to undemine SIovakialsinterpretation ofWU
particular studies that "areheavily reliedupby Slovakia", that is the Bechtel andHQI
I
reportdo. ImportantlyH, ungary doesnot questionthe value of these two 1990 reports, nor
their impartialnaturnortheirbasicquality. It simplycites the repoasswidence that, even
in 193911990, when the documentswere produced, "impactsof the Original Project were
unknown becauseof insufficientdata and studies". But the carefully selected quotations
offered insupportshow no more thanthat, in certalimitecireas,additicinstudiescouldbe
recommendedwith a particulariew tufurtheringthe Project ternedmeasures. Innosense
wereextrastudiesbeingproposedto determinewhetherto completethe Project or not. Thus,
takingthe Bechtel report,an accuratepicture of its findingsappearsfromits overallsummary
astuthe extentof scientificappreciatiofProjectimpactin 1989:
"The projecthasused a soundtechnicaland scientificbasisto identifyimpacts
and appropriatemitigations. However,severalareas shouldbe consideredfor
additionalstudiesw mitigationsThese includeensuringthat (1) waterqudity
is maintainedaIong the Danube bycompletionofwastewater treatment plants;
(2) archaeologicaresources thatare afFectedby the project are thoroughiy
investigated(3)additional studieare conductedto definebiologicalbaseline
conditionsandappropriatemitigations;and (4) suscient floreleasesinto the
28
HungariaCounter-Mernoripalra1.27.
29
-bidpara.1.26.
30
m., para.1.30,giS. old DanubeRiverchanne i[the Szigetkozwillmaintainplanned ground water
levels3."
i
There is nothing hererhat muld pussiblyjustiQthe abaridumentof the entire ~ruject by
I
Hungary(an actiontakenbyHungary just&er thepublicatioof thisreport3').
11.23 Hungary'sutilisationofthe BQ1 repartis equdly misleadmg. It is
recaIIedthat Hungary'sbasicaim is tu showthat the Project faile"to satisfj nationaand
internationalIArequirementsU" .o meetthis,a long sectionofthe HQIreport isquoted,
whichshows no morethanthat the 1975-1976 .Bioproject as realisedaftegrojectdesigns
I
were finaiised(althoughbeforethe 1977 Treatywas signed)and from which is ddiberateIy
ornitted the one sentenc(atthe middIe ofthe section quoted)tending to show exactlvthe
opposite of what Hungi~y is arg~ing~~.Forthe HQIin factconcludesthat Czechoslovak
studiespre-1977 were preciselyinlinewith internationalpractiat thatthe. Thesentence
omitted rads:
"En ce sens,les étuderéalisé escetteepaaueétaienc tomparable s cellesaui
furent effectuéeen Amérique du Nord.sur le &toire de la Bàlelamespar
exemple3 ."
3' See bid.Vol.4(1), Annex(p. 15). 1riotethatprimepositiisaccordatothemnstnictioof
wastewatetreatmenplant,whichconstructiwasshortlyafterscaieddom Hungary butwhicb
ha beencontinuebykhoslovakia andthenSlovaki &,.paras 7.15-7.1above,andAnnex7,
hereto.
I
32 Sec .ara8.26above.
33
HungarianCounter-Mernorialra.1.26.
34 Ibid,,pm.1.37.
1
" Slwak Mernorial,Anna 28, W p. 239 -emphasis9e.d). Translation:"Ithissosî. &
contemrxirastudiewerecornriarableitthosecarrieoutinNorthAmericrl,n theSamesBay
territoforexample.This sentence is alsoomittedfromthe same section ofthe HQI reportwhichis quoted at
paragraph 6.34of theHungarian ~ernorial~ ~
11.24 In the Chaptersthat follow, Slovakidoes not seek tu re-examinethe
findingsofthesetwo reportswhicharedreadyreviewed in ChapterTI ofthe SIovakMernorial.
Two generalpoints should however be made. Firs H un.garydoes not,in its Countef-
Mernorial,rebutSlovakia'sanalysisof thesereportssave inthe paragraphcsonsidered above.
Hungarydues not therefore contestthe factthat thesetwo reportsrepresentweli balanced
studiesthatprovide,as wouldbe expected,recommendations as tuhow tu improveremedid
measuresor to extend the Projectdatabase, but donot in anyway caIIinto questionthe
Projeci'soverallviability.Secondand particularlin thecase of the Bechtelreport,manyof
the adversecriticisrnsraisedby theauthorsrelateto Projectoperationmodes thatwere not
rigidIyfixedin 1989, &., a versionof the Projectwas examinedby BechteI that did not
incorporate the latestseries of modifications then being considered. In particuIar,
Czechoslovakia'fsormally expressedwillingnessin theautumn of 1989 to agree to limitor
excludepeak operation(as environmentarlequirementsdemanded)andto agree toa seriesof
eco1ogicaIguaranteesinrespectof the operationof theGabEikovo sectioneffectivelyremoves
the substanceofsuchadversecriticismsas wereraised inthereports3.'
11.25 Itisnoted alsothatHungary does not contestthevalue of theevidence
in the EC WorkingGroupreportsfrom which Slovakiadraws in Chapters and V of its
Mernorial and Chapters VTIand WII of its Counter-Memurial.Indeed, hm Huriges
Cuunter-Memurial alone,iwouId bedificulttodean the fact thatthese importantdocuments
existatall. TheCourtisrespectfùllyinvitedto drawtheobviousconclusions from thisnotable
silence.
36 S8e,alsoHungary'contentio(aHungarianCounter-Mernorial,ara.1.7rital tBechteIreport
"queriamanyimportantaq~~ts of the projanditsoperatinmdes" made on the basisof two
recomrnendatioas to thcanyingoutoffurthestudieand a handfuloftecornmendatiossto
monitorinand rnodelling.HungaryseemtoforgetthatBechteljob waprecise tly akesuch
impartilndindependenrtecoinmendariom.utfhiswasnotstdlthesameas calhg intoquestion
fundamenta1spectof thePrajat. Asto"operatingmdes",theB=htel repoflsirnpnotesthat
theswtreno1rigidlfixe contraryHungq's infIexïbeonceptofthe"Originalrojeau& k.
14 abve.
37 -ee,para..29, a., andpara.8.13gia., above. 11.26 Hungary does,however, focus on thePHARE project-not in lems of
I
its substantiveresriIrs (whiare not yetavailable),bpt ratheras an admission from the
Czechoslovakauthorities"thatnoEIAwasperformed"dprthe~roject'~.Hungaryreturns to
ths thernetirnandtirneagain. YetHungary's argumentb herearemisleadingas to the nature
andpurpuse ofthePHAREprogram. Quite sirnply,it isnot and was neverintended tobe an
EIA and isnot evencomparabIe. The PHARE project isa four vear program inno wajr
concented with providing theinformation fora politicaldecisionas to whetheror not a
particulaprojectshouldgo ahead. Rather,itsaimsare a1follows:
I
"The immediatepruject objectiveitu dwdop, tpt andtrsnsfer an integrated
mathematicalmodeliingsystem induding thema im portant aspectsfowata
resources management in the DanubianLowland. The ultimate proiect
objective is that the transferredmodelling 1 system- be used k the
technicallscienticasi forfuturemanagemen t e ci si "n^^^
It appearshypocritica(at best)forHungary, aftercritiiiisingCzechoslovakÿifoitnalleged
I
inciifferenctu environmenta1issues in1989-1992, tu attack inits Counter-Mernorialthe
CzechoslovakGuvernrnenttsdesire in Octuber 1990 "toensur he protectionof naturaiand
anthropicresources,balanceceicologicaldevelopment, wellas optirniseddecisionmaking
and management" - particularIsinceHungaryhas re sed to participatein the PHARE
programwhose purposeit istu achievefhesgoalsqD.
11.27 As to the basic assertion behindHungary'sfocus on the PHARE
l
program - thaanEIA has neverbeen camed out in relatFto the "Originalroject"(norin
relationtoVariant 'c")" - thishasbeendealtwithinthéIntroduction to thisReply. There
1
was no IegaIrequirementtu carryout anEIAin 1977 or 11989but, nonetheIesa greatrnany
I
intensivestudieswere carried out both pntu andafier 1977 includingofcourse Hungary's
38
HungariaCounter-Memona para. 1.3&, dso, eg.paras1.80and198.
39 I
PHAREProjecf No.ECIWATIID , anubiaLowiand-Groun daferMode!,lnterimRemri,VoI. 1,
Janua~1995,Annex 8hereto-
40 l
Extracthom Czechoslovakia'pplicatitatheEC in rilatito thePHAREProjcct,dated25
Octaber1990,andquotedatHungariancouriter-~emori]ara1..39.&, also,SlovaCkounter-
~emorii, para5.57-5.58.
4' HungarianCornfer-Memonal,aras.1.4and 3.14.No mentiowas made ofîhisptute specific
failing eifier in Hris39Declaratioorin i~ernorik.own 1985EIA'~ .And, astheIntroductionhasshow, the 1985 EIAis acceptedasa valuable
documentevenbyHungary'i snappropriat1994 "largdam" eva~uation ~~Insum, theoverall
emphasisplaceciby Hungary initCounter-Memurid on theconcept oftheEIA is distorted
and dues not assist the Court in decidingthe issuoflegaIentitlemerit beforeitThe
environmentalimpactof the Projechasbeenthoroughlyasaess frdmevq angle and there
is now availabanassessmentoftheactualimpactsoftheoperation ofthe GabEikovo section
of theProjectthroughVariant"CM. Thisassessmentiscontainedin Volume IIIhereto,the
findingof whichare considereinthe Chapterthat follow. A further EIAwouIdnoonIybe
42 The importanceofthsIA inrelatitoLheTreatpartieexpressionoftheircornmitmetheo
Projecti1985shoddnofk underestimat&.. para.7.0,ta.,abve.
43 & para1.26,gW.,above.CHAPTERXII.
ALLEGEDPROjECT IMPACTSRELEVANT TO RUNGARYS
LEGALARGUMENTS
SECTIO N. Water Resources
12.01 In its surnrnaryof the grounds for its suspension and termination of
worksunder the 1977 Treaty,Hungary accordsprime importaricetu "the defenceof necessity
in thecontextofenvironmentah larrn" ' And, interms ofthegroundsforinvoking a stateof
necessity,the greatest.weight isplaced onthe allegedProjectimpacton drinking water
resources: "But,aboveaII,irreversible damagewas foreseen whichcould affectthedrinking
water for millionsof people2." It is thereforetri the alleged ristodrinking watersupplies
thatSlovakiaturns first3.
12.02 As Hungaryaccepts, the water resources in the part of the upstrearn
quifer which undediesSzigetküzare "largely ~nex~loited"~. Thesefore, as its primary
groundsfor invoking a stateof necessity,Hungarycanonly be refemng to the bank filtered
wells downstream of Nagymaroswhichsupply part ofBudapest'sdrinking waterwith water
receivedfromthe DanubefIIIns. No. R-4,appearing beforeChaptes XI abov~)~.Theprospect
-
I
HungarialCounter-Mernorialara.5.26&e, al%,W., para.1.42.
2
m., para.5.27.a, al=,m., para.1.11where the-ter tmphasisispIace dn "seriothreats
10drinkingwatersourcesincIudingbothbank-fiIterwellsandin theIonaertenn totheaquifer".
Footnotes omitted;emphasisadded). Hungaryof course considerthat necessitrequires an
immincn threat.@, para.5.08,a=., above.
3 For SlovakiadiscussionofthiissueB, Slovak Counter-Memonap l,ara7.22gt m., and para.
8.21,g a. &, aIsomrnrnenrsin Vol. Ch.3,and VoI.IIICh. I and2, hereto.
4 ArrngaianCounter-Mernoria1ara.1.103.
5 As notedinSlovakiaCounter-Mernori aiara7.241,Hungarytends(orseekstoconfusethevarious
waterresourcewhichit allegeswouldhavebeenaffeckdbytheProjeci. Inparticulaitgivesthe
impressionthatthewatersinthefitnj OstrovlSzigetkzquiferaresomehowlinked tothe grave1
filteIayers151)m downstream (whichit cclnfusin&Is "aquifers"l* thrortgwhich Danuk
wateris tappedto supplyBudapest. Threasom forthiis simple. WhereasitispssibIe.ifnot
sustainabl10psit arisktotheupstreamaquifersternmingfrompr surfacewaterqualitythereis
notand therenevehrasbeen anywidence on whichtobase acIairnof"irreversieamage* to the
Danubewaier supplyingBudapest. Hungarythereforchmses tobe vague as to exactlwhich
resourceiçeesas threatend,referrigeneralltothethreatto"thedrinkingwaterformillionsof
pwple" raihehan toaspecificgmgraphiclocatifromwhich thethreatisallegto rise. of "irrwersible damage"to these bank tiltered wells isnow rtconsideredin the light of
Hungary'slatestallegations.
A. The Bank FiIteredWafer Su~~IiesDuwnstreamofthe Niinvmarus
Section
12.03 Hungaryconcludesits sectionon bank filterewater supplies inits
Counter-Mernoriw aliththebold assertionthat"thereisb seriousriskofyieldreduction and
I
waterquaIitydeteriorationinthe majorwellfieldpruvidingwatersupply to ~uda~est"~. But
I
there is bis forsuch a wnclnsioninthe precedi naragraphsT. heseofferno more than a
generaldiscussionofthe particulamportance of thesedatersupplies;of theextensiveuse of
bankfütration"on themajorEuropean riversa;of theplential thrats constituted by changes
I
in the filter Iaorrreductionin the hydraulicconnectionbdween the riverarid the welIs.
ThereisIittIeifanythingheretu contest. It is selfevithat,wherethereis apoorhydraulic
connectionbetween awell and the sourcebeingtapped,therewiflbe ayieIdreduction(the
obvioussolutionbeingto achievea bettewell placement)andanincreasedbppingof adjacent
groundwatcr(whichmayindeed beofIesserquaiity).
. . . .
12.04 Generalitiesaside,Hungary'sdaim relieson two specificexarnplesof
well waterdeterioratiowhich ouwred in theearly 198~sat the BudapestandNagymams
I
wstemorks. As an initiapointit must be med that s<lchdeteriorationhad nothmg to do
I
withtheGI'NPruject. Hungatydaimsthat the"adverse chInges inwaterquality"registeredin
tbreeofthewellsexploited bytheNagymarow s atenuork sare"believedtobeadireci resultof
the Nagyrnaroscoffer damconstru~tion"~.This ismorelthan surpnsing. As to two of the
three weIls,the"[rlapiwaterqualitydeterioratiobegan ..intheeady 2980s"' -whereasthe
Nagyrnaroscuflerdam was buiItin 1488".Theremaining weiiis locate5 km downstrearn of
6 HungarianCounter-Mernorilara.1.121
? Md.. para.l113.7hc Eumpn dimensionthat~wt~aty 41udcatoherdoernotappar toahrncc
Grgunlsntr inanywsj. Itmay,ofcoune.beadbedlhatafiNin efiensiuseof"majorEumpean
riversis fotheproductioof hydroelectnciIt wouldappearthorherEuropeanStatedo not
considethetwodiffereusagesincompatible.
8 m., para.1.19.
9 m., para1.11%.
IO Hunganan Mernoriapara.3-63.Nagyrnaros: itisnot conceivablethatitcould havebeen affectedby the wEer dam. So this
attemptto tie thwaterquaiityprobIern tutheGIN Project isobviouslyinvalid.
12.05 Indeed,itis notpossibleto seethe relevanceof theexamplesprovided
by Hungary. Hungaryclaims nomore thanthatits own dredgingin the 1970s "led tothe
Iocaliseddepositioof finesediment"nearparticularwells,certainofwhichsuffered a decline
inwaterquality". This shows onlythatlarge scaledredgingclosetu bank filteredwells may
have an adverseimpact. But suchlarge scde dredgingwas notenvisagedbyandnor was it
carriedout withinthe fiameworkof theGIN Pr~ject.
12.06 What littlcredibilityHungary'sclaimshaveis negatedby thissimple
fact. Its contentioof "seriousrisk"isbased onthe assertionthatProject"dredging was to
have taken place" downstream of~a~~maros'~. The JointContractual Plan did originally
anticipatethe dredgingof 6 miilionm3hm the riverbeddownstreamof Nagymaros. But
Hungary hasalready dredged some20 miIIionm3hm this stretch for industriaVcommercid
purpuses". Asrecorded ina 1989 studyprepared by theHungarian scientistsSomlyudy,& d:
"As a resriltofintensivedredginoverthe past decades,thewater ievelof thegresentsection
complieswiththat planned forthe [GM project](VIZITERV, f985)1 .4 No furtherdredging
was envisagedwhenHungarysuspended and abandonedworks at Nagymarosin 1989; it is
artificialin the extreto predictadverse Projectimpact on the basisof an insistencethat
additionaldredgingbe carriedoutin1994.
12.07 Hungary's 1994 assessrnentsare based onthe pecrrfiaassumptionfhat
Project impactsarebeingexamined forthevery firsttime. ForexampleH , ungaryallegesthat
itis "anissue ofnationaiimportance to evaluatethe potentialrisks"to bank filterewater
11 HungaianCwnter-Mernoriapl,ara.1.117.
12 W., para.1.121. HungaraIwdaim that"Mer bBddegradaiioisexid duetoerosion*but
offersnauarà in substantiation.
13 &, Hmgarian Mernorialp.248andHungarianCornfer-MemafiaViol.2p.II.
l4 HungarianCounter-Memoial,Val. 4 partII)hex I3 (atp.576). ThefrndingsofUzio
Somlybdy heauthorof Chapter3.3of Hungaq's"ScientifEvaiuation". hichconsidenwater
qualitcannoteasibe wntestedbHungaq.resource~'~.Theimplicationisthatresearchintothisasbat of ofterojcctwao overlookedby
Plan ~~reement'~;whereas
Waters Commission(estabfished Agreement)
which,inthe springof 1989, had to protectwater
quality that Hungaryrefusecita and developtnent
program by the Budapestwatenvorks bank Bltwed wel~s'~;
whereasthe primefocusof Hungary's 1985EIAwas, Pratjectimpactin thisarwTg;
whereas the findingsof the 1985 EIA were as 1989by Hungarian
scientists Somlybdyf, el.,who predicted no that:"Specidattention
shwIdbe paid ..inorder tumaintainthe filtrationlaye?."It is
not possiblto interpretthas a predictioof "irreversideamage".
B. The ~ater Resourcesofthe iitn; OstrovlSzinetkiizAaoifer
12.08 The underiyingtheme behind Hungary'sassessrnentof "risks" tu the
BudapestbankfiIteredweIIsis thatthe commrrnistGovwnrnentsin Htingarypre-198 9ere
indifferenttu the conditionof thewafersnppIietotheircapitalcity.Suchanimplicationis
even more extraordinary inrelation tothe vitadrinking water resourcesunderiyingfitnji
I
Ostrov and Szigetkoz. In its allegationthat "thequalityofthe water in the aquiferis
threatenedo2'H, ungaiyeffectivelirnpliethatthe preseI!Slova k overnent iscontentto
taksa garnbleasto ihelongtenncontamination ofa wate{ resovrie essentitothe population
of ~ratislava~. The Project'sallegedimpacton thisresource-andtu ground watcrqudity
l
15 m., Vol. 1para1,112.
'"ee, - SIova khunter-Mernorip,ra7-68.
17 SIovaMkenlorial,pa3.15,ga.
l8 SlovaCounter-Mernoripala,7.70.
19 m., para s.44and7.76.
20 HungsriaCounier-Memori al,l.4 (Put II),An13(a!p.576).
21 m., VoI.1,paras1.78and3.50.
~.,pra.l.1l.See.aIso,~.,pata.I.O4. and quantitymore generallyin fitny Ostrov and Szigetkoz - is now re-exarninedg ,iving
attentioninturntuthe reservoir,theoldDanubeandtheside arm system(inbothSlovakia and
Hungary). Beforedoingsu, it is appropriattorecaT1the impartialindingsoftheEC Experts
on theexpectedimpactofVariant "Cu onsurface andground water:
"Theimpactson thesurfacewaterqualiryareexpectedto beinsignificant."
. "The impacts on the grorrnd water qualityare in gmeral expected to be
in~i~nifican."
The Resewoir
12.09 The importano cfethe HmBov-Dunakilitireservuirto theaquiferis,as
Hungaryrepeatedly pointsout,thataRerProjectimplementation it becomes amainsource of
1 rechargedue toitslarge surfaceareaandtheincreased downward psressureofitswatersu.
There is nojustification, however, for characterisingthis as "a major himpactH2'.The
assumption isthat the waterin the reservothatinfrltratesthe aquifisof Iessgood qualie
than the Danube watersin the pre-Projecimplementatios ntate. This,intum, assume that
eitherthe surfacewaterinthe reservoideterioratedsuringitsshortstorageperiod(due, e,g,
to eutrophicatioor reduced dissoIvedoqgen content)or thatIayersof poisonous sediment
settleon the resemir bed, contaminatingthe good qualitsurfacewater as ipasses intothe
grave1aquifer.Therearenootherpossibilities.Andneither is thecasehere.
12.10 According to Hungary,theimpact of theProjecton eutrophicationisa
"primarycon~ern"~ .f course, eutruphicatiunia potenfiaprublernto be cIoselystudied.
The issueofeutrophicationisconsideredin detaiintheSlovak Counter-Mernoria lhere it is
23 EC WorkingGrorrRejmrid 1Decemkr 1993,HungariaMernorial,ol. 5 (paa, Annex 19(ai
pp.783-784).TheCourtis aisoremindedofhefindingoftheBeclitel andHQIreportciteat
SlovaMemonal, para.2.95,m. InpaRicuIart,heBechtelreportpredtha"thewaterquality
in theHniLov-Dunakitiesewoirwibeimproved", hiletheHQIreportçoncludthatheriskof
adeterioratinwaterqualitywereverylow&, also,SlovakCounter-Mernorial,r7.45-7.W,
whereHungary'saimsastothecontaminatioftheupstreamaquiferarerebirindetail.
24 HmgarianCaunter-Memori aI,ra s104,1.10ad 1-46.
26 M., para.1.94. - 284 -
pointedout that thiisaconcem for practioalianyreseyoir projectanywhereintheworid2'.
Hungarydaims thattherewould be a "near-dwblingOfalgalbiomass due to the DunaMiti
reservoirMr,lyingon ttrcwitsimulatioresuits"reporteclnits "Scientif~valuation"". ut
l
Hungaryfails toshow thenecessarilyharmfirilmpactofthis "near-doubIing",and idoes not
l
consider the absotte values of algal biomass in question. FinaIIy, Hungary relieson
1
"simulation"tests inspiteof the existenceofactual datain relationto the Variant "CM
reservoir,whichhasexistedfornearlythreeyears.
12.11 Algalbiomass isa basiicornPoneniof the aquaticfoodchai%beingthe
food supplyof microzoobenthos (microscopieaquaticorganisrnsfeedingon the nverbed
-I
bottorn). Ifthe dissolvedoxygen content inthe watdrremainsadequate,the increasein
I
biomassis not harmfuIandmaybebeneficiald ,ependingon the absolutevaIuesinvoIved.And,
as \folurneIIIhereto shows, the dissolv oxdygencontent in the Varian"C" reservoirhas
remained at 8.0-8.5mg4, unarnbiguousI" yfirscla~s"~~. In facta slight increasein
l
dissolvedoxygen contenthasbeenrecordedoverpre-damconditions". The adverseimpact
of the "increaseby 50%"of chlorophyll-predictedby Hungary for thisreservoir istherefore
questioned31.Further, the rekrenctopercentageincreas iseot necessafl useful.Interms
1
of actualvalues, it is worth noting that the highest chlorophylfigure recordedin the
reservoirhas been 74.1 pg.1.' (inAuguot 1994). Tke maximumfigure rmrded in the
Danube atBudapest duringthegrowth periods of the years1991-1993 are 160, 170and 130
pg. 1-'respectivelyiR, appmximatelytwice as hi81 Hungary's daim that "expected
i
eutrophicationwithinthereservoirmightrequiremodificationofthetechnology ofthe surface
27 W. SlovakCounter-Mernoripa,a.7.33,gtse^.
28
HungariaCounter-Mernoripara.1.95.
29 l
Ss, Vol.IIp.25.
M l
-+* p. 23.Thisirprobabldueto theincreassueface of he =semoirinsming pcntial
oxygenabsorptiofmmthe air. Astobiologio cxygeIdemand ,iwussedrathcr~nhisinglat
HungariaCounter-Mernoriap,ra.3.34, hasshown a decreas(whichis beneficialisut
still2nclassasithepredammingcrindition.
31 HungariaCriunter-Mernorala,ra.3.33.
I
32 SecV.ol.III,26. wateworks asfarawayasBudapestti's thereforemisleading atbed3. Not onlyaremaximum
chlorophylI-a concentrationsat Budapest far higher,but the "expectedeutrophication"is
exaggeratedinto a prublernthat the carefil monitoringofthe Variarit"Cu reçervoirduesnot
support:
"Thefirsttwo years ofmonitoring of thephytoplankto nn thereservoirandof
the impact of the Project on the Danube water qualiîy indicate that, in
accordancewith the prognosis,water irnpoundmentinthe reservo doresnot
resuhinsignificantphytopianktob niomassincreasein the ~anube~~ ."
12.12 The othergreatdanger,&cordiig to Hungaryi ,s sedimentdeposition in
the reservuir. The sediment"isexpacted tudecay,andmayIeadtowaterqualityFrob~ems"3S.
It is farhm clear what Hungary actuaIIy means. Reference insupport is made to
l "internationael~~erience"~~ , nd to a "recentsensitivityanalysis";but al1that Hungary
1 concludes isthat"[pJredictionasrehigbiyuncertain"and yetsuchan occurrenceis nonetheless
"Iikelin the reservoir". Whatthe "occurrence" might beand the natureand cuncIusions of
the recentanalysisreferreto arend revealed.
12.13 Inany analysis of potentialimpacts, it isessentialto recall thatthe
Danube'swaters are freh em significanconcentrations of poIIutantswhich couIdpropagate
into grorrndwater by groundwater recharge hm the ~anube~'. The detail4 monitoring
.-
33
HungarianCourtter-Mernoriai,ra.3.3Ilinoiedthattheclairthatan"dgalbloornisinwitablem
iconfiml 10afmtnote-fn.51.Ofmm, aIgdbI#m muidanddid KCW in thDanuksideanns
predamming-
34
B. Vol.III. p32. Obviously,heseconclusionarevalidonIywithin the mniext of the agreed
divisionowaterktween thbypasscanalandtheoldDanube. Ifas Hungaryhaswishedinthe past,
thedischargintothe019Danube wereincreas beyond thecurrenaveragedischargof 400m3/s,
fieriskof harmfuleutrophicain thereservowould increasbecaustheflowrateand velmities
wmld be decreaseI d.gentraithefactorsinhibitingeutrophicaarenwaterfmbidify,mulent
flowandflowveloci.y
3s
HungarianCounter-Mernoripi,ra1.108.
36
Asto theirrelevanof mch "internatioexperience-accordingtoHungary- sect.e 1989study
preparsdbySorniybdyg,tal,formingm., Vol.4 (PartII)Annex 13 {atp.563):"Itshouldbe
eniphasisethatmorphologicaiIyt,DunakiIitiemvoirdiffetrtallyfrotherîverkdresentoirof
theGerman-Auwian section,wxch meanstha inyexperîencegainai thermat beappiiedhere
automaticalIy."
37 W., Vol. 1para.1.108,
38 Vol. III,15. -286 -
carried out since the irnplemenftion of Variant ('Cg - in accordance with World
MeteoroIogicaI Organisationrecornmendation -sshows fhatthisconclusionas to the absence
I
of pollutantis essentiallyvalidfor the scdirnentsthhave actuallysettledon the reservcir
botforn. Nutrimt content, intems of nitr-, phosphorus,potassiumand organic matter,
waî not found to be excessive,while heavymetals weyI fuund tobeless than basicvalues
(exceptforcopper,which did nothowever excced limiti& values)39.Theseresultsconfimed
I
sampling surveyscarriedoutinthe GabEikov oreain 1993:
l
"The researchnrults showthat thesbdiment srenot significanrpyollutcand
thatthey arenot pollutedbyorganiccontaminaritsI .nspiteof highercontents
ofsome heavymetals insediments ..theauthors donot classifythe concemed
territoryas contaminated,ecausethe majorpart of heavymetalsfoms a part
ofstablerock-formationrninera1s "'
12.14 By way ofconclusion,it is essenIidturememberthatwaterworks close
to thereservoirsupplydnnkingwater toBratislavaandtdat,aspointedoutinparagraph 11.20
I
above,surface and ground waters aremonitored at arouRd600 pointswithin a rangeof more
I
than 300 water qualityparameters. ApproxirnateIy 1IO monitoring objjectqreIate td
I
municipalwater srrpplywells,arelocated nearthereservIirandprovidethebestdata asto the
area'swaierquality. The resultfiom theregularsatnpli&(on a continual rweekly basis)in
no way supportsHungary's spectreof "directhreatto tke iepion'swatcr In fa,
certain irnprovementingroundwaterqualityare noted:
"TheRusovcevillage water supply,locatedin thearea closeto the Hungarian
boundaryi ,s typicalfor groundwaterqualityon t,herightsideofthe Danube.
Thisgound waterflows towardsthe Hungarîanterritory. Beforethedamming
ofthe Danubethe ground waterquality was chara'cttrisedby high wntentsof
sulphate,chlofideandnitrates.Mer thedamming(thereis continuous decrease
of thesethree components,whichindicatesthemoreintensiveinfiltrationofthe
Danubewaterintotheaquifer.Thissignifies ageneralimprovement of ground
39 -bid.,p.34. Th"HoIIandCriteria,hichareappliedhere,pruviforategorisatioastobasic,
Iirniriandwarningvalues.The higheuinwntratioof'coppeis duto itpresencin upstream
r~ckformations,npoI1ution.
41 HungarianCounter-Memariaplara3.39. ThCourtiral+ iemindulofthecontniry Bndîofthe
HungarianrepresenratIOtheEC WorhngGrciupofExperts:
I
"Aarding totheHungariaDnataRepof (rey3140signifrcathangeshavebeendetectd
inttiegrouwaterquality."HungariMernoria.l,o5.(PartIIAnnex 18(ap.713).was agreed to by the Treaty partiesin 1977, even Hungar ycceptç that this decline is
avoidatileby the constructionof undewaterweirs: "The suggestionthat water levelsin the
Danubecould beincreasedbyunderground weirsis correct..'6." Moreover, itis notecthat
the dramatic"illustration"fthe-waterleveldropoprodideciin HungarîanCounier-Mernorial
I
PIate8a is rather deceptive. The photograph,apparentlytakenon 29 Octuber1992, shows a
I
dried upriverbranch -but itisnot clearthatthisis rejateto thedammingg , iventheareasof
driedvegetationandgreengrars, whichcould not havd flounshed in thefew days sincethe
damming on24 October1992~~.
72.17 As tu the gruund water lever drops that Hungary has recorded
throughout szigetkoz4',itis emphasised once morethattheseare n& due tothe reductionof
the fiow in the oldDanubebut are ratherdue to the faiIureto impiementthe Project-built
direct rechargesysteminto the Hungarianside arms. OnI SIovak territorywhere the Project
I
rneasnreshavebeenimplemented,the ground waterIevelshave increas teda stateadar tu
1
thatof 20-30 yearsago, beforenverbeddegradation became problematic49 .his içconsidered
ingreaterdetailstartingatparagraph 12.20below.
12.18 Hungary's portraya1ofadverse impacts onthe water qualityin theold
Danubestretchis Limitec ti the clairnof"slighchangesa i' "chernica lnd biologicalquality"
46 m., para3.27. Themen&of underwatereirsaredsopnçidereda?para.11.45beIow. Hungq
acceptsin ii"Scienl ifxIriatiothaundenvaterweip "wouIdprevenfthedegradationofthe
rives. m., VQI .. p.5. AtoHungary'cumments onthe ofthes eeir(afW., Val.1,
pans. 3.102-3.10i3).evidsn-asHungay we1hows {thntthemstcodd neverk 2.4billioCz
crom u, intheregionoftheoveraiioosof uinsîructionof Ph1ofthe Cunovoweir) andthat
thiswasa typographicalrrorin thEC reportciteatSlova k ernoria,ara.535. Indd, the
whoieofHungaiy'scornideratinfundsrnaterwein wiln theframewor okf theTWMRat pans.
3.IO1-3.11ofitCounter-Memonn aiowappearsimlevan!inthelighofHungary'sgreemenot n19
April 199toconslm a partralçiibmergedmir arkm 11843.Suchan action, HungacIaimsa1
-bid..par3.114wouId k "rrnacceptabIn. dyetihasnIwagrd IodojUsthat.
47 I
ItisnotathatHrtngarmake variouscrîtîcisatMibid , 3.I11-3.112ofthephotographsfthe
Slovaksidarms beforeandaftereffectingdirecrechargprograminMay 1993 (beingIlluNos.
36 A-D of SlovakiaMernorial).Hungaryclaimsthatthesedo not compare"thpre -and pst
diversionconditions".Thismm, of murse,althou&/itiwry unclprwhat poinHungaryis
tryingto make.The photographsinquestioare intend9to showthebranchespre -and pst -
implementatiaof the direcmharge - and nofhingeIp Regdess of Hungaq'scunfusing
carnrnentary.tsimplefactis th&osesidearms photopph& @Immany otherswerereguIar£y
driedupprio10impIementatioofdirat rgharg-andno& thearenot.
1
48 HungarianCounter-Mernorial,ra3.44.
49 l
-ee,Vol.IIIp.8.Hungary attributlittimportanceo9 lon~termdecrea sewaterlevelQre-
1992)intheDanube andtti~elategroundwaterlevelsSe. ibid.,5. -A W.
8iochetm5&ml -m dainPndhitheDpnuba
i
ItPMw (100l@l@ll1rnt0/13/)11mëw (l9W1W- tWI2J131)
Chsrnid deümd [mBMn) inthehube andthe attempt tu establisha "deterioratitrend" in respectofdissolvedoxygen mntent5' -
Thereisnuevidence of sucha deterioratintrend. And ifherehavebeen slightchanges, these
have ben positive. This is shown musrclearlyby IIlus.No. R.-6. Thisdepicts a seriesof
!
cornparisonsbetween the dissolvedoxygen conditions inthe two year periodsimmediately
t priortu and immediatelyafterthe darnmingoftheDanube, witbwaterqualitybeingmeasured
t
in terms of dissolvedoxygen content@O), biologicaIoxygtn demand@OD) andchemid
oxygen demand E COD)^ '.cornparison is alsshown betweenwater quality at Bratislava
(upstreamof the Prciject)andat Medvduv (downstream of the coduence betweenthe old
Danubeand thebypass canal).The illustratkri.showsa slightincreaseiDO content (which
was anywayfirstclms)and a slightdecreaseinbiologicaandchernical oxyge nemand(which
isalsudesirable). As VolumeIII heretoexplains:
"On the basisof the overalcornparisonof monitoringresults hm the period
prior tuandaflerthe puttingof the GabEikovosectio ito operation,it maybe
statedthatno significantchangeinwaterquaiityoccurred. The recurdedtrend
hasshowna slightirnpr&ment insomeparameterdz.u
12.19 Hungarynot odygives,inspiteof the Iack ofanysupporting data,quite
the opposite impression,but aIsoappearstuwish tu excuse its faiIutu takeactive steps to
proteet the water quaIityoftheDanubethrough the construct of wnaste watertreatrnent
plants,wfich fomed part of the nationalinvestmentsthat the partwere to makewithin the
Treaty Project. Instead,Hungary focuseson BOD valuesin an attempttu demonstratethat
there isno reaIpurposetu wastewater treatmentalongthe Projet stretch oftheDanube, at
Ieastinsofar asreducingthe riskof harmfuleutrophicationis concerned:
"CIearItyhe soIutionof the eutrophicationprublemof the Danubestretchdoes
not dependonly on waste watertreatrnentaIong the given reach: itwould
30 HungarianCounter-Mernoria lara.3.31. Hungary dso noteshere that "~urpendeddi&
conŒntrationdroppemarkedly"stdmming due10therelenioifmnuchofthesuspeadeId in
themervoir.Hungarydws ad appr totrytodepictthis asaabverçimpacton waterquali~,
however.
51 Oxygenis a particuiarusefui rneasofwater qdiîy: the highethedissolvedoxygen@O)
conten thekfferthequaliîofthewater,whereatheIowerthebiologid andchernicddemands
(EODandCOD) on theoqges thektterthewatequaIity.
52 See,VoI.IIIp.24, As 10thebioiogid quaIityotheMer in rheoIdDanulx doq ihis is
wnsideredindetaial VoI.III, pp30-33.No perceptibltrendshaveemergedandîhwe isno
perceivethFeaifanextremephytopianktniomassincreasi.eh.,rmfueItrophication. requira co-ordinard internationalprogrammetoreducethe phosphorus inthe
entire upstreambasinS.
This is extraordin .aItis nnarguablethat waste water treatment is necessarytoimprove
I
water quatityandin tems of publichealthisa taskof primeand urgentimportance. k tua
"coordinatedinternationa1programme"S,Iovakiandother Danube States (induding Hungary)
areactivelyinvolvedinthefollowingprojectspr~posedwithinthePHAREframework:
-
"Presentand futur roeleinnutrientrem& hm surfacewaterby weilands,
floodpIainand reservoirs"-approvedproject (participationCzechRepubIic,
SIovakia,SloveniaandRomania)
- "Nutrientbakncesfor theDanubecountnasandoptions forsurf. andground
water protection"(panicipants:Slovakia,Aungar, ustria)
- "lntrodudion ofphosphatefree detergentsin the Danubebasin" (participants:
Slovakia,Hungary,Bulgaria).
The SideArmSustem
12.20 According toHungary,Slovakia's"suggestion"thatthere wuld be "an
I
inweased flw inthe Danubeside-amis"underthe ~rojactl"isnot quitcomct"" . Thismarks
a change ofopinion on Hungary'spart,whichnoted inits1985 EIAthatthe direct recharge
I
into thesidearmsmvisaged by the Projcctallowea flowpf water"farexceedingtheir present
I
disshargethroughout the attireyear"s5. This 1985 assessrnentissupporîed bythe 1993
reportsof the EC WurkingGroup of 12xpertG6 as wellasby Volume III hereîo, which
I
conclusivelyproves the beneficialimpactof the directrechargeinto SIova kide arms at
l
I
" HungariaCounier-Mernoriam. 3.34. Sirnila Huny,aryscitntific Evdua(iapp.w 10
maktthequitercmarkabIergumentthatbecau seaste rreamsntdong thtDanubestretch
wodd notresoIvetheaIIegedeumphi~ationproblemt,hefo:linuedpofthDanube fromsuch
sourceashe MosoniDanuk,into whichuntreated waiisdischged froma Gytrr,is nat
seriornatteraEectingwaterqdily.
54 m., para. 1.84. l
56 Ibid.,Annex18and 19.
-~obrohoif~'. Tt maybe, as Hungaryclairns,that 80w rateswiIInut be equivalenttu pre-1960
Ievels,thatispriortuthe commencementof riverbeddegradation and prior to the isoIatioof
the sidearms;but ifisnotcontestablethal,withdirectrecharge,theconditionsin thesideams
will bes~penor tu the sifuationin the 1970st,he 1980s and the early 1930s (prîorto the
damming).
12.21 Hungaq also daims thata "srnaI Ionstani suppIyofwater"into the
Szigetkozsidearms - being15-25 m3is -wouldbr substitutedfur a "flrictuatingsuppiy,hus
denyingthe "important effects of floodflow~"~'.Thisis mg. The DunakilitiofRake (as
designed and constructedwithintheTreatyProject)allowedfor adischarge ofup to 250 m3/s
into the Szigetkozsidearms. Hungary wasin noway prevented from utilisingthisofRaketo
the extent itdesired. Hungarycomplains that "anyextrawithdrawalfrom the reservoir
exceedingthe guaranteedamounts"would leadto a reductionin the shareof the energy
produced at ~ab~ikovo" .But iftheonlyrestrictiononHungaryintermsof assuringthe flow
rateitconsiderednecessary was a reductioninitsshareof electricityproduction,hiscould be
no morethan a self-imposeddecision to sacrificeenvironmentap l rotection foreconomic
benefits. Intheface of this,Hungary'csommentatparagraph 3.106 of its Counter-Mernorial
that "the SIovak appruach tu rnitigationis "drivenby the desireto maximise electricity
generation"appearshi'pocritical,atbest6'.
57
-*e VoI.III,p18.
58
Hurigarianounter-MtrnoriaI,par1.8and 1.88.
50
Thefui commentradsasfoIIows:
'Moreover,inhereninIht SIovakapprwchtumitîgatiameaçirreisfhe assumptiothat
there wibenoincreaseinwaferdiçchargtethemain nveM. Fmtnote omitted]This
is, course,drivbythe desirtomaximiseeIwtticitygeneration."
Ofcourse,Hungaryis confusingthespcimeasuresputforwardbySlwakra aspartoftheTWMR
withProjectremedimeasures.ThedischargsuggestebySlovak -of400 m3/s-infactmarksan
increasoverthe Projecdischarge. Thwas "drivenby whatmight be necessaqfor alonid
reasonandin termsof reachinacompromisewithHungary.Evenhigherdischargesintotheold
Danube coutd(exoepat highflows)leadtoeutrophicatiproblernsithe reservoir. Moreover,
higherdischargare notnmssary foeoologicaleasonsitheoldDanubeand, with thisinmind.
Slovakianaturalaimsto maximiseelectrip roductionThe dischargeof400m3/sintotheold
Danube (ona ternporayasis)hasofcourse,nowbeed acceptebyHungarybyAgreementof 19
April1995.Slovakidoesnothavetheintentiofproducingelectricfromundenvatewr eirsinthe
oldDanuhas Hungary furthimplies(aibi d.r,3.105). 12-22 Inanyevent, the fiowrateachievèd in theSLovas kide ams since May
1993 hasbeen neithersmallnorconstant. It has varie!between 10 and90 mf/s sslelyas
ecologicalconsiderationshave dictated and thereis d sense in which the flow hasbeen
insuficient. Thedaim inHungary'T s abl4 thatfluctuadionwould ceaseSave for 15days per
yearis incorrect6. Indeed,Table 4is meaninglessinmdstrespectsfor itis basedonthe self-
I
imposedilow ratesof 15-25 m3/s and cornainsmultiple assertionsthat are disprov eyd
I
evidencealreadybeforethe Court. The daim that "cloggingof musf side arms could be
I
expected" isdirectlyGounterto the findingsofthe EC Iorking Group of Experts,as isthe
61
m., p.51. &e, aisothdaim atibi para.1.8of"the of inundatiinthefioodplainandthe
lackof waterfluctuationsgeneially". Comthe, oftheEC Working Groupof Experts,
quoteatfn.109,below.
62
*ee EC WorkingGroupreportsof2 November 1993and 1December 1993,HungarianMernorial,
Vol. 5 (II), Anne18sand 19 (ai pp. 7and782-783). And,as notedintheSIovakCounter-
Mernorialt,hEC Experipredict eedctI&hesarncbenepaleRed fortheHnngarianride if
equivaleflawstothosintotheSlwaksidems weredi5charge-nîoSzigetkoz:
I
"TheriveM inthemain brancheon theunda sidewilbecornesufficiendi.fia hm
mud, fiai gd infritration conditions wi~tiECstw~~king G~OU~ reportofi
Darnkr 1993,m., Annex 19(aip.789).
NonetheIesH,r~ngaryIegesaHungarian~ounter-~emor$, para3.50tha"doggingofthe..side
am is ex~ted". It iclaimethatonithe"suddeninir+ucfîoofa Iargamornt ofwter thmthrough
thesupply-systtuthesideanns(whichispossibbutnotpractiçein%triOsuova ,ndimpossibIe
inSzigetktdue10a lackofwatersupply)couIdwaawaypart ritheçettIsedimerif".ncon-
theEC Expertsnulcdthat ifihf Ostrov^amnsiderabir,echargnow taLe slacfrom theside
channds [inrtheaquifer..buse the mnîng water?asremoved thefinemateridprwiousiy
cIoggin~e ixd ofthesreivemat. EC WorkingGroup reparof2 November 1993,Hungarian
MemoriaI .ol3 00, Annex18. Nosuddenintroductiofwateris requird,bsimply~e planned
recharge Any "Iackof ivalersupplin Szigetkohas entireiyduetoHungary'spoliticai
decisionnotofakthencxasaq step10permitdirecrechargintoitsidamis. rechargeinto the sidems as cIosdy rnonitoredon Slovak territory and summarised in
VUIU~~ IIP'.
12.23 Hungary's insistencon the ineficacy of the direct recharge systemin
the facof al1the evidenceis simpto explain.Itisthebais foritsassertiothat "decremes
1
1 ingroundwater IeveIsare predictedtexceed 3m and to affecan areaof approxirnatdy300
I square kilornetreson the Hungariaide"'^.Referencein supportis made byHungaryto its
PlateGa. Thisshowsno decreases ingroundwaterIeveIsinexces of3m, or evenin excesof
2m. Andthe overd1area afected (in the prediction)is ointhe regionof 130km2. The
i assertionis anywayimpossibletosquarewiththe finding of theEC Expertsfhatif dieet
t
I recharge into the Szigetksidearmsis increasedto the sameIeveIsas onthe SIovakside:
"Gruundwaterlevels on the Hungah territoryarexpectedtu be not Iowerthaninthe pre-
l
damconditions65." Needlesstosay,Hungary can poin to the aotualimpacton ittenitorof
l
I the damrning of the Danubein October 1992, which has (apparently)been foIIowedby a
I decreaseingroundwater IeveIsonan ara cuvering297 kd. But this proves udy thathe
directrechargesystemwaswell-cunceivedandthat ithasbeenwhollyiIIogicalnot tallowfor
itsimplernentation. Andonce again,on SIouakterritorthe effectivenesofdirectrecharge
hasbeenconfirmed byECExpertsandbyovertwoyears ofmonitoringof actuaIimpact:
"The GabEikovo hydropowerstructures,aftertwo yearof operation,haveled
on the prevaiIingpart of the teri-itortu the recovery of water-related
conditionstu those known in the regioa few decadesago. The rneasured
changesin ground water IeveIsin the floodpIainareaandin the whole region
I
"
h7 Vol.IIp.8:
"Tlieha& in ihegmnd waterIeveobse.medinuifimdpiaiara and generallyinthe
wfrtlregioconfirm thmitive impactofrheProject.inparticlas hupperpartof
fitnj Ostroandthc importantpositiverdetfiwaterwppIysystemforthe Ieftside
fidpIaiaara.The &%mations mpprt thexpeclationth&r wmpletionofrhewater
suppIyfacilifortheremainip ngrofthefidpIain areintheviciniv othetaiIrace
cona(dowmtream offie GaEikovrisiandforthenarrowareaberna Dobroho'ii, the
waterwiIoccmheretoo.driverki (t&Id drytriangla)positiveimpaongroground
Therneasuremenoffiepund wattrIeveIcorrfithathereiageneratrendtowardsthe
reestabIishmtfthesitualiknown20-30yeatago,onthegreateparoftheterritory."
65 EC WorkingGroupreporto1 Deceinbe1993,HungariaMernorial,OL 5m, Annex 19(atp.
740).Thisreportfourtha he Hungarianideam ara isimila10thatontheSiwakside(atp.
771).As a resutthefavourabIitmpaonsSIovaterrifoofdirectrechargewlxIrepIica ined
Hungary. SECTION 2. Soiis,Flora and Fauna
12.25 The retevance to Hungary'sIegd case ofits presentation ofaIIeged
Projectimpacts to flora and fauna appearsto be as followsn: Hungary'sinvocation of
necessity isbased, in part,on the "severedamage" which was "anticipated "o fiora and
faunaT3 w,hilstitssuspensionof worksisjustifieby the allegednon-fulfilmen tfArticle19 of
the 1977 Treaty"conceming thenaturalen~konrnent"~~.
12.26 But even within the gqeral tupic of mils, floraand fauna, the legd
relevanceofthe individua1 impactsposited by Hungarymust be questioned. For example,
Hrrngary seesanadverseimpactinthe snbmergingof 20 "isIandsanndIargeparts of shoreIine
in the Nagymarosreservoir" . But th inundation wasai intcgraIand necessa payrtof the
Project towhich theTreatypartiesknowinglyagreed. In anyevent,Article 19 ofthe Treaty
cannotbe appliedto prohibit thisresult,for todo so wouldhavethe effect ofpreventingan
essentialobject of the~reat~~~. Nor cm "necessity"be invokedfor, similarly,this was a
knownand accepted Projectimpact:it isself-evidenthat wherewater isimpounded behind a
dam suthat itsIeveInseq certainareasof IandwiIIbcsubmergecl a,ndfhe Treatypartieswere
atfullIibkrtto providefor this".
11 HungarianCounttr-Mernonalparas. 1.133-LI5and3.51-3.65.See,Vol.Il.heretocommenfs to
Ch.4,fora moredetailairebutofth eIIegedimpacts;andço, Vol.III,Chs.-'1.
73 HungarianCounter-Mernori alra.5.27.
74 m., para4.06. Slovakiconsidersthatalfegedimpactosoilsfit moeasilinta the categoryof
risksof apatentilegaIrelevance,i&dongsideflaraandfauna,ratherthaB alongsidethare.
whereeconomicfactorsareofprimeconcern,thatisimpactstoagricultuandfores@. Itis also
notd thatinthetreatmentftheimpactsofVarian"C" intheHungaianCounter-Memoiaslo ,ilsdo
notmeritaseparatsubsectionstronglysuggestianassurnptioofthelackofany evidenceoany
adverseimpactoçoilasa resiroftheirngItmentatiofVarian"C",
''
HungarianMernoriaiparaI.150.
76
-ee,para.3.31g sep.aime.
''
Hungaryalsorefertothembrntrgingofthe"activfldpIainnintheNapos seriion. Hungarian
Counttr-Mernoriai,par1.150. Hungaraccepkthalthisodld "fldpIainnis"mmw". Infact,
itisfromasIittas afewmetresfo 100 mwide. Itina110k confmd withtheactivfldplain in
theGaMikovo don, whichisof reaiecologisialtcance.See aiso,thedaiminthe"Scientific
Evaluation" ., Vol.2, p.181):"Fromthepointofviewof forwtrytheimpacarea...include...
thenarrow floodplainotheDanubebetween Gtlnyifand Szentendre."Butheimportanceofthis
narrowstripoflandinsidetheinundatidykes isvirtualnon-existein tem of foreçtqand,in
spitofthecfaimquotedabove,the"Scientifcvaluation"akesno attemptoassesitssignificanŒ
ortheProject'mpactthereon. 12.27 But RungawasreaI focns in its treatmenof soils, aura and faunison
the GabEikovo,not the Nagymaros,section ofthe Projecf and, in particular,the alIeged
I
impactstu the Szigetkozregion. Soi1impactsareexamineci in tems of thiregion and,
I
in terms of impacts tu and fauna, Iittlmore thln one paragraph is devoted to the
I
Nagymarossection". Thegeographicaa lra on whichHungaryfocusesis verylirnited andis,
infact,,lm iotelhanthe areaofthe activefloodpl a!Snzigetkoz,asdepicteciinIllusNo.
--4(appearing atthebeginning ofChapter
-l
12.28 As tothe GabCikovs oection,HungaIy'a sssessrnentf adverseimpact to
l
soils,floraandfaunaiaalmost exdusivelypremisedonthe cIntentionthat the "Projectwould
have cause d reduction inthe ~ater-table"8~'.As the previuusSection has shawn, this
I
contentionhasm bais. And inthis respect,theernphasi'ncertainof the provisionalfindings
I
of the Bechtel report is rnisplaced. 'SIuvakiadoes not contest the pussibiIityof adverse
I
impact "[ilnfheeventthatsurfacewaterdropped significantlyinthe sidearms" orwherethere
I
were certain"[clhangesinthe groundwaterandsurfacelwater levelsM8'it merelypoints out
thatsuch dropsor changesinground water level w erk, andare, not an expectedProject
impact as shown, notleast,bytheactualimpact of Varianl"Cl'to date.
78 HungarianCainter-Mernorial.ara1.150in part,andAra. 1.151in aiII. ïhrhondismion
devotedtoNagymaros isanyway ofdoubtfuIrelevanc(A* fromthe Iegdly irreIevantimpacfs
discirssedtheprecedirparagraph, ungarpoints10aIkgai impacofpeakmde operationeven
though,aspointedout apara.II. 1aboveHungary acypts thafeakoperationis not necesariIy
hamifiiIrtheenvironment.Moreovera, sfo noagreemenhtadbeenreached
and,if environnienconsideratiosodictated,
fomIIy sfaw thairwas openfo
theIirnitatorcompleteexdusionofthispeakoperation.
"
Sec,aIso,Iûva k ernorip,ara7.87.
80
HungarianCounter-Memona p ,ra.1.143.
81
-bid.atpara1.140.
1
Extractfrom thBechtelrepon.citealM. Although,a /otedaffn.11topara .1.10aime, the
Bechielreportacknowledgethe existenceof Projectremedmeasutes,it appeato haveken
cornmissioneso as toanalysethe impactof the "OriginProject",rallierasRmgary'1994
"ScienüfiEvaIuation".hissimplefactundeminesHun+q*s relianon theBechtdRPR at i&
Of lheseriesof sevpotenfiPmj~t irnpaciquote(wi? relish)bHungaryatm., threaerenof
rcIevatbecaus teyareprerniseonnonexistentgroundtyaterIeveIsdrnda furthesfhrfaito
rakeaccorinof thefacthi, through he corismctioqf undematerweirs.fishladdersnd the
cstabIishmenofa new inferanndcln belweenthemainchanneI and thesideanns theupper
isctiod~ theDanuh wcdd develop ~ardiy in +logid temu -~ee.EC Working Graup
reportof23 Nuvernkr 1992Hmprian Memuriai, Vol.51(1 IM,~X 14 fap.418). ne çwenth
potentidimpactrelatetorîpariavegetafiin fieNagparos section,onsideredal para.I2,26,
above.~vhereiishown tohaveken animpactacceptabytheTreatyparties. 12.29 The Hungarian Counter-Mernorial is also very critical of what it
considers to be the scant attention paidtu flora and fauna inthe SIovak ~ernoria~'~,but
proceeds itselftu give the issue Iittle more thana cursory treatment - aimednot at an
assessrnentof anticipatedimpacts but,for themain part,atanattempt to disprovethe factof
theTreaty parties'agreementto incorporate thevariousremedial masures intotheprojects4.
This is indicativeof the centralrole in Hungary'sargumentsplayedby itsconcept of the
"OriginaP lroject", hichIargeIyignorestheremedial measures agreed bytheTreatyparties (in
partas a responseto Hungary's1985 EIA). ,Onlyfive paragraphs of Hungary'sCounter-
Memorial aredevotedto alleged"impact" onflora andfauna", ofwhich two relateprincipally
to peakoperations6 andtwo relateto internationaelxperienceof dubious relevances7. The
finalparagraph is sirnplyaassertionthat whathas preceded is "suficientevidence"88.
12.30 In the discussionthat follows, Slovakiabases itsconclusions onthe
detailedscientificresearcband datacantainedinVoIumeIII hereto, inparticular,Chapters 3-7
thereof. This evidenceboth supplementsand supports the evidence contempvraneous6th
Hungary's acts inbreachofthe 1977 Treatyinthe period 1989-1992examined inthe Slovak
Memorialand ~ounter-~ernorial~~I .t isalso emphasisedthat there is TD foundation for
83 HungarianCounter-Mernoriaparas.1.139and3.54.
84
k, alsa,W., paras3.101-3.14,compriçingHungary'ssub-sectientitled"MitigatiMeasureç
Taken ByTheParties".Thissub-sectioconsiderstheimpactsounderwater eirsciaiminwrongly
thattheyleadtocolmatatioiftheiconstnictiois nocoupledwithhighflowsintotheoldDanuk.
Given Hungary'agreementtothe constructiofan undenvateweir atrkm 1843(Agreement of19
April1995,Annex 1,hereto)he discussinow appearspointles.
85
m., paras1,150-1.154,
Bh &, fn.78tupara. i2.2ab=
87 Thereisnovalidwmparimn betweenecoIogicaIirnpacfsduIcthebping ofa 52km mch ofthe
Rhine,leavinga flowof onIy 15m3isinta theald mainchanne and wiîhoutan effectidi-
rechargesysttrtnthesidems, andthebypsing af 30km of tht Danu&.witha fiowofup to 350
m31s intheoIdmainchanne1 andampledirectr~harge intdthesidearrnçHuligrytscitation from
theW WF (trheeEeFtthatunderwaterweirsontheoldDanuk wi11k harmfu fIllowinexperienŒ
gainaion theRhine-atpara.3.04 ofifCounfer-Mernoriaisthereforeimpposite.
'' Hungarian Counter-Memurid p,ara1.154.A furthgfwo shortparagrnph(eightIinesintoialare
devotedtoimpactsonfisheries.IronidIy, thprimemmpIaintis theSlova kernorial'sEIurto
specific addryssthitopic.
89
-ee,SlovakMernoriai, ara2.88giW., andSlova Ckounter-Mernorip, ras.7.7and8.35, çea.
Slovak saandinMl by thestatementin iMemoria thatSzigetkowillknefitfromthe Projecas
quotedatHungarianCounter-Mernori palra.1.142.Hungarylsallegatiothatthetreatrnenoffloraandfaunie nthe SlovakMernorialis inevitably
l
handicsppedbythe factthat"insuficientbiologicalinforhion existedbothinth1977andin
198Y"" . Hungaryobviouslyignorestheexistenceof t$ 1975-1976 Bioprojsci and it1986
I
updat$' . As tu other bioIogica1datacollated by CIechoslovak,he inventoryofaquatic
faunain the Danubewasesrablished bjrhe SIova sciedtisBrîek in 1964 and inventoriof
I
thefloodplainfaunaweregraduallyestablishehm the (950~ - Currentmonitoring sitesare
I
sbwn unIllus. No. R-7 A. The documentationand inventoryofflorainfit@ Ostmv was
I
completedin 1986 byBertuva 8. And,as VoIume IIIhmo notes:
I
"Thus theBora of the Slovakfloodplain ecosypems, includingthe Danube
inundatioarea,canbeconsidered asoneof thebestdefinedandbestknownof
Europe. The Slovakscientistshavethereforea]wayshad andnow have a
potentialto evaluate correctly and objecti?ely the influence of the
GabEikovolNagyrnar Prsoject,includiitvariant"CM on floraandforestsin
particula?"
Thecurrentmonitoring siteforfloodplaiforestsareshownon Illus.No.R-7 B.
I
12.3I TheprimefocusofHungaes assedment of Project impacton soilsison
I
thesupplyofground water to the soi1layer,which mmbe drawn up by capillaryactiofor
I
utilisationby naturaior eultivatedvegetation. It is clai+edttkm28would lose ground
water rnoisturesupplyon apermanentbais due to thebrojectP5.This assessrnentis once
w HungarianCounter-Mernoril,ar1.144.
91 See,SlovakMemonal,para2.17gïses.
1
92 &e,Vol. III, p. 92.
1
93 --,ibid.,p74ThesurpnsingimplicationatHungariounter-Memorid,ara.3.55thatlwak
scientihavepaidinmcient attentitoecologvieasi refutedbasimpleexaminatiof the
SIovapublicatiinthefield. 1
94 Vol. III,p. 7As tothecurremdambase he EC Wu{hngGmup reporto2 November 1993
crinclud(aHunguîanMemonaI ,oI.5(Pm IIhex 18[alp719):"Aipresenahugeamornt
ofdataare cuIIect-ewhichconciusionapprs 10k acceptexibyHungq in its "Scientfit
Evduation".a, RungarianCounrer-MernoriVol. 2, 3, wherereferace is madto the
"abundancef.data".
l
" -IbidV,al. para 1.129.In facr.tfigure 80 hz dIegdlyoniyUicara thatlosesb-
irrigatduringhigh waterIevintheDanube&, thIosissestimatinan area hichanyway
onIraived he mb-irtîgaffoarfewweeks(abestperiear.againbasedonimplementation of the"Originalroject"i.e a.,uminga minimum flow inthe
Danube, aminimumfiow into the sidams, noaccountbeingtakenofthe additionaldischarge
into theMosoniDanube,andno allowancebeing made for the positive impaof underwater
weirs. Theclaimis basedonPlate6bof Hungary's Counter-MernoriaB l.utthisPlatshows a
reductioninground water suppiyto the soil Iayerwheretheprecedingillustratio, lat6%
had shown no dropin groundwaterlevels,which iswhollyillogical:if theis no dropin
groundwaterlevels,therecan be no reductionin ground water supplyto the soilayer. A
reference is almade tuTabIe 3.5of the "ScientiEvaluation".Thi isnomore convincing:
ifshows thearea "continuonslsub-irrigated"riotu Projeciirnplementatioas 135km2and
the areapst-Projectas115 km2 ,he diflerencbeing19 km?,not 80km2.%
12.32 Hungaryalsoclaims thatthere wouIdbe "importantlong term changes"
to thechemicalregimeof the But thipredictionagainreliesontheexistenceof drops
in groundwaterlevels. Suchdropswouldnothave occurred ifHungaryhad not refusedto
implernentthedirectrechargeintoitssidearms.Where directrechargehasbeenimplemented
- on the Slovakside -there hasbeen no changein the chemicalcompositionof (or water
supplytu) soiIs;and,it musbe stressed,thesoiIsonthe Slova akndHunganan sidesof the
Danubeare essentiallysimiI.r
12.33 Inordertu iiiustratetheimpactof theProject oncapillarytransportin
fitniOstrov,a cornpansonmaybe madebetween thegruund wateravailablefor thesuppIy ro
soilsin 1962 (prioto bed degradation),n 1992 @riorto the damming) and in1994 (two
years afterimplementationof theGabEikovo section ofthe Projectthrough Variant"Cu).
Figures21-23 of Volume III(Chapter1) heretodepictthiscornparison howing the adverse
impactof bed degradationon capillarytransport prtor1992 andthe improvementthat has
foIIowedProjectirnplementatiointhewhoIeupper partoffitn9~skrov~*.
12.34 With respect tu the chernicalpropertieof soils, monitoring of-suils
cornmencedin 1989at 20sitesinzitn~iOstrov. The suilmonitoringsitaredepictedinIllus.
96
m., Vol.2, 86.
97
ibidVol. para.1.131.
1eeVol.IiI,p.12.No. R-7C andD. Theresults atal1monitorinsiteshoL thattheonginalsoiwaterrnoisture
regime was preserved (orimproved) post-damming, and that the chernicalregime is
unchangedH. Thtre has been no change in thecontentand qudityof humus inthe suit
(importantfactors influencingsoi1feratdqhereisnoreason tuexpectanysuch changein
thefu~re'~~. It mayalsobt notedthat withinthedirect rechargesflm it is possibto
I
optimisesurfacewaterfiowso astomaintainandimprovesoi1conditions"'.
12.35 Hungaryalsodevotesone paragr& to theadverseimpactstosoilsof
water level increase~'~'.,For Hungaanyimpact isdad (in spite of the specifinon-y
naturasituationrepresentbythe statuquo u. Butthishas nosense a. , any increase
+ 1
inthe Gabeikovosectionwouldmerelybeto theground waterJeveIsof 30 yeago,that ita
themore nafuralstate pnorto bed degradation. Second,the paragrin questioisIifted
directlfrom the "SeientificEvaluatio-"Save that:he final sentemeinthe "SWentific
Evaluation"has beenomitted: "TheIastproblem[saIinisats nota major~r~blemfor the
I
well-drainedSzigetkozarea,but asseriousenvironmentalhazaron the Slovaksideof the
Danube, panicularlyinthe low-lying poorly-d"ned , of the Easternttn~ Ostrov
region103"Onceagain,Hungarylsonlyairnisto portrz!n"environmentahlazard",egardless
of thfaçtthatitdocsnot existfor Szigetand therefokhasnorelevancetoHungary'lsegal
arguments,and regardlessof the factthatsalinisis 'chas been a lonterm problerin
I
pans of theiitnq Ostrovandhas nothingtu do with the ~roject'~.In façt, thProjen
I
inwrporated rneasrtro deaI with this problem,allowingfor the draiofgtheluw-19%
areaswtiich,coupledwithsurfacirrigation,wouIdleadtutheeventualfiushingoutexcess
I
Io bid p.47.
IO2 HrrngruiCnatmter-Memonpara.1.132.
'O3 -IbidVol2.aip.176Ernphasisdded.
IW
Vol.III55. Fioraand Fauna
12.36 Hungary's allegationof adverseProjectimpact tofoiraand fauna inthe
Szigetkozand,in particular,tsactivefloodplainaremisleadingand greatlyexaggerated. A
"fundamenta cl angeintheoriginallandscapeofthisfloodplain"is predictedlo5.However,the
referenceto "originalIandscape"isverymisleadi nrgthefloodplainreferredto was reduced
inthe 19thCentury toa stripalongtheDanube just1-5km wide. Even wittiinthisslip, there
is no truly original Iandscape. For example64% of the fioodptainfurestcunsists ofone
species type- a hybridpoplar,whichis a eultivatedand harvestedtree,specificaIIumamral
for the floodplainarea. A detailedaccountof the changesin the floraand faunain the
floodplainas aresuitof humaninterventionprior to thedammingof the Danube isset outin
VolumeII1hereto,Chapters4 and 5.
12.37 Thisis not to saythat the flora and faunaofthe region, asof1989 or
1992,were not of great importance. This is not questioned.And preciselybecauseof tkis
importance and ifs recognition by Czechoslovakia(and now Slovakia)the impacts that
Hungary now aIIegesand, inpatticular,the imminent "declinein biodiversity"cannot be
'substantiatedlo6
12.38 Onceagain,Hungary's allegationsassumea drop of surfaceandground
waterlevels, althougha new emphasis is placedon the valueof regularlyfluctuatingwater
levelsand the ecohgicaIIyharmfblnature ofundenvater weirsl". Indeed,Wungary considers
that the "determiningecoIogicaIfactorof AoodpIainsis the cyef floodinganddrjring",that
is surfacewaterfluctuation1". Slovakiaaccepts thatfluctuationpiaya significantrole But
the flooding patternsthaexistedpriorto the implementafion ofVariant "Cu were inno way
natural. The creationoftheDanubemain channelandthe constructionof flooddykeshadled
to morefrequent andmore extremeflooding,which was in turnaggravated bytheisolationof
theDanubesideams andhighervelocities inthemainchannel.
'OS HungarianCounfer-Mernonapla,3.63.
'% Ibid.para3.50.
IO7 m., paras3.35andJ-26.
la3 M., para3.56. 12.39 As the EC WorkingGroüp of Expertsexplainedin theirIast report,
I
suficient fluctuationfor naturalecoIogicaIreqiiirernentscbe achieved through the direct
I
recharge system, although thismajrnot alIow a dupli<ationof the extrente andun-naturd
l
fluctuationsin the pre-dam state1*. This confirmstheIGroup'spreviousfindingthat the
irnplementationofVariant"C" allowsthe Boodplain to "devclopmore natura~l~"'~~h.dd,
l
withouttheG/NProject, itisconcluded (inVolume IIIh*) thatthefioodplainforestwould
havedisappeared altogether: 1
"Ourexperiencesincetheendof the 1950s IeadsAs #O condude that due tothe
decrease of water flows in thsidcam systm f&llllowin tge regulationofthe
Danuberiverbed, the retentionofsedimentsinth2IAustrianandGennansrretch
ofthe Danubeand the continuing trend of the Danube riverbed towards
aoîion, the iloodplainforrstswouldeventuailha'vedisappearedon theSlovak
side of the Danube river. The GabEikovo~rbject and Vanant "CM have
111 Il
preventedthisregression .
12.40 Furthemore, where direct recharg1has been implemented(onthe
Slovak side),therearesignsof a positiveincreasein biodiversityand of a return tothemore
I
naturalhiodiversiryof one century ago due to the multiple succession ofnew ecufypes.
I
Aiready, speciu that had been consideredLocaIIyex)inct have bew recorded again -
particularly in the shallareas of the ruervoir,the &n1vo and Rumvce side amis, the
Biskupicé side armsand inthe reservoirseepagecanals' 12. itisnot onlyintheside arm
areasthat more natural conditionscanbe restored. The fast flowing maincharnelof the
lm
SceEC WorkingGmupReportof 1Deccmber 1993~un~b Meurioriai.Vol(eM II)A,nnn 19
Iap.790). "ReestabIishintgheàyiiamicsofgrolrndwaterIeveIfluwiI110faIargeexlenk
possibdownçtreamtherewwir."
1IO I
&, EC WorkingGroupReportof23Noventber1992ibid.,Annex14fap.418).
111 -1
&, Vol.IIatp.87. Rungarycontends,evenheless,th"93%~fthetreespecieinthefloodplain
..tri11wiih dlikeiihmddroutas a Eonsequencef ~+ant CH. HungarianChunter-Mernorial,
para.3.75Thisdaim iswhollywithoutfoundationisconsidereatpara13.09eta.. below.
" I
Vol. III,p81-86.The conclus ionhaptei4of401 111notes(Ip. 87) Lhin relatito
biodiversity:
"Astoplantbiodivers tieeisno prooastothe lowerinof&thphytogenofundromthe
expriena oftwoormore yws sincethedamming. To thecontrarynew biotopesmay
appr as a muIr ofIhewaterr~harge inb fhelsidarm sys?cminthe inundatiarea
DobrohoS - Palkovibvo)andin thehrrgeIimec and IiriozroaIemund the-Y
rcçervotding toap~esrrmptionnthefavoiofincrea sdversify."Danubeinthe pre-dam statewas nota naturalenvironmentand hadresultedinthe destmction
of themainbenthic(riverbottom)and littoral cornmunities.The typicaldoand faunaofthe
Danuberiverdeltahad beenpreservedto anextentin thesidearrnsbut the comrnunitieshere
werebeing harmed bylack of waterfiow. TheProjectincreases flowinto thesidearms and
reducesflowvelocityinthe mainchannel byaround30%. This allowstheregenerationofthe
typicaIidanddeltaspecies. The creatioof thereservoirbothallowstherevitalisatioof the
upstream n~er branches (atKop& Rusovtce and ~nnovo - where therehas been a rapid
regeneration owater organisms)andprovides a vastnew habitat,ofparticulaimportance in
the littoral
Birds[Avifauna)
12.41 The HungarianCounter-Mernoria alndits"ScientificEvaluationpay
IittIorno attentiotu avifauna(thefaunaof birds),althoughthis constitutesouf themost
importantindicatorsofthe stateof theenvironmeritandof changes tuit. Jtis particulariy
appropriatteutestHungary'"sScientificEvaluatiunascancernsfauna ingeneraIbyexamining
avifauna:fIr s retotheir mobility,birds areabletu react immediatelytu enviromenhl
changes;andsecond,birdsarerelatively easyto identifyandcount. SeveralSlovakscientists
havetherefore concentrateodn thisexercisecountingandobservingavifauna and recording
anychanges in behaviourorhabitat.Theresultsappear inthespecificdataandconclusions to
be foundinChapter7ofVolumeIII.
12.42 Of most importancetu thisanalysisare the field tripsmadeby bird
expertsinthe regionofthe DanubewheretheGabEikovo section of theProjecis focated-
includingthe old Danube,the Slovakside amç, thebypass canalandthe reservoir -in the
periodfrornJanuary to August 1994lI4. Specificallidentifiewere 52 differentspeciesof
aquaticbirds,onwhichthe survecy oncentratedeachof which speciesis detailedinChapter7
ofVolumeIII,togetherwithpertinent observation sasedon the particulasightings.Existing
datahasdso permit teda cornparisontubemade betweenthepresenceandnumber of spscies
II3 ~eeVOI.IIIpp.101-10and rI1-12.
114 IshouldbenotedihatheSlovaksirrduincernonIyquaticbirds. Aiihougwhole-yeaqcIe is
needetoarrivatmoredefiniticonclusion,numberofsignifianfindingsweremaderegxding
thimpactoftheProjeon aquaticbirds.beforeandafterdamming.In totanumbers, ashi& as1,800 individuai birina particular
l
specieswen recurdd in Mamh 1994- and 11,000in dIgust. A distinct increase inovedl
nurnbersof birds in the region was observed, aItha decreasewas registered in the old
I
Danube. One intcrestingobservatiwas thetende- oi me species,sucas the wilddudg
tu prefer the reserv-an attractivesouroeffoodforthesebirds- to theoldDanube - asa
I
wintenngplaceand, insornecases,fornesting.Otherbirdswhoprefertheresirvoirare
I
anddivers.
12.43 The most abundantspeciesseen in this regiwere thewildduck,the
.I
white swan and the wrmorant. But 13 rarespecieswere also identified. ListedbeIoware
someofthe moreinterethg sightingsof birds:
-
In August1994,a broodof 72 heron,anda flighof 15-20 pu&
heron,werenotedinthebranch sysiem;
-
Also inAupst 1994,142 white edet and68 blackstorkwere sightd;
and itwas noted that the white storkwasa regularinhabitanofthe
I
branchesandthe oIdDanube,whiIethewhite swan appearedreguIarlyin
a11iocalities;
- Wildduckwereseen in al1localitiesin largenumbers;on 3 February
1994, 1,500 wildduck wereseen 'irnrning in the bypasscanaabout
600 metresfrorntheGabEikovo hydroelectnplant.
l
12.44 Photographsofsome ofthesebirdsassightedareshow inIllusNo. R-
I
8 A. B. C and D. In the pastthe pusile heron had seldobeen sightedinthe region;but
I
duringthe 1994fieldtripsanincreaseinthe numberof thesbirdswas observed. Anda large
increaseof whiteswanwas recorded- abirdthatwas quiterareinthe1980sandearly 1990s.
Four individualoftherelativelyrarewadinbird,theavoFet,weresightedin May 1994. All
-Ï
inaIItherehas been recorde,anincreaseintotalnumber of birds,anincreasinnumbers of
speciesand anincreaseinrarespecies.Inshort,Hungary'tshesisthattheG/N Projectwould
I
drasticallaffect the faunaof the region is directlystowbe wrung with the respecto
I
avifauna. Themain problernforthe birdsisin factthe increasehuman activityanduhan
settlements in the reginritthe changesbroughtabout underthe Gl'NProject, whichhas A des indng inumbcrs in the
SkRriJrddsunwsinr~~inMayl093,
-
XLLUSTRATiO NO.Rd B FQRmEDrNGm~AlREA~ANSH
UNDERW- EROYNE; rkm1847
(Pho-h: April -995)
5-createddifferen tabitatfavoured by différenstpecies.In the downstream part ofthe SIovak
branch system(rkm1820-1821) anumber of wintergatheringplaceshavebeencreated away
fiornhumanactivitywithencouraging results.
Fish(Iththvofauna)
12.45 The constnrctioriofunderwater weirs inthedd Danube dl aIsohave a
long term beneficialimpacton faunaandparticulariy onfish. Weirscertaidy donot entail"a
loss ofnatural ecologicalfunctioning"as Hungaryc~airns~~ ~u,tratherallow for a further
increaseinhabitatdiversityby offeringan increasedvarietyin water flowrates,water depths
and ~elocities"~. In areas behindthe weirs and close to the riverbank,velocities would
decrease. Thiswoufdprovide afavourabIe habitatfor youngfisk,justas theareas behindthe
groynes (stonejettieslthat wererectedinthe mainchannel riverbed for navigationpurpuaes.
The suitabilitof this newhabitatisshownin Illus.No. R-9, where largegatherÎngsofyoung
fish-so dense thattheylooklike underwater vegetation-are feedinginthe Iowervelocity area
behind agroyne.Bycontrasti ,n thecentrelineoftheunderwater weir,highervelocitieswould
rernait~"~.Thisvarietyofvelocities and potentiaihabitatsis farcloserto the river'snatural
statethanthe oId highvelocitymain channel. A firtheradvantage is thatriverbeddegradation
HungarianCounter-Mernoriala,r1.126.
116 Hungarydoes notcontesthe beneficinaturof suchvariety,which it descrineit"Scien~c
Evaluationasformingpartof thenaturalsyste"Themer changingsystemof sidbrancheswith
thedepositionsrnuringand transprtatioofsedimentaccornpani bsda frequentiyinundated
fldplain,isrespnçiblfor~e verygreatdivezçofhabitatthatexistedandii exisinthisriver
sectionSeairrd reachesofgreatdeph, shdIowfor&,diwted riarms ,tc.areadjacenthabitats.
Thefulduati0IIof dischargeswattrIeve Iasand sîIIisavitaplerequisifor thexistencof
al1spesofhabitatinthewdands inthiDsan* section."m., Vol.2, p.7.Thecreationofthe
mainchel andtheisolationothsidearmshad destroyethihabitatvariety.
17
There is, thetefore,substancetoHungary'sclaim that undenvaterweirs woucreatemere
colmatatioprobiemssuchasto "limithegroundwaterechargefunctiooftheriver".m., para.
3.104.Hungaq'ssolesubstantiatiforitassertiois the"effealreadyobserveinthe sidarm
system" Butasnotedatpara.12.22above,thes"effectshow precis elyoppsiteb., thatthere
wouldbe nocolmatationintheoIdDanubedue to underwateweirs.This isconsidereingreater
detaiin the Slovak Counter-Mernorait para. 7.40, seq. There it inotedthat flows of
approxîmateI50 m'fs(wit Iow ve1ocitiesIessthan0.25rn3ishave beensdcient to prevent
colmataiionitheSIovakçidarrnsandfoensm gd rechari ge10heaqiriftascrinfirmbyfie
EC experts)andha1 thereisrherefonoream fosupposethat higherflowsirtheoId Danube
(rvichîghcvelocitieven if undemalweirsareconstruç toudfIeadtodrnatation.willbehaltsd,rci~un~azyadrnits l'.The "erbed dl1 n dnger be asmooth,eradedsurface,
and riverbedbuttom imegularities wiII develop, leading again to an increas ienhabitat
diversityl.
12.46 Hungary confidcntlpredictschange,disappearanc and replacemen tor
theichthyofauna (fishfauna)of thepre-Projec ttate" . khe main substantiationforthisisa
1981studybytheSlovakscientis t.~ol~k'~'. ThisstudyIhad importancein 1981, but les3so
I
today,becauseit was basedon the dischargofjust 50 m3isinto the old Danubeand no direct
I
dischargeinto theside arms. Thus itsconclusionsarebas4 oninput data that havechanged
radicaily. Hungaryalsufailscompletely to takeinfoaccount the declinein fishnumbers and
fishspecieslong predatingthe "dedineinfish populationl"w, hichit nowpredictsasa result
ofProjectirnplementation T.he causesof suchdeclinehavLnothing todo with theProjectand
1
have been preciselyidentifiedby the Mixed Commission for the applicationof the 1958
I
DanubeFisheriesConvention (of whichHurigary is,ofcourse,a member).
12.47 As statedinthe protocoIof the 23thsession of theMxed Commission
(meetingon 3-10April 1989):
"The hydro-meteorologicac londitionswere gedeiallyunfavourable in the
mentioned pend (1987 and1988). Theywerecqaracterised by a strong and
long winter 1987,shortperiodof inundation with ,maximum in the last paof
April 1988. These unfavourabIeconditions together with kigher pollution
iniluented negatively [the] reproductionand growth of fish, especially
economicaIIy importantsorts of fishes. The Mixed'Commissionstatedthat Iess
11s HungarianCounter-Mernorial,l2, p. 5.
119 -m, Vol. II, hereCornmenuto Hungary's"Scicnüfic~v&~alio, p.153-54. As toHungary's
claimthatheEC Experts"acknowledgethedangerandfutil afbuildingweirsiIheDanubewere
onlyto receivrmaliflow"fHungarianCcunte~emorial.lpara1.126thiaiarimplyincarrat. In
factthe EC Experlsnofedlhafsonditionwouidk iutsyirabforone tirhmies. ihe suebn.
HungaryniaynatconsidethioverIysignifia1 giventhat byAgreemenotf 19 Apri1995,ihas
now acceptathatan undenvatcrweik biriIt waffiow 'intheoId Danubeof 44m31s,which
Hungarywouidapparentiywnsideto tIow.
I
120 HnngarianCorrnter-Mernorpala.1.156.Foramoredetail+rebttaof Hungary'saims,çeeVol.
II,Cornmenttso"ScientiEvaiuationpp. 18- 195,andVolIIICh. 6.
l
121 k, aisa,HungarianCouler-Mernorial.ara3.57.and 401.2, pp.143, 144.190 eg. IIira
distortitodaimthataccording10HolEikJ.,"58%of thesidearmhabitatswerefbe lost",when
HolEik'sredictiowerelimitetohabitaforichthyofaunh,otosidarmhabitatsingeneral. fishwascaught inthe Panunianbasin,especiallyinthe joint Czechosiovak-
122ir
Hungarian sectionoftheriverdue toworsened ecologicd conditions .
Theprotocol of the30th sessionof theMixedCommissio (neldon 2-6 April1991)recorded
that:
"The hydrologicalconditionswere especiayl unfavoürablein the mentiuneci
period (1989and 1990). Theywere characterised by low water IeveI and
higherpollution,which influencedreproduction andgrowth ofeconomicdy
important fiçh species. The Mixed Commission statedthat due to [the]
ecologicdsituationthe catch substantiayecreased ... .ri
It continued:
"TheMixed Commission listenedto thereportsof the HungarianR , omanian,
CzechosIovak and Yugoslav sideson resultsof fisherieinthePanonian basin
and stated that thecatch of [the] majonty [ofl fishes in1989 and 1990
decreaseddue tuthe IuwwaterIeveIinthe Danube whichcausedthe isoIatian
ofbranches. The Hungarian side drewattentiontu the fact that the worsening
ofconditionsfor fishesinthe Danubewas connected not ody with worsening
ofI-iydroIogicacIonditions,baIsowith the constructionof waterworksonthe
Danubein GermanyandAustriawhichIimitedmigrationanddevduprnent of
highernumber of economicallyimportantspecies12.II
12.48 The Projectwould act (andVariant "C" has acted) to reversethis
declinelu.F&. ahuge new habitatis creatidthereservoirw, herespeciescomposition and
zoopIanktonbiomass arehigherthan inthe DanubemainchanneI, Theabundance of foodfor
ichthyofauna Ieadsto the increasedoccurrence of economicaIIyprefemd species of fish.
PPcond inthe reservoir seepagecanalsthe Iackof temperature extremes, goodwaterqudity
and high quantityof subrnergedvegetatiun creategood conditionsfur a rich benthic
zoocenosis and subsequentlyan ichthyocenosiscomposed of about25 species, including
salmonids.Third,inthetailwatersectionof the bypasscanal,similarconditionsarecreatedas
122 Annex9, herefo.
12% SesAnnex 10,heretri.
124 In pasagra2ofeachprofmI, thcontinuhgdesr- in fiçhfatch wrecord&T .hetalai fainh
1987$vas12,849.fanneandin 1988 13,406.1tonneIncornpariswniltheaveragecatchinthe
year1985- 1986i.e 14219.0romes,thecatchin1987and 1988wasIowerby1,370. 2m= and
813.6tonnesreptiveIy.Anevengrealed~reasewas recordBor 1989(9,983.9 tonn)nd 1990
aust8,850.1tonnes).in the main channd priertodarnming. Fishspeciespreferringhighervelocitiesanddeeper
I
waters are established ther(24 speciesin total, in1994) and acceptableconditions for
spawning areprovided.
12.49 Finally,theaquatichabitatin thed~dDanube and inthe sidearmsare
irnproved.Inthepre-dam statethemain channelwas chiacteriscdbya lowichthyomass due
tothebighwatervelocity,theconstanterosionoftheriverbedt,hehighwaterturbidity andthe
low densty offood~r~anisr nsPo~t-dam@, the old banube hass Iowa flw velouty, a
I
more stable iiverbedand the faunaofmacrumobcmhos (aquatic animais&ling on the
riverbedbottom) is richer.Thefoodbaseis thereforeimproved andfishconditionsgeneralIy
morefavourable. In thesidearms,the number ofpredatury specieshasincreas and,dueto
1
the griaranteed water fiows, the dangerof eutrophicationis greatly reducedalongside
anaerobicconditionsand resultantfishdestruction.Fuiher, itis now possibleto regulate
water flowssothatoptimum fishconditionsprevail:
"Theintakestructureof the branch system rnakelit possibletocontrol water
IeveIinthebranches ,,.tu controItheflow andIengthof time (accordingtu
watertemperature)d,uringwhichthe spawningand earlydevelopmentofyuring
specirnensandtheirnutritioncantake place. Thiis importan tm thepoint
ofview of the phyIogenetiadaptationof fishes,in that it devdops theirfood
basisand redncesrnortditof yottng specimensesqeciaIin thewinterperiod.
Thus,theconditionsoffisherywiIbe improvedinthissectionoftheriver127,i
Itisnow possiblto predictathreefo ilcreaseinfishcaichalongsidethe changein species
compositioninfavour of economicallpraferredspecies. !he hugedecrease in "availab6sh
I
production"claimed by~ungary'''relate unlyto itssidearmareaswhich Hungasi (priotu
the Agreement of 19 ApriI 1395)had,by politicaldecision, deprivedof the increased water
supplythat the Praject providedfor.
12.50 Asto the "considerableishdestruction"allegedlyrecordedon 30 July
1994 as a resultof "a huge volurne of water [being]'nushedinto the bypass canal at
'" HungarîanCortnter-Merno, ara.3.78. ~ab~ikovo"'~,SIovakiamustpoint out thatnosuch destructiowas notedon the SIova kide
of theDanube,norwas anydestruction reportedbyHungary to the specialisedinstitutionsin
Slovakia.Further ,herewas no hugevolume of waterflushedintothebypass canal,asalleged
byHungary. Thewaterlevelon'30July 1994, asforthe days immediatelybeforeandfier,
wasstabilisedinthe reservoiat 129.03-129.17al. No hugevolumecould beflusheddown
withouta wrrespondingreductioninthereservoirwaterlevel13'.
12.51 Hungarykdaim that "15tons offis pherishedisnot substantiateand
theon-siteevidenceindicatesthatiis wrong. SIovakscientistscarryinout samplingtestsin
theold Danubein January 1995 noted shoalsofthousands of immaturefish (asdepictedin
Illus.No. R-9):althe rheophilespecies(thosepreferrinstrongercunents)may be observeci
I and were spawnedin the sumrnerof 1994. This isa clear indicationof favourablfish
cundirions,inwnsistentwithanydaimoflarge-scaledestruction.
12.52 It is aIso noted that Hungapayslittle attentiontu the importanof
recreationaflishing. In theBratislavaregion alone,approximat10,000people areIicensed
to fishthe Danubefor sportandthereis nodoubt thatconditionsforrecreationaflishinghave
greatlyimproved due, not least,to thecreatioofthe reservoir,whichcan be stockedwith
fish. Alongwiththe profusionofwhiteswanswhohavegravitated tothereservoir,aswellas
i the and the diver,the fishingthatthe reservoiwill providewill enhancethis region
environmentallyforthe peoplof theregion.
12.53 Hrrngary'sexaminatioofadverse impactsto fisconcludes bjrrecitirig
thefindingsofits "ScientifEvaluation".These haveben responded tuin VoIumeiï hereto.
Hungary'serroneousallegationsandSlovakia'sresponse - based on detailedmonitoringof
actualimpacts- aregivenbelow.
1) BIocbng ofthe branchsysrems:Loss offloodplain habitats for spawning, nursery,3eding
airdwiirferinrestrIfina cotfside~abledecreof$sh production. Fiskety pofentid ofthe
Szige:rkzrea wiIdecfine.Luck offarge-scafis reçruirmentIrade~rimentae#ecfson the
fis phpuiafionoffheMme Danubefur a)w hundredkiiomfrresdowrrsrrm.
129
W., para.3.79.
130
WaterdischarintotheoldDanubewasalsstablandwatertemperatuwasnormal. &, Vol.III,
pp.120-121. l
Thisisdirsffy disprovedby theexperientein the~ovak sidt ams,whith shows tfrat the
diversionof theDanube'swaterscaupledwith tfredi,rectsuppIyinto thesiarms hashad
an u~erallbeneficid impact on fisphopiiIations,which wilI furfher improvifremedid
mesures dependent on Hungafiantoaperatiori - such asthe cunstruetionofundemater
weirsinthe oIdDanube -areirnplementedl".
2) Changesin fiod regimo:Subsoque ntductionbf hbi/or diwrsity, los3 of species,
dimkishing productivi~ai comrnunifIewl due to the Litchfrom theAlpine charucîerflood
mgïmefostable syste+ rnamics.
I
The floodregime priorto1992wu far from naturdfu. Monitoringonthe Slovak oideof
the Danubehas shown that therehm been an increaseInhabitat diversityfinduding the
new habitatsprovidedby the reservoirand fhttai~&atercand), large potenfial increases
inproducfivitand no Ios sf~~ecies'~.
The direct supply owster intothe sideam ensu+ no inereasein flaw ratesand the
disappearmce of anaerobicconditions, Fishlossedueto eutrophicationin the side arms
willdecrusr Pollvtedwaters(if any)vil1be more &~ickI~dilutedduc tothe higherflows
iathe side arms, The previous high fiow rate in the main channel was by contrast
excessivand notconduciveto a healthyfishpopulation34+
l
4) Dicrease in sflspendesiif foad:Wder trmspnrerrcy ishigher. Increuse indmi~ of
submerged aquutic~egetafi~feads tuan increaseifrhebbrr~fdancefphyfopitilj~h~ Cfranges
injsh community,thaf is n reducfioninnrtmberofrhenon-visuaipredafors and omnivores.
Ris&ofjsh morraliqdue 10nrraerubiconditionscatrsetj eutruphication.
I
The prevalence of non-predatorspecier over predator i ecies (which have a higher
econornicvalue)longpredatedthedammingaftheDhubeie. The new habitatsprovided
inthe reservoir,thesidearmsandthetailwater tanalbillreversethissituation1s6.
5)Diversionofwaferinto ihs bypassc~ml: Thehigher dischargein the tailrace canal directs
the shoals offlsduring fheispawning migration tothe tailwuterof the GabèikovoBarrage,
whichisaninsurmountable barrier andthebypasscanalisan rrnsuifabihhabatfur spmning.
l
Hungrry triestcmah n rriticismthst wovlbe equaliyFn fact, more)applicnbltod the
otherhydrodertrir:projectsonthe Danube. Therriticismmakesnosense here asthe oId
Danube,the ride sms pad the tailwatercmd (forriecies uho prefergreitu depthr)di
offergoodspawning grounda. For good fish toitditions it is far more importtor+
1
134 1
a*idp.1 10-11. Astuarraerobconditions,se.ibipp.2I-25.
135
-bidp.II 1. I I
law13#,therewas always morethanenoughtimebeforeeithersectionof
theProjectbecame operationaio correctanyallegedlackof studiesand
toaddrsss anyprobIer nevealedlqO;
- Fourth,the ody concreteproblemidentified inChapter 6 ofHungws
"Scientific EvaIuatiun"in respect to Nagymaros did not concm
earthquak eiskatailand,inany dent, was easiiyrernediable";'
1
- Fifth,the analysig in totaI ignorance(or disregard)of the facts,
I
assumes that the Treaty partifs followed 1965 standards for
constructiontu reflect earthquakrisk that weresoon outmoded and
never updated bythe Treatyparties;
l
- Sixth. Hungary's 1994 analysisin the end only concludes thatthere
were:
" ... reasonable grounds fh concern, review and
reassessmentof risks atthe time that Hungarysuspendeci
constructionworks at and DunakiIitiand later
twminated the Treaty... .
Butthis failto explainwhy HungaryI neverinitiatedthesortof studies
I
thatit now argueswereconsiderd necessaryin 1989,eitherdone or
inconjunctionwith its TreatypartnI.
139 Alitioughthisnota basifortreatterminatio,sSlovakihas show aime. Secp.ara4.07,@
a., above.
140 The timeavailablein whitoconductsuchstudiebeingapproximatelfiveyearsintheEM of
Nagymos: and over18 monthsin thcas oefGaMikovri.See,paras7.34, 7.5and8.35,above.
The willingneexpressdbyHungaryinOctober198910p+ with thGabEikovsoecfioan the
basisofenvironmenîaiand t~hnicagmrmtrnr nvsals ,hihatugay at ihatüme considerd
eaRhquakerisas somethingthacouldk ddr tvithundehe Projecfandnotasa reaçanforthe
abandanmenotfthProjecf% p. 8-13,am., above.
141 Sec .olII,Commen2 ttop. 218.
1
142 HungarianCountcr-Mernoripara. 1.17(Ino.mitted)$er twaycarrof rtudy,"thec~ncems
haveçrilno1beenaIIeviateaccardintoHilngaq,kause Hungaryrefusestoacceptheevidence
thashowsils"concernstak unfounded. A. Prior Study: Uadated Standards; the Extensive Ex~erience of
Czechoslovakia(and Slovakia) inthe Construction ofPower ~roiects
I2.55 Hungary'snotionthat theGiN Projectwas constmcted and prepar or
putting intooperatiat theendof 1989withuutadequatc study ofearihquakeriskandbased
on oId-fashioned1965standards andanalysesistotaIiyincorrect'. The Czechosluvak and
Hungarianscientistand engineersworkingon the Projectkeptabreastof the major strides
beingmadeinseismology startininthelate1950s. Deep drillintechniquesand otherseismic
I
rnethodsof exploration,developedp~incipallby the oil companieswho conductedresearch
throughout tharea,1ed tunew viewsaboutthe structunng of the DanubeBasininwhichthe
GM Project is Iocated atuthe consfmcti~nof tectonic mapswith the heIpof oil geologists
in1984 (Mahel),in1985(Fusan) and a Hungaria n apin 1987 (~ülfo~-~ank)'~.
12.56 In 1980, Czechoslovak technical institutiocompleted the seismic
microzoningof the area. I1982,an assessrn eastmadebyHydroprcijectMoscow basedon
themost recentstandardss,upplementedby anassessrnenotf seismicstabiIity,aIIas partofthe
noma1 engineering process of constmcting a prciject suchas this, involving continud
adjustmentsandverifications.Allthisresearcwas reflectedin revisdesignand engineering
I
l noms andin adecisionto remove the subsoilunderthe dykes, as is describedin detaiin
12.57 Hungarianinstitutions, scientists and engineerswere hIIy involvedin
this on-going process.For example,the determinationof seismicIoad was discussed with
Hungarianexperts,Polko and~istéth~"' .MajorAusirian andYugoslavfirmswithextensive
experienceinwater projecthadbeenretained. The SkodaWorksof Czechoslovakia,one of
the worlds preerninent engineericompanies, was a key member ofthe technicd team,as
were CzechosIovakengineers and scientistswho had gained extensive experience in the
constmctianandoperationof manyother riveprojects.
143
-ee,Vol.II, Comment10p.281.
144 SIovakComtes-Mernorialnnex25@p. 385-387).
14' See,Vol.11Comment 1top.201. 12.58 Moreovcr,although Hungary had Lrnpletime in 1989 to contct any
I
snpposeddeficienciesin the studyandassessmentof earthquakeriskbefore any such risk
I I
might arisenosuch studieswere undertaken ,ommissi&ed, or evenproposcd by Hungary.
TheBechtelreportthatHungary commissioned inJulylbI9 containcdno earthquake riskor
engineeringassessment,forHungary hadnot requestedit . However, the1989 studiesthat
Hungary comrnissioried to be prepared byEcologia contained (in the second report) an
I
engineeringassessmentof the Projecby an Amerîcan ertgir~er'~~;epraisedthe highquality
ofthe engineeringwork,concludingthat:
"TheProject aspresentlydesignedissoundfrom ah engineeringviewpoint.AU
the studiescustomarilassociatcdwith such a &ject appeand to have been
made14 .I
Certaidy asatisfacto~appraisaIikethiswouIdnot havebe1npossibleifthePraject contained
suchanobviousengineering defectasthefailureto takeseismicconsiderationadequatelyinto
I
account.
I
B. The Flaws in Hun~arv's 1994 "Scientific EvaIuation" of
EarthpnakeRisk
12.59 It hasbeen possibleto respondto ~un~ar~'a sssessmentof earthquake
riskinthe shorttirneallowed(itbeingrernernberethatHLngary1c sontentionsweredisclosed
anIywiththe fiîingofitsCounter-~ernorial b)ecause,intdecourseofthe continualupdating
I
customaryonprcijectsof thisEnd, additionalextensiveseismicresearchhadbeen conducted
byCndioslovskia (andSlovakia) during 1991-1994 tordhect thepossibilitiesopenedupby
new technoIogyandadvancesin science149. Inkt, inits assessment,Slovakia(with some
outside assistancefrom s U.S. company in cornputerakalysisin lightof the short time
146 Incon-, thehldy cammissionebyCz~hosIovakîadwîrithepend thsfyaz undenakeb nythe
Canadinexperts.HQI,direcaddressethisissueItiregrettabehaiHwgaiy anditexperts,by
quocng panoflheHQI reponoutofcornexhaveatlempld/oconcealLhfactLhatheHQI reprt (i)
uprersistiitht iheprcliniinq sfudofeanhqnal nes$metsunentintemationitandardand
(ifailetoindiatethslightsreasononaccounofearîhquakrisktodelayornahfy theProject.
147 ProfessHamy Schwartzof CkrkUniversity,Worcest,rs. Hungay'rpleadinghaveated(he
Ecologiarepowithapproval. .
1.18 HungarianMernoriai, ol.fpa~11, nriex6 (p.87).
'49 SIovaCounter-McrnvriA,nnex26(alp.390, B.).availableobtainedandprocessed actualdatain the regionconcernedand constructed 500
differentgeologicalandgeotechrucalrnodelforvariousgeologicalenvironmentsof thearea.
In contras4Hungary'sanalpishas usedinfunnationobtained in0th- areassnch as ItaIand
Australiaforpurposesof extrapolatinits theoreticanalysiswhichrelieson inadequateor
incorrecdata.
12.60 Slovakia'dsetailetechnicaanaIysisstu befounidnVolume II1hereto;
and specificresponsesto allegationsappearingin Hungary V'olume 2 may be foundin
Volume II hereto. Therefore,only certain examples of major weaknesses and flaws .in
Hungary'sevaluationwiIIbementionedhere. But SIovakiawishes to bring tuthe Court's
attention that it expended agreatdeal ofthe timeofits top expertas weIIas money, in
thisreviewofHungary'e sarthquakeristhesis-athesisthatatthe endof theday,canonly be
descibed asfrivolous.
The Kornirns Eadhsuake of 1763: The New Authoritative
ReassessrnentIgnored bv Hun~aw
12.61 The Komarno earthquakeof 1763 isthe only recordedmajorseismic
event in the region of reIevancetu theGCN Prciject. Hungary bases its evaluatioof
earthquakerisk on the existenceof thisearthquake and the assumptionthat it can be
establisheashaving had amagnitude (M)of 6.0-6.on theRichter sca~e'~~.Despiteal1the
scientificworksreferretoin Hungary'esarthquakeevaluationn, owhereineitkr thetextor
the annexed referencessection isthereto be found the authoritativenew study of this
earthquakepublished in 1991 by Bune (a Russian )routek (a Czech) and Szeidovitz(a
Hungarian), This study concludesthat the 1763 Komho earthquake's magnitudeand
intensify havebeenoverestimatandthat, anthe Richterscale,did notexceed M=5.7. This
wouldcorrespond tuanintenaty of 8.5MC§, but thisvalue of intensity wouIdbe valfor
150 The vdiditofçcienticaIcuIatiosfthekindinvolvindearthquakprdctionnatura IIyend
entireIonthemnecuiessofthefacirialinpfromwhichtheyaredenved. Tosimplifa rattier
tachniddixussionit mayk Ad thai thereareiire componenlto rneasrtnestudjlnan
earthquakei) - mostwidelexpressetodaby usintheRichtede; (iiifs infensitv.
cxpresseeitheronthMCS orMSK12digit scal(conversionfromagnitudtointensicank
madeapproximatelorexamplM 6.on theRichtersca=9 Il MCS or il MSK); and(iii)its
acceleration,the mimportancomponentin 'determinghe çeismiload(thekeyfactorin
earthquaktengineeri"M)is magnitud"Yisinrensiiy.Komhn, but forGatiCikovo4,5 km away(theextént of distancefroman earthquake's
epicentrebeingverysignificainthisregion).
12.62 Ineanhquake analysis,evuy decima1 point is important;a me
I
mathematical cornparisonof figuresdoes not reflectihe very substantialdifferencesin
I
magnitude andintensitybetwesn,ontheone hand,M=6.5ald1 = 9 +1MCS; and onthe other
hand,M = 5.7and I =8.5. By ignoringthemostup-to-dateandwidely acîeptedassessrnent
I
of anearthquake on whichitsanalysidepended, ~un~a%s analyrisirfundamentall lawed
I
fromthe outset.
Run~arv'sGreativ Exaeeerated kalcu~ation of the Kev Factor of
AcceIeration
12.63 But itisthecalculatioofthe mostimportant component,acceieration,
where Hungary'sresultsare most exaggerated - seeminglyalmost to fitthe demandsof
Hungary's case before the Court. Slovak experts have caIcuIatedthe accelerogramsof
expectedearthquakes,uaingmostadvancedtechniques,hm which 500 direre ntdeiswere
constructedfordifferentsitewithitheG/N Project.Inthelocafityof the GabEikovostep,
theaccelerogram souldbe veryaccuratelycalculatesincCsituatedthereia geothemalweH
of adepth of2,582metres,revealingthe detaiofthe snbsoil. TheyaIsohadattheirdisposal
I
seismicreflectionsections. These meaçurementswere reprocessedwith the hdpof a U.S.
company. Slovakia'scalculationsorenderedshow J3ungkiss ealculatioof accclerationto
be inerrorbya hugemargin15 :'
" ..we presentherewiththe resultsoacornplexdnalysisof acceleratioand
spectraparametersof wave motion camedout, dithinthe wholearea ofthe
GabEikovo Projcct,usinginthe calculatiosvari& of parameters,picentral
areasandrealneolonicenvironment.
I
These results haveshownthaithemaximum calculatedaccelerafiapplicable
for the GabCikovProject, and obtainedbymeans ofcalculafionof thMCE
[Maximum CredibIeEarthquakee ]qualsthevalue 0.0796& andnot 0.3g, as
assertedinthepungarian ~ounter-~ernorial]'.~
151 I
A derailedexplmatofhowHungary'salcuIatisreseriousIymistamaybe fwd inVoIm.
Chap.10Par t. I
'52 VolIII,p. 197. Ernpsdded. C. Hun~aw's Fortuitous "Discoverv" in 1994 of a. Previouslv
UnknownFauItLine NearertuGabEikovo
12.64 In a reportdatedSeptember 1994 prepared for the GeologicaIInstitrite
of Hungaryby a Hungarianscientist(2. Balla),a previouslyunknownfault line (given the
name "Gyür-Beçskefault line")in the region ismentioned for the first time. This timely
"discoveryu- the caIcuIafioto establishitexisten haceeby no means been completed - has
the convenienteffectof reducingthe distancebetweenGabEikovo and a "known" fauIt Iine
from 45 km (thedistanceto a previouslyhypothesisedfault IinepassingthroughKomho) to
20-25 Combinedwiththe flawsin accderation calcuIationsnoted above - and the
ignonng of theup-tu-date(anddecreased)estirnateof magnitudeof the Kom6rnoearthquake -
thisdistanceshorteningexerciseIeadsHungary b conclude:
"Inthe worst crediblescenarios,therefore,facilitatDunakiliti,çunovoand
GabEikovo wouId bejust withinareasof potentialIiquefactionsurroundingthe
sourcezone 15-II
This sortof analysican only be regarded assuspect. In any event,even ifsuch a faultline
could be supported by data., it would not represent anincrea inethe risk of earthquake
damage atGabfikovo, as hasbeenshownin therecentstudyby SIovakia appearingin VoIume
III, ChapterOI(PariII), hereto.
D. The Assumed Gabëikovo Fault Line
12.65 Similarly,there isna proof thata fauItIine nins throughGabCikovu,
althoughon the basis of varioushypothesesits existencehas beassumed. If sucha fault line
exists,here isnot the sliahtest evidencethat it is an activefa~lI~.fact, nowhereonthe
'53 Obviously,ungaryis hesitaovesthis"discoveryFig. 6.2 in VoiofrheHungarianCounter-
Mernorial escriwhat idled the "Gyor-Becskine"asno morethana "largetopograpstepn.
Les ,ol. III, Cha10(PartII)forthreasonswhythisallege"faultlinmot beacceptedfor
totaIackofanysubstantiatioIt ievenmore surprisingthat Hungaq ncontendsthat thço-
caIIed"GyOr-Becskine"ismoreimpnant seismicaIIythanthe KomBron-BerhidafauItIine, for
which nibstantiatexim. Ses IIIus.No.R-IOappearinatpara.12-72EKIoww, herethethre
hypfiericasourcezonepmpsed byHringaryinthvicinitoftheG/NProjecarepIotteona map.
154 HungarianCounter-Mernorial,Volp.217(emphasiadded).a, Vol.II, hereComment 8 tp.
217.
155 Neitheriçthereevidenceesfablishingthe propo& "Gy&-Becskfeatolxacfive.SLuvaksideofthe Danubeintheregionofthe GfN Projec haveanyof thefaultlinesidentified
orhypothesisedbeen shown tobe seisrnicalyctive. i
12.66 Hungary's "Scientific EvaIiiationl'ies tu portray the {su-called)
GabEikovo faulline as an active fauiby means of the following(unacceptable)line of
argument:
I
- first Hungarycontendsthat the GabEikovo step was rnoved 700 rn
I
away fiomthesupposedfauhIine,inrecognitionof the beliefthatitis
an active,dangeroufaultcapableofproducinga majorearthquake.
Comment: A shift ofonly 700 m fro mn activfd line would pite
obviousiyhaveaffordednu ded protection.So this contentionmakes
no sense. InfuctC,~echoslovukiamjrelyfoIIowedthest~nrLirdpraciice
I
ofno1 building direct& over a pus~~tIafefadi firI beecause offhe
possibifiv odiffenf rafts oseflernenof thesrrbsuilfcryeiIndeeda
fatilt lay benearhsurfuc~.
- Second, since the author of 6 of Hungary's "Sduitific
EvaIuationa"IIegedIlackeddataaboutthe "GabEikovofaulti'he felhe
1
was entitiedsimplyto concludethat the "fault"was "an earthquake
source"and that"levelofpeakgrdnd accelerationgreaterthan0.3 g
maybe applicabletu ~abtikovo"'~~.
Commrnr: In orherwor&, the lack 'oaccessto exising dda to the
ovrhor O/lhis Chopterle& HunSary tothesiortling conclusionth*it
mrlsibe asstmed thar an earfbquakeofmajor proportfionswiIl strjke
I
Ga6Efkov0,having a peak ground acceltmtrion even exceeding'0.3g,
156
VOI.II,hentoCommen t tanScientiEvaiuatiop.h14. tic R~IsItaiemsntreacis:
l
"1havenotmn theresrroftheinvestigatsfqe fadt iine in theimmediattviofity
shccapacîg ofthsfdtaandiriswssibie fhatthis fauItsalsoixlconsiderasan
earthquaksourceifincludad,lweofpeakgroundacceIeratgreatetha0.3g rnaybe
applicabtoGablZikovo.Emphasiadded.) whichSiuv~kia's caicu~aiiomhavr demomfrated is 4fimes £00 highfor
unearrhqunkeoccurrinp ntKomdmo ofM = 5.7and I = 8.5.
E. Flunearv's Refusa1 to Acknowled~e the Evidence of Im~ortant
SafetvMeasures Tmken
12-67 Hungaryis "Seientfie Evaluation" ignores important evidence
inconvenienttu its hypotheses. Mer themostcareh1 investigationby the Treatyparties,dl
soi1materialsin theareasof the dykesand dams prone tu the dangerof Iiquefactionin the
everiofearthquak e ererernovedandrepIaced bygraveIs asattestectu in the HQTrep~n"~.
Hungaryquestionsthis, relyingfor sole supporton: Finta, L. 1990, "Deathis Iurkingat
GabCikovo" Reflex,Nos. 2-5. Komho -a referencetoa non-scientifiarticleappearinin
the popuIarpress, not ina technicajournal. The facts concemingmaterials'removaland
replacementof potentiallliquefiabmaterialsarewellknown toHungarywho participated in
thiswork,andthese safetyrneasnreswere verifiedby HQI. The irefutableevidencehas been
presentte othe ~ourt'"-
F. Conclusions:The GAYProiecfis Loeatedina Re~iunthat isNeither
SeismicaHv ActiveNor At Hieh Risk ofDama~efromEarthquakea
12.68 In its"ScientifiEvaluation"H, ungaryeventuallyconcedes thatthe
regionof theG/N Projectisnot seismicalactive:
"Despitethe difficuItwith cumpletenessofthe historîcaIrecord,iisevident
that thepresenrat efenergyreleaseis relativelyIowwhencornpared tu more
active regions ofthe world. Inregions oflow rates of energy releaseit is
extremely dificult tu assess tectonic frarneworkwith certainty, andthis
uncertaintywilbecarriedforwardinthe assessmentofseisrnichazard''."
Inotherwords,thereis alack ofdataonwhich tomake anassessmentofearthquake hazard
becausetherehasnotbeenmuchseisrnicactivityin theregion. Nonetheless, inits Counter-
157 SB,Vol.II, hereComment6 to"ScientificEvaIuatp.204.
I" Thereprt crincerningthmeamresappearsinVol.III,Chap. Twocopiesof cxtensifechniml
dwurnent;itianhakn furnishe1theCourt.
lS9 HungarianCounter-MernorVl,ol. 207.Mernorial,Hungars yeernstuportraytheregionasbeingactiveseismicaIly,mentiunirta series
ofearthquak centredintheregionuf~ornirom'~~and concluditn h^:
l
"Thisfrequencyof damaging earthquake crontrastwith the quiescenceof the
regionportrayedintheSIovak ~emarial~'~."
12.69 The Slovak Mernoria ltatessornetlhinguitedifferentrefemng,
to theseismicactivitnearKomarno ,ndconcludingthat:
1
"...seismicactivitisn-otof adegree suscient tu posea threat eitheto the
largecities that havebeen builtup in this regibnor to the GM Syiltem
structuw rehch had ofcoursebeen designedto withstandseisrnicmovements.
I
This concIusi iononfimred bj r he1390 HQI report wI;ich,onthe basisofa reviewof the
1
stabilitof the GM Projectstructures(including areviewof the verificationby the Treaty
partiesin 1982ofthestabilityof thedykesiftheywere exkosedto variousdegrees of seisrnic
shock)andof theparties'calculatioof maximum acceleration(which itreportedfollowed
severalrnethodsincludinga methodgenerally uscd in N&h America) concludedthat"such
1
[seismiclphenornenwaerenot tufear,asindeedthehistorîcaIdataindicated"'d2T. he SIovak
I
Memurialalso refus tu fourindependens ttrrdiverîfyi tngtthemaximum seismicintensity
appIied,whichtheProjectstructuresweredesignedandbuiItI tu withstand,providedadequate
securityl".
12.70 The HungananCounter-Mernorial gives the false impressionthat
allegedlyactivefauhsrunningwithin20-25 kmof GabEikovo mustbe assumedto be capable
of producingearthquakes of themagnitudeof the 1763Kimanio earthquakclu . Thereis no
150
-bid.,Vo1,para.1.164The onIyimportaemhquake intheKomho area murred in 1763;but
Hungary'"ScientificEvaluaticnnattetaconfuse thepicturebyreferrwn"severaihundred
earthqu;ik"ntheKo-o region,relyiq BaIIa(1994)whowas thHungariasncienfîstwhoin
1994dso "dixoveredthenewfaulIinementionainpra! 12.64abve. Itisody the1763ment
that figuresHungary'sdcuIation& para.12.61,love,asto howthe magnitudeofthis
earthquahasbBen over-estimadyHungarybyignorinthernosrecentauthoritatetudonthe
matter).
161
RefemngtotheSlova kemonalp,ara..60. 1
162
-bidw.,ertherelevantportionoftheHQIrepicited.
'63 m.. paras2.63-2.64.
1rn HungarianCounitr-MernorI,ara1.165. i i * il*. .mm
iscientificbasiswhatsoeverfor such a conclusionr,indeedfor concludingthatanyof the
variousfautsimaginarjorred, areactive1.6'
12.71 The only importanthistorid earthquakenear tothe regionwas the
1763 event withits epicentrenearKombo, connectedwiththeKomarom-Berhid faultline
some 45 km from GabEikovo. A worstcasescenariowouIdenvisage an earthquakeofM =
5.7and 1= 8.5 occurringagainalongthisfaulIineItsprobableeffectsatGabCikovo cm be
determinedby calculatingits acceleration,whichSlovakiahas shown wouldbe 0.079g -
approximatelyfourtimesless thanthfigureerroneouslycalculatebyHungary - well within
the safetystandards'inc~~oratento the Gm Projectintheconstructioof itsdams,dykes
andother constnrctions.Jfis dsocornpletdyincorrectscientifIcyoIassume thatsuchan
earthquakemightoccuranywhere elseinthearea.
12.72 The sourcezonespostulatedby Zsiros(199I),withtheadditionof the
"Gyor-Becske sourcezone"postuiatedbyBaIIa(19941,havebeenplotted on IIIus.NoR-IO,
and overlaidon amapof the region to the samescale. Thismapshowshow the entiirely
hypothetical."Gyar-BecskeauIfine"(andsourcezone )ody "discovered "n1994 -has the
effect of movina postulatedeatthquakezonesome 20 km cioset tu GabEikovoas weI1as
even closerto Nagymaros. However, thedots representinearthquakeepicentres,bas&on
historicaldatebetween1400 and 1990 (aftertheHungarianstudyZsiros, a'.1988) show
cIearIthatthe GabCikovosection'sreservoiranbrpas canaiandtheNagymarosstep liefar
away hm themostactive area-withinaregion generallconsideredas havingreiativelylow
seismicactivity.
165
InthisegarHungarymakesthiincorr mecion:
"It içamptascorrectpraciilut, in estabItheworstcasscee, rhemaximum
credibleearhquisassumefdactanÿwherwithitheS O ~zonesidentifim.." CHAPTER xm. PRUJECT IMPACTSNOTRELEVANT TU ~NGARY*S
LEGALARGUMENTS
Al!e~edlyAdverse Imaactson ApricultureandForestrv
SECTION 1.
13.01 Slovakia hasshow intheIntroduction to thisRepiythatcertain of the
adverseProject impacts allegedbyHungary are notrelevantto itslegalarguments,regardless
ofwhether they can bc proved:for example, ifthe 1977 Treaty partieschose to exchange
receipts from hydrodectricity productionfor the Iessimportant economic benefi ts Eom
agricrrIturandforestry production(qtoO non)t,heywere atfuT1liberttu do so. From this it
naturaly foIIowsthat the impactaIIegedby Hungary to agricultureandforestrydo nut have a
legal linkageto itsdaims of anecoIogica1 "stateof necessity",or to allegedbreaches by
Czechoslovakia of the 1977 Treaty. Hungary does not claimthatthe adverseimpactshere
wereunknown in1977. Hence, itis difficuto see how thesesarne impacts couldsuddenly
create astateof necessityin1989'. Andthere isnoprovision inthe 1977 Treatyrelatingto
agricultureor commercia forestry. Hungary's argumentsin relationto Articles15 and 19
cannotbe appIiedhere. Hence, agricultureand forestry aretreated separatefrom the other
adverse"environmental"impacts aIIegedby~un~a$. However,regardless ofthe above,it is
stress& chatthe Project as it developed did not have adverseimpacts on agriculture and
forestryproduction.
13.02 Four otherintroductorypoints shouldbemade in relationto Hungaiy's
treatmeno tfimpactsto agricultureandforestryinitsCounter-Mernoria ml., itstreatmentis
noticeably insubstantialAs to the impacts of the "Origina lroject",Hungarydevotesjust
1 threeparagraphs to agriculturand two paragraphs to forest$. This almostappears as a
recognitionof the dubiousIegaIrelevanceof its allegationsSecond t,e claimedimpactsare
I &, para5.08,etS.. ahve.
2 It ~nigaIsok IogicafaconsiderHungary'ailegaiioasiocornmerciafislieratthi uncture.
AIthoughthecommercialfishinof theDariuk is dminimisin cornparisonto fie importofce
agricuIturendforestryin fiOçtrovandSzigetkliz,it isnoncthaIcommerciaaIctiviîywhich
involveçthe deliberatmodificatioofthe naturalenvironmenti.e .y,the introductoifon
economicallvaluablespies, by thstockingof preferrvies, etc. Thus,allegeddamageto
commerciaflisheriisnotofthesamelegdsignificanasallegeddamagetthenaturaicthyofauna.
Itismore "eoonomict"han"environmental".owweritwouldhaveken tooconfusintoconsider
impact tswrnmerciallyaluablandnon-valuabfishseparately.
I
I 3 HungananCounter-Mernoria l,ras1,134-1.1and 1.137-1.138. - 324-
foundedon the assumption thatthe"groundwater-tablecouldhavebeen reduced in much of
the Szigetküzif the OriginalProject hben impleme~ed" and that thû waild havererulted
I
in "change tssoi1andwaterquality"4.It hasdreadybeendemonstratedabovethatHungary's
I
relianceonthe conceptof the"OriginalProject"isartiIilalandthat thePmject wouldnot and
hasnot eausednegat ivechange tssoilsand waters'.Third,thegeographiîalara considercd
I
byHungary is ves,limited. No adverse impactsare aliegedforthe Nagymarossection:it is
l
onlytheProjectimpact on Szigetkozthatconcems~un'~ar ~nd,in termsof forestry,the area
I
of key importanceto Hungary issimplythe activeflobdplaina,sdepictedin IllusNo. R-4
(appearingatthestartof Chapter~1)~.
I
i
13.03 Fa, andin pariicularwith regardtu its treatrneof the impactson
agi-kuIturapIroductioof Variant"Cu,Hungary goestu greatand whoIIyunredistic Iengthstu
show that sornehowit waî prevmted frum usingthe directrechargesystm that would have
I
rnaintainedgroundwater IevelsandwouIdhave avoided any adverseimpacts tuagriculture.It
is arguedthat the Dunakilitiofftake couidnot be uied because of "low upstream water
le~els"~.Butthis offtakewasdesignec iorusein conjudctionwith theProjectdarnmingof the
river(atrkrn18431, whichdamming wasexpresslyprevénteb dyHungary.Theinability touse
theDunakilitoi fftakresultesolelyhm Hungary' os\ulactions.
13.04 Moreover, now thafHungaryhas finally agreed tu the constructionof
I
the underwater weir at 1843, the DunakiIitiofilakecm be put into operationand al1the
I
adverseirnpacîsto agriculturwhich Hungaryalleges t+haverecordedas a resultof Variant
"CuwiII disappear. Thisdecision was rakenby HungariyinAprîI1995~. But at the tirne of
writing its Counter-MernorialH, ungarystill argued againstthe construction of such an
l
undemater weir --onthewhollyunredisticground thatit engenders"theloss of theDanube
4 m., paras.1.13and 1.138.
5 Sec .aras11.10etm., and12.08 g. a.. andespecIpy 12.31,esea a.ove.&dm,
Coun~er-Memciripara7.42, S.,and genedly,Chap.7,Sec.2.
6 B. dm, SIovaCkoitnter-Memarpa,ra7.87andIltulNo.CM-%
7 Himgaian Counter-Mernorialra. 3.66.
3 Annex 1,hereto. for internationalnd IocaI navigationug.It is as if the bypasscanal did not existand that
navigationhad not actuaIIybeen transferredto the canal. Cmcially,however, Hiingary does
not seemtu question, in its Counter-Mernorialt,hfactthatuse ofthe directrecharge systern
wouldpreventanydropinagriculturap lroduction.It simpIycornplain that the "trade-offor
the rise and stabilisationof groundwater levels"would be the loss of the Danubefor
navigation:"Theother alternative [tuundenvater weir constmction] isto enduresignificant
Iosses tu agrÎcultrrr."'Slovakia notes thatHtlngary has, if belatedly,decided againstthis
secondalternative.
13.05 As riotedabove, Hungary's discussionofProject impactstu agriculture
is premisedsolelyonthe existenceof a decreaseingroundwater levels" . It is explainethat
in the pre-damperiod 53% of Szigetkozhadsufficientgroundwateravailable fornahiral sub-
irrigationI2.This meansthat appmximately one-halfof the Szigetküzfamianddid have
suficient ground water avaiIabk and muid therefure besubject tano impact at al1hm the
Project- otherthan abeneficia lneI3: evenHungary's failuretoimplementthedirectrecharge
systemcould not haveaffectednegativelythe yieldof the cropscultivated on thisfdand.
However, implernentationof the directrecharge system may affectgroun d ater IeveIstua
positiveextentfor,as shown inIllus.No. R-11,it bringstua halt the lontem deteriorationin
groundwaterlevels and createsmorefavourable conditionsforagriculture:
I
9
HungarianCounter-Mernorial..para.3.The possibiliofconfinrrintousethe oldDanuk for
navigatiodependson discharrg atesandthe designoftheundenvaterweirs -in other wordst
navigatioisfarfromking excludd. Hrrngavdm noiexplainwhy internationnavigationvcsseIs
shouldwishtousetheoldDanuk inthefaceofttregreaiIynipenorconditions offerthebypass
canal.
IO
Tbi d.ra3.68.
11
% generally,Vol. Ch.3,Sec ..
Hruigardm refer tothe Iosof 390hectares "duioconstructioactivities"(HtuigaCounter-
Mernorial,ara.1.135)butthesewere irretncvabIostp& toHungary'ssrispensioofwrirksin
1989and haveneverken citdasa reasontherefoAlso,incornparisowiththelososfSlovakland
for constructiofthereservoi,he bypasscanalandthe GabEikovostep,thilossto Hungarian
agricultuisverysrnail.
12 Ibi d.r,.1.134.
l3 In fa,Hungq diegesthadue to thedropin gmunwater IeveiinSzigetkisincethedamming,
sub-irrigathasbeen Iosonone fiftnotonehalf,ofarablelandm., para.3.69. "Theinfluence of thelong-tenn trendof ground Iwaterlwels decreasebefore
theoperationof theGabEikovo dam ...and the unfavourablchanges aAer the
l
operationof the structureprognosticated by soIe authors are not evident
dunng the balanced monitoringperiod(two yer befurethe opnation, one
yearoftransition andtwo years aRer thedammingI. No negativechangesof
the water content in the zoneof aerationoccurred. On the contrary,the
rnonitoredcoursesof the watercontentin the =&neof aerationin the uppcr
fitn? OstrovSites,on the lefi-sarea of theby&s canalanddownstrearn of
Gabcikovoareshowing the increasintrend' "
13-06 As Hungq accepts,"irrigation may compensate"for some of it(self-
imposed) "\osses"". lt alleges,howwer that the sources of irrigatiowater have been
adverselyanècted, 18% of boreholesinSzigetliozbecoding unusable. But this isperf'ctly
1
normal. Withthe drop in ground waterlevelsresultinghm Kungary'srefusa1toimplement
I
the direct rechargofitssideamq certainshaI1ow welIsnecessarilybecarne"unusable" orat
least lesse5cient. But the underiyiaquiferhas a depthof hundredsof metres, so water is
abundantt ;heody questionlies in the sitingof the weland theirdepth. One solutionis
1
thereforesimplyto excavate deeper wells (as Hungary itself ackn~wledges'~). A more
I
constructiveapproache,ventuaIIychosenby Hungasf, istoincreasegruundwater leveIsby the
irnplementatioof the directrechargesystem.
13.07 Volume 1 of Hungary'sCounter-Mernoria l ues not indicate the
I
percentage Iosses incrop yield which, accordin tg its "Scientific Evaluation", can be
attributeto Variant "C". But itcaIcuIatethatapproxirnatel yne fifih of yieIdreductionin
1
Szigetkozagriculturapl roductionin 1993 was due to reducedground water levels". The
moreimportant factorswerefoundin the "ScicntifEvalu4tion1t' be(i)that 1993was a very
14 See,Voi. III.44.Hungary acceptthat gmunwalcriyels droppedarounlm sincethe1960s.
See,HungarianCounter-Mernori alra. 1.101. Sqai? theEC Working Group repMl of1
Decemkr 1993:"duetotheincre of wund watetablepn theSIovatkmtoo anincrcari,nthe
capillarywaternipplytheSlwakianagricultulm hy takenplace."Witanequivalenwater
recharg(40-50m3/s)into the SzigeWzsidm, theve benefificiailmwartpredkM for
HrrngaryytheEC WorkingGroup:"Duetotheincrea ofgroundtuattabIoen htItthSlovakiari
andHrrngxïanremtoryanincm in thecapiIIq waierskppforagricrrItrasweIIasfoxstq
arw cm beexpecfed.Hungaian MernoriaV,ol. parfII$Annrx 13(app.785 and791).
1
15 HungariaCounter-Mcmori palra.3.70.
1
16 m., Vol.4(II)Annex 20(ap.778).
Ii dry year h, low precipitation)and (ii) the lowusage offertilisersdue to changesin
agriculturalmanagementpractices. TtwouIdseemthateither Hungaryhasiiftle confidence in
the surpnsingly precise calculationsconrained in its "Scientific ~valuation"'~,or that it
considersthatthe calculatedfigureis ratherlow anddoes not fit easilywith the extremely
adverseimpact on agriculturepredictedinits~erno~ial' ~
13.08 Insofar asHungary's concIusion - "thatthere ha been asignifrcaritIoss
in productivityattributablta changesin groundwaterle~els"~~ - iscorrect, SIovakiamust
pointout thatthesechangeswere specificalIy non-Pro jct impacts,that the Proect provided
for thedesign andconstruction of the Dunakilitiofftakewith its amplecapacityof 250 m3&,
that Hungary now acceptsthat itsusewouldprevent anyadverseimpacts taagriculture,and
thatHungary has,in partforthisreason, nowsigned an agreement allowingfor thisintaketo
beput intooperation2 .'
13.09 Hungaryintroducesits briefsection on the impacts of the "Original
Project"on forestrybyemphasisingthe highproductivityofthe forestsinthe activeDoodplain,
thatistheir higheconomic value. This isaIsothe prime fucusof the considerationofimpacts
toforestryinHungary'" sScientifi~valuation"~. Itiscertainlytruethat forestsintheactive
- -
'' Hungaryampfs: "Theimpact ofthediversionohe Danuix is howevtrdificr10tpredicasother
factorinfluenceannualagricuI~~ yieldm., Vol. 1para.3.71.&eV dso, Hrrngarin ernorial,
para.5.121. Inthfacof thistheestimationithe"ScientifEvaluationofa 22.2% reductionin
yieldduetodiversioncannbeaccepted.
19
-R,HungarianMernorialpara.5.71
20
HungarianCorrnter-Memurip,ara3.71.
21
ForthebeneficiimpactstoagriculturecordedontheSIova sideoftheDanube,sec . ol.III,Ch.
3,Sec.2. Withparticulregartosailmoistureandagricultulonditionintheupperpartof%tny
Ostrov,thefoIIowihaaken recorded(at 53):
"From thepain1ofvie* of thegIobaIconditionforagricuItud pr&rrction.tchanged
siiuatio(theincreao sfthegroun daterIeveisto 2-3rnkbw tkesurfaceshodd h
ansider& aspositive. hl resrrlitedsignificanincreaseinthehigh quaIitygrotlnd
watcrstorageavaiIabforimgationand therecentlyincreas@und waterkveI (3-2m)is
aireadyaccessi fbldeep-rooplants.Thinew situatiointheailwaterregime overalin
thi regiocreatemorefavourablceonditionfsorharvstabilisation."
If HtrngarimConter-Mernoriai, VoIpp.121-187.floodplainon sidesof the Danubehave a highecohImic valueandthat, in spite of the
intensivecultivationof theseforests,theyremainvalulle overall. But Hungary has oflen
sought topoitrayits activefloodplaiar&as sornefhinghose toa naturd wildernesî,which is
ckarly not so. Infa&,asHungary admits,some 64% of !he floodplainforestare madeup of
one hybridpopIartypp. Theseforestsarepiantedin cultivated areasZ4. To replacetrees,
I
which is no morethan to harvestandplantne* species, ldocsnot,as Hungaryirnplies,mean
I
the destructionof a "cornplexweb of population, $th several hundred rnacroscopic
I
compunents,not taspeak of thousandsof micruscopic8neIJJ.It iq andhasbeen for many
decades, anesrdailya~tivityintheactivefloodplainon boih sidesofthe~anubel'.
l
13.10 There is, iariyevmt, absolntelyn&basistu the daimthat "morethan
I
one-halfof thetrees of the Sdgetkdzwouldhave decaye{ or driedout withi 15 yeirs ofthe
Original~roject"~~.Nor isthereany senseto theclaimthatthe"93% of thetreespeciesinthe
I
[Szigetkdz]floodplain"whicharedependent on sub-imgabon"willwithal1likelihooddryout
I
as a consequeno feVariantC"; nor is thereany need tu replacethe prevalent hybridpoplar
species"with more drought tolerant ~~ecies"~~. The remediaI masures providedwithinthe
24 1
Itisnrit the adverenvironmentainterventithatHungary clairntaprovide,asdid theJoint
ContractmlPlan, fochangesinmies wrnpsition in rense ro changedgroundwaferregirnes.
-bid..Vol.1,para1.13and 3.75.
2s l
Somebackground tothedevclopmentfcunent forestg prahtiîoinarasis usehilTheforesisin
theDanube inundaiionareahavebeenstronglyinfluenc?by man in Uu 1M yean pnor tothe
damming. Growingconditionhavebeen largelydeterminby theinundatiodykesbuih agaim
f'loodsin thelaCentuy. Originaily,thfids cuverailargeferritones,bthefld wakr was
shaliow. At thaftirne, errcconditionexistafortre spefieof hardwd ffdplain fore*,
suchas QllercusrobuL.,Fraxinvs excehior and UI~nusp (oaka,shanddm). Mer thedyke
buiIding,the fids kamemore frequenandintcfisiand1ihegrowingconditioforthehardwd
treespciesdeterioratosuch anextenthathardwd trebits weredisplad horn theara. On
the otherhand,very goodgrowing-conditionswerecreatefor thefast-growingpoplar species
(dernandinexcellentnutrientandmoistureconditions1.
A change inspeciecamposiliofoIlowed(mainI&er 1939):&e-1vintlttrk~il~~econcentrat4
on mont>cuIirireosfpopIarswithwdighprdwlion (thekghestwmi productioniStovaka îad,
iiseerns.Hungaryanda rhonmtting qcle. The popla1monoculturenow mver 80% (perhaps
slighillesinHungary)of thestandarea;theexistencdependson thepermanentinterventiof
tbeforeste-no naturalafîorestaororegneradonis possiblFromtheecologi caitof view,
theshmb storey(layeisthe onlystablcornponentoftheseforesecosystemst;heshmbstorey
compositioisusuallynaiurstn adtwhtonousspeciesprevk~
26 I
Hungananthunter-Mernoriai, par1.138.Itisnoiedthatno docurnertnppning thisdaim haç
bBenpIad inevidencebyHungaq.
27
W., paras.3.75-3.76.Projectwere adequate;and thishasbeen proved bythe monitoringof their implementation in
the SIovakfloodpIain as partofVariant "cnZ8. Indeed, theodjf areain which anadverse
impact onforestry has been recordedis inthe srna11trimglejus1 upstream of the Dobroho5i
intakewhereit has notbeen possibleto effecthe directrecharge19.
13.11 Hungaryclairns tu have observed reducedtree g.ro~th~~. Tnfact,the
measureused(monitoring of reduced treecircnmferenci encrernent)is nota reliabIetool for
measunng shorttermimpacts3'.MorereIiabIemesures arethe Ieafma index(surface area
of leaves per hectareof tree stand)and the growth season leafloss (thatis the leafloss
recordedin sampletreeson a givendate - August15 - beforethe autumn).Themonitoring
resuItsshow nosinnifrcant changes in theIeafarea indexinthe SIovak inundationareasince
the diversionand no increasedIeaf Iossfsave for ithe areajust üpstrearnof the DobrohoSI
intake). In someareas,accentsa positivetrendinleaflosshasbeenrecorded:
"Thegreatestpart of the area is representedbthepermanentmonitoringplots,
where nosi~nificantchames in the Ieafareaindexhave occurred ...."
"On permanenm t onitoringplotwhich representthemajority ofthetemtory ...
the loss of leaveisrelativelysmalland thediReremesbetweenthe respective
years arenot sianificant...The Iossof leaves here is10-1 5% and onlyvery
seIdom ishigher than 20%- ... This parameterdocuments also the stable,
uncha-on thontheajoriyf the permanentmonitoring
plot s,weII asthe stablstateof the treeslphysiologiclctivities.
Despitethe srnaIInumber of observations(4 vegetationperiods),the positive
trendin loss of leavescan be documentedon permanentmonitoringplots
MB02bandMB03 in years 1993 and 1994. This iswithoutany doubt the
resuItofthe better nrowingconditionsinthe area caused by theincreaseof the
grorrndwatcr Ievelinthe locality(PiSii1994).
28 Themonitoringparametersomment4on Ch. 3 of Vol.Iarebaseodndirec measuremtntsoftree
pies on the permanentmonitoring pIanisof ttie fores!biou partiai monitming Vaems.
Monitoring wasperfomed in thevegetationperid1990-1994.It therefoevduatethe preand
pst-dâmming stateThe foresstand st*ucturhasken evduatedin Septembeand Octokr,the
Ieafami indein thetime of maximumgrowthfJune,July)andthImsof Ieaveby August15(the
dateofforeshealtmonitorinasacceptdby aiEwopeancountries).
l9 See,Vol.III,pp64and82-83. ThishasbeenduetoHungq's refusauntiApriI1995)toallowthe
mnçtmctionof undenvatweirsintheoldDanube.
31 -e, vol.III,67. Decrase ofthe Ioss ofLeavcr,which iishowevérs ,till relativelyhiph,can be
observedon otherpenninentmonitoring plotsd the upperpart (whse thm
hasbeen the raisingup ofthe groundwater ledel)especiallyon MB04 and
MBOS. Here the values in 1993 and 19df document the sianificant
improvement ofthe heafth stateof trees....Positive changes, i.e., obvious
tendency towardsthe decrease ofleaf 103shb been registeredon the
foIIowip nermanentmonitoringplot n theupperpart: L14, LI5,LI6, L18,
LZ9,L20, LZI, L23 ..32."
13.12 Intem of theoveraiistructurof\he treeand shniblayer,unthe great
I
majority ofpermanentmonitoringplots {un the SfovakIsideof the Danube) no signikant
changes wen absenredin the years 1993 and 1994. Qpeciescomposition,biosociologicai
1
structurethicknessand heighthave changed only(very ilightlin harmony withthe growth
l
lawsofthe respectiveforestecosystems.Ononepermar$nt monitoring plotamoreintensive
I
growth pressure wwasrecordedasa resrrltof the ecosIs-emrevival. These changeshavea
positivecharacter andshow how the Projectbenefitsndtjustfmtry, but the more naturd
shmb~a~er~ .~
13.13 Hungarylsallegationsas to ltnegatfveimpacts" on Slovak forestare
eitherwhoIIiyncorrector verymisleading3'. As tothe'ldrowning "ftrees- the permanent
I
floodingof the bases ofwillows- the condition, f willAwtrees has (amongstothersbeen
recordedby meansof leafareaindex and leaflossat folrdiflerentmonitoringplotsin the
inundatedarea. Therehavebeen no significadchangerin leaf areaindex:claimsthat large
I
numbersof wilIowvees have died or willdieare simplyLong. As tu lealoss, therirno
I
significantchangebetweenmonitoringresultsfur 1991-1I92(pre-darnminga )nd 1993-1994
(post-damming).Hungary'a sllegationarewholly dispr&ed by theevidenccbasedon data
compiled fiom a~tualobservation3'.
"
Ibidpp 65-67. Emphasesadded.Forthelocationod monitoringplots,ree,Illus.No. R-7 B.
appearinapara.12.30above. l
34
HungarianCountei-Mcmwiapan. 3.73.% aim.u. 10 2,p..56:"Willowtreesarhaving
cleaphysiologilroblemçsinctheibasearepermanenllyloodad."
" &, Vol.IIIpp.64-68.ItisnotedthatHungaq neglecd Umentionthe undoubtdy benefisial
impactoitswillowstandalmg theMosriDanuk, which'wiii nowthrasa raitof rtiegready
increaswedteflotintthimainbranchof~e Danuk. 13.14 As to adverse impacts"inthe riversidezonedong the mainchannel",
these haveindeedbeenrecordedonthe SIovak sideofthe Danubeandthese aredueto"water-
tabledecreases"dong the oldDanube, asHungq points out36. However,theseimpacts are,
once more, due to specificallnon-Projectconditions. One of the prime purposes of the
underwatew r eirto beconstructedintheoldDanube was to raistheriver surfacewaterlevel
andhence thegroundwaterIeveIs in thinsmw riparian stnpthatis not affecîeby thedirect
rechargeintothesidearms. TtisHungarywhohaspreventedthe construction of theweirsand
whois largelyresponsibIfeorthenegativeimpacts toSlovaktreesthatit cites.
13.15 FinaIly,Hrrngarycites asa "further adverseaffectof Variant Cu the
"virtualeIirninatioffloodson theHungarian floodp~ain"". ButtheeFects of inundationcm
be created throughthe Dunakilitiofftake. Moreover, the floods of which Hungary speaks
were not even annualevents. As shown on IllusNo. R-12 (onthe next page),the total
inundationof the sideamiswas a rareevent inthe pend 1970-1990. As tothe transportof
nutrientsto the floodplain,nitrogen and phosphorus are not, as Hungary's "Scientific
EvaIuation"claims3',blocked in thereservoir.VolumeIIIheretoconfirmsthe absence of a
deterioratingtrendin the presence of these elements inthe Danube by comparing water
npstream and downstrearnof therese~yoir~~.The "adverse eflectsto forestrof Variant"C"
citedby Hungary have no scientificbasis.
SECTIO N. Hun~ary's Awuments Based On RiverbedMorahotow
13.16 The Hungarian Counter-Mernori pa1acesspecial emphasison riverbed
morphologyboth initsfirsvolume(where itisaddressedinprimary position,evenbeforethe
36 SeeVol.IIIpp.67and 83.
37 HungariaCounter-Mernorial,ar3.74.
39 SeeVoI.III,p34and Figs.2.IOan2.11. Afotheretentioofdiment thawodd othenvise
nutrientothe floodplain,theimpacthiin termsof thGR4Projectstrelof theDanubemay
notk great. Dafrom the SOS,thatisbefortheisolationthesidearmsandwhentheflooding
regimewasclosetonaiuralconditio,howonlya minimaidifferenktweensupplieofhumusin
flood4 andunfloodeareaofforestInotherwords,thetranspoof nutrientsbyflowaterwas
riotoveriysignifrcant.ILLUSTRATIONNO, R-12issueofwaterquality)and inits "Scientific~valuation.~The technicalaspectsofthissubject
- in responsetu Hungary'sanaipis - aredealt with in detail inVoIumeIII hereta4'. This
section briefly reviews these technical aspectsbut, first, considers the overaaims and
relevance ofHungary's considerationof a topicthat was totallyabsenthm the Hungarian
Memoial.
13.17 Hungarybases its new emphasis on riverbeclmorphology on an
allegation as to the "justificationfor the "OriginalProject"contained in the Slovak
~ernorial~'. Slovakia,itisdaimed, contendsrhatfloodcontrolandnavigation measures led
to the Iowering of the Ievel of the Danube downstream of Bratislavaand,in turn ,o the
reductionof theground watertable,resuitinginahamihl impacton theenvironmen atsweII
asonagricultura endforestry. From this,Hungary arguesthatSlovakia'rseasoningis basedon
threeassurnptions :i)that rneasuretu improveflood corttroIand navigationhad tubetaken;
(ii)that these measuresnecessarilyletuthe reductioninthe ground water table;and (iithat
only the 1977 Treatycould solvethe three problemsof flood control,navigationand the
reductionof thegroundwater level(andin so doing alsosolve theenvironmentap lroblemsof
theregion}43.
13.18 Of theabove threeassumptions ,he secondis said by Hungaryto be
"criticat"becauseoftheIinkagebetween"worksportrayed as essentialfortheregion'ssuMvai
and prosperity"b., the measures related tu navigation and flood control) and "the
environmentalprublems ..whichresult fiomthe drapin theground watertable";andHungary
contendsthat, iitdisproves thislinkage,"much of thereasoningcollapses"on whichSlovakia
supposedlybased its "justificatiofor the Original~roject~'". However,Hungary's initial
premise isfaIse. SIovakia dow nut seek tû justie the Gm Project. The Treatyparties
fomaIly committed themselvestu cany out theProject, one ofthedeclared aims ofwhich was
40
HungaiaC nornter-Mernori,aras1.56-1.7and3.18-3.23andVol. 2.
41 VoI.IIICh.12. Inaddition.thediscussionof navigationandcontroin Sectio3,beIow,aIso
dealwithsome ofHungarya'rgumentsnderthisheading.
42 HungarianCounter-Memona p,ra.1.56.to irnproveflood controImd navigationby themani jointlvestablishedunderthe GM
Project.Therecan beno need forfurtherustification.
13.19 Hungarykstiitedgod todisprovethe"Iinkageb "etween(i)fhe Treaty's
flood controIandnavigationmeasuresand (iithe"envir,mental problemsentailedby thosc
works"is anywaythoroughly perpiexing.Hungary' sain technicathesiisthatthe measures
for flood control andnavigation,evdangsidethe retentionaf sedimentandbedloadin the
barragesysfems upstrearin Austria,werenotthecause ofthe reductionof the Ievelof the
Danubedownstream ofBratislava:ather,theprinciplausewas industridredging;andthe
factsarepresentedso asto irnpl- quiteincorrectl-thatCzechoslovakia somehowgot an
I
excessiveshareofthe dredgedgrave].But the questionremain: venwere thitrue,what are
the relevant consequencesfor tcase? The carryingoutof theGlN Project pursuanto th
Treatycannotbemadeto dependonwhetherindustnaldredging byboth1977Treatyparties,
pursuantto annualagreements - and whichwas largelyhaltedby 1984 - was or was not
"primarilyresponsible"for drapsin the gmundwaterIeveIin the upper partof the Project
region.
13-20 Yet,surprisinyltheHungatian ~odnter-~emuriaa irguesthat:
"Theissue ofdegradationof the riverbec,ausinhthe drop insurfacewater
levelandthegroundwater table,technicthough it msybe, occupiesacentral
positionin this disput..It is the rernedyiof these impacts,ratherthan
anythingactualystatedinthe 1977 Treaty,whichconstitute(sic) [Slovakia'sl
mainaim4 '"
Itmust be madeclearthatthis isatotalmis-statementf slovakiaisaiminthiscasewhichis
thatHungaryreturn totheperformance of its obligationsunderthe 1977 Treaty.Thisno
more thananobviousattempt byHungary toshiftthe Court'sattention awfiom the Treaty
I
and on tuthe groundsofare-evaluatiooftheGINProject and a detemiriationwhetheriwas
the best wayto =Ive proMems relatintogroundwaterlevel,navigationandfloodcontrol.
As Slovakiahasalready made clearearlier,thisis nat111thetaskwhichthe Partieshave
calledontheCourttu perform.
45
-bid.,para. 3.18. 13.21 Hungaq statesthatthe purposeof its discussionofrivermorphology
and river hydrauIiistu showthe fo11owin~:~ thatnavigationandflood ctlntrol rneasures
were not "primariiyresponsiblforthereducti inthe guundwater tde ptiorto 1977;that
therewereothersolutionsfordealingwiththisproblern ;ndthatthe"Origina Plrojectwould
have increasedfivernorphologica lroblems. Thesecontentionsare largelyincorrecfroma
scientificandtechnicaIstandpoinA.detailerebutt oafthemappearsinChapter2 of Vohme
II hereto,relying onthe scientifand technjd study forming Chapter 12 ofVolumeïiI
hereto S.ome oftheprincipal efectinHungary' "sScientifEvaluation"onrivermorphology
arenuwsurnrnarised:
Hungary'a snalysisoverempitasisetshe effects ofcommercialdredging;
thiswas only oneofa number offactorsaffectingriverbedmorphology
inthis stretchof the Danube, which induded dso: (i) the reduced
bedload effeocftupstreamdams and riverreplation in Austria;(ii) the
effectsof river regulationon the velocity of riverflow; (iii) the
fundamentac lhangeingradientoccurringinthevicinityofSap; and (iv)
the decreaseinbankerosionduetu fortificationorivebanks.
Hungary'scalculationsbased on river flow rates are fundamentally
flawed for they assume an "Origina lroject"that was significantly
mbdifIedby 1989,with considerabIyhigher flow Ievels pIannedfor the
OId Danube. TtscaIcuIationsare also fundamentaIIyflaweasto the
stretcofthe Danube betweenGabçikovo and Nagymaros becausethey
arebased on an assumedmaximumlevel of peakmode operation that
was never agreedbetweentheTreaty parties47.
46
lbid.,pa1.59.Itsaimsaredso toshowth"adequatfloodprotectmechanisms"wereinplace
in1977,independenyf theProject;thateventhougtheProjecwouldhavesulvetdeexisting
navigatiproblern.therelatimportancefthenavigationmprovement sfîeredbtheProject
wasIimiteandiçnorevenmore iimitedM., para1.60.These1st&O iterns,concerningflml
controIannavigation,aretaupinSectio3klow.
47
k, para.I1.1above. -
Hungarygeneralisesthe effects of nverbeddegradationpredictedat
certainshorstretchesof theDanibe,giving the erroneousimpression
I
thatafarlargeareaof theDanube wouldbe afected.
- Hungaryignores the dataproducehand analysedaAerthree years of
monitoringthe operationofthe GabEikikovsoction, which shows no
furtherdegradatioofthe Danuberiverbed asa resuIt otheoperation
I
of the GabEikovo section4*. And Hungary'swhoIe discussion of
possiblefutureriverbeddegradatin in the oId Danubeis rendered
P
irrelevantby the fact thatthe Partiesare in agreementthat the
l
installatiof underwater weirs-as agreed underthe GN Pruject-
wouIdentireIyresolvethepr~blem~inthe oIdDanube.
i
- It faitoemphasisethatdownstreatkof Sap,duetothe change in river
I
gradient,there is anarea of nverbedmradatioand failto point out
that the environmentalimpactobed degradationfurther downstream,
I I beyond titni OstrovandSzigetkot,would, inanyevent,be quite
differento itimpactupstrearn. This issu because (atIeast on the
Hungananside)the Danube flows almg avalieyinsteadofon top ofan
alluvicane. ThefIoadpIainhereis alsoverynarrowand doesnot have
I
theenvironmentailmportanceof th2 fiaodplain theupstreamsection
ofthe ProjectHuwever,seriousnavigationprobIemscontinue tu exist
I
downstrearnof Sap,asshowninSecrion 3beIow.
1
- Finally,suchriverbeddegradationqroblems(causinga drop inwater
Ievels)as existin the-Nagymarossection, wouId immediateIy be
I
remediedby the constructionof de Nagymarosbarrage,leading to
1 .
increaseriverwaterlevelintheimpounded sectionupstream.
1
13.22 Threefurther,morespecificpointshouId bemade. The fir csntcems
thearnountsofcommecial dredging andwhere thiactivity
occurred. As Plate5ofHungary's
48 -ee ,olIIIp. 241. - 337 -
Counter-Mernoria clIearlyshows (reproducedhere in part as Illus. No. R-13), by far the
greatestamountofdredging has occurred in the Nagymarossection of the Project - that is
downstrearn of the end of the bypas canal near Sap (rkrn 181 1)- being anarea ofriver
aggradation. Yel itis not in thisregion thaany resuItingdrop inground water level isof
seriousconcern to theenvironmenti;t isthe upperfloodplain regionof theGabCikovo section,
upstream,wherethe environmentallw ylnerableregionlies. Itis on bed degradation in this
section alonethat the SIovakMernorialfocused. A SIovak 1991 studyshowsthat while inthe
years 1975 - I989,48.3 mil.m3 of grave1wasexcavated beiween rkm 1880and rkm 1709 (the
end of the joint Slovak-Hungariar niverstretch),betweencunovo and Sap - that is,in the
Gab6ikovo sectionwhere the floodplainlies- only 3.5 mil. rn3of grave1 was extracteds O
Thus, itis dificuIt tu see what relevanceHrrngary'sindustria1dredgingargument hasto the
stretchof riverthat is importantin terms of riverbeddegradation and reIatedenvironmentaI
impact.
l
1
1,850 1,800 1,750 1.700 I
rkm rkm rkrn rkm
ÇourPlate 5, HungarieiiCounter-Memurial
5peciaIIypreparedforprcsrnfation IoI ouri ofJusfice.aC ILLUSTRATION NO. R-13 1
50 1
SlovakCornter-Memorid -,x 24(atp.3091.
1 13.23 Second, as to the old ~anube) Hungaty reachescertainuntenable
conclusionsonthebasisof a scientificpapsubmitledib 1992by theSlovak scientistJ.KaliS
I
and M. BaEik.Citingthis paper,it cIaimsthat, inspiteofthe GabEiksectionbeingputinto
I
operation, severnverbeddegradationofthe oIdDanubeis to beexpected:
"Withoutarrivingbedloadfiom upstream,degrddationoould be expectedeven
withonly afew dischargesper year.Erosion ub to3 metrescouldhavebeen
çausedtu some sectionsafie50years ofoperatibn5.'
I
Kali:and Batik in iact prediçted:"Sedimentatbydebedload transport ithenseivoir of
HruSov-Dunakiliitsin'expectedtocause seriousproblems...j." Hungary quotesneitherthis
northefollowingconclusionof thesetwo Slovak scientibs:"Theobtainedresultsshowedthat
the OId Danubechanne1 deformationswiII be reIativelysrnaII"Indeed Figure 2.6 of the
"ScientificEvaIiiatioshows thistobe so,with both increasesanddecreasesinthe Ievelof
1
theriverbedand adecreaseof3m inonly one specificlocatio(atthebendin theriveratabout
rkm 1813 justbeforeconnectingwiththe downstream Ad of thebypass canal).Inany event,
I
asHungaryadmitq riverbed deformationcan becuredbycunstructingunderwater weirg3.
13.24 Finaliy,intherecentSlovakexamihationofriverbedmorphologycarried
out inthelightof Hungary'"ScientifiEvaluation"i,t islhowand illustratihat:
l
" ...the generallyprevailingsinking ofthe IIvds of Iow regdation and
navigationwater in the perio1957-1994 had not substantiaI1yhangedeven
aftesuspensionof industnal redgi~~~."~
Thisconclusionis basedon anexamination ofactualddta,andrefutesHungary's assurnption
thatiftheDanube wen justIefaloneit wouldreturntoAsformercondition.
51 1
HmgariarCornter-Mernoripara.1.69ciringBaEikanKali$(1992). See,dmm., VoI.2, p.
21.
52
m., Vol.4,Annex5 (ap.359). I
53 .
m., Vol.2,p.5. l
54 Vol,IIheretopp.237-238. 13.25 What Hungary'e sxtensivetechnicaldiscussionof riverbedmorphology
seernsintendedtu obscure istheweII-conceivedconcept by whichthe GN ProjectIocated the
bypasscanal - which passesthrough the areawheretherewas the greatestfloodriskand the
worstnavigational bottlenecks- entirelyoutsideof the floodplain. As a result,thespecific
problern ofbed degradation inthe stretch fiom BratisIavatu Sap may now beaddressed
without thisproblembeingsubordinatedtu navigationalor flood control concerns.
SECTION 3. The AIIe~edivUnnecessarvBentfits: Enewv, Navigation and Flood
Con troi
13.26 The Hungarian Counter-Memurial devotes a surprisingly Iong sub-
sectionto a consideratioof the Project'sbenefitsintermsof electricityproductionthebasic
purposeof which isto showthattheamountofenergy tobe produced was at bestrathersmall
and, in facteven unnecessary. The justification for this expandedtreatmen-even though
Hungary acceptsthat the"[bjroader issues ofenergy poIicyarenot before the Court in this
case" -isthatthere were in"theSlovakMernorial'p sejorativereferencestoHungarian energy
policy". Hence,Hungary argues there ia need"tuputinto perspectivethe value of power
generationthroughthe OriginalPraject andthrough Variantc"" .
13.27 But the Slovak Mernorial can be searched in vain for any such
"pqorative referencesnS6. Slovakia merely noted that Hungary did not expioit the
hydroele~triîpotential of irivers". As Slovakiaexplained,the sole purpose of its fucuon
thisissuewas to explainthat,whereasin 1977Hungaryhadagreed todevelop itshydroelectric
potentiaiinthejointGR\T ProjectwithCzechoslovakias,incethat dateHungaqhasinvestedin
other foms of energy suthat, in 1989, its need for theeIertrictoybe generated under the
G/N Prajectwas not the same. In its Counter-MernoriaH l,ungaryfails to respond to this
allegation. Indeed,Hungarynow admitsthat, at thetimeof itsTreatybreaches,it did not
55 HungarianCoiinter-Memorîpara.1.193.
56 Thereis, byconuasno doubtthatHungary'Counter-Mernoriisfull ofpejorativereferastos
Slovakia's"expansivnergpolicy"and the"continuineficiency"of itsproduct.on.,paras.
1.176and1.201.
51 SIovnkMernorial,par1.52.considertheenergy tobe produccd by theProjectasnece$sary- thussubstantiatinSlovakia's
beliefthatHungay'sreasonsforceasing itsinvesttnennti theProjecthad aneconomic rather
thanenvironmentalbasis:
"Politicalhangesintheregionafier1989led to th&dissolutionofoldindustrial
structuresand the collapseof tradingrelations. AsGNP was dramatically
reciuced,here wasa considerabIdeedineinenergydemandinthe region,wiah
exoessproductioncapacity. Thisperiodofgene* dcclinecoincidedwith the
plannedfinalphaseofconstructionoftheOriginal~roject"."
13.28 Moreover, Slovakiaconsiders thak there is no need "to put into
I
perspectivethe valueofpowergeneration"fromtheProject. The "value"of thispower does
not touch on thequestionsbeforetheCourt inthiscase. (AsexplainedintheIntroduction to
thisReply,theCourt hasnot been,andcouldnothavebedn, asked toweigh uptheeconornic
I
benefrtsto be received by the Treatyparties and tu assess their value against (alleged)
I
environmenta1impacts. Further, Hungaryfsattempt tu show that therwas no need for the
energy to be produced by the Project is both economicallyunsound and wholly
unsubstantisted.It isclairned,for example,thatthereLe inthe pre-198p 9eriod"ever-
I
expandingenergjlimgorts hm the Soviet Union ..projected tu continuetube inexpensive
and ine~haustible"~~;utwhythendidtheTreatypartiesdecidein 1977to investhundredsof
miliionsof dollato obtaintheenergyproducec fiom the d/N Project?Itisdairned thatthwe
I
isan excessof productioncapacifyinthe region;butwhythen do Slovakia,Hungmy, Austria,
the CzechRepublic and UkraineallirnporeIectricity?
13.29 Hungary writes asif, inthe 1950s,the Treatyparlieshaddecidedtu
investheavilyinthe productionof,say,bIackand white tdevisiosets,forwtiichtherewas no
I
longer a marketintheIate 1980s.But the electricitythatthepartiesagreedto produceatthe
timeof signingtheTreaty in1977 stihas a highvaluetodabandhasnotbeenmaderedundant
by technologicaladvance.Tu take asecondanalo~~ Hungary writesas ifacar buildingState
I
hasnoright tu buildanew carfactoryifit alreahassufficiencapacitjto suppiytheinternai
t
market6'.But, electricityiareadilymarketabl end exportablecommodity inCentralEurope
58 HungarianCounter-Mernori,ara.I95.
59
W., para.1.194.
60
Hungvy compldelyignoresthe faci thatprodualûabtikow enablesolder,lesr eais(and
morepoIIufinplant10beexploital Iess.as elsewhere - and a sizableportionof the electricityactuallproducedat GabCikovo is, in
fact, exportedtuHungary. The fact that Htlngary,today, considers that the GIN Project
would ody accountfor appruxîtnately5% dits interna1demand6'dues nul aller the fact that
the electricitycurrentlproduced at GaEikovo isworth -and nets - inexcess of US$ 100
millionperann~rn~~.
13.30 Hungary's appruach is al1the more astonishi innghat Hungary needs
extraenergy and iscurrentIyseekingto extenditsirnportsof eiectricity. Itthereforedificult
to understand thecomment thatGabEikovo serve nsopurpose63 . heelectricityproducedby
the Projectis not only of greateconomicvaIuebut it also enabled the Project to be self-
frnancing.The benefits ofîeredtu theTreatypartiesin tenns of navigation,floodcontroland
the environmentcouId onIy be afurded because the Project was devised as anintegrated
projectprovidingthe Treatypartieswith both the basisfor an overallwater management
schemeand the means of payingfor this.
B. Navigafion
13.31 One of the obligationsimposed on the Parties to the 1977 Treaty
concemednavigation:"tu maintainthese sectionsof the Danube ina navigablecondition for
river-going vessels" and "to cary out the works neceçsary for the maintenance and
improvemen tf navigationconditions"(Article18). Both Treaty partiesah had obligafions
concerning navigationstemmingfromthe 1948 DanubeConvention and fromthe 1976
61 HungarianCounter-Mernoria,ara.1.199HringaryusepsercentagIO showthn thepraiuction or
currentprMucrioatGaMikovoiç Iow. Slovakiawnsiderthispproachirrelevabut,inanyevent,
GabEikovorcsontributof IO%of Slovakia'energyneedsissubsrntid.Itisnotunderstd how
thican becategoriças"ratherow".m,, para.1.192.
62 InspiteofHungary'cornment stM., para.1.200,Slovakhasalways acceptedthatHungarhas
somenghr to sharein thereceipfrom the current tnergy prducatGaMikovo. Ialsupoints
outthatappniximateIy40% of the eIecUicigw directlto Hungary(mainly 10Gyoi) and is
therefoofgreatknefrttoHungary. AlthoughHungarycurrentlypaysftheenergyif receivesist
farmoremnornical forHungarytoirnprt eIecrricityfromjacrostse imrdear Gasikovo than
fromothersource(elecuiciistransportathighvoltagesanda sigmficaniossiincurredbotin
volîagconversionsndintheresistanceothewireoverlongdistances).See,Vol.IICh.13,Figs.
3and4.
63
HirngariaCouriter-Mernorial,raI.201The "indepndentreport"which Hungaryciteshereia
reportpreparbythe environmentagraupEquipeCoustau,whichhas arecordofopposingthGIN
Projeconenvironmenfd grounds. As tothevaIueofthe eenrgyproducedat Gaeikovriarrdthe
functianingalhiplansinceOctaber1992s, Vol.IIICh.13. partieshad decidedto dealwiththe measuresnecessaryfor navigations!irnprovemenats an
integratedpartof the Project'sprovisionsffloodcontroland energyproduction. Whether
thiswas the ody (orthe best)way of deaIingwiththenavigationalmeasuresrequired tobe
taksn was notthe issuin1977 n;orisittodaY6'.
13.35Hungary doesnot denyoutrightanobligationtoconform to theDanube
Commission's standardsin the lightof the provisionsthe 1976 Agreementandthe 1977
Treaty -asidefrom justas amatter ofcomityas one of thDanube States- butit seeksto
evadethe obligationbycontending:
- That navigation along the relevantstretis not "necessary fium a
econornicpointofview"", faultingSlovakiafor not producistatistics
to proveitsprofitability;
Comment: In Part ffl {Chapier 14) there issuch on economic
anaiysiscorreciing ffungarykfruwedanalysis. #%a# ifrevenls is
theww in Yugosluviuand relaredUECsrniions are the major remn
forafull off incommercial use ofthe Danube inth secfor. Thisis
nowhere meniioned by ~un~aty". Nomally, river nuvigation is
ecu~~umicaI &rrr~cve; o#herwisefthe Dumibecommissionwo~~fd nui
be st,en OB if mpravemennf.
- Thatin thefirstyearsof operatiounder Variant "CHtherehavebeen
accidentsblockinnavigationforlimitedpefiods;
Comment: fidms nof seem b maffpF 10fif~ngmyfharone accident
refared{Oa Pr~jecIdvsignfaiiure af the GabEkovo lu& #or which
1 Hungaryas jointparticipuntinthe Projecf,was eqrdallyresponsible);
1 " HenceHungaq's claim that"studieshaveshthaproblemsaffectingthe Nagyrnreachcan
w~ietheIese redvedbytraditionmeans"isnotonlywrongitiçwhollyirrelevant.Hungarian
Counter-MemorjaI,ar11S7.
71 TheCourtmay welquestionthworthofa "ScientificEvaluaofnavigatiothatntireornits
fromiteconomiassessmentthekeyreIevtactor. and thrrlthe second war &e tro!theneg(gence of O ship captain.
fhcrdeiays asa result ofaccidents
EpaIi'y,Hungatyfis romention
occuron al1majorrivers,inclüdingiheDanube.
13.36 Hungary'spleadingscontinue toundmalue the combineddforts of the
Danube States to ache good navigable links- and'the (recently mmpleted) Gemm
I
engineeringaîhievement,at huge expense,ofconnecking theNorth Sea (andm ,on tu fuIIcw,
the BaltictotheBlack SeabytheRhine-Main-Danub cenaln. ThisEuropeanwaterwayand
the potentialadditional ateways which Hungaiycontihuer to obstmct as a resultof its
abandonmeno tftheG/NProject,areshow on IllusNo. R-14. Itmay bethat Danubetraffic
iseconornically Iessinterestinto Hungary than it is 'tu SIovakia(which has important
I
shipbuildingfacilitiatBratislavandKornamo);butHuygary's danted economicanalysis of
the benefitsof future Danubetraficanditsown Iackof a shipbuildinindustry,arehardlya
justificatiforitsabandonmeno tf theGM Project.
13.37 Asidefrom theglaringomissionof the war in ex-Yugoslavia from its
cconomic analysis of the fbture of Danube traficHungary makes a seriouslymideading
l
staternent offact (which appearsalrnustverbatim in twu diEeren pkartsofits pleading)
l
concmîng whereinthe reachbetweenBratislava and~uda~Istthe bottleneckshavebeen and
airningatthedevalorisationofthe bypasscanalinthe~akikovo sectionof theProject. The
I
staternenisthis:
"The more diEoult section othen~eraffectedby /heOriginalProjeet was the
Nagyrnarosreach,and this is reflected the recomrnendation ofthe Danube
Commission ss to the Vienna-Budapest Mctor, +hi& identifiedNagymaros
(butnot GabC-ikovo asoneof 4 sectorsrequirinattenti~n'~"
i
13.38 It issimplyincorrect to statethat !he "more"("rnost"in thesecond
version)dificuit sectioofthe relevanriverstretch bnweIn BratislavaandBudapest was the
"Nagyrnsrosreash",that isthestmsh downstreamof the iresentbypasscanal, relyingonthe
I
Danube Commission as authority.m, the river stretch\owtiichthe Danube Commission
originally devoted panicular attention, by the establishmentof a special "River
"
-SeeSlovakMernoria, ur.1.1,andIllus.No. 11, rhowi&icampletedorp1anne.walsnwrks
projecalsngthiinter-Europewatenvay.
'3 I
HurigariaCourifer-Mernofp,ras1.1.8and3.89. Fmtnotesornitted.
1Administration",wasthestretchRajka(rkm 1848)tu Gunyü(rkm 17901 t,at ithe stretcof
theGabEikovo sectionof the ~roject~Theproblemshere (or, atleast,upstreamof Sap-rkm
1810) have now been sdved by the puftinginto operatioof the bypasacanal. Secund, no
evidenceinsuppor of Hungary'scontentionismntained inthesraternenrteliedon.Hungary
refers ta 1992 estimatebythe Commissi ofnthe investrneneeded tu rernedytheexisting
bottienecksbetweenVienna and Budapest -butbsed onan assurnedprojectof dams
(Hainburg and WolfsthaIin Austria;GabEikovo and Naparos). However, in tems of
estimatingthis investmen-atapproximatelyUS% 1 biIIio- the Commissiondid not include
GabEikow,as this was dready Iargelycornp1etg6. From thiq Hungary has magically
produced the conclusion that the GabEikovo reach of the Danube, whose navigational
prubIemshavenow been totally solvedby the reservoiand bypass canaiunder Variant "Cu,
was notsu important.
13-39 FinaIly, ungarycannotbe excused its abandonmentof Nagymaros,or
relievedof anyfirtureobligationsto thisectionoftheProject,on the basisthat does not
sharethefaithof theotherDanube Statesthat the DanubewiIIbecorneincreasinglyimportant
cclrnmerciaIandeconomicallynow that theextraurdi nagiyeeringfeatoftheRhine-Main-
Danube canal has been completed,with other canalprujects in the plannistageor under
way.
C. FloodControI
13.40 Inits MemofiaI,Hungaryignored the important issueof flood controt.
The Hunganan Counter-Memurial notestheernphasisplacedon floodprotectioninthe SIovak
Mernorialand,by way of response, admitsthat the "Prujectwould have pruvidedadditiond
securitytuthe regionUT7B. ut sucha-positiveconclusioncouIdnut beacceptabltoHungary.
It thmeforecontinues:
74
SecV.ol.IIp.227.
''
HungariaCounter-Mernoria,ra1.11.
''
M. The specificsiaiemeasifoIlows:"Theinvestmrequirewas&matai in 1992atUS$I
billifnotincIudiGa*ikovo)".
77
-bid.ara.1.72. 1
"Butflood controtwas certdy nota IprincipaJ'ncernof the Treaty.Onthe
contrary it waa ben& that could have beenakhievedinother and cheaper
wayP -,,
1
Thisassertionignoresthe integnted aspecofthe G/N ~iuject,pickingoutflood controlasif
I I
it were a problemto bo dedt with inisolationand thbn Hungary formulatesthe emirely
irrelevantclaithatthe Trestypartieexacised par byrat findi cheaeapweap of
dealingwith floodc~ntro1~.
13.41 HungaryZ assertioniscontradicteby ifs own psstrecognitioof flood
l I
control asa primeaim ofthe Gl'NProject: forexample,i!nthe 1977 Summary of theJoint
ContractualplansD; in the HungarianAcadcmy of SWenEe'O s pinionof1985" ; the official
1988Hungarian brochure:"GabEikovo-Nagym Enrirsnment and River~ams"" ; andthe
I
ofidal Hungarianbrochure issuedbyOVIBER to descdbe the ~roject~. And even when
I
Hungarymovedto abandonthe GlN Project,Prime ini id Neémethin hisletter o6 March
1990 reassuredthe Prime Ministerof Czechoslovakia that Hungary wouid complete flood
I
control worka4.Ttis interestintu quote afew passageshm the OVIBERbrochure (-
1977)describingthesituatioatthat times:
"On the reachof thepiamedriver barragesystern,and especiaIion the upper
part of il", the situation of the flood-preventiopbecames worse year-by
year....
I
See,paras13.20and13.1.aixveas 10theineIevancethesamelineofargumenta to rivehd
rn~rphaIuandnavigatiorespectively. !
80
EvaIrrauon".16wherefhepertinesectioofthe1977JointContractuPIanSümmaryisquoted.ic
See,al=fri91,klow.
I
HI Sec .IovaCkounter-Mernoralra7.118.
I i
85 1
OVIBER was theHungarianImtitute principaIIychargwilhcarryinout thewnmuction
responsibiiiofHungaryunderhre N Proje~t.
l The combinationof the[G/N Projectceases thedanger ofinundationand
makes safe the mn off of thefloo... .In thecaseof theGabEikovo River
Barrage conditionsimproveby the fact...that thmn off ofthe flood is
dividedbetweenthepower canalandtheoldDanuberiverbedm ."
13-42 Hungary doesnot deny thatthe TreatyProject"wouldhave irnproved
existingfioodprotectioninthe region",but rathercontendsthatthiswould "merelyhave
addedadditiona lecuntytowhat was othenvi asecurefioodprotection~~stern"~~ .hisis
putmorebluntly inHungary's"ScientifEvaIuation":
"Asfaras flood protectionis concernedtherewandis no need fortheG/N
Project. The Szigietkozproblemswere solvedbyreinforcementof the dyke
systemsinthe 1960sand 1970s,providinga 100-yearflood protectiowhich
complieswithinternationaltandard ."sSg
Of course t,is isdirectcontrarytothe 1977 Summary ofthe JointContractuaPl lan,the
OVIBER brochure and the other source sitedabove. A second elementin Hungary's
1 scientificargumentsconcemingfloodcontrolis theclaimthatVariant"Cu hasaven rîseto
floodcontrolproblemsH.ungary a'legationinthisregardaretakenup,inturn, below.
The Aereed Need forAdditionaIFIoodControl
13.43 Hungarye 'ntireanalysisof flood cont-as theunderlinedportionof
l
thepassagequotedaboveshows - isconcernednot withwhattheTreatypartiesagreedtubut
withwhatHunaarybelieveswouldprovide adequateprotectionforHun~arv on^ .^^ hiisa
strangeattitudfor Hungarytutake (asaTreatyparty)towardsthe problem offlood controI
that bydefinitionrequirthe cornbineeffortsofthe Stateson both sidesofajointly field
stretchof river,andparticulayo where,as underthe G/N Projecta jointendeavourwas
formulatedinrelati tonheneedsof bothStates.
aa HwigarianCounter-Mernoralra1.177.
89
-bid.,Vol.2, p. 5(emphasisadded).
90
And ody in onparticulparoftheHungariaterrito,y.e.UgetkazHungaryfocusesonthis
regiondonebecausfurthdownstream,hais itheNagymaro sectioftheProjecti,tsterritory
sfopedownto the territory(for thepart}ndtherefothereisanatural protecagainst
flds. 13.44 Before theGabëikovosection of the Projectwent into operationunder
Variant"CGt ,hissection(upstreamof Sap) was thepartoftheriver stretchbetweenBratislava
andBudapestmost exposeci to floodrisk (atleastfor ~uiun~ar~).Thiswas so becausethe
riverbedofthe Danub inthis stretchriseabovethesur/ounding landonbothsides9'. The
fioodris hkerehas now beenddt with through theappro1irnataendpartialapplicationofthe
TreatyunderVariant "C". However,downstream of Sap(wheretheby-passcanalends) he
floodcontrolproblemhas not been resolved.For itis hèrethatthe river'sgradientbecornes
markedly less steeand sediment depositionoccurs,actingas a brake tothe flow andcausing
the riverto atternptto meander. The irnpoundment df water in the stretch behindthe
t
Nagyrnaros weir was intendedto solve this probIern(along with some dredging and dyke
reconstmction). Moreover, downstream of Komho, the Hungarian side of the riveris
elevated,providingincreasednnhiralprotectionagainstfioods. On the Slovak side inthis
l
sector, however,the terrainisnot elevated,rernainingmore vulnerable tuflood risk. Once
again,the worksrelated to the Nagyrnaros sectionof the Projectwouldhavedealtwith this
problem, providi nor substantialnew dykesand dykereconstmction,particularlyon the
I
Slovak side. Thissection,as with thestretchdownstreamof Sap, remains wlnerableto flood
due toHungary'a sbandonment ofNagymaros.
91 See,SlovakMemoriaIp, ara..22,andIllusNa. 14. & al%,the 1977 Surnmaro yftheJoint
Contractua1landexribingthisregionanditsuscepiib ilflod,HungarianMernorial, ol3,
Annex 24(aip.302):
I
"Theprant conditionsofld conml aregettingworseyeabyyear,buse owingtothe
suddendopechangeatPalkovilbvgrave1setdeinthekd, andconsequentltheimttomof
thebedandIhewarerIeveIskeeanrising. Thfid Ievelsincreas150cm ktween 19û1
and 1950 whch a highergroundwaterleveoverthe surroundinara+ and Iess
scuritof theleveeduringflmd<and icegorgesiThe plannedmiutionisadvmraeeous
frorthe floodconirol minview,buse he mostdificuIandmost dangernuH mhv-
PaIkoviE tvetcisbv-pass eda diversicana .!
The diçchar ipaciiyof the diversiocanaland the abandoned nverbedafter the
constructiofthebarragdong thestretchabov~lalkovihvjointiyprovithenece&aq
securievenanainstthoccurrencofa 10000vearAd. TfiIeveedong thedownstream
stretchennithemuiredçe~uritagaindtheaudence ofa IOOOveafld.
Withrespectoai1thesefacttheconciusioncanbdrawn,thatwiththeconstructiofthe
plannedGaMikovo-Navos BarragesystetheresuesîedIweoffld protectionthe
enlire sumundinv area wilbe providedthereftrthe valueof the watersïteam,
considering the continual developmentof the agricuIhrraI prducindushy and
municipditi~,willbeconstantlyri. Emphasisadded.
IntheIighoftheabove(king emcts froma jointlyprepardocumenctonternprarywitthe1977
Treatyand,inparticdu,theunderlinpassage Hs,ngary~srtion tha"[itwasacknowIedgdby
boîhsidebat theappropriaeaign slandarwasthe100-y? fld" isquiluntenable.Hungarian
Counter-Mernoriai,ar1.175. 1 13.45 The concept of the GM Projeci,asrnention ae dve inrelati un
navigationE,was toprovide an intenatsd solutio tnthe problemsofflood controI and
navigationandtumeet the needsforeIectricenergy(notody fordomesticuse butdso asa
means ofpayingfor theGM ~roject)~~.
13.46 Hungary' srgumen isthat by1977ithad builtitsdykessas tuprotect
the territoryof Szigettothe safetsfandardofthe IO0yearfloodand, thereforitneeded
no more floo drotectio n. tthis isboth decepliveaweII asbeingcontradicted byau
Hungary'spastassessrnent?. The essentiadement offloodsaietyintheGabCikovu section
of the Gm Project was tu dividethe floodwatersbetweenthe bypasc sanalandthe old
Danube. The startingpoint adoptedbythe Treatypartiesin =sesang flood riskwas not the
100year floodbut the 1,000year flood";andthe Project'sagreed operatingregulations
pruvidedforthe diversioofthe 1,000yearflood(watershaving adischargeof 13,000rn3ls)
insuch awaythat the dykesystemsbuiItdongtheoid Danubetu the 100 yearflood standard
wereadequate,asthetablebeIowillustrates:
ProbabiIitv NurnberofYears Quantity in cubic metres
persecond im3fs)
0.01 I0,OOO 15,000
O.1 1.000 13,000
I IO0 10,600
2 50 9,550
5 20 8,750
10 IO 7,900
Then themethod ofdividingthewaterswas arriveat inordertucdculate thesafetstandard
for thevariousstructure, sshownbelow:
E
&g, para13-34abe.
93
Tohave attempltadeaIadequatewiththenormouslcxpensimeaum requïrfornavigation
improvemenand fld conmi wouIdhavkn prohibiristheviewoftheTreatpartiewithout
rhemeansoffinancingprovibyprducinge1fxtriIncra.
94
Sec .ara.,13.&YS.
''
See,VoI.III,p.247. i
Structure SafetvStandard
1 {m3/sl
Weirontheby-pas sanal I 1400
Weirininundaiion
Hydrrielectricpowerplant
NavigationIocks
WithdrawaI and Iossea
Totat
13-47 This is where Hungaryfs daeptiie referencetu the 100-year dyke
I
structures cornesinIn theevent ofthe 1,000year Sofidthe total dischargof13,OûO m31s
wauldbe divided, so that the dischardom theold D!mubewouldnot exceed7,680m3/s,
I
thus allowingitsdykestube buiItonlytuthe 100 yearstandard(a dischargeof upto 10,600
I
m3/s). In other wordsto the extentHungary'sdykes mft the 100 yearstandard,Hungary's
sideof the riverwas safe againstthe1,000 year flood.but only providedthe GabEikovo
section of the Proiect had bputinto operationdividingthe floodwaters. Thaisnot atdl
1
the same thing as sayinthat theGN Projectwas not necessarytu&#rd adequatedety
againstfloods,evenasto Hungary dune.
13.48 Theflood riskinthe Projectrsa&aros seciion-that is, downstrearn
I
ofthe bypasscanal tu the Danube'sconfluencewith the 1pel rive-does not featureinthe
Hungarian Memurialfor this isa riskfeltforthe targerFartby SlovakiaaIona The dyke
reconstruction on the SIovak side was compIeted afier Hungary's abandument of the
I
projeetW. But these dykes formedpartofan integratedflood controlsystem,cumprising
i
purnpingstationsand uther protecti moemures that camot be implementedwithout the
constructionofthe Nagymarosweir. Thus,the SIovaksidqis stiIIexpuseto floodriskinttirs
region,asa resuItofHungarytsbreachof its Treatyûbligatisnrespecttu Nagymaros.
96
InVoI. 2of Hungary'Counter-Mernori{ atp.5) crise isexpressethafCtechmlavalaa
coniinued îwrk "aft H urgaryhadsuspend&worhal ~a~osX. Perhapstheauthoofîhis
parwas unawartthatmhoslovakiahaddso workfoperfqrmin thNamos sectio-andthat
iîs softheriveinihisectiowasmm exposed tofi& GskthantkeHurigarianside. Hun~arv's FaIseAccusation that Variant "C*' Has Caused Hood
Risk ProbItrns
1 13.49 The Hungarian Counter-Memuria& l artor its "evabation"of the
engineeringaspectof Varian " Cuintermsof flood contro1bypointing tuthedificultieof
sucha iask"dueto the al& ma1 Iackofinformationconcerning"theseaspectp. Thi sues
notdeterHungar fyromproceedingtomakem engineeringassessment,nyway.
13.50 HungarycriticisestheProject'aIIegedfauItyengineerinstandardssaid
tu havebeen basedon COMECONregulations. But in1989, inthe study that Hungary
cornrnissionedbyEcologia,thUS engineerwho evduatedtheengineeringaspectsofthe GM
Project for the study,Professor Hany Schwartz,was cornplirnentaas to the engineering
standardsfollowsds. In any event, Hungary'sallegationsare conclusivel disprovedby
Chapter 11of VoIumeIIIhereto, whichexaminesthe engineering ofthe Project andVariant
"Cuindetail.
13.51 In sum, HungaSs considerationof what it regards as exarnpIof the
rnaIfincticlnofg"keyelernentsofthe OriginalProjectand VariantCu is veryunconvincirig
andappears tobe intendedasa diversiunartactic (awafrum the issuesofimportanceinthis
Theincidentrnentionedwhereanunassembltd flood gatewas washedaway at the
Cunovo weir whiletheGabEikov oectionwas beingput intooperationunderVariant"C" was
not theresultof faultywwk ataU;it happenedbecause of the very unusualoccurrenceofa
majorflood duringtheconstructionof theinundationweir. Theseandtheotherdlegations
madehereby Hungaryhavealready been deaItwitb fuIIyitheSIovak~ounter-~ernorial'~ ;
and annexed in Volume III .isa detailed technical analysis of the unusual flood einnt
November 1992 that caused this asyet unassernbIedfloodgate tu be washedaway. No
97
HungarianCornter-Mernoril,ra.3.82Onceagain,Hnnw pl=& thelackoinfomtion asto
Varian1'%"due toCmhosiovakia'(and SIovakia')efuslocmperate. Sec.SIovaCkouter-
Mernosid,para5.07, sg.forarebrrtuithisincorrcenfention.
98
See,para12.58aime.
99 HungarianCounrer-Mernoria,a.3.84,S.
IW 8Iova kounler-Memoripara ..51, S.indicatioof fauliydesign,badworlvnanshipornegligenceisrevded bytheincident,andno
I
hm was causedto ~un~ary'" .
13.52 Similarly,bofhthe SIovak ~ountdi-~niorial and Volume IIi hereto
I
respund infulltuHungary'scontentionthata "worryingppect of designand constructionis
theincreaseinfloordiskproducd by Variari"c"'~. WhIt SIovakia'sesponsesrevedis that
Hungaryhassirnplyproduceda flood ris kfitsown byusingthewong figuresconcerningthe
1
floodmanagemeno tperationof Variant"CH.
13.53 Inits VoIrrme2, Hungary'Cs ouriter-MernoriaauItsVariant"C" in ils
handlingofice conditionon thebasithat attimesnavigationmaybe b~ocked'" .Apparently,
I
the personpreparingthecritiquwas unaware thatsevere;iceconditionsnormalIdo intempt
navigationforrelativeshort periods.The discussionoficerreleainChapter1 1of Volume
III hereto explainshow Variant "Cu operates here in an entiresatisfactq and routine
f~ishion'~.
13.54 It is regrenedthat Hungary,whohy abandoned the Projectand failed
to carry out al1the flood control sshouldconstnrctan
argumentbIamingCzechoslovakia (and it- Hungary - tu flood ris-
whenthetmih of thematter isihatafia the ofthe GabEkovosectionthrough
Vanant"Cu,the Szigetkozregionof Hungary(above is now protectedagainseven the
1,000 yearflood.
101 Vol.III,p249-250.
102 I
HungananCounter-Merno padra..85See,VoI. III, herCh.12,Sec .. & dw, Vol. II,
hereto,cornmen&and2to"Scienli€valuaii ppn'2-331
'"
HungariaCounter-Mernori,ol2,pp34-35.
IW
VoliiI, hereto250-257.CEIAPTER XN. THE REMEDLAL POSITION
4.01 The HungarianCounter-Memurial begins its discussi on "The
RemediaIIssues"inChapter7by assertiethat theParti e seagreedthat, in thisfirstphofe
the case,the Couriisconfinedtudealiig with '"thesubstantivequesti...in ArticI2(1)of
the SpecialAgreement, Ieavinconsequentidissues ..for a possiblesubsequentphase ..'.
That is tme iasmuch as, iSlovakialview,theCourt shouldinthisfirstphaseconfineitself
to issueof IiabiIiand postponequantificatioofdamagestu a Iaterphase. The reascinwhy,
in ifs Mernorial, lovakiaattemptea provisionalquantificatiof itsIosseswas simpIy 10
enablethe Cour u see why,giventhe huge lussesanticipated,Czechoslovakia(followedby
SIovakia)had nu option but tu impIementthe 1977 TreatyProject uniraterally sufaras
possibIe.
14.02 But Hungary sees the "consequeritiissues as"includingnot rnerely
quantificationofdamagesbut aIso what itlems "the modalitieof implementationof the
judgmentuZ. Whateverthis maymean tuHungary,it sannot mean thatthe Courtmay in due
courseturn 10the modalitieaf implementinga TernporarWater Management ~e~irne~.Nor
can it mean that the Court'sjudgment on IiabiIitywilIof itselfbe without practid
ccinsequence,and that it wiIIbe fur a Iaterjudgment tu deal with the "modalitiesof
irnpIementationn
14.03 If,as SIovakiabelievesto be the case, Hungarfound tobe inbreach
of the 1977Treaty,certainconseque~cesflow hm the findinof breachas amatter oflaw.
Those consequaces are not suspendeduntil some Iater judgment shorrldspell out the
obligationof Hungary. The immediate consequenceis that the obligatofncessationofthe
1
HungariaCounter-Mernori, ara.1.0
2
-id.
3
See,above,para39,g=.unlafil ad operates furthwith. Itisthe very fint df the obligationsspelout by the
InternationaLaw Commissionin thefollowingtems:
"Articl6fCessationofwronghI conduct
A State whose condua constitutes an internatioidly mongfulsct haWig a
continuingcharacteris under the obligation tFase that conduct, without
grejudicto he responsibilf it hasdreadyincurre."
I
Wherethe obligationin breaçhis anobiigafionto dosorn'ethingobligafiondt such as
an obligationtuperfiurma treatyasin thiscase,ascuntrastedwith an obIigationnot tudo
I
something(obfinationdene pasfaire),the duty ofcessationbecornan obIigationtuceasethe
I
breachand perform the treaty. Inthe wordsoftheSpeciaRapporfeurof theI.L.C.:
l
"The Staieinjureby the violatioofan obIigationIdefairewudd thushavean
alternative. Tt mayinsist uponthe discharge t/ieobligation, namely,bya
daim ofcessationoffaiIure tu discharge(a daimIthat,without prejudiceto
reparation,iscoveredbythe'primaryrule);or it may,circurnstancesppermitting,
invoke ArticIe60 of the ViennaConvention octhe Law of Treaties for
'termùiatinhe treaty.'."
14.04 In the presencase. the option for 'Czechoslovakaftemùnatingthe
1977Treaty becauseof the material breach by Hungarjr was whoIIy irnpractical, as
dernonstratedaboveinChapter IX,and inconsequenceCzecho$ovakia ,nd now Slovakia,is
entitleto insistupon performance. ThatrightfoIIowsiy operation oflaw uponthe finding
that Hungary is in breach. It inot a matter tube postponed, perhapsfor years, untila
subsequentphaseof the case concerned with "themodalitiesof implemenration",as Hungary
irnplies.
4 I
RenorîoftheLL.C.on theWorkof ils 45rSessio(19933G.A.O.R. 48th Ses.SupplNo.IO
<A148/10p.130. l
i
PreliminarReponon StateResponsibilitybyAmgioRU Aarboak ofthî IntmtioaalLaw
Commission1988,Vol.IIPar t,p16,para44. SE~IUN 1, JudiciaIRemedies
14.05 In a rathercurious section6,Hungary castigates CzechosIovakia fur
adopting what it tems a me&ureof self-help, thatis Variarit"Ci',which itsays is of a
permanent charmer rather than a temporary measure pendingresolution of the dispute.
Coming from aPartywfrich hasauthorisedlargeexpendiîuresfor the dernolitiof thewEer
dam,with a view toensuring thatthe Naparos barragewilIneverbebuilt,the accusationis
diRcuIttu takeserioudy;but iis,inanyevent,mispIacedfor atIeasttwo reasons.
14.06 FB, Variant "C" isnot self-heIp.It is justifas the best andmost
feasibleapproximationtu the Treaty that coulbe achievedgiven Hungary'srefusalof any
couperationby ~un~a~y'. Second,Variant "Cu is reversible'for Varian"CH is simplythe
provisionaldykeand thenewdam at Cunovo. The costsof remuvalareestirnatedtu be 30%
ofthe costsof construction. ksurning DunakiIitiis built andoperated as plannedunderthe
Treaty,the @es at~unuvu could simplybe Iefi upm sucontro over the river'sfiow wouId
shifttuDunakiliti. It shouldbe cIearthat, for Slovakia,"reversibimeans a returnto the
Treafy. It is cIearthat Hungary"reversibiIitymeans a returntua stateofnature,with the
tuta1destructionof alIthe structurescompletunder the Treaty,suchas theGabCikovo step
andbarraget ,he bypasscanaland the reservoir.In Hungary'Mernoriatihe Court is askedtu
determinethat SIovakiaiobliged:
"(a) tu returnthewaters ofthe Danube totheircourse;
l
(b) tu sestore the Danube tu the situation it was in priotu the
puttingintoeffectofthe provisionaIsoIutio... .
It cannotbe supposedthat HungaryexpectsSlovakiatu removeonly thetemporaryVariant
"Cu structures,leavingintactthe structuresl~wfullybuilta-rdito the original 1977Treaty
scherne. The ecuIogicaI(notto sayecunomic)disaster of a vast, empty resemoir; an ernpty
bypasscanal;and an idle,useiesspowerstationand Iocks atGabcikovothrough whichwater
6 HungariaCorrnter-Memorida,ras.7.03-7.09.
Y
Sec.IovakMernorial, hapftrVII.
s
a Siova kounttr-MernoriAn.ne24 (ap.282).
9 HungariaMernoriap,am.11.20.nolongernowedis toohon-ifictocontaplate. So ihd tobeasaumed thatHungary mpects
l
SluvakiatudernoIli&au thesestructuresoo. Inshort,"kversibi~ityor Hungary means total
I
abandonmen tftheTreatyand the destructionofevery&ngbuiltpursuant to theTraty.
14-07 The argumentthatbecauseVariant "C" isapermanentstructureit is
-e unIawfu1is nonsensicd. The permanent or "non-reversibIefeaturesofwhat Hungary
chouses to fermVariant"Cu are preciae tlyse structureplmed under the 1977 Treaty.
1
These are the reservoirthe bypasscanal, Icickand hygroelectricpower pIant. Hungary's
argument istantamount to sayinthattheperformanc efhe Tnaty isper seunlawful.
I
SECTION 2. Res~onsibiIitYfor UnlawfuI~ondud
l
14.08 SIovakiahas no disagreementwith 'thepropositiothat "A Statewfiich
engagesin unlawfuiconductmust betaken tu haveassumed the risksand burdensof that
I
sond~ct"'~.Thisshould,in aiaterstageof these proceedings,translaintothe responsibility
of Hungaryfor a11 damageswkch arethe directand conaequences of Hungary's
unlawfulbreach ofthe 1977Treaty.
SE~T~UN~R . emedies in ReIation to the ~xa~oitation of Shared Natural
Resources i
1-
14.09 Hungazy's argumenthere" appearstuI be thatthewatersof the Danube
are "shared naturd resources"(correct);that theprincipleof permanentsovereignq uver
naturalresourcesispartofjus cogens(irelevantbecause tbatprincipiappliestonational,not
"shared"r,esources);thatthereforea State'ssovereignytover such resources isindienable
(irrelevantfor thesamereasonIx andtbat thereior% fortiori.notreatyorothw arnngemad
I
shouldbe interpretedasinvulving any such a~ienation"'(equaIIyirrelevant). The whole
I
Hungarianargumentis rnisconceivedpreciselybecause itiska agreementsçuchas the 1977
IO I
HungariaCounter-Mernoripl,ra7.1.
i
12
Thisextmordinarympooiiiowodd mean thatanyinter-&teatteafothejointaploimïa~infa
shed naturaresourcdiutiicthetearmy exampleswIuM beinvaiid.
13 HungarianCounter-Mernorpara.7.5.
lTreaty that Statesnormdly deyelop andutilise sbared naturd resources. In addition,
Hungary'sargumentsareidevant tuthe questionof rernedies.
14.IO ItisnoteworthythatHungq juststopsshort- butudy just- ofarguing
that the 1977 Treaty wainvalidasatreatyvioIatina mIeof jus cogens. Hungary suggests
that the principleof permanentçovereigaffecttheway theCours houId inte'pretthe 1977
Treaty. But infa, underthe Iaw of treatiea,plea ojus cop.ensgoesto thevalidiiof the
treatyI4not turnatterof interpretatioso if Hungaryrdly wishcs to invokejus cogensit
must beprepared tuarguethatthe 1977Treaty was invdidfiom itsinception.
SECTIO 4. The Quantificationof Losses
14.1 Both Partiesare agreed that this is amatter tobe dedt with in a
subsequentphase ofthecase. Thereare however,same observationsbyHungq which merit
commenteven at thistage.
14.12 Hungaryexpresss esrpritshet SIovakiacIairnthe constructiocosts
of Yariani"C"intheyears 1991-1992b,ut notinthepars 19891-990" .The answeris simple
enough, and even themost curçor).readingof the SlovakMernoriawl illgive iThe 1989-
1990costswere thecostsof workperformed underthe Treaty. The firsstageof Variant"C"
invorvedthe wmpletion onCzechoslovak territorofthosewurksfor whichHungaryassumed
responsibiliunder the Treaty,but faiIetocompIete. Thisfirsstagebeganonly in 1991-
99216.
14.13 Then Hungary askswhy the Treaty's cost-sharingformula was not
appliedto Variant"c" ."Ifthisisniant to impIythat Hungarywas prepared to contribute
Id &. Article5offitViennaConvention. A pIofju#Fens canaIsogotoIermiriatofa Uealy
wheretheruIefjuscozeneme& subsequentoihtreatByutHungarycannotintendihat, sinŒ
HungaryinvokeGerrerAssembIyResoIuti1803(XVIIIwhichwasmuch priortothe19Traîy.
15 HungarianCounier-Mernorp, r7.18.
l6 SIovaMkernoria,ara..28.
17 HungariaCouriter-Mernoral,r7.8. 14.18The Hungatianthesismakesa mockery ofthe nom pactasuntsemanda
whichrepresentsabasicvalueininternationsociety.Itiaa thesiofanarchy,in whichany
party,on the basiof changesin politicamoud, advances inscienceand technology,or
evolution ithelaw,cm simpIsyetasideabindingtreaty, eveatreatyofrecent urigin, not
yet fuIIirnplemented. Ifthis thesiwere tu triumph,the damage done to inter-State
reIations anithe Iawonwhichtheyare foundedwouldbt tmly catastrophic. On the basisofthe evidenceand Iegalargumentspresented in the
SIovakMemurial, Counter-Mernorialand in ttiisReply>andresekg the ri& tu
supplementor amenditsdaims inthe Iightoffurther pleadingsthe Slovak Republic
Requeststhe Court tu adiudneand declare:
1. That the Treatybetween Hungaryand CzechusIovakia of I6 Septernber 1977
concerning the construction and operation of the WCfkovo-Nagqmarus
SysrernofLocks, and relatedinstrumen atds,o whichthe SlrivakRepubIic is
rheacknowledged successor,iaatreatyin forceand hasbeenso hm the date
of itsconclusion;and that the notificationof temination by the Republic of
Hungary on 19 May 1992 waswithout legaIeffect.
2. Thatthe RepubIicof Hungarywaa not entitled tu suspena dnd subsequently
abandon the works on the NagymarosPruject and on that part of the
GabcikovoProject for which the 1977 Treaty attributed responsibiIitytu the
RepubIicof Hungary.
3. ThattheactofproceedingwithandputtingintooperatiunVariant"C",the
"provisionalsolutionwas Iawful.
4. That the RepubIicof Hungarymust therefureceaseforthwithal1cunduct which
irnpedesthe fulIand bonafideirnplernentationofthe 1977 Treaty and must
take alnecessary stepstu fuIfilits own obIigationsunder the Treaty without
furtherdelayinorderta restore cornpliancewiththe Treaty.
5. That, in consequeme of its breachesofthe 1977 Treaty, the RepubIic of
Hungaryis iiabIetu pay, and the SIovakRepubIicis entitled tu receive,full
compensati fonthe Iossand damagecausedtu the SIovakRepublicbythose
breaches,pbs interest and Ioss of profis,the amounts tu be determinaiby
theCourtin a subsequentphase ofthe proceedingsinthiscase.
(Signed).........................
PeterTomka
Agent ofthe SIovakRepubIic LISTOFAMYEXES
1. Agreementbeiween theGovernment oftheSIova kepublicand
Governmen tftheRepubIicofHtmgary concemingCertainTemporary
Technicd Measures andDischarges intheDanube and MosoniBranch
of theDanube, 19April1995................................................-1.......
..............
W Verhale of theMinistryofForeignAfiCai rfthe Republicof
Hungary to theEmbassy ofthe SIovakRepublic,19ApriI 1995..................15...........
DecIarationby theGovenunent ofthe RepublicofHungary, 19 April1995........16....
Letterfrom Dr.Peter Tomka,Agent oftheSlova Rkepublito
Mr.Eduardo Vaiencia-OspinaR, egistm,Internationl ourt
ofJustice,19April1995 ...................................................1
.....................
&& Y&& of theMinistryofForeignAffairsofthe
Slovak RepublictotheEmbassy oftheRepublic of
Rungary ,3 May I995............... ...........-...---...................8.................
Letterfrom the Ambassadorsofthe Republicof Hungaryand the
SlovakRepublic tothe DirectoGenera orExterna1PoliticaIRelations,
Commissionof theEuropean Comtnunities,5May 1995.................................
&te VerbaigoftheMinistry ofForeignAffairsof the
SIova RepubIictothe Embassyof theRepublicof
Rungruy, 5 May 1995....................................................
22......................
&te Verb& of theEmbassyof theRepublicof Hungary
to theMinise ofForeignAffairsof theSlovakRepublic,
8 May 1995.....................................-.--.-..........
......2...........................
Statuteonthe activitiestheNominatedMonitoring Agents envisagedinthe
Agreementdated 19ApriI 1995,29 May 1995................................2............
2. EIA NewsIetter8, Winter1993 (Excerpts..................................................
3. FederalCornittee furEnvironment:Technical -EconomicStudy
onRemovdoftheWaterWorkGaMikovowiththeTechniqueof
ReclaimingtheTerrain,JuIy1992 .........................................-35.......
.................... 4. e- oftheDiscussions of theCO-~haixkn ef
the CE=&-Hungarian Cornmitteefor ECUIIO~~Cand
i
Scientific-Technid Cooperation, 19August1985I .............................6..............
1
5. Hungarian Brochure "EnviionmentaiandRiver D-", 1988.............................
i I
6. EnglishtranslationofHungarianpress report,4 May1989 .......................7.......
7. Updated Iistof recentlycompIetedsewageQeatment pIantsonthe
Slovakside ofthe jointSlovak-Hungaria~ nanube~ection(including
tributariesfthe Danube} ...................................................O1.....
.................
8. PHAREProject No. PHAEEC/WAT/I, DanubianLowland -
GroundWaterModel,Intenm Report,Vol.1 ,January 1995.....................0....
1
9. ExtractfromProtocoI of the29thSessionof theMixedCommission,for
ApplicationoftheConvention concemingfishinginthe watersof the Danube,
meetingof 3-10ApriI1989 ......,,...................................................
IO. Extractfrom Protoc01of the30thSessionofthe~ixed Commission,
forApplication oftheConvention concehg fishidginthewatersof
the Danube, meetingof 2-6ApriI 1991......................................1..9......
11. Cornparino riOlder and PresentViewson the~eobo~ical-Tectonic
Settingofthe Danub easininrelationtothe SeismologicdSituationof
the WaterWorkGaMikuvoP , rofM. Mahel,October 1994 (Annex26
I
to SlovakianCounter-Mernoriar l,ferencelis........................................
12. Certificatioof Documentation,Dr.PeterTomka, Agent ofthe Slovak
Republi c................................................................2.,...
Reply submitted by the Slovak Republic