Public sitting held on Monday 24 March 1997, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Schwebel presiding

97/7R

International Court Cour internationale

of Justice de Justice

THE HAGUE LA HAYE

YEAR 1997

Public sitting

held on Monday 24 March 1997, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,

President Schwebel presiding

in the case concerning Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project

(Hungary/Slovakia)

_______________

VERBATIM RECORD
_______________

ANNEE 1997

Audience publique

tenue le lundi 24 mars 1997, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,

sous la présidence de M. Schwebel, Président

en l'affaire relative au Projet Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros

(Hongrie/Slovaquie)

____________

COMPTE RENDU
____________ -2-

Present: Presidhentbel
Vice-PWeeeramantry
Oda Judges

Bedjaoui
Guillaume
Ranjeva
Herczegh

Shi
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Vereshchetin
Parra-Aranguren

Kooijmans
Rezek

Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski

ValRegiastrarina -3-

Présents : M. Schwebel, Président
WeerVice-Pryésident
Oda MM.

Bedjaoui
Guillaume
Ranjeva
Herczegh

Shi
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Vereshchetin
Parra-Aranguren,

Kooijmans
jugeszek,

Skubijugewski, ad hoc

ValenMciGresffier, -4-

The Republic of Hungary is represented by:

H.E. Mr. György Szénási, Ambassador, Head of the International Law

Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

as Agent and Counsel;

H.E. Mr. Dénes Tomaj, Ambassador of the Republic of Hungary to the
Netherlands,

as-Agent;

Mr. James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law,
University of Cambridge,

Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas
(Paris II) and Director of the Institut des hautes études

internationales of Paris,

Mr. Alexandre Kiss, Director of Research, Centre National de la
recherche Scientifique (ret.),

Mr. László Valki, Professor of International Law, Eötvös Lorand
University, Budapest,

Mr. Boldizsár Nagy, Associate Professor of International Law,

Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest,

Mr. Philippe Sands, Reader in International Law, University of
London, School of Oriental and African Studies, and Global
Professor of Law, New York University,

Ms Katherine Gorove, consulting Attorney,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Dr. Howard Wheater, Professor of Hydrology, Imperial College,
London,

Dr. Gábor Vida, Professor of Biology, Eötvös Loránd University,

Budapest, Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,

Dr. Roland Carbiener, Professor emeritus of the University of
Strasbourg,

Dr. Klaus Kern, consulting Engineer, Karlsruhe,

asvocates;

Mr. Edward Helgeson,

Mr. Stuart Oldham,

asvisers; -5-

La République de Hongrie est représentée par :

S. Exc. M. György Szénási, ambassadeur, directeur du département du

droit international au ministère des affaires étrangères,

comme agent et conseil;

S. Exc. M. Dénes Tomaj, ambassadeur de la République de Hongrie aux
Pays-Bas,

commeagent ;

M. James R. Crawford, professeur de droit international, titulaire
de la chaire Whewell à l'Université de Cambridge,

M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur à l'Université Panthéon-Assas
(Paris II) et directeur de l'Institut des hautes études

internationales de Paris,

M. Alexandre Kiss, directeur de recherches au Centre national de la
recherche scientifique (en retraite),

M. Lászlo Valki, professeur de droit international à l'Université
Eötvös Lorand de Budapest,

M. Boldizsár Nagy, professeur associé de droit international à

l'Université Eötvös Lorand de Budapest,

M. Philippe Sands, chargé de cours en droit international à
l'Université de Londres, School of Oriental and African Studies,
et Global Professor of Law à l'Université de New York,

Mme Katherine Gorove, juriste-conseil,

comme conseils et avocats;

M. Howard Wheater, professeur d'hydrologie à l'Imperial College de
Londres,

M. Gábor Vida, professeur de biologie à l'Université Eötvös Lorand

de Budapest, membre de l'Académie des sciences de Hongrie,

M. Roland Carbiener, professeur émérite de l'Université de
Strasbourg,

M. Klaus Kern, ingénieur-conseil à Karlsruhe,

comameocats ;

M. Edward Helgeson,

M. Stuart Oldham,

commenseillers ; -6-

Dr. György Kovács,

Mr. Timothy Walsh,

Mr. Zoltán Kovács,

as Technical Advisers;

Dr. Attila Nyikos,

assistant;

Mr. Axel Gosseries, LL.M.,

asanslator;

Ms Éva Kocsis,

Ms Katinka Tompa,

ascretaries.

The Republic of Slovakia is represented by:

H.E. Dr. Peter Tomka, Ambassador, Legal Adviser of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs,

asent;

Dr. Václav Mikulka, Member of the International Law Commission,

as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;

Mr. Derek W. Bowett, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., Emeritus Whewell
Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge,

Former Member of the International Law Commission,

asunsel;

Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of International Law at the

University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento,
United States of America, Former Member of the International Law
Commission,

Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X — Nanterre
and at the Institute of Political Studies, Paris, Member of the
International Law Commission,

Mr. W. Walter D. Sohier, Member of the Bar of the State of New York

and of the District of Colombia,

Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister, Member of the Bar of
England and Wales, -7-

M. György Kovács,

M. Timothy Walsh,

M. Zoltán Kovács,

comme conseillers techniques;

M. Attila Nyikos,

commesistant ;

M. Axel Gosseries, LL.M.,

commeaducteurs;

Mme Éva Kocsis,

Mme Katinka Tompa,

commecrétaires .

La République slovaque est representée par :

S. Exc. M. Peter Tomka, ambassadeur, conseiller juridique du

ministère des affaires étrangères,

commeent ;

M. Václav Mikulka, membre de la Commission du droit international,

comme coagent, conseil et avocat;

M. Derek W. Bowett, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., professeur émérite, ancien

titulaire de la chaire Whewell à l'Université de Cambridge, ancien
membre de la Commission du droit international,

commenseil ;

M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur de droit international à la
faculté de droit McGeorge de l'Université du Pacifique, Sacramento
(Etats-Unis d'Amérique), ancien membre de la Commission du droit
international,

M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l'Université de Paris X-Nanterre et à
l'Institut d'études politiques de Paris, membre de la Commission du

M. Walter D. Sohier, membre des barreaux de l'Etat de New York et du

district de Columbia,

Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., avocat au barreau d'Angleterre et
du pays de Galles, -8-

Mr. Samuel S. Wordsworth, avocat à la Cour au barreau de Paris,
Solicitor England and Wales, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. Igor Mucha, Professor of Hydrogeology and Former Head of the
Groundwater Department at the Faculty of Natural Sciences of

Comenius University in Bratislava,

Mr. Karra Venkateswara Rao, Director of Water Resources Engineering,

Department of Civil Engineering, City University, London,

Mr. Jens Christian Refsgaard, Head of Research and Development,
Danish Hydraulic Institute,

as Counsel and Experts;

Dr. Cecília Kandrá_ová, Director of Department, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,

Mr. Lud_k Krajhanzl, Attorney at Law, Vyroubal Krajhanzl Skácel and
Partners Law Firm, Prague,

Mr. Miroslav Liška, Head of the Division for Public Relations and
Expertise, Water Resources Development State Enterprise,

Bratislava,

Dr. Peter Vršanský, Minister-Counsellor, chargé d'affaires a.i. of
the Embassy of the Slovak Republic, The Hague,

asunsellors;

Ms Anouche Beaudouin, allocataire de recherche at the University
of Paris X — Nanterre,

Ms Cheryl Dunn, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,

Ms Nikoleta Glindová, attachée, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Mr. Drahoslav Štefánek, attaché, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

as Legal Assistants. -9-

M. Samuel S. Wordsworth, avocat à la Cour, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Solicitor auprès de la Cour suprême d'Angleterre et du pays de
Galles,

comme conseils et avocats;

M. Igor Mucha, professeur d'hydrogéologie et ancien directeur du

département des eaux souterraines à la faculté des sciences
naturelles de l'Université Comenius de Bratislava,

M. Karra Venkateswara Rao, directeur du Génie, section des
ressources hydrologiques, département du Génie civil, Université

de la ville de Londres,

M. Jens Christian Refsgaard, directeur de la recherche et du
développement à l'Institut danois d'hydraulique,

comme conseils et experts;

Mme Cecília Kandrá_ová, directeur de département, ministère des
affaires étrangères,

M. Lud_k Krajhanzl, avocat, membre du cabinet Vyroubal Krajhanzl
Skácel et associés, Prague,

M. Miroslav Liška, directeur de la division des relations publiques

et de l'expertise, entreprise d'Etat pour le développement des
ressources hydrauliques, Bratislava,

M. Peter Vršanský, ministre-conseiller, chargé d'affaires a.i. à
l'ambassade de la République slovaque, La Haye,

commenseillers ;

Mlle Anouche Beaudouin, allocataire de recherche à l'Université de

Paris X-Nanterre,

Mme Cheryl Dunn, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,

Mme Nikoleta Glindová, attachée, ministère des affaires étrangères,

M. Drahoslav Štefánek, attaché, ministère des affaires étrangères,

comme assistants juridiques. - 10 -

The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Good morning. We now turn to the

oral presentation of the Slovak Republic and I call on the distinguished

agent of the Slovak Republic, Dr. Peter Tomka.

Mr. TOMKA: Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President, Members of the

Court, it is always a great honour for a lawyer to appear before you. I

feel highly privileged to act as Slovakia's Agent in this case, brought

before the World Court jointly by two Danubian States, Slovakia and

Hungary. I am happy to join the distinguished Agent of Hungary in noting

that this is the first case submitted to the Court on the basis of a

Special Agreement concluded between two countries belonging to the

regional group of Eastern European States in the United Nations, for whom

this Court is the principal judicial organ.

The fact that Slovakia pleads second does not imply in any way that

it is the defendant in this case. Since the Court has been seised of the

case by the joint notification of a compromis, there can be neither

claimant nor defendant.

In opening Slovakia's presentation, I should like to highlight

certain of the main elements of this case — as Slovakia sees it — in

contrast to the case Hungary has presented.

The Importance of the case

I turn first to the importance of this case. The Court will soon

have a good look at the Gab_íkovo/Nagymaros Project during the site

visit. From the sheer extent and scope of the Project, its importance to

both Parties in this region of the Danube is self-evident. Not simply in

terms of its cost to Czechoslovakia and to Slovakia — an investment of

some 2.5 billion U.S. dollars. Not simply in the time and resources

expended by both Czechoslovakia and Hungary — decades of intensive work

and study by top scientists, engineers, environmentalists, hydrologists, - 11 -

economists, builders and planners, which started 25 years prior to the

1977 Treaty, and continued during the 20 years that have elapsed since

the Treaty was entered into. But, most important of all, in the promise

the scheme held for the people of the region: the promise of protection

from flooding, of clean energy, of better navigation, of benefits to

agriculture, and of dealing with the problem of water pollution.

When this dispute arose in early 1989, about 90 per cent of the work

on the Gab_íkovo section of the Project had already been completed under

the 1977 Treaty. The site had already been cleared in preparation for

the damming of the Danube and the filling of the reservoir and the bypass

canal, scheduled to start in late 1989. The basic structures for the

Gab_íkovo section were finished or nearing completion, and significant

amounts of money had already been expended for the Nagymaros section.

This was far from a "very partially implemented" Project, as Hungary

described it here to the Court (CR 97/2, p. 92).

In May 1989 — just three months after the Parties had agreed to

speed up the Project's schedule by 15 months at Hungary's urging —

Hungary suddenly stopped work on Nagymaros. In July, despite formal

assurances to the contrary, Hungary extended its stoppage to Gab_íkovo.

It then proceeded to abandon Nagymaros in October, and by mid-1990 it had

totally abandoned the Project. Every one of these acts was taken

unilaterally by Hungary — and they were a surprise and rude shock to

Czechoslovakia.

In its pleadings, Hungary asks the Court to find that Slovakia is

under the obligation to restore this section of the Danube to the

situation as it existed prior to putting into operation the Gab_íkovo

section of the Project. In other words, to abandon entirely these works

and to render useless this huge investment. This would mean emptying the

_unovo reservoir and the bypass canal, and leaving the Gab_íkovo and - 12 -

_unovo sites as unused masses of concrete and equipment — a long ugly

scar on the landscape of Slovakia. The Court may get a good idea of what

this would mean from the photographs appearing as Nos. 2 and 3 in the

Judge's Folder, which show the Gab_íkovo section around the time when

Hungary took its first step toward the Project's abandonment. There was

hardly the option to return this area to a "cow pasture", as Counsel for

Hungary suggested (CR 97/4, p. 27).

If the Court were to grant Hungary's request, an unthinkable loss of

resources would result for a country with a population of only slightly

over 5 million people. It would render useless a functioning

hydroelectric plant that furnishes some 10 per cent of the electrical

power needs of Slovakia — a clean source of electrical power that

Slovakia today requires. It would undo the solution agreed in the 1977

Treaty for resolving the serious flood control problems in this sector of

the Danube following the devastating floods in 1954 and 1965.

And the serious navigational bottlenecks that existed in this sector

of the Danube, which have been remedied in part by the bypass canal (and

were to have been solved downstream in the Nagymaros section), would

reappear. The navigational improvements under the G/N Project must be

viewed in conjunction with the plans of other European States — the

Netherlands, Germany, France and Austria (upstream of the Project); and

Croatia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Ukraine (downstream), not to

speak of Hungary itself. For this sector of the Danube forms part of the

great international waterway across Europe from the North Sea to the

Black Sea (as shown by the map at No. 12 in the Judge's Folder). This

expanded waterway became a reality after the completion of Germany's huge

investment in the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal in 1992 — a vast engineering

undertaking lasting 30 years and costing Germany some 4 billion DM. - 13 -

This gives the Court some idea of the importance of this case — to

Slovakia, to this region of the Danube and to the other European States

upstream and downstream of the G/N Project.

In this regard, Mr. President, has the Court heard — or even read —

one good word about this Project from the Hungarian side? Slovakia is

still waiting for just one favourable comment. I think the Court may

well be surprised when it actually sees the Project after all this

adverse talk. Perhaps this is why Hungary was initially not so

enthusiastic about the idea of a site visit.

And the Court will recall that Hungary insisted the other day that

the status quo in the Gab_íkovo section of the Project is "simply not

sustainable" — either in terms of future friendly relations between

Slovakia and Hungary or in terms of the environment (CR 97/2, p. 97).

Hungary took the view that the 1977 Treaty cannot be forced on it because

valid concerns about vital interests of Hungary have emerged that could

not be resolved to Hungary's satisfaction by mutually agreed amendments

to the 1977 Treaty (CR 97/2, p. 93). In so saying, Hungary has, indeed,

put its finger on what this case is about on the legal plane — that this

is a treaty case. It primarily concerns Hungary's failure to carry out

its obligations under the 1977 Treaty.

The nature of the case

Hungary argues that the 1977 Treaty was a terrible mistake —

supposedly an ill-prepared, ill-conceived piece of socialist megalomania.

Mr. President, that is nonsense. Well before the advent of COMECON,

schemes were being considered for improving this stretch of the Danube.

Hundreds of careful background studies had been made prior to 1977. And

this is not a Project resulting from "pressure" from the Soviet Union, as

Hungary claims. To the contrary, it was Hungary who took the initiative - 14 -

of requesting assistance from the Soviet Union. The pressure was exerted

in the other direction; and the Soviet Union ultimately promised — in

November 1977 — to provide technical know-how and to deliver six turbine

units for the Nagymaros hydropower plant that Hungary abandoned in the

early stages of its construction.

But setting all this aside, the Court will note that Hungary does

not deny the validity of the 1977 Treaty. Hungary seeks to justify its

abandonment of the Project under what it considers to be a valid treaty —

just as it seeks to justify its subsequent purported termination of an

admittedly valid treaty.

It is undeniable that Hungary's conduct, to which the questions in

Article 2 of the Special Agreement are addressed, was fundamentally

incompatible with its obligations under the Treaty. However, Hungary's

written pleadings sought to justify this prima facie breach primarily by

an argument of "ecological necessity". Now, during its first-round oral

presentation, Hungary has considerably broadened its defence to include

the supposed failure to be able to demonstrate the overall viability of

the Project at the time of Hungary's breaches in 1989 and at the time of

its attempt to terminate the Treaty in May 1992. Slovakia's counsel will

address these arguments and demonstrate that they are unfounded.

In this regard, in its Reply (HR, para. 1.08) and several times

during its oral presentation (CR 97/3, p. 74; CR 97/6, p. 10), Hungary

has stated that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development had

evaluated the G/N Project and found it to be of "dubious economic value".

It even claimed that the World Bank expressed a similar view (CR 97/6,

p. 10). But neither one of these banking institutions was ever asked for

financial assistance or ever studied the Project. The letters from them,

dated May 1992, placed in evidence by Hungary, were responses to

inquiries from environmental groups, in order to bolster Hungary's - 15 -

arguments for terminating the 1977 Treaty. The Court may be interested

to know that in connection with the second phase of Variant C, the

J. P. Morgan Bank in 1995 and 1996 assembled a group of banks to provide

the financial assistance which was requested by Slovakia at the time.

Evidently, those banks arrived at a favourable evaluation of the Project.

Mr. President, the 1977 Treaty was not a rigid instrument under

which no change could be contemplated. The 1977 Treaty and the

international agreements linked to it were highly flexible. That is why

the Treaty itself only established the Project's general lines and

objectives, to be carried out under a Joint Contractual Plan, which the

Treaty parties had the power to modify by agreement and which underwent

many modifications. That is why there were continuing studies of

problems emerging during construction, which led to modifications

related, inter alia, to the environment and water quality.

Before 1989, where one party identified a problem and disclosed the

evidence for its concern, the two parties jointly worked out an agreed

solution. This they did frequently, and appropriate changes were made in

the Treaty, in its related agreements and in the Joint Contractual Plan.

But starting in May 1989, Hungary's approach changed radically. It

assumed it could dictate its demands.

In effect, Hungary now takes the position that such treaties as the

one in question can be ignored. According to Hungary, even where a

formal, binding treaty exists, one party is free at any time to demand a

revision of the treaty, or even to change its mind completely and demand

that the treaty be terminated.

But, Mr. President, the law of treaties does not sanction such a

one-sided approach. Otherwise, the original Treaty would be scarcely

worth the paper it was written on. And the object and purpose of the

1977 Treaty was not to build a monument to socialist integration. It was - 16 -

to construct and operate the G/N Project in order to provide electricity,

flood control and improved navigation.

Mr. President, from the very start, Czechoslovakia has maintained

its interest in the fulfilment of its treaty obligations with Hungary in

order to achieve the object and purpose of the 1977 Treaty — that is in

the joint construction and the joint operation of the G/N Project. But

what was Czechoslovakia's option when Hungary abandoned the Project and

de facto repudiated the Treaty ?

The abandonment of the Project — when about 90 per cent of the

construction in the Gab_íkovo section had been completed — was clearly

out of the question. So, after careful consideration — and after Hungary

had repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to resume the Project —

Czechoslovakia decided to complete the Gab_íkovo section of the Project

and to put it into operation under Variant C. Later on, Slovakia's

counsel will go into the legal justification for Czechoslovakia's taking

this action.

But at this stage I feel it necessary to comment on Hungary's

accusation in its written pleadings, and during its oral arguments, that

Variant C was the culmination of Czechoslovakia's long-time attempts to

gain greater access to the right bank of the Danube; that Variant C was

the achievement of Czechoslovakia's aspirations, going back as far as the

1920s, to secure unilateral control over the hydroelectric potential of

this common stretch of the Danube (HR, paras. 2.04-2.17; CR 97/2, p. 30;

CR 97/4, pp. 74-75). It is too bad that Hungary has felt obliged to

introduce into this case such a false and discordant political element.

I must reject on behalf of Slovakia, here and now, the false

accusation in Hungary's Reply that Variant C stemmed from such "long-

standing Czechoslovakia's designs". There is no basis whatsoever for

such a statement; historically the facts and evidence show the exact - 17 -

opposite (SM, para. 18). And I must also reject Hungary's attempt to

characterize the cession of territory to Czechoslovakia under the Paris

Peace Treaty as an annexation (CR 97/2, p. 30).

And it is evident that, on their face, had any such aspirations

existed, they would have made no sense. Two of the prime objectives of

the 1977 Treaty were flood control and the improvement of international

navigation. These could only have been achieved through a joint action

by the two States sharing this common stretch. The agreed plan for the

Gab_íkovo-Nagymaros Project to produce peak power electricity at

Gab_íkovo required the existence of the Nagymaros weir, which was located

on Hungarian territory. Under the Treaty Project, the parties chose

Dunakiliti as the place to dam the Danube, an installation located on

Hungarian territory and, hence, subject to Hungary's control as a

technical matter — hardly a choice revealing the supposed secret designs

of Czechoslovakia. It was, in fact, a choice that made it possible for

Hungary unilaterally to stop the Gab_íkovo section from proceeding.

Later in these proceedings, Slovakia will demonstrate how clearly

the evidence shows that, until almost the last minute before damming,

Czechoslovakia tried over and over again to get Hungary to agree to

resume performance of the Gab_íkovo section on a joint basis; how

Czechoslovakia attempted over and over again during 1991 and 1992 to

resume the negotiations that were broken off by Hungary in early 1990 in

order to find a way to resume the joint performance of the Project.

A joint operation was of the very essence of the Project under the

1977 Treaty. It is no longer being jointly operated simply because of

Hungary's abandonment.

So this is what the case is about. It is about the legality of the

conduct of the two Treaty parties under the 1977 Treaty in the light of

the law of treaties and other rules of international law. This is clearly - 18 -

reflected in the questions put to the Court in the Special Agreement —

which brings me to the next matter I should like to take up: the task of

the Court.

Task of the Court

- The Questions Put to the Court in Article 2 of the Special

Agreement

The task which the Special Agreement requests the Court to perform

is set out in Article 2, whose text appears as No. 4 in the Judge's

Folder. Paragraph 1 of Article 2 asks the Court to decide three sets of

questions, which appear in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c). Subparagraph

(a) concerns Hungary's conduct. First, was Hungary entitled to suspend

and subsequently abandon, in 1989, the works at Nagymaros? Second, was

it entitled, in 1989, to suspend and subsequently abandon the works on

the Gab_íkovo part of the Project for which it was responsible?

Subparagraph (b) concerns Czechoslovakia's conduct: was it entitled

to proceed, in November 1991, to the "provisional solution" and to put

into operation from October 1992 this system?

The final question (subparagraph (c)) concerns the legal effects of

Hungary's Notification of Termination of the 1977 Treaty on 19 May 1992.

In paragraph 2 of Article 2, the Court is also requested to

determine the legal consequences, including the rights and obligations

for the Parties, arising from its Judgment on these questions.

The law to be applied by the Court in reaching its Judgment on these

questions is set out at the beginning of Article 2. Counsel will address

this issue of the applicable law later. I shall focus here on the

importance of the specific questions put to the Court in terms of the

role of the Court. - 19 -

Folrovakia , these questions are the crux of the Special Agreement.

The Court's answers will settle the issue of Treaty breach and resulting

responsibility that lie at the heart of this dispute. For Hungary, the

Court's answers to these questions would seem to be merely of background

significance. Hungary's Reply puts it this way:
"It is necessary to answer these questions in order to

determine the legal position in respect of the continuing
dispute between Hungary and Slovakia over the Original
Project and over Variant C." (HR, para. 2; emphasis added.)

Let me mark this phrase: "the continuing dispute between Hungary

and Slovakia". What is that supposed to mean? Does Hungary suggest that

the Court's answers will decide matters as between Hungary and

Czechoslovakia, but that the dispute with Slovakia will continue?

Hungary's position reflects, of course, its thesis that Slovakia

was not successor to Czechoslovakia in respect of the 1977 Treaty.

Hence, Hungary argues, none of its breaches of the Treaty involves any

question of Hungary's responsibility to Slovakia.

On that view, what Hungary calls the "continuing dispute" between

it and Slovakia is not governed by the 1977 Treaty and, we must assume,

will not be resolved by the decision of the Court. Hungary concludes:
"[O]nce the Court comes to the conclusion that Hungary was
acting in good faith in an attempt to resolve genuine

concerns about the Project, that history [the history of
Hungary's breaches] has a somewhat limited relevance to the
case." (HR, para. 1.147.)

Hungary appears to be telling the Court here that it need hardly bother

with the questions put to it in Article 2 of the Special Agreement

concerning Hungary's conduct.

Of course, this is palpably wrong. These actions and reactions

that make up the conduct of the Treaty parties during this period, and

are referred to in Article 2, constitute the very essence of this

dispute. The Parties have put to the Court under the Special Agreement

specific questions concerning the actions of Treaty parties at or during - 20 -

identified periods of time precisely because the answers to those

questions will resolve the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia. Yes, I

repeat, Slovakia. And the questions do not become irrelevant if the

Court accepts that Hungary acted in good faith. Those questions are

specific. The dates are specific — and for good reason. They require

specific findings from the Court. Moreover, the Court's answers will

settle the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia. There will be no

continuing dispute.

It is for these reasons that Slovakia asks the Court to pay

particularly close attention to the continuing differences between the

Parties over the events and conduct of the Treaty parties during the

periods relevant to the questions under Article 2 and to the evidence

relied on by each Party. In Slovakia's view, Hungary's account of what

transpired is factually wrong in many material respects. It is evident

that Hungary's case cannot be sustained on the basis of an accurate

account of what took place between 1989 and 1992.

- Issues the Court Is Not Called Upon to Resolve

Now, Mr. President, I should like to turn to what the Court has not

been requested to do — and what this case is not about.

First , the question of a water management régime for the Danube,

which Hungary has sought to inject into the case, clearly lies outside

the scope of the case submitted to the Court by Special Agreement.

However, the Agent of Hungary in his opening statement seems to have

suggested that the Court does have a role to play in these matters (CR

97/2, p. 22). But it was never intended by the Parties that the Court

should be invited to act as experts in water management. This was

foreseen to be a technical matter for the Parties to reach agreement on

once the Court's Judgment was rendered. As Counsel for Hungary rightly

observed, "a water management system [will have to be] agreeable to both - 21 -

States in front of you" (CR 97/4, p. 43). So this is clearly a matter for

Slovakia and Hungary to agree on.

Second , the region of the Danube has been the subject of a number

of bilateral and multilateral agreements among the riparian States,

including Slovakia and Hungary. These directly concern the protection

and preservation of the environment in the Danube region and the

improvement of the quality of surface and ground water. Extensive

research projects have been undertaken, such as the recently completed

PHARE Report sponsored by the E.U., a project which Hungary, in late

1990, declined to participate in. These efforts are on the active agenda

of the States of the Danube. The G/N Project, like all the other Danube

river projects, operates alongside this framework.

Hence, the protection of the environment in this region of the

Danube is in good hands. It is being closely watched by the Danube

States in accordance with the current international standards, and the

appropriate agreed measures are being taken. It is up to these States to

make the difficult political choices that inevitably arise. And I should

like to remind the Court that flood control and waste disposal measures,

not to speak of providing a clean source of energy, concern the human

dimension of the environment, which Hungary seems to ignore.

Third , in order to render its Judgment in this case, the Court is

not called upon to master and resolve complex scientific and technical

issues. That is why the question of water management was not referred to

the Court. But since Hungary has tried to turn this case into a dispute

about environmental protection, and has sought to defend its

non-performance of the 1977 Treaty and related agreements on the basis of

so-called "state of necessity", Slovakia has had to address the

scientific arguments made by Hungary. - 22 -

The Court, Mr. President, has not been called upon to be an arbiter

of — to second guess — what Czechoslovakia and Hungary decided in the

1977 Treaty, any more than Slovakia is called upon to defend them. The

question in this case is not whether the Parties to this dispute would

make the same choices today if the Treaty did not exist. The Treaty must

be applied. That is what the Special Agreement has asked the Court to

do. Otherwise, treaty obligations and the principle of pacta sunt

servanda would be rendered meaningless.

It will not have escaped the Court's attention that the word

"environment" is entirely missing from the Special Agreement. But the

matter of the protection of the environment and water quality was not

omitted from the 1977 Treaty and its related agreements, and this

includes the human aspects of the environment such as flood control,

clean energy and dealing with the problem of waste disposal. And the

Project's possible environmental effects were given careful study and

attention both before and after 1977. That is why the questions in this

case are about the performance by Czechoslovakia and Hungary of their

Treaty obligations — and not directly about the environment.

Mr. President, the other day Counsel for Hungary drew attention to

what he called the Court's "precious opportunity" in this case since it

is, he said, the "first major environmental dispute to come to this

Court" (CR 97/2, p. 98). But this case is first and foremost a treaty

dispute. The opportunity for the Court, in Slovakia's view, is once again

to carry out its judicial duty to apply the law as dispassionately in

this case as in any other case — even though this case involves the sorts

of environmental and economic issues that sometimes become highly charged

politically and emotionally.

The environmental arguments now put forward by Hungary have an

interesting history. In 1981, when the Hungarian Government sought to - 23 -

postpone the G/N Project for entirely economic reasons, it went to its

Academy of Sciences asking for environmental arguments to strengthen the

Hungarian negotiating position. A confidential letter of Mr. Marjai, its

Deputy Prime Minister, placed in evidence by both sides, reveals that the

Academy failed miserably to come up with any convincing environmental

reasons for delaying the Project (SM, paras. 3.37-3.49; SC-M, paras.

4.21-4.33). Nevertheless, in 1983, Czechoslovakia joined in a Protocol

postponing the Project to help ease the economic troubles of Hungary,

although not for as long as Hungary had initially asked.

But then, not long afterward, Hungary was able to secure financial

loans and credit from Austria. So it switched its position and pressed

Czechoslovakia to agree to speed up the Project's schedule. This time the

protection of the environment was one of Hungary's arguments for

accelerating the construction schedule (SM, para. 3.11 and Ann. 49). A

new Protocol was entered into by the Treaty parties in February 1989

advancing the schedule by some 15 months.

Barely three months had passed after this, when, lo and behold,

Hungary started its suspensions and abandonments of the Project in breach

of the Treaty with the suspension of all work on the Nagymaros section.

What reason did Hungary give? Environmental protection. But the

evidence shows that perhaps the main factor leading Hungary to suspend

and then to abandon Nagymaros was the added cost of environmental

protection brought about by having to carry out the expensive waste

disposal measures for water quality protection required before putting

Nagymaros into operation under the accelerated schedule (SC-M, para. 4.46

; SR, paras. 7.13-7.17). In other words, Hungary put economic concerns

ahead of water quality. - 24 -

Now, during the oral proceedings, economic considerations seem to

be making a come back; Hungary has stressed the issue of the Project's

economic viability.

Mr. President, Slovakia believes the protection of the environment

to be too important a matter to be bounced around like a shuttle-cock.

Concluding Remarks

Mr. President, Members of the Court, I should like to bring my

statement to a close with these final remarks. They relate to Hungary's

unilateral actions in 1989 to suspend and abandon the G/N Project in

breach of the Treaty. Had these actions really been inspired by the fear

of risk to the environment or risk to water quality, this dispute could

readily have been settled at the time. The settlement would have allowed

Gab_íkovo to go forward on a jointly agreed (although possibly revised)

basis, while Nagymaros and peak power operation at Gab_íkovo were being

studied by joint or trilateral commissions (and while the damage claims

of Czechoslovakia were being sorted out). The facts of this dispute

clearly establish this to be so (SR, paras. 7.26-7.40, 8.05-8.21). They

demonstrate that there was plenty of time to study what to do about

Nagymaros and about peak power operation. And Hungary itself proposed in

1989 to proceed with Gab_íkovo under a guarantees agreement — a proposal

that Czechoslovakia quickly indicated it was ready to accept.

But this did not happen. Of course, this was a tumultuous period

in both countries. Both Governments had a lot of other things on their

minds. It was a time when programs and projects identified with the past

came in for intense political attack. In Hungary, the G/N Project had

become a favourite target of political opposition. Moreover, Hungary

admits that it was in the midst of severe economic difficulties. And its

requirements for additional sources of electric power had been - 25 -

substantially reduced as a result of new projects completed after the

1977 Treaty, notably the large fossil-burning plant at Dunamenti and the

four-reactor nuclear power plant south of Budapest on the Danube at Paks.

So the G/N Project seemed to Hungarian eyes to be no longer necessary.

But that gave Hungary no right to deprive Czechoslovakia of its rights

under the Treaty.

Moreover, for Hungary, it became a useful negotiating tactic — as

well as politically and legally expedient — to invoke "environmental

necessity" as its main reason for opposing proceeding with the Project.

But, of course, there remained practical difficulties that were

insurmountable. There was a Treaty standing in the way. And Hungary was

unable to produce any credible evidence of a state of necessity.

It was totally unrealistic for Hungary to have imagined at the time

that Czechoslovakia would agree to the abandonment of the Project and to

the Treaty's termination in the circumstances. It was far too late; and

the question of further postponement and even abandonment had been

carefully reviewed during the 1980s and formally and officially resolved

in favour of accelerating the Project (SR, paras. 7.06-7.16). Not to

proceed with the Project would have created tremendous environmental

hazards as a result of the incomplete and unused structures. It would

also have meant a return to a situation of serious floods and major

obstacles to navigation along this international waterway, not to mention

the problems of water pollution and the sinking water level in the

region, with its adverse environmental impacts, which would remain

unresolved. Czechoslovakia displayed the greatest flexibility in

searching for a solution to the dispute, but it could not agree to the

impossible.

Faced with daunting economic and political pr essures, Hungary unilaterally took decisions

that reflected its own failure to weigh adequatelythe impossible position in which its Treaty partner, - 26 -

Czechoslovakia, would be placed unless some so lution to proceeding with Gab_íkovo were found.

Such a solution was ready and waiting in October 1989had the real problem for Hungary been one of

environmental impact. But it wasn't. It was a political and an economic problem for which Hungary

decided that total abandonment of the Project was e only solution - a solution to which there was not

the remotest chance of reaching agreement with Czechoslovakia. And it was a solution in violation of

Hungary's Treaty obligations.

I must emphasize that the last thing Czechoslovakia wanted to happen at the time was for the

G/N Project to become a thorn in the side of thenew relationship being forged with Hungary. During

1991 and 1992, Czechoslovakia repeatedly put forward compromise proposals as a basis for the joint

resumption of the Project with environmental guarantees. And it delayed the actual damming of the

Danube under Variant C as long as itcould without the loss of a fourth year in putting Gab_íkovo into

operation. But Hungary's sole purpose was toabandon the Project and terminate the Treaty.

After four years of operation of Gab_íkovo unde r Variant C, it can be demonstrated on the

basis of actual data and monitoring that, hade Treaty parties proceeded in 1989 with the Gab_íkovo

section of the Project in accordance with Hungary'sown proposal, it would be operating successfully

today on a joint basis.

Mr. President, this brings me to the end ofmy statement. My colleague and good friend from

the Czech Republic, Slovakia's Co-Agent, Dr. Mikulka will now go into the background of the 1977

Treaty, the problems it was intended to solve, and itsscheme for doing so. I should be most obliged if

you would call on Dr. Mikulka to continue with Slovakia's presentation.

Mr. President, Members of the Court, thank you for your kind attention.

The PRESIDENT : Thank you, Dr. Tomka. I now call on Dr. Mikulka.

M. MIKULKA :

LE TRAITE DE 1977

OBJET ET CARACTÈRES GÉNÉRAUX

Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Juge s, c’est un grand honneur pour moi d’apparaître

pour la première fois devant votre Haute Juridiction.

Introd. uction - 27 -

La Hongrie a donné une image extrêmement confus e du projet prévu par le traité de1977.

Dans ses écritures, elle le dépeint comme le gaspillageà grande échelle de ressources rares, conçu à la

seule fin de répondre aux objectifs idéologiques des régimes communistes tchécoslovaque et

hongrois, aux intérêts de l'Union soviétique et du COMECON. Un «dinosaure» appartenant à «une

ère ancienne», qui n'aurait jamais été viable sur le plan économique (HM, par. 16; HC-M,

par.7.38-7.39; HR, par. 3.82-3.86). Pendant sa première présentation orale, la Hongrie a repris sans

cesse ce thème.

La Hongrie affirme que le projet a été mal conçu dès le départ, sans tenir compte des

nécessités de la protection de l’environnement. D onc, dit-elle en substance, elle ne peut être

responsable de la violation de se s obligations au titre d'un traité qui heurtait le sens commun. La

Hongrie essaie, de cette manière, de détourner l'attention de la suspension et de l'abandon du projet, en

rupture de ses obligations au titre du traité, pour la polariser sur ce qu’elle déclare être les dangers

environnementaux du projet.

L’équipe de plaidoirie de la Slovaquie mont rera plus tard que le s allégations hongroises

concernant l'impact du projet sur l'environnement ne sont pas fondées et que cet impact a, au

contraire, fait l’objet d’études soigneuses et approfondies. Pour l’instant, je me bornerai à préciser les

véritables objectifs du traité de 1977 et les problèmesqu'il visait à résoudre. Ceci permettra à la Cour

de se faire une idée précise des graves conséque nces qui ont résulté des actes de suspension et

d'abandon du projet par la Hongrie et de la situation impossible dans laquelle la Tchécoslovaquie s'est

trouvée à la suite de cela.

La Cour connaît déjà la région du Danube concernée par le projet de Gab_íkovo-Nagymaros

qui apparaît sur l'écran.

Cette partie du fleuve a fait l'objet d'interv entions humaines depuis près d’un millénaire. A

l’origine, ces interventions étaientcentrées sur la culture des terres inondables et fertiles de la région.

On a essayé de limiter les inondations régulières duDanube en construisant des digues et en asséchant

les terres à l'extérieur de ces digues. Puis on s’est efforcé de canaliser le fleuve de façon à ce que les

bateaux puissent y naviguer sans danger. Vous pouvez voir sur l'écran la transformation qui en est

résultée. Une ligne bleue représente le Danube vers 1960. Elle a été superposée sur une carte de la - 28 -

région de1736. Vous pouvez consta ter, Messieurs les Juges, que les méandres du fleuve ont été

éliminés et que le courant s’est trouvé concentré dans un chenal unique à courant rapide.

J'aimerais ici souligner deux points. Premièrement, lorsque le projet était à l’étude dans les

années soixante et soixante-dix, cette région du Da nube n'était pas du tout unpaysage vierge dans son

état naturel. Deuxièmement , l’aménagement antérieur au co mmencement du projet avait été

sporadique, sans coordination et quelquefois dommageable pour l'environnement.

Le traité de 1977 devait permettre, pour la première fois, une approche coordonnéeet à long

terme de l’aménagement de cette partie du Danube.

B. Le caractère intégré et commun du projet prévu par le traité

La plus grande partie du Danube entre Bratislava et Budapest est commune aux deux Etats.

Son aménagement ne pouvait résulter que d'un projet commun, comportant nécessairement des

structures situées sur le territoire de chacun des de ux Etats. Le projet commun établi par le traité

de1977 a été le résultat de vingt années de négoc iations bilatérales, au cours desquelles un grand

nombre de solutions techniques différentes ont été étudiées.

os
Quatre alternatives différentes figurent dans le Dossier des Juges sous les n 5 à 8 à titre

d’exemple. Ceci ne représente qu'un petitéchantillon des nombreuses approches envisagées.

Le projet finalement convenu devait comprendre deux sections: la section de Gab_íkovo et

celle de Nagymaros. Et comme l'article 1 du traité l'indique clairement, l'intention était de construire

un «système d’ouvrages opérationnel unique et indivisible» (MH, vol. 3, annexe 21, p. 249). Le plan
o
général apparaît sur l'écran(Dossier des Juges, n 9).

Commençons par la section de Gab_íkovo. Le remplissage du réservoir dépendait du

barrage-déversoir de Dunakiliti. A côté de celui-c i —ici sur la carte—, on trouve l’endroit où le

fleuve devait être barré.

Une fois le Danube barré, le niveau d'eau dans le réservoir et la décharge d'eau le long du

canal de dérivation vers la centrale électrique deGab_íkovo devaient être contrôlés par l'ouverture et

la fermeture des portes du barrage deDunakiliti. Ce barrageconstituait la clé dufonctionnement de la

section de Gab_íkovo. Et cette clé était entre les mains de la Hongrie étantdonné que le barrage était

situé sur son territoire. - 29 -

En aval de Dunakiliti, dans l'ancien lit du Danube, des mesures ont été envisagées pour

adapter le lit de la rivière en prévision d'un débit réduit. Le niveau d'eau de l'ancien Danube devait

être maintenu par une série de digues subaquatiques afin de conserver un niveau approprié de nappe

phréatique dans le secteur adjacent (MS, par. 2.49).

Venons-en maintenant au secteur de Nagy maros où un autre barrage et une centrale

hydro-électrique étaient prévus, tous en territoirehongrois. La clé du fonctionnement du secteur aval

du projet était donc, elle aussi, entre les mains de la Hongrie.

La partie amont, ou de retenue, de la section de Nagymaros comprenait néanmoins également

un système étendu de digues latérales, d’installations de protection contre les inondations, de canaux

de drainage et de stations de pompage, comme on peut le voir sur la carte projetée en ce moment. Ce

système, si on le considère dans son ensemble, était situé, en grande partie, sur le territoire slovaque.

Ceci était nécessaire parce qu'en augmentant le nvieau d'eau du Danube en amont de Nagymaros, l'eau

serait refoulée dans les sections inférieures des a ffluents de la rive gauc he du Danube, situés en

territoire slovaque. Avec l'abandon de Nagymaros pa r la Hongrie, l'investissement considérable

effectué par la Tchécoslovaquie pour réaliserces travaux a été rendu parfaitement inutile.

Ces faits mettent en évidence deux autres caractéristiques importantes du projet prévu par le

traité. Premièrement, il s’agissait d’un projet intégré dont les deux sections ne pouvaient être

construites et exploitées que grâce à l'effort commun des deux parties au traité. Deuxièmement, la

Hongrie avait le contrôle ultime de toutes les opérations clés du projet, contrôle dont elle a fortement

abusé.

C. Les objectifs étroitement interdépendants du projet prévu par le traité

Comme la plupart des aménagements du Danube et des autres cours d’eau européens, le

projet de Gab_íkovo-Nagymaros était unprojet à buts multiples. Ainsi que la Hongrie l’admet dans

son mémoire (par. 1.15), ces objectifs étaient au nombre de quatre: la production d'électricité,

l'amélioration de la navigation, la protection contre les inondations et le développement régional, et

tout cela, comme la Hongrie l’admet, «was c onsistent with environmental protection» (MH,

par. 4.21). J’évoquerai chacunde ces objectifs tour à tour.

i) La production d'électricité - 30 -

Je commence par la production d'électricité. Le projet de Gab_íkovo-Nagymaros était l'un

des derniers des très nombreux projets hydro-électriques réalisés le long du Danube, du Rhin et des

autres cours d’eau européens, sur cette importante voe i navigable, qui traverse l'Europe d’est en ouest

et qui apparaît sur la carte reproduite dans le Dossier des Juges, n o11. Tous les Etats riverains

européens exploitent cette source d'énergie propre etrenouvelable partout où elleexiste. A peu près la

moitié seulement des aménagements du Danube projetés en Autriche avait été achevée à la date de

signature du traité de 1977; et une centrale hydro-électrique est encore en construction aujourd'hui à

Freudenau, en aval de Vienne. Je ferai observer qu'aucun de ces Etats riverains du Danube en amont

de Bratislava n'était membre du COMECON et que l’on ne peut leur prêter l’intention de répondre

aux désirs de l'Union soviétique.

Avant même les négociations bilatérales quiont conduit à l’adoption du projet de Gab_íkovo-

Nagymaros, la Tchécoslovaquie et la Hongrie avaient chacune, indépendamment et séparément,

étudié la meilleure manière d'utiliser le potentiel hydro-électrique du Danube dans cette partie du

fleuve. Le plan contractuel conjoint, qui reflétaitles perceptions des deux parties au traité au début du

projet, avait souligné les besoins croissants en énergie électrique des deux pays à la lumière de leur

croissance économique rapide. Ce document insist e également sur le fait que, du point de vue de

l’environnement, l'énergie hydro-électrique éta it particulièrement recommandable (MH, vol. 3,

annexe 24, p.299): il s’agit d'une énergie propre, provenant d’une utilisa tion plus rationnelle de

ressources naturelles disponibles et renouvelables etdont la production réduit le besoin d'importer le

pétrole ou le charbon nécessaires à l’alimentation des centrales thermiquesib (id.).

Le projet était censé satisfaire un pourcentage important des besoins en énergie de la

Tchécoslovaquie et de la Hongrie (MH, vol. 3, p.299). L'électricité produiterevêtait une importance

particulière pour les deux parties au traité du fait que Gab_íkovo devait également fonctionner en

mode de pointe. Ceci signifie que la producti on d'électricité pouvait être augmentée pendant les

heures de demande de pointe.

Il n'y avait rien là d'inhabituel: l'exploitation en période de pointe était, et reste aujourd'hui,

une pratique commune dans les Etats européens et comme la Hongrie l'admet: «Il est de pratique

courante que des systèmes de barra ge fonctionnent en mode de pointe, même sur les fleuves ... comme - 31 -

le Danube et le haut Rhin.» (C-MH, par. 1- 211.) Ceci a été néanmoins à nouveau obscurci par ses

experts lors de la présentation orale (voir M. Kern, CR 97/3, p. 28).

La Hongrie a créé une impression gravement trompeuse des effets possibles de l'exploitation

en mode de pointe sur l’environnement du fait qu’elle s’est bornée à décrire exclusivement les effets

possibles du mode d'exploitation le plus extrêm e. Elle admet cependant qu'un mode opérationnel

extrême était purement théorique; ce n'était en effet que l'une des nombreuses alternatives possibles

parmi celles qui étaient alors en discussion. Du reste, comme le reconnaît également la Hongrie, les

règles opérationnelles n'avaient pas été déterminéesau début de 1989 (C-MH, par. 1.210, C-MH, vol.

41), annexe 6, p. 396) et, pour citer encore une fois nos contradicteurs : «[s]i le fonctionnement en

mode de pointe est effectué de façon modér ée, il ne causera probablement pas de dommages

additionnels à l’écosystème riverain» (C-MH, par. 1.211).

Ceci, néanmoins, n'a pas empêché les experts de la Hongrie pendant la procédure orale de

continuer de présenter le même tableau dénatu ré (CR 97/2, p. 62, vidéo commentaire sur le

fonctionnement en mode de pointe; MM. Vida et Kern, CR 97/3, p. 27 et suiv.)

La Hongrie omet également de mentionner que la mise en Œuvre de ce mode de production

dépendait de l'action coordonnée desparties à Dunakiliti et à Gab_íkovo.Par conséquent, aucun plan

d'exploitation en mode de pointe n'aurait pu entreren vigueur sans l'accord complet et la coopération

des deux parties au traité.

Je souhaite signaler dès maintenant à quel point il est remarquable qu'un grand nombre des

arguments scientifiques de la Hongrie dépend entièrement d’hy pothèses concernant les effets

supposés du mode de production de pointe, en ignorance du fait que la Tchécoslovaquie a

formellement proposé en 1989 d'abandonner ce modesi des études communes devaient confirmer les

craintes de la Hongrie (MS, vol. IV, annexe 76). Dans sa présentation orale, la Hongrie s’est bien

gardée de signaler ce point essentiel à la Cour. Il est cependant fondamental car il établit l’absence

totale de justification à l’abandon de Ngymaros par la Hongrie en octobre 1989.

(ii) La navigation

Monsieur le Président, un autre objectif du tr aité de 1977 était d'améliorer la navigation de

cette partie encore difficile du Da nube. Le but du projet était de rendre le fleuve navigable entre - 32 -

Bratislava et Budapest pendant environ 330 jours par an — au lieu d'à peu près la moitié de cela (MS,

par. 1.47).

Néanmoins, la Hongrie s’efforce de faire croi re à la Cour que les problèmes de navigation

étaient sans importance (voir Mme Gorove, CR 97/3, p. 68 et suiv.)

Une telle position n’est guère compatible av ec les conclusions, opposées, de la commission

du Danube qui a classé la partie duDanube située en aval de Bratisla va, dans le secteur de Gab_íkovo,

comme l'une des trois sections les plus difficile s pour la navigation le long du Danube tout entier

(MH, vol. 3, annexe 24, p. 299; MS, par. 1.41).

Avant le projet, ce secteur du Danube contenait environ 15 gués où la profondeur minimum

requise par la commission du Danube n'était pas a tteinte à plus d'un mètre près (HM, vol. 3,

annexe 24, p. 301). La situation dans les bassins des docks de Bratislava était également très critique;

la profondeur de l’eau y était insuffisante d'un mètreet demi. Cette situationen période de basses eaux

n
est illustrée par la photo apparaissant dans leDossier des Juges, n 10.

Le plan contractuel conjoint contredit aussila thèse hongroise, puisque, sur le point qui nous

occupe, il souligne qu'entre Bratislava et Gony u, sur une distance d'environ 70 km, le Danube

constitue un goulot d’étranglement pour la navigation in ternationale (HM, vol.3, annexe 24, p. 300).

Il est devenu particulièrementurgent de trouver un remède à cesproblèmes de navigation à la

suite de l’amélioration de la navigation dans les parties supérieures du Danube avec la construction de

barrages en Allemagne et en Autric he — et après la disparition des deux autres obstacles majeurs pour

la navigation, situés en aval à la Porte de Fer d’unepart, et dans le delta de la Mer Noire d’autre part.

Le rôle de plus en plus important du Danube dans le cadre général d'un réseau international de voies

d’eau navigables est devenu particulièrement évident après que la construction du canal Rhin-Main-

Danube eut commencé en 1962; ce point est également relevé dans le plan contractuel conjoint (MH,

vol. 3, annexe 24, p. 300). Cette voie navigable qui traverse l'Europe d’est en ouest est indiquée sur la

carte sur l'écran (on peut aussi la trouver dans le Dossier du juge n 12). Cependant, la navigation

ainsi améliorée ne représente, aux yeux de la H ongrie, rien de plus qu’un «avantage accessoire»

(Mme Gorove, CR 97/3, p. 68, par. 30).

Pendant sa présentation orale, la Hongrie a avancé l'argument qu'il y avait eu une baisse

récente du trafic international dans cette partie du Danube ( ibid., par. 35, p. 76). Deux précisions - 33 -

doivent être données à cet égard: premièrementcette diminution n’a évidemment joué aucun rôle

dans la décision prise par les Partiesen 1977; deuxièmement, cette baisse a été la conséquence, d’une

part, des changements des systèmes politiques et éc onomiques des pays de l’Europe de l’Est, et,

d’autre part, des événements qui affectaient l’ex-Yougoslavie — ce sont des effets purement

conjoncturels.

J'aimerais faire remarquer à la Cour que, au titre de l'article 13 de la convention de 1976

concernant la réglementation en matière d’eaux frontiè res, dont la Hongrie fait si grand cas, ainsi que

du chapitre VI du traité de 1977, les Parties sontconvenues de se conformer aux recommandations de

la commission du Danube. Celle-ci estimait qu'une pr ofondeur de navigation de 3,5 mètres était

indispensable dans toutes les sections de retenue , et que les autres sections devaient avoir une

profondeur d’au moins 2,5 mètres (MS, par. 1.37).La Hongrie a omis de mentionner cette convention

dans sa présentation orale, dans laquelle elle indique, de manière trompeuse, que les normes de la

commission n'étaient que des recommandations (CR 97/3,p. 69-70). Certes, il ne s’agissait, au départ,

que de recommandations, mais les parties au tra ité de 1977 avaient formellement accepté de les

suivre.

Les exigences de la commission du Danube devaientêtre respectées, en partie, par le transfert

de la navigation internationale de la section du Danube la plus diffi cile pour la navigation dans le

canal de dérivation. En amont, le réservoir assurerait la profondeur requise pour la navigation, ainsi

qu’un accès considérablement amélioré au port de Br atislava. En aval, après le confluent du canal

avec le Danube, le respect des paramètres de na vigation requis devait être assuré au moyen de

l'excavation du lit de la rivière jusqu'à Gönyu puis par la retenue des eaux en amont du barrage de

Nagymaros.

Conformément au plan contractuel, toutes ces améliorations devaient entraîner une

augmentation de la capacité de navigation allant jusqu'à 200 pour cent (MH, vol. 3, p. 301). La route

navigable assurée par le projet a été expressément approuvée par la commission du Danube, qui, pour

citer ses propres termes, a décrit le projet commele «seul moyen logique» de répondre aux besoins de

la navigation dans ce secteur (MS, annexe 137, p. 245).

De même, l’allégation de laHongrie selon laquelle des conditions satisfaisantes de navigation

pouvaient être assurées par des «mesures traditi onnelles» (Gorove, CR 97/3, p.70) est tout aussi - 34 -

infondée. Ces mesures — dragage, régulation du lit de la rivière, fermeture des bras du fleuve,

fortification des berges, etc. — se sont révélées êtreà la fois coûteuses et inefficaces à long terme. Les

effets néfastes de ces «mesures traditionnelles» ontété démontrés dans les décennies qui ont précédé

la construction du projet. Ces mesures ont contribuéà une dégradation marquée du cours d'eau et à la

détérioration progressive del’environnement. C’est précisément pourcela que les parties au traité ont

choisi la solution du projet plutôt que dese baser sur des «mesures traditionnelles».

En effet, comme les experts de la Communaut é européenne l'ont noté dans leur rapport de

novembre 1992 : «Dans le passé, les mesures prisespour ... la navigation limitaient les possibilités du

développement du Danube et de la zone de la plaine inondable.» Le rapport continue en indiquant

que le détournement de la navigation dans le canal de dérivation a eu un avantage collatéral : il a créé

une opportunité unique pour un dével oppement de la plaine inondabl e plus proche des conditions

naturelles (CE, rapport du groupe de travaildu 23 novembre 1992, MS, annexe 12, p. 58).

Monsieur le Président, je m'aperçois qu'il me faut encore environ une demi-heure pour

terminer cette plaidoirie. Préférez-vous que je cntinue ou que nous fassionsune pause maintenant ? - 35 -

The PRESIDENT : Please, proceed.

M. MIKULKA : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

iii) La protection contre les inondations

Je passe maintenant à la protection contre les inondations, un autre objectif principal du traité

de 1977. L'impact des crues du Danube dans cette région a été enregistré pendant près de mille ans.

Des registres plus détaillés ont été tenus depuis 1897. Un tableau des principales inondations depuis

l’an 1012 apparaît dans le mémoire slovaque (par. 1.21).

Dans un passé lointain, les eaux du Danube inondaient d’importantes régions du delta

intérieur sur une faible profondeur. Mais cet é quilibre naturel a commencé à être perturbé par

l'intervention de l'homme. Les zones forestières de s régions amont ayant été déboisées pour permettre

l'exploitation agricole, le potentielde retenue naturelle des eaux a diminué. De plus, les inondations ne

pouvaient plus se disperser, car les eaux étaient enfermées dans des digues de protection. Comme

l’explique le rapport de novembre1992 du groupe d'experts de la Communauté européenne : «Avec

les endiguements passés, surtout au cours du siècle dernier, les périodes de pointe des crues sont

devenues plus abruptes et plus éelvées.» (SM, annexe 12, p. 15.)

Il faut bien voir que la situation de cette partie duDanube est inhabituelle.Ceci est illustré par

le diagramme sur l'écran (que l'on trouve également dans leDossier des Juges, n 13). Le fleuve coule

en haut d'un cône alluvial formé de gravier et de sable hautement perméables, descendant de chaque

côté jusqu’au Petit Danube et au bras Moson du Da nube. De ce fait, le Danube surplombe la région

environnante, si bien que lorsque les digues deprotection cèdent, une vaste zone est inondée.

Dans ses efforts pour diminuer l'importan ce du projet pour la protection contre les

inondations, la Hongrie a omis dementionner une autre caractéristiquegéographique de la région. En

aval de Sap — ici sur la carte — où le risque d'inondation est le plus important, la Slovaquie est

particulièrement vulnérable. Les élévations de terra in et les collines bordant la rive droite du Danube

(c'est-à-dire le côté hongrois) offrent une protection appréciable contre les inondations, tandis que la

basse plaine inondable du côté slovaque, par contraste, forme un exutoire naturel où les eaux peuvent

s’engouffrer. Vous pouvez voir sur l'écran les cons équences de ceci, sur une photo de l'inondation

de1965 dans la région de Sturovo, superposée sur la carte. Si nous agrandissons la photo, nous - 36 -

pouvons voir les collines en Hongrie sur la rive droite qui protègent ce côté de la rivière contre les

inondations, par contraste avec les basses planies facilement inondables du côté slovaque.

Les inondations de 1954 et de 1965 ont été deux catastrophes naturelles majeures dans

l'histoire récente des deux pays. En 1954, une grande partie du Szigetköz hongrois a été inondée,

ainsi que 10 000 hectares de terres slovaques. En1965, les digues ont cédé sous la pression des eaux

en deux endroits du côté slovaque : 49 villages et plus de 50 kilomètres carrés ont été inondés. La

zone inondée apparaît sur la carte à l'écran. Pls de 53 000 habitants ont dû être évacués.

Les photos superposées sur la carte projetées à l'écran montrent l'étendue de la catastrophe.

Dans le cas de ces deux inondationsde 1954 et 1965, les dommages en termes actuels se sont élevés à

plusieurs centaines de millions de dollars. Au mo ment de l'inondation de 1965,les négociations sur le

projet de Gab_íkovo-Nagymaros progressaient lene tment. L'inondation leur a donné un nouvel élan.

Mme Gorove espérait faire croire à la Cour qu’en 1977, les risques d’inondation, en tout cas

dans la région du Szigetköz, étaientmaîtrisés. Cela est contredit parles positions des parties au traité

à l’époque qui ressortent du plan contractuel conjointde 1976. Ainsi, cet instrument insiste sur le fait

que les digues existantes, en dépit de l'importance del'investissement déjà effectué, n'offraient pas de

protection suffisante contre lesinondations pour les vastes zonessituées des deux côtés du fleuve.Il y

est aussi noté que les risques d'inondation croissaient.

Le projet a été conçu pour pouvoir faire face auxinondations même les plus sérieuses. Dans

le secteur de Gab_íkovo, le contrôle des inondations devait être obtenu essentiellement en répartissant

les eaux d'inondation entre le canal de dérivation et l'cien lit de la rivière. La protection des régions

situées de chaque côté du réservoir devait être assurée par la reconstruction des digues qui

incorporaient de nouvelles marges de sécuirté et de nouvelles mesures anti-suintement.

Dans la région en aval de Sap, qui a ét é particulièrement affectée par l'inondation

catastrophique de 1965, la protection contre les inondations comportait les mesures suivantes,

illustrées sur la carte qui apparaît à l'écran. Premièrement, des excavations du lit de la rivière dans la

section critique. Deuxièmement, une reconstruction substantielle des digues pour empêcher l'érosion

du sous-sol et le suintement. Troisièmement— et essentiellement sur la rive gauche (slovaque) de la

rivière — un système étendu de canaux et de stations de pompage (qui figurent en vert ici sur la

carte). Cet important investissement en faveur du contrôle des inondations n'a pu être envisagé que - 37 -

grâce au fait que le projet devait remplir de multiples fonctions, notamment la production d'électricité

et l'amélioration de la navigation, ce quissurait son amortissement au plan financier.

La Hongrie prétend que la pr otection contre les inondations «aurait pu être atteinte par

d'autres moyens moins chers». Mais, en avançantcet argument, la Hongrie ne pense qu'à ses propres

intérêts et non aux besoins comm uns des deux parties au traité.

De toutes manières, l'argument de la Hongrie n'est pas pertinent. Les parties sont convenues

dans le traité d'un système spécifique de prot ection contre les inondations pour répondre à leurs

besoins communs. Il est inutile d'arguer aujourd'hui qu’elles auraient pu retenir d'autres systèmes:

elles ne l'ont pas fait.

L'importance du projet aux fins de la protection contre les inondations a été reconnue par des

études indépendantes comme les rapports Bechtel (commandé par la Hongrie elle-même au milieu de

1989) et Hydro-Québec (commandé par la Tchécoslovaquie en 1990).

(iv) Le développement régional

J’en viens enfin au développement régional, le quatrième objectif du projet. Je vise par là

l'occasion unique offerte par le projet d'appor ter des améliorations importantes à la région

(principalement dans les domaines de la gestion de l'eau , de l'agriculture et des forêts), et de mettre fin

à la dégradation de l'environnement. Le traité envisageait que certainsde ces objectifs seraient atteints

dans le cadre des «investissements na tionaux» ainsi nommés par les Parties.

Parmi ces investissements nationaux, le plus important était probablement le programme de

construction des stations de tra itement des eaux usées pour lutter contre la pollution de l'eau du

Danube.

Il y a trente ans, le Danube recevait de grandes quantités d'eaux uséesnon traitées de Vienne,

de Bratislava et de villes hongroises comme Gyor, Komarom et Budapest. Comme l'alimentation en

eau potable de Bratislava, Budapest et d'autresvilles et villages de la région dépend du Danube, il est

devenu urgent de résoudre le problèmede la qualité de l'eau. Il est certain que l'un des effets les plus

importants du traité de 1977 a été d'accélérer les plans d'assainissement des eaux du Danube dans ce

secteur.

Comme la Slovaquie l’a montré dans sa rép lique, le coût supplémentaire résultant de

l’accélération de ce programme parallèlement à ce lle du projet lui-même a constitué un facteur - 38 -

important à l’origine de la suspension puis de l’abandon de Nagymaros par la Hongrie. C'est un

exemple très frappant de blocage par la Hongrie pour des raisons purement financières, de l'un des

programmes les plus importants de protection de l’environnement dans la région — l'amélioration de

la qualité de l'eau.

Pour ce qui est du développement agricole, le Zitny Ostrov et le Szigetköz ont toujours été

des régions fertiles, mais une gr ande partie des terres cultivées a dû faire l’objet d’une irrigation

intense. Le projet devait fournir l'eau supplém entaire nécessaire au renforcement prévu par ce

système d'irrigation.

D. Le caractère évolutif du projet

Monsieur le Président, j’en viens maintenantau caractère essentiellement évolutif du projet.

Comme je l’ai rappelé il y a un instant, le projet de Gab_íkovo-Nagymaros a été conçu pour

répondre à une série d'objectifs importants qui étaient aussi valables en 1989 qu'ils l'avaient été en

1977. Mais tous les aspects du projet ne pouvaient pas être spécifiés en détails en 1977. Le projet a

donc été conçu comme évolutif par nature. Quellesque soient les précautions prises et le nombre des

études effectuées, en présence d’un projet comme celui-ci, il est inévitable d'avoir à faire face à des

impondérables. La mesure de son succès est l'efficac ité des adaptations qui lui sont apportées lorsque

surgissent des problèmes exigeant des aménagements. Le plan contractuel conjoint et les autres

structures de gestion commune et de concertation cé rées par le traité de 1977 et les accords collatéraux

ont été conçus à cette fin.

Cet important instrument n’était pas, pour autant, complètement rigide en 1989-1990,

lorsqu'il a été abandonné par la Hongrie, et les te ntatives incongrues de celle-ci pour justifier ses

actions par référence au «projet initial», c'est-à-di re au projet exactement tel qu’il se présentait en

septembre 1977, sont totalement vides desens (voir RS, par. 11.10 et suiv.).

Prenons l’exemple des forêts et, plus géné ralement, de l'environnement: des problèmes

comme le creusement progressif du lit du fleuve, sontdevenus urgents durant laréalisation du projet.

Ceci a eu une influence néfaste sur l'environnementde la plaine inondable. Les forêts ont commencé

à s'assécher, en particulier dans la région proche de Bratislava. Il en est résulté, en outre, une

diminution appréciable du débit dans le cours du bras Moson du Danube. Dans le cadre de

l’adaptation continue du projet, après 1977, les Partiesont incorporé dans le plan contractuel conjoint - 39 -

des mesures destinées à restaurer le débit dans le s bras latéraux en vue de revitaliser la plaine

inondable et ses forêts.

E. Le partage des responsabilités

J’en viens enfin à mon dernier point: la r éalisation concrète des objectifs du projet de

Gab_íkovo-Nagymaros et aux dispositi ons concernant la constructi on contenues dans le traité

de 1977. La répartition des tâches au titre du traité était basée initialement sur une distribution égale

des coûts et un partage égal de la main-d'Œuvre et de s fournitures. Elle a été ajustée plus tard pour

répondre aux difficultés économiques de la Hongrie.

Pour s’en tenir aux grandes lignes, la Tchécoslovaquie devait construirela partie gauche du

réservoir, la partie amont du canalde dérivation, la centrale hydroélectrique, les écluses de navigation

à Gab_íkovo,ainsi que les installations de contrôle des inondations sur la rive gauche dans le secteur

de Nagymaros, en territoire slovaque. La Hongrie devait construire le côté droit du réservoir de

Dunakiliti, le barrage de Dunakiliti et la section aval du canal de dérivation dans le secteur de

Gab_íkovo. Elle était également responsable de l'excavation du lit du Danube en dessous de Sap et

des travaux d’aménagement de l'ancien lit du fleuve.

Dans le secteur de Nagymaros, la Hongrie était responsable des travaux de contrôle des

inondations de la section en amont de Nagymaros, en territoire hongrois. Elle devait construire le

barrage de Nagymaros et était aussi responsable de l'excavation du lit du Danube en aval de

Nagymaros.

Conformément à ce qu’implique le concept même d'investissement commun, le traité

prévoyait que certaines structures deviendraient la propriété commune des Parties, indépendamment

du territoire sur lequel elles étaient situées. Vouspouvez voir ces structures sur la carte. Ce sont :

— le barrage-déversoir de Dunakiliti;

— le canal de dérivation;

— le barrage de Gab_íkovo; et

— le barragede Nagymaros.

Monsieur le Président, en quoi ces faits sont-ils pertinents en ce qui concerne le litige causé

par la suspension puis par l’abandon unilatéraux du proj et par la Hongrie? Ils le sont en ce qu’ils

montrent que lorsque la Hongrie a pris ces décisions, motivée par ses propres problèmes financiers et - 40 -

à la suite de pressions internes, ses actions ont euun impact considérable sur la Tchécoslovaquie qui a

fait les frais de ces problèmes purement intérieursde la Hongrie. Car le projet était un projet intégré

qui dépendait de la construction effective des installations prévues à Nagymaros et à Gab_íkovo.

C'était aussi un projet commun — c'était un investissement commun — dont la planification, la

construction et l'exécution dépendaient desefforts conjointsdes deux parties au traité. Le concours de

la Hongrie était indispensable : les opérations clés int sous son contrôle et certaines structures clés

étaient situées sur son territoire.

C’était, en outre, un projet à buts multiples. Ceci signifie que les actions unilatérales de la

Hongrie de suspension et d'abandon du projet privaient la Tchécoslovaquie de tous les avantages du

traité. L'abandon de la Hongrie n'a pas seulemen t privé la Tchécoslovaquie d'une source précieuse

d'électricité. Il la privait aussi de la sécurité qu’auraient donnée les mesures de contrôle des

inondations qui avaient été convenues.Il la privait — ainsi que le reste de l'Europe — d'améliorations

considérables de la navigation sur ce cours d'eau international. Et il laissait la Tchécoslovaquie seule

pour faire face à de très sérieux problèmes d’envi ronnement: un réservoir et un canal de dérivation

vides ainsi que des masses de béton et d'équipement inutilisés.

Monsieur le Président, Messieursles Juges, je vous remercie de votre attention et je vous prie,

Monsieur le Président, de bien vouloir donner, peut-être après la pause, la parole à

M. Samuel Wordsworth qui entamera la présentation slovaque des aspects du traité de 1977 relatifs à

l’environnement.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, Dr. Mikulka. The Court will now suspend for

fifteen minutes.

The Court adjourned from 11.30 to 11.45 a.m.

The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. I call now on Mr. Wordsworth.

Mr. WORDSWORTH:

3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE 1977 TREATY

(a) The Pre-1977 Period: Studies and Negotiations - 41 -

Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is an honour and a privilege to appear before you for

the first time.

In this presentation, I wish to get across one srtaightforward point: that before the conclusion of

the 1977 Treaty, the Parties had already carried out etensive research into the G/N Project's potential

environmental impacts — in spite of Hungary's claims to the contrary. In addition to multiple

previous studies, Czechoslovakia had carried out a huge study in the years 1975-1976, called the

Bioproject. Hungary had also completed a major 5-year joint project on Danube water quality, the

partners on this project being none other than the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (UNDP/WHO Project, Terminal Report, No.

HUN/71/505-HUN/PIP001).

I shall return to these and other Project impacttdies shortly. But, before turning to the detail,

why is it so important to establish, as a matter of fact, that the Parties had extensively studied

environmental impacts prior to concluding the 1977 Treaty?

First , this fact undermines Hungary's arguments on environmental impact assessment. Putting

to one side Hungary's reluctance even to argue that there was a duty under international law to carry

out an EIA prior to 1977, the Treaty parties met the highest standards of the time.

Second , this fact undermines Hungary's arguments on f undamental change of circumstances.

The extensive studies show that the Treaty partie s were fully aware of the importance and possible

extent of environmental impact in 1977. There could therefore be no fundamental change between

1977 and 1992 in this respect.

Third , this fact undermines Hungary's arguments on necessity. The Treaty parties knew what

they were doing in 1977. They had studied potentialimpacts. They had consciously decided to accept

certain impacts and they had addressed the issue of how to minimize other possible impacts. There

could therefore be no question of new, previously unconsidered impacts suddenly being revealed in

1989 and giving rise to a real state of necessity.

In short, the fact that extensive studies were carried out in the pre-Treaty period is severely

damaging to Hungary's case. What, then, does the evidence show?

For a start, the evidence shows that even at the very beginning of Project development, the

question of the impact of any barrage scheme on ground water, forestry, agriculture and the - 42 -

environment was very much on the Parties' age nda. Indeed, even the documents which Hungary

submits in support of its thesis of exceptional "prssure" from COMECON are most significant in this

respect (e.g., HM, para. 3.40). To take a few examples:

- in the protocol of December 1954, the parties expressed their agreement that the necessary

remedial measures should be taken where agri culture or forestry would be affected by

water level changes (HM, Vol. 3, Ann. 14);

-in various protocols and reports of 1958, theimportance of maintaining ground water levels in

Zitný Ostrov and Szigetköz was stressed (e.g. HM , Vol. 4, Ann. 3, HR, Vol. 3, Ann. 36);

- again, at a 1960 meeting of the joint technicalcommittee, Czechoslovak concerns as to Project

impact on ground waters were addr essed (HR, Vol. 3, Ann. 41).

But expressions of concern are clearly not sufficient to protect the environment. What did the

Parties actually do to study possible impacts?

Well, Slovakia has submitted a detailed list of so me 364 research papers that were taken into

account in the formulation of the G/N Project up to the end of 1973. This list is contained in Volume

3 to Slovakia's Memorial. It takes up about a third of that volume. And this is only a list — the

studies themselves would fill several book-cases. It is also a joint list, compiled jointly by

Czechoslovak and Hungarian institutions and recording the studies carried out by both Parties. It is

therefore an important piece of evidence, which shows that the Parties were in agreement about the

need to carry out detailed research into the Project — fromall angles. Some studies focus on energy,

others on controlling flooding and improving navigation, others still on impacts to water quality,

forestry, agriculture and the environment.

Hungary responds to the existence of the 1973 join t list and all the research it evidences in three

ways. First, it attempts to undermine the evidentiary importance of this list by suggesting that it had

had no opportunity to examine the studies it refers to (HC-M, para. 1.26). But I stress, this is a joint

list. The studies in the list — including those rela ting to the environment — are, as often as not,

Hungarian studies. As such, they must already be in Hungary's possession.

To take a concrete example, the list refers toa series of studies on a subject on which Hungary

placed great emphasis during its oral pleadings. Th is is: the effect of dredging downstream of

Nagymaros, including the possible impacts of dredging on the drinking water supplies of Budapest - 43 -

(SM, Vol. 3, Ann. 23, at p.29). The studies in question were carried out byHungarian organizations.

The scientists responsible were Hungarian. Copies must be accessible in Hungary's archives. It can

makeno sense for Hungary, now, to ask Slovakia for copiesof these reports or to imply that important

evidence is somehow being withheld. Nor does it make much sense for Hungary to claim that such

important topics as Project impacts to Budapest'sdrinking water supplies had been left unconsidered

in the pre-Treaty era.

Second, Hungary seeks to undermine the joint list by the claim that it is not the quantity of

studies that counts, but their quality (HC-M, para. 1.26; HR, para. 1.66). The simple fact that 364

studies were taken into account in Project planni ng prior to 1974 is considered by Hungary to be

meaningless and Slovakia is criticized for suggesting otherwise. This does seem peculiar. The fact

that a huge number of studies was carried out is clearly indicative of an attention to research and a

concern for the identification of possible impacts. Of course, if Hungary had submitted a gram of

evidence to the contrary, if it had examined some of the studies and showed them to be somehow

valueless, then there might be some reason to doubtthe value of this list. But Hungary has submitted

no such evidence.

Instead, Hungary told this Court during its oralpresentation that the "existence of 'hundreds of

studies' is not ... an alternative for a proper environmental impact assessment" (CR 97/3, p. 60). But

there wasno duty under international law in the pre-Treay t period to carry out a proper environmental

impact assessment, whatever that may be, and Hunga ry's contention is anyway contradicted by the

evidence annexed to its own Memorial. Irefer to the Hungarian Environmental Impact Assessment of

1985. This document reviews the nature of precedingresearch and confirms that the scientific studies

of the 1950s and 1960s covered the ecological effects of the Barrage system,exceedingthe standards

of the time. It continues:
"Already at that time there were — with the presently used definition —
Environmental Impact Assessments under way, which were continued in the 1970s."
(HM, Vol. 5 (I), Ann. 4, at p. 15.)

Thus, according to Hungary in 1985, the pre-Treaty stude is were of great value and were in the nature

of environmental impact assessments. Bold assetrions aside, Hungary hassubmitted no hard evidence

in the current proceedings to contradict this appraisal. - 44 -

Hungary's third and final attempt to explain away the 1973 joint list is to argue that the

number of studies devoted, in particular, to the envi ronment, is not so high. In its Reply, Hungary

complains that, of the approximately 100 pre-1974 studieson the joint list that relate to environmental

issues, only 16 addressed the subjects of water quality, biology and nature protection (HR, para. 1.69).

It then seeks to reduce this number further in anattempt to convince this Court that only a handful of

truly relevant studies were carried out in the pre-Treaty era.

isThis not correct. Hungary ignores the fact that, in addition to the 16 studies to which it

refers, at least 21 studies in the list address thetopic of ground water- which is perhaps the most

important topic in terms of environmental impact. Itignores the fact that a further seven studies in the

list address the issue of channel dredging downstreamof Nagymaros which, according to Hungary, is

a determining factor so far as Budapest's drinking water is concerned. It ignores the fact that another

12 studies focused on riverbed morphology in the old Danube section — another topic that Hungary

examined at great length in its oral pleadings. And so on.

And, most important of all, Hungary ignores th e fact that this list is not intended to be the

definitive list of pre-Treaty studies. For a start, it stops at the end of 1973, not in 1977 when the

Treaty was signed. And, in reality, it represents only a fraction of studies on the G/N Project's

environmental impact area. To take one example, the bibliography of research on the fauna of Zitny

Ostrov records over 1000 research pieces comp leted prior to 1977, both by Czechoslovakand foreign

authors (Kalivodovaet al., Selected Zoological Bibliography,1987, UEBE SAV, Bratislava).

To take a second and even more striking exam ple, in Hungary's written pleadings there is a

reference to the annotated bibliography of, and I quote Hungary, the "most important environmental

studies" related to the G/N Project (HC-M, para. 2.37.) Here is this bibliography, prepared in 1994 by

the Hungarian Academy of Sciences ( Annotated References to the Bos (Gab_íkovo)-Nagymaros

Barrage System Project , Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1994). Again, like any

bibliography, this is no more than a list — a list nearly 300 pages long. And if we take this list, and

count up the studies carried outprior to 1977, we find that — according to the Hungarian Academy of

Sciences—some 176 "important" environmental st udies were carried out. That is quite a few

studies. Hence, the 1974 joint list, which I have justbeen looking at, represents no more than the tip - 45 -

of the iceberg of environmental research in the Pjct area. But, of course, the existence of 'hundreds

of studies' is not considered tobe of any relevance by Hungary. - 46 -

Research in the Years 1975-1976

Mr. President, I wish, now, to look at the environmental research carried out in the two years

immediately preceding the conclusion of the 1977 Treaty. For, in the years 1975-1976, both Parties

completed research works of great importance intothe G/N Project’s impacts on the environment.

turn,I first, to Czechoslovakia’s Bioproject, which may have become well-known to this

Court because of the procedural issue that it has cr eated. I will say more of this in a moment. But,

first, some background: the Bioproject was undertakenby the Slovak Academy of Sciences and other

organizations in the period 1975-1976 (HM, Vol. 5 (I), Ann. 9, at p. 281).

According to a contemporary article published in the Slovak JournalEnvironment, the aim of

the Bioproject was to evaluate the environmenta l impacts of G/N Project construction and to

formulate "the necessary measures ... to protect the environment ..." ( Journal for Theory and

Environment, March 1978, "Biological Project of the area of the waterworks system on the Danube-

Gab_íkovo/Nagymaros", I. Daubner, L. Weismann). To meet these aims required not only new

research and data collection, but also the comp ilation and assessment of the environmental impact

research already carried out on the G/N Project ( ibid.). The amount of this data and research is

reflected in the size of the Bioproject. In total, the Bioproject comprised some 15 closing reports, 21

published volumes, 72 articles published in Czechoslovak and foreign journals, and 17 non-published

works (ibid.).

And the Bioproject did not just give a rubber stamp approval to the G/N Project. To the

contrary, it established a series of proposals that enabled important modifications to be made,

modifications which aimed at guaranteeing the Da nube's water quality, ensuring the purity of the

upstream aquifer and protecting the environmenti(bid.).

Now to the procedural issue. Hungary stated during its oral presentation that it has requested

access to the Bioproject on several occasions during the present proceedings-but without success

(CR 97/3, p. 60). Once again, it is implied that important evidence is being withheld. There are two

points to make here.

First , not only was much of the Bioproject published back in the 1970s, not only was

Hungary kept informed of the contents of the Bi oproject, not least by a special conference at the

Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest, the results of which were also published (Nové Slovo, - 47 -

No. 23/89, "Biological-Ecological conditions in the concerned territory of the construction of the

System of Hydropower Projects on the Danube, Gab _íkovo-Nagymaros", L. Weismann and

I. Daubner); but, also, Hungary has hadfor years its very own copy of the Bioproject. Hungary states

that it has been unable to locate the Bioproject studi es in its archives (CR 97/3, p.60). But, the

Bioproject documents were formally handed over toHungary in November 1984, which was the time

when Hungary was conducting its own Environmental Impact Assessment, completed in 1985 (see,

the Meeting of Plenipotentiaries of 28-29 November1984 and Annex 2 thereof signed by the heads of

the Joint Operating Group on 23 November 1984 — accepted into evidence by the Court on 26

February 1997). If Hungary really wanted to co mment on the contents of the Bioproject, it has

therefore had more than a dozen years in which to do so.

Second , Slovakia has chosen not to introduce into evidence the mass of studies that make up

the Bioproject simply because it does not refer to thecontents of the individual studies; rather, it relies

on the Bioproject in its entirety as evidence that a serious and extensive study of G/N Project impact

was made prior to 1977. Hungary does not contest the existence of an extensive study called the

Bioproject. A review of the Bioproject's contents is contained in one of the annexes to Hungary's

Memorial, the Hydro-Québec report of December 1990 (HM, Vol. 5 (I), Ann. 9, at pp. 281-286). And

Slovakia certainly does not propose that the Court examine 15 closing reports, 21 published volumes,

and 87 published and non-published worksin order to be satisfied that an extensive study was indeed

completed.

In its written pleadings, Hungary did focus on th e review of the Bioproject contained in the

Hydro-Québec report and, in particular, its comment that the Bioproject did not compare barrage

variants but, instead, aimed at the optimization of an already selected barrage design. According to

Hungary, this is evidence that the Bioproject did not meet some un-spelt out criteria of what a mid-

1970s environmental impact assessment should have looked like. It therefore quotes the relevant

paragraph of the Hydro-Quebec assessment not only inits Memorial, but in its Counter-Memorial and

in its Reply also (HM, para. 6.34; HC-M, para. 1. 37; HR, para. 1.72). But in each case, the all-

important last sentence to the paragraph in the report is left out by Hungary. This reads (in

translation):
"In this sense, the contemporary studies [i.e., the Bioproject] were comparablewith
those carried out in North America ..." (SM, Vol. 3, Ann. 28, at p. 239.) - 48 -

Thus, in terms of the criticism singled out by Hungary, HQI concludes that the pre-1977

Czechoslovak studies were preciselyin line with such international practice as there was at the time.

In any event, the key issue is not — asHungary would have thisCourt believe — theform of

pre-Treaty assessments like the Bioproject. The ke y issue is that when Czechoslovakia signed the

1977 Treaty, it had completed an in-depth study into G/N Project impacts. The findings of the

Bioproject had been debated in a series of mee tings between scientists and Czechoslovak ministries

(Journal for Theory and Environment, March 1978, op cit.). Czechoslovakia therefore knew exactly

what it was doing in 1977 — it understood, accepted and saw a means of minimizing the Treaty

Project's environmental impacts.

What, then, of Hungary? Was it similarly well advised prior to the Treaty? The answer must

be "yes", and there is plenty of evidence to show th is. I have already shown that a fair share of the

studies in the pre-1974 joint list were carried out byHungary. I have also shown that there were 176

"important" environmental studies carried out prior to 1977, listed in the 1994 bibliography of the

Hungarian Academy of Sciences — studies on topics such as the effect of the G/N Project on

sediment deposition in the Danube, the ground wate r requirements for optimal soil conditions, the

floodplain forests affected by the Project, water quality and the impact of the Project on water quality

— all topics which Hungary treats as if they were unheard of prior to 1977 ( op. cit., Csoma J., at p.

55; Várallyay Gy., at p. 77; Babo I. and Járó Z., atp. 94; Abrahám M. and Várda, N., at pp. 128-129;

Rotschein J. and Antonio V., at p. 206; VITUKI, at p. 219).

Hungary chose to pass over this evidence during itsoral presentation. It also passed over the

fact that, in the years 1972-1976, the Project's impacts on Danube water quality were examined in the

Hungarian — United Nations Development Programme— World Health Organisation joint program

that I referred to earlier. This is particularly su rprising as, during its oral presentation, Hungary did

claim that "water quality was almost entirely overlooked in the planning" for the G/N Project (CR

97/3, p. 5).

Yet, according to a June 1989 report frequentlyrelied on by Hungary in its written pleadings,

the "most important water quality problems" concer ning the G/N Project were considered in the

UNDP/WHO final report of 1976 (HM, Vol. 5, Ann. 7, at p.134, UNDP/WHO Project, Terminal

Report, No. Hun/71/505-Hun/PIP001). This 1976 report was the culmination of a five year co- - 49 -

operation program, costing some five million dollars and involving a very substantial team of

scientists from Hungary and elsewhere (ibid., at p. I, I-72 — I-86). And yet, the 5-year program and

the report are ignored in both Hungary's written and oral pleadings.

But this is undoubtedly important evidence. First, the report is clearly a "comprehensive"

document and shows, once again, that Hungary's sc ientists were conducting extensive research into

the water quality of the Danube (e.g. HC-M, Vol. 4 (2), Ann. 13, at pp. 530, 541, 548, 555, 567 and

575). Its bibliography refers to dozens of studies and project reports, while the main text makes

frequent reference to the substantial data base already created in the pre-Treaty era ( ibid., IV-96 —

IV-101 andI-48). Second, the report shows that, prior to the conclusion of the 1977 Treaty, the

Hungarian Government must have been fully informed of potential Project impacts on water quality

and was in a position to ensure the minimization of im pacts in the light of all the evidence available.

So, what, then, did the report conclude in so far as Nagymaros is concerned? For the

Nagymaros section, according to Hungary today, was the real threat to Budapest's drinking water —

and the focus of the UNDP/WHO report was specifica lly on water quality and the water quality of the

Budapest supply wells ( ibid., I-43). Well, the report said that the Nagymaros barrage would not

greatly alter flow conditions in the relevant st retch and that, conseque ntly, the processes of

sedimentation and biological conditions would not change grea tly either (at p. III-22).

The Budapest water supply wells were therefore not threatened by the construction of the

Nagymaros barrage. This conflicts with the predictions made during Hungary's oral pleadings a few

weeks ago. But, then, we are only talking about the United Nations Development Programme, the

World Health Organization, and a five-year reseac rh programme costing some five million dollars.

I do not want to leave this Court with the impression that everything in this report is

favourable to the G/N Project, for the report did express concern as to impacts on water quality in the

Gab_íkovo section. But, this concern was based, first, on the premise that the water quality of the

Danube would continue to deteriorate — whereas, th e Danube's water quality has in fact improved, in

large part thanks to the G/N Project (ibid., I-42) and, second, it was based on an assessment of a very

early version of the Project, with minimal or even no discharges into the old Danube channel. The

Treaty parties subsequently modified the Project precisely in line with the report's concerns, as shall

be amply demonstrated over the next few days. The important point is not only that potential risks - 50 -

were known prior to Treaty signature, but also that the parties didnot respond blindly to the existence

of the risks.

Conclusions

Mr. President, Members of the Court, I come to my conclusions. During the pre-treaty

period, the Parties were motivated by a desire to carry out the most thorough research into the

selection, design and impacts of their barrage system; and both the amount of the research conducted

and its scope is striking. This was not just a question of various project engineers doing a few

environmental impact studies on the side. T hose directly involved included the Czechoslovak

Academy of Sciences, the Slovak Academy of Scie nces, Comenius University in Bratislava, the

Slovak Institutes for Water Research,Forestry, Fishing and Hydrobiology (Nové Slovo, No. 23/89, op

cit.). Similar organizations were involved for the Hungarian side, including the Hungarian Academy

of Sciences and, of course, in terms of water quality impacts, the World Health Organization and the

United Nations Development Programme. What morecould Hungary rationally expect or want?

The Parties' concern for the environment is alsoevident in the obligations they accepted in the

1977 Treaty, for there, they agreed to continue thei r research into the Project's impacts. Research

work could not suddenly stop with the Treaty’s si gnature. This was a long-term project, which the

Parties knew would have some impact on the environm ent: thus, the process of studying how to

minimize or eliminate adverse impacts would naturallycontinue and this was provided for in Article

5, paragraph 4, of the Treaty.

Professor McCaffrey will now examine the environmental provisions of the 1977 Treaty, but

I would like to leave the Court with one point in mind. Article 5 (4) of the Treaty, which I have just

mentioned, established the division of research tasks between the parties, which was to be in

accordance with the 1976 Joint Contractual Plan Agreement. In simple terms, the rule here was that

research would be carried out on the basis of te rritorial division — the research obligations on

Czechoslovakiaexisted in relation to Czechoslovakterritory, whilst Hungary’sobligations existed in

relation to Hungarianterritory (HM, Vol. 3, Ann. 18). This meant, for example, that Hungary alone

was responsible for research on potential impacts to the Budapest bank filtere d wells. And this is

specifically confirmed by the 1976 Agreementi(bid., at p. 226 and see SC-M, para. 7.68). - 51 -

Of course, this is as would be expected. Research into potential Project impacts on water

supplies to Hungary’s capital cityhad to be Hungary’s exclusive domain. How could Czechoslovakia

despatch its scientists to Budapestand have them engage in researchalready undertaken as part of the

joint UNDP/WHO program which I have just been looking at?

My point is simple: if, as Hungary contends, it did not always meet its research obligations

— if, for example, Hungary failed to carry out in -depth studies into the impacts of the Nagymaros

barrage on Budapest's water supplies — it couldnot be entitled to abandon this part of the Project at a

later date, on the basis that it had failed to discha rge its own research obligations. A party cannot

build a case on a state of necessity which, had it existed, would have been created by that party itself

(Article 33 (2)(c) of the ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility). Nor can a party suspend or

terminate a treaty on the basis of its own breach(Article 60 (2) of the 1969 Vienna Convention).

Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my presentation. May I now ask you to

call on ProfessorStephenMcCaffrey, who will disc uss the environmental protection mechanisms

incorporated in the 1977 Treaty.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Wordsworth. I call now on Professor McCaffrey.

Mr. McCAFFREY: Thank you, Mr. President.

3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE 1977 TREATY

(b) Environmental safeguards under the Treaty

Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is a great honour and privilege to appear before you

for the first time.

Mr. President, it is my task in this intertion to describe the scheme of the 1977 Treaty with

regard to environmental safeguards. The main points I would like to leave with the Court are, first,

that this is a forward-looking instrument that contains specific provisions on environmental

protection; and second, that the Treaty clearly specifies the way those provisions are to be

implemented.

What, then, are the environmental provisions of the 1977 Treaty? At first sight, they are

three: Article15, entitled "Protection of Water Qua lity"; Article19, "Protection of Nature"; and - 52 -

Article 20, "Fishing Interests". Ar ticles 19 and 20 are contained in Chapter VII of the Treaty, which is

entitled "Protection of the Natural Environment". The Parties' pleadings have focused principally

upon Articles15 and 19. Each of these Articles not only sets forth a general provision on the

subject-matter it deals with; it also specifies the means by which that provision is to be effectuated.

In both cases, the parties provided that the obligation in question is to be implemented through "the

means specified in the joint contractual plan".

This is important because it shows that the Pa rties did not content themselves with merely

including general provisions for the protection of the environment in the 1977 Treaty. They

understood clearly that the Treaty was a framework instrument, providing for a project that would be

of an evolving nature. And they understood that, as such, the Treaty's provisions on the environment,

like provisions on other subjects, would have to be implemented, not only in the light of the studies

that had been conducted, but also in the light offuture studies.

It is important to recall that the parties toe 1977 Treaty established in that instrument a joint

cooperative mechanism. This mechanism enabled the parties to stay in constant communication and

to co-operate on matters related to the implementation and operation of the Project. The mechanism

to which I am referring consists of one repres entative from each party to the Treaty. These

representatives are referred to in the English translation of the 1977 Treaty as "government delegates"

(Art. 3) and in the 1979 Joint Statute Agreement as"government plenipotentiaries". The functions of

the Plenipotentiaries are generally described in the1977 Treaty as being to "direct and supervise" the

"[o]perations connected with the realization of thejoint investment and with the performance of tasks

relating to the operation of the System of Locks" (Art. 3 (1)). To assist them in this task, the Treaty

provides that the Plenipotentiaries are to "est ablish appropriate permanent and temporary joint

agencies for the performance of their functions". The 1979 Joint Statute Agreement provides that the

"plenipotentiaries shall be in permanent contact anddiscuss quarterly fulfilment of tasks stated in the

Treaty" (Art.5(1)). Thus the Plenipotentiaries and the bodies they supervise may generally be

likened to "commissioners" heading a joint commission. This institutional framework is the kind of

concrete form of co-operation between States shar ing freshwater resources that experts in the field

urge States to establish. Such a mechanism is also foreseen in the draft articles adopted by the

1
E.g.,SM,paras.2.67-2.70. - 53 -

2
International Law Commission on the law of the nonn -avigational uses of international watercourses.

This is significant for the environment becau se it shows that the parties to the 1977 Treaty

consciously established a mechanism through which to communicate and co-operate with regard to,

among other things, any environmental questi on or problem that might arise during the

implementation or operation of the Project. Unfort unately, Hungary failed to avail itself of this

mechanism as a means of addressing its concerns, either in 1989 or thereafter, preferring to resort to

unilateral action.

2Art.24,1994ILCYearbook,p.300. - 54 -

And this, Mr. President, brings me to the settle ment of disputes, a further function with which

the Plenipotentiaries are entrusted under the 1977 Treaty. The dispute resolution procedure provided

for in Article 27 of the Treaty is simple and easily set into motion. Disputes as to the "realization and

operation of the system" are to be settled in the first instance by the Plenipotentiaries (Art. 27 (1)). If

"they are unable to reach agreement on the matters in dispute, they shall refer [those matters] to the

Governments of the Contracting Parties for decision" (Art. 27 (2)). In other words, disputes are to be

resolved through the Treaty's joint mechanisms and, ultimately, bilateral negotiation at the

government level. Any disputes on technical issues, or on the Project's environmental impact, would

have to be resolved on the basis of objective scin etific data, not on unverified unilateral assertions.

This procedure can itself be regarded as a form of co-operation. The Parties agree that the

Article 27 dispute settlement procedure was flexible innature. But this does not mean that one party

could simply ignore Article27 and act as it deemed fit. Moreover, the ambit of Article27 was

4
limited: it does not allow for the "revision" of the Treaty as Hungary has claimed . The flexibility

existed, but only within the framework of the Treaty; it did not mean that there was no obligation to

fulfil the Treaty's provisions. Treaty revision might represent the outcome of negotiations between

the parties. But this could only be apossibility, not theright of one of the parties.

Mr.President, in these oral proceedings Hungary has challenged Slovakia's interpretation of

Article 27. It claims that, if one follows the Slovak line of argument, Czechoslovakia effectively had

a veto over any modifications to the Project that Hungary deemed necessary 5. Hence, so the argument

goes, Hungary was locked into constructing the Proe jct, irrespective of any conviction that the Project

would cause serious environmental harm.

This is a strange argument indeed, for at least two reasons. First, the right of a party to insist

on the performance of a treaty cannot be characterizedas a "veto". And second, Hungary accepts that

the Project was frequently modified during the constructionperiod on the basis of the Parties' mutual

agreement. But until such an agreement was reached, or pending bilate ral discussions as envisaged by

Article 27, the Treaty continued to apply.

3SeeSM,para.8.58.

4
HM,para.7.92.

5CR97/4,p.20. SeealsoHC-M,para.5.36. - 55 -

In fact, it was Hungary that subsequently exercised a veto. In 1989, Hungary considered that

— irrespective of Article 27 — it could veto the Treaty's implementation, abandoning the Project

without the agreement of its Treaty partner. Hungary has thus always been dismissive of the Article

27 procedures — because it wishes to avoid the fact that it did not follow the procedures that were

available and, in so doing, committed a breach of th e Treaty. Article 27 existed, but Hungary ignored

it. Full stop.

Hungary also argued in these oral proceedings that it had no obligation to utilize the

Article27 procedures because that article "has no application to disputes dealt with directly between

6
the governments" . The "dispute" to which Hungary re fers is that resulting from its having orally

notified the Czechoslovak Ambassador on 13 May 1989 of its-Hungary's— decision to suspend

work at Nagymaros. On 15 May, two days later, Czechoslovakia protested this unilateral decision,

noting that it put the entire Project in jeopardy, a nd that it had been taken "without any discussions

7
with the Czechoslovak side" . Hungary is thus saying that if it notifies its Treaty partner of its

unilateral decision to suspend work, in clear violation of the Treaty, and its Treaty partner objects,

Hungary can simply go ahead with the suspension, because Article 27 does not apply. Surely

Hungary has it backwards: if Czechoslovakia protestsHungary's notification of suspension, regardless

of the level on which it was given, Hungary must either cancel its plans or avail itself of the

procedures under Article 27 forthe settlement of disputes.

Mr. President, permit me to turn now to Articles 15 and 19 of the 1977 Treaty. In Article 15,

the parties to the Treaty demonstrated their recognition of the importance of protecting water quality.

In paragraph 1, Article 15 provides that the parties "shall ensure, by the means specified in the joint

contractual plan, that the quality of the water in the Danube is not impaired as a result of the

construction and operation of the System of Locks" . Paragraph 1 of Article 15 thus contains two

elements: the substantive obligation to "ensure ... th at the quality of the water in the Danube is not

impaired as a result of the construction and operati on of [the Project]"; and second, the procedural

means for implementing that obligation — namely,agreement, through the Joint Contractual Plan, on

specific measures to be taken to protect water quality. Since any measures taken would affect a

6CR97/4,p.20(emphasisadded).

7
SC-M,Vol.II,Ann.10. - 56 -

shared watercourse — the Danube — it is only logical that Article 15 left those measures to be

worked out and agreed upon later by the Parties. Th is is just one of the ways in which the Parties

foresaw that the Project would evolve and develop.

Paragraph 2 of Article 15 deals with the mon itoring of water quality. It provides that such

monitoring is to be carried out "on the basis of te agreement[] on frontier waters in force between the

[parties]". This is a reference to the 1976 Agreement on the Management of Boundary Waters. By

virtue of this reference, the 1976 Agreement continued to govern the monitoring of the quality of the

water resources shared byHungary and Czechoslovakia.

Article 3 of the 1976 Agreement deals with the ge neral obligations of the parties. It refers

three times to mutually agreed conditions. Thus, the 1976 Agreement presumed that there would be

implementing agreements between the parties. It was precisely this function that the 1977 Treaty and

related agreements performed in respect to the partof the Danube that related to the Project. Article 5

of the 1976 Agreement established the Commissi on on Boundary Waters, or Boundary Waters

Commission, headed by a plenipotentiary from each country and composed of a total of eight

members. The decisions of the Boundary WatersCommission take effect only after their approval by

the Contracting Parties . Among the functions of the Boundary Waters Commission, which are set

out in Annex 1 to the 1976 Agreement, is "to assure water management co-operation and solution of

technical and economic questions..." 9. The functions of the boundary waters plenipotentiaries

relating specifically to the G/N Project are set out in another agreement, the 1979 Joint Statute

Agreement between the parties. This agreemen t provides yet another illustration of the close

inter-relationship among the complex of agreements between Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Article

10, paragraph 1, of the 1979 Joint Statute Agreement provides as follows:

"The government plenipotentiaries for border waters under the [197 6 Agreement]
shall supervise water resource managementfunctions, water ameliorations, measures
to utilize water resources, protection of surface and underground waters against

pollution, maintenance of fairway, mainte nance of the bed of the Danube river,
protection against the flood and ice movement."

By this provision, therefore, Hungary and Czec hoslovakia entrusted the supervision of, among a

variety of other things, the "protection of su rface and underground waters against pollution" in

8Art.5(2).

9
Ann.1,Art.2(a). - 57 -

connection with the Project to the Boundary Waters Commission established under the 1976

Agreement. It will be recalled that under paragr aph 1 of Article 15 of the 1977 Treaty the parties

were to ensure,through means specified in the Joint Contractual Plan , that the quality of the water in

the Danube was not impaired. As I mentioned a moment ago, decisions of the Boundary Waters

Commission take effect under the 1976Agreement only after approval by the governments of the

contracting parties.

10
This was brought home forcefully on the 3 May 1989 when Hungary rejected

11
recommendations of the Boundary Waters Plenipotentiaries for a new agreement on water quality .

Ten days after rejecting this proposed water quality agreement Hungary suspended work at

12
Nagymaros — citing, among other things, environmentalconcerns ! As Slovakia has shown in its

Memorial, the unmistakable message here is that it was the expense of proceeding, rather than

concerns about the environment, that motivated Hungary. 13

Mr. President, it is evident that the entire scheme of the 1977, 1976 and 1979 agreements is

premised upon co-operation between Hungary and Czechoslovakia and ultimate approval by the two

Governments. Therefore, irrespective of the merits of Hungary's position, what Hungary was not

entitled to do was to resort to unilateral action; th is simply was not open to it under the applicable

agreements (let alone general international law).But this is, in fact, precisely what Hungary did.

As far as monitoring wa ter quality under paragraph 2 of Article 15 is concerned, the

Boundary Waters Commission did in fact adopt a num ber of measures for testing Danube water, as

described in Slovakia's Memorial . These measures were strengthened in early 1989. The report

commissioned by Hungary in the summer of 1989 by Bechtel Environmental, the internationally

known consulting firm in the field, compares the monitoring system with those in use in the United

States. It describes the monitoring system that isin place as being "unique because it monitors more

10
SM,para.3.24.

1SM,Vol.III,Ann.55.

12
HungarianGovernmentResolution"OnthesuspensionoftheoperationsatNagymaros",13May1989,HM,
Vol.4,Ann.147.

13
SM,paras.3.31etseq.

14SM,paras.3.16-3.24. - 58 -

parameters than the Columbia River Basin, OhioRiver Basin, or Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)".

The Report concludes: "With a few additions, thissystem will represent a state-of-the-art monitoring

15
programme for integrating environmen tal considerations with operations." Indeed, a number of

additions have been made. The operation of th e monitoring system has also been evaluated

16
favourably by the EC Working Group reports .

This review of the interrelationship be tween Article 15 of the 1977 Treaty and other

agreements between the Parties highlights two as pects of the approach taken by Hungary and

Czechoslovakia to the management and developmen t of the Danube. First, the two countries had

created a network of joint agreements relating to the Danube, and utilized those agreements in a

complementary way. And second, Hungary and Czechoslovakia consistently provided in their

agreements that any action taken or obligations created under them would be subject to approval by

the governments of the two States. This is true, for example, of decisions of the Boundary Waters

Commission under the 1976 Agreement, and of provisions of the Joint Contractual Plan under the

1977 Treaty. The provisions of these agreements must therefore be implemented through proposals of

the plenipotentiaries that are approved by the respective governments. Among other things, Mr.

President, this casts great doubt upon the validity of Hungary's attempt to interpret these articles to

include all of the developing rules of general international law relating to the environment. But even

if they could be so interpreted, this would not ch ange the fact that the articles must be implemented

through action by the relevant mechanisms, action that must ultimately be approved by the respective

governments.

Mr. President, allow me now to turn to Article 19 of the 1977 Treaty. Entitled "Protection of

Nature", Article 19 consists of a single paragra ph — indeed, a single sentence. That sentence,

however, confirms that Hungary and Czechosl ovakia gave thought to protecting the natural

environment in the context of providing for the construction and operation of the Project. Article 19

follows the same pattern as paragraph 1 of Article15: it lays down a general provision, then provides

for its implementation "through the means specified inthe joint contractual plan". Article 19 therefore

appears to be straightforward andconsistent with other provisions ofthe Treaty in its basic approach.

15SM,Vol.III,Ann.27,p.202. SeealsoSM,para.2.98.

16
E.g.,HM,Vol.5(PartII),Ann.18. - 59 -

However, Hungary has advanced a novel theory concerning the meaning of this article.

Hungary seizes upon the word "obligations" in Ar ticle 19 and uses that word as a window through

which it seeks to bring into the Treaty virtually theentire field of international environmental law, as

it exists today. The trouble with this is that Hungary tries to use this body of law not to complement

the Treaty, but as a sort of legal Trojan Horse, to halt the Project — that is, to defeat the very object

and purpose of the Treaty. This is not a tenable interpretation of the article according to the standards

of interpretation laid down in the ViennaConvention on the Law of Treaties.

As Slovakia has pointed out in its Reply, thetranslation of Article 19 contained in the United

Nations Treaty Series unfortunately does not convey accurately the sense of the original language

versions. Most critically, while the UNTS translation speaks of " obligationsfor the protection of

nature", a more faithful translation would refer to " requirementsfor the protection of nature". The

meaning of the relevant term is factual rather than legal. As so translated, Article19, now on the

screen behind me, reads: "The Contracting Partie s shall, through the means specified in the Joint

Contractual Plan, ensure compliance with the require ments for the protection of nature which arise in

connection with the construction andoperation of the System of Locks."

17
Mr. President, Slovakia has shown in its written pleadings that Hungary's argument

concerning interpretation of the 1977 Treaty in lightof evolving general international law is not well

founded in this case. I will revertto this point in a subsequent intervention. Slovakia has also shown

that even taking the Treaty Series translation as accurate, Hungary's interpretation of the phrase

18
"obligationsfor the protection of nature" is erroneous . The interpretation advanced by Hungary,

according to which the "obligations for the prot ection of nature" could override all the other

obligations in the 1977 Treaty is, on its face, absurd. Furthermore, it completely ignores the last limb

of the Article. That phrase makes it clear that what th e article is referring to is the "obligations for the

protection of nature arising in connection with the constructionand operation of the System of

Locks".

1SR,paras.3.27-3.38.

18
E.g.,SR,paras.2.45-2.46. - 60 -

In other words, Hungary and Czechoslovakia recognized that it was not possible to foresee in

detail all of the ways in which nature might need to be protected during the construction and operation

of the Project. The two countries therefore provide d — as they did in Article 15 and other provisions

of the Treaty — that these needs would be addressed through mutually agreed provisions of the Joint

Contractual Plan. This explanation is more accura tely reflected in the translation of Article 19

suggested by Slovakia, which refers to the "requirements" for the protection of nature; but it is also

consistent with the version contained in the Unite d Nations Treaty Series. The accuracy of this

interpretation is confirmed by the fact that, as stressed in Chapter 1 of the 1977 Treaty, the

fundamental object and purpose of the Treaty is precisely the construction and operation of the

System of Locks. While Hungary and Czechoslovakia clearly did not ignore the protection of the

environment in formulating the 1977 Treaty, it would turn that agreement on its head to suggest, as

Hungary in effect does, that Article 19 could defeat the Treaty's object and purpose.

What Hungary really wants to do is to add to Article 19 an additional phrase that would read

as follows: "But either party may unilaterally suspe nd or terminate the Treaty when, in its opinion, the

requirements are not met."

Finally, Mr. President, a word about Article 20. That article is entitled "Fishing Interests".

Like Article 19, it consists of a single sentence. It provides that the parties are to "take appropriate

measures for the protection of fishing interests in conformity with the Danube Fisheries Agreement,

concluded at Bucharest on 29 January 1958". These measures are to be taken "within the framework

of national investment". Thus Article20 follows an approach that is similar to that employed in

paragraph 2 of Article15: it refers to the require ments of another agreement that deals specifically

with an aspect of the protection of nature. In th e case of Article 20, the reference is to the Danube

Fisheries Agreement.

19
The focus of this latter agreement is upon "fish of economic importance" . Far from

preventing or discouraging the construction of wo rks on the Danube, the fisheries agreement itself

envisages the construction of such works. It merely provides that the parties undertaking these

projects should take measures to safeguard economi cally valuable fish stocks. Therefore, when

Article 20 of the 1977 Treaty enjoins the parties to "take appropriate measures for the protection of

19
E.g.,Article5(1). - 61 -

fishing interests in conformity with the Danubeiheries Agreement", it refers exactly these measures

to safeguard economically valuable fish stockswhen constructing works making up the Project.

To summarize, Mr. President, the 1977 Treatyonstitutes an expression of the concrete forms

of co-operation agreed to by the parties with regard to the Project, including mechanisms for

communicating information, as well as for consultation and negotiation. In many ways, the Treaty

thus represents what may be regarded today as anexpression of the general principles of international

environmental law and the law of international wa tercourses in the form of a blueprint for the

sustainable development of the Parties' shared frester resources. The Treaty further represents the

fulfilment of the Parties' efforts to consult concerning a project on a shared watercourse, as well as to

assess the environmental impact of that project, to avoid or minimize undesirable environmental

effects, and to reinforce positive environmental effects. But I wish to emphasize once again that the

Treaty provides forjoint action in this regard, notunilateral determinations.

Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my presentation. Mr. President, I would

be grateful if you would call upon my colleague, Mr. Wordsworth, who will continue our discussion

of the Environmental Aspects of the 1977 Treaty by addressing the applicationof the environmental

safeguards I have just discussed. Mr. President,mbers of the Court, thank you very much for your

kind attention.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you Professor McCaffrey. Mr. Wordsworth, do you wish to make

a presentation this morning in pursuance ofwhat Professor McCaffrey has just said?

Mr. WORDSWORTH: Mr. President with your permission I can commence my second

presentation which was originally scheduled for tomorrow morning and then pause after about 7 or 8

minutes and then continue my presentation tomorrow morning.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

WOMRr.DSWORTH:

3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE 1977 TREATY

c)The Application of the Environmental Safeguards in the 1977 Treaty: the History of
Research into Project Impacts post-1977 - 62 -

Mr. President, Members of the Court, Professor McCaffrey has just shown that the 1977

Treaty was a "forward-looking instrument" that envisa ged continuing attention to the protection of the

environment. But, the question arises, what happened after that instrument was concluded? Did the

parties forget all about environmental protection,did they abandon all their research and build up the

G/N Project structures in indecent haste?

Counsel for Hungary, Ms Gorove, would have the Court believe that the answer to these

questions is "yes". Again and again, we were told that the pre-1989 studies were "inadequate for

proper decision making" (CR 97/3, at p. 53); that, by May 1989, there was "no proper basis on which

to determine what the impacts of the Original Project were likely to be" ( ibid., at p.56); that "no

proper environmental impact assessment had been carried out" by May 1989, even "in accordance

with the modest standards of the time" i(bid, at p. 62).

Mr. President, if I may be allowed one short but rather apt quotation from Shakespeare's

Hamlet, "I think the lady does protest too much". For, as I shall show in this presentation, there was

ample research available to the Parties in May 1989 toenable them to make informed decisions on the

Project. And, as I shall also show, the reason fo r so much "protest" from Hungary on this point is

simply that the studies carried out prior to May1989 did not support the decisions that Hungary

actually took in 1989-1990 to suspend and ab andon its performance of this Treaty.

Czechossltuvdaes

I turn, first, to the studies carried out by Czechoslovakia. Hungary claims that

Czechoslovakia breached its treaty obligations "b y not carrying out any in-depth environmental

study" (HR, para. 1.41). This can bedealt with rather briefly. For, by 1989, and specifically thanks to

the G/N Project impact studies, the area of the Danube and its side arms was the best surveyed and

studied area in Slovakia with regard to its water, flora and fauna Nové Slovo, No. 23/89, "Biological-

Ecological conditions in the Concerned Territory of the Construction of the System of Hydropower

Projects on the Danube, Gab_íkovo-Nagymaros", L. Weismann and I.Daubner). After the

completion of the Bioproject in 1976, more than 30 dfiferent organizations worked on further research

into potential Project impacts to soil fertility, floodplain forestry, ground water and surface water

quality (ibid., and see the HQI report, HM, Vol. 5 (I), Ann. 9, at p. 278). - 63 -

The Slovak Academy of Sciences and various other bodies carried out two major updates of

the Bioproject in the mid-1980s(ibid.). Other environmental research wrks are recorded in the list of

more than 100 studies that makes up Annex 24 to Slovakia's Memorial, and there are many more

Czechoslovak studies listed in the 1994 bibliogra phy prepared by the Hungarian Academy of

Sciences (Annotated References to the Bos (Gab_íkovo)-Nagymaros Danube Barrage System Projec,t

Hungarian Academy of Science, Budapest1994). Also, in the 1980s, the Slovak - 64 -

Academy's Centre of Biological and Ecological Studies carried out a special Landscape Ecology

Program, which aimed to establish a new and susa tinable balance between the human demands on the

region and the need for environmental protec tion (HM, Vol. 5, Ann. 9, at p. 287).

Finally, in respect of Hungary's contention that Czechoslovakia's application to the EC

PHARE program in 1990 amounted to a recognition of the inadequacy of its previous studies (CR

97/3, at p.55), I refer to the conclusions of th e independent experts of the PHARE Report. They

recorded the difficulties in processing all the relevantinformation caused by the fact that "the number

of relevant studies [is] so high, and the amount of available data [is] so large" (PHARE Final Report,

Vol. 1, pp. 1-2).

In short, Czechoslovakia's scientists studiedpossible G/N Project impacts in the greatest detail

in the 1980s. And this research was not carried outin a vacuum. For, at this time, the Czechoslovak

and Hungarian Academies of Sciences work ed together on two major joint programs.

In the years 1981-1985, the two Academies co mmitted substantial resources to a joint

co-operation program on G/N Project impact, fo cusing on: ground waters and soils, surface water

flow rates, water quality and discharge conditions , flora and fauna, and the natural environment

("Geological, Hydrological and Biological-Ecological Study of the Danube Lowland " — see, SM,

Ann. 64, at p.80 and Nové Slovo, No. 23/89, op cit.). Joint plenary sessions of the experts of both

Academies were held each year and the resulting protocols sent to the G/N Project plenipotentiaries

(ibid.). A detailed final report was produced in 1986, nd a summary of the results of the co-operation

program was published in both Slovakand Hungarian(ibid.).

Then, in the years 1986-1990, the two Academies continued their joint research in a new co-

operation program ("Landscape-Ecological Manage ment of the Territory Affected by the

Construction of the G/N Project", ibid.). The aim of this program was to consolidate the research

already carried out by the two Academies and to arrv i e at further, concrete proposals for reducing any

adverse environmental impacts of the G/N Project to the minimum(ibid.). And, of course, given this

degree of co-operation, Hungary had ample opportunity for telling Czechoslovakia that its

environmental impact studies were inadequate — if this was what it had really believed at the time.

Mr. President, I still have some 20 minutes to go.May I, with your permission, pause here - 65 -

and conclude this presentation by looking at so me of the key Hungarian evidence in the pre-1989

period tomorrow morning?

The PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, Mr. Wordsworth. The Court will now adjourn until

tomorrow morning.

The Court rose at 1.00 p.m.