INTERNATIONAL COURT OF WSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel: +31 (0)70 302 23 23. Cables: Intercourt,
The Hague. Fax: +31 (0)70 364 99 28. Telex: 32323. E-mail address:
[email protected]. Internet address: http://www.icj-cij.org.
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2006/28
13 July 2006
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay
(Argentina v. Uruguay)
The Court finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to it,
are not such as to reguire the exercise of its power
to indicate provisional measures
THE HAGUE, 13 July 2006. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial
organ of the United Nations, today gave its decision on the request for the indication of provisional
measures submitted by Argentina in the case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay
(Argentina v. Uruguay).
In its Order, the Court finds, by 14 votes to 1, that "the circumstances, as they now present
themselves to the Court, are not such asto require the exercise of its power under Article 41 of the
Statute to indicate provisional measures".
History of the proceedings
On 4 May 2006, Argentina filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting
proceedings against Uruguay concerning alleged violations by Uruguay of obligations incumbent
upon it under the Statute of the River Uruguay, a treaty signed by the two States on
26 February 1975 (hereinafter "the 1975 Statute") with a view to establishing the joint machinery
necessary for the optimum and rational utilization of that part of the river which constitutes their
joint boundary.
In its Application Argentina charges Uruguay with having unilaterally authorized the
construction of two pulp mills on the River Uruguay without complying with the obligatory prior
notification and consultation procedure. Argentina maintains that these mills jeopardize
conservation of the environment of the river and areas affected by it.
To found the jurisdiction of the Court, Argentina cites Article 60, paragraph 1, of the
1975 Statute, which provides that any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the
Statute which cannat be settled by direct negotiations may be submitted by either Party to the
Court.
Argentina's Application was accompanied by a request for the indication of provisional
measures requiring Uruguay, first, to suspend the authorizations for the construction of the mills
and hait building work on them pending a final decision by the Court and, second, to co-operate
with Argentina to protect and preserve the aquatic environment of the River Uruguay, to refrain
from taking any further unilateral action with respect to constructionhe two mills which does
not comply with the 1975 Statute and to refrain as weil from any other action which might
aggravate the dispute or render its seUlement more difficult. -2-
Public hearings were held on 8 and 9 June 2006, at which Argentina reiterated its request.
Uruguay asked the Court to reject Argentina's request, arguing that the requisite conditions for the
indication of provisional measures had not been satisfied.
Reasoning of the Court
After establishing its prima facie jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, the Court notes that the
power to indicate provisional measures has as its abject to permit the Court to preserve the
respective rights of the parties to a case pending the final decision in the judicial proceedings,
provided such measures are necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the rights that are in
dispute. It adds that this power is to be exercised only if there is urgency.
In respect of the first branch of Argentina's request (suspension of the authorizations to build
the mills and of the construction work itself), the Court considers the rights of a procedural nature
invoked by the Applicant. The Court indicates that it will leave to the merits the question of
whether Uruguay may have failed to adhere fully to the provisions of Chapter II of the 1975 Statute
(dealing with the obligatory prior notification and consultation procedure) when it authorized
construction of the mills. It states that it "is not at present convinced that, if it should later be
shown that Uruguay had failed, prior to the present proceedings or at sorne later stage, fully to
adhere to these provisions, any such violations would not be capable of being remedied at the
merits stage of the proceedings".
The Court then turns to the rights of a substantive nature invoked by Argentina. It explains
that it recognizes the concerns expressed by Argentina for the need to protect its natural
environment and, in particular, the quality of the water of the River Uruguay. The Court cites
earlier decisions in which it stressed the great significance it attaches to respect for the
environment.
The Court observes however that there is "nothing in the record to demonstrate that the very
decision by Uruguay to authorize the construction of the mills poses an imminent threat of
irreparable damage to the aquatic environment of the River Uruguay orto the economie and social
interests ofthe riparian inhabitants on the Argentine side ofthe river".
As for the construction work itself, the Court states that Argentina has not persuaded it that
the work presents irreparable damage to the environment or that the mere suspension of the work,
pending final judgment, would be capable of reversing or repairing the economie and social
consequences attributed by Argentina to it.
Finally, in respect of the commissioning of the mills, the Court points out that Argentina has
not provided evidence at present that suggests that any resulting pollution would be of a character
to cause irreparable damage to the river. In any event, the Court adds, the threat of any such
pollution is not imminent as the mills are not expected to be operational before August 2007 in one
case and June 2008 in the other.
In conclusion, the Court finds that the circumstances are not such as to require it to order
Uruguay to suspend the authorization to construct the pulp mills or to suspend the actual
construction work. The Court nevertheless makes clear that, by proceeding with the work,
Uruguay "necessarily bears ali risks relating to any finding on the merits that the Court might later
make" and that the construction of the mills at the current site cannat be deemed to create a
fait accompli.
The Court then turns to the second branch of Argentina's request (an order requmng
Uruguay to co-operate in good faith with Argentina and to ensure that the dispute is not
aggravated). The Court draws attention to "the importance of the need to ensure environmental
protection of shared natural resources while allowing for sustainable economie development". - 3 -
Stressing that the establishment of the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay
("CARU", in its Spanish acronym) is "of significance" in the régime for the management and
protection of the shared river resource, the Court reminds the Parties that they "are required to fulfil
their obligations under international law" and that they must "implement in good faith the
consultation and co-operation procedures provided for by the 1975 Statute, with CARU
constituting the envisaged forum in this regard". It "encourages both Parties to refrain from any
actions which might render more difficult the resolution" of the dispute. But, as Uruguay, speaking
through its Agent at the conclusion of the hearings, reiterated its "intention to comply in full with
the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay" and, as proof of that intention, offered to "conduct ...
continuons joint monitoring" with Argentina, the Court does not consider that there are grounds for
it to indicate the remaining provisional measures requested by Argentina.
The Court concludes by noting that its decision in no way prejudges the question of its
jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the
Application or to the merits themselves. The decision also leaves unaffected Argentina' s right to
submit a fresh request for the indicationf provisional measures based on new facts.
Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh;
Judges Ranjeva, Koroma, Parra-Aranguren, Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Abraham, Keith,
Sepulveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judges ad hoc Torres Bermirdez, Vinuesa;
Registrar Couvreur.
Judge Ranjeva has appended a declaration to the Order. Judges Abraham and Bennouna
have appended separate opinions to the Order. Judge ad hoc Vinuesa has appended a dissenting
opinion to the Order.
A summary of the Order appears in the document "Summary No. 2006/2", to which
summaries of the declaration and of the opinions are annexed. In addition, the present press
release, the summary of the Order and the full text of the Order can be found on the Court's
website (www.icj-cij.org).
Information Department:
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Head of Department (+ 31 70 302 23 36)
Messrs. Boris Heim and Maxime Schouppe, Information Officers ( + 31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: information @icj-cij.org
- The Court finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to it, are not such as to require the exercise of its power to indicate provisional measures
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) - The Court finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to it, are not such as to require the exercise of its power to indicate provisional measures