INTERNATIONALCOURT OFJUSTICE
CASE
2MAY 1994 PAGE
CHAPTER 1 ~ORU~ON
SectioA. ûverview
SectioB. TheLocationofthDispute
SectioC. The Originl arragSysteandVariantC
1. The Originlystem
SectioD. StructuroftheMernorial
cHAmER2 THE TASKOF THE COURTUNDER THE
SPECIALAGREEMENT
SectionA. Articlofthe SpecialApment
SectioB. Articl4oftheSpeciaIgreement
PART II
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OFTHJ3DISPUTE
CHkPTER3 THEHISTORY OFTHEDISPUTE
SectioA. The OriginofthGabcikovo-Nagparos
Projec1952-1977
1. The ComençementofNegothrions
2. The 1958DecisiotoDevelotheProject
3. Addon of thProject'Isnvestment
pr0-e
4. DelaysintheCommencemenotftheProject
5. AnWene ofthe Agreement sf1977 6. ConclusiooftheAgreementsof197677 3 1
SectionB. FromProjectConstructto Project
Suspension1977-1989 33
1. SearcforAltemativeandhpravements 33
2. ConstnrctinndeiCritichm 40
3. TheDecisiotoSuspendWork 48
SectioC. Negotiation, reaTeminationDanube
Diversion1990-912 64
1. AftethePoliticalChangof1989 64
3. Teminationofthe1977TreatyandDiversion
oftheDanube 79
SectioD. NegotiatiosnSpecialAgreementand
Temporar y- ManagemenR t egime:
1993-1994 96
CHkPTER4 TEETRMTYOF lW7ANDRELATED
AGREEMENTS Ill
SectionA, TheObjeçtandPrirposeftheTm 111 '
SectioB. SpecincEms ofthTreaty 114
SectioC. Relationshofthe1977TreatytoOtha
AgreementsBetweenthhrîies 121
1. BoundatyandBoundq WatersTreaties 121
a.AgreementCondg theSettlemenof
Teclinicand EconomicQuestionsmtabhg
toFrontierWatercourse,954 123
b.TreatyConcmhg theRegime ofState
Fmntien,1956 123
c.Conventio negardingheRegdationof
IssuesSurroundhgBomdaqWaters, 1976 124 d. AgreementConcerningCo-operatioand
MutualAssistancedong theCzeçhoslovak-
HungariaBnorder,1976 126
e. The1977Treaty 126
2, TreatiesRelatito Navigatioon theDanube 128
a. NavigatioontheDanube, 1948 128
b. Tay ConcerningtheRegimeof State
Fmntiers1956 130
c. The1977Treaty 130
3. TreatieReIatintoDanubeFisheries 131
a. ConventionConcemingFishg in theWaters
oftheDanube,1958 131
b. TreatConcenshgthe Reme of State
Fmntiers,956 131
c. The1977 Treaîy 132
4. OtherAgreementsRelatedtotheBmge Project 132
SectioD. Summary andConclusion 134
SectioA. The AffecteRegion 139
Panorama oftheNaturaICharacteristosthe
1,
Affectai Regions 141
a TheSzigetkoz 142
b, TheDanube Vdey 146
c, TheDanubeBend andBudapest 146
SectioB. DamageandRiskAssochd withthe
0Ligh.Ihject 147
1. Risk andDamage toSurfaceand
SubsiirfacWaters 148
a. lhdciiiti-HnisovReservoir 150
b. TheHydmlogy of theSzigetkOzegion 152
c. Nagymms Reservoir 154 VI
2. RiskandDamage toSails
1 3. DamageandRiskstoAgriculturandForesiq
a.Agriculture
b* FQreshy
1 4. Damageand RisktoRoraand Fauna
~ 5. RisbtoNavigation
6 RisktoLandscapeandRecreational alues
7. ArchaeologLcRllsks
S. GeologicdandGeophysical isks
SectioC, DamageandRiskshm VariarCz
1. Impacon SurfacariSdubswfacWaters
a Abrupmt g-out oftheSzigetkoz
b.LongerTem Impacts
c.ProblemswithIce
d.FloodDesignandConstructioProbIems
e.Unilataa. lovakConml oWaterFlow
2. ImpactonSoiEandAgriculture
3. Forestry
>
4. impactonFimaandFauna
5. Navigatim
6, GeologicaandGeophysical ish
7. DesignandSafetRisks
8. Envirumenai Protection
Conclusions 178 PART m
BREACrJES OFTHE LAWATII1RIBIJTABL T O
CZELHOSLOVAXU ANI)SLOVAKM
CWPïER6 BREACHES OF THE 1977TMATY AND OF
OrnR RELEVANT RULESOF
INTERNATIONAL LAW INRELATION TO
THE ORIGINAL PROECT 180
SectioA. BreachofPertinet ilatTlreaîies 183
1. Breachofthe197Treaty 83
a.TheSmpeofArticle15 184
b.The ScopeofArtic19 187
c.The Swpe ofArtic20
188
d,CzechoslovakiCsonducinRelation
to th1977Treaty 189
SectioB. BreachofGenerantemationaLaw 198
1. BreachofthObligatioofPrerentio, n
theLighofthePrecautionFyheiple 198
2, BreachoftheObligatitoCo-operate 203
1 cHMTER7 THE DIVERSION OF THE DANUBE 210
SectioA. TheEffectsotheDiversion 210
SectioB. TheUegalitoftheDiversionUnderthe
ApplicableTdes 210
1. Obligatito Co-operate 211
2. ObligatiwtuProtecthE~ncimment 213
a.RoteçtionotheNaturdEnviromnent 213
b.MaintenancofWaterProjects 215
c.Water-Resource anagement 215
d.RespectandProtectionofAgreed
BomdaryLine 216SectioC, The Ulegaliof theDiversionUnder
Generd Internationlaw 219
1. ObligationottocauseDamage tothe
EnvironmenBt eyonOne" Border 219
2. LheObligationofRiorNotificatiand
ConsuItation 223
3. The PrincipofNon-Discrimination 228
4. ThePrinciplofEquitableUseofShared
NaturalResources 228
5. Permanen SovereigntyoveNaturdResources 232
SectioD. Absence ofJustification 234
rt.AbsenceofPrimïIlicAct
.b. Additionalgal Fhgs
SectionA. DamageandLossAmibutable to
SIovWs Cmduct
2. Identification
a. Criticl ate 245
b. PerformancoeWrongfd ActsûverThe 246
c. Damages 250
SectionB. SIov~s Obiigatiun o.Reparation 253
1. Cessation 254
2. RestoratioandRestimtiinInsegrum 254 M
3. CompensatioandSatisfaction 255
PART TV
TWE LAWFIXNESS OFHCTNGARYC 'ONDUCT
CHAFïER9 THE SUSPENSION AND SUBSEQTXNT
ABANDONMIWO TFWORKS 258
SectionA.Introduction 258
SectiB. ThePositioni1989 263
SectionC.LegalBasisftheSuspensionand
Subsequent bandonmeotfWorks
TheWorksatNagymaros
TheWorh atDundditi
TheWUT~ atGabcikovo
THE 'ERMINATION OFTHE 1977TFEATY
SectiA.
"Essentid"ChamctoftheIntemis hvolved
TheImminentNam of thePerd
3. TheUnavoidablCharactrftheHungarian
Decision 290
4. OtherConditions 291
1. Disappeara ofcnObjectIndispensable
fotheEx8cutiooftheTreaty 296
2* TheDisaparancewas natheResultoa
BreacoftheInternatiolbligatioof
Htww SectioC. Fundamental hangeofCUcumstances
1. FundamentaChange ofCkcumstancesasa
GroundfortheTeminationofTreaties
2. TheRelevanceoftheConductoftheParties
3. FundmentaIChangeof Circumstancesin
thPresentCase
a.SubstantiElements
b. ThChange ofCircumstancesasnotthe
Resulof aBreachofInternational
ObIigationsyHungaq
ç.Procedurallements
4. Conclusion
SectioD. BreachoftheTreatiof 1976and1977,
inParticulrhroughthe Constructifo
varianc
SectioE. ConfliwithSubsequenOt bligations
underGend InternationaLlaw
SectioF. TheProcedureAdoptedbyHungaryin
Temiltiatithe1977Treaty
SectioG. RepudiatiooftheTreatythmughthe
ImplernenbatinndOprationof
vanan Ct
SectioH. TeminationoftheTreatthroughthe
DisappearancefoneoftheParties
CbWER 11 LEGAL, CONSEQUENCES OF THE
TERMINATIO NF THE 1977TREkW
SectioA. ConsequencefsothePartiesofthe
T&tion ofthe1977Treaty 1. Accnieû RighrelatitngnyBreachofthe
Treaty 331
2. Claimunderthe1977TreatyinRelatitowoxk
doneontheProject 332
3. hperty RghtsAcquiredhirsuatothe1977
Treaty 334
SectionB. TheOverallRemedIalontext 336
SectioC. SummaryofConclusions 336
APPENDICES 344
1. FM&&s, LRonkay & AVoIriit, heNature
ProtecnbnAspectsoftheGabcikovo-Nagymaros
PrujecBudapest2, October1993 345 -
2, A Vida,JchthyologiAspectofthe
Gabcikov-NagymarosProje,Budapest,
Octok 1993
3. PLiebe,Environmental-EccE ofecgiofhei
Gubcikovo-Nagyr nroeosSubsu@ac e aters,
Budapest,ebniat1% 388
GENEMLMAP OFTHE ENVIRONMENTA ILPACT
AREA (üpperUanubeRiveSectionBratislatoBudapest) 490ff
LIST OFANNEXES 491 PART 1
INTRODUCTION
SECTION A: OVERVIEW
1.01, On 7 April 1993,theRepublicofHungary and theSlovak
Fiepublicenterelnto a Special Agreementfox Submissioto the
IntemationalCourt of Justice ofthe Ilifferencebetween hem
Concmhg theGdxikovo-NagymaroP stojectThe SpecidAgreement
entered htoforcuepon thedate ofthe exchangeof instrumentof
ratificationin Brusonl28June 1993.IIwas jointly notiftothe
Courton 2July1993.
1.. ByitsOrderof14July1993,theCourtfixed2May1994asthe
dateforsubmissionbyeachof thePartiesof iMadd inthecase
(IC J eport1993p. 319)lhi ~semori'ai ithaccompanyinAnnexes
is submittinaccordancwiththa trder.
1.03. In essencet,hdisputebetweenthePhes relat eoa major
indusM project...
* conceiveddwkg the 1950sundertheauspicesofthCouncilfur
Mutual Econami cssistance(CMEA, oth&e hown as
COMECON andunderSwiet pr~ssure;
* pImed inemticstage sverthnext20 yeârs;
* a@ upwnh aninterstamaty in1977, withoutanysystemof
environmd impactassesrment;
1 ForthtexttheSpiaiAgreemesteAmexes,o3,annex32
2 IJ~&hoslov~a, TreaconcwninthebMructian aOperatiofthe
Gabcikovo-NqpmmsSysm ofhks, Budapes16Septernb1977, 1109
UNTS 236;3aM 1247Annexes,o3,annex1fiereafter "the1977Tre9tyw).* increasinglthesubjectof nationalandinternationilcriticisrnon
environmenta lndeconarnicgrumds;
" thesubjectof lengttiydelaysonboîhsides,thenof suspensionof
works andfmitlessattemptsatmegotiation .,.
andeventually - foll~wingrevolutionarychangesinEasternEurope -
termuiatedby Hungay inthe face ofthreatof unilateradiversionby
the other Party,and pressing needs to maintainthe integrityof its
envùonment andofitspreaentand future drinlriwatersupplies.
1.04. The htened diversionofthe Danube --resistedthughout
byHungaq --was hastilyandincompetentlyexecutedandçulminated in
theclosure ofthe riverbedatriverkilometre31851.7 inOctaber 1992.
Theclosureha tsady caused simcant damage totheenvironmeno tf
theSzigetkoz region,a uniquewetlandsarea,and thteatenspotentially
irreversibllong-tem harm tothe environmen tndwater resourcesof
bothParties. Yet despitedemonstrated ham andsubstantialrkks of
furtherh, CzechosIovakiaf4efusedto mm the 1977 Treaty,and
theSlovakRepublic - neveritselfapwty to thatTmty --continuesto
insison itsintepl implernentationM. omver,mtrary toundertakings
made withindays of theunilateradliversion,Czechoslovakiafaileto
maintah "thewholeWtional quantity of water intothe o1dDanube
ri~erbed".~Andneitheritnor the SlovakRepubtic ever- except where
flmding leftit no choice -- maintained even the minimum flow
reçommended asnecessarybyanindependenb tody,estabiishedthrough
3 Riverkilometr(abbreviaadsrlan)rmeas& dong themainmurseofthe
rivefromtheBhckSea.
4 Czachoslovstçhangeditsriamseveraltimduringthepaiodofdiscussion.
planningoonstniçtandidisintegraoftheProjeet: CzechosloRepublic
(1918-1939; 1945-196CzechoslovaSocialktRepubiic(l%@Mareh1990);
Czech-SlovaFded Repubiic(March-A@1990)andCzecand Slovakederal
Republic(May1990-31December1992).Forconsisten thyisernoriawill
der toitasCzechoslovakarelatitothewholeperioduntilits disamce
asa Stason31December1992.
5 Thisdtment was madeintheLondonAg~eamt, para1. SeeCh and
Slovak FederaI Republic-EC-HungAygreedMinuteson the Gabcikov*
Nakymaroshject, London,8 Oetober199forthekxtof whichseAnnexes,
vol3,anne x1. A notopara1define"thewholemditionquantitofwatei'
as "nolasthan95%" ofifeaditionld. Infacttheactwamountof water
deliverdtothe Danubesinc eber 1992exceptduringfloadshasbeen
approximatey-122 of theavaage flow.themediationof theEuropeanCommission to avoidsenous ecological
hm to thHungarianside.6
1.05. Such,inthe most summary tms, is thedisputebefore the
Court. Thisfirst Part othe Mernorial introducethe issues and
describetheSpecid Agreementwhich conferjurisdiction theCorn.
But tounderstanthi sisputeithelpfultostartwithbriefdescription
ofthetwo elementswhiçh,incombination,arat thecmeof thedispute
--itsphysicd settingandthe BarrageSystem which was planne to
b.ansfoa tatsetting.
SECTION B: THE LOCATION OF TRE DISPUTE
1.06. After theVolga, the Danubeis the second largest fiver in
Europe,both inlengthand inthe extenofitscatchmentarea. On its
2860 lemroutetotheBlack Sea,theDanube flowsalmg or acrosthe
bordersof10 countries:i817M)O squh catchent areaembraces15
countnes,about8% ofEurope. The area throughwhich itflows is
dividedintothree~eachestheUpper,theMiddle(withinwhicbf& the
areaaffecteby thepresentdispute)antheLuwer Danube.TheMiddle
Danube,çonsistsoftheLittleHungarianPlaiinnorth-westerHungary
and southSlovaltiatheGreatHungarian Plainand the Tmsylvanian
basininRomania.
1.07. The KisaZfodor LittleHungmianPlain, 10,000 squlanin
extent,isthemost environmentaliyand economicailyvariedflatland
regionintheCarpaUiianBasin, InthlsectortheDanubems from the
Hungarian-Slovabkorder (jusbelow Cunovo) at riun 1843.3tothe
DanubeBend,where thetom ofN;lgymms (~h 1696.Za )ndhistoric
Vise@ are located.BeIowis thelargriveislandofSzentendre,with
Budapestimmediatelytothesouth. Thisarea Isshowninmaps1-3in
Volume2 of the Annexes and its key feahmsam depictedin the
photo&raph alsofoundinVolume2 of theAnnexes.
1.08. Just below Bratislava,the gradientdecreaseom 354
adlun to8-10 cm&m, depositingthe largestsbearaliuvialcone in
Europe. On theHungarimsidethis isknom asthe SWgetkoz (345squ
6 See EC-Hungary-SloRkepubliWorkinGroupofMonitoringandWater
hpnt ExpertforthGabcikovSystemofkkç, ReporonTempormy
WarerManugemt Regime,Bratida, Deamber1993Annexes,vol 5,annex
19. See fiatSbelow, par2.11for theSlovaksejectiof theEC
recommmdation.km):it isthe areabetwwn themainDanubeandtheMosonDanube,
which sepamtenear Ceinovo and rnergeagainas Gy&. The term
Szigetkozmeans"islandsregion"so-cded becaus en thegrave1and
sandsedimentalargenurnkr of"islandofdiversecharacterhavebeen
formed by the sWg riverandits branches. SimilarlyinSlovak
tenitoryoutsidethefloodplainand dong themainriverbed,a long
meanderingbranch,theMdyDunaj,enclosesanisiandregionknown as
Ztny Osmv (Csd6kOz,in Hungarîan).
1.09. HerethebraidedDanube kws onthecrestofanalluvialfain
a bging channeL InthepastfreguenflmdsUiundatedlargeareaosf
Szigetkoz,buthesehave beenchinished inthepast150yearsby the
coristnictoffloodprotectioleveesandriverregulation
1.IO. TheSzigetk6zisa floodphin miss-mssedwithrivers.lnthe
Middie Ages,it mushave Mn a vat duvid tracklessforest. Since
thenthe ancientsceneryhasbeengradualtransformec, ostlyintan
agiculturalareaintersperwithpatchesof wwds, meadows,fenand
swamps,former riva knds andwater courses.ThXs accountsforits
divefsitormosaic-likcharamxiand iswhy iprovidesa habitatfoa
widevarietyofplantandanimalommunities.
1.11. The Wgetk'izNatureCanservatim Region wasestabLishein
1987 toprotecthespecXficatesystem,andthe characteriflora and
faunaof the Szigetkoz.The temtoryof theConservationRegion is
9,157 ha,of which 1,325ha is hîghly protected.Ltsscenery is
remarkablydiverse:flood plains,sandfloods,marshlanwithwata
surfacesloweryfields,forests,andwatwithbanks,brancheflowing
atdiffmntspeeds encloseviliageandtom,
1.12. One important naturd resourceof the Szigetk~zis the
timberland:4% oftheover 16,40h0aofforestieconomictimberland.
Themostimportan mte pies isthepplar whichcover2,76h 3a.
1.13. Do- from the Szigetkozinthedirection ofVise@
andNagymaros ,hetopographyishilly. ThDanube Bend,whm the
Nagymms Barrage was tobesituated,asnarrowvallesurroundebdy
the700-9ûû highdges oftheVisegrhiandBorzshy Mls. Visegrid
itself,overlookingtbend , asthe seaof theMagyarkings andthe
HungarianRenaissan (1e5thentury). TheDanubeBendisone of the
most importansitesinHmgaq, combbhg fine scenery with sitesof
histoxiclnd archaeologicslignificance.1.14. Itmay behelpful tobegin thi s uthe of the Gabcikovo-
Nagymaros BarrageSystembydefiningsome termsusedthroughoutthis
Merno~ial.~The Barrage System was designed as "a single and
indivisibleoperatid systemofworks",to usetheIanguageof Article
l(1) ofthe 1977Treaty. Referencesto "theProjecior "theBurage
System"will indicatethescheme as awhole. TheBarrageSy'stern
containedtwomajorelements:
(1) the upstream-or, hcluduig works atDunakiliton Hungarian
territorand Gabcikovo onCzechoslovak temtory: thiwsill be
referreto astheEabcihvo sectoq8
(2) the dowrism-amsector,comprishgworksat andin thevicinityof
Nagyrnms, on Hungaian tdtory: thisWU bereferredto athe
Nagpmwossec~or.~
By comt, theterm"Vanan t" WU beused torefm totheso-çalled
"provisionasl lutioL,e.theuniid diversiooftheDan& atiirm
1851.7onwhatwasthenCzechoslova kenitory,
1.15. The Bmge System asenvisagedby the 1977 Treaîy was
intauid toservefourpurposese:lectricproductionn,avigatio,lood
protectioandregionaidevel~pment.~T~heroleofmajorinstallationns
perfmmkgthose taskswowldhaveben thefdowhg:
(1) TheHmov-Dw~clKiIit ieservoircoveringa) squkm, extendhg
fromthesuutheast endofBratislavato thDunWti dam(rkm
1858-1842)andhaving a 300-300 me& wide head race canal,
wouldhave had abtai capaciiyo200 rndiiocubicmares, outof
7 ToassithtCoutt,selectglosofrequentusedtermsaybefounddbedy
befm thAppendksofthiMsemOnal.
8
ForamapoftheGabcikovecta,seeAmexesvo2,map1.
ForarnspofXheN~ssed~f,seeAnnexes,vol2,map3.
19 Foramore&taikddescriptnfttplansseeJoiConmcmd PlanSummary,
iSn;Annexes,ol3,ma 24,anEnvirWimentmlpacAssesmat,Sianmary,
Budapes,unef985;Annexe,o5,anne4.which49 Won cubicrnetreswouldhavebeen usedtogenerate
electriciat thGabcikovo powerplantsituateatcanalh 17.
The powerplantwas designedtooperateinpeakmode, utilrsing
thatamountfor severalhours,depndingon theaischargeofthe
Danube. Exceptfor themoming andevening peak hours of
electricityçonsumptithe Danubewouldhavebeen "stopped"
withpracticallynwatercomuighugh the pwer plantintothe
8.2km long tail racecanajoiningtheDanube atPalkovicovo.
Apart hm large floodsmeasuringover4500 cubic metresper
second(11131s)hichwouIdlastforonlyafew dayseach yearthe
averagedischargeo2,000m31s inthe31h longby-passedmain
riverkdwould havefaileto amere 50m3/saftetconstructioof
theHmsov-Dunakilitreservoir.
The built-Inçapacityofthe eightturbino efstheGabcikovo
Barragewasplannd tobe720 Megawatts,andof thesixturbines
attheNagymarusBarrage158 Megawatts.h totatheBarrage
System was &signed toproduce 3675 Gigawatthomeleckic
powerper y=, whichthePartiesweretoshareequally.
h ordertomaintaintherequirednavigationlepthinthe113 lm
longstretcktween PalkovicovoandMagymaros t wouldhave
km necessa roydam back the Danube water. This long
impoundmen wtih mishg thewaterlevelalmost1 metre above
the recordedhlghestflood atNagymarosand occupying the
fldplain meen theexistingbutreinfmedlevees,wouldhave
beenachlevedby a seconbarrage,situateintheriverbeatrkm
1695 (atNagymam) and witha hydro-powerplantmmhg in
cmtinuoiismode, Ilme would have beenno need for this
Nngymaros Barrage,hadthe Gabcikovopower plantoperataiin
contsnuous ode,not mode.
&O, for navigationapurposes,two275 rnetrlong shiploch
were designedforthebamges at GabclkovoandNagyrnams. In
thecaseof anaccidentintheby-passcanalormahnctionhg of
the Gabcikovoshiplocks,one oftheseven taintergawsof the.
DunaUti weir was augmentai witha fift shiplock,enabling
emergencynavigation in the main riverhi. Under normal
conditionnavigatiowasto be be-routto theby-pascand, but
srnallboattrafficandemergencnavigationwouidhavemauied
inthemainriverbed.(5) Flood protection watobe providedby dividingthe Danube's
watkrdischargektween theby-passcanalandthemain riverbed
and byreinforcingthebanks downsmamof Palkovicovo. In
addition, Wging below Palkovimvo and downsîream of
Nagymaros was Uitendetoincreassafctyfromfloodingevenif
theA.ojectwodd causetheDanube to fiow 6-16metersabove
terrailevebetweenman-made dykesintheheadrace canaland
with thewaterlevelconstantlyabovehigwaterbel ina large
partoftheNagymarosreservoir.
(6) Regionaldevelopmnt was to includeinfrastruct1Iivestments
(road saste-watematmentplants, provisionof watersupply
and canalisatioforvillages), imgation facilities, recreational
amenitiesaroundthe reservoirs, and local job opportunities.
These wouldhave ken considere"nationalnvestments",whose
costswouldnothavefomed panof theProjectassuch.
1.16. The originaIBarrageSystem was nevercompleted. Acting
unilakdly, CzechoslovakiconstructedVht C. VariantC,as it
existinMmh 1994,incorporates newconnechg damcmhg amss
thefloodplauiapproxXmate1.5kmhm theSlovak-Hungaria norder
andconaectingtherightbankof themoir witha new 11 km long
dykeon theIeftbankof theriver,jofnitheupperendof the original
power canal. Thus,the Cunovo reservoirimted, which is30%
smallerthantheHmsov-M~ remoit wouldhave ken." The
dam atCugovo presentlyincludaby-passw& withfourtaintegates
witha nominaicapacityof1,460mN, which isreduced--dueto ain
faul design- ta a themeticalcapacityo600 rn3/s.Continuously,
however,in ordenottuproduceerosionintheriverbeclownsaeam of
thehge, thecapacitatpresentissaitobeonly250-35 m031s.The
Cunovodamincorporates a 20 gatinundatioweirWt on the surface
ofthe flmdpain (128m abovethe Adriatisealevel (asl)),capableof
lettindom 4,600m3/s if necessary.TheDanube-beisclos& witha
permanentclamof stoneand concreteblockcoveredbya clay~ement
protectiolayer.NoshiplockexistsTheSlovak Republicclaimthatit
plansto augmentthesstnicms with a hydropowerstationaspillway
weir,and ashiplwk. However,due tothe5 metredifferencebetween
theleveloftheDanube-bedandthedeepestpointoftheby-pasweirthe
I1 ForamapcamparinthChhikovosectoftheOriginl rojctdVariat ,
seAnnexes.ol2, map5.resemoircannotbe "flushenor caniceaccurnulathgithe resemoir
bepassed dowristreamThereis notechnicameçhanismforreleasing
waterintheextendedhead-raccanaand thelowerparofthereservoir
ifadykeburstoccurs.
1.17. UnderVariantC,thewaterflowspasttheCunovodam through
thesixhstalleturbin atsabcikovo.ThoseturbinesareuWed in a
continuousoperatimode,sinc nterruptioofthe waterflowwould
hinderor prevennavigatiointhe tairacecanalanddownstream of
Palkovicovo.Theesrimateelectricproductioof Variant al1used
bySlovakiaissai o be2,00G0igawatrhoupreryear.
SECTION D: STRUCTURE OF THE MEMORIAL
1.18. ThisMernorialiin fourpartsFart1(Chapter2)outhes the
essentialissuespresenforthe CourtunderArticle2 of thSpecid
Agreement. Italsodealswith the importaquestionofthe interh
protectionotherightsotheParties,andinparticutheobligatioto
establiahtemporarwatermanaganenr tegimeasreqm by Articl4
oftheSpeciaA.greement.
1.19. PartIIpivean accounof theessentidelementsofthedispute,
includinh longhistmy(Chaptcr31thekeyfeanireofthe1977Treaty
whichis at thecentreofthe dispute,andof otherelevanttreaties
ktween theParties(Chapm 41, andthe risksimposedon and the
damage suffmd byHungary asaTiesuotîhemhmd diversioofthe
Danube inOmber 1992(Chapter5).
1.20. PartIIdIealwiththebreacheofinternationaIlawattributable
toCzechoslovakiandsubsequentlyto thSlova kepublic.Chapter6
detailthekaches ofrelevanttreatiandofgend intemationaliaw,
committed by Czechoslovakia pria to the construction and
implementatioof VariantC. Chapter7 dealswith theillegaliof
VariantCitself. Chapt8discussesheissueoftheattributinfthese
nnlawhi acttothe SlovakRepublic, ndtheconsequentidbligations
ofreparation.
1.21. PartIV demonstratethe lawfulnessof Hungarysonductin
suspendingandsubsequentlabandohg work ontheProject(Chapter
9)andin ~~ the1977 TreatgChapterIO) ,swellasspehg
out thelegd conseqwncesfor thePartiesofthe Zerminationf the
Tm (Cham 11). PARTI
THE TASK OF THE COURT UNDER THE SPECJAX,
AGIREEMÉNT
SECTION A: ARTICLE 2OFTHE SPEQAL AGREEMENT
2-01. Artic2eoftheSpeciAgreemen trovidesasfoUows:
"Artic2e
(1)TheCourtisrequestee deeidon thebasiofthe[1977]
Tmty anddes and@ciples ofgeneralintemationallaw,as
weU assuchothertreatastheCourmay fin dpplicable,
(a)whethethe Republicof Hungarwasentitletosuspend
and subsequentlyabandon,in 1989, thewmks on the
NagymarosPmjectandon thpartoftheGabcikovProjecfor
which theTreatyamlbutedmp~s3bilityto thRepublicof
Hmgary;
(b )hethetheCzeçhandSlovakF&d Repubhcwasentitled
to proceeid,Novemk 1991,to the"provisionlolution"
[othefwisvarianCI andtoputintooperatiohm October
1992 thisystemdescribintheReportofthWag Group
of Indepdent Expertsof the CommissionotheEmpan
Commmiities,theRepublicofHungaryand theCzech and
SlovakFederalRepublîdated23 November1992 (damming
up oftheDanubeatriverkilometre1851.7onCzechoslovak
temitorandrenilting~onsequen cnemer andnavigation
course);
(c)whatarethe legaeffectofthenotificatio, 19 my
1992, of the teminatiof theTmty by theRepublicof
Huwary.
(2)The Court is &O requestmito detamine the legal
conseguenws, includhthe rightand obligationsfothe
Parties,arisingfromitsJudpentthquestioninparagraph
1 oftbisrticle."2.02. Article2{1)setsoutthreequestionswhichtheCourtisasked to
determuie ,ndwhichwereceneal tothedisputektween Hungary and
theCzeçh andSlovakFederalRepublicpriorto 31December1992. In
essencethose questionsrelat(a) tothe suspensionandsubsequent
abandonmen otf worksontheProjectbyBungary, (b)tothe unihd
diversionoftheDanube inOctokr 1992,withitsconsequenteffects,
and (c)totheIegdiv ofthetaminationof the1977TreatybyHungary
on19May 1992.
2.03. Thereafee he Corn isasked,byArticle2(2)todetamine what
arethe legal consequenceforthe partieof the answerto thethree
questionsenmerateciinparagraph(1).This isareferenceto thlegal
consequenc iechding therightand obligatioofthe Parties,asthey
willbe atthedateof the Courtjudgment.Accordingly theCourt has
jurisdictitodetermineanyother legd issutha mtaybe necessaryin
orderto decidewhaîare thoselegal consequemesat thadate. The
Courtisnot askedtodecidehypoâheticallgd questionsdivmed fxom
theactud relationsbetweenHungarand Slovakiasinc1 January1993.
Itis entitletotake intoaccountevents, transactioand statements
sincethatdateto theextenthatthesearerelevanin detennlliiwhat
are the ad legd mequences of the men to the questions
enumaatedinparagraph (1)--in otherwords, theactualrightsand
obligationsof HwrgaryandSlovakiainterseat thedateof theCourt's
judgment.
2.M. One obvious season forthe distinctiondrawnhtween the
questionsspified inparagaph (1) of Grticle2 anthemoregeneral
referencto consequenc rgshtandobligationcontainedinparagaph
(23isthatthe formerquestionsdidnot&se betwm thepartiestothe
psmt procedngs, hk they mse between the Republic of
Hungaryand the CzechandSlovakFederalRepnblic, a Statewbich
çeasedto exist on31 DecemGer 1992. Itis becauseof the dispute
existinbtween RepublicofHungar andtheSlovakICepublicthatthe
questionsiden-d Ui paragrap(1) continuto lxliveissnesbetween
theparties,
2.05. Subjectowhat WU be saidbelowabout Articl4,1thepurpose
of theSpeciaJ. greementwas toconferon theCourtjurisdictionto
determinethequestionsspecfied inparagraphs1)itn d2)as between
the parties.The SpeciaiAgreement does notprejudge anyof those
questions, odoes itIimitodirecttheCoietinthe&roundistmayrely
1 See hlow, pa2.09-2.12.oninansweringthem. The Courthas todeterminethosequestions"on
thebais ofthe Treatyanddes and principlesogemral international
law,asweliassuch 0th ireatiestheCourtmay findapplicable".The
Courthas to deteme, interdia,whetherthe Treatyfemainedinforce
notwithstandingheHungarianDeclaratioofTenninati~n.~Indokg so
itmristhaveregardnot ody to theTreatyitself buto therulesand
phciples ofgeneralintemationalaw.ThusA,rticl2 doesnotestablish
any specialhierarchof norrnsto beapplied:theseare a matter for
determinationy theCourtinthe normalway, consistentwith Article
38 ofitStatute.
2.. Preambular paragaph 2 of theSpecial Aprnent reads as
follows:
"Bearlnginmind thatheSZovak Repubbcis thesolesuçcessor
Stateinrespect ofrights and obligationsrelatingto the
GabcikoveNgymms hject;"
Thisis aderence to thefac hat,asbetween theCzech Republicand
the SIovakRepublicas thesuçcessorStatestothe former Czechand
SlovakFedd Republic,itwas understoodthattheSlovakRepubliç
wouldbesulely concerned with the issue of"rightand obLigations
relatingtothe Gabcikovo-Nagymaro Bsroject",andthatthi s atter
would beofno con- totheCzechRepublic.
2.07. Thisunderstandin gsevidencedby aNote Verbaleofthe Czsch
Republic to the Delegationof the Commissionof the Empean
Communitie snPragueon3March 1993,whichreadin relevantparas
follows:
"TheMinisay of ForeignMairs of theÇzech Republic..has
thehonour tono* thatonFebmy 23, 1993the House of
DeputiesoftheParliamenotftheCzechRepublicapproved that
theCzech Republicwouldnot &me asuccessionstateto the
Tnmy between the Czechodovak SocialisRepublicand the
HmgarianPeopWs RepubLio cntheconstructioand operation
of the Gdxikovo-Nagymms system of loch *..and the
contractualocumentsrelatetothisTreaty.3
2 HungananeclamionofTeminatiotigiby HungariPrimeMiter JAntall,
16May 1992Annexevol4,annex82.
3 SeeAnnexevol4,anne117. 2.08. Thusunder AÏticle of the SpecialAgreementthe Courtis
entitltodetermine, betweenthePartietothicase:
(1) themeaningandeffeçtothe 1977Treaty;
(2) whetherttiewasanyrelevantbmh ofthe1977 Treatybyeither
PartytothaTreaty;
(3) whethercertainworkonthe Projecwaslawfullysuspende and
subsequeritlabandou edHungary;
(4) whether, in thecIrcu~smcesthen otrtainiriHungarywas
entitleto terminatethe 1977 Treaty by its Termination
Declmitionof16May 1992,transmitttothePrimeMinlsterof
theCzech and SlovakFederdRepublicbyAbreVerbale of19
May1992and takineffecon 25May1992;4
(5) if not,whethetheTreatyisnonethelasnolongerin force by
mon of subsequenetvents,includingsubsequbrtachesbythe
Czechand SlovakFabd Republic;
(6) to whatextent legal rigandobligationswith respectothe
Projecthaveken assumedby theSlova&kpublic,inaccordance
withrelevandes ofinternationllw;
(7) the legalityothe conduetofSlovakRepubiic in dation to
VarianC;
(8) thelegalconsequeneeforHungaryand the SlovakRepublicof
themezs given bytheCourttothesequestions.
!3ECTION B: ARTICLE 4 OF THE SPECIAZ AIGREEMENT
,
2.0. Themle of theCourtundertheSpecialAgreementislimitein
oneirnpormtrespecby Article4Thi s vides asfollows:
(1)The Partieagreetbatpendhg thefinal Judgmentofthe
Court,they WU estabiishand hplementa temporarywata
managemenr tegimefortheDanube.
4 Annexesvol4aune83. (2) 7iheyMer agreethat,intheperiodbefore sucha regime
isestablishedorimplementd,if eithePartibiieves itsrights
areendangered by theconductof theother,it may request
immediateconsultationandrefmnce, ifnecessa toyexperts,
includintheCommission oftheEuropeanCommmities, with a
view toprotectingthosrights;md thatprotectioshallnot be
soughtthrough arequestto theCourtunder Article41of the
Statute.
(3) % cornmitmentis accepted by both parties as
fundamenta lo the conclusionandcontinuhg validitof the
SpeciaiAgmment."
2.10. Article4(2)excludes the paies hm applyingfor provisional
measures in theperiod beforethe establishmentof aninth water
managemen tegime. Thisexclusionwasinsistedupon by the Slovak
Republicbefm itwould ap torefethe ment dispute to theCourt.
The Repubiicof Bungary in itstuniinsisteon a cornmitmeno t nthe
partof theSlovakRepublic not merelyto discussthepossibilityof an
interim water managementregime, but açtually to "establlshand
irniplement"uch a regime.sWithoutsuch a cornmiment,Hungary
wouldnot haveforegone therighttosmk anindicationofprovisionalor
interimmeas- fnm thiCsourt.
2.11. As envisagedin Atticl4(2),themediationoftheCommission of
theEirropeanCommrmities has provednecessq in seekingtoestablish
a temporaryregime. The variousrecom~endationm s adebythe Es
ExpertGroup,and by the EC itseif, arecorded inChapter 3 ofthis
MemoriaLI 6t ialso recorded thatsinc e Januq 1993 the Slovak
Republichas notcomplied witha singleoneof those~mendations~
5 Theearliedmft oArticl4(1),roposeiy theSlovaRkepubli, rovidas
follows:
"(13ThePartiesagnîhai,pwidthefinaJudgmentftheCourt,
tbeywill seektoeStabIisad impiementa temporarwater
managemenqt$ne fotheDanube."
IwasgtHungmy'insisiencethewords"seek"weredeletefrçthi&srafIn
addition,initialSlodtafotAtticl42)pmlw2ed thmakin gfaainterim
measma applicat"intheabsenceosuchanagmd reghd. Thisphrasewas
chgai, afHm6 insis- tu md "inthpaid beforesucha regimeis
esaishedorimplemwtd'.Nor has it ken ppared to make any concession whateverto the
Republic of Hungaryin relatioto a temporaxywater management
regime.7
2.12. The questionofa temporaryregime,asrequiredby Articl4 of
theSpecialAgreement,mains unresolved at the rimof completionof
thiMsernorial.Itwillbethe subjectofafurthereporttothe Courtin
thecontextoftbeHungarimCornter-MemonalF .orpresentpurposesit
issufficieto indicate:
thatthecornmitmen to establisatemporaryregimesufficiento
(a)
protecttherightof theParti iesxpressedtobeof fundamental
importance,andisin factoffundamentailmportancetoHmgary;
and
(b) thatthe Courtis entitlto takeintoacconnttheconductofthe
PartiesunderArticl4 oftheSpecialAgreementin assesshgtheir
good fait inreldon totheresoIutioofthedisputesubmittedto
ir. PART TII
ESSErn ELIMENTS OF TEE DISPUTE
3.01. Thequestionsrefemdto thCoinrt nthe SpecialAgreement
aroseintheperiodafter198and have beethesubjwtof prolonged
contmversysince.Butinan importansensetheW~cultieswiththe
Projectcmbetracedbacktoits origins,inEasternEuropeshortly&r
theendoftheSecondWuddWar,when rheideof aBarragSysm on
theDanubeintheregionhtween BratislaandtheDanube Bend was
kt discusd. Tb factualbackgrounwirllx reviewedin this
Chapter, derfouchronulogiclections:
SECTION A Qaragraphs3.02.-3.40.)dealwiththe miginsofthe
Ga.bdcovc+Naparos Fkject hm 1952to1977.
SECTION B @-ph 3.41.- 3.108.dealswiththe eod of
attempteconstructiof theProject,hm theentrUitoforceofthe
Treatyof1977toHirngary'sspensionof woratNagymamsin 1989
andatGabcikovoin1990.
SECTIONC @ara&raph3 s.109 . 3.186.deah withthe faild
negotiatioforrevisionthe 1977TW, theventualterminatiof
theTreatyinMay 1992,andtheimilate divelsionofthDanubein
October1992.
SECTION D (pmgraphs 3.187-3.223.de& withtheimpactofthe
diversioandtheattemptunderEC mediatiotoreachagreemenon a
temporarywatermanagement regime botwith Czechoslovakiand
subsequendwiththenewlyindependenSlovaRepublic.
Eachsectiois self-contai,ndcanbe readonits ownasanaccount
oftheperiocovered.The fouSrectiomay dso sme as a catalogue
raisonnieto the mmexed diplornaticu~mpondence and other
docu~entsrelatitotheProject. 3.02. Inthe early1950sHungaryplanneci toconsmct one or two
hydroelectrpowerplantsinthe Nagymarus region, The planswere
parofanambitiousattempt- asformulatedevressisverbiinthe kt
Five-YearEconomicPlan - "totransformHungaq intoa countryof
iron, steandmachineryu ,itha comspondinglyincreased needfor
eisctric.ty
3.03.In a letter dated 5 Novemk 1951 the Hungarîan
Representatitothe DanubeCommissionsent a letteto theSoviet
Presidenof theCommission regardhg the establishmeof ahydro-
electriccentintheNagymaros-Visegnidegionbetweenrh 1695 and
rkm170L2 The lettesaid tha he water couldbe maximisedin a
resewoiat 108.metresal.
. 3.04. Becauseof the need tostoreDanube water, thHungarian
projectrequirtheflooduigof Czechoslovalands. 11was,therefore,
necessarto enterhto negotiatiomwith Czechoslovakia, A Joint
Govemmenta fornmitteconsistinoftheHungarim and Czechoslwak
DeputyMe Mnbters was givenamandate tomdy the hydroelecizic
possibilitsorthsharedsectioof theDanuGe,
3.05. At the kt sessionof thisCornmitteeon 2 August 1952,
Czechoslovakipresenteitsdesignfora damand reservoian itom
territodirectlyhlowBdava, inoppositiotoEhmgq'splan fora
jointdamandresenroirsystem.Hungaryin turnaskedCzecboslovdcia
tocompensateforanydamage resultxnhm the storageofwaterinthe
resewok. Hungary and Lzechoslovalgfmdy agreed to studythe
possibilitforjointhydroelectrcowwutilisationof theDmu@ and
establishea JointTechnicalExpert Csommitteeto coadhte the
studies,investigations,andplanning. Çzechoslovakiaacceptthe
HungarimPian regarding the Barragein the Nagymams-Vise@
1 HungafiPeoplesepubl,ectoParliamNto 19May1951.
2 ie&rfromMr ESik,Hm- Pemianent qmentativtoMr G Mommv,
PresidofthDanube&mission, 5Nwember191.
3 1956.gMinutConceminUtilidon ofRydroelePower18Jul-22gwt region,whileat thesamethe it soughtapprovafor its proposalfor
hydro-electrclantsdownstreamofBratislava,
3.06, At thekt meetingof theJointTechnicalExpertsCornmittee
on 17Mnrch 1953, theCzechodovak expertsinitiallysupporttheleft
bank power canal option because of techicai and financial
consideratio Hulnga~ianexpertsagreed that "the existinpower
potentiamust beeconomicallymaxhnised" ,ut were notpseparedto
accepttheCzechoslovakproposal.
3.07. The Coumil for Mumal Economic Assistance (CMEA)
providedanothermeansof strengtheningo-operatiobetweenHungary
andbchoslovakia ;ver the hydroelectricowerplantsof theDanube.
Establishein 1949, theCMEA operataiwithout a Charteror legai
noms for thefintdecadeof itsexistenceAt itFointh Sessionon26-
27 Mirch 1954 inMoscow, the Headof the Sovietdelegation(and
Chairmanof the plenary)stressethattheCMEA coumies hadmade
"serioumistakes,namely...theUplanswere notCO-onkatedenough" ,
hplying thatHungaty was dragging itsfeeî. The Czechwlovak
delegatiounderluleche necessityofCO-operationithHungary onthe
constructiooftheDanube Power Plantsandurged thaHungary reacha
decisionquickly?
3.08. The two corntriesignedanAgreement on the setüementof
technicaland economicissues concernuigfrontier watmourses at
Pragu oen16April1954.6This AgreemenrteqW join preparaîioand
appmvdof hydmtechnical projectsand majorchanges toboundary
.waters.
3.09, In thelightofCMEA's attitude, ungary~pliedatthemeeting
of the JointGovemmentaiConunittee on 10 July 195k7 theborder
l 4 FroiocEftheJointTechnElxperCommit-,17March1953.
5 HungarianeportconcemithFourtSessionothQMEA,29Match1954.
I
6 504UNTS 231Annexes, ol mmex 12. ThissuprseanAgreemenrdating
tothRegulatiofTechnieaiandEconomMatier~oncemintheregiofthe
hube andthTi riveklow thmouthoSzamosB, udape24August1937:
189Lm m.
7 TheHungarjapositionwas establbythe ldng bodyoftheHungarian
WmkedPaq [thniliCommunisPtarty)15J~ne1954.shouldbemoved tothecentmlhe of apower canaltobebuilteitheron
theleftorrightbank;additionainvatment shouldbejointiyfinanced;
thegrave1depositupstream oftheBratislavBarrageshouldbeshared
equdiy,and thelefi-banpower-candcouldbe acceptebyconsensusif
the parties would evenly sharethe investment cos@ and energy
production.
3.10. The JointGovmental Cornmitteewas thusable ta reach
agreementinprincipleon2December 1954 onthefollowing point^:^
"1. Thm must be themaximumprofitable utilisatiof the
hydroelectrcnergyofthecommonDanubesection.
2. The dam shzd bebdt below Bratislava,wherethebest
optionfrom among a numberof proposai variants mut be
selectewitli Sovieconsultation.Futthemore,anotherdam
SM be builatVisegrad.
6. Therernaybe anundesirablerisorreductioninthe level
of undergroundand surfacwaters,leadingto areductionin
agiculhaalorforestpmdwtivity.Insuch casesthenecessary
amelioratioequipment shaUbe obtsined,tothedebitof the
power plantresponsiblforsuch effects, inordetoprevent
lossestherefrom.
11. The Party who withdraws water hm thesystem for
amelioratioorotherpurposa,may do soonly to thdebitof
itssh of hydroelstricenergy. The amount of water or
energyrequuedfor the provisionofan appmpnate riseor
decreasein the levelof underground waters necessa roy
preventlosses inthe agricultureothe regionsinquestion
threateneby droughtor excessivwater,shallbedetamineci
by theJointTechnicdCommittee. The estabbhedamountof
waterorenqy mut be madeavailableto threlevanpaq to
thedebit ofthe energypruducedprim tothe distributionof
enefgybetweenthepartieçoncerned."
8 CIosinMin- oftheNegotiatiberneetheGovmmentWttes of the
RepubliofaPx:hoslovdcîatheHunghm PeoplRepubliçoncemingthe
utilisatof hyhpower oftheRiverDmbe ktween Devinand Visegrsid,
Budapes, Nomber -2December1954;Annexe,ol3annex4.It aisorecommended that therebe "jointconsultationwith Soviet
expertsregardhg the utilisationthesectionof theDanube in the
regionof Devin-Visegraassoon aspossible"T.heÇMEA Secretariat
and theDanube Commission9 were tobenotifiedoftheresultof the
negotiatiom.1°Butnoagreementwas reachedonsuchtopicsasnational
borders,the by-passcanal,costsrelateto the maintenanceof the
Danubebed orthe shareofenergyproductiontobe ailocatedtoeach
Party-
3.11. After 1954, negotiationsunderthe auspices~f theJoint
Governmenta Clornmitteweresuspended becauseofke Gifferences,
andCzechoslovakia began50 considerbdding theBratislavapower
plantwithAustriaparticipation.
3.12. The CMEa gavethe negotiatioasnew impebus.On 30Apd
1956,theSeventhSessionofCMEA passeca comprehensivRe esolution
cmtheutilisatioof thDanube from BratislavtotheBlack Sea.The
CMEA's Permanent Commissionfor EnergyAffairs adupteguidelines
on a plannedwork programme and thebasic elementsofautilisation
plan."Th~hereafeerergy and water&airs expertmet in Moscow
between26-28 Sune1956.At thimseetinther weasastrongmovement
fortheco~on of sepuatebut Wed hydroeldc power plants.
An agreemenwt ouldbenecessa onlytothe extentthattheopentions
of one pwer pht wodd affectthe other country.1Hungq
emphasisedthat itwas facmg aninmase inits energd yeficit,but
pointedontthatdependen cna hign countrymightcause problems
inthefuair tp.posed maintainintheprincipleofjointutilisatira,
accordancwith theCMEAnegotiationsa, nwaswillingto...
"submitthiquestiotothe CMEA' sornmitteforhergy Co-
operatioandtheDanubeCommission fortechnicd discussion.
9 ïk DanubeCommissionwa~atahkhed in1948 pursuato the 3elgrade
Cxmventiu.eepma438.
10 CiosliigfiutofthNegotktims bdweentGovemmentCornmittofthe
RepublicofCzechoslovandthHungarkmPeopleRepubliooncemithe
harnessiofhy-wer ofth RiverDmuk beh~eeDnevinand
Budapes,0Novmber-2lkmnber 1954.
11 Rept ontbSeventhCMEASessio30May 1956;Annexvol4,anne2.
12 MeetinofEaergandWateABh Expert 26-28Jw 1956. By the way, the Soviet parhas encouragedthi sourseof
actioatthepresentsession,"l3
3.13. CMEA's Permanen tornittee foEnergy Affairsat meeting
heldon10-16 September 1957inMoscow,adopted plamhg guidelines
and a workingprogramme furthe constructioof hydroelec~cpower
plantsas weII as basicprinciplesunderlyinthe relatedutiiisation
sçheme. These plans were preparedby Hydroprojekt, a Moscow
engineeringinstitute. ButdespiteW s continuingeffortsthe
disagreementbetween Hungaryand Czechoslovakionthe Rojectwere
notresolv edrhg 1957.
3.14. On 30 April1957, an Austro-CLechoslova kgreement was
elabratedat govenimentalcornmittelevelon theconsmctionof the
WoEstahE hydroelectricpowerplant.I4Hungaryconsidemi that this
Agreementçreated an.ntirelnew situatiobecauseitfundamentally
rnomedtheprospects fora jointbarragsystembetweenBratislavamd
Visegdd. UnderArticle3 ofthe1954 Apment, Czechoslovaki aas
cornrnittto corisultatisnd ajoint agreemenwithHungary prioto
any negotiationswith Austria. In response to this objection,
CzeçhoslovakiareferretotheSovietUnion's1956warningto establish
contractswithAustriawithoutdelaybecausAiistriaplansconc&g
theutilisatiof hydroelectrcowerwouid affect thjointHuxlgarian-
Czechoslovakplans. Czechos~ovakia deniedthat acompletelynew
situationhadcorneinto existence,buadmittecthatth= was a new
technacdsituatioTo thequestion:
"does Czechoslovakiasupport Hmgary'sendeavour to give
preferencto theconstructioof theVisegradpowerplantin
view of the new situationand with refe~nce to tensions
adverselaffecthgHmgqts energysidon, andisitreadyto
supporHungaryin thiwsitthe CMEA's Moscow Conunîttee?"
Czechoslovakiareplie&
"atheoreticalevelopmentplan conamhg the wholeDanube
sechonmustbepresentedtoCMEA forapprovall5
13 IntwndReporbyMr Gy Os~ffoyszH,ungarineputMiniçterofChemical
andEnergAfFai rJuy1956.
14 ReporbyCM% of6Au@ 195ontheconsukationPrague.3.15. Between 10-15Januaty 1958,HungarianC, zechoslovakand
Sovietexpertsmet to examinethe u-ation scheme devisedforthe
sectioof theDanubestretchinfromWoifstdd/Bratislavo thesection
belowBudapest. It was agrethatatechnicalsubcmrnitteeinvolving
Sovietexpertsshouldworkouta schemefor thenecessaqhydmelecnic
puwerplantsandpowercanalsandthat:
'V~pontherequesof thepartieconcernai,Hydiapmjeltthall
devisebytheendof February 1958a methodologicalirective
furdeterminhg theeconomicparameters govanhg the dams
concemed,and the disiributionof relatedinvestmecosts
between indlvidualsectors ofthe nationaleconomies in
questionThesaid cümtîveshailhesentoutthroughCMEA to
eachpldg agencyengaged inthecornplexutrEjsatinfthe
Danube for study and assesment. After considerhg
assessmentsreceiveâ, Hydroprojektshall mare the final
wordingof thedirectivand subrniitto Ws Permanent
Cornmitteforapval," '6
(2)RIE 1958DECEIO TNODEM%O THEPRO JE^
3.15, From 1952to 1958,34 main andsevd subvarktionsofthe
projectedtechnicl lanwerepmdgated and co-ordinMby thewater
managementagencies of the two amtries, None of theseplans
considere heenvironmentalimpact ofthe projectCMEkisrole was
si%nificantAt meetings held between12-19 May 1958,the Joint
TechnicalExperts Commim acceptedthe recommendatiom of the
Soviet consuitantsand propose d muiti-stagehydrue1ectriplant
operathgon a power cd onthe uppe sectionoftheDanube with a
secondhydroelectncplant on the lower sectionof the Danube at
Nagymaros. N1o7etheless,Hungaq decidedto recommence bikd
nego~otls at the lwel ofthe JointGovernmentaC l odttee and
maintaid itrequesformdiïcations tothecommon boundary.l8
26 Protoconthe Joint Negotiaaime dtthe InvestigoftheUtilkation
SchemeoffhDanubeSectiohm WuW-Bratislava tathevillaof Fajsz,
10-15Januaty1958;Anne,ol4, am3.
17 n.Oto~lfhintTwhnicElxper&mittee,19May 1938.
18 DecisionoftheHungaPoIitbm,August1958.3.17, Atthe meetingof 6-7ûctober 1958 ofthe JointGovemmental
Conmittee, anagreement was seached"concerning tasksrelateto the
join constructionofhydroelecûicpower plants on the Danube that
would inthe futureprovide for the pwing dernandfor eIecblc
energy"."The partiesagreedtocq outjointplanningand investfnent,
as"bothcorntries thin t desirableto utilisjointly the Damibe's
hydroelechicenerg iytheregionof Bratislava-Nagymarosl'.
3.18. Theyapd toindude thesehydrau2iclantsintheirlongtenn-
plans(i.e.thosethrough 1975).The ht plantwas tobe consmcted at
Nagymarosbetween 1961-1965. It was also decided to mise the
variousoptionsequallyandthat:
'The cornmitteeofexpertsshallasses tseseoptionsand shali
make a recommendation to the relevant Governent
cornmitteesregardingthemost advantagrnusoption.. .The
relevantdocumentatioshd besubmitted forassessrnentuthe
Hydroprojekt hitute of the Soviet Union by the end of
1960."20
3.19. Takinginto accounttheSovietrecommendatiun s,eessential
technid compmentswere deteminal atvariousmeetings oftheJoint
Technical ExpertsChmittee in 1960-61. The Nagymaros dam was
selectedasthelowestsectionofthe BarrageSystem. It surposewas to
stabik the wateroutput of plantsbcated on upr sectionsof the
Danube operatinin peak mode. Four optionswere suggestedforthe
uppersectionof theBarrage System:(a)a singistage left-sidpower
cd, (b)asinglestageright-sidepower cana (c)a twostageleft-and
right-sidepower canal(d)tiir rieerdams.21
19 ProtacooftheJoinGovenmientalCasmittonUtilismgH y ~ ~ of the
Daube ktweenBratislaandNagymaro~7 i,958Anaexes,vo4,
annex4. ..,,-..,
20 Clasingh ~ l ofthJointGoveznmentaornmittosnUtilisig HydmPower
oftheDanubebetwewBLatisIandNagymaros, Octabe1958;Annexe,o4,
annex4.
21 Summdsed intheRqm of theHungadnScientificDirecoftheRoject, 3
Gpn11963.3.20. Despite prdgress by the experts, the necessary politicd
deçisionswere nottaken. The high-levelHungarianCornmitteefor
InternationElconomicRelationsemphasisedon 31 October1960 that,
although..
"theResolutionof 15 January1958, adoptedby the Centrai
Cornmitteesof HungaryandCzechoslovakia concenihg the
joint constructionofhydroelectpower plantsmust stiUbe
regardedasvalid,the implementationofthe resolutionmust
hawever be suspended until CMEA hkes a standpoint
conceming theutilisationthejointHungarian-Czechoslovak
sectiooftheDanube and thecumplexplanfortheutilisatiof
theDanube asawhole."=
Hungary was toinvittheJointGovermentaiCornittee toevaluatthe
work-b-progressand...
"toordertheircompetentMes toprepareand to submitto
CMEA aproposaland relaieciplanswhichmat hydroelectnc
power plant of jointHungarian-Czechoslova ikteresas a
cokrent system,asweUas to investigatepossibilitiether
constructiof hydraulienergycontainerthatwouldknefit a
numberof ÇMEA coimtnes."z3
(3) ADOPTION OFTHE PROJETS~TMENT PROGRAMME
3.21. A comprehemive pianforthe Danubesectionfmm Bratislava
to the BlackSe., includingtheGabcikçivo-Nagymam hyhlectxic
powerplants,was devisedby Hydroprojekb teîween1956-1961. This
plan was approvedand feçomended by the CMEA Permanent
Cornmitteesfor ElectricEnergyAgiculture andTranspmation at a
JointMeetingheldin September1961.According tothenewly adopted
CMEA Charter:therecommendatiow nas obligator&er approvab ly
theHungarian andCzechoslovakgovernmentsM . oreoveon 10-12Jdy
1962, the CMEA'sExecutiveCornmitteeestablishedtheConferenceof
Heads of WaterManagemen t uthoriti,shichformanyyearsadopted
compulsory"recommendationc s"ncerningthe Gabciiovo-Naparos
22 DecisioNo501196NGKB/X.37,31Octobe1960.
23 DecisioNa 5011%0NGKBIX37,31 Oaober1960.?le molution adealt
withasecon dydroelecpowerplantonHungmh temitory,anregio-
PddMddk -latedeclartobeaproteckrea.
24 ChartertheCMEA(aiteredinfwce,13AMI lm); 36UNTS253.project.FollowingtheseCMEA"recommendations"o ,n23 March1963
theJointTechnicaExpei tsornmitteadoptedtheleft-bankversioof
thepowercanal (Le.invdvingconstructioon Czechoslovaktdtory)
andMer agreetoconsiruca dam atDiFnakîli..
"withtheprovisioîhatthetwoPartiesshdihaveequal access
tuthetwo mainworks, the dam andthehydtoelectricpower
plantbyway oftheadjustmentofstatebordersintheregion
concerned.Consequently,e borderbetweenthetwocounhes
shalilie dong the centrlin ef thedam, thehydroekttic
powerplantandthetail-rachannel."'25
Equaipartitioofcostmdbenefits wasdso prescribed.
3.22, Tbe Hungarian prepatntar documents for the Joint
Govemmenta l ornmittemeetingof 22Apd '1963 notesthatsinceits
lastmeeting in 1958, theJoint Technicd ExpertsCommîttee had
conductedthepldg studies,hadconsultl ydroprojekt, dthathe
relateddocumentshadben apved by CMEAand itsPemiarient
C0mmittee.~6Zn otha w&, Hungary was acting on the basis of
CMEA's appln>vofhydroeleçtncowerplantsinthefrontierregion.
3.23. The JointGovernmentaCl ornmittemeton 22 Apd 1963and
chosethelefi-banpowercanaloption. Itoderd thejoininvestment
programme tobe concludedby 30 April 1964, on tbe bais of an
inteniaiionlreattobesiggd betweenRungary andCzeehoslovakia.27
3.24. The jointinvestmentprogramme was infact compileby 30
A@ 1964 but wasnotadopted untii 2May 1967. Thisfinalversion
wasthe Jointhvesment Programms eignedbythe Hwngaria n~cretaq
of State of theNational Water ManagementAuthorityand the
CzechusIovaMk inisteof AgicultraF~xe~trandWaterManagement.
It includedtheleft-bankÇanal,theDmaWiti h and concmt
Banage Systemat Nagymaros.28
25 Protoc1f theJoTechniclxperComminee,3Mmh 1963.
26 PreparatoRye* onthePrepmtiootheNextMeetioftheJoiGovemment
Commitae3Apii 1963.
27 Protom?othJointGovanmentiwmiittee,22April1963.
28 PrutQCOflth: eetoftheHeadsfWateMimagemenAMties ofHungary
andQehslovakia17-25May 1967.325. Thefkt draf oFtheproposedinternationtreatyZenvisageda
borderadjustmmt,with awaterflowof 100m3/sdong thesectionfrom
rkm1842 toxkm 1811. Ownershipof themainUistabtions was tobe
equallyshared;0th installatiowouldbeowned by the countryon
whose tenltortheywere IocatedThe secondversionof 11March1967
loweredthe qued dischargeto 50 11131usnlessnaturalor other
conditionsshouldmreguiaedifferenoutput.3A singleclauseon watex
protectiowasincluded ,ccordingtowhich 'Yheoperatorareinterested
inensuringthepuritof watercourses".hisversionreaffirmetheneed
for a borderadjutment,with theproposed borderrunningalong the
middle ofthetail-mecanalandremning totheexistingborderlinat a
90" angle.Itenirustedisputresolutiotojointauthorititobe setup,
althoughHungaq had proposedarbitration.ButCzechoslovakiwodd
not agree tothe bder adjusment,and therlrafmaty was never
finaüsed.
l26. Quiteapartfromthis difj5culty,tpartiesahady plannedto
delay theprojeet, In1965, the CzechoslovakPlhg Officehad
requestedthe elaboratioof variousoptionsforimplernentingit.In
1966 heHungarian GovanmentdecidednoE tocommenceworkuntil ,
the nextFive-yeasflan,startingin1970.3 IlnNovember 1967, the
ÇzechoslovakGovament suggestedthat aphasedscheme would be
both ecclnomicalayndenvbnmentaiiy moresensible,kause it would
involve "keepingthe Danubeinthe mnt riverbedasmuch as
possible"morefavourabIc eonditionforthe&rondwaterlevelin the
munding areasand the leastdisturbances to"natYrslbiological
cmditionsH.32
29 htocolofrtaJoiDraffin%roup7March1964.
30 A.otmooftheJointDrsifGroup,1March1967.
31 Govemmeno tftHm&m People' sepPbü c,claratNon3346/19(X.6).
32 Menmadm of the Negotidtions held behvkpsmtaaves of the
GovemmentsoftheHungariaPeopleRepublicanthCmchoslovaSdlist
RqublicBudapest,1-14Novembe1967;Annwrvo4, annex5Thedocument
isheade'TapS~".3.27. The defaysin implementationere broughttotheattentionof
CMEA,which againemerged topush theprojectforward. On 21-24
July 1970,CMEA's Executive Cornmitteeadopteda Report of the
Conferenceof HeadsofWater Management Authoritie"concemingco-
operationfor thesettiementof problemsitheregion oftheDanube
Basin."=On6 August1971,CMEAadoptd aComplexProgramme for
the Fwrther Deepeningand Improvement of Co-operationand the
Devdopment of SocialandEconomih ctegratioofthe CMEA,which
ordered "the constructionand operationof joinventure for the
productionofelecbic energy"and "theincreaseoftheproportionof
hydroelectrcnergyinîhebalanceoffuelsandenerg~".3~
3.28. With these CMEA antecedentson 10 December1971 the
Hungarian-Czechos Exovndkd Joint TechnicalCornmittee,the
leadhg organ of bilateral economic co-operation, adopted a
Czechoslovakproposalthathe Govmment Plenipotentiariesn Water
Affairshould"resumeconsultationconcernintechnicaandeconomic
aspectsof prepmtionforthejointconstructiofthe DanubedamsW.35
It also estabiisaenew ExtendedJointTechnicd Cornmitteeto be
chairedbyhîgh-IevcrepresentativsfthetwoStates.
3.29. The CMEA PermanentCornmitteeforElectricPowerreported
in 1972 on the fundamentaiplrobiernsof CO-operationn energy
production, ndstress-dasa consequeme of theCornplexhgmn --
theneed forCO-operativestablishmentf pat eIectricpowerplants,
inçludinhydroelectriclants,andtheiroptimuse.3"
3.30. At thefirsmeetingoftheExtended JointTechnicdCommittee
on 57-19July1972,Czechoslovakiaposeà thepower canalversioof
the 1967Jointhvestment Programme as supplementedin 1970. The
33 Re* on th48t hssioofCMEA'sExecutiCwamittee,25July1970.
34 TheComplexR o ~ ~ oCMEA, 6August1971.
35 ProtocoftheMeetinotheExtendeJointTechnid Conmit10hcesnber
7971.
36 ReportothCMEA PermanentornmittorEIect ncwer,Ma1972.Cornmitteeorderedthe draftinof a JointConstructionPlan and an
internationtreaty.37
3.31. At various later meetingsthe Extmded Joint Technical
Conmittee, withconîributios m theJointQraftinghup andJoint
Technicd Group,recordedthe issues onwhichthere was agreement,
Theseincludd
* The constructioofajoin tamsystem andthecornplexutilisation
of theDanube,especiallyto provideanappropriatenavigation
line,the production of electric energy, and agricuitud
development;
* The old Danubebedmust =tain 50 m3/s ofwater flow. The
Committee statethat "thedam system would not lead to a
deteridon inthe water qualitof the Danube"and h.at "a
separatagreementmust beconcludedinrespectofwater quality
mnml, and appiopna mtasuresmustbe take to ensurethat
thereisno deteridon in water qualit as a resultof the
executionandopmion of thepject".
* The Agreementshouldcontainprovisionscondg riverbed
mahtenmce, flood prevention,flood and icemanagement.
Permanentinstahtims should be instded for monitoring
suhdace waters.38
3.32. Consensuw sas reachedon theaecessityofmperation with
the Soviet Theparties wouldexchange infanmion on their
separatenegotiatiowiththeSovietUnion.* On the0th hand,there
were importantpointsodisagreementi,npartidaras tothe&wing
of statMeers and theorganisationslructurefoperathgthe Bmge
System. At themeetingofDéputy PrimeMhktters on 27August 1973,
Hungary reiterated the necessity of border modification, Ziut
Czechoslovakiastiwouldnot accepttheproposalinanyf~rni.~l
33 Fordetaisethekm fromtheHeadofthaBchosIovakiMon totheHead
dthe H~mgarineuionftheExeaiveChmitteeJuly19î2.
38 Mnms ofthGovemmen tlenipooenti19July1973.
39 MinutesotheGovemmenPieniptentia15Octob 1976.
40 MinuteofthGuvermnmPthipotentiar26Januar1977.
41 -1 ofIkpIiFrimelMinists &g, 23Augus1973.3.33. CMEAcontinued toremah closelyhvolved withpreparations
fortheprojectincludinitsfinances.Forexampleat meetingon9- 11
April1974with the PlenipotentiaoftheHungarian Government , he
GeneraI SeçretarofCM3 confumed CMEA'sinvolvementin the
project.Atnegotiatioconductedktween Deputy Prim e inisterson
26Julyandnd Itok 1974 thejoin troposalexplicitstatethat the
pject would serve kt Soviet interests:firsg by impmving
navigationalondition(in1971,the SovietUnion'shm of Danubian
tra"c amountedto 29.4%),ands,econd,byreducingtheSovietUnion's
energydeliverieto HungaryandCzechosIovakia.Inview of these
Soviet interestit wassuggestedthat HungaryandCzechoslovakia
mxive a100 milliontransferabeoubleloan,withfavourabieinterest
The loanwouidconsistoftechnical lanortheprojectas
weU asthegeneramfs,&es andotherparts. On25October1974,the
HungarianandCzechoslovak DeputyPrimeMinisters senn jointletter
to thi sffect rthe Soviet Deputy RUne Mini~ter,~3In tripartite
negotiationatDeputyRùne Mhisteridlevel,theSovietUnionassured
both partiesof itsuppor tarthe pject, promis4 loans to both
countries,ndproposedseparatenegotiatioo discusthfs:izofthese
10ans.~~
3.34. The Hungarian Prime Ministerappliedfor a laanfrom the
Soviet Unionon 27 February 1975 and emphasisedthatthe project
would bepartof them s ComplexProgramme .he SovietPrime
Ministerrespondedon 9 June 1975, sayingthat thloan application
would firsbe consihd by thedevant experssa,ndlaternegotiated
through the Hungarian Committee for IntemationalEconomic
relation^.^t theHungarim-Soviet expernegotiationin 1976,the
partiesagreethaHydroprojek wtouIdpreparen experassesmentand
that the relevantdecisionconcerning the provision of loansin
42 MinuteofDeputyPriMinistes eetin26Jul19f4,Olctdk 1974.
43 ZRttefrom Rirussar,Hwgarh Deputy%me Mhk andMr Rohlieek,
Czechc19loDvpkltPiime Ministto,MrLRsetsko, Sovkputy Prime
Ministe,5Octoh1974;Annexe,ol4, mex 7.
45 LettLeaerovietRimeMinbtaKossygitHm be MmistwLgzar,
June1975Annexe,ol4,anne8.particdarthedeliverieofthe materi&, shouldbetaken hto account
when co-ordbthg activitiforthe1981-1985Five-Year
3.35. CMEA activities on water quality protectionwere also
sigdicant fothe ProjectIn October1971,CMEA achowledged the
necessiryfor co-operationonwateraffh in theTisza rivervalley
(Invdving Hungary, CzechoslovakiaRomania, Yugosiaviaand the
SovietUnion) andconfmd thatitwodd be desifablto protectthe
Danubebasinhm floodingand A CMEAConference ofthe
HeadsofWaterManagemenA t uthoritwaseommissioned topreparea
proposalfor suchcu-operation.In Jmq 1973, CMiA askedthe
Conference to fornidate a draf nternationalagreement un the
~anube.~8In Septemk 1973, CMEA ded a conferenceon the
protectioof the Danube'waterquality.4The confance was never
held becaus Reornaniademan- the parsicipatiof ailcouniries
locateddong theDanube(includingAustriandthe Fedd Republic of
Germany)and raised objections uver the mandate given to the
ConfefenceoftheHeadsof Wer Managemen Authonties.InJanuary
1975;'theWA ExecutiveCornmitteeacceptedthe proposalofthe
ConferencoefthelieadsofWaterManagemen Atuthoritieo formulate
ant~~d æaty conmg waterqdty withthe participatiofthe
eight corntriethathad expssed interest inthe matter.50At this
meeting,theCzechoslovakmemberof theExmutiveCornmitteestress&
thatwater qtaaiitptection masures should be erifmd in each
uidividnacountry h accordan cithits nationahws, takinginto
consideratiothe internatiolbligationsandeconomicconditionsof
each country. In facta CMEA-sponsoxed treatyon waterquality
protectionnevercameintking.
47 ReportoftheS~M~gofthe~sExer:utiveCo~OcwkI971.
48 Reportfth61sMeetinofthCMEA'sExemiveCornmittee, ua1973.
49 Reporofth64tMheetingoftheCMEAExecuîiCodü.ee,Septfanb1973.
50 Rqm ofth75thMeetioftheCMEA'sExecutiConmitteJan- 1975.3.36. CMEA's endeavoursacquiredadditionalurgency given the
considerabldeterioratiin the quaiityoftheDanube'swater. For
example,on6-15 June1968,thebilate JointTechnicalCommitteefor
BorderWaters,establishby the1954TreatyonFrontierWatercourses,
statedthat "theDanuWs water qualityis good withui accepteci
parameters"b,uthatextraordinacasesof pouutionwerenevertheless
oçcirrring.flAt subsequentmeetingthe issue of pollutiwas to
receiveincseasiattentionûverthecourseofthe late960a ndearly
19705, Hmgary protested repeatedlyto CzechosIovakiaabout the
continuousand repeatedpollutionofthe Danube.= Czechoslovakia
disputedthisrejectedrecommendationsto commencewater quality
control,anddeclinetoallowHungary to participainbsptions on
Czechoslovaktemtory. The Hungarianprotestculdnated in aNote
Verbaleof24 January1974 whichreitemtedthathewater qualitywas
&teriratkg, thacatastmphiccasesofpouutionhadoccmd and that
Czechoslovakia had ignored its obligationto provide adquate
forscastin,ndreque~teMd er rneasm,53
3.37. On 24 My 1975,the Hunghan National Officeof Water
Main submhd totheConmitteeofInmational Economic Relations,
and in Septemtitothe CouneilofMinistersaProjef or theBarrage
System,toge with thoutlineofaHimgaian-CzechoslovaT kreaty.
The proposalgave WOnty to eriergyproductiobutdso mentioned
navigati and watermanagementi ,dentifyinthe latterwith flood
prevention. The piroposaemphasised thehject's mle inCMEA
integraiion.As to themodificationof stateborders,theproposal
recmended dropping the idea buse th= was no suitat,Ie
Hungaria nemitorythacouldbeoM, and becauseitwouldbecostiy
and undesirablefor Mer semity. On 9 September 1975, the
HungmianPoIitburowithdrewits decision of 1958 conc~ the
modificatioof bunias, and on 20 November 1975,the Hungarim
Govemment adoptedtheinvesmenrprogramme forthe projecand a
scheduleforimplementation. utHwgarycontinued tolintkeproject
toaplprovdoftheSoviet10an.5~
51 MinuteofJointTechnlommineeforwderW-, 1June1968.
52 NoieVÉËbnlhm thHimgarisMiiw ofForeigAffaitrheEmhy of
thCzechoslovl &publ23January197Amiexe, o4,anne6.
53 Wld.
54 GovemmenRt esoluNao3050t1975m20).3.38. ThenegotiationbeniveenHwigaryandCzechosiovakiaesuIted
intheconclusionof themiai agreements:n 6May 1976on theJoint
Contractuallan and on 16Septernûe1977 on theestablishmentnd
operatioof theGabcikovo-Nagymaro sarrageSystem itself. These
agreementswilbt nridyseinChapter4.s5
3-39. On 30 November1977, the long-awaitedSoviet lomwas
granted.The partieconcludeanAgreement onCo-operationbetween
the Govemmentsof thePeuple'RepubEiocf Hungaryandthe USSR
conçeming theConstructionoftheNagymarosBarrageon theRiver
Danube, as Part of the 'Gabcikovo-Nagymar oarrage Sgr~tern.~~
However, asa çonsequen ofeadeterimationintheeconomyof the
Soviet Union, the principalmaterialsprumisedunder the han
AgreementwereneverprovidedtoHungary.
3.40. Some conclusioncm bedrawnhm thelengthydevelopment
oftheProject:
(1) Thesubstanceand pasmetersof thebject wae workedout
before the middIe 1960s, and Lt representsa scientific,
technologicdand wata management approachwhichhas long
sinceben dhdited. Forexample, no environmentaimpact
assessrnenwas made. Whilesome environmentaiïssues were
raisedtheywereneverconclusivelysettledThis approacmay
beexplallieby CMEA's confidencthatechnicalsolutionscould
be foundfor al1problemandbytheSovietneed toproduc tee
greatesamount ofenm. Forexample,h June1977 reportof
the NationalWaterManagement Authmitystated,without any
scientificinvestigatthatan Inmase in outputof 50 cm3ls
wouldnot have anoticeablpositivecffect,buwouid causean
unacceptablelosof energy;thatunderwater eirscouldnot be
establishedbecausof theümat hm icethatthe reductioof
groundwatercould be compensatedby irrigation, and that
odonal losseswould be faexdexi by advantagesderiving
hm complexutilisation.
(2) Thefade natureof theseanswersmristnotobscurethekt that
agreementon theProject was achievasa resdtofpressu rne
thepartof theCMEA andby mon of thepriontygiventothe
55 Forth1976Agreemenî JointConbamalPlanpara4.03Forthe 1977
Treaty pas 4.04-4.23.
56 Annexevol3,mex 23.interests ofSociahrn. Successive Hungarianconcessions
concedg the location of the upstream dam, boundary
modification,aterpoilutionconml,etc.werenotmerechance.
My four yearslater, in1981,the Hungarian Deputy Phme
Mnbter qualEed the 1977 Treatyasanunequa1agreement
detrimentati Hungariainterests.STSECTION B: FROMPROJECTCONSTRUCTION TO PROJECT
SUSPENSION: 1977-1989
(1) SEARC FORALTERNATIVEA SNDIMFRoVEMENTS
3.41. On30Jane1978,the1977Tmtyenteredintoforceandwork
beganunder the auspices of the Govanment Plenipotentiaries.
Questionsunresolvedbythe1977Treatycontinuedtobediscussedand
new agreementsreachedonsuch matters acustoms questionsand
borde rmssings.5The 1977Tnaty didnotresolvetheissueofthelegal
fom of theentqrbe thatwouldoperattheBaxrageSystem a,problern
of someimportancesinçethejoint option wasat thatimeanovelty
betweenSocialistblocountnes.In factnoresolutiotothisproblem
was everachieved.
3.42. Meanthe thechangingworldmomy and thedeterimahg
eeonomicpositionof the Socidist blcountnes forcedCentsaland
EasternEmpean Statestoreconsidetheirdevelopmentprogramsand
prioritieIn Janq 1980,theHungarianGovemmentcommend ri
reviewofitsmajorfinanciundertakhgs.On 29May1980,inlight of
the infamation that Soviet mediand assistancefozeseenin the
Agreemen of30November 197759wouldn~t6eforthamhg,it adopted
an intan aoverment ResolutionNo 3162/19%0s ,tatithatitwas
necessarto postponetheconstructiof theProject"byafemyears".
The CzechoslovaPrrme Minister,LuW Strougalduringhisvisito
Budapeston 1-2June 1981admittedthatdiscussiowere takinplace
inCzechoslovaliaon"whetherto postpanthe pmjectby oniytwo or
evenmore y- becauseothelackofinvestmentxesomes."@
3.43, Durin ghe21 Sepbemkr 1981, meetingof theHungarian-
CzechoslovakCommission onEconomicS , cientiand TechaicalCo-
opration, theDeI,utyPrime Mnbter of Hungary, J6zsef Marjai,
submittedafd proposaitesuspendthe carismtion oftheWect
until1990,stresshgthvitalneedforposqmernentnotonlybecauseof
Hrmgary'esconmic situation,buais0forMer exadnation of its
amirumental impacts in ûctober 1981, the National Fiamhg
58 Forthevariou"reW agreemenee-es, vol3,amex27.
59 Seeabovepara3.39.Thifacthd beenrev- at meetingla Mosww:
MiauteotheHungaian-SoveteetingFebniary1980.
60 NationalWh oftheController,DecisionMaProcesConcemingthe
Gabcikovo-Nagymafisrreywm, Fm Par1992p48,(iHungarh).Cornmitteeandthe Eonomic Cornmitteof theHungarianGovernment
(two bodiesresponsibiformajor Statinvestment)decidedinparallel
to suspenal Eonsmctionon Hungariantdtory. Shortlythereafte, n
19 Oçtober1981,Prime MinisteStrougdformallyrespondedin aletter
toHungarianPrimeMinisterGpwrgy Li%&. The lettestated:
'The Govemment ofthe CzechoslovakSocialistRepublic. .
has concludedthat theCzechoslov Paky cannot intempt
work onthe BarrageSystem eitherfor technicd aeconomiç
reasonsorforwons of protectionotheregion.Thi sould
causeirrepatabldamageto work &ady completedand the
protectiooftheregionandwould requireanimmensepassive
investment.TheCzechoslovak Party çouldperhapagree taa
slowdown in the timetablofthe work fora periodofthree
years.Forthi reason,itproposed.. tha theexpertsof both
nationsexatninebothproposdsand finda solutioacceptable
tobothparties.!'6l
3.44. Although thi setteexpressedÇzechoslova kiUi'gnessto
extend the deadlines by th years, theVice hident of the
CzechoslovakPldg Committee, Km1 Ujhfq, laterannounced that
Czechoslovakiawas examhing the possibibty ofthe daterai
constructioof theGabcikovo Powerplant."Accordhgto an internai
Hungarian memorandum ,he Czechaslovalpaxticpantsof the Joint
@mational Group privatelyinfmed theirHungarian colleaguesthat
theCzechoslovak Govanmenthadassigned theta& of providingplans
fordiversionoftheDanube onCzechoslovakterritortonCzechoslovak
engineeringplannincompmy,which investigattwo alternativwith
differentclosuroeints. Theresuiweredismssedin theCzechoslovak
Goverriment ,ndthe reasonsforrejeEtina unilatersolutionmay lx
summarise dsfullows:
* Such a so].utiowould requiie 1-2yearsof experhents with
modelswhichwoulddelay theactualconstruction.
*
Thedangeraccompanying afloodwith icewas evduaîed bythe
hydroIogiexpertsasexîremelytlmatehg.
61 LRttfermCzechoslovaPrimeMinisLeStroug,oHungdanFnmeMinister
Gy M, 19ûctobe1981Annexevol4,anne10.
62 ReporiimmMr PHavasontheGovernentPlenipotentinse'gotiations,27-29
Octoùer2-November1982p3;Annexes,ol4,anne160.*
The dyke onthe IeftbankoftheDanube(forming therighsideof
the reducedreservoirwouldbe builtundeextremely unsuitable
soil conditionand bth of itssideswodd be subrnergedunder
wateréiJrinargeflcmdswhich wouldmake them indefensible.
* Peakmodeoperationwouldbelimitedbecaus of thediminished
sizeofthresewoir,which couldonlylxenlargedifthreevillages
weredestroyed.
* Extra costin therangeof 3.1billionCaeçhoslovakom would
beinvolved.63
3.45. Burin thi s od the environmentailmpactoftheProjectwas
subjectto inmashg smtiny inHungary. On 30 ApriI 1981atthe
requestofDeputy PrimeMinisterJhos Borbandia , ad hoccornmittee
was establishedunderthe auspices ofthe Hungh Academy of
Sciences64to review the avaiiablestudieson the agriculturaand
environmentailmpactsof the Project.The Committeeconcluded in
October1981 thatMer msmh was necessary"to concretiseand
inmase thebeneh derived hm the bamge sys~m andto minimise
possiblehm."6sNonetheless, theReportfavouredtheProject,clahhg
that:
"The preparatiomfor tbe Gabcikovo-NagymaroB s arrage
System tookplace atsuchlevelîhatitcm be wiambiguously
med that here arenoremm hm agricialtualnd
enWonmental aspects pIuding or questionhg its
implementation.."os
3.46. ButotherresearchersofthAcademy Cnticisethereporforits
Iackofcomprehensiveness C.onsequentlytePresidenotftheAcademy
63 M-m frcrtheGovanmwitPhipkntiaryPéteHavastDeputy'Rime
MinistJWai. 6Januar1983;naexesval4,anne161.
64 The Hungarh AEadanyof Sneneesisa bodyofup to380 distinguished
scientis, ian importasemioffid mle iadvishgtheGovemmenton
matkmofSnentificpoIicy.
65
Repmt on the AgncultudandEnvironmentaiImpacts theGWove
NagymarosBarragSystem,WorkingGroup oftheHmgmian Ademy of
Science,ctok 1981p52 (inHungarian).
66 Summary of RepoIs otheAgxiculnrrnd Envimmmmd lm- of the
Gdxikovo-NagymaroBmge System, WorlciGroupof the Hungarian
AeademyofScienceOctobe1981,5;Annexes,ol5anne1.submittedthe repor~to theGovemmentaceompaniedby a Mtten
comment sayuigthat"thePresidencyof theHungarianAcademyof
Sciencesfmdsit importanti,hatissuesrelato threalisationotfiis
grand projectbe investigateina broadercontextin der to be
complete.67
3.47. Thedisagreemenw tithitheAcademyled to thformationofa
secondad hoccornmittein March1982. On 28ApPil1982,itreported
that viewson peakenergy production were diverse andthatthe
hydrologyof theSzigetkozaswell as hydrobiologicaspectsofthe
Project generallneeded further investigation. The repqveried
whether the Nagymaros dam should be moved firrtherwest for
environmentaland landscap reasons,withoutreachinga defmite
conclusion.
3.48, Thesefindingswm çommunicated toLzechoslovakia,nd a
furthercomprehensivstudy wasundertakejnointiybytheHungarian
Academy of Sciences and the NationalConmittee for Technical
Development (the national body responsible for researçh and
developmen tntechnicalsciences). 24 membercommission, setup
on 3Febniary1982,completedastudy inNovember 1983,covehg the
wholeRungarian sectionoftheDanube tutheYugosiavborder. Even
thi argeshidydid notremovedoubtsconceniing theenvironmental
effects of the Project. The NationalCornonlEnvironmenta aind
NatureProtectioinitsdecisionof21June1983orderedthecompletion
ofa cmprehemiveenWonmenta il pacassessrnent y30June1985.68
Accordhg tothedecisiontheJoht Contracnial landealtinadequately
withenvironmentailmpactsandçonsequenc ehs.viewwas supporied
in a"Positionpaperof thehsiiency of thHunghan Academyof
Sciences"of 20 DeCernber 1983,@ which was wideIy eircdated
(dttiough not formalpubJishedattIrattime).The PositionPaper
expkhed that:
"(1) The Joint ContractualPlan didnot deal with the
environmd impacts andco-ncea ofthe Gakikovo-
67 Lett aromMrJ Szentagoth,ident, HungazAdmy of Science,o
HungarhDeputPrnn e nisterJMqj23Decmk 1981.
68 NationalCounonlEnvimmmtaland Nahm RotcairDecisioNo311983
W. 21)21Jum1983.
69 PositionPaHungarh Acdmy ofSciences,20Deamb1983;Amexesvol
5,anne2. Nagymms Barrage System.., Sofarnosurveyha beendone
which would have investigatedthem systematicalland
consideredthe interactionsofthe technical, ecological,
economicaspectsantherisksattachto them."
Itrecommended "acomprehensiveenvironmentaimpact statement..
tot>meadewithintwoyears"andconcluded:
"9)... Taking intoaccountthe factorsconsideredannot
considerethePresidencyconsiderthat signXficateiayof
the investment, execution of appropriatesubstantiai
rn&cations, but aboveaicanceihtionof the investmeis
justified."
3.49. During the meetings of the Hungarian-Czechoslovak
Commission on Economiç,ScientincandTechnicdC+opmtion M
1982and 1983,the Partiesagreeto mchedule theProjectand to
postponecompletioby fouyearssothatthepowerplantswouldbe put
intooprationbetwee 1990and 1994,Thi secisiowas formalisein
a Protoc0onthe amendmen otfthe1977Treatyof 10October1983.70
At the same time theMutualAssistanceAgreementof 1977 was
amended ,ndifyhg thedistributiofelectricpowetobegeneratedin
theyears 19W-1992 so as tocompensateCzechoslovaEafor wofh
executedonbehalfofHungary.71
3.50. A meeting between the co-chahen of the Hungarian-
CzeçhoslovakComfnissiononEconomic,Scientificand TechnicCo-
operatioon 9July1983alsorevealdthat enWomentalconcerns bad
not beenrescilveby thepostponement.After the meetin the co-
chairmendechd that..
"inthe[1977]TreatyandtheJointQerationalPlanmeas-
fortheprotectiof naturandenWoment were --accordhg
tothe?hm avaihbleknowledge- takenintoaccount. Bath
Parties,howéver,consider it necessarto, seek rational
solutionsthrouthenecessa andpossiblmodificatioofthe
technicalph fortheavoidanceofunfavourableonsequences
70 Rotocolonthamendmenfthe1977Tn=a&,0ûctobe1983Annexevol3,
anne29.
71
Gabcürovo-Na- System,Budape16 Septemb1977hxes,iwvol3,
anri22. which may be identifiedand for theimpmvementof the
environment.They alsoconsiderit necessq to establisthe
widestpossibleGO-operatifnrthipsurpose."7*
3.51.In May 1984 the HungarianGovernmentPJenipotentiary
submitteda progre eportwhich recaliedmanyof theenvironmental
concems raisedby the Hungarim Academy of Sciencereportsandin
publicdebate~.T3hes encluded:
*
water hfdtmting from theDunakiJitiresemoir endangeringthe
aquiferunderSzigetkoz;
*
deterioratiointhewaterqudityof theDanubedomsimm of the
mservoir;
* ,
threatofeatastrophfloodintheevent ofaccident;
+ "desmtd5cationbt'caus ofadecreaseingroundwate reveZ;
* los of activwaterfiowandofthe lhmhe'ç characteasa border
river;
* lack of oxygen for the tributariesbecausat lest 500 m3Js
dischargewould bene*,
* Iosofnavigationinthemainnavigationchanneo1ftheriver,
*
athmat frornthewastewater dischargeofGy& stemhg from
thechanging wam bels accompmying peak-loadopedon.
3.52. The environmentalimpact statement produced under the
auspicesoftheNationaiWater AgencyandVIZTIERV Nater Planning
Company,Budapest)in Jum 1985 gendy med theProjec~,~~
whilecalhg forenvironmentaclorrectiotothevalueof 1.52% ofthe
plannedulvement. Butitsconclusionsimmediatelykame subjectto
strîngenmiticism. First,iwas nd thattherewas nokgislationin
72 AideMemoiron~ns~ms ofthco-chaimeoftheHim~osIovak
CommissiononEconomk,ScientificaTechnicCoope~ariw9,July1983;
Annexes,u14,annex12.
73 SubmiJsimonemt tas& relatotherwilisaoftheGabcikovo-Na-s
Bmge systenMay1984.
74 NationaWaterB~ationai BoardforEnwtal and NafilProtection,
[email protected],
Summary,un1985;Annexevol5,annm4.forc cuncerning the methodology and standardsfor conduc~gan
environmenta impact assessment(herehafm ELA). Secondyi ,crucial
elementsofthe assessrn prntesshadbeen neglectedoromitted,such
asailowhgforpublicparticipationE. vethe authorofthe background
studies were not ailowedto receive copies of background studies
conceming other disciplines,which obvioul negatedthe "complex"
characteofthe statement.
3.53. At the requestofthe Central Cornmittee ofthe Hungarian
SocialistWorkersParty,theHungaian Academy of Sciencesreviewed
the environmentaimpactstatement,and un 28 June 1985 adoptedan
Opinionstatinth&
'Theincompletestateoftheecologicalresearchhasnotceased
toexistwiththe completionof theEIA. .. We considerthe
environmenta mpactstatementof theGabcikovo-Nagymaros
Barragesystem apioncerundertaking.However, itonly deah
withtheimpactstobeexpectedupon thereaiisatiofthe Joint
Contrad Pianor of its modemisedconcept. Thmefore the
producersof the study have neglecîed anexdation and
assesment of the impacts to be expected from alternative
technicdsolutions."7"
3.54. Theop'ion wem on toconsidertwomodesoftheuperation of
theGabc'LovP oower Plant@eakmodeoperation andcontinuousenergy
production )ndfavod the second:postponementorabandonmeno tf
peak energy productionwould be desirablebecauseof "wonomic
Interestsandbecauseof the needfor "prevention andcorrectionof
disadvantage~ussi& effectsThe Acdemy expressd concernthaîthe
non-buildingof additionalenvironmentally-necessariy nstallations
becauseof "a misconceived concept of saving" could have "fatal.
consequencesta'nd"gemme imversibleecolugicdpe~ses."~~
3.55. Following the conclusions of the environmental impact
mmneat, theHungarian Government resolvedthafacilitiessentiatlo
eing the enviromentai impact of the hject be compIeted
simultaneouslywith the hject it~elf.~~It alsocded for the
75 BmigariaAcademyofScience,,Opia28Jme 1985;Amexesvo5,annex3.
76 Ibidp7.
77 Govmmt ResolutiNo3238/1985,1August1985.establishmenof amonitoringsystern&fore theBarrageSystemcame
intooperationandrnandatedthat theoriginalchamter ofthe Danube
bed be preserve degotiationwouid beheldwithCzechoslovakia to
find an operationalmode for peak energyproductionbased upn
optimisinghydrological,energ,ecologicd andnavigational aspects.
This ought tuhave Geen achieved by a studyon peakload energy
productionmode completedby theNational Water AgençyinMarch
1986.?9 But once again the lack of agreementconhng the
environmentalimpact oftheProject&came evident.The Hmgarian
AcademyofSciencesarguedindetaii againstsevendstatementsinthe
study,includingits clah thatmaximumof 20 m31s waterdischarge
intothe old Dmube bed was sufficientitcded fora muchlarger
discharge, venathe casof decreaseenergyprod~ction.~9
3.56. On 28 May 1986, shortiyaftwthe repealof administrative
authoisationtobuildabarrageon theDanube inHainburg ,ustria20
kilornetresabove Bratislava,the Autrian constructioncompany
Domukra~erke AG enteredinto a privatelaw contract withthe
Hungarian constructiocompany to buildthe Nagymaros barrageata
fasterspeedthanforeseenby the1983 Psotocol. Thiscontracandthe
study on peak energyproductionservedas a bis for the modined
invatment plan approvedby the Hunga15an Governmen~~o The
m&ed invmtmentplan wu the Hig&an national document
desaibing the major elements of the Project,the schedule of
constructioandthefinancing.
3.57. Inthe years1986-1988 the consmction gainedrnommnun.
TheAustriancompany, actingonbehalfofHungary proceed weth
78 Ngticnal WafAgency,Modifiedïnvestmekpsai fortheGakilrwe
NagymarosBq Systemandthe evaiuatim of itç teecologicaland
economiem~ffects.Jul1986(iHqpian).
79 Obations ofthH-an AcademyofSciencesconcwningt"Submission
on ophkaim ofthepeakId oprationmodeofthe Gabcikovo-Nv
Bari-agSysîemFromthepoinof view of hyhlogyenergyecologgand
navigatiandonthe=nt InvestlgaisonowninttirgtdatioftheOld-
Danuberiver-M1986(inHungarian).
80 NationalWmr Agency,Modiftd InvestmentProposalftheGabeikovo-
N- Systemandttbevduatianof its ~hicecologicd and
e~~tomicmss-effectJuly 1985;(inHungarianHuprian Govemment
ResoIutiNo33&8/1986,ïkember1986(inHimgarian).work at theNagymarosBarrage. The Hvngariancornphes and their
subcontractorwsereactingaccordingtutheJointContractua llanonthe
Czechoslovak sectionsof the hject, as well as on otherHungarian
sites, includinthe hnakiliti weir. Protocok of the meetings of
Governent Plenipotentiarie sndreportsoftheJointOperationaGl mup
annexe do those Rotocols inthe years1987, 1988 and 1989 do not
revealany majordisagreements.8T1he main challenge came from the
growing enviramentaimovements, both withinand outsideHurigary.
In1986 a petitionwas submittedto Hungary'sPresidentialCo~ncil~~
supported by 2655 signatures,urging a referendum concemirtg the
deshbility of theProject, The first majordemonstmtion againstthe
hject was heldinBudapesto, n27May 1988.Severa lhousandpeople
protesteilin front of the Austsian Embassy againsi the Avstrian
uivoïvementinthe Pmject. Afewmonths lateron 12 September 1988,
mm than40,000 people dernonstrate dgainstthe hject. Slogans
identifiedthe hject with Stalinkm, and speakers criticisetts
environmenta and economicdeficiencies.
3.58. From 1987 onwards,intematirna1critîcismof theplans also
inmead, On 9April 1987a deregation the Autrian Grea Partry
and Peuple'sPatty paidanofficialvisPttu thesiteand raked mitical
questionsto the~presentativeof the Hungarian investor. In1981 a
world-de campaip was çtartewith aproclamation signed by Sir
David Attenbroughand MichaelMcCloskey, US nationalchairman of
the Sim Club. 232 organisationsincludingGreenpeac teheSierra
ClubandWaldWildlife Fund USA signedtheaccompanyhg letteï.83
3.59. The movementforpublic involvementin decision mahg
becamean issue in broade politicaiHe. Hungarian environmental
organisationsissueda declmtim on 11 August198884calling fora
81 Fbtoc~lof NegotiatEooftheGovernent Plenipamtiaties,Bratislava,7-8
January ,981; Annex2; (inHungarkn]Pwtacciof Negotiatioof the
Goment Plen.ipotentia,Bratisla13-14Januar y988, para 2; (in
Hungarian)Protoc0of NegoMons of the Govemment Plenipotentiarieç,
Budapest,1-3Febniary19poin1(inHungarian).
82 Tfie'ko11eetH"d ofSw, accorditotheHungaria&nsti~ioninforcat
thathe.
83
See Annexesvol 4,amiex174,forthetextoftheproc-on coliceming
Gabcikovo-NagpamsBarragSystemsigneby232organisai~n,987.
84 ,hlarationof Hungarinnvirwimentorganisatiequestinarefemdum an
thesuspensiofworb aNagyeia~is11August1988.referendum and the suspensionof the works for the provisional
navigationmute atNagyrnam. It was signecianbehadfof leading
envimnmentalisgtroupsandbypoliticiansofthenewpartiesjustking
created(Alliancof YoungDemocrats,Hungarian DemocraticFonun,
AllianceofFre eemomts).
3.60. The issueof thereferendm was alsodiscussein Parliament.
AlthoughnearlyallmembersofParliament were stillappointeesothe
single partysystem,the increasingperceptionof politichedom
pemlittedamotionin theBarliamen(twhichdirrithi periodwas only
in session foa few weeks a year)cabg for thesuspensionof the
constructioandinvestigatiof theoptionofcancebg theNagymaros
Barrage.On 30Jum 1988 theHungarianParliamentecidedtoexamine
the issues connectedwith theRoject duhg the Aum sasion,
mandatingthattheGovment preparea reporcomparing altematives
ofconstructioandsuspenslo4abandment of theNagymaro sge.
3.61. This decisionfd theHungarian Govertment to~view the
Projecton7 Septemkr 1988, befureParliament'su- sessionmghe
decisionwas infavourof the çonttnuatioof the constructiounder
certaincondition, utit becamecleathatviews diffefedsubstantdly
onthe economicandenvironmenta mpact of the wholeProject,and
partidarly otheNagymms section.
3.62. TheStatement of theHungarianAcademyof Sciencesg6 dated
29 September 1988 denied or challenged most ofthe economic
calculationsandfmasts =lied onby theGovernment andconcluded
that:
"-The. . . official explmaiionfothe continuariuof the
constructionof the Nagymms power plant asstmie[sthe
opthal conditioninconnectionwiththe completion,whereas
the evaluationof the coquences to be expected after
cmceUing [the~trucîion] tend tobecharacbed by the
oppusitextreme;
-The canceiiatior pustpmement oftheconstructioisstila
redaltanativetothecontinuation;
85 Submissioto thGovenunenonxheIealisatofthe~vo-Na~s
Bm Syîun,Septeinbr988(Hugmim).
86 Repdd in:heFM AferUs,DunaKor,PoIitbtudamBTiandmoport,
t989,pp 1-206(i nmgmh). -Postponementof tbeconstructioatNagymarosis asolution
which may dec;~ease economic bdens and which
unequivocallentaibsmalIeenvhnrnentalrisk."87
3.63. On 6-7October 1988, ParLiament debated whether the
Nagymaros bmge shoddbecompleted orabandoned .t thatthe,not
even theconstmctiopit wascompletaiatNagymaros.My the coffer
dam munding the futurceonstructionsitwas king prepared.88
Before the debate,the membersof Pnrliament got in advance an
extensivrepor prepd by theGovernmenkgb gutdid notreceivethe
Miticacommentaro yfthe HungarîanAcademy of Sciencesuntthe eve
ofthe debate,TheHungarh SocialistWoriEer s'artyhadinstnicteits
members,whoconstitu teedverwhelmhg majorityto voteinfavour
of theRoject,andthe resolutionaccordingpassed. Nonethelessthe
debateand votewas remarkablefor thattime. Some membôrs of
Parliamendtard toresisttheGoverment,Ina rarmeoment oftelevised
individuavoting. 317were infavour,19 againswith 31 abstentions.
P .'+lieParliamentdsecisiodidnot takethe fom of n statuteor a
2c~1141resoluti,on,ut simply apd as tbe approvalof the
Govament's reportItalsoiutmducedseveralimportanntewelements,
sluding:
"2. Theecdogicalriskshavetobe reduoedtuaminimum For
thismon, both in thecourse of the invesment and the
opaiion, eeological interes tasU take prioritciver the
e~~~omim ca. ..
As a guidinprinciplof@on it musbe dwlared that
thequalityof theDanuberiver must not deteriorate.Peak-
capacitoperatioshouldbe commenced ody afterestabiishing
thewatertre8tmentplantreqd on bothsidesoftheriverfor
safeoprationofthesystem,freeofenwOnmenîdrkh.''gO
Reptoducem.TheFld AfrUs,DuriKaÜ ,oliîiMudm&yi Tanszékc~~port,
1989,pp 1-2Q6(inHungaria)pSDT-6.
88 NakymaroBsq: Mer Dam Smunding theConstmtiaPit,Amextothe
Gowmmmt submissitithMiment, &@ember1988.
89 Ministrfor EnvironmtndWaserManagementZnfdonal repozon the
achd statof the Gabcikov+NagymarBamge Systwiinvesanent,with
Annexes,epmber 198(inHunpian).
90 SeeMi~menbny ResolutioRecordof theHouse1988.30thmeetin67
Wber 1988,p2462-54;Anaexevol4,annex45.3.64. On 30 October 1988, demonstrationsoccunred againstthe
Parliament'secision,iBudapestandin anumôerofmajorcitiesmund
theworld.
3.65. Theintensifiedperceptiof theneed topreser ve impve
waterquality,reflecteeveninthe Parliament'ecision,wasdiscussed
at the meeting of the HtmgatianandCzechoslovakGovernmentai
Representativesfor Border Waters on7-8 December 1988.91The
HmgarianRepresentativr eefemd tothe Parliamentisecisionandin
particdm topoint3on waterqualit.The Repentatives. ..
"assign thetask tothe subcommission on waterqualityto
detede the waierqualiîy reIated impact area of the
Gakikovo-NagymarosBarrageSystem. . . ând in the
frâmework ofthi asctivitfurha specifya consmctionplan
forthesewagewater treatmenplantson givenareasofthetwo
corntries. The subcommissionshall also detamine the
scheduleof warks andconmis at locationsneededfor the
extendedprotectioofthewam qualtty."w
3.66. TheHun@an Gwemmentalso attemptedto addms some of
theenvironmentacloncernsina molutionof 6 Ianuary1989,93adopted
under theleadershipofthe newly-electePrime Mnbter, Mr Miki6s
Nhet.94 It ded on the Miristerfor Environment and Water
Management, together with the Gov~ental PIenXpotentiaryt,
91 Aide Memoire signedby Eng V Marg&n, CzchoslevakGovemment
GxnmissioneforBoundarWatersaudDrM Vatga,Hungaïiaiovemmeat
ChmissirniefoBoimdarWm, 7-8hember 1988; Afinex,ol mex
13.
92 Aide Memoire signedby Eng V Mar%&, QcxhoslavakGovemment
CmnmissionerorBoundaryWateraiiDdrM Varga,HunguîaaGoremment
CommissionetfBoimdPtry aaaç,7-8 Deambf988;Annexes,volannex
13. AcwrdimgtotheMeurt esthe frfseeuw e:sioof theHungarian-
~OSlovI ~~ WaterCommission,1-1November1991,pp40-4the
pm-e testabiithbas e4 ofthewaterqualoftheDanubstartin
AMI 1989.4compnentswertobeobserveat1mÊosrainpoints.
93 GovemmenR t emlurNon30043198;nnexevol4,annex146.
94 On 24 Novemk 1988;MrM Némethqhcd MrK GrSsz ,hor&md his
positionthe ecremGmd ofUeRmgarianSaFiiJt o&d Party."initiata Hungarian-Czechoslova kgreement on the environmental
aspects[oftheProject]d anoperationallanbasedonthose aspects"
and tomare guidelinesfor thosenegotiations. The Planof Action
envisagedthe modificationandextensionof theplans forthe entire
Pmject"[i]norder tominimisetheecologiçalrisks".It deciarethat
'"eak-energy production mode may only commence after the
establishmenof thenecessarywastewater purificatiplantsonhoth
sidesforthe operatioofthesystemwifhout environmentalrisksThe
Plan re-emphasised the need to conclude an agreement with
Czechoslovakiaidentifybgthenecessaryenvironmenta londitionfor
minimishg therisks.
3.67. Tlh two Partiesnegotiateat variousgovemental levels on
thepossibiitofenterhg intan agreementwhichwouIdprovidefor the
Roject'senvironmentalspects.At apublicfunctiontobid fmweii to
theCzechoslovak Ambassador on19 Decmk 1988, Prime Mhister
Németh stressedheneedfor anadditimdagreemen to dd with water
purificatioplanton the Danubestretch affectebytheProject. A
decisionoftheSlovakGovernent of 18January 1989 hadstatedthait
would oniy permitthe Roject'soperatioifthe shwt and long terni
environmentapl.conditionwereg~mmteed.9~
3.68. The23rdsessionof theHungarian-CzechoC sloovmiksion
onEconomic,ScientificandTechnicdCo-operation on3 March 1989
resolvedthat:
"ThePartiehaveagreed thatthestatoftheenvironmen itthe
regionaffect bmithe Gabcikovo-Nagymaro BsarrageSystem
must not deterimatebecauseof its opemhon. The non-
deteriorationofthe water qualit'of the Danuk. . .is
consideretobe afundamentariequkment,"%
3.69. huant to theresolutionMinisteridnegotiationswere held
and ajoin suggestionadoptedon8 April1989 whichstatedinterdia,
tha:
95 Aide Mmaire onthnegotiatioofMr L Mar6rhyHungariaWster for
EnwirrnimandMr V Mmgeh, SlovaMinist,fmFonstManagement, a~er
Mamgment andTimk Indumy,23Janusuy1989.
96 Pro~ol of thXXII Iessionoth^Hmgzrim€axhoskrv akimmissian
&nopic, ScientificandT&dCoopation, 3Marc1989,p4; Annexvol
4, annex14. "-The Con~actingPartiesap tbatrisk-freepeak energy
productionmay ody commence after the construction of
installatinecessaryfortheprotectionowaterquality. This
peconditionhastobetakenintoaccountwhen deteminhg the
operatioml mode of the Gabcikovu-Nagymaros Barrage
System.
-InordertoachievethisgoaltheParcieap upon aprogram
forthe realisationothenecessaw ryste waterpurification
plantsbefoxthestarofpeakenergyproduction."^
3.70. In themeadme, theHun@an Govment continuedtoface
inmeashg pressuretore-evduatetheRoject. A renewed campaignto
forcethe Patliamentto -set reftrendumon the fate oftheProjeet
resultedin140,000signatms.98 Hmgarianlaw at thatthne did not
containprocedu r alefora seferendun,and this kame apoLitical
issue. PrimeMhher Németh announcd on8 March1989 thatno
kversible stepswouldbetakeninconnection with theNagymaros
bmge beforeParliamenreviewedtheentu erojecinMay 1989,
3.71. PopularpressurefurthereevaluationoftheProject,oatleast
theNagymaros seetordidnotprevent theGovernmenf tmn takingthe
technicd meastue of concluding a htocol on 6 Febniary 1989
conmmhg thespeeding pofconstruction.his wanecessitatelythe
1986 contract wih Donaddtwak AG which had significant
hydmpowersWon çomtructingcapacities. TheHungarianMMed
InvestinenPh of 1986hadalreadyincludedtheaccelemtaischedule,
andnegotiatiotlhadbgun in1986 togain Czechoslovak-ai for
the new the scheduîe.9On 12 January 1988,the Parsiea@ in
principltoadvancethevariousdeadlineforcompletionbyme year.'m
97 ReposMinisteMNegotisiti,Aptil1989;Annevol4,awex15.
98 Petitilodgd witheSpeakerthe&use on7F&my 1989Themovewas
musud. Since134norefermdm hadbeheldiHungary
99 ReportofthGovemmenPiwiiptentiaontheGabcikwo-Nagy~naaarrage
totheXXst Saion otheHun~~oslovak Commissim onEconumic,
SciaifiandTechnidCwpmion, U)March1986.
100 AideMemoirofthemeetiofthewwkinggroup,hdon1Z- 12Jan- 1988.
Seeah Rotcm1onthe NegotiaionsUeGovernmenPtieniptmtikofthe
HurigatinqWs RqublicantheCzechoslovkocialistRepumceming
tbeco-operatntheconsmetioftheGakibvo-Na-s BarragSystem,
Bratisla,3-14Januar1988.A new Protocolwaslatersignedathe regriiar Hungarian-Czechoslovak
Cornmissionon Economic, Scientific and Technical Co-operation
meetingon 6Febniary1939.101
3.72. Thus a decisionacceptedbyCzechoslovakiaandHungary in
Januq 1988, took the fom of an intergovemmental agreementin
Fehary 1989. The timingwas amerematterofconvenience, arising
from a Czechodovakrequtst not toorganisea separatemeetingfor
signhg itbuttoleaveittothenextregulameetingof theCommission.
The htocol replacedthe Protoc 0120 October1983 amendingthe
Mua AssistancAgreement, butnot thepardel htocol amending
the1977 Treatyitselo2Corisequentla,ninconsistencconceniingthe
legd obligationto mrnpletethe Pïoject existecThe1977 Treaty
correspondedto its 1983Protocol,with the longer deadlines. The
Mutual AssistanceAgreement,asamendedby the 1989 Protocol,
containedthe accelemkd deadlines. The contradictionwas never
resolved.
3.73. The 1989 Protocolfixinthenew d&e fw the completion
of theProjecbad notbeenpublished,and theGovernment alertedby
publicpmtests,decidedtocmmksion studiesonthe viab'ity othe
hject. TheNationalPlanning Offic ehe NationaiBank andother
institutionsweremahg caldations, fiequentlysharplymiticis byd
outsideexpertsThedy pointonwhich aU analysaagreedwas thathe
Projectwouldnotbeprofitablevenifthemostbenefi~iddiscountrates
were appliedandifthevariousimprovement snamenitiesweresetat
üieirhighestpossiblevalwtion. For exmpleareportof theNational
PlanningOffic abmitteda 1OOO millionForints(morethanUS $140
million)las inpsent valueiftheprojectwas completed,whereasan
indelpendensttudybyone ofîhe plamers of theBarrage system
demonstratedthat 56,OQMm Forint(more thanUS $700million)
couid besaved if the Nagymamssectorwasnot buiIt. Howeverthe
presumption snder1ym Sheevaluationsi£fd insomerespects- e.g.
as to the invatment needed treplac the bst capacitytoproduce
electricenergy or the amount of cumpensationto be paid to
Czeçhoslovakh
101 ho001 emimnhg theamendmenotthe1977MuhiaAssistanAgmmmt, 6
Feb- 1988;Amexeval3,anri50.
102 Protcw1ccmemintheamendmentfthlm TqI kgle, 10Octaber1983;
Annexes,ol3anüeW.3.74. In March1989, a teamof independentnon-Hungmian experts
under the auspices of "Ecologia"~leased a PreLUninaryReport
evaluatingtheBarrageSystem,actingupon aFali1988 requestofthe
Hungarian G~vernment.~Q 3 nlightof itwell-documenteccloncms
over the likely environmenrimpact ofthe Bmage System,a re-
consideratioofthe Frojectçommenced. On 3 May 1989,the Prime
Ministerand his AdvisoryConmittee of independenexpertsmet to
examine thecost-knefit anaIysitheNationaPlanningOfficeandthe
commentarieosn it anto meetmemkn of theDanube C'mle.l~ The
AdvisoryCornmitteeconcludedthatthabandomentof theNaparos
Barrage would be the moçt reasonable choice both from the
environmenta lndtheeconomic pointofview. Butopinion seflec~ed
the enormousuncertaintiesmunclhg theFrojecT t.hehhister for
IndustryandthePresidentoftheNationdPlanni nornmitteeadmitted
thattherweeremat unceriaintiesthecalcuiationbecausechangesin
theenergyindusûycoulddecreasethecostof abandorintheprojectby
lm miuionFwints.
3-75. On 13May 1989,theH:nngariaGovermentadopted aresoiution
"OR thesuspensionoftheqerationsatNagymaros". Itodyenvisagai
the suspensioof theworks atthe Nagymms site. Consanictionby
Hungary at Dundditi and at other locations cmmectedwitti the
GabcikovoBarragewere not affeçted. The Resolutionobligedthe
campe-t minislers..
'"tcomrriissiMer studie[concembg theconsquences of
thecompletionortheabandonhg oftheNagymaros Barragei]n
ordertoplacetheCouneilof Minister[theGovermnenti ]na
positionwhereit cm makewell founded suggestionto the
Parliamentin conneccion with the amendment of the
internationtreatontheinvestment."lo5
103 Eoologiaand.INFORTPrelimjinReportGabcikovNu&ymarosBarrage
ProjeStdy , mh 1989;Annexvol5,amex5.
104 The DanubeCirclewacihs groupawardeanhtmmliod pfw fortheir
fightfthprewmasionfthDanube'esnvi,rtnmair.
105 GovarunenResoluti,o3125/19893May1985:Annexesvol4anwx147.The Resolutiodidnotspecifythelengthothe suspensiobutcaliedon
thecompetentministerto completetherequiredstudiebefore31Juiy
1989. ThestudieswereintendetoenabletheGovernnien torespondto
criticismsraisiniParliamentconcemin the Projectandtopre-empt
thepopularUiitive cWg foa referendumtodecideonthefateofthe
Nagymaros Barrage.
3.76. The ResolutionrequestedParliamento authorisprelixninary
negotiationwith Czechoslovakiaonmodificationofthe1977 Treaty.
The Govexximen tad decidedto involveParliamentinthe issues of
substance, ivetodetemiinewhetherconcerns over thefate ofthe
NagymarosBarragejusrifiedabandonhg the Barrageor suspendhg
workswhiIe Mer investigationstwkplace. Italsoexpress tedfimt
intentiotorem hm anyirreversibeateral step
3.77. ThedecisionoftheHungarian Governmen t asendorsedby the
SlovakUniunof Name and LandscapeProtectors representi1200
memkrsandabout 10,00supportersw,hostateina letteraddressted
th e ungariaGovernmena tndalsoforwaroleuthe FedefaandSlovak
Govments:
"weadheretotheviewthattakingthelongtermmve itis
not only more[resourçesavinghm the ecologicaandthe
economicpointofview,butais0moreforwardloobg hm, the
political point view to abandonthe constnictimof the
Nagymams HydroelectricowerPlant."iw
Also inMay, the Intmh Repartof Ecdogia was releasedwhich
siress teat"[alc~çtion oftheBNB[GNBfprwject. ..shodd
besuspendeddurhgthi saiodofnationadlebate..,"'lm
3.78.Some dayslater,PrimeMinistNémeth visitedhisCzechoslovak
coiinterparPrimeMhister Adsimec inPrague on 24 May 1989 and
infmed hh of thegroURdSfar.theHurigaridecision.Rime Mnhter
Adamecexpressed himsef readyto examine new environmentaiand
seismif cactors .rime lhister Ndmeth in aini mssed that
respmibilitytowards fume génerationmust sente as a basis for
106 hmr fmm SlovakUnionofNaturandLandscqc hkctorto theHungarim
Govemmen2c, May1989Annexe,ol4,mex 166.
EcologiaandINFORTInWh Rem Gakh Namm BumageShrdy;
ProgramOptioandIrnpùc,say1989,p 17;Anne,o5,anne5.ecoIogica2consideration. hetwo PrimeMinisters agreedtoestablish
jointstudypups toreporin twornonths."_
3.79. The agreement reached at thi seeting was reflectedina
Protoçolsignedbythe twoGovemmentPIenipotentiarie on9 June 1989
in Bratislava. Aithoughthe CzechosIovak Plenipotenaaryprotested
againsttheHungarian decisi tosuspendconstruction,e agreedtoset
upbilatera lxpertcommitteestoexamine theecologicd, seismological
ad otheraspects.
3.80, OR2 June 1989the HungarianParLimentadoptedResolution
No 9/1989"Regardhgthe Reportby theCornci1of Ministerson the
SuspensionofWorkof theGabcikovo-NagymmsBarrageSystemin
Ro&ress at Nagymaros" l. TheRmolution authorisedtheGovemment
ta initiateprehhary negotiationswithCzechoslovakiaon amending
the1977 Treatyandon thepossibleconsequeno cfsuchamendments.
3.81. Inaun,GovemmentResolution1071/1989~.15)oflSJune
1989 instnactedtheDeputyPrime Mimisterto setup committees of
experts to review and report on the possible consequenco efs
continuationversusabandomentof the NagymarosBmge. Three
goups, fortechnologicaand ecologicaissus, fm legalissues anfor
economicissues,submitted qmts inAtlgust1989.n NQone favomd
thecontinuatioof theProject.
3.82. On 24 June 1989DeputyRime MiristerMedgyessy -te to
CzechohoslovDakeputyMme -ter Pave1Mvnak suggestingthat
joint scientiexpertcommittws be setup toreview (1)hyhlogi~d
and ecologicalissuesand(2) gwlogicd andseismologicaiissues,and
that Uitergovernmenta ixpertpups be establishedto review the
108 ReportofPtimeMinisteM Mheth totheHungariaGovernment.hefacts
repmkd arconfirm byGovernmentPlenipotenyiLokvenci,"Sratement.
Fbsîtion papof theQechcslwak Pattn mmection withthemaEerials
çomp?~ inconnectimwiththedecisioftheCouncilof~~ ofthe
Hqprh F@ds Republictatempmuilystothe Nagymars arra&handed
over26Jme 1989"Annexew,l5,anne167.
109 Tk resolutbecameeffectone13June1989uponpublicatinthe
Game; Annexes,o4,aanex148.
Il0 Govemment'Pleaipotwitimyfthe Gabeivo-Na- Bqe system,
SW~S andT~WS~~@Ot ISS w thehisionMaking.Wakiag stage-Ik
InvmigatiomoftheAdHucCornmitteotheHunMan AcadanyofScierices,
aide memoiresoSFientificdigcussaodnegdatitiof intematidIaw
expats1989vol3(inHungarian).conditionsunder which thewaterquaiityrequirement sf Article15of
the 1977 Treatycouldbemet. Theletter togetherwith the,twostudies
summarising theHnngariah ndings werepsented duringa meetingof
the GovernmentalP ,IPIeriIpotentiares26 June 1989."'" The Aide
Memoireof thatmeetingsmes that:
"on 13 May 1989 the Hungarian Pasty had Infornecl the
Czechoslovak Partyof the temporarysuspensionof works at
Nagyrnaros "2
3.83. On13July1989 VladimirLokvenc,Czechoslovak Goverment
Plenipotentiarycotûirmed thatCzechos!ovakia was reatdy to pmue
negotiationin thre perofessionalwwkfngguups (hyàrology-ec ,ology
gmlogy-seismology,soi1 and agriculm). He dso suggesteda fourth
gmup oneconomicsand completionofthehject, andhanded over a19
page documentaddress thetwostudies handedoveron 26June.fl3
3.M. Theconsultationosfthejointscimtifiexpertgroupstookplace
on 17-19 July1989. Viewsvanedwidely asto thepresumedknefits
and cos& of the Roject as wellas onrherisks and damage arisiug.
Hungary stressecthe need for mer studieisn,cludingon site
observationsand long-terminvestigationsquiring several years of
mchanged enWomentd conditions ,utCzw:hoslovak expertsbelieved
thatrisk associateilwitthehject could lx mlliimiseor ehhated
during~0mcti0n ad operation. l4
111 SeeHwgarianAcademyofSciences,''RetnEnWonmentaE i,cologiWaier
Qmdity andSeismic of theNggymarosBmge Consinciionorits
Camcellatio23June1989;Annexes.oI5,anna 7.Tbe othedocumen tas
'The îkadinalinGmup forPmbIemsof theGabchveNagpmms Bamtge
System: BackgrounMatwialstothe CornciloMinisteof theHM*
Fkopies epuOIcnUiesuspensiofthworkon thNagymm Barragandthe
actuarlsla anecologicd dangesssucid withthesuspensiodecisim",
BudapestJuia198(inHungarian).
112 AideMmire, MeetinofGovwnmd FlenipentiarieJune1984Annexes,
vol4,annex17.
113 "StatemaiPositiopape rftheCzechoslovaPartyinconnectiowith the
mamiaiscmmpleteincameetiowiththdecisi&oftheCormiof Mmisterof
theHungariankapieRepubIituthHmgarlanme's Republite kmpmdy
stopthNagpam Bamge", handemer 26June 1989-es, vo25, arurex
167.
114 SeeAideMemoireontheHwgmian-Czechaslovcaknsultatisfthe scientSc
expertin connaion with thpempmary suspensionothe woks on the
Na%ymarosBmageand itannexerefleCtghedifferiagvîeBudapest,f7-19
Juiy1989;Annexes, 4,BM~X 18.3.85.On 20 Jdy 1989 Prime MuiistersNémethand Adamec met
again in Budapest. Hungary sought furtherways to resolve the
disagreementsbeween the scientifexpertsbeforekversible steps
weretaken. Emphasisingthatithadyet totakea ha1 decisionon the
continuatioorabandonmero ithe Nagymaros Barrageit suggesttwo
alternatives:
bilateralsuspensiofnthecomtmctionof dl the componentsof
theBmge System,includuig thosein Czechoslovakia,or3-5
years and a joint investigatofnthe compfex environmentai
problemsofthe hjjectwiththe helpof internatioplrofessional
authoritie,eservintherightofha1 decisiontothetwo Parties.
The conceivableoutcorneswould includecontinuato ifohe
whle Projectwith adquate environmentalguarantee orsits
abandonmen inwholeorinpart.
suspensionoftheworksatbDunakilit ,e.a postponementof the
(2)
closure of the Danube bed by one year. This alternative
envision tcdconclusionof an agreementon envirenmental
concernsandanamendmen otfthe1977 TreatytcthiesffeçeIn
additionhe technid preconditionsndoperatinschedulewould
be revisedand theP& wodd underialm not tooperate the
BarrageSystem infullpeakenergymodefora fewyears.
AlrhoughCzechosIovakia insisteon.mallitahhgthe 1977Treaty,it
am tofirrt shiertifinvestigationI.was understwdtbatthetwo
AZme Mhisterswouldhave athirmeetingin thatyear.f15
3.86. In accordanc4th thetenm ofthenegotiation,heHung-
Govanment on thesme &y (20 Jdy)adoptaiResolrition3205/1989,
extendingthesuspensioof worksatNagymaros until31 October1989.
It alsosuspende tde prepmory works atDmdditi aifned atthe
diversiooftheDanubein Qctober1989.
3.87, An intensivexchangeof viewsençued. CzcboslovaESai, a
Note Verbale of 18 August 1989, assertedthat thedecision to
discontinuprepdons fortheclosureof theDanubewas a new and
un- elanent and a violation of Hun&arylsintematid
115 ReporofHunpian PrimMiniSmM Ném& to thHunpim Goverment ,2
Jul1989(iHnungarian).obligations,for which Çzechoslovakia would be entitledto
compensationH.6
3.88. During negotiationsbetween the HungarianMinistry for
hdustryandthe Wtry ofFuelandEnergy of theCSFR heldon21-22
August 1989, CzeEhoslovakia formdly threatenedunilateralsteps
"securingtheoperationofthe GabcikovoBmget' if Hmgarydid not
proceedwith thepreparationfsor divertthe DanubemU7T hheatof
unilaterdstepwasmade çlearein theletteofPrim MeulisterAdamec
of 31 Aupt 1989:
"[we] willbe forcedto take suchactions onthe sovereign
temitorof theCSRwhichwill aisure theamount of waterfor
theGabcikovoBarrage acçordintotheTreatyof 16September
1977. The step akenby theCzechoslovak Partywodd be
ody temporary as theCSR continues to rem& &y to
completeconstructionof theGakikovo-NagymaroB s arrage
System onbasisoftheaforementione Treaty,onthecondition
tha he HungarianPeopk'sRepubiicexpresseshm mdiness to
do the same and reimburses the CzechoslovakSocialist
Republicfordamages inmuml asa resdt ofthedawful acts
oftheHm* People's epublic118
3.89. On 1 Septeniber1989a HungarianNote Verbalereiteratdthe
two Hunwan proposaisandrejected theCzechoslovakNoteVerbaleof
18 August 1989.Itnoted that,whiierefushgat thmeetingof20July
1989 toamend the 1977Treaty,Czechoslovakia hadtakennoteof "the
extensionofthesuspension and made no objectionspecificaltothe
suspensionof thepreparatoryoperationsfor clusuof the Danube at
DunaEolti" a,ndinthosecircumstancedse& thatHungaryhad acted
unilahxdly,Itgavenotice...
"that acmrding to b] messment, Hungaq, and
Czechoslovaki aisoareina statofnecessity.Actsofthetwo
116 NoteVerbalfroCnxhaslovaMEinisofForei gnairtotheEmbassyothe
PeopleRepubfiofHungar18Au- 1989Amexes,vo4,mex 23.
117 AideMmYe of thenegotiationsixtMreG Czipper,HungzuiDeputy
MinistforIndumyandMrL Bl- Caxho~IovaDeputyMinistfoFueland
Enèrgywithth@ciprion ofthetwoGovemmmtPlaiipotentia(signby
Mr TLacz aiaW aadMrM Jaroslseniwofficidstherespectiveministries),
21-22A- 1989;Annexevol4anae x1.
118 fromCzectialwakPrie br L Adam=to HungmianfrimMi
M NQneth31Auguçt1989Amexes,vo4 annex23. Govennments havetobe assessedaccordingIyThe Hungarian
Partyfindsnoexplmationforthengiddenialofnegotiatioon
environmenta lmmtees andoptimalmodeof operation.
TheCzechoslovak Partyis notevenwhg to negotiatabout
questionswhich would bringabout any amendment in the
[1977]Treaty. . . noteven then,when science raises
fundamentadloubtsconcedg theecologicdhafmlessnessof
theBmge System. ..
The Hungarian Partyacconhg to thebasicprinciplesof the
[1977 ]reatypmceeds hm thefacttiiat thprofitandthe
possiblemateridlos, therkksofinteweninginnaturand the
preventionthereofortheburdensof avdg itare cornmon.
Therefm the HungarianParty doesnotsee anybas& to the
determinationof Czechoslovakdemandsfor compensation
withoutnegotiatiain thepsent periodofsuspension.
Thesuspensionof pparatory operationsortheclosuo rethe
Danube bed at DudûIîti by the Hungah 'Party initself
mithet interfereswittherealisationthe conceptioof the
Gabcikovo-NagymarosBarrage System nor with the
constructionof the Gahikovo Barrage. The suspension
imquestiona deays thecornmenment of opedon of the
fmt hydm-electricgeneratotsbut it must be taken into
considerationthat ttùs@OB of suspnsion b the last
possibiiityfthetwo Partietuconfronthomughlyandforall
times thejoint workwiththe requirernens fenvironrnentaf
protedon. ..
Durhg the expertnegotiationsled bthePlenipotentiarisf
thetwo Governments hm 21to 23August 1989 inBudapest
theHungatiiurPartyaske dobe infofmed&out the cmtentof
that technical counter-maure, which accordingto our
informationtheCzechoslovaPartyiscontemplating.
"[Slholdsucha Czechoslovakmeasmeindeedbe taken,that
wodd beregardedby theHungarianParty aa matexhlbmch
ofthe 16Sepmber 1977Treaty."ll"
3.910. Deputy Prime MinisiersMedgyessyand Hrivnakmet on 9
Septemk 1989 and exchanged views. Hmgary express4 its
disappointmenaboutthela& of mqunse tothe proposaissubmitteat
119 NorVerbaihm thHungariaMuiismofForeignAffairstCzechoslovak
Embassy1Septembe1989Annexe,ol4,annex4.the meetingof20 JuIy 1989,and protestedagainst Czechoslovakia's
positionareflectedintheNoteVerbale of 1August 1989 and theletter
of MrAdmec of31 August 1989whichinàicated thatCzechoslovakia
"felforced to takuenilatersteps hatisto divertheDanube without
the consentof the co-riparianstate. Itdemandedinformation and
documentazioa nstotheplannecinilamalsolution.
3.91. Czechoslovakiaconfirnieitsintentioto proceedunilady
if Hungarydid notauthorisit toexecutethedosure ofthe Danubeon
trehalfof Hungaryaccording to the original plans,stresshg the
provisionaand temporary characteof the "solution"CzechosJovakia
was wihg to completetheBarrag eystem accurdingto the1977
Treaty, iHungarywould agreeand would compensateCzechoslovakia
for thedelay so fa. The fundamentalMerences intheir positions
notwithstandingt,he Deputy PNne Mnkters agreedto arrangefor
Mer expertconsU1,tatiom.
3.92. At cansultatiorisof intemationalle@ expertson 18-20
September 1989 thedelegationsachieve ndthhg morethanrecordhg
thefundamentaily different~iews.'By contrastthescientistsmet on
25-2S 7eptemk 1989 todiscusswatw qualitandemlogyrelated to the
DunWti-Hnisov reserv~i anda'*~eedthat:
'The amount of fitopWons (algaein agen waters) wili
inmase. The qualityofundergruund waters mnst by all
conditionsbepsmed forthe provisionofdnnkin wgaterto
thepublic. AU necessary stepsmust be taken in orderto
preventprejudicetotheseif-punfyingcapacityof the Danube
water."122
120 AideMemoirewittwoannexe(iBungarjan18-20Septemba1989.
121 Aide Mernoireothemeeting betwescientitodkcirswatetquality and
ecoIogissueswitded sepamteopinioofbothsides, 25-~~
1989,publishein(GovemmentPlmiptenti foryheGabeiovo-Na-s
hrag system,ShtdiandInvestigatitoSuppmt theDecisioMaking,.
Workingstage1-Ib:estiggtiofsthe AHoc CommiiîeeoftheHimgariari
AcademyofScienees,dememoiresof sientdiscussiond aegotiatiofs
uitematimiawexpert1989.
122 AidaMmoire of themeetinbetweenhtists todiscuswata quaiitand
ecologiysueswittecoml sepaUaopinionsof bosi&, 25-27September
1989;Annexesvol,mex 26.Theneed for a permanent monitoringsystemwas also agreedupon.
Nevertheless, isagreemetrevaileonseveralpoints.Forexagplethe
Hungarianexpertstated:
"(2)We do not agreewiththe opinionof the Czeçhoslovak
delegatiothat themajorityof theproblems raisedcm be
studieand sohed aftertheconstructioftheBarragesystem
andeqwially after ffigup the DunWti-hsov resenoir.
Innumemus casesnoteven thescope ofaiternativsolutions
cm be defmeda ,nd, thereforwe considerthe 1:1 scde
'expriment'tbe nui on the nad environmentextremely
W.
(3)We considerit aprovefat thatincaseof completingthe
Dundditi-ksov reservoir,trophityconditionswïU change
adversei,haracmised byaseveral-folmultiplicatiof algal
biomass."Z3
3.93. he MinisteNémeth repliedon4 October1989to theletter
ofPrimeWter Adamec ,ndsaid:
'Takinginto consideratithepmgms of construction b,th
nationsarpresentednowwith afmd opportunittabalance
thejointplanwiththedemmdsof envitomentaiprotection.1
am convincedthatour Govmmentsarebeiugguidai by the
desirtomakethis complicatemattercleartoourpeoplesand
by a respomibilitto futuregenerationsandthat itis our
common duty tomake surethaoturtwo uationharmoniseour
respectiand jointintereMys andinaworthy rnanner..
1would me boemphasisethattheHunganianGovernmenu tsed
intemationalnvironmenta Ilawasits startinpoint, which
requins that inthe ment that environmental dangers am
penceivedStatehavetherightand obligatito suspendwork
intheinma of avoidhgundesirablecolagicaeffectand to
commence negotiatiom.The Hmghan party considers these
mesures, tothebestof itsconvictiontu beentlleIylawful.
Thus,1do notfindyour claimsforcompensatiofordamages,
ascommunid inyomlm, tohaveanygrounds...
We ppse thai,for the purposesof minimishg the en-
vkonmentarlisksposedbytheDimWti-Hnisov resmoir, an
123 AideMemoireofthed g betweeshtiststo discusswaterqualtd
ecologissiies, with rsepamtopinionsohth side25-27Sepmber
1989,Annex2;Amtexvol4annex26. 57
agreementastothe developmentandrealjsationafprogram
forthecornplexsysteomfwaterquaiiryprotectiotechnicd,
operationa,ndtcologicalgumtees beconcluded.Thi s ust
beachievedbyMer specifyintherequirementsrovidefor
inArticl e5and19of the[1977 Treat,naturalttakininto
consideratiaswell,thatherequirementsetearlier havenot
beenadhereto accordintothetirnscheduieWe mommend
thasaidagreemenbeconcludedby30Jdy 1940,acthehtest.
The Hungd Govenunentpropose tsat thHmgarianand
CzechoslovakPartieinvitinternationalcient3c organto
control the Unplementatioof the system of guafantees
pertainito waterqualityprotectionand technicd operation
concerningtheDunakiliti-hsov Reservoir,the Dunakditi
Dam,thepowercanal,and theGabcikovoHydroelectricower
Plan atdtheNagymaros sectiooftheDanube.
Givingupthepeakoperatioof theBarrageSystem,wouldnot
onlyresulin the non-appearancef harmfuIenvironmental
effectsitheregionsurroundhgtheNagymarosReservoirbut
it woulddso reducethemdong theuppersections ofthe
system.Forthimson, theHunman Govemmentproposes
joint discussionsregarding tecIuiicaI/economiccomaions
ptahhg to the abandonmentof the constructioof tbe
NagymarosBarrage andthe correspondhgamendment tothe
HungarianXnxhoslovaTkreatysigned16Septembe~1, 977.
DearCorntadePrimeMinister!
DirringthiperiodwhentheEastern Empean region is rife
witha greatdeaiof tensionandis inthe procesof socio-
econMnicrejuvenatiowe can, if wereachagreementsetan
exampleforthepeoplesofEuropthatwe arejointlycapabof
brin& manandthe natinrlnviramentintohannon yndcm
actogetheinmch amaamof pat
3.94. The Hungarh positiononthedangersandrisksentaileinthe
Projectwaswhed byresearçh resdts durithesemonths. For
example,sheWorldWildlifeFund produce acornprehensive.eporon
theRcject, deliveron28 August 1989w,hichconcluded(1)that the
Proje wctdd have anegativeimpactonthe environment(2)thatthe
availablenviromentai andtechnicddatawm insirfficitosue
124 LeitfromHungarinrimeMinistMrNémethoaechosiovakPriMuiister
LAdamec, Octobe,989;Annexe,ol4,ann27.thecontinuatiooftheconsmctionand tojustifyputtithe Projecinto
operationand(3)thata moratoriumonal lonstructifor atleastthree
yearswas necessary.125
3.95. A Hungarianexpert cornmittee also çoncluded that the
Govairnent andParliamensthouldstopconstructioatNagymarosand
extend thesuspensionofDunaiddi. It suggestedthatnot ody the
Nagymaros BarragebuttheRoject asawholecouid be environmentdy
uflsound:
Utunately itis realisethat thbject] is caughtup in a
viciouschle oftryintodoawaywith therisksarisinfromits
construction;thereforecompletereversibilityneedto be
reviewedasweU."l26
3.96. In Octokr 1989 thePartiesmade seriouseffortto settlethe
disputebeforethescheduledate fothe closureof theDanube.On11
ûctober 1989,Rime Mbister Némethproposecl thatthetwo Parties
abandontheNagymaros Barrageby wayof an agreementwhkhwould
incorporate cornplex environmentalwater quality and technical
@mantees fordlthemajorinstallations hichwouldbe mahtauledin
non pk-load productionmode. If Czechoslovrikiadoptai this
suggestionH,ungarywouidcmtlnue topreparefor tbeclosureof the
Danube and would actuallyclose it afcer the conclusionof the
agreement. He pmposed the modificationof the 1977 Tmty
accdingly. Mr Németh Mer declaredthatinabsenc ofagreement
betweenthe PartietheHungahn suspensi oonheconstnictiowould
Iastuntil environmentarlequhmentweremet. He pointedoutthatin
such a scena50,any costs incurred byCzechoslovah arisinghm
fuaher constructiowouldnot betaken intoaccountlaterwhen the
Partieswouldape upon allocatintheIcissofthehject.lz7
3.97. Pnme MinZster Adamec wsponded, emphaslsing the
Czechoslovakneed forenergyits interintnavigationanthefactthat
the hject'scomplexityrequhd completionof aliof its component
125 W-Auai Institut,Srelluncs WWFnunSta~~~n@t-Pr Gojecikovo-
Nagymros (AssesmenoftheWWF forthe GabcikoNagymarosBmge
ProjectI1RasAugri1989.
125 SeetheHardiommitteRepwtSepkmk 1989TheRepwt wascommissioned
bytheHugarianGovemmentnnexesvol5anne x.
127 ThesisothHungarianroposandqort onthenegdation11Bctober1989
(iHnungarian).parts. He againreferredto Çzechoslovakia'sintentioto initiata
"çubstitueechnicalsolutiorandaddd ht:
'This technicasolutionprovidethe waterquanti@ setout in
thejointcontractuddocuments fortheMosaniDanubeBmch
aswell as for theOld Dmbe bed and simultaneouslyit
paranteesnavigationasweU."128
3.98. A Mer meetingof the two Prime Wsters was held in
Bratislavon26October1989. ANote Verbale,reflectingMAdamec's
positioatthemeeiing,was presentedon30 October 1989. Irefd to
the Hungarian proposd for an agreement conceniing technical,
operationaiandenvironmenta lumntees with regardto theBarrage
System,and expressai..
"wîilingnessto concludesuch a conventionwithin a short
priod of time,upon the conditiontha theHungatian Party
startthe preparatoroperationsfortheclosuxeofthe Danube
bed at lhmkihti Wrthout delay. T'lissuggestion of the
Czechoslovak proposalisbased onthe presumption thatthe
competentwater managemeno t r- of thtwo Statesprepare
thetechnicalphciples ofthesaidagreementwithin. . w&
whichcm be initialeat the 1eveIof Deputy MiJustersfor
Foreign kffairs. AftertheLnitialinof thoseprinciplesthe
Hmg&anPartyshouldstart the actualclosm of theDanube-
bed. The textof theagreementhas tobe elabtated sothatit
couidbe signedbefm theendofMarch 1993.
The CzechoslovakGovemment suggestedthe conclusionof a
separate agreement in which buth Parties would oblige
thernselveto limitationor exclusionof pak houroperation
modeof theGabcikovo-Nagparos BarrageSystem. By way
of téissuggestiothe CzechoslovakPartytriedt~ clearaway
themisgivingsof theHungatian Partyconamhg the potknthl
ecologicaleffects thepeak-1oadopedon mode. .."129
3.99. The Note Verbaledid includenew elements,inparticularthe
wdhgness tu concludean agreementanenvironmenta luafanteesBut
128 Textof Mr Adamec'openinspch atthenegotiatiofs11Octok 1989,
hanM overby thDeputyMlnistforForeiAffairMr EVacek,iPragueon
12Oclobe1989.
129 NoteVerbaiehm theCzechoslwaMinisiofForeigAiTahstotheHungarian
Embassy3, October19ûAnnexesvol4annexS8.itwas conditioneonHungaqpreparing forthwitforcheclosme of the
Danube and gavenohintof theeventualcontentoftheguarantees.h
also failetoaddresstwo ofthemast importantHungariangoals:the
abandonmeno tf the NagymarosBarrageand the suspensionof the
closureof thDanube foratleastoneyear,whik investigationofthe
environmentaissuescouldbe made. The Note Verbaleaddedthat the
CzechoslovakGovernmen tcüdnotseeany gromd forthemodification
ofthe 1977Treatyand would demand damages iHungary unilateraily
and in violationofits internatiolegal obligationsdecidednoto
realistheNagymms Barsage."The NoteVerbale alsreferredto the
"provisionslubstihiechnicalsolution,.e.tounilard measureo sf
diversionbyCzechoslovakla.
3.1Uû.The faiiure of <these negotiations reflectthe different
perceptionof thehistoxicchangesîaking placein Ceniml Europe.
Hungary, a fewdays aftetre adoptionof thenewConstitutionWB
hying the bais fora rnultipartydernomticpoliticd system. The
politicalleadershipUi thGemian Dernomtic Republicwaç under
extremepressurefor change. By contrast the ancien rigimein
Czechoslovakiaseemed @y rooted inthementalityandpriority
system of the CMEA @ai, willingto talk about wpecified
enviromd panintees butonlyon thebasithattheBarrageSystem
beimpIementei dnful r,espectivofthecomequences ,nd backinup
its viewwithcantinuedthrats ounilateradiversioin prwkely the
same ms asin1982.1M
3.103. The HungarianGovermerit'sprogramme was whed by
Parliament on 30 October 1989.131 ParJiment supported the
Govemment'i sntenti~toabandon theNagymaros Barrage andnot to
peed withtheclosiireotheDanubeuntilappropRatgurmtees were
secure adainsirreversibenWonmentaE and mreasohablylarge
TiSkS, It aiffirm "tde prioritof ecoIogical approach,scientifIc
so~1l1cI.andtherepsentation ofthenationaintere ast"authded
the Govem~ent to nego- with CzeçhosIovakiaan appropriate
amendmen tothe1977 Treaty.
130 Seeaboveara3.44.
131 GovenimentResolmimNo 230511989,7 Octobe1989,9sw&ed by
ParliamaityemlutiNo 241198(XI.10)Regadhg ReportbthCouneil
of MmisterantheSuspensionof Wwkin Pmgms atNa- on the
Gabeikovo-NagymaBmageSys- Annexa,vo4,mex 150.3.102. The HungarianMUiistrof ForeignAffaifinaNote Verbalof
3 Novemk 1989soughttoinitiasuchanamendmentI .stated
'ByputtingtheBmge Systemhto operatioaccordhgro the
onginal planboth HungaryandCzechuslovakia wouId fmd
themselvesinan ecologicastateof necessitytheïeforthe
HungarianPartydeemsnecessaq theeiiminationofthe pe&
loadoperatiooftheBarrageSystem andaccmdinglyit deems
necessar tye rehquishment of the constructionof the
NagymarosBarrage."132
Hm&aryt psreconditiforthe closureof theDanubewasanagreement
incorporatingmphensive andadequate environmentalwaterquality
andtechnicaguafanteeforthemajorinstaiiatiospsûeamand alsthe
smtch oftheDanube down toNagymaros. A draftagreemenwoddbe
pposed inNovember 1989.
3.103. On 30 November 1989 aprelimin drrawtashanded over.133
Itinvolvedam-ed 1977 Treaty,anew treaton thecompletionof
theProjectwithoutNagymaros,a mer agreement onenvironmental
guaranteesand an agreementon thesettlementof mutualfinanciai
daims. Therewas norepIyfromCzechuslov&a. On 10 January1990,
Alme =ter Németh went fmher suggestingtha thequestionof
amendmeno t dy be discussedaftea îhotoughstudyof the Rvject's
enWonmenta.1 impacts,basd on scientific investigationsinvolving
Hitemationalx~erts.134
3.104. The latemonthsof 1989which broughthe "velverevolution"
to Prague,also saw anaccidentwhich reinfmed the concems of
opponentsoftheBarrageSystem. On2 December attheleftshiplocat
Gabcikovo , 34mwide,12.5 rgh ironshield,protectthesitwbiie
the permanentshiplockgateswm mounted, was washedawayand
hwn tothe bottom of thelwk approximately 100 rnetreaway.
According to the expertreporton the accidentthe cause of the
ndunctioriing-which coiilhave kiiled30-50 workers, had inot
132 SeeAnnexevol4,annex29.
133 Thepliminarddr wasatta&dtoNoteVerbalfrwîheHungariMini-
ofFore=mirs toth(hcbs1w& Embassyl30November19Annexa,vol
4,amti30.
134 LetffromHmwm FrimeMinistMrNémetht&~hoslova FrimMinister
M CAfqIOJmuaüy1990Annexevol4,amex32.happened on a Saturday evening-was either faulty design or
manufachue, withtheconsequen thettheworkingload of theshield
didnotachieve50% oftherequirelevellas
3.105. The spiritothe fundamenta ihanges in CentraaindEastern
Europe was refiecteintheletterofPruneMinisterNemeth,ad&&
totbe recentlappoint4 Prime Wster of CzechoslovakiaM, rMarian
Calfa.With asphlic changein thetitle(MrPrimeMinisterinsteadof
Code) theletteof 10January 1990informedCzechoslovakia about
Hungay's decisioto abandonthe NagymarosBarrage, to tdate the
privateIawconstructiocontracts,andto suspendwurks at ail hject
site sendingnegotiationson the futurof the BarrageSystem asa
whole. PrimeMinisterNémeth recommended that..
"a joint Czechoslovak-Hung sciritiicstudy, wish the
involvementof international scientificorganisations,examine
the complex ecological effectsof the DunWti-Hmsov
Reservoirthe Gabcikovohydm-elemic plantand thepower
canaialoag withthe assessrnentfthe presentenvironmental
situationand the recordhg thereof,andthat we make the
commencemeno tf operationofthe reservoirand Gabcikwo
hydro-electrcower pht dependenotntheredts thereuf.On
thebais of theresultsothe aforementionedt,en, wewouid
decideupon anamendment of thtreatyortheconclusionof a
new treaty.Ztis my opinionthatthe saidstudyandthe full
assessrnenhereofcanbecompleted inthefirshdf oftheyear.
FoUowing thisintheseconh dalfoftheyear,negotiationasto
themodificationof the[197TT Jreatycm commence. This
tirnetabailowsforthe finaldecisiontobemadeby thenew
GovemmentsandParliaments which wlu befmed aftesthe
HungarianandCzechoslovakelections"136
3.106. Hopes for agreement were raised by the meeting of the
Hungarian StateSecreimyof theWsûy for Environmentand Water
Management with theSlovak Mimistefor ForestManagement,Water
ManagementandTimberLndustry on 10 3amiary 1990. The latter
mounced the Slovak oeial position acceptuigthe Hungarian
Parliamenttdecisionnot to build the Nagymros Bmge, tziereby
f35 GovemmentEx@ Repo~onthelowwprovisio faaboarda,th Gabciivo
locks27Decembw1989.
136 LettefroPrimeMhbterM Németht6CzachoslovkrimMinistMrCalfa10
Januar1990;SeAnnexesvol4aneex32.eliminatingpeakload operation. He also declareda readiness to
concludeanagreemen t nenvironmentaglua~mtees.~~~
3.107, Thebief responseofthe new CzechoslovakRime Ministex,of
15 Febnrary, di3&ot takeIssuewiththestatementsinMr Németh's
letterof 10 January 1990 but agrd to take up negotiations
"immediateIywflitaviewtotheputtingintoperationoftheGabcikuvo
Batragein1991.
3.108, A mer letteroMr Némethd ,ated6March 1990calledagain
for scientific investigationswithe invoIvementof international
scient& bodies. Negotiationsshouldberesumed afte te results of
thoseinvestigationsbecameavaiIabIeand decisionsshdd oniy be
takenby thenewGovemments andParliamentsafterthedations. In
themeantime Hungarywouid onlyexercisectivitiesnecessaforflood
protect indnthepreservatiof theexistinstateandwould suspend
aliotheconstructionThe lettconcluded:
'We suggestto the~hoslovak Partytbatit also suspend
'
workson theGakikcwopowerplantandits instdhtionsin a
similaway and dct itseito thepreventioofdamages ..
We shouldnotletthehistoricoppoxtmityofferebythe social
changesinourcountxiegoby.'r139
Negotiations, owevewere notresmedmti2thenewGovernments
wm actually formed.
137 ReportfromMr M VargaHm@ StateS- oftbe Miriistfor
Ezivhment andW* bernent, to theHtmm Govefmnenon the
negotiati, Janumy19% &ma=, vo4,amex32.
138 ~fronlaech~~~Ib~akPrimeMinisterMCaZFatoH~AimeMinisterM
NW, 15Feb- 199&Annexes,v4,annex63.
139
hm Uaa PiimMinisM oNTQnettuC.z&dovak RimeWster
M Caif, Mach 1990Annexe,ol4anne3x5, SECTION C: NEGOTMTIONST ,REATYTEKNUNATION,
DANUBE DIVERSION1 :990-1992
3.109. Thepoliticalchangesof 1989inEast-Centra
Europeledtothe
firstfke electiomsinc1945:inHungary on25 March 1990 ,ndin
Czechoslovakion 8 June 1990. InHungary, thre neon-communist
partiessucceed edfoming thegovementai coalitionwith Mr36zsef
Antall athePrimeklinisterInCzechosIovakitheFeddon's Prime
Ministerkcme MrMafian Calfa.TheSlova Pime Ministerbecame
Mr VladimirMeciar.ShortlyaftetheelectionthefederalParliament
electeMrVaclavHavel asPresidenofCzechoslovalcia
3.110. The transitiofrom a communist toa democraticpolitical
systemdivertethe attentiofthe two countrifrom thedisputfor
many months. However,the newHungarianGovernment tooka clear
standwithregardtotheProjectÇom thebegiming. When niiAntdi
pented the programme ofthe Govanmenton 22 May 1990,he
annauncec ,terallathat:
'The Gwemment, m the advice ofexperts,considerthe
constructionothe DanubeBarrageSystem a rnistakand,as
soon aspossible, wilinitianegotiatiomonremedyingand
sharingthedamages withtheCzechoslovakGovemment tobe
elected.1"
3.111. At a meetingheldon 31 May 1990inGy&, theHungatian
GovenunentPleniptentiaq hmdedover the relevantsection of the
programme tohisCzechoslovakcornterpartOn27 Septanber1990,
the newpn,~e's slightrevisedEngiistextwas presenteto the
Embassy ofCzechoslovakiaAccordintotheprogramme:
"[tlheplanotheDaaubehydroelectncowerplantisa symbo1
of theexecutive pods insensitivemms, lacking dl
modern,technicaleconomicconsiddons. . . Afterdue
preparatim, wewish todiscusonceagain[the1977 Treaty].
We shall do dl we canin orderto vent contmdictions,
140 NationRenewaProgramminHungarwipmmkd byRimeMniistJAntall
tothHimganinarIimenon2May199û. arisingout of invesîmentplanshm becoming a clash of
inter estteen.thtwo nationsl4'
3.112. The Czechoslwvakresponsetook the fm of alettesofthe
CzechoslovakPlenipotentiâstatinthat:
'7wwoul liketaassur yeuthatitisalsoinour interestotum
ailofoutresowes towards findina solutiotothefurth=fate
ofourjointinvatment... CW]e arereadytobeginpreliminary
negotiations regardingthe full scope of the disputed
questions.
3.113. Thefirstset of negotiatioktween two PienipotentiariM, r
Shsondi and Mr Kocinger, took place on 6 Septemk 1990 in
Bratislavandon 17-18October 1990 inBudapest. A Protoc01ofthe
discussions summarised the Mering positions of the two
Gover~ments.~~ T~heCzechoslovak PlenipotentkyinvitedHungarian
expertsto becorneinvolvedin atwo-year researchprogramme ofthe
ComeniusUniversity ofBratislavaandby an"enpers pup ofthe
Represerttatioef theGovenunent of the Cmh andSlova kM
Republicand theSlovakRepubkfor theconstructioandmanagement
ofthe Gakikuvo-Nagym- hydropowe~ rystern" .hl~~riginalaim
of theprogramm weasto examine theenknmentsl consqences of
theGabcikwo sectorinthe SSlovakitnyOstrovarea . ze-choslovakia
had amlied totheECs PHARE fundto -ce the progrm~ne.'~T5he
141 Excerptfm w s NationalRénewal ogamme.TheFi'sThre eears
(1990-199)fthRepublic,993Annexes,o4,mitex152.
142 Lena fromMrD hingm, Czectiosloc ovemmeatllenipotenttoMrG
K SbsondiHqarW Qwammtd Flenipotent19July1% Annexes,ol
4,mx 36.
143 ProtaoooftheNegotiationsbetwthePl~~tizrriesof the Repubofc
HungaryanbheQech andSlovakederalRepublichel6Sepaember1990in
Bdslwa and on17-18-ber 1990inBudapestoQdotls kMed tothe
ûabchv*Na&ymarosBarragSystemAnnexes,volannex37.
144 Czdwslwak Feder awlnmittfotheEnvimuneriS,IovakMinisofWaer
andFmt km andWd Mandwdng EndusbyRepresentatofe
GovwrimentoftheCzechaslovRepublicandtbeSlovakRepublicfothe
ConstructiandManagementof G~v~Nagymaros Hydmpower Systwt,
"Invitatnfpmpals. SusfacWaterand Gmd WaterMode1of Danub'i
Lowlandbemm BratislandKm-: blogical ModeiWaterbures
andMwt," 1990.
145 PHARE ,oland-Hu- AidforResmmmingtheEconomyi,the-ym for
an EC-hded programwhichisammtiy ritifragmme of Assistanfor
&onmie RWeg intkCountriofCenrrald IhsîeEmqxHungarian Plenipotentiaryrepliedo15 November1 990, complaining
thatWs invitatiowas contrarytoeaalieragreements"tu seupjoint
professionapups andjointlychoosenon-partisanexpertsinorder to
assistdecision-makinintheresolutionoftheproblemsrelatingto the
BarrageSy~tem."~~ Buthe didnotexcludethe possibiliofHwigarian
participationappropriat eem. Heattached tohisresponsea kt of
joint Hungarian and Czechoslovakstudies,anda list of Hungarîan
snidies,whichtogethehad sewedas a bais oftheHungariandecisions
in1989.
3.114. Shortlythemer, theHungdan Government concludedthat
negotiationsbetweentheGovernmentaP i Ienipotentiarsouldnot lx
sufncient.TheHmgarian Prime Ministerina lettertPnmeMinister
Calfa of 14 December 1990 suppwted a suggestion of the two
Environment Ministers--whohaddso been meetingduring199û-and
rscommended theestablishmenotf..
"ajointintergovefnmentaornmitteetoprepareanamendment
oftheTreatybetwee nhe twoGovemments. The workof the
cornmitteecouldbe assistedby theexpertsof theEuropean
Cmunities, accmding to QUY agreement with @Cl
Commissimer Ripa &
3.115. Thus, attheend of1990,theHagaian Governmenh tad again
reiterateits desitonegoth a bilaterlettlementf thedispute.An
unpublishedResoIutionoftheGovernmen tn 20 December 19% also
reflectedthispositipmviding,interdia:
'Irkeepingwithitsprogrammet,heGovernmenc tonsidm the
decision to constnict the Gabcikova-Nagymaros Batrage
System andthe 1977 Treatyconcludeclorthatpurposeas ilI-
founded because they rieglected to consider ecological
conseguences.Thusthe Govenunent supportand re&hs the
contentsof theestrliedecisionsof theGovment on the
suspensionofcofistnictwork
Therespnsibie ministermdtheGovmental Plenipotentiq
should start negotiationswitb the Government of the
146 Lett emr MË GK S&srindHungaianGovemmenL alenipotenti,oMrD
KocingerQechoslovakGovmmental Fienipotenti, 5 November199Q
Annexes,ol4amex 38.
147 Lertehm HuagariPrimeMhiskr3AntaltoCzechoslovPrimeMinistMr
Ma, 14Decembe1990;Annexe,ol4,annex40. CzechoslovakFederai Republicon theterminationofthe 1977
Treaty bymutualconsent and on theconclusionof a treaty
addressingtheconsequencesofthetemination."'48
3.116. A Resolution oftheSlovakGovenunenton 24Decernber1990
indicatedthatittao was preparedtonegotiateon t~hnical, economic,
environmentaa l ndlegd issuesrelatedtothe Proje~t.'~~It hadeven
appohtediesponsiblebodies to examinepossible amendments ta the
1977 Treaty. Ininternationalegd terms,theFederalGovernent had
decisian-mahg power in ail questionsrelates to the Treaty,but
inforniddecision-makingauthontykay in mostaspectswith the Slovak
Republic.
3.l 7. On 9 Januaryi991 inBratislavat,he HungariaPlenipotentiary
handed overreportspreparedbytheHungLuiaA ncademyofScienceson
the environmentahlks of thehject, and a 1989 studyppd by an
expert groupof theWorid Wide Fund for Nature in responseto a
Hungarian requestsO TheCzechoslovak Plenipotentiaryeportedonthe
FederalGovemmentlR sesolutionof14 December1990 toenterinto
negotiatioatanintergovernment alvel withHungary,butody "within
the framework ofthevalidinter-statTreaty". Thus,theCzechoslovak
Governmen dtidnotseem tabeready todiscu he Hungariam proposal
for terminationofthe 1977 Treaty. Neverttielessthe Czechoslovak
Plenipotentiaraskedabout theamountof rnoneyHungary wodd be
willingtopay byway ofcompensation iftheTreatywere terminated.
3.118. On 15 January 1991, the Czechoslovak Prime Minister
responded toPiimeMhister Anta.Us letteof 14 Decernber 1990 and
expressed hisrdhess to star tegotiationat an intergovernmental
level-fil
148 ResdurionoftheGovemment oftheRepublic ofHungwNo 35W/19W, 20
kcember 1990A;nnexe. o4 annex153.
149 ReçolutioftheGovmmmtof thSlova kepublNo. 595,1DeawibeL1990.
150 Aide Memoireof the M&g Betwexathe HungariaandCw.choslov&
PlenipentimîeB.atislavJanuar1991,Wxes. vo4 ,annexW-Auen-
mt, Steliung~ des WWF zm Staustz&en-PrGojrktowNogymaros,
Augras1989(Rastas).
151 laterfhn CaechmlavaPrimeMinisteM CalftoH-an nime Minist3r
AntaIl,1Janlia1991Annexes,ol4,anne42.3.119. On 15February1991,the CzechoslovakPlenipotentiawrote
tha:
"duruiour meetingof9 January1991,1made apromise that1
wouldsend youtheCzechand Slova positioonthematerials
Ereceivedkm you atthe meetingby 15 Fe- 1991....
mowever, thesematerials]dinot containanynewproblems
whichhave,asyet,notken di~cussed."~~~
Hecomplained thatMrShnsondihadnot sentaithestudiesltedinlhis
lem of 15 November 1990. In factthe documentslisted inMr
Shsondi's lettwere alreadhown toCzechoslovakia.
3.120. On the same date,Mr Shsondi sent Mr Kocinger a draft
agreementon thejointterminatioftheTreatyandstatethathe wouid
senda bst ofprinciplethacouldformthebais for anew Tmaty.1"
Howevert ,hiwas thelastcontaatGovemment Pleaipotentialevel.
3.121. TheHungarian Parliamentadempowered theGoverrimerito
commence intergovermentanegotiationswithCtechoslovakiaonthe
fateof theProjecinitsResolutionof 16A@ 1991. TheReso1ution
provided:
"1, Recogrking Chefactthatputtkg hto opration of the
BarrageSystem or of any majorinstaiiationthemf, would
resultin serious ecologicai and economic consequences
throughoutthe affsted areas, the Parliamentrequeststhe
Govment
- to conductnegotiations..on theterminationbymutual
consentofthe[1977Treaty].,
- to Initiaconmtly theconclusionofa new inter-state
tffatytu settlthe issue ofthe consayences of the non-
f52 - frwMrD Kdger, ~lov& Govemmd PleniptmtiartMr G
K SgmsoriHungariauovmmentalPlenipotwitiaFebnra1991;Thetext
ofthe drTent wasidentiw;ittheonehandeovebyHungaryatthe
firstintergovernteigotiaos22 Aprill1;Annexes,v4,amex44. constructiofabandonment) ofthe Barrage System and ali
relatedmajorinstauations,takinginaccount thefollowkg
values,itheder asfoliows:
(a) therestoratiandpreservationofthe region'ecological
andnaturalvaluesand,mostimportantly,heprotectioof the
a g waterreswves;
(b)floodprotection;
(c)provide [the necessary conditions] for navigatioin
accordance ittheregion'nahiialenvironmen...
2. Parliamen tin& necessartheMer suspensi oonmk
aimedatthecompletionof-theBarragSystemand does hereby
re- anymeasurestakenbytheGovenimen tothisend.
The Parliamentréquests the Govemment to seek foran
agreementaseatlyaspossiblatthenegotiationinaccordance
with theeariierHungarianproposaison thesuspensionof
constmctiunwork on thetemtoryof theCzechand Slovak
FederaRepubiic"lS
3.122. Negotiatimscornmencdsoonafterwith theMt ofthre series
ofintergovernmenta mieetingsheld diiri1991. In the meantime,
howeves, the Hungarian authoritiehad lemed that the Slovak
Governent hadapptovedtheplansforVariantCls5andalsodiscovered
thaton29 March 199E,theStatWater Managemen Ctonstructin oof
Bratislavhad submittedaplan totheEnWonment Cornmitteeof the
SlovakParliamen tnthe"Rrttinglntopemtio onthe4Xxikovo Plant
as a provisionalsolutioon the temitorof CSFR",requesting the
Committee toapprove theplaninaccmhce with theSlova Lkawon
154 Wution oftheHungariahrbment No. 26/1991 (W233,regadhgthe
Govds ReqmmibilitIn Conneaion Witthe~ovo-Nakymaros
Ba- System16AprilI991;Annexes,annex154.
155 SeeseconparafromendoftheAidMemoireofthNegMiatioBetweenthe
E;xpersfthHmigariaandthSlovaAcademieofScieacesignebyDrM
Riaich, PresidtftheEnvimmeat CornmitteetheShvakAdmy of
Scienc and,rA BercziDirectorofiksxhtitutforEcolonndBotany
ofthe HungariAcakny of Sciene14 Febniary 199Annexes, vo4,
anne43. Waters.s6 6s infornationcorrespondedwitb a statementof the
Czechoslovakrepresentativ, rAbaffy,arthe meeting of theDanube
Sub-Cornmitteeof the Hugarian-Çzechosl BouvakaryWaters
Conmitteein GySrin MarcIi1991, as wellas to enfier indications.
Accordhg tothisstaternetheSlovakGovemment hadorderedthe start
of work onVariant C on2 April 1991. Mr My, Headof the
SecretaiaofHungarian Mnister Miid, mte on25 March 1991 toMI
Lexa,Headof the Secfetariofthe SlovakPbimeMinister,requesting
clarificatbutdidnotreceiveany an~wer.l~~
3.123, The tem "Variant C"l58 stemmed hm a list ofseven
"hypothetical"lternativdescribedbyrhe Bratislava-basecornpany
Hydraconsulatndhad beenpresentedforthefirstimebyCzechoslovak
Environment MinisterVavrousektohiscouterpartMrKereszteson 5
September 1990.The "Variants"ereasfoUows:
VariantA -Completionofthehject accordinto thoriginalplans.
VariantB -UnilaterdoperatiooftheGabcikovo sectordiversionothe
Danube atCzechoslovaktenritorabandonmen ottheNagymms
secta.
VariantC -Operationof theGabcikovo se- accordingtotheoriginal
plansbutwihout theNagparos sectorthus withoutpeakmode
ornon.
VariantD - Opration of theGabcikuvosectorwitkioutthe Hntsov
reservoir.
VariantE -No powerplantinoperaÉiont,hexistingpowercanalisused
fornavigationandfloodprotection.
156 Art 14ofthe LawonWatersNo 138/1973SubmissimofVodohospdhka
vystavbdtnypodnikNo.1912-730/1991,29Mmh 1991;StheNoteofthe
SlovaEnvimnmen tomdt~ee25Jun e991;Amexesvo4,mex 168.
'
157 Lett er Mr M KPglyHeadoftheSecretanifMr F Mal,theHungarian
Mhhter WithoutPortfooiMr 1ka, Headof theSecFewsiai tSIovak
Aime Minist, March1991A;nnexevol4,anne46.ProFerenM gdwasa
MiisieWithouPhlio Meen 1990and1992Asamemberof thHungarian
Goverment,hewasresponsieothGabcikovo-NagytnmProjea.VariantF - Stopphg al1work and "freezing"aII constructionuntil
Mer decision.
VariantG -DernolitiooftheconstructionstGabcikovoand restmtion
of stam quo ante"9
3.124. At thefmt presentatibyML Vavrousek concerningtheseven
Vaiants, VariantC waç Variant13andvice-versa. The unilateral
diversionappearslaterunderVariantC. Mr Vavrousekhadproposed
thatthese"Variantsbe snidieandevduated by theParties.
However,
duringthe followingtwoyears,apartfrornunilateraloperatiof the
Gabcikovoseetor,withthe diversionoftheDanube,none of theother
Variants was ever seriously studiedby CzechoslovaZaa The
Czechoslovaknegothtorsalwayssîmsed thateithetheOriginalProiject
shouldbecompletmi,or theFederal Goveniment would proceed to
consmct Vanant C.
3.125. Thus,when thefirst intergovernmentnegotiatiomsincethe
politicaichangeswereheldon22Aprii 1991,theHungarian delegation
was awareof Slovakpreparatorywork on VariantC. TheHungarian
delegationled by mister FerencMgd, stressethe protectionof
nad conditionsfor human Me, asweU as the continudon of
fiiendshipandco-operationbetweenthe two nations.He noted that
duringthetime ofthesuspensionof conitmction, mgq hadbecorne
inmingly cdain that iwouldpose a seriouris kfirreversibland
damaging envirOnmentp drucesses,withadverseconquenees to both
corntries.
3.126. Hungaryhanded overfourdocuments.Thefirstwasa drafof a
bilatertreatyconminhg thefullowingelements:
"1.The StatePartiesshail, othebais of jointagreement,
teminatethe[l977 Treaty...
2. The StatePartiedeclarth& theywillcontinuetoconsider
validtheboundaryLineestabhhed bythe PeaceTreatysigned
on 10Febniary1947.
3. The StatesPartiewill kginwithoutdelay,theassessrnent
of any investmentwork thatmay have beencompleted
accordingto theTrentyof 1977. Forthispurpose,they will
establishworkinggmps which wiUpreparetheir reportasto
159 SeelettfromMrG KS&nsondi, ungd GavernmentlenipotenttoMrG
Szalbki,ChiefCounse,-an Parlimentq CornmitteEnvironmental
Protedan17Sepernk 1990;Annexes,voanne164. the resultof said assessrnentby...........1991 to the
Govemments oftheStatParties.
4. The State PartieSM, on the basis of said reports,
detee anylosse wshicharetheresultounnecessarywork.
In thedeteminationof losses,onlythose expense msay be
counîedwhich
- are ataibutableexclusivelto the consimction ofthe
Bmge System,regardless of thenationdityofthecompanies
undertaklltherelatedwork;
- cannotbeusedforotherpirrposes;
- werecompIeted-priotrthedatewhenone StatPartyfint
broughtint ouestiotheadvisabilityotheconstructioofthe
en& Bmge System.
hst profitdo notcoastitudamages.
5. LossesSM bebe by the StatPeartiequally, The
StateParîywhose losseex& one haifofthetotaamount is
entitletoreimbmement of thedifference.
6. The StatePartiesshd, ia sepuateagreement,senlethe
questionofwhat istobe done withthoseinstallatislready
completai,ofhow tomsohe thepblems of navigation and .
floodp~tion dong thecommunboundaryof theriverand
how toexecutethephysical/nahirwomFnictiorioftheregion,
attemptintotake advantagefinternationresources,"la
Asfarastheloss esreconcerned ,hHangarian delegatiunderlined
duringth;negothions ttiasince auchmore workhadbeen done by
~hoslovakia, Hungary wodd beready tocompensate asi@cant
partofCaechoslovalosses.
3.127. Inthe seconddocument Hungary,with an eyeonVariant C,
propose tdatthetwo Partiessuspenconstructiound30 September
1993 andrefraiafmm milateralstepuntiafm thatdateA.ccordingly,
HungarywouId not kgin restmtion of the Nagymaros area and
160 Proposl thGovernmerit?hRepubliofHungarRegardmTemination of
' theTreatyConcluin1977ùetweetheHungadan Repubiicandth
bchdovak SocialitepublconceminheCumtmctionanOperaboofthe
GaWkwo-NagymaroBsamgeSystem22ApRl1991.Tbetexof this
weishanded ovefirsby Mr G K Sbmidi, HungatiaGovemmmtal
FlenipotentoMrD Koeingw,CzeciiwlGovemmental lenipmnthat
theirmeeton15Few 1992;Annexe,ol4annex48.Czechoslov&awould not continueconstruction theworksleadingto
thediversionoftheDanube onCzechoslovak tmitory.Environmental
and otheresearchwouldbe undertakendurinthe suspensioofworkin
ordertoexploreal possibleconsequeno cftheA-oject.If necessaq,
expertsof thudcounwiesorinstitutioncouidbeinvitedto participate.
Paragraph4 oftheproposa1stated:
'The CzechandSlovakFeded Republlctakesnoticeof the
factthat th[Hungaria CouncilofMinisters. ..suspended
workin progresat Nagymaros andthattheGovemmentof the
RepublicofHungaty doesnotdesire toresurnesaidwork,but
thatit shalatthe same time,begh work toîehab'itatethe
region. The RepublicofHungary is preparedtu begin
negotiationwith theCzechand Slova kedesalRepublic to
discus te iegal consequenceof the Govmd decision
referreto in thiparagmph, subsequentto theco~clusioof
shidies undertakenregadhg the whole of the Barrage
Systern"6
3.128. The rhird document containedanopinion ofthe Hungarian
Acahy of Scienceson theecological-enviconmentilpacts ofthe
Project, hichstatethai:
"(A) As a =suioftheimpoundment,the watervelocityinthe
xeservoirwilEdecreas st,gnantareaswilldevelop,pilingof
sedimentwiUacwlemte andgroundwateI revelswiurise..
(B) . ..Watersupplementatim and moisturecontent of the
ffoodplairisinthe Old Danube'sabandonedbd and dong
munding areaswill decrease andthe groundwate evelmay
ako decreasasa resulofthesiphonhgofgmundwater.
(C) . . Changes in the hydrodymmicsituation and the
displacemenof thebiogeochemicaml esses therebyinduced
andthe deterioratioin water qu&ty wiU lead to the
imgoverishmen anddeterioratiofthe ecosystem.
@) ...Fm a gwlogicalpointofYiew,the iackofknowledge
regardintheregionpresentttig reatesrisk..No geological
161 Proposaiothe thevenunof thekpubliofHw ontheSuspensionof
Workon thGabcikovo-NaparoBarrage SystonBasisofJoiAgmmmt,
22ApriF1991;Annexvol4,amex48. or geophysicaldocumentation of the ma affected by the
GabcikovoBarrage was everprepared.162
The document recommended Mer researctobe cmied out jointlby
theParties.
3.129. Thefourrhdocumenp troposedreplacingenergythatwouldbe
praducedby the Projectwith special gas turbines,and summarised
briefly Hungary'ssuccesswith this meansof production,offering
assistanctoCzechoslovakja"63
3.130. The Czechoslovalrdelegation, led by then SIovak Prime
Minister~eciar,'~~çoncede te importanceof environmentaalspects
butreiterateits detaminatioto completeconsmction inIinewiththe
1977 Treaty. According to the Czechoslovakassessment,technical
interventionscodd lessen the ensuing damage hm the Project.
Çzeçhoslovakiaproposai theestablishmentofjoint woPkinggroupsto
study the variouspblem areas where the two Partieshad different
stances,butrefus4 toconsidersuqtensionof construction,ontending
thattheGabcikovo plantwas hdy 90%compIete in 1989,ntthe time
Hungzuy suspendedconstruction.TheHungarimdelegationobjected,
stresskgthatthe plantwasfar fiom king campletein1989 and that
CzechosIovakia had eontinuedlarge scde work in an ~~ted
fashionsince 1989. From the Hhgarianperspective,Czechoslovakia
had not in any way attemptedto minimise itsdamages, but raîher
appemd tocary on dtedy with theGabcikovo plantasanaspect
ofitsümatened unilad measmes,
3.131. Thus noamment wasreached. No jointworkingpups were
estabbhed because Czechoslovakiawas not ready to suspend
çonsbuctionwhilematch andMer snidiw eesreundertake1~~~5
162 Sutementof the GovemmenoftheRepubliof HungaryandaheHungarian
Academy ofSciencontheEcologicai-Enviro nmpantaltheGabcikovo
Plan2t,Apnl1991A;nriex,ol4,anne10.
163 hRoposaof the Govenmieof the RepublofHungaxyregardi tegJoint
ResolutiooftheQuestioof EnergyWultinfm theAbandonmen tfthe
Gkikovo-MagymarosHy~~c PlanSystem,2AM1 1991Annexes,ol4,
annex56.
la Ondlthreoccasioins991theCzchlovak (i-feded) delmonswereled
by thSIovaPknmeMinistdulyauthoridtoaconbehaloft)Fedemtion.
165 Reportof Mï F Mgdl,HungariaMinkm WifhoutPortfolio,re@ing the
NegotihonswittheCzechdovakGovmtal ûelegatio, April1991. 3.132. Between thefirstanthesecond intergovenimentnlegotiations
thepmess of fundamental change inthe politicailandscapinEast-
CentraiEurope had ken completed. Accordingto earlierbilateral
agreementsthelastSovietuoupsleft Czechoslovakion 27 May 1991
andHungq on16June 1991.On 28June 1991the rnember sbtesof
COMECON signeda ProtocolinBudapest onthe dissolutionofthe
"sociaiiseconomicorganisation. On 1 Juiy1991,atthelasMoscow
meetingof thePoiiticalConsultativCornmittee:fthe Wmaw Pact,
anotherProtocowas signedonthedissolutioof the"socialisrnilitaq
organisation.Hungarandthe SovietUnionhad kn se&g theitrade
accountsin US dollarssincethe beginnllof 1991.163 Thus full
sovereigntandindependenco efthetwo corntriewas restoreafte4r6
yearsofforeigncontrol. Makinguse of thenew oppmnities, inthe
middleof 1991n,egotiatiowere alreadyinpropss on theassociation
of HungaryandCzechoslovaki aiththeEuropeanCommunities.~6*
3.133. A Czechoslovakresponse to the Hungarian Academy of
Scienasistatementonthe Gakikovoplant argue haî theecological-
.environmentalrisks and dangers catalogued tha were either
scientificallyunfounded or wuld berninirnisby speciaitechnicd
solution69
3.134. The secortdintergovernmental eetingtookplaceinBratislava
on 15 July1991. The Czechoslovakdelegationwas ledby thenew
SlovakPrimeWster, Mr JbnCamogunky; Mr Maai continuedtolead
the Hungariaadelegation.The CEechosiovakdeiegarionassertedthat
sme 240 volumeshad ahdy been preparebytheir expertspving
166 Prut0~1ofth46thSessionoftieo& of MutualEoonomAssistancein
Budapes18Jurr1991.
167 Unti1991al1COMIXON mm& hadkm tradinganstrictbilateral
-tem. settlingtacmuntfnn~alin'hmferable roublInpracçiirade
hadbeaarrangewihouusinanycmacy, ii.byabartersy5tem.
168 Hungarysigneca EimropeAgreementon AssociationwitheEurapean
Cwimunitieon 16 -ber 1991; mhosbvakiadid thesme but the
agreementdid ncorneinto force a wnseqmce of thedissolution of
CzdmlovakiaNewAgremms axking negotiabetwee&eEC andthiwo
SucoessStates.
169 PositioftheCzeçhoSlovaG~vemmmtalDdegatiwi1Juiy1991Anriexes,
vol4, ann52. ForthHun- AcademyofScienc tudyse above,para
3.128.rhattheProjectwodd causenohm to theenvironment. Hungary
responded that none of the studies actudy reseived from
Cmhoslovakia addresse he long-tm ecologicaleffectsonthlargeçt
undergroundwateereservein CentralEuropnor didtheydernonstrate
thaecologicddamage souldnotensutinthelongm.
3.135. Atthemeeting,CzechoslovalUaafFumeditsintentitoputthe
GabcikovoBarrageintooperation,tatingthaexistinstudieanddata
mtted anevduationof theeffectof thefourpossibleoperational
scenarios(1)completioandoperatiooftheentireProjecaccordingto
the 1977Treaty; (2)abandonmentof the NagymarosBarrage, but
opmationof theGabcikavobarrageaccordingtotheoriginalplans;(3)
abandonmen otfthNaparos Bmage, butoperatiooftheGabcikovo
barragewithuseofthepwer canal,butwithoutfillinguptheDunWti
resemoIr;or(4)abandonmeno tfthewholehjeet, withrestorationof
thesutusqu0.170
3.136. Scenafio(3)wasnotidenticawithVarianC, becaus idid not
involvethedateral diversiooftheDanube.However, theconceptof
diversionhad corne np durhg the negotirttions. Czechoslovakia
propusedtheestablishmentfatntatd (HungarianCzechoslovakand
EC) expert conmittee tassistinfindingtechnicalsolutionto the
problemsaishg hm the operationothe Gabcikovosectorwitb a
shorttimeframe. Czechoslovakinoted thaa fdm tu a- on the
issuewouldleavethe Governmen tithnochoicebut toputthebmage
intooperationthroughMer constmcti~non Czechoslavaktefiitory:
thi soflstnictwouldmerely bea "provisionslolution, hXcwould
leave openthe possibility ofthewhole Project king evmîdly
implernentednaccorda nih the1977Treaty.
3.137. Hungary repli4tha tnilaterliversionoftheDanubewould
ùifringethe Htmgarian ~torinl integritythe Boundary Waters
Conventionof 1976and the 1977 Tmty itself.Itwouldcfiange the
chmcteroftheborder betw8en thetwoStatesaslaiddom inthe1920
and 1947 Pa Thes. Hungay wsed theestablishmentofa
&Meral Cornmitteeforthe assesmentofenvironmentaicvces,
conditionecm work onCzechosIovaktemtoryking suspend&. Since
Czechoslovakiawrrunwiübgto suspendwork on VariantC, thetwo
170 ReporfromMrF MMl,Hungarh Wer WitfioutPdolito tHungarian
Govemmentregadhg thNegotiaionwÎütheCtBChmlwgk Governreental
Delegation,151991Annexes,o4,anne165.Statescould not agreeon settingup eithera trilateraioa birateral
Commîtteeto investige theenvironmentailmpactof iheProject."l
3.138. A few weeks later the Hungarian Govmment received
informationthaconstructiononVariantC hadcommenced. Ina ktter
dated 24July 1991,addressecioMr Carnom, Mr Madl protested
agnins thiunilateraaction:
"Hungarianpublic opinion and the kIungh Govemment
nnxiouslyand attentivelyfollow the [Czechoslovak]press
reportsof thmüateralstepsof the Govemmentof theSlovak
Republic in connection with the hge system, The
pparatory wozks fordivertingthe waterofthe Danubenear
theûumk3iti dam daterally arealsoalwmhg. Thesesteps
arecon- to the1977 Treaty andta the goodrelationslip
betweerour nation."
3.139, Inqly Mr CamogursQ ccdmed theCzechoslovakpress
reportsandinfomed hil Mrid thatboth the Slovak andthe Federal
Governmenth sadmade the necessn deyisionon theconstructionof
VafiantC.1T30, thesame day,theSlovakRime MinisterinformedMI
Antailofthegovermentaldecision...
"to conhue work on the Gabcikovo power plant, as a
provisionalolution,whichis aimedatthe commencemeno t f
opmationson the temitoryoftheCzechandSlovak FM
Rq~ublic."~~
3.140. InJdy 1991, theWungariaG novernent alsolearned that the
Czechoslovak consmction Company was £ilhg the power canalby
pumping water hm the Danube throughpipelines. A Huflganianote
171 Rqmt fromMrIrMm, HungarhnMinisterWitiPortfol,o thHurgarh
Gavemmentregardinthe Neptiations wthe~~lovak Govanmental
Delegatio, 5July1199.
172 kt& fromMr FMm, HmgarianMinistWtthouîPortfoltoSIovaPkrime
MinistrCamopsky, 24July1991;hmxq vol4aanex54.
173 JAW fromSlovakRime -ter J Cmogmky, toIMTF MMl, Aungarim
MinisoWithoutortfol.0July1991Anmes, vo4 ,annex55.
174 Let&rfrw ilwakRime bünistJCaimgmlq, toHungariaPrimMinism J
Antal30Juiy1991Annexes, 4,amex 56. 78
Verbale of 30July 1991protesteagahst this.1T7he reasonforthe
Czechoslovakaction wathatthebed ofthe powercanalhad starteto
erode:someregetationhadpwn andtheasphah coverofthedyke had
becornecracked.TheCzechoslovak authoritiethoughtthathemg
wouid preventthe growthof vegetation,whiHungary perceivedthe
actionasafwthe udaterd step
3.141. Hungary protest primarilagainstthepreparatioofVariant
C. In aletteof9 August1991 toMr Camogmky, MrMadl express&
outrageat theCzechoslovakdecisiontocontinueworkon VariantC.
The decisionwas "regrettaend unacceptablsuiceourfirmaimis to
continuethenegotiatiom;thicould be und&ed by any daterd
step".Headded:
'Iam convinc ehawte cannotfinda [mumally]acceptable
solutionbyusingcoercivemeans... I doprote stainsany
milateralstethaîwouldbe incontradictiowiththeinmats
of our nationsand internationalaw. I considesitvery
importanthatI reeeiveinformatiaseatlyaspossibleonthe
detds oftheprovisionlolution176
3.142. On 27July 1991,Mr htdi metMr CalfainDubrovnikat an
intemationalconference. The two agreedto a requestthat their
respectivPariiamentatConmitteescommence talk onthedispute.in
lettasaddressetolMrCalfamd MrCarnogurslg on 12 and14 August
1991,l the Hungarkm Prime Ministerstressethe importanceof a
negotiatesettlemenofthe dispute,
3.143. Accodhgly, thetwo Parliaments' onmitteof Environmental,
Aotectionmet in Budapestbetween9 and11 October1991, Theydid
RO~ -ch a commonstandpointwith regard to thehic issue,but
stresseintheiJointDw:1aratiohat:
"[Ain expercornmimeshouldbeset up inardetoevalwte on
thebais ofa communmethdology allrdisticseenarios,as
175 NoteVerhlefrwiMlinistrForeignAffairsthRepubliHungarytothe
Czechoslovkmbassy, July1991;Annex,o4,arine57.
176 Leae rrrimrF MM, HungarhMinisteWithouPortfolitSlova krime
1MinisJÇamogmsky,9Aupst1991Annexesvo4 anne58.
177 LettferwHlungarhPrimMinisteJAndl tCzechoslovkimeMinistMr
Calfa12August1991,antaSlovaFrim eiiiisJChmgdy, 14 Aupt
1991;Anaexe,o4 ,anne59. deteminedby the conmittee.This cornmitteewiiIevalua--
givinprions taecologicd aspect- the... consequenceof
varioussenanos."
3,144. Thethirdintergovernmental eetingtookplacinBudapeston
2 December 1991 ,hetwoPartiesagreedthatitwouldbe reasonablto
setupa Sint ExperCommittee toreviewthewholequestion.Bothhad
prepareùproposaisfothemandateand taskoftheCommittee. Hungary
acceptedtheCzechoslovakproposato complementtheCommitteewith
expertsfiom theEuropea Cnommunities.The Hungariandelegation
pointedout thathe goalof theworkof theConmittee would be to
preparea wrly base dornmon decision.Thus ,fCzechoslovakia
continuedits work towards theimplernentationof VariantC, the
Commimds workwouldbemeaningless. The headoftheCzechoslovak
delegation ~sponded th the suspension of construction,even
temporady, was unthidable. Nevertheless,tIiexpertsof thetwo
delegationsreparedptincip fledes of procedurfeora JointExpert
Cornmitteeforeseeingtheparticipatioof therepresentativsfthe
EuropeanCommunlties.
3.145. Mr Madi declared atthe end of the negotiarionsthathe
Cornmitteecodd begin work if,with ten days,the head of the
Czechoslovakdelegationinformaithe IiungariaGovemment thano
udateml work towardsthe implementafionof VariantC would be
carried outon the Czechoslovakside untii June 1992while the
Cornmittw undertookits work.OtherwisteheHungarian Govanment
would becompeUd totakenecessarymeasmes,which couldincludthe
teminaion ofthe1977 Trea~1.I~~
3.146. The Czechoslovak Govenunent did not tespond to the
Hungariarnequestwithiten days*Ina lettedated18December 1991,
Mr Camogursky said:
178 JointDechationthCarmriitofEnvironmenPirotectotheRepublof
HuagaryandtheFedd AssemMy oftheCzechosIovl Repub11Octobet
1991Annexes,o4,amex64.
179 Repm ofMrF MM, HungariMinisterWithoPortfolto thHuaMan
Gwemmmt regadhg the NegotiatwiththeCzechoslovakGovmmental
Delegali, udape, aber 1991. "Iah repeatdy stressingthatbecauseof thehigh stateof 4
readine ossthe Gakikovo plant, theonly solutionthatis
acceptablforus isone which takesintoaccounttheputting
lntooperatiooftheGabcikovoplant."
3.147. He addedthat"Czechoslovakidaoesnotcarryout anyworkin
theriverbeciotheMube untilJune f992'"butmade no cornmitment
withrespecttothediscontinuationf workonVariantC. Infactwork
on the beditselwodd onlycorneat alaterstageand notduringthe
summerhighwaterperiod. Theletter,however,containeanimpmknt
sentencewithregartotheNagymaros seetor
"As faras thefate oftheNagymarosplant isconcernai,it
shouldbesolvedinconnectiowith compensatintheCSFR for
damages çausedbyHungary' nson-compliance iththe[1977]
inter-stTreatyand its ~elad0cuments."~*0
3.148. The Hungarian Governmen tnterpted thh statementomem
that thCZBChoslova Gkoremmentnolongerconsidered thecompletion
f theworh atNagymms as areqyhment.
3.149. MrMfidrespondedon23December 1991,l salingthatuder
theconditionsdesmibedin theletter(Le.,continuatofntheworkon
VariantC), theJointExpertCornmitteecould not starits work. In
rep1y, Igr2amogmlq reitmtedthewilhgness of Czechoslovalao
setup the trihimacdttee, butdidnot referto anychang enthe
Czeçhoslovakposition on VariantC. Prime Mnistw AntaIl also
respondedina lettaddress tedzechoslovakPrimeMinisterCalfaon
19 IDecember 1991. Mer summarising themorement events in
connectionwîththeProjectMr And statedthaboîhpartie"shouldk
open to the coa.c1usioosftheexperts,insteadofputtin gproper
-me uponthemby accelerating the wu& andsuggestingthe
hversibility ofthe construction."But hewamed thatif work on
VariantCfwoceeded ..
180 Mer hm SlovakPtimeMinisterJ CarnogiluMx F Mgdl,Hraigarian
?+%&teWithouîPortfotiDecembe1991Annexes,o4,amex 69.
181 barn fm Mr FWl, HungarianMinistWithouPdollo,toSlovakRime
MinistJrCmmpsky 23December1991;Amexevol4, mx 91.
182 Mer hm SlovaRkimeMinisteJCarnogdq toMt F Mal, Hungarian
MiriisWrithoPortfol, fanua1992;Annexe.o4,anne72. "theGovernmentof the Republic of Hungaq would be
compelietoreviewtheconsequencesofthediscontinuatinf
thenegotiatiothe fateothe 1977inter-staTreatyand the
necessa rounter-meas~u-es."l83
3.150. Mr Calfarespondedon 23 January1992, notingtht the
CzechoslovakGovemmen htaâcorifimedthecontinuatioofthe work
onVariantC inaResolutioof12 December1992 ..
"inthe interesofminimising the increasinglcumuiative
economicandecologicaldamages onCzechoslovakterritory
andsothatthe energypoterithat our disposaIsoptimalty
ut3ise-andthat theDanube'sbed becomes suitableforthe
fulfilmeofthe absoluteindispensabeeedsofnavigation..
.in theeventthatheconclusions[oftheConunitteeand the
monitorinoftheGabcikovo Barragetestplantpve thatthe
negativeecologicaiconsequenarepater than theexpected
profit,Czechoslovaaireadytostopworkon theprovisional
solution andto continue constructionbasal on mutual
agreement."'"
3.151. In otk wu&, CzechosZovaZa waasunwilling tosuspend
consîructioofVariantC andworildputintooperationtheWikovo
Banage by a;Umeans,independentlyofthework of the JointExpert
Committee.
3.152. In aAbteVerbaleof 14Febnmy 1992theHungarian Ministty
ofForeignAB& ptested agninsthedateral work"which isaimed
atdivathg theDanube hm itsplaceasa cornon borderriver".The
decisionoftheCzechoslovakGovenimentand theworkded out on
Czechoslovaktemtorywas...
"incontraventionf boîh.. provisionofthe [197 7reaty]
andthe1976 Convention nManagemeno tf BorderWaters...
withtheprhciplesofsovereigntandterri- integritwith
theinviolabilitystat eorder asw,eU aswith thegemral
183 I.emfmn HmgiriaPrimeMinisJehtaltoQdmlovak PrimMe inisMer
Calfa1Detxmbe1991;Annexe,o4, amex70.
184 lettferoQechoslovanimeMisterM CalftoHiinManhime Mir J
Antal, 3Jmua1992;Annexe,o4,mx 73.TheHungaxian Govment wouldask Parfiamenforpior authorisation
ofthetermination.
3.155. No response came from Mr Calfa.lsgThe Hungarian
Govei-nmentc,oncludingthattherewas no longeranypossibilityof
reachinga compromise,proposed a ParliamentaryResolutionon the
terminatioofthe 1977Treaty.
3.156. On5 March 1992,PrimeMinisterAntailtumed toEC Resident
JacquesDelars,rsquestinthe assistanoftheEuropean Communities.
The Alme Ministerme:
'1kiridlyrequestyour assistanMr,hident, in haltinthe
escalationottiedispu..I askyouto supportourgoalof can-
cehg theunilaterCzechoslovak constnictionwork..andour
proposalfothecommencemeno tftrilaterlxperstudies."'89
3.157. On 24 March 1992 the HungananParliament passed a
Resolutiowhich Stated:
'Recognisingthe fact that continuai constructionand/or
option of theGabcikovo-Nagymaro sarrageSystem orany
of the main hstaliatiom thereof would resitlin serious
ecologicaandeconomic damage; takingUitoconsideratithe
facttha the Eovemmentof the Czech and SlovakEederal
Republic has passeà a decision regarding the unilaterd
completionandrommencemeno tf theGabcikovoBarrageand
üiat itentailsthe milateraldiversion ofthe Danube in
cmtmvention totherelevantintemationalonventionsandthe
amendment of thecharacterofthe stateborder,andthat,by
theseactionstheGovernmeno tftheCzechandSlovakFederai
Republichavemadequestionable the vdidity ofthe Treaty
concludedon 17Septanber 1977... theParliamentauthmises
the Govmment to terminaoethe 1977 Treaty and di
agreementsmncluded Meen the Partiesanaorthek bodies
forexecutingtheTreaty,ifthe'Govemment of theCzechand
SlovakFahd &publicdoes notcancelthework king dunein
contraventiotothe 197Treatyby30 April1992."iw
188 PrimeMinistMrMa respwidetoPrimeMinistJAnWs letteody on23
A@, 199% secbelowpara3.159.
189 Lettehm Hm@ PrimMinisteJAntato EimipeaCommissiohident
DelorS,Mmh 1992.
130 Resoluâiof theHungariaFadiamentNo1211992(N.41, 2March199%
Annexesvd4,annex156.-- accompanied by his brotherthe Director of Hydmstav, the
constructioncornpnof the Gabcikovosectorpaida well-publicised
visitotheconstructioma of VarianC. Hestatedthatthcfosureof
theDanub eoddtake placeinthewly winterof 1932when thewater
levewasat itslowest.lg3
3.161. Againstthibackground heHungarianGavement decide dn
7 May 1992 toterhate the1977 Treaty. Itsdecisionofferedonelast
chanceforreachina compromisetoavoidterminatio,rovidinthat:
"Immediateloyratthelatesby 15 May [1992]negotiations
shudd be held with Prime MinisterJh Carnop&, in
conjunctiowiththe participatofntheEC Ambassadorsto
PragueandBudapesto, asixmonth susperisioftheworkon
theprovisionalsolution(VariaC) in order tocommence
tdated negotiation.. thenegotiationdanot leaéto a
resultthe Govemmentof the Czech andSlovak Federai
Republicshodd be informedofthe taminationby 20 May
[1992throughdiplornatchnels" .i94
The decision su- that a new treatyshdd be concludedto
deiineatetheconsequencsftheterrmnaon.
3.162. On 1 I May1992 M,rCarnugmkyiafmed Mr Mhdi thatthe
Slovak(nottheFeM) Governmenh taddiscusseàtheissueHe statd
*Weare &y tonegotiatewithyononapossiblemodification
ofthedeadlinforthediversiooftheDanube...But we think
it wouldbeinappropriao limithe themeofnegotiationby
preconditions, . SJovakGovemmentconsiders]
negotiario..on thefuEhent ofthe1977 intes-stTmty. .
.desirablespeciatlbecausetheproposalf theChsion
oftheEuropeariCammimitie s nthesettinupof a trilatesal
expertConmitteeshodd &O beddt with."195
3.163. Ril Carno- ad&d thathe had appointedGovemment
PlenipotentkyKocingertupreparefornegotiationswihisHungarian
193 &SZ~ (Bratisl2,3A@ 1992.
194 ResolatiootbHungaxhGÙwmmeiitNo.3190/1992May 1% hnexes,
vo4,annex15.
195 Met from Slm& PrimeMnk& J CaniogirryoMrF W, Hungaian
MinistWithout wcfo,1May 1992.counterpart.However,the negoîiationsdid nottakeplace,becauseMr
Carnagursky told MrMidl by phoneon the same day thattheSlovak
Governerit would not negotiate under the "ulrimamm" and the
"pxeconditionsd"eterminedbyHungary,i.e., thsuspensionof work on
vanant Cal%
3.164. TheHungarian Govenimentdidnot receiveany communication
on this question hm the Federal Govemment. Taking into
consideratiothat thenegotiationfailedto takeplace before15 May
1992,the Hungarian Govment feltithad no optionbutto tenninate
the1977 Treaty. As HungarimForeign MinisterJeszenszek xplaixied
toMrAndriessen:
"Mr Manan Catfa...infomed PrimeMUiisterJ6zsef Antallof
Hungary about thepositionof the CzechoslovakGovemment
regatdingthe Project.He stated,inter alfa, ththeCzecho-
SIovalrsidecould notsuspendthe activityconnectedwiîh the
constructionofthe so called'temporarysolution'. . mis]
deçisionascommunicated by the Head of theCzecho-Slovak
Governmen tç consideredby theGovernmeno t ftheRepublic
of Hungary as beingnot inaccordance withthe thirdof the
conditionsset dom in your letterof 13 April [1992].
Therefore,theHungarian Govement, incompliance with the
relevantdecisionoftheNationalAssembly, willbe compeUed
toteminate [the1977Trea~]."Iw
3.165. The notice of teminationtook the fm of a Note Verbale
handed to the CzechoslovakEmbassy on 19 May 1992.198It W~S
accompanied by a lettefrom Prim e iristeAritalto Prime Mhkter
196 SpeechofMr F Ma, HungarimMinisteWithouPortfoliintheHun@rian
Parliamen,LMay 1992,explainithmasonsoftemiuiatiion;Annevol4,
annex158.
191 LettefromMr G Jmmuky, Hungari~ Mhiskr forForeigAffairs,Mr F
Aiidriess,ice Midentof thCommissioncf tEirropeaihmunities,19
May1992;Annexes.vol4,amie84.TheHmgarh MinisteofForeignAffairs
refd totheconditioof thEC Commissionaccordirn%whichneitfm
Govemment wouldtakany step, hilethpro@ HateralConmitteisat
wmk,whichwouldprejudiŒpossifuturactioby theilmPartieseeabove,
para3.158.
198 NoteVerbaleofthHunpian Ministryfor ForeAffaitrthe ~hoslovak
EmWy, 19May 1992Annexes,o4,annex83.Caifa1gandby aDeclaratioon thelegd andscientificpunds forthe
rerminati~n.~Intheletter,1AntallunderLine hat"itis unacceptable
tl~tthe [CzechosIovaklnegotiatingPartyproduces a faitaccompli
duringthenegotiationby continubg workon VariantC.Thi s asthe
mainreasonfortermuiathgthe 1977Treaty.He notedthat..
"a studyof your letterled the HungarianGovernment to
concludeatitsmeehg of 7 May1992 tha theCzechoslovak
Govenunent isunablto meetourequestforamoratori and
wasunwillingtofullyncceptheconditionssefor CO-operation
by theEuropeanCornmuniti iensan effor tt promote a
commonagreementt ,husjeopardisiagpromishg oppo&ty
for negotiatiseekingjointaction.. mt waswithrenewed
hopesforjointactionthat1receivedthe Feded Govemment's
smrnent tothepress,madeafte its eetingof14 May [1992],
envisaging n suspensionof coristnictim,intended as a
tempumy solutioduring theactivityotheTdateralExpert
Cornmittee.Again,however,Ihadto notewithdisappointment
the officialcommunication, hichmadeno reference to a
readinesfora suspensionof construction.Thathaddefinite&
putan end, asit were,to our attemptstoreach a common
agreemenrtegardhgtihe1977inter-staTreaty.."ml
3.166. CzechosIovabja refusai to recognise the validityof the
terminationA CzechoslovakfiteVerbaleof22 May 1992 statedthat
"the Republic of Hungary has no legaI buis for the uniiateral
tedation" of îhn 1977Treaty,and that"theNote Verbaleof the
HwigaflanMinkW ofForeignAffairdated 19May 1992cannot legally
affectthevalidity"of the1977 Tmty and relatedagreements.The
Govemment ..
"reseme[dtherighttosetforthitopinionindetailwithregard
toaIIargumentosftheGovernmeno tftheRepubiicofHmgary,
includingthe compensationof damages of the Czech and
199 LettefromHun- PRmeMinisteJAndl tCzechoslovPrlm e inisMer
Calfa19May199sAnnexes,ol mex 82.
200 DeclaratdttheGovemmwitoftheRepubIofHungaryonthTaminatioof
the1977Treaty,May1992;Annexev,ol4annex2.
201 Leth hm HungarianrimeMhisterAntaItCzchosIwakAime MinistMr
Calfa19MayIW, Annexe.vo4,annex2. SlovakFederalRepubliasa resultothenon-cornpliance ith
thlegaldutiesoftheRepubliofHungar y"20Z
However,Hungaryneverreceivedany substantivresponsto itNote
VerbaleortheaccompanyinD gechration.
3.167. Inordertocompletethelegd procesoftemination,Hungarian
Act NoXL of 9June 1992rescindedearliActs thathadpmulgated
the1977Treatyandits1983 modification.
3.168. On 6 August 1992 PrimeMinisterAntall wroteto thenew
GzechoslovakP:rimeMinister,MrStraslqIndicatinthepossibilitof
bringinthe casekfore thiCsourt. PrimMhkter AntaIlcomplained
that:
"our lettand propos& have notbeenanswered m,eanwhile,
theCzechosJovak constrtictioncompanyis continuhg the
completionof the prepatatoryworks inreadiness forthe
commencemen tftheopration oftheGabcikovo pawerplant.
..For thireasontheHung- Govanmentwillconsiderthe
involvementofhighlyrespect4 non-partisnuthonfieinthe
resolutiooftheDanubedispute, fir stail thInternational
CourtofJusticeiThe Hague.''203
3.169. He statedagainthat"itwould bereasonableto involveEC
expertsfromW corntriestoo.A copy ofthe lettewas senttoMr
Mech, theSlovakAime Wster.
3.170. Unawm ofthisçommunicatim,Rime Wter Se, in a
letter sent thsame day to frime künher Antall r,iteratehis
Govemmentt tandpointontheinvaIiditofthetaminationofthe 1977
Treaty,but expressedsuppor torthe invotvementof theEC. The
CzechoslovakGoverament.,.
"on 14 May 1992 welcomed thi s ctiviatdynominat ehe
manbersof a delegaiiotolx aven ahad mandate andsent
NoteVerMe hm fromedmak hbsy tothBu~gariaioreiMi,
22May1992; hmxes,vol4,arin85. InrespwiaHtmgadaNnoteVerbule
dsitIe$une1992expsseltheII?-oftheHuhgariGcvment andstated
that"On behaoftheGovamnentofthRepubliofHungaryheMinistryof
ForeigAffairsafhthecontenofthDecidm daked1May 1992andthe
requesttiaatwwk bestoppdÎn coüuiedwith the Gabcihv+Nagymaros
BafragSystem.NoteVerbahm Hm@m Mh&y ofForeign AfFaitrs2ie
Czechoslovkmbassy,0June992;Annem,vol4annex86.
LettferomHutlgarRime MiaisterJAnttCzecboslovPrimeMhimr J
Strdsk,August1992Aanexevs,4annex90. toVienna inorderto reacha xeasonablsolutionofthe dispute.
Atthe same time thethenhime Ministerof CSFR inhis press
declaraticin. . made known his readinessto enter into
negotiationscombinedwith a suspensionof work on the
provisionasoI~tion."~~
3,171. Despitethis lettetheHungarian Governmentneverreceived
any indicatioofthereadinessofCzechoslovakiaEOsuspend theworkon
the "provisionsolution"nor anyinvitatiotomeet inVienna.
3.172. On 5 August 1992, the Czechoslov rapresentativeto the
DanubeCommission infwmedtheDirectorof itSecretariathat"onthe
tenitoryofthe CSFR, work onseveringthe Danube' low wiU begin.. .
at the1851.759 riverkilomene Line"on 15 October1992 in orderto
provisionallyputinto operatiothe GabcikovoBarrage, It wouldbe
necessary...
"tosuspend navigatiofmn BratislavatoPaJkovicovfoorabout
10days sometime between 15and 30 of Novaber 1992.. .
Theline of navigatiowillbe relocateto thepowercanal and
thelock-chambera sf theGabcikovoplant...At thesametime
di necessarymutical instztlhtiotls wbeputintooperation,
includingtheIockshamkrsof theGdxikovo plant."205
3*173. The Hungarianrepresentative to the Commission protested
againstthephed actionina letteof17 Auguçtf 992JM Hedemanded
more detailedinfumaiionandquestioned themeanhg of the word
"provisional"T.hesubstan ocfIEungq's protestwascormzlunicatetdo
thePresideritftheDanubeCommission on28 August 1992.207
204 Mer frommoslovak he MisterJ SaasktoHungariaPrim eW= 3
AntalI,6Aupt 1992Annexes, 4,mex 89.
205 Mer ofNt rChmelV, icehsidenttheDanubeCommissionoMr HStrwsfx
DirectoSeaetarjof thDanub Commission, Aupst 1992:Amiexevol4,
amex88.
2% Letterhmn Mr IBhh, DepuiySta&Smemy ofthe HungariMiaislryfor
FaïeigAffai andPemianentepreseatatotheDanubeChmission, MrR
Cbmel,Vicebident ofthbube Commission ,7Augus1992 Annexes,ol
4,gnnex91.
2Q7 Lettf eromMr 1Baba,Wuty Sm Semaaq of th Hunman Mhisby for
ForeignAffaiansPwmanenR?epresentattetheDanubeCommissiotoMr I
Diacor,iident ofthDanubeCommission,8 A11gu1992;Amexes,vol 4,
anne93.3.174. In a furtheletteto Mr S&&y on 18 Auest 1992, Prime
MinisterAntaIstatedthat:
'The Govenmentof theRepublicof Hungary would iike to
solvethe dispute once and for all in accordance with
internationaw. . TthereforproposethattheGovernmentof
theCzechandSlovakFederalRepubic and theGovernment of
theRepublicof Bungarymutudy ape to submitthedispute
overtheimplementationf VariantCto thIntemational Court
ofJusticeandWest a decision.Inadditioturecognisingthe
jwkdlction of the Court, the representativesof our
Govemmentsshoulddeterminein writingthequestionstobe
submittetoTheBagueCornof Justi~e."~08
The lettwas copiedtoSlova Prime -ter Mecia.
3.175. Mr Meeiarmet MIhtall inBudapest on 9 Septmber 1992.
He am thatprehnhary tallsiaoulbeheldamong theexpertsofthe
three Governments (ofBudapest, Prague and Bratislava) on the
submissionof the disputthe InternatioClourtofJusticeandonthe
environmentalproblems. These talks never tosk place, because
Czechoslovalrif,othenextsevd months,leconsidereditapach
ofbringingthecasebeforethiCourt.
3.116. On 23 September 1992, FeW Prime Minister Strasky
respondedto Mr Antatlsleiierof 18 August1992?09shhg that the
Czechoslovakstancewirhregardto thetemhtion ofthe 1977 Trerrxy
was "contahedinmy lettdate 6dAugust1992". Astothe Hungarian
poposal tosubmitthecasetothe CourtMtSeky raised thequestion
"whatwould thegmd offices ormedlationoffereby the Empean
Commimities meanhm the aspecof theunfinishsnegotiations?He
was disappointedthaiHiingary"didnot participateinthe trilaterd
negotiatiunwhichwere planne or 18May 1992 inVienna with the
participatiof theEuropeanCommunîties",The Czechoslovak Prime
Mnkter wasnot mdy tosubmit thecasetotheCourt (asproposedby
Hungary),butpreferrethe involvemenof theEi~rapeaCommunities.
Tbe same view was takebyCzechoslovak ForeignWster Moravcik
on thesameday,23 Septembr 1992. Hestatedt
208 Lettehm HuagariPrimeMini- I Aniatokchdwak PrimeMInistr
SW, 18Augustm, Annexes,ol4,mex 92.
209 ZettfromCzechoslovkrimMimisterSaiistoHungariaAZmeMnislerJ
Antall,23Sepemb1992Annexes, olanne96. "theidea tosubmit thedisputeto theInternationaCourt of
Justice wouldvMy prolong the pcess of fmding the
solutioto thedispute,exactiythen,whm the timebecme a
mucialfactm,''21°
3.177. In responsetoMrStrkky,MrAntallexpressedhis indiwon
that:
'"theworkon the scdled provisionalsolution,Ieadito the
unifateradiversion of the Danube is being concluded,
threateninthe sovereigntyand territoriaintegrity ofthe
Republicof Hungary... On the otherhand,1a- with you,
îherearesme aspectsoftheinter-stadisputewhichseem to
requiresettingup a tnlateraexpert Commîttee with the
participatinfexpertof theEmpan Communities."211
3.178. Mr Strdsky respondedon 2 OGtober1992, welcoming the
wihgness of Hungary topreparea eommonrequest to theEwpean
CommunitiesW . ith~gardtotheroleoftheCourt,he statetbat:
'7am afraidtinttheproposd submittedby you,inyour letter
datai 23 Septemkr 1992, to sake uur dispute to the
IntemationalourtofJusticeinTheHague wasinfluencedbya
misunderstandhgof thereasonsforaurpositionon tbe issue.
Today,when time has&me an extremelyimportanfactor*1
amof theopinionthatitisurgenthat wefinishnegotiatioon
the participatioby the Commission of the Empan
Commimitie isnthesolutioto ourdispute. The submissionof
ourdisputetoThe HagueIntardonai Cm of Justicewould
meanthat the resultof OUI negotiationwith theEurapean
Commiinitieto datew,ouldcornetonothing.Czechdo~s
recondiationto the Czechoslovak Constitutionalprovisions
piorto thesubmissionof ourdisputebeforethe Inteniational
CourtofJusticeiTheHaguewouldrequire a greadea of time
hd&."212
210 Lett em Mr JMm~tik, khoslovak ForeignMinisterMrG Jeszenszky,
HunMan ForeignMinis,3September199Amexes,vol4amex W.
211 hkr frwi HungarPrimeMi 1AntaitoCze&osIovaPrimeMinistJr
Sthky,28SqtembeÈ 199Amexes,vo4,annex98.
212 hm fTombciialovaPrim e mistJStrssktoHungariPrimeMinistr
Andi, Odober1992Anne-, vol4,anne99.3.179. Hnving ieamedabout îheplanneddiversionofthe Danubeh, igh
ranking politiciansandinternational rganisatioraiçedtheirvoices
against the diversion and sought to convince the Czechoslovak
Govemment to continuethe negotiations. Geman ForeignMinister
Kuikel,forexample,urged...
'*theGovernmentsof Rame and Budapestta accept the
intemationaimdiation [offered by the Commission]. . .
Exacilythe CzechandSlovak Party,onits way to separation
andindependence,shouldseriously takeintoconsiderationthe
consequen[c of he diversion]onthefutureCO-operatiownith
th& partners.. . If the Partiestook preçipitatemeasures
matkg a fuiatccompli,they wuuldendmgerthe goudwillof
theEuropeanÇommunities, ."213
3.180. The European Pnrliamentpassai a Resolutionon29 October
1992 statingthaitwas...
"profoundlyalarmed atthegrowing tensioninCentralEurope
whicheodd threatendemocratic tenewalinthisregion;
consciousthai tfirreversiblstepsare taken thepossible il
cffectintenns ofenvironmenta il pactwillextendfarbeyund
Slovaki .".14
It rehd to "the serious ecologicd and intendonal pitical
unplcationsof thxsprujec wthich has ken undataken without any
seriousimpactassesment andwithout the popuiationconcemed king
adequatelyconsuited.. "andconcIuded that:
"theconstructioworkrelating to thpowerstation ismtly
affecthg the whole trac& of countryside,thus potentidly
chmghg the environment and endangeringdrinking water
supplies215
214 ResolufimoftheParliamet ftheEiaopeaCrimmunitiesotheGabcikovo-
Nggymat~sPowerStationConstnicProjeçt,Octok 1992Annexesvol4,
annex175. . ,
215 &solutionof the ParhamofttheEuropeaCommunitiesonthe Gabcikov~
NagymaroPs oweStationConstnidonProjw 29October19Annexes,ol4,
annex175.The= wasnoresponse hm eitherthFederalortheSlovakGovernent
totheintemationdcritiçism.
3.181. At ameetinginBratislavon 13Octok 1992,the two Parties
attemptedto agee onthe invitationotherepresentativesotheEC
Commission in orderto conhbute to the solutionofthe dispute.
CzechoslovakDeputy ForeignMinisterPirestatethatthe conditions
containedinthe letter of MrAndriesdated 13ApriI1992 wereno
longertimelybecaus tework onVariantC had beencompleted.Thus
the materal Committee would haveto investigatethe dispuin a
comprehensiveway. TR responseStateSecretarMartonyizlbstressed
thattheprequkites forEC involvemenwere sa validand thatno
unilaterastesuch as divertkg thDanube codd bemadewMe the
expertCommittee examined the situationNo agreementcouldbe
reached.
3.182. IntheAu- of 1992theworkon VariantCwas accelerated.
Accoraingto presrseports?1about2000 peuplewereworking inthe
areaday andnight,inthre shiftwith fivehunM mcks delivering
stonesandgravefortheclosureoftheriver. Alargeamounof material
wasbroughtfrom 50-10k0ilometrdistancesnmi stoneminesofNové
Zbky, Levice,ZiarandHmnm andPnvidza, Cubicmeter concrete
blocsweredeliverdto Cunovo.Theseblockshadken prepared earlier
by aHungarianfactorforclosintheDanube atDunUti accmdhg to
the originph. Someforeigncompanies --lncludingtheAustnan
KellerGnzndbaiaindPm AG --werewokg inceoperationwiththe
Slovakmainconstmctor,Hydrosta~ A.nlumh of internationaand
localorganisation,ikEeurochah,protesteagainstheçIosm on the
spoLButpolice and sece guardssumunded thecomtnictionarean
der topreventanyhostileaction. Rumoursspd inBratislavathat
Hmgaryhadmovedsixtyannoured vehiclesclusetatheborderinthe
vickity of tconstructioare& thedeputycommandan tfthe SIovak
borderpoiice deniedthese rum~urs.~ ~h~eHungarim Minisv of
in1992Sm SectietofthMinistforForeiAffaiMrs,Mmonyi bBcame
thenpmmîve of theHmgariaGovemment inqueslionsrelatothe
û&&ovo-N~ Project.
218 MagyarNemzet(Budapes19Octok 1992TheAu- Govemmentdidnor
suppothepaicipati~AUS* companies.
219 ojszoIBmtkhva; T1(hngarianNeAgency),21Wber 1992.Defencesummoned theSlovakrnilitarattachandprotest againsthe
rumours; he dso requestedinformationonunusud Slovak military
activitiescloto thborde~.~*0
3.183. Giventheexmordifiary effortto ~ompletetheconstructioby
the end of Octokr 1992, Hungaryiooked for the assistance oa
muIdateralforum. Inthe hmework of the CSCE Mechanism for
Consultationand Co-operatioWithRegard to EmergencySituations,
Hungary requestedin a Note Verbale of 12 October 1992that the
Czechoslovak Govermentexplain its planneactionsfordiverthg the
Danube, andinparticda thatianswermain questions:
"(1)Does the Govemmentof the Czechand SlovaF kederal
RepubIicconfi. .. that iis goingtodivertthe Danube at
1851 rivelm int he Gabcikovo power canaion20 October
1992?
(2) 1sthe Governmentofthe Czech and Slovak Federal
Republic&y to suspendtheconstructionwork hed at the
diversionofthe borderriverwhile ajointexpertconunittee
investigatthedisputedquestions?
(3) Does the Governent of the &ch and Slovak FM
Republicconsidertheplmed diversionof the Danubewitb
thenoms of... intematid law. ..?
(4) How willtheGovernmeno tfLheCzech and SlovakWral
Republicavoidthe politicaitensionand Uistabiliresuiting
fromthe diversioofthe Danube?"221
The Czechoslovak Governmenr tespondedin aNote Verbaledated27
October 99222 that"[t]heGovermentof theCzech and SlovakFederal
Repiiblimaintainsthe legal positiexpressedinpreviousstatements
by the mpomible authmities of the Caxh Pnd SbviL Fedaal
RqubLie",Withthisresponse, theCSCEprocedure cameto anend
221 NoteVerbalehm theHungariMi ofForeigAffaito thCzethaIwak
MinisrofForeigMfairs12Oçtok 1992Annexesvol4anne106.
222 hote VerbalefrthCzechoslovk inisofFdgn AffaitotheHwprian
MlliisofForeigm, 27OcOob er92Annexesvol4, annex103.3.184. Onthe initiativofthe EC Commission,trilatemnegotiations
tookplaceinBnisselson21-22ûctokr 1992inordertosetup anexpert
Cornmitteeand to determineitsmandate. On thefmt dayof the
negotiationtheCzechoslovakWstq ofForeignMairs handedover
aNoteVerbale totheHmgarian Embassy statinthattheGovesnment ..
"isreadytoacçeptailconditionsetby theCommission ofthe
EC withregardtothesettinup atdateralCornmittee,andhas
decidedthatiwillnotstarttheclosureof thDanub uentdthe
beglnninof theworkofthe Cornmittee, oreprecisely,und2
N0venber."~23
3.185. The Hungariandelegationreceivedthistextat theBrussels
meeting .et,theCzechoslovakdelegationdeclâreatthemeetingthat
theclosureof theDanubehad tobe çamed out inDctober,otherwise
"grave ecological catasmphe and floodingf'would endanger the
smmding area. HungarydidnotseeSledangerofa catastrophif the
Danube wouldnot bedivert edd~ccessfully soughtcornpliance
withtheconditionsemibedearlierby EC VicePresidenAt ndriessen.
3.186. ORthenextday,23Octoh1992--theanniversaryofthe 1956
Hungarianrevolutionandof the1989 p1amation of theRepublicof
Hungq --the cjosurof theDanube commenced. It was completed
fourdays later,on27October. A pontoon-bridgwasbuiltover the
DanubeonCzechoslovak temitoryfromriver-barges;ge stoneswere
thrownintotheriverbaiandfort5edbyconcrete.The flowoftheriver
was diveaedintothenew, 10kllometrelongpower canalthaledin the
directionof theGabçikovci plant. The Czechoslovak construction
company invitedthinternational edi-includingtheHungarianpress
andtelevision- totheevent. A smallcefemony washeld. A tribune
wasset up, speecheswere deliverd anflags --includinthatof the
Empean Communitie s-wenefiown.
223 Note VerBfromtheCzechosloMinishyofForeiAffaitrheEmbassyof
Hungary,1OEtb 1992Annexes,vol4,annex101. SECTION D: NEGOTUTIONS ON SPECW AGREEMENT
AM) TEMPORARY WATER MANAGEMENT
REGME: 199331994
3.187. As a consequenceofthediversionbetween24and28 October,
thewater Ievelinthe oldriverbeddecreaseby thre meetresandthe
waterdischargedroppedfiom 8QO-900 1113ts less tha230 rn3/s.a4
The averagewidthof the riverdecreasedby 55 mettes. The side
branchesoftherivewere isolatd hm themain fiv& andthewater
disapparedimmediatelyfron them. Theecologicalbalancoftheside
brancheskcame seriouslydistubai. The waterdisappearefrom the
harbuïs betweeflrkm 1811-1850 at hvhyrAr6, hnarernete and
lhmkiliti. in the OId Danube, commemal navigationbecame
impossibIe.The pundwater tabledecreased~onsiderably.~'Thefish
faunaofthe floodplaiaIrnodisappeared.Thefast in theareaclose
totheiverbegan todryout.Downstreamof theVariantC stnim, the
dangerofice floodsandordernolitiof theriverbedgreatlyinmased,
dueto thelacof propeUlstdiatioris.
3.188. Despitethediversion,workonVariantC hadnotyetfinishe-
indeedatthethe of writinthiMsernoriathi ssstillthecaseFirstof
ailurgenprotectioandfmtiiïcatioworkhad ICbecdd out,because
the structures.matebythe endof October 1992 were unsafe.To
preventerosionof tbe canalktween the inundationweir and the
Danubee ,xcavatios ereneededto aIevelcorrespondigotheaverage
botfomlevel oftheDanube. Itwas also plannedtoerec tbck for
smallershipsa spillwayweir,asrnidlhydxpwer plant,a subsidiary
lock and anumberof 0th items. This work was plannef ur the
foliowing1-3years."6
3.189. TheElungaianGovernent continueditspmît of ajudicial
resolutionof the dispute. Czechoslovakiahad not acceptedthe
jurisdictionofthInternatid Courtof JusticeunderArticle36othe
Statutebut Hungarysubmlttedan "Applicationof the Fiepublicof
224 ThediversiwasC8medoutatttneofloweswatwleveitheyear.
2î5 MissioReporofthCommissioofhmpm CumrnunitPsreparetheFact
FindingMissiononVart ofth~ Y O - N ~ Proje, ratisl3,1
Octabe1992,p12Annextvol5,annex3.
226 ReparbytheWorkirGroupofMonitoriandWaterManagement xpm for
theGakikovoSym ofLockson Temm WaterManagemenRegime,
Bratisla, Decemk1993,p7;Annexe,ol5,anne19.Hungaryv the CzechandSlovak FederalRepubliconthe Diversionof
theDanube River"tutheCourton23ûctober 1992. EIungaryequested
theCourttodealwiththeUegalityofVarianC and oftheshiftiof tfie
mainnavigationcharnel fmm theborder,ii aisasoughtprovisionai
~neasures.2Iwas understd thatiftheHungarianApplicatiowere to
t> examined bythe Court, aii Iegalproblemsin comectiwith the
Pxojecwouldberaised.
3.190. Czechoslovakiarespondedtothe HungaianApplicationafter
thediversionof thriver,on 18November 1992. The Czechoslovak
Minlsterof ForeignAffairsinfomed theCourt thatthe"Czech stnd
SlovakFederalRepublicis interestina comprehensiveexamination
by theInternationalourtof Justiceofthewhole problem with the
implemen#iionofthe119771TreatyW.228
3,191. Inthemeantimet,heCommission oftheEumpean Communities
madeMer effortto assist. Usingthe opportunityofa summit
meeting betweerthe members ofthe EC andthe ViseNd Gmup
Wungary,CzechoslovakiaP , ohd), the BritiMident of theEC
CuunciiinvitetherepresentativesfthethreStatestoLandon on 28
October1992. TheMes reachedagreement onsomeaspects of the
dispute,and sigrmi an Agreed Minutes(hown as the London
Agreement)on thsameday, Thi sîakd,intealia:
'Tt was agmd that al1 works on Variant C of the
Gabcikovo/Nagymaro srojec wtill be stoppedat a date
specifiedbytheEC Commission m thebasisofthefactfinding
missionçomposed of oneexpertfrom eachside(Commission,
Wh and SlovakFedd RepnblîcandHungary) takinglnto
accountthe riskof damageto existhg structurincluding
navigationofecologicadamage totheregionandofflcdhg..,
The Czecb and Slovak Federal Republic unckmkes to
guaranteetmaintainthewhole (nolessthan95%) Wtional
quantityof water into the whole old Danube river-bed,
227 Applidon of the RepubliccdHunvathe CPjectwslRepublicothe
DiversiofthDanube ive22Oetob e992;Annexeol4,anne102.
228 Seetheendosuretothelet~erFKlmWEV~cfipim~,tolbLtFMgdl,
HunpianMinistW ithwPortfol4oDecembe199% Annexes,o4, annex
106. incIudingthesectionbetweenRajka andPaikovicovo, and to
refraifrontoperathgthepowerplant."229
3.192. The negotiatinfartieapd to seup a FactFindkgMission,
composedof experts from thethree sidesin orderto investigatethe
situationIn addition,afterlengthydiscussi, zechoslovakiaccepted
the Hungariarïproposaifor outside adjudicationasreflectedin the
Agreed Minutes:
'30t the CSFR andthe Hungariandelegationsexpress thdif
cornmitment to submit the dispute connected with the
GabcikovolNagymaroR soject withdl itsaspects,including
legalfinancial anecologicd elementstobindinginternational
asbitratior to thInternationCourt ofJustic"230
3.193. Returningfrumthe London summit,however,Slovak fnme
MhisterMeciarannounce ada presc onference on 29 October1992
that"for the Danube, thelaws of naturearevalid and not politicai
decisionsi"According tohimthosewhoconsmctedVariant C merely
wantedtoprevent thearea "fro mlod, from ammrd catastrophetAs
farasthe'politicalsiof thedisputewasconcernedh , saidthat"some
factions ofthe MDF [theleadhg Hmgariancoalition pariy] are
~~uig thenecessityofchangingthehntiers and. .. stnwig for
theMion of theT~imcin Peace] Treat, Forthem Gakikovois not a
gcdbut a means. Ifitwasa goal,we would beableto
3.194. The tripartiMission,mentionedin theAgreedMinutes,met
firstin Bratislavand prepat aeReport on 31 October 1992 which
containedtbe ficsmughdescriptionof the component partsofVariant
C.232Czeçhoslavakianeverpresentedanyplansand dataregadhg the
229 AgreedMinutesotheMeetingBetwetheEiuopeaCommissionheCSFR and .
Aungary,on the Gabcikovo-NagymaProject, 2Oaober 1992,Landon;
Annexesvol3,mex 31The wordsinparerithsppeareasafmmoteta the
wd "wholeintheAgreeMinutes.
230 A$ree d inutes,hdm,28Octok 1992;Annexes,d3annex31.
2 MissionReportothCommissionoftheEuropeCornmuniries,aredby the
FaclfuidingmissioVariantoftheGabcikovwNagymarRosject,Bratislava,
31October1992,p4Annexesvol5,nnne13.diversion.(NordidSIovakiado so afteits independence, ntiaslateas
December 1993,inspiteofrepeated Hung an req~ests.~~)
3.195, The Report addedthat "theconnectingdykebetweenthedown-
stream partofthereservoirand the lefthandsideoftheDanubeis cm-
rentlynotfullyfo~ed". As farasthe floodplainweiris concerned,"at
presentnone of thegates canbeoperated and on@four gateshave the
fullhydradic capacity". ithregardtotheintake structurforthe Mo-
son Danube "the çoncrete works at the constniction are not
cornpleted".~
3.196. hotha Report was prepared on 23 November 1992, the
conclusionsof whieh containedimportantecologicd value preferences.
Theexpertsrecommended ...
"To givethehighestprier@ tomainmin or improve
the hydrologicaal ndecologicalregimein thewholeaffected
area,especiallinthe downstream floodplaiarea;
thepmd waterquality;and
thenavigation;
and togivea lolverprioritto
theproductionof hydropower a;nd
thewater qualitin thedownstrmn partofthere~ervoir."~~5
233 Hungaryrepeatedrequestthedetaildescriptiofthesmcrurof VariantC
at varionegotiationsthe82ndmeetinoftheJointOprativGroupfrom17
to21 June1991thekhoslwak delqatstatdthahtewasnotqwed to
providthse descriptio. eparinteMernoriaflothepmxdure befm the
Court,Hungary sequestedagah the detaileplans ofconslmctim and
documentatiina writtfom on1and on14 Deewiber1993. Slovakiahanded
oversme mapsin Deeemùer19!?3.Asfar asmer detaiwere wnce~ned,
Slovak itateon1 Febniar1994in aNote Verbaiethatotherdocumcould
beobtainefromthe Govenimmd PIenipotentiy,dKoch= Annexesv, o4
annex136.By cmmst lblDrKocingestatethat"thelow&Republichasnot
auth* me. ..to~leasanyfundamentainformatitotheIHungh] pmy
inreMm ta thepmmdhgs Marethe EntematioCiourofJustic. ettfroa
Mr Khger, SlovakGovemmental lenipotentoaMrL ZsBmLm& M,anaging
Dior ofOV€BER. Annexesvol4mex 138.
234 MissionReportoftheCommissionoftheI3cmpm hmunities, Factfmding
missio onVariantC ofthe Gabcikovo-Nagymrtoroject,3ûmber 1992,
pp54 Annexesv,ol5amiex13.
235 Reportof the Wang Ciroupof IndependeEtxpertonV~ant C ofthe
Wxikov*Nagymaroshja, Budapest, 23 November 1992,p31 (-hasis
added Annexes,ol5,annex14.3.197. As far as wateamanagementfor the coming months was
concemeci,the Group statedthat"ScenarioA (95% of the average
dischargeto thDanube usingtheexistinstnrctwesshouldbefoUowed
as soon aspossible,butnot latethan January1, 1993."236Since 23
October 1992,theSischargreg& bas (evenon thedaysof thehighest
flood) never approached this level, notwithstandingthe clear
cornmitmenitn theLondon Agreement andtherecoinmendationosfthe
EC Mission.
3.198, TheconstructionofVariantC dldnotprovesafe.On23 and24
November 1992a floodcausedgravedamagein theinstallations.Large
metalsectionsofthefloodplaiweirshoke off andwerewashedaway.
Damage oçciarreat theGabcikovoplant, too:the left lock chamber
becarneunusable. The repsentatives of the commction Company
complainedaboutthe "unexpected"ature oftheflooatthistimeofthe
yearandannomcd thatbecauseofthereparationworknomore water
codd be leintotheoldbedof theDanube fo rlengthy@od.
3.199. The next trilateral meeting took place inBrussels on 27
NovembeL 1992. Therepsentative of the Commissioninfsrmed the
Cornmitteeon thefindingsoftheMissionanddescribedi, bispmod
capacityfivepossiblescends regadhg waterdischarge:
95% of thequatstitof thewater wouldbe rettmed to the01d
(1)
riveW.
(2) The recentsituationwoddbe maintainedwhich would continue
dischmghg onlyavwy maTl quantitofwatertotheoldriverbed,
withçatastrophçonsequence surtheenMnment,
(3) 5m dischargeofthe watewuuld beprovidedto theoldriverbed
(wiginaliaCzechoslovapkroposal).
(4) Theflow oftherivewouldbereturned entireltotheoldnverbed
ei&mdirectlyby removingthedam orbydigginga shortby-pass
canal( ~ ~ y aHungarianproposal).
The dischargtothe oldriverbedwouldbedeffeasedstep-by-step
(5)
fiom 95%to 50%. Inthe meantirneconstructiwmk wouIdbe
donein ordertodimifiithe hamifulenvironmentaleffectsothe
changes inthe volume. A monitoring systemwould also he
mnged.237
236 Report otheW&g Gmup ofIndependenExperton VariantC othe
Ga~ovo-NagymarosProject,Budap,3 Navember9%.p 31Awexes,vol
5=ex 14.
237 CommissioontheGabcivo-NagpmostProjec. nrss27 Movember1992;
Annexes,volanm 105.3.200. TheCzechoslovakdelegatiostatetha tt was noempowemd
tumake anyconcessionsregardha higherquantityofdischnrginta
thealdrlverbed.Thus,EC DirectorGeneralBenavidesunderlinethe
importanceof firagreeingtobringthecase beforethehtemational
Courtof JusticeThe proposaiwas accepted. AgreedMinutesof27
November1942provided:
"Onthe bas&of the LondonAg& Minutesof October28,
1992andthe repor[oftheMission]thefollowinwas aged:
The CSFR andHungary seconfirmedkir cornmiment to
svbmit the dispute in corndon with the Gabcikova-
NagymarosProjectwithaltsaspect ncludinglegal,hancial
andecobgicalelementsto theInternationlourtof Justice.
To thiendtheyirndertakeoestablishjointon,thebais of
theprogressmade so far,the special agreementfor the
submissiointheverynearfutur e. The CSFR andHmgay
agreeto apply,pendhg thejudgement by theInternational
Courtof Justica,temporaryreghneof management of the
Danubewaterdong the luioftheLondonAgreedMinutes of
October28, 1992and basedupon the repoof theWorking
Cirouofexperts,"238
3.201. No SpeclalAgreementwasreachd beforetheendof1992. At
themeetingof thetrilaterCornmitteeon lû-ll December19B no
progre wsssmadein connedonwiththe divisionthewaterdischarge
so as tocreata 'Tmporary Wnter ManagernenRt egLtne(ïWbR).
The headoftheHungatiaodelegatiodidnotseeanywilhgness onthe
Czecboslovakside tosupplyhequantiîyof watein theOldDanube
pmcribed bytheLandun AgmedMinutes, butsaidthatHungarywould
be &y to compromise ifthe SpecialAgreementwas acceptedby
Çzechdwakia. The headofthe Czechoslovadelegatiostakdtha tt
wodd beverydifndt topvide alargequaxltiof watebecausethe
"unexpectedfloodo"f 23-24 Novernbhad causeûserioudamage to
theinstallatiofsVarianC, whichcudd notberepawd until theend
of 1993.For thesame reason,agreementon theTWMR would be
difficulHe offeredonly 40m3ts beforthemiddle of 199and 600
m3/s aftmvardsFinauy...
'TheCzeEhoslovaDkelegatiuninformthemeetingthatitwiU
usedimeansand takeallnecessa ryasurestorepak the
damagecausedbythefloodsof23-24November [1%2]as soon
238 AgreedMioutoftheMeetingbetwetheCSFR,Hunm and theEutopean
ConunissonnthGabcikovo-NagymaProjeBnissei27Novanbe1992;
Annexevol4atvtex05. aspossible,sothattheTernporar~rWater ManagemenR t egime
envisagedattheTripartitMeeting on 27Novernber 119923will
startofunction."239
3.202.
At thattimeitwas alreadydecidedthat Czechoslovaloawould
ceaseta exkt asof 31December1992. Inresponseto aSlovak reguest
forrecognitionHungary stated:
'me Gavement of Hungary accepts the requestof the
Govment of theSlovakRepubiic toestabljsb,aof Januaq
1,1993,diplornatirelationsattheIevelof Embassies... The
Govemment of theRepublicofHungary is furthemoreready to
enter,withintheshortestpossibletirneinto negotiationswith
theGovenunentof theSlovak Republlconquestionsrelathg to
statseccessioninrespectoftreatie.24*
3.203. As a matterof fact,Slovakibecme thesuccessorwith regard
ta thedisputeover thehject, sinceVariantC was locatedinSIovak
temitoryandcontinu4 to beopmd underSlovakauspices.
3.204. A meetingbetween expertsofHwngnir andSlovakiat~okplace
on 14 January1993in Bratislavai,nthepence ofEC repsentatlves
to examinethe technicalaspectsof the ïWMR Their reportwas
discusse atthe nexttrilaterai eetingiBmsselson 19 January 1993.
The head ofthe SlovakdelegationMr Tomka, providedinformationon
thestateofVariantC followingthefloodsof 23-24 November1992and
theclimaticconditionwhich had inmrupted -airs, Some installations
hadhem repabd but &ers were SU underreconstniction.Navigation
on the Danube had recommenced on 13 January 1993,having been
haltedforaboutthree months.Inthe AgreedMinutesthethreeParties
UZfderline"[t]heurgencyof complethg the[reparationw]orks.241The
239 Agreed Minutesofthe Meetmg ktwm Caechwlwallla, Hungaryathe
Eumpean Lwimission ontheGakikoveNagymams Project,Bnissels11
Wber 1992Annexesvol 4annex107.
240 Note Verbalhm the HimgariMinistrofForeignAffai ostheSlovak
MinistqofForeignAffaifç. ~eoember199%Annexes, vol4,aunex110.
Slovalampnded 1ï monthslatinaNoteVerbalto thhbassy ofHungary,
15Novanber1993,statithatme Slowa MkIiüsyfFweignMfairsidy. .
.toenterintnegotiatiomothesuccessionbytheSlovRepubIiof those
biktaalagreementand des which hadbewiooncludedby the fernier
aechoslovakReph1icantheRepubliofHungary;"nnexes,o4,anex 128.
241 AgreedMinutesoftheMeetingktween Hunm, Slovakiaand th European
CommunitiesontheGabcikovo-NagymmsProject.Bnisse19Janw 1993;
Annexes,vol4. annex113.Partiealso hada "detailedexchangof views ontheguidingprinciples
on whiçh theTemporary WaterManagement Regimeshould be based
and presenteseveralprop~sds" .~~T~omkaproposed toprovide50%
of thewater at1200m3/s discharge,while abovethatlevela higher
proportionofthewaterhadto besuppliedtothepower canal.Aecording
to Mr Ahtonfi, theHungarian Delegate,tiiiproposaldidnot accord
with the figure(95%) prescribedby theLondon Agreed Minutes (a
standardearlieraçceptedby tEC Mission).
3.205. The EC Mission as a compromiserecommended a water
dischargetobe dhcted tathe Danube riverbedaccordhg tuseasonal
factors,i-e., fthe periodbetween November and Fetmiary (when
vegetatiois donnant)adistributiof 50-50%, whatevertheBow, For
thevegetationperiodbetweenMuchandOctuberitrecommended 75%
of theflow upto 1200m3/s; 60% of the flobetween 1200 m3/s and
2500 d/s, and 50% of quantitin excessof2500 m3/s. ftpqosed a
minimum of600m3/s atailtimes.243
3.206. The Slova representativedidnot acceptthi sroposai.The
Apd Minutessratedmmly thatthe Parties"agreedonthe need to
ensur $e preservatioof theDanube andthesurroundhg environment,
asweii astheneedto takeintoaccountotherrelevantconsideratiosnd
legidmateinteresofbothParties".244
3.207. The PartiesfinaZisthe textofthe SpecialAgreement atthe
nexttrilaterdmeetinginBmsels, on 16 February1993.24A5t Slovak
insistence,Artic4oftheSpecidAgreementexcluded apartyapplying
tathi sourtforprovisional easureçatHungarianinsistace,thesame
articlcmtained a tommitment to agrseonandlmplement a TWMR
But atthemeetingtherewasagainnosuch
242 TheA@ MinutedidnoiricluthesproposaThe figmsarmentiorrin
theReportofHunpiaStat!kmmy JMarronyiothHun@m Govw~ubait.
243 A@ MhWs of îhe MeetingbetweHu-, Slovah andtheEinopean
Camunities FintGaixikovc-NagymamsojectBm=ls, 19Janw 1993;
Annexes,ol4amiex113.
î44 W Minuteof theMeetinbetweenHungaiy,SRovakandthe European
Communiiieon theGabcücovo-NagymaPsrojeBmsels,19January1993;
Annexesvol4anne x13.
245 TheAgreementwassignebytherepmmtativeof Hmgq andSlovakion 7
April1993seahove,pan 2.-2.12forananalpistheSm Apemat.
246 Admg to the Communiquissueaftetre 16 Februa1993 talles, the
HmgarianandthSlovakmentatives a* mwelybattheywi1"&a these
issuetothe kghm politiclevel fordecisiFina lomhuniquéofthe
TripartMeetinbetweeHnungarySlovakiaatheEuropeanCommunition3.208. The Nungarian Goverrimentfeltthstnosatisfactorprogress
had beenmadeon thenegotiaîionsçoncemingwaterdischarge*Since
theLundon Agreemeno tf28Oçtokr 1992,Slovakihad offeredways
a srnailetandsrnalierqumtityofwaterforthe oldriverbed,andthe
amonntacaiallyprovided always feushortof the most recentpior
cornmitmentI. a letttu SlovakRimeMinister Meciaron5 February
1993,Rime MinisterAntaIstated:
"SincetheAgreementof London was achieved,theHungarian
Govanmenthasrepeatedly made moreandmore substantid
concessionsandat presentacoeptsthatproposalof the EC
Commission whichwould dividethe wholewater flowof the
Danube betweentheOld-Danube andtheopmihg power canal
under a system differhgseasonallyand dependingon the
volume ofwaterdischarge,., Failinto feachanagreement
wouldresultin thecessationof thgoodwibl advity of the
Commission andwodd hply disadvantag coqusences to
ourco~ntries."~~~
3.209. A Resolutioof theEuropeanParliament on 10March 1993,
statethattheParliament,ttealia...
"1,is alamed atthe stagnationthathas accurrednowno
progrescaribemade inhding solutionfora tempotarywater
managemen tgime;
9. urgentlya@s to the Slwak Govanment tobemore
flexibleantocoqmte inhdmg solutionto thoutstanding
problems."2@
3,2 f. Thistmth was Slavakiawasnot reaây tonegotiatabout tbe
centriaslueof awaterdischargesysternThe next meetingscheduled
for ApnI 1993didnot takeplace. Hmgh StateSecretarMartonyi
titGabcikovo-NagymiPsojecBmk, 17Fehaq 1993;Awexes,vol4,
annex116,
247 kmr hm HunpianPrime hiskrJAndltoSlovaPtimMnbkr V Me&rI
5 Fehmy 1993Anmes, vo4,gnnex114.
248 Resolutimothe Mit oftheEuropeaCommW onthe~~vo.
Nagpms Bamge, 1Match1993A;nnexe,ol4annex176. 105
urged Slovakiatocontinuethenegotiationin letters Wnttetahis
counterparto14 May 1993and on2June 1993.249
3.2 1. Thisconcm wasequaliyreflecteby theEuropeanParliament
which in n furha molution of 25 June 1993:
n..
"1.ReiterateCdts conm aboutthe possible increase in
politicaltensinthiregionasaresulofthi conflict;
2. Expresse[di]ts concethaa solutiotothequestionofa
temporarywatermanagement regime,which isacceptablto
bothSlovakand Hungatians,asstinUoken fou& [and]
3. Critick~dl theSlovak Governmentforiits continuing
unwdhgnessto agreetothecompmise propos& fmulated
intheconsdtaIionsof16 Febniary119931and thefailurto
@lement mesures sothatthe procedurat theEntexmiional
CourtofJusticinTheHaguemaybe ~tarted."~O
3.212. ButSlovakiadidnotrespndeithertoMr AWs letteror tothe
resolutioof theEmopean Barliament. hegrowingseasonhadstarted
and thewatersupplyofthesidebranchesnt Szigetkwashsufficient.
Fivemonthsafterthelast ~~ meeting (Fe- 1993)the next
ûilaîmd meetingwasconvened in Brusselson13 July 1993, At the
meeting,theCommissioninformedthePhes thatsomeEC expertshad
visitetti ereaof VariantC. Theyobserved tha theold riverbeci
mived merely 250-400 dis, many fih had disappearedand
vegetationwasdamaged. TheHmgarianrepresentaiiveconfhed this
ififozmatio,uttheSlovakrepresentatiessertedthatheoldriverbes
receiv medrewater(abou400-500m3/s).
3.213. At theendofthemeebg theCommission presenr aeproposal
submitîein awrittefm to thePartieon19 JuIy1993 .ccotdingto
theproposaL..
"aWater MeasuringSystemshouidbe seupinwhichthe two
sidesjointmeasme dischargest.thvantpoints.. Hungary
and Slovakiashuuldjohtly assemblobjectivdatoan other
relevanaspectsuch astheeffectsof constnictioremdial
249 LettersWMrJWfi,St9ieSeaetaryofW~usigMan~iaistryofF*
. AffaitrM,rJLisucStateSecretof SlovMUiistofForeiAfhirs, 14
May 1%3,2June99%Annexa,vol4anne119.
BO ResolutiofthParIiamwoftheEumpm Gmmnities''otheGa-+
Nagymarosarrag,5Jme1993Amexes,val4anneIn. appropriatioofmoneywith the view tothedernolitioof the
cofferdam atNagymgros."255
3.216. The kt meeting of theGroupof EC experts took placein
Bratislavaon 8-9 Septemkr 1993,~~the second in Budapest on 27
Octokr-2November 1993 A.tthelattemeethg theGroup found that:
"Inthe OldDanube thedischargehas in1993been reducedto
in averageabout 400 m3/s conrespondingto about20% as
compared to thpse-damconditions...inthe upstrearpartof
theOIdDanubethe 1993water leveihave ken reduce by2-4
mews as comparecito pre-damconditions, andhave thus
reacheda level 2 metresklow thelowestrecordedvalues...
SigxS~canetmsion occd thefirst500metresdowmtream to
Cunovostnictu undsr thNovember1992floodevent. This
materialhasbeen mosited dewnstream in theOld Danube...
hlost likely, sedimentationofthe total kd load and a
substantiaipartofthe suspendl oad have occd inthe
reswoir. ..Itappears... thain themiddlepartof Szigetkot
betweenDmakiEti andhvhnyrh5 ground water 1eve1have
hased inareasclosetothemain Danube... The Gabclkovo
hydropower planthasproduced 150-2ûû Gwh/month in1993.
Thiscorresponds to about 10% of Shvakfs electricity
wmumption r'257
3.217. At thethir mdeeting on1 December 1993 inBratislava,he
the expertsappointedbythe EL Commissionreeommendedfigures
andmeasmeswithregard towaterdis~barge.~8Theywempend to
thetwo Partieby EC DirectorGeneralBenavides,requestinaresponse
by 15Januaby 1994.The recummendation wsereasfoUows:
255 NoteVerbalhm theHun- MiniseofForeigAfTaibothhbassy ofthe
Slovak RepubIic,25 Novemkr 1993;bxesvol 4.amiex129. Slovakia
rejeazttiHeuagarargumentinitsNoteVabaldate12Janwry1994;Note
Vde fromth Slwak MinisûofForeig Anah to thEmbsy of the
RepubiiofHungary,2Jmusry1994Annexts,v4,annex13.
256 Bat acpmtbytheWorkinGroupofMonitoriand WakrManagemen txperts
for thGabeikovoSysteof LocksExdve Siimmary2 November1993,
BirdapesAnnexe, o5,mm 18.
257 Communiquéofthe SecondMeetiof thWorlungGroup ofMonitoring and
WaterManagemenExpertfoth Gabcikovoysmn ofLxickBudapst,pp56-
SI, 2Oaober-Novembe r993Annexesvol4,anne127.
258 ReporbytheWorkingGroupof MonitoriandWaierManagemenEixpertsfor
theGakiIrovoSystemofLoch on Temm WaimManagemen tegime,
BratisIa1,Decembe1993,64;Annexesv,olannex19. dischargeinOIdDanube of400 rn3/s.
Averagedischargin OldDanubeof 800 m31s ..
1-3floodsofmore than3500 m3Jsperyearint oheoldDanube
(ttheextenthydrologicdiypossible..
30-7011131stothesidebranchesontheHungaian side..
hprovement of the daily dischargecapacityof VariantC
structurhm presen600 m3/sto940m31s by May 1994.
Constructioof anundematerweir[inthe OldDanube] atriver
kilometre1835enabhg directcontactbetweenthemainriver
andtheSlovakiansidebranches..
Constructioof an undemater weirnt riverkilomm 1845.5
fm operationaleiiabili~ water suppiyfromthe inundation
weir..
Depositionof gave1 between the inundationwejr and the
undemater weirinthe [OldDanube].
Comt~cîionoffishpassesatCunovo 259
3.218. TheHungarian Govem~entaccepted theabovefiguresbyletter
dated14Jmuâcy1994. Mr Martony wirotetoMrBenavides th& *
'The mungarianj Governmenh tas decided,providethatthe
SIovakRepublicshail, by Januar y5, 1994,have given a
simifaconmitment on itpart,tonegotiatanagmment [with
Hungary] to giveeffct to therecornmendatiob ny theEC
membersof the Working Gsoup ,n theestablishmentand
lmpIementatiooftheTemporarW y aterManagemen Re*. .
. mhe Govemrneno tftheRepublicofRungary believesthat
thepiopossd regimefails shortothe minimumnecessa toy
providerd protectiontothe environmentincludingnaturnl.
resourcesof thereglon. Iis inno way a mosel or even an
indicatioofanacceptablelong-tersol~tion."~60
3.219. The Commissionwelcomed the Hungarianresponse. Mr
Benavidesstate inhis@y dated 27January 1994:
259 Mer from MrP BenavidD,uect ornd forExteniaiEconomWdons of
theEirropeCammissiono MT J MartonyStatSecretaoftheHungarian
MinistofForeigMfak, 22Decentb1993.
26û Mer fromMrJ &&rtonyi;SteecretoftheHungaianMinistforForeign
Afîairs,Mï PBenavidehtor GeneralfoExtemaEunumieRelationof
theEuropeaCommissio,4Januar1994,Annexeol4,annex132. '7would likto expressthepat appreciatiof theEmopean
Commissionfor theHungarian Govemment'c sonclusion...
The efforts madeby theHungarianGovanment toreach this
constructipositiononlyMer heightenourappreciation..
Please besurethatI havealsotakencarefiilnoteofdiother
points rais4 yourlette~."~61
3.220. Slovak respondedto the recommendatioof theCommission
threeweela after tdeadhe, on8Febniary 1994. Theletterof Slovak
Depq ForeignMinist Liçrch&ted:
'The [SlovauGoverrimen s oftheview thatthemeasuresthe
realisationofwhichistilthe objecof Mferentopinions on
hth sides,shoulbe Mer discussed.Thenegotiationswould
be facilitatedby Mer monitoringwhich can kg new
idonnation and thuspmmote anagreement in still opened
questions.."262
He ageed tha tungaryshouldbuildundematerweirs,as recomrnended
by theEC Experts, utsbted thathequestionofadditionaldischarge
int he oldbed "ha veryimportanitmplicatiosand]shouldbemer
considerd .. "He attacheda fmal proposa1 accordhg towhich
Hungary shouldfht buiid theunderwater weîr,the impactof whicfi
would then6emonitored inorderto sewhetheradditionalwatermight
bequîred.
3.221. Thus ,ontrarytothe Eç mcommendation S,lovakiawas not
preparedtoinmase waterdischargeto tholdDanube.Thiswas achar
refusaloftheEC pmposal,sincetheCommission'expertsrecommended
aninmediate inmase inwater&charge;the comction ofundmater
weirswas partof a package,andacceptedby Hungaryassuch, The
Commissioninterpreted theSlova kesponse as a refusal.As Mr
Benavids statedinhisletteraddËessdto1MrMartonyi on18 Febntary
1994:
"suurnplanquantitatiI'aW d'unengagementslovaquesur
le débitminimumd'eau dansle Danuberend toutcompromis
extr€memen tcile etlaCommission ne sauraisouscrireaux
propositionslovaques...Sur labasedecetteréaction..une
261 LetterfrMr JBenavide,i GeneraflorExtemalEoonomicRela,oons
Mr Jbhtmyi, StaSeeretaof thHm- Wstq ofForeignAfEdirs,
Januar1% Anriexe,o4,anrr135.
262 LRtt eomMr JLisucDeputyForeiMinisteofSlovakta, rPBwiavides,
DirectGend forExtemaPoliticalRelat, Februa1394Aiinex,ol4,
mex 137. démarch ee laTroikaauprèd s uRemiesMinisû-eMeciar a eu
Iieupoursouligner..lefisqueque1ZTnio sedésengage dansla
poursuitedesesbonsofficeset...lanecessitGappmhere ..le
probkme surdesbasespolitique"263
3.222. The EC Experts had also ken asked to commenton the
respectiverepliesofthe two Govemments. The leader of theGroup
rephed,inpart:
"As faraswe can seetheSlovakianletterlproposisa political
response aiming atdelayingthe final decisionregardhg the
necessarydischargeintothe old Danube. TQ outhowledge
there are no new arguments and no movement in the
fundamentaplositionsfrombothsides, th can justifyto start
Mer discussions..
Tbe rnah factorinourrecommendation is the&charge hto
the Old Danube. Raising the discharge,togetherwith the
implementationof theotherrecommended masures, wiiihave
anIlnrnediateositivimpact ontheenvironment ..
Itmaybe ttiatthevaluatioscde forenvhmental impactsin
theSlovakRepubliçisquit eifferent,bueveryexpert inthe
restof Europe WU regardit as asignificantenvitonmental
damage ifthe averagedischargeof ariverisreduceû toabut
20% ascompared tonahiralconditionsif4500 haofaiiuviai
fmts areseized (seetheFauna-Rm-Habita t irectivofthe
Commissionof the EC), if therisa reductionofthe naniral
fluctuationsoftheground andsurface water levels nearyto
zeroan soon."264
3.223, At the the ofthe completionofthisMemonal the vegetation
periodisimminent b,utthereisnosignat aiofSlovak'cornpliancewith
Article4of theSpecialAgreement.
263 LetteroMrP BenavideDireciGmeralfoErxbemalolitiMons, toMr3
Martonyi,State Secretofthe HungariaMini- of ForeigMairs, 18
Febnmy 1994;Annexes,ol4annex140ForMr JMattonyiseplsecLettof
StateSecretarHungariaWtq of Fmign Affairto Mr P Benavides,
Dir Gend ofExteni PoitidRelatio23 Febmaq195%Annexes ,ol4,
mex 141.
264 Mer fsomProfessoJSchreine,eadEC ExpertGroup,toMrP Benavldes.
Director,ExtenPoliticalRelatElrropecommission10 Fehaq 1984:
Annexesvol4,annex139. PART II
THE TREATYOF 1977 ANDRELATED AGREEMF,NTS
4.01. The lengthyhistmicd backgroundto the 1977Treaty was
autIinedinCfiapte3. Theah of thishapteristudescribethemain
fatum of thatTreatIn thiightofitsobjectanpinpose,andtorelate
itto thenetworkof othertreatibilateraand muitiiaterao which
Hungay ad Czechoslovakiawere parties andw'tiichconcernathe
hject itself,'ortheircornmonboundar, rtheDanube as a shd
riveintems ofsuch rnatteasnavigatioandGheries. Specifiissues
of the interpretaîofthe 1977Trenty,or of theothertreak and
agreementsreferretu, ilte dealwithlaterinthiMsamial as they
home relevant.
SECTION A THE OBJECT ANDPURPOSE OF TEE TREATY
4.92. The 1977 Treatywas signedin Budapeston 16 Septembr
1977i ,nHungarianandSIovak,bothtextsbeingequallyauthentic.Tt
was subsequendyregisteredunderArticl102 of theUnitedNations
char&er-2
4.03. The 1977Treatywas notthe kt agreementbetweeathe two
Stateçonceming theProjectInadditiotoanumber ofeariierinformal
agreementswhichhave beenrefd to inChapter32 anAgreement
regardingtheDrafhg oftheJointContractualla northeGakikovo-
Nagymaros Bmge wassignedatDeputy-IMUListevelin Bratislaon
6 May 1976.4Iwas notregisterewititheUnitedNations.Itpvided
a hmework forthe ciraftiof theJoint ContractualPlaie. the
1 Seeaboveparas1.1- 1.16foadescriptionofessentialelemofthe
Gabcikov~Na~s BamgeSm.
2 1109UNTS236;dso publisi32LM 1247. SeeAnnexes3,annex2for
the Swauthenttest(Hmgarh and Slovak)ndrheEnglisttndFrench
translaticm.
3 Seebve, para3.17,331,32TheseApmenis relatto earlversioof
thBarragSysteciilricslogestation.substantivplansand specificatiafortheBamge System(Aïticle J),
specifiedtheHungarianand Czechoslovakagencieswhich would be
hvolved (Artic 4)eandlaid dom mmgementsfor dmfhg thePlan
(Article5-6)and financuigthplanningpmess (Article7). Disputes
were toberesolvedbyreferenctoa Hungarian-CzechoslovEakxpanded
Joint Teçhnologicl omfnitke(ArticI8; seealsoArticle4(2)). The
1976 Apment issignificain thatitdistributresponsibilitifor
particularaspects othe BarrageSystem between the parties. For
example,Czechoslovakiaad specificresponsibiforcarryingout"the
complexexamination ofthebarrageontheenvironment "seeAppendix
2,d. Otherresearch,Item2). On theotherbd, the 1976Agreement
did notgive theJointContractualPlanas eventualiyconcludedany
addiiionaauthoritorbindingforce;thiwns amatterdedt with bythe
1977 Treatyitself.
4,M. Theobjectand putposeoftheHungdanP+ens Republicand
theCzechoslovak SocialistRepublicinconcludinthe1977 Treatyare
acçuratelystatedinthe preamble, They were essentiallytwo-fold,
ecanomicand strategic.
4.05. The economic aim was outlinedin the first preambuh
paragrsiph:
'Tonsiderhgtheirmutualin~t in thebd utilisatiofthe
naturalresourcesof theBratislava-Budapesstctionof the
Danube riverforthedevelopment ofwaterresources,energy,
transporagriculturandothersectorof thenationalconomy
oftheConmcting Partie..."
This prLmaryeconomic mcem was alsostress&in the body ofthe
Tieatyitseifforexamplein Article1 (thBarrage System asa "joint
investfnent"with a ''joininvestment programme"), Atticle 2
(complmentary "nationainvestment")ArtIcIe3 ("realisatiof the
jointuivestment" Wugh gwernmentdelegates),Article 4 ("joint
buestment shallbecarriedontinçonfmmity with thjoint coniramai
plan"),Aaicle5("costsofcarryingoutthejoininvestrnient),rtic6e
("agenciesesponsible for therealisatimof the joint investment"),
Article7("setdementofcostinexcessofthe joininvestment"), rticle
8 ("ownmhipof works casri outunderthejointinvestment"), rticle
9 (equalshareintheeconomicbenefitsof theBmgc System), Article
12 (oprathg and othercosts),Article 14 (costs of additiond
wlthhwals of water),Article24 Cpower entitlementto be free of
financiallevies).4.06. Therewas alsanimportantstrategospoliticaim,referred
tointhesecondpreambulararagraph:
Tecognising thatthe joint utilisation of the Hungarian-
Czechoslova&on oftheDanube willmer sire.ngtnhe
fraternlelationsthetwo Stateandsignificantiycontribute
toMging aboutthesocialistinkgratoftheStatememh
oftheCounciforMutua lconhc Co-operatio.."
4.07. AsdemomtratedinChapter3, thProjechadben plannedas
partof anoveraildesigfor industrialaeconomic develcrpmenof
Eastern Ewop.5Ittia ignificantSovietbacking,Imthkausitwas
intendetor&ce thedemand forSovietoil suppltoEasterEurope
atwellbelowmarketrateusnderthbarterinsystemof theCouncifor
Mutual Ecmomic Co-operation, ndbecauseoftheSovietinteresin
impoved çommunication sithintheEasterEuropeanbloc,including
rivercommunicationsInadditio, ydropowerlantsuseto beoneof
the most characteri ymtbols ofCommunkt economicIindustrial
developrnent.The initiai plawasndonebyHydroprojekta,Soviet
enghedng instit~tThewholetimetablefortheProjecdepende on
unàaahgs ofSovieteconomicassistancas th1976 Agreementon
theDraftinoftheJointContractulIanmadeclear. Artic3(5o)fthe
1976 Apment provideinpart:
"Thetirnetableforthe phmhg, reseacnhdexcavatiowmk
willbeworked outonthe basis ofthe result otheloan
negotiatios ithtSovietUnion..,"
4.08. The earliernegotiatifora Soviet loanweredesmibedin
Chapter3. Hungaryapplied fora loan equivalento100&on
convertibroubleson27 Febniar1975,andby thetim efsignaturof
theTreatywithCzechoslovakon 16September1977itwasunderstood
thattheloanwudd be grmkd.7 The expectatiwas Mfdied on 30
November 1977 when theSoviet Uniosignethe bilaterai Agreement
on CoopaationcmcerningtheConstnict oftneNagymaros Dam on
theRiverRambe,as Pâa oftheWikovo-Nagyrnm Bmge System.
Unda theAgreemen tubstantiai&takingthefurmoftheprovisionof
equipment(includingturbine ans)specialissenices, was tolxpr~vided.ln 1980,howeveritwasrevealedthatthepromiseci idwould
not be foRhcoming.gThe balance of economic advmîages and
disadvantagesofthe"jointinvestment"wasthusleftto depend onits
ownmerits asan Uivestmenrtather tnanSovietsubsidies.
SECTION B: SPECEFIC F'EATURE SF T'HB T'RF,ATY
4.09. Againstthe backgroundof thepurposesthe Barrage System
was supposedto fulfdthemain specfic feahuesof thTreatywill be
outlined.
4.10. First,thBarrageSystem asenvisagedbythe 1977Treatywas
anintegratedproject. UndArtXcle1(1)...
"...thSysgemofLoch shallcomprisetheGabcikovosystemof
loch andthe Nagymaxu systernoflcickand shd constirnea
singleandindivisiboperationalystem.fworb."
SimilarlyArticl10(1)oftheTreatyprovideih:
"Worksof the Systemof Loçh cmtituthg thejointproperty
ofthe ContracthgPartiesshallbeoperate as,ac~rdinated
singleunitandinaccordancewiththe jointly-aped qemtuig
and opmationaplrocedute s,theauthmimi operatinagendy
of the ContracthgPartyinwhose temitorythe workswem
bdt. "
The worksreferredtoinArticlelO(1)werethekeyinstallationatboth
GabcikovoandNagymaros.The pointhadindeedken aticipated in
the 1976Agreement regardhgtheIlrafthgoftheJointCuntm~tud Plan
for theGabcikovo-Nagymaro Barrage ,rticle3(4) of whicstressed
theneed toassure"thuni@ oftheJointContra- Plan".lQ
4.11. Secondly,it was a cooperativprojecl,one which xequhd
closepnrtnedip,coflhnuednegotiatioandthepsibility ofadjusment
as cùcumstances~quired.The majorvehicieforthic sooperationand
adment was the govermnentdelegateappointedunderArticle 3:
theirresponsibihtisncluded,nterdia, "supervisinndco-ordination
8 The Agretmenwsrssigaedin Moscow,cameint oe#:immdately. See
Aanexesvol3annexa.
9 Seeaime, pam3.42.
10 Seeabove,pa4.03.Annexe,ol3,annex8.of theactivitiofthenationalagenciesrespollsibfor thoperationof
the System ofLoch" (Artic 1le2)). Cooperatioalso involvedsuch
mattersassharingof cos& (Articles57, 121,joint ownerçhipofthe
major elementsof the BarrageSystem (Article8), shared use and
benefitsofthesystem(Article91ointliabilityfdamages (Articl25),
etc.So farassharingofcostswasconcemeci,underArtide 12(6):
"The annualamount of joindy-borneoperatincostsshall be
expressedin nationalcmeneies convertedinto transferable
roubles.If ,tthecommencementof operationsno generdly
applicablexchangerate s ravdable, thefmancialauthorities
oftheContractingPartiesshallcorto adecisionontiiem.l l
4.12, In lems ofitsfunçtionigaccwding toArticl1O(1):
'Works of the Systemof Luch constitutinthejoinproperty
of theContracthgPartiesshd beoperated, as acmdinated
singleunitandin accordancewiththejoindy-agreedoperating
and operationalroceduresby theauthoriseoperatingagency
of the ContracthgParty inwhose territortheworks were
buil."
Other elementsin the systemwere to be"independently operatedor
maintained by the agencies oftha tontracthg Partiyn the jointly
prescribedmanna''(Article lO(2)) .he ovd aim was to ensure
"operatingconditionthatsatisftherequirementfsorco-ordinateand
effectiveoperatiooftheentirSystem ofhcks" (ArticlelO(3)).
4.13. Thirdly he Bmge System wasa blueprintandnot a ràgidly
pre-deternid scheme. My mattershad to beresolved by ottier
agreements orarrangementsw, hethinthe JointContracma lh, orin
regulaiions laiddom by the govemment commissioners,or in
accordancewiththe nationalawsand proudures ofoneof theparties.12
Indd this wasme ofthesettlementfdisputesitseîf. Article27the
1977 Tm pnïvided:
11 UnderAst1q7).asfaaspossibamoimtowhg undathecost-sharformula
weretok paiinkînd.
12 Foranexampleof thlatter,Artdealwithwater-upunitsandwater-use
supervisi, hichwatobecarrioutbyeachCo-ng Party accordance
withitownlawsandllegdations. "1. The settlement of disputes in mattrelatingtothe
realisationand operationtheSystem of Loch shall bea
functiooftheguvernmendtelegates.
2. Ithegovernent deIegatesareunabltareachagreement
on the rnattersindispute,they shall refer themtothe
Govemments oftheContmÇtingParti erdecision."
There wasno suggestionthatdisputesshouldbesettledby anythird
party procedureet ahne judicial procedureNegutiationwas the
regularinpractictheexclusi veensof seidhg disputesThe hall-
mark wasflexibility.
4.14. TheJointContractuaPlan ratherthantheTreatyitseiwas
thebais foa greadealofthesubstancof thehject. As stipulatin
the 1977Treaty,the Planwas to includesuchmattersastechical
specifications (AIticl1(4)),dimensions, work schedule and
responsibiiityfor wstsoperatingmaintenanceandqair (Articles
4(2),12(2))thecruciamatteof thespecificationthewaterbalance
(Article14(2)),weU astheelabrationof themearisofprotectionof
waterquality(Artic15(1)andofnature(Articl19).
4.15. Severapointsshouldbemadeabout therelationshbetwmn
the1977 Trieaand thJointContractualPlan:
(a) TheJointContractuaPIa nia dotken concludedwhen the1977
Tnaty enteredintfoorcea,Article3(2) reveals. The Pwas
not even a single document,but more mifilingsystem of
specifications,d was of enonnous size.13 Evenafterthe
concluso iftnePlan iwassubjecttoniune~~uasmendmentsI.t
was essentidyamanagement ml, subardinattoand condihm1
upon the continuhvaliditoftheTreaty.Tbuswhen theTreaty
specified(asinArticles15and 19) tha tomethingwas to be
achieved"bythemeamspecifwdintheJointContractua Pllan",it
didnotiqly thaachievementof the objewassubordinatedto
the JoinCtontract u alnF.orexampleArticle15 imposed an
obligatioas to the qnalityogroundwater,which was to be
fuWd throughthemeampvided inthePlanthePartieshadan
obiigatiotoensuretbttheprovisionsofthePlanwem adequate
forthampurpos endiftheywerenot,tochangetbem.
! 13 It is neiw necesrarpnaicatotramLatthwholeofthePIanforthe
i purposesoftheseproceedinSrmimarofîhPlaiscontaincdAnnexes,
vol3,ana24.(b) The JointContractual lanwas notconcludedin the fom ofan
interstamav, and was notas suchaninstrumeng tovemedby
internationlaw,whatevermayhavebeenthe statuof the1976
Agreement forthedrawhgupof thePIm. Itwas subjectmerely
to "approvali"nconfoxmitywith nationallaws andregulations
(Articl4(3))ratherthansignaturandratification,asthecase
ofthe 1977Treatyitself.
Where thepartiewished toimposean obligatiinrelationtothe
(c)
hject, thiswas donein the1977 Treatyitseif. For example,
Articl5(9)providedtha:
''TheContracthgParties shd ensure, and SM be
responsibltoeachother fordoing so,thatthePI-g
andexecutionof worh and options areIn accordwith
theappmved joint conhactuaiplan."
Cd) In pradce, and notwithstandingeven the best laid Joint
ContractualPlans,the Treatyschemecould not be Wed as
envisaged.UnderArticle4(43,.
"Operationrselatingto the joint investment shaU be
organiseby theContracthgPartieinsuch away thatthe
powergenerationplantswilbeputintoserviceduringthe
period19861990."
(Theperiod 1986-90wasto betheMod oftheseventhEiveYearPlan,
underthesystem ofcentrakd stateconornicplanningstiinforcein
theSovietblocin1977.)Infact,therewasnevertheslightestpossibility
that thBmge System wodd corneoniineduringthatquuiquennium,
andthiswas not becaus offadl mibutable tome or otherpartybut
simpIybecauseneithecouldaffordtodo so,giventheioîherpriorities,
andthe failureofthepromis&Sovieteconomicassistance.
4.16. Fowtldy,theTreatyreflectea "@-if' mn&Iity withrespect
tomm of economic,mvironmentai andeven structurrisk.It did
notehly ignor teoserisks. Butit wasbasedontheassurnptiothat
anydificulrietbaremeged cuuldbemedied bytechical means.For
example, McIe 7,which dedt withsettlementofunforeseencosts,
providedinpartasfoUows:
"1. Snbsequentto theapportionmen otf laboand supplies
underthejointinvestment,thereshallbenosettlemebetwm the Contracthg Partiesof additiond costsunder the joint
invesment relatingto tconstructionoftheSystemofLoch,
savein thfollowingcases:
(b) The emergence ofunforeseablegeologicd conditions;
2. Theexpression'unforeseeablgeologicaconditim onea's
a situatiowhere thegeologkalconditionsdetennined In the
course of constructiondiffa rnaxkedlfrom the conditions
deteminecion the basisofthe exploratiocondiictedforthe
pueposesof the joint investmentprogramme and the joint
contractualplan. Additiod cos& arising hm faulty
explorationplanningerrorsor faultmethodsof construction
may not be regarded as consequencesof unfmseeable
geologiçalcondition".
Itwas simply assumed thatany newly-discoveregeologicalproblems
couldbefuredby the applicatioofmore money,irrespectiveof their
implicationforthe economicviability,thenvironmentalsustainability
oreven thephysicd safetoftheProjectIs
4.17. The positionwas similarwith ~spectto enWronmentar iisk.
No environmentaf.mpactassessrnenthadbeen carriedout beforethe
conclusionof the Treaty. 'lrtierhad been no integratestudy of
envhnmental impacts. The individualstudiethatwere commksioned
weredonein the contextof acentrally-plannedndernomticpolitical
system inwhich ihad Wdy been decidedfromabove thattheBarrage
System wouldbe built.
4.18. Nonerheless provisionswere hcluded relating to the
environment,in the expeçtationthaproblemsofprotection ofwatm
qualltyan8of naturecould be as -y resolvedasquestionsof
unforeseengeologicaiconditions.Article15 dedt ~4th protectioof
waterqualityinthefoUowing tenos:
"1.The ContracthgPartiesshdiensure,bythe meamspecined
inthejointcontractadph, that thequalitof thewaterinthe
Danubeis not impairedas a result ofthe cunstnictionand
opmitionof theSystem ofLoch.
15 Forthe seismologicalproblemstkaassociamwiththProjecsebelow,
paras5-9-5.105. 2. The monitoringof waterqualityin connectionwith the
constructioandoption ofthe System ofLocks SM be
carricout onthe buis of theagreementsofmntierwatersin
forcektween theGovements of theContractinParties."
4.14. Chapter VII,entitled"PROTECTIONOF THE NATWRAL
ENVIRONMEN'',contained twoarticles.Artic20 dealwithfishing
interest Asrtcle19dedt with"ProtectionoNature".Itprovidedthat:
'The Contrachg Parh SM, through themeansspecifiedin
the joint contractuaph, ensure cornpliance with the
obligationsfothe protectionof naturarisinginconnection
withtheconstructioandoperatiooftheSystemofLoch."
4.20. Theinterpretationf Articles15and19 willbe discussedin
Chapter6 ofthisMemorial.1T7hepointta bemade hereis simplythis:
the Parties evidentlyproceededothebasisthat theBarrageSystem
couldbeopmatadconsistentlywiththepreservatioofwaterqualityand.
the obligationsfotheprotectionofnature. The regionwas,as they
hew, singuiarlydependenton theDanube evenfor d-g water,as
wellas formanyother uses. TheGabcikovo area contauiedhugeand
valuablewaterreservesanda majorwebd. Againstthisbackground,
Articles15 and 19 assumedpnrticdarimportance:they requiredthe
partieto constnicandoperate the BarrageSystemso asto produce
certaingoals(maintenancof waterquality,protectionnature).Ifit
tumed out that thesgoals couldnot beachieved, orcould only be
achievedby expenditureswhish would make the Projectcompletely
uneconomic , fundamentdiynewsituationwouldaise.
4.21. To summanse,the 1977Treatgrhad the following key
charactmktics.Iwas:
(1) a COMECON Treaty,withthavowed aim ofMering "socidist
integrationandthestrategiculteresf&se Sovietbloctowltiich
bothpartiesbelonged@remMar pampph 2);
(2) "ajointhvestment"onewhich wodd beeconomiÇalIybeneficid
and provideregdarsuppliesofelectriciinan economic way to
meet industriaiandotherneeds (Articl1(1}),dso preambular
pqph 11;
16 Seebelowpara450.
17 Seebelowparas.1-6.26. a blueprintfor"a single and indivisibleoperational system'"
(3)
(Articll(1)). It wunowhereenvisaged thattheprojectorany
variatioofit çoulbeoperatedseparate,letaloneuniiatera;ly
(4) aframework treatyonewhichcouid bemod3ed or adjustedby
agreementinthe lighof changingcircumstances. Thetables
were includedinthelanguageof treatyobligationbutwere not
compliedwith for economieRasons or becaus oefconfiicting
prioritionbothsides(Articl5(4));
a treatywhich was consistenwith the maintenanceof water
(5)
quality and with enaironmentalprotectiongenedy (Article
5(5)(a)(55(5)(b]( 5,3)9)i:thi respectpriody wasgiven to
theTreaty andthe BuundaryWaters Convention over theJoint
ContractuaIlan whiehwas merelythe"meam" ofprotection.
4.22. The 1977Treaty was accmpanied by a separatebilaterai
.AgreementonMutualAssistance dmkg the Courseof Constmctionof
theGabcikovo-NagymarB oarrageSystem,signedon thesame day.18
TheMutualAssistanceAgreement laiddom a Scheduieforcompletion
oftheBarrageSystem,beginning with prepatatorworkin 1978 and
wifh theovd completionof constructioin 1991 (Article1). It
abdy rndfied the 1977TreatyinprovidingforCzechoslovakia to
undertake orkoverand abovethatcontemplateintheTreaty,inrem
furanassignent fiamHmgary ofsomeof theGahikovo pwer output
(Le.fortheyears1986-88).
4.23. As notedin Chapte3,a hcol to the1977Treaty,concludecl
on 10October 1983,amended Articl4(43 ofthe 1977Treaty soas to
subtitutefothe198690 periodthe nextsucceedhg Planperîod,19%
1994.'9 Mm extensivechange wseremade atthesarnetime to the
MutualAssistanceAgreanent,resultinin a Mer assigrnentof the
Gabnkovopower output(fotrfryears 1990-1992)fnmi Hungary to
18 Hungary~hoslovalriaApemenon Mumai AssistaeuringthCourseof
Consmictionothe Gabcikovo-NagymarBsarragSystemBudapest,16
Sqdember197hereaftrefd tasthe"1977MrrtuAssistanceAgreement",
ItwaneveregisiemwittheUnitedNations.theZextseAnnexesvol3.
amex22.
19 H~~hoslovakia, ProtaolnthAmendmen tfthTreatconewminghe
ConJtnictnndOpei-atofthGahihvo-NagymaroBarragSystemPrague,
10October198;nnexesvol3,anne28 Fordiscusimofthe198Protoc01
seabove,par.dg..Czecho~lovakia.2~The Mutual Assistance Agreement was again
amended on6 February 1989,withyetanotherreschediihgof work and
anassignrnentof Mer outputhm theGabcilrovpolant,alsoforthe
years1990-1992T he'1977Treatyitselfwasnotamended.
SECTIONC: RELATXONSHW OFTHE 1977 TREATYTO
AGREJMF,NTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES
4-24. The 1977 Treaty was one of many treatieandagreements,
between flungaryand Çzechoslovakiarelatintusuchmatters as their
cornman boundarydong theDanube,navigationandfisheries.Some of
these agreements,inparticula,he Agreement on the Regirneof the
StateBoundary of1956 and theBoundary WatersConvention of 1976,
areof considerablesignificancefor the presentdispute. This Section
wllloutlinetherelevantagreementsandîheirrelntionshito the 1977
Treaty.By fa the most importanofthes eere thematies relatinto
theinterstabundaq and tuthemanagemeno tfboundarywaters.
4.25. Ttis not necessq for the pqoses of the present case to
discussthe earlierhistory of theHungarian-Czechoslbokundary.It
issufficientosny thatunderMcle l(4) of the Treatyofkace of 10
kbmq 1947,22tbe pre-1938boundary was restmd, but with one
exception. UnderArticle1(4)(c)threevillagesandth& smunding
landon theHungariansideofthe Danube werecededto Czechoslovakia,
thusgihg Czechoslovakia(and now theSlovakRepubiic) temitoryon
therightsideoftheDanubefor thefmt time .nconsequen ofeArticle
1(4)(c)andof itssubsequenimp1ementatiobny abilateralProtoc012a
20 Hungary-Czschoslovako,too~ntheAmendmenotheAgreemenotnMutual
AssistanintheCourseoBuildingthe Gabcikovo-Nagysm, Prague, 10
Oaok 1983Annexes,vo3,anne29.
21 Hun%a~y-Cze&oslovaPriatamlotheAmendmentfthAgreemenonMutual
AssistanintheCourseof Buildingthe Gabcikovo-Nagysam, Prague,
Budapes6, Febmary1989;Anri,ol 3,annx),
22
Tm ofRace witHmgary*ParisIOFeb- 1947.41 UNTS135;Annexes,
vd 3anriex.
23 ClosingRotmol regardithe Work of theBorderDraRinCgommission
c~nçistiofrepreseritosftiHeuman andCzecho$lov&Governmenti,n
nccordrrwithArticl1,pa*igra4,hsubparagrdaofthePeaΠWty of
Pa& Bratisla22Wlm 1W7;Annexa,vol3annex3.stretçh ofthe Danubeapproximately 30 riverkilomeas in length
oppositeBratislavabecame wholly controiiedbyCzechoslovakia. One
of thethreeviiiageswas Cunovo,where the VariantC diversiondam
would laterbebuilt.
4.26. Belowthisstretch,in theareanow affectedby VariantC, the
statusquo ante was to prevail.This was defmedin a Supplementary
Minuteof 11Octo'ber1948,which providedshat:
"theoriginaldefinitionof the borderliextenchg throughthe
Danube, as detemiinedbetween 1922-1925, remainsvdid; that
is,the borderis defmedby the thalweg of theRiver'smain
navigablebed atthe/owestwater leve1."24
4.27. At the sarnetime Hmgary had expressc eoncms at the
consequencesof thesechanges in terms of sueh matta as water
managementand flood defence. In response,it was agrd that a
bilateralwatermanagement agreementwouldbeconcluded,and that so
far as thesectionof theMosonDanube towhichCzechoslovakia had
now becorne ariparianstate.
"...Czechosl ooblaatisitseif notoundertake anysortof
dcid interferencewhichwould alter the inanch'spresent
flow.''=
This obligationwas subsequentlyincwpmted inArticle 3(1) of a.
biiateral onventionof9October1948.26
24 SuppIementmRotocoiMo 1 toththClosing Rotocof theMeetingofthe
Hungarian-CzÊÇho BoIoerakaftiCommission,1Qcrober1948Ai.3121;
Annexa,vol annex6,
25 Closinhtocol regardkgtheWork of theBorderDrafting Commission
consistofrepmmtativesof thH-an andCzechoslovGovemments in
acamhce with Article1, paragaph4, subpmgraofdthePeac ereatof
ParlBratisla,2Dacember1947;Annexes,ol3,annex3.
26 Agreemenbetwee he Republieof HungaandtheaechoslovakRepubbcon
cerSassuesofwatemanagemen tuicessioofterritosursuantoArticl1
paragra4,subparagmp hof thePeacTreatyofPais, Bmtidav, Oetober
1948Annexe s,l3, anne5.Anokr bilaidagreemenetoncludeatabout
thisnehvolvinganundertakio maintaitheavaageannuaifiowoashd
rivewastheHung~~dovak Conveatioregadhg theAgreementan
oertgnssueof watemariaganenalmg the SajdRiver,29 November1950;
Annexesvo3,annex8. (a)Agreement Concerning theSertlemenot fTechnic anld
Economic~uestionspertaining tuFrontierWatercourses ,954
4.28. Tn 1954, Czechoslovakia and Hwigary concludecian
Agreementconceming the Settlementof Techical and Economic
Questions pertaininto Frontier Watercourse~.~~The Agreement
remainedinforce mtü 1976?g It dealtwith flood-conml and river
regulationas well as safegudhg the fairwayofhundary water-
caurses.Articl14regulatedexxraçtioofgravelandsandfor purposes
0th thm riveregdationornavigation.Itprovidethat:
"The competentwater resourceagenciesof the Contracting
Parti shsIjointlydeterminewherein a specifidsectoof a
frontiewatercoursto whatdepthand in whatquantitneeded
gravelandsandmay ixextractedforothethanregdatory and
navigationalpurposes.Permissionfor extractionwithithe
limitthu saiddownshdi begranted bythe comptent agency
oftheContracthgPartyIn whose tenitorthemateriaisto be
extracte.
Article23(2)provide&
"The ContractinPartiesshalirefrahm granting anwater
use permit for theexecution on hntier watercomes of
hydraulicworks which might adverselyaffecthe discharge
conditioOFtheM."
(b) Treag Concerning theRegime ofStateFrontiers1956
4.29, The next relevant instrumentwas the Materd Tmty
concwnin he Regime of StateFmntiers,simd atPrague on 13
October 1956J A9rticle3{)rovidesthat:
"On sectorswhereinuisover waterlthfrontielineshdi Vary
withthe changesbmght about by naturacauses ... inthe
main navigablchanneisofnavigablerivers.The hntier line
shallnotbeaffectedby oh changesin thefiow ofa frontier
watercourseunlessthPartiesconcluda separatagreemen to
thateffet."
27 Pqw, 16AMI 1954,50UNTS 231;Annexevo3,annex12.
28 Foritsrephent sebeiowpar4.33.UnderArticle 13(1),thepartiesageed "totake alistepsto prevent
deliberatedamagetothebanksoffrontiewaters". ViolatioofArticle
13give Piseto aspecfic obligati"tocompensatetheotherPartyfor
thedamage arisintherefromti rtic13(6)).
4.30. Article 14 provides:
"Thenaturaflîowof frontierwatersininundatareasmaynot
be alteredorobstnictedby the erectionof installationsor
smcturesin thewateroron thebanks,orby any otherworks,
unlesthePartieso agree"
"(1)The twoPartiesshd maintaintheexistingstructurand
installatiinsfrontiwaters (dams,dykesand thek). No
rernovalorseconstmctionof anysuchstructursrinstallation
whichisliabletoentailachangeithebedor inthelevelofthe
waterin thetenitoryof the0th paty rnay be carriedout
exceptwiththeconsentofbothParties.
(2) New bridges, ferries, dams, dykes, sluices, bank
supportand othehydraulicinstdationsshana beerectedin
hntier waterexceptbyagreement betweenthetwoParties."
4.32. Takentogethert,hesprovisionconfirnthanonew smcnires
maybe buirwhich wiildfwt theIevelof fmntierwaters,normaythe
naturalfhw of hntier waters be affectby any wmks, withoutthe
agreemenotf thaffectedStateFrontierwateraredehed byArticle 9
as"rivetsstreamsorcm& dong which thehtier lln eins".
(4 ConventionRegardingth Regulation ofIssues
Surroding Bodry Waters,1976
4.33. These provisionsweze suppleniented by the bilamal
ConventionRegarding theRegdationof IssuesSmunding Boundary
Watersconcluded atBudapes t n31niZa 1y976. 30der Article23(3),
the Boundary Waters Convention replaced the 1954 Agreement
codg the SettIementof Techicai and Economic QuestionspertainingtoFrontierWater~ourses.~~t wasintendedtobe addirionato
the9956 Treatyconceming theRegime of StatFrontiers.32
4.34. ArticleI otheBoundary WatersConvention dehes boundary
waters as "alriversand other naturallflowing waters,asweli as dl
cm& ... aiong which theBoundariesbetween the Statepartiesan;
further,aU surfaceand subsurfacewaters intenected by fie State
Boundaries"(Article1).UnderArticIe2 ...
"TheMaterialScopeof thisConvention shallindude anywater
managemen tçtivitperformed on theboundary waters,which
may bringaboutchanges in thenaturalwaterconditions,such
as, in particular:the regdation of water courses, the
consmction of reservoirs and flood ccintrol dykes, the
improvememofland tu uicreaçethewaterholdingcapacity of
soil,theutilisatiof waterresourcesthe protectioofsiIrface
and subsurface waters hm pollution, hydmelemic
developrnentt,hemaintenance andmarkingof waterways,the
location ofnavigationalroutes,thecmtrol offlmds, excess
groundwater andice drift,as weil .asal1water management
activitiewhich rnay=suit in changes inthe jointlydefineci
waterconditions inthe upstream and downstreamsectionsof
the bomdary maches of water courses,Memore, inthe
sectionofboundary waters."
4.35, The principalobligationsofthe partiesunder theBomdary
Waters Convention aresetoutinArticle3:
"(1)TheConhracting Partiesdoherebyundertak thatthey:
a) shdi notcany out anywaer managemena tctivitieswithout
muhialagreement,wtiich would adversely affectthejointly
defmed water conditions;
b) shallmaintainin gmd condition thebeds ofwawr courses,
reservoirsand equipment locatedonbundary waterson their
31 See abovepara4.28.
32 ThisisshownbyArticl3q3)ofthebilateralAgreemconeeminCoopdon
andMytualAssistanaiongtheCzechoslovak-HungarBorder, hgue, 19
Novernber1g6. Article300) spoutcrarefuwhichearliAgmamnrs and
Minutesireplace,ndtowhatexteninpartieulareplac Aricles10-21, 16-
18and22-24ofth1956Sta~FmtierAgreement,utnotArticl13,14and19,
which haveken quoteaIWy (aboveparas 4.2- 4.30;).orthe 1976
Atment, seeAnnexesvol3, ann18. own tenitonesandshdi operatethesame insuch a mamer as
tocauseno damageto eachother,
c) shallrnutuallyinform each otherabout their long-tem
developmenptlansforwatermanagement p,~cipdy aboutthe
effeçtofwatermanagemena tctivitiesonboundarwaters;
d) shalengage in pria negotiationsonthe effects owater
managemena tctivities,whichalterthwaterconditionsinthe
sectiondefinejointlyunderArticl2.
(2)The ContractingParties--unlessthey agreeotherwi se
shd be entitletoone half ofthe naturalamountof wata
flowingthxough the boundarywaters,and notincreased by
engineringinterventio.
A Boundary Waters Commission isestabiishebyArticle5, andgiven
thetasks of hyhg down guidelinesfor technicd planningof water
management projects(Article7(l))endorsingplansfor such projects
(Article7(2)),andetemg annually"thenecessity,Iocation,amount
andmannerofdredgingI (Article121.3'
Id) AgreementConcerningCooperation ad Alutual
AssistancealongtheCzechoslovakian-Hungafia Bnorder,1976
4.36, Referenceshouid also be made to thebilateraAgreement
conceming Cooperation and Mua Assistance dong the
Czechoslovakim-Hun gardea,oconcluded at Prague on 19
Novemk 1976.s4Grticle4Ce)requirestheborderdelegateappointed
under the Agreement "tainform the borderdelegate of the other
Conmting Partyabout theoperationpfmtd neartheborderwhich
might cause bage on the territoof the otbercountry ormight
endangertheHe, thecorfpod integity ohealtoftheinhabitantsu.
fe) The1979 Treao
4.37. The 1977 Treaty itselfcontemplateaminormodificationof
theam boundaryconsequentiaulponthe cornpletioof the Barrage
System. Article22(1)recitedthat:
33 SeealsoAppendix1 @y-LawofthBoundaryWaterCommission),y
kt 2;deciionstheCwimissimrequirdl5don bytheMes (Ar5).See
Aanexes,vol3,ann19.
34 Annexesvol3annex20. "The Contracting Partieshave, in connection with the
cons&uctioand opemion of theSystemof Locks, agreedon
minor revisionofandchangesin the characterofthe State
frontierbetween the HungarianPeople'sRepublicand the
CzechoslovaSocialistRepubli,"
It thesetout in somedetailthecoursethatthe boundarwouldtake
"subsequen o theconstructiooftheSystemof Lucks".Theposition
betweenrkm 1840andrh 1811was to beuncfianged.BetwGenrkm
1840 andrh 1842 andinthe r)unWti-Hnrsovo head-waterarea,the
existhg hydtauiicboundary"dongthe centre-keofthe presenmain
navigationchannel"wouId becornea fixed boundary. Beyond that,
hawever,therewasto k amiraorexchangeoftenitory ("theextentof
about10-10hectares"o enableastraighlineboundq tobe drawn.
4.38. Despitethisabundanocfdetail,Article22(2)provithat:
"The revisionof the Statefrontierand the exchange of
territorprovidedforinparagaph 1 shd beeffectedby the
ContracthgPartieonthebais ofasepme treat."
In additionthe partiesapd to comply with exlsting rightand
obligationwith respectonavigationnomithstandingtheshiftinthe
mainnavigablechanne1(Article22(3)).
4.39, These changeswere minor. Theywould only take place
"[slubsequento the çonstmctionof thSystem of Locks",an event
whichnever occurred.Mweover the boundarychange wsouldnottake
placebyforceof the1977 Treatyitselbut"onthebasisof a separate
trea@'"krticl2212)).No such Wty waseverconcluded.The 1977
Treatywas nata bundarymaty, deliberatelynot.And thereasonis
clear.As has been demonstratedinChapter3, thepartiecouldnot
agreeontheoriginalHungarXadnemandthattheboundarylinebeshifted
so as tofoUow themain navigationchannelthroughthe Gabcikovo
power canaiandloch. Czechoslovakia was adamantin itrefusalto
contemplatethi~. Theshction of Article22 was to dissociatthe
BarrageSy~m fromthe a@ boundq, whilerecognisingtha the
navigationchannelwould no longerfoiiow orbeidentifïewith the
boundaryinthisldty. Soinsistentwerthepartieon separatinthe
1977 Treatyhm theboundary tegirnthattheminor adjusment that
wodd bequired whentheBmge System cameintaoperatiowas notincludedinthe1977Treaiy itselfasilcouldeasilyhaveken, butwasto
be thesubjectofaseparatematy.
4.40. The principleof &dom of navigationon theDanube goes
back tothenineteenthcentur. Itwasextended bythepst-World War1
peace maties: for exampleArticle274 of theTreatyof Trianon gave
nation& of thePrincipaAIliedand AssociatedPowersaunilateralright
toengage in cabotage(iiternamde) inHungarianports and
This inequalitywasernovedby thePace TreatyofParis of 1947,which
simply declarednavigationon the Danube tobefreeandopen to the
nation& of alStatesbut whichexchded~abotage.3~
(a) ConventionConcemingtheRegimeof Nuvigation onthe
Danube, 1948
4.41. Shce 1948, thereghe of navigation on theDanubehasbeen
governed bytheConvention concerningtheReghe ofNavigationon the
Danube,concludedinBelgrade on 18 August 1948between seven
riparianStates.The Conventionreiîeiated thprincipleof freedomof
internationanavigationon theDanubeandestablished a new Danube
Commission tosuperviseits implementation. egulatioof navigation
inparticularsectorsofthe:Danubeis a matterfor theriparianStates
concenie&having"regard tothebasicprovisionsgovemingnavigation
on theDanube estabhhedby theCommission" (Article23)-
4.42. The issueof navigatiointhe Gabcikovo-GhyG Sector (rh
1821 b rlan1791) was specificaliyaddtesse inknnex II of the
Belgrade Convention,which recited that the costsof "the works
necessaryto ensure normal conditionsof navigaîi...in the general
interest"inthk sector "farexceed thusewhich couldreasonablybe
TreatyofPeace,Tfian4nJune1920Art290 (inTheT~earisfPeace1919-
36
1923 (NewYork,CamegiEndowmen forInternatiPïeac1924)vol 1,457),
Ari 274Annexesvol 3annex1. Art277exw1y providthathe rigwds
notreciproc.eealsoArt285-9(speciclausesrelatithDanube).
37 TratyofPeacewithHungary,PariTOFebnrary947,Art238,41UNTS 135;
Annexes,vo5,anne2,
38 33 UNTS 181;Amexes,vol 3annex4.TheEeder Ralpublof Gennanand
Austriwetenotparties.aIthoughtheadmissionof wasforeshadowein
annex1.Auseibecameapartyi1960.requiredoftheriparianStatesconcemed", andreferredtheissuto the
Commission toconsiderwhethera specidriveradrninis~atinhodd be
establishedforthi ector. FoUowing a resolutionof the Danube
Comrrÿiçsioinn1950,anagreement was concludedcoveringtheRajka-
Gonytisector (riun1850ta rh 1791) in 1952.39Article33 of the
Agseement conceming the Senlement of Technical and Economic
Questionspettainhg to Frontier Watercourseçof 16 April 195440
providedtha theprovisionsofthe 1954Agreementwould not appIyto
theRajka-Gonys iector"durinsuc ime astheRiverAdministrationin
theRajka-Gonyu s'ectorothe Danubeis fundoning". Bowevex the
1952 Agreement wasneverratifiedorimplernented
4.43. in 1968,the phes concluded a further agreement, the
Agreement regardhg thebation of a RiverDirectoratforthesection
of the DanubeextendingfkomRajka to G6nyiL41 That Agreement
enteredint force immediatelyuponsignature,butit isverydoubtfd
whether theRiver DiËectorate iestablishewas a "functioning"one
withinthe meaningof Article 3of the 1954Agreement.. There are
severalreasonforthis.Fit, notwithstandintsresolutionof1950,the
DanubeCommissionnever secognisedthenew River Directorate.
Secondly,thatDirectorate asneveropaiive oreffectiveitconsisted
of a single officiin an officein Komamo. In 1974 the two
Governmen rtepresentatidsecidsto windup theDuectorate,andthis
was done, The 1968 Treaty,however,remabedfomally "on the
books"i;ndeedithadben registeredwiththeUnitedNations.
4.44. Thus, as a matter of law the Agreementconceniing the
SettlementofTechaicalandEconomic Questionspertain tonFrontier
Watercoutsesof 16 April1854 ranainedin forcfeortheRajka-GonyC
sectord 1976,whenit was taminateclby the BoundaryWaters
Conventi~n.~ ~ iiaAgreement &O appiies todl baundary sectars
withoutexception.
39 Agreementregding tCmtiw ofaRiverDimonte almg thi2ajka-Gong.U
sectionoftDanube, udqe& 25April1952,Jig29May1952;Annexe,ol
3 arin9.
504UNTS 231;Annexevol3,anne12.Seedsoabove,ara4.28.
40
41 Prague,2Few 1368,64UNTS 49;Annexe,ol3annex17.
42 Seeabovepar436. (b) Treav Concerning theRegima ofStateFrontiers,1956
4.45. Article 10of the Treatyconcerning theRegime of State
Frontiersof 1956deals withbilateralnavigationrightson boundq
watersgenerallywithautofcourse affectinthernultilateClonvention
of 1948-43 Itentitlesshipsothe twoPartiestonavigatefreely"atdl
times.. .over thefulwidth of frontierwaters"Taken üzconjunçtion
with Article3 of thesameTreaty, itiç obviosislyinconsistenwîth
milateralactionrendexinastretchofboundarywatersnon-navigable.
The 1977 Treaty
4.46. Article18 ofthe 1977Treaty was the oniyprovisionof that
Treatydealhgspecificallwithnavigation.Article18pvideck
"1. TheContracthg Partiein confodty withtheobligations
previouslassumed bythem, and inpartIculawritArticle3 of
the[Belgrade]Conventionconcemhg there@e of navigation
on the Danube . . .shdi ensure uriintempted and safe
navigation on the internationalfairwayboth during the
constructionnd dm the operationothe SystemofLocks.
2. The constructionofthe System of Loch wilI,when the
DunWti damis put intsoervic ea,keitnecessarta =-route
shippingand,for ashorttime,to intemiptshipphg. Shipping
shallbere-routethroughthe Dunakilitiavigatiolockin such
a way as to requin the minhum interruptioof navigation.
The re-routing of stiippingandthe movementof shipping
throughthe Dunakilitilockshd takeplaceatthe the of least
shippingtrafficsoasto ôe abletocontinue fortheminimum
periodspecifieinthejointcontiramal ph.
3. Navigationin the Systemof Locksshdi be governeciby
theregdationsof thenavigationauthoritieoftheConmcting'
Parties.
4. Theconditions fornavigatiointhe oldbedofthe Danube
sidi bespecifiedintheoperatinand operationalrOceawes."
43 See aboveparas4.29-4.41. SeealsoHungary-QechmIovaki,greement
cûncemingCooperatiandMutualssistancealtheCzechoslovak-Hunman
BorderPragüe, 19November19Art14,I7A;nnexevol3annex2û.4.47. Whatthe 1977Treatydidwas torelocatthemain navigational
channelhugh the Gabcikovocanal andloch. As a change inthe
characterof theboundaryt,hisrequiredHungaian consent. But since
thechange waswithout prejudicro thegeneralreghe ofnavigationon
the Danubeestabhhed by the 1948 Convention,itwas essentidlya
bilateramatter.
4.48. Fisherieshave alwayshad both econornic and recreationai
significancedong theDanube,and they arereguIatedby anumberof
provisions,multilaterand bilateral. Su faas selevantthese areas
follows:
(4 ConventionConcemingFishirag intheWatersof the
Danube, 1958
4.49. The prbcipal insrnent regulatingDanubefisheries is a
multiiated treatytheConvention concehg Fishhg in theWaters of
the Danubeconcluded at Bucharestan 29 January 1958.44 Article3
defrnes"watersof the DanuWf verybroadly, so asto inchde "lakes,
estuariesand pools permanentlyconnectedwith the Danube,in the
Danubeflood-basin inthetenitorof theConîractinPgarties".Articl5
requirescontracthgpartieta consmct water engindg workson the
Danube to"prepai readvanceand apply johtlya planof action to
safeguardthe normalmigratory movementsof fish, and gendy "to
arneliwatethe natvral conditionsfthe breeding,growth and normal
increasein stocks of fish ofeconornichp~tance".~~ The Danube
FishesiesConventionwasconcluded between thefour bwe~ riparians,
butboth Hungary andCzechoslovakisaubsquentlybecme parties tait.
4.50. In additioncertain provisionsinbilateraltreatiesbetween
Hungary and Czechoslovakiadeaiwith theissueoffishaîes. Articl22
of t)le reatyconceming the Regime of StateFmtiers of 13 Octok
195646regdates biiateralhheries invarious ways, and contemplates
44 339UNTS 23;Annexes,ol3,amex16.
45 Sa alsoArt7(pTwentiofcontaminatiandpollutionthriver),UndeArt
14,othDanuhiaStatecouiaccedtotheConvention.
46 Seeabove,par4.29.thatseparateagreementwiiIlx reachedfor theprotectioffish and
theprohibitiooffskg forcertaispecies.
(c) The 1977 Treag
4.51. Theissuewas alsoaddresseinArticle20of the1977Treaty,
whichprovidestha:
"The Contractkg Partiewith thehnework of national
investment,halrakeappropriarneasurefortheprotectioof
fishing interests in confomiwith the Danube Fisheries
Agreementc,oncludeatBuchares tn29January 1958..."
Under the 1977Treatynationalhstments wereïefated expenditures
borneby eachindividuaparty(seeArticl2). ThusArticl20 obliged
eacbStatepartin eonstnictingtheBarraSystemtoengageinnational
investmentsoas"tosafeguarthenmal migratory movernentsoffish"
and "toamelioratthe namal conditionforthebreeding,growthand
normai lncreaisnstoçkofhh of economiçimportance"ndtocornply
withtheothersubstantivandprucedd requirementsf theBuchuest
Cunvention.47
14) AG-s RE LA^ TO THEBARRAG mE ma
4.52. Thefirstybular paragaphof theSpecidAgreement tsthe
Court =fers to dif%erence"regardingthe implementationand the
taminationof tbeTreat cyncernintZnCeonstructiand Operationof
the Gabcikovo-NagymaroB sarrageSystem, Budapest,16 September
1977and relateinstruments@eieh&er refmd to as 'thTreaty')".
The referenceto"rehtedinstnimentscan beunderstood ifone goes
back tothe Hungd Decldon of16May 1992. Thatdecldon
teminahi the 1977Treagr itself, asmodi£iedbthe 1983Protoc01
"includingallrelatedagreementsspecifiediniAnriex"(i.e. inthe
hex totheDeclaration).
4.53. The agreementslistein the Annex werethose whichware
dependent on the1977 Treatyitself for theircontinwedoperationor
mem. It wasthese,andonlythese,agreementosr instrumenthat
would automatidy teminatewiththetamimion of the 1977Treaty.
Specfidly, thefollowingagreementsare"rehtedinstruments"ithin
themeaning oftheSpecialAgreement:
47 Annexes,ol3,anne16. * Hungâry-Czechoslovakiagreementregardingthe&&hg ofthe
JointContractual lanforthe Gabcikuvo-NagymaroB sarrage,
Bratislav, May 197ka
* Hungary-CzechoslovakiaA, mment on Mubal Assistance
duringtheCourseof Constructioofthe Gabcikovo-Nagymaros
Bmge System, Budapest, 16 Septemb 1977 (as twice
a1nmde4;~9
*
Hungary-Czechodovakia A,greementas to customsquestions
relateto the preparationconstructionand operatioof the
Gabcikovo-Nagymaro Bçmge System,Bratislava,19January
1979;So
* Hurigary-Czechoslo Agrkema,nt as to the cornmon
operationarlegdationsofPlenipotentifsfdhg dutierelateci
tothe constnxctiandoperationof the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros
BarrageSystem,Bratislav,1OÇEober1979;*1
* Hungary-Czechoslovak Aig,reemeasto thequestionofborda
crossingsirelatito thepreparatioc,omtnictiand opration
oftheGakikovo-NagymaroB sarrageSystem,Rajka5 Februq
1980.52
The 1976 Agreement on the JointContrachiallan?3and the 1977
MutualAssistanceAgreement,havealredy beendiscussed .he other
five agreementscontainemachinery provisionof aminorcharacter
relatedtotheconsmctionoftheBamgeSystem.A1I theseAgreements
obvidy depenaedfor ttieir validityand continuatonthe1977
Lreatya, nstoodorfeiiwithit.
4.54. Al1 otha existingbilaterand mdtilateraltreaties ktween
Hungas,andCzeEhoslovakr iemainedinfme afeer25 May1992. Of
cme, several Fateragreementswere ais0concluded relatiro the
I 48 Annexesvo3,amiex18.
49 Annexesvol3anne22.
50 humes, vol3,ann25.
5f Annexesvol3,ann26.
52
&naes, vol3anne2x7.
53 Seehve, p 4.03Annexe, ol3anne18.
54 Seeabwe,para4.22.watermanagement regimeapplicabletoVariantC intheperbd a£tethe
diversio--specificalltheLondonAgreementof 22 October1992 and
Article4oftheSpecialAgreementitself. Thesearediscussedelsewhere
inthisMemorial.55
SECTION D:SUMMARYGND CONCLUSION
4.55. To assistthCourt,a tableisattachedsettinoutthe treaties
and agreementsçurveyedinSection3 above,thatisto saythe treaties
whichrelatespecificalta theboundary watersorto theDanube as a
csmmonresource.
4.56. Threegeneralcqnclusioncan bedrawn hm thi swey.
* Firstthe 1977Treatywasnot concludedinavacuum butwaspart
of ama& ofbiiaterand multilaterl aties çpecificdapplied
to the commonboundary and itswaters,or tu the Danube
genedly. Takenoverall,those treatieemphasised the joint
management of thecommonresource,and thelmperativeneedfor
exchang ofinformationc,ooperationandnegotiation. Theyare
entirelyinconsistewith the id- of unilateralactiaffecthg
otherripariaStates.56
* Secondly ,hetmties inquestionsometimeremained intherealm
of aspirationratherththeworldof dty. Implementationwas
uneven,and therewas considerablroomfor renegotiationand
adjustment. For example,the1968 Tmty on the bation of a
RiverDirectorateforthe sectionoftheDanubeextendingfm
Rajk toGGnyud "t,houghfonnallyinforc ea,sneverrecognised
by the Danubian States as effectiveand was infmaIiy
"discontinued"in 1974.57 The Agreement on Coopedon
concernüithe ConsrnietionoftheMagymaroD s amontheRiver
Danube,as PartoftheGabcikuvo-Nagymaro BsarragSystem of
55 For theLondonAgreementseeabove, par3.19-3.192;for thSpecial
Ag~eement,Ar4seeabve,para2.0-2.12
55 Theraere,fcourse,manymultilarreatiesotherInshmenBofageneral
characterrelevathdisputThse aresuneydinChapter6 andarereferred
toasrelevathroughoutMemoial.
57 Seeabove,ar4.42. 30 Novemkr 1977ktween Hungaryandthe Soviet Union was
also"inoperatXve".58
* Ihirdly,however, the treatynoms themselves were consistent
withthe devdoping body of intemûonal law. Notwithstanding
the notoriousenviromentaiHicultitieof theregion,itsrnernber
StatesHungary andCzechoslovakia hcluded,ndhered toa range
of commirnientsseekrng to ensureenvironmentap lrotectionof
sharedresoutces. These cornmiaents reflected and even
incorporatemdtilateralstandards.To takejust twoexamples,
Article3 ofthe 1976 Boundary Waters ConventionincIuded a
comitmcnt by the partieto operate "equipment locatedon
Boundarywatersontheirownterritorie...insuch amarner asto
causeno damage to oneanother",s9a clear staternetf thesic
utertuo prhcipfeof generalinternationlaw. Article19 of the
1977Treaty requirethe partiesthrougmeans to bespeclfiedin
the JointContractualPlan to "ensurecornpliancewi~ the
obligatiofor theprotectioof nam arising in connectionwith
the constnictionand operationofthe System of Locks",thus
incorporatinthestandardofgeneralintemationallawrelatingto
naturprotection.@
58 Seeabove,ara4.08.
59 Se abovepara4.35,
60 Seeabove,ar a.19andçebelowpara6.26.SelectedTreataedAgmmentç relevao Hung~Czechoslovak
Bo~daryWater osnthDanube PART 11
A CHRONICLE OFRTSKS AND DAMAGE
5.01. TheBarrageSystemenvisageby the1977Treatywouldhave
causedsubstantilamagetotheenvitonment,andwouldhaveimposed
unacceptablerisks of damage,especiatoywaterresources. This
damage, andthese ri&, existedforbothpartiesinrespect ofthe
Gabcikovosector,buforHungarymuchmore than Czechosiovalran
respectotheNagparos secior.VarianC,asoperateby Slovakiahas
alreadysignificandamagedHungaryandthe damage wilaccunudate
intheabsenceof majorchangetothedischarreghne. VarianC dse
imposesriskon bothparties,insomrespectsirni oare rishthat
would havebeen entaiieby the OnginalProjectin other respects
greateorless.
5.02. ThisChaptewiU srnarise thedamage andrisksentailedby
the ûriginal Pïojeand VariantC, andwill sample the scientific
evidenceDetaileddescriptisfmanyof theseproblemsarecontahed
inthe Appendiceand Annexes,towhich thiCshapterwilserveasa
guide.Theirlegd imp~catioWU be discussednIaterchapters.
5.03. ThestructuofthiCshapteis asfollows:
SectionA @aragraphs 5.09-5.29WU dese the thm
regionaffectinHungary.
SectioB (pmgraphs 5.30-5.93WU assesthe damageand
risksthat wouldhave stemmedhm the OnginalProject
lrnking the Gakikovo and Nagymaros sectorsand its
associatpeak-modeoperation,
SectioC (pzmgmphs 5.94-5.126)wilfucusonthatdamage
and risksensuhg hm SlovMs unilateraopration of
varianC.
5.04. Threeprelhhary commentsmustbemade. Eirsrandmost
importanttheassessrneof complexrisksiaprojectofthihsd isa
dif5cuitaskw,ithmanyuncerbhties.The taskisaninterdXsciplinary
one, which involves seismolo,yhydrology,hydrobiology,water
chemistry, sedimenttransporivermorphology, thesoi1 scienees,
fo~sûy, biology, eçolog, environmentimpact assesment, and
economics(includingenvitomentaieconomics).Althouahgreatdeai
of dataexists,the procosassembly andintegrationia sourceofdifficulty. Manyofthe most serioupotentiaproblemshave a time
scale rneasmd in decades ratherthan years or months -- not
sqrisingly, sincetheyreltoeanaturasystembuiltupoverthousands
ofyears.
5.05. These problemswere underscorecby two Slovak scientists
workingon groundwaterissues:
"Theproblernsn the...ma aee cornplexbecaus thepund
water isnot only influencedbyoperationof thehydxaulic
st~~ctureIndis connectionthe waterpIays amcial
mle,notonlyfor thedrbkhg water supplybutforecological
questio asswell. The problemsareexmmdinady cornplex,
interdisciplinyntheirbasisuniquehm the experpointof
viewand ofextremeimportanc...."l
5.06. Infac he researcprojecthattheyaredescribinrelat ody
totheSiovakside,althougitisnecessa ryobservetheoveraliimpact
on thewholeregion,becaus environmentailmpactisnot cohed by
intemationalboundaries.
5.07. A second generadXficuZty,relatetsthe rateof change
hposed ontheregionthroughhumanactivityantheapplicatioofnew
techology, againstthe.backgroundof substantiaichanges imposed
through riverregdation beginrilïiginthe mid-nineteenthcentury.
Natwralsystems are by dennftion not staticand the extent of
anthmpogenicchangeovm thepast30 yearshas imposedconsiderable
streson theenvironmenatndnaturdsystemsoftheregion.
5.Q8. Third t,is accounisnecessarilpvisiod. VariantC has
been Ui operatiocinlyfora singe growhg season:at the timeof
completionofthiMs ernorit,esecondgro- seasonisabouttostart.
Every seasonhasits ownmial feam, anddata compiied hm a
singleseasonareofMted predictivevalue.Forexample,50-100 years
of recordmay bec01lsiùmd inadequate to characterise hyhbgical
variabilit. IthougVariantC wodd causehann roHmgaryhowever
pted, the extentof hm dependson theactualwatermanagement
regime,includinthelevelsofwaterfluctuatiandthedischargelevels.
There isnosigntiaaSlovakiais wiUintacomplywithits cornmitment
1 See1 Mucha& EPauiikova,"GromdWaterQualittheDanubiaLawland
DownwardfsroBratisla(1991l(5)EavopeanWatPollutiConrrol1at
p 16Annexes, 5,amex11.toape onandimplernentaninterirnwatermanagement~gime.~ Ifthis
were doneshurtiy ,twould certaidy reducethe damage.
5.09. Forthese Rasonsthis Chapter' smding arein thenatune of an
interimreport.A furiherand moredetaiIed reporton thescientificissues
wiiilx presented intheHungarianCounter-Mernoria bl, sedonMer
sixdiesand datacofiectedinthecurrentseason.
SECTION A: THE AFFEC'ïEDREGION
5.10. As explained inChapter1$ the affectedregion consistsofan
area extendhg from justbelow Bratislavato jusabve Budapest.More
speciflcally, it consistof two main sectors,correspondhg to the
locationsof the two mainBarrages of the OriginaPmject: Dunalditi-
Gakikovo and thesurroundina grea,in paticuiar theSzigetkoz,in the
upstream sector,andNngymaros and itssurroundsi,ncludhg Budapest
inthedownstremsectorn4
* TheRunahiliri-Gabcikov sectorcontainsapproximately 8,000
hectaresof interconnected fimdplain biotopes(flora andfana
uniquelyadapted tu theirenvironment)and the largestpotable
groundwaterreserve inEuropeofqiiali Thyeimportance of the
aIluvialorestsandplains toHungary andSlovalllaand itinterest
ta the rest of the wurld is evidenced by the number of
organisationswhiçh have undertakencomparativestudies to
analysethe effectof theBarrageSystem'on theregion.5
2 Seeabovepara2.10forthe obligationunderAroftheSpiai Agreementto
implemenanintenmwatermanagemenr tegime;sparas3.187-3.223forthe
mt historyofnon-coqbance withobligation.
3 Seeabve,paras1,O-1.14.
4 SeeMapsNos1,2,3; Annexes,ol2.
5 Seee.g.Equi~ Cousteau, heFinuReport,TheDanube..fw Whomad For
Wknt, &kch 1993f)iereinaftercalledViReport"(gemratreportanalysing
thsituationdontheentiDanukRiver, inwhichthGdxikovo Dam reportis
summarised).xcaptsfrotheFind Reporappea rtheAnnexes,vol5, gnnex
16.TheEquipeCousteaReportwasprepareinseverstagespursuatoa 1991
contrawith theEumpeanBankfor Reconstmctionandïkvelopmen@RD).
The ReportsailfocusontheDanube RiverSec TheDanube .forWhom and
ForWhr?. TheGokibvo Dam: A TextbokCase.September1992(hereinafier
ded "SeptJ99?Report");nnexes,ol5,annex12.(focusingothDam); The
Danube.. r WhomandForWht?, TheGabciRovDo am:ATextbookCase..A
SilrwofRemes oftheD& Bend (Sept1992)focuçinexclusiveonthe
reçomes of tDanube) ;eealsWald WildlifeFun&A NewSolutionforthe
Danube: WWF Srnementon th EC MissidnReportoftheWorktngGroup of
Monitoringand Manageme~tEqerts and on the OverailSituatiof the * Within theNagymaros sectorbd-filteredwater provid e0%
ofthewater forBudapestH, ungary'csapitalwithovertwo mifion
inhabitans.This isalso the richestareain Hungaryhm the
perspectivofhisroryand arçhaeology
5.11. Muchof thedarnage andmmy of the risksaddressedin this
Chapter stem from demases inwater quanti^and thedeterioratioof
watexqudity. Apart fiom obvious direceffectson aquatX ccosystems
and surCaceandgoundwaterresources, these areintricatelconnected
with the qualltyandfefity of soil, and,inmm, affect agriculture,
foresby,floraandfauna, thatisto say,theentire ecoIogicdbalanceof
theregion. A cycleof ecologicd deprivationhascomenced, withan
esçalatineffectontheenvironmentc ,haracm and Iifoeftheregion,
5.12. A majorproblemin an impact assessrnentof construction
projem ondluviaIfloodplauis and forestsisthatthe interactionof the
riverand theaquaticandterrestrialabitatsof thefloodplaincomprises
one of the most compbx, highly diverse, constantly interacting
ecologicalsystemsT.heyincludeninning riverand theiractivebranches
and tributarie;tagnan tatersconnectedpermanentIo yrperiodkdly to
the river;tempo~arywaters; andterrestrial plantassociatiothatare
accustomed to variableflooding @O&. The diversityoffloodplain
landscapesand the comrnunitie shatIiveon them aredue,in part,to
annual and sezlsonal hydrdogical fluctuations, emsion, and
sedimentation.6
5.13. Nonethelessg, iventhathe waterdischargetotheDanubehm
the Gabcikovo reservoihasdtopped from theaverageof 2000m3Js to
approximatel y00-350m3/s itisclearthat,soonafterimplementatioof
Gakibo Hydro&m Projecr,13Deambe1993(kehfm ded "1993WWF
Sturment");Annexesvol 5annex 20; Hydro-QuébeIntematiwaRapport
sapiniosur certaiaspectdupr~jec&ectantla misen eptoitmio& la
centralGakibo ('Deamber1990)@meiriaftLled Hydro-QuibeShrdy);
Annexes v,l5, annex9; SlovakUnioofNaîm andLandscapehtectors,
Damhg theDade, March1993; Amexes,vol 5, annex1ûtherstudienot
reproduoeditbArviexeincludeWorldWildliFundDusProjekrGobcikovo-
Nagpuros-ArrJwirbn aqenNmr und Nalauha~~hat(The Gobcikovo-
Nagynwos Projec--ImpactonNatureandEnvironmen(November1986)and
WorldWildlifFundStelIungnaIeesWWF ZumStaustztfen-Prot akikovo-
Nagywos (kssessmnof theWWFfor the G&iho.Napros Bmrage
Project(Augus1989).
6 EquipeCousteaFi& Reportp 31Annexes,ol5,annex16.VariantC, substantiadamage has ~ccurred.~ A lettehm the EC
Experts8dated10 Febmary 1994,whichresponded tothe 8 February
1994 Slovakrejectionothe EC recommendationfsoran hterirnwater
management regime and inpartida- to Slovakiasuggestionthatno
damagehadbeendemonstratec i,id,interaria:
"... every expertinthe restof Europe wilregardit as a
signifîcantecologicaldamaitheaverage dischargofa river
is reduceto about20%ascompared tonaturaconditionsif
4,500ha ofalluvialfmsts areseized (seethe Fauna-Flora-
HabitatDirectivof the CEC [Commissionof theEuropean
Communities])i,thme isareductioof thenaturaluctuations
ofthe gound and surfacewaterlevels nearltozero and so
on."9
5.14. Thiscomment wasnoteworthyin lightof thfnctthathe EC
Data ReportsandRecommendation "sunderestimaendeven ignorethe
waniing signs of the environment that indicatethe inmeashg
degradationafte rne ye." tu Hungary.l"eir conclusionsoften
understatethe true extentof damage.In addition,their analysisof
enviromentai consequenc isslimited, dueto staff andresource
co~ts.'"
(1) PANQRA OMFTHE NATUM LHARA-TECS OFTHE
AEFEm REGIONS
5.15. The tenitory affeçtbytheOriginalhject and operationof
Variant C is a large alluvialplain borderithe Danube,rich in
floodplainforestsandweâlands,andpossessingabeautifullandscape.
The two main sectm that would havebeenaffectedby the Original
Roject correspontotlir meejorareainHtmgary: (a)theSzigetkoza
375 squarekilometrare between themainnavigationaclhannelofthe
7 SeMap No7foraFlowRatCharr;Annexvol 2.
8 Seeabovparas,187-3.2foanexpladon ofELinvolvementthedispute
betweeIovakianHmw.
9 L&er hm Mr J khreiner, ProfeandrHead of the Norddeutscben
NatushuidmdemiaadHeadoftheECExpertsGrout,Mr P Benavides,EC
bkmr Gend ofExterndPoliticalReiatiFebniar1994,p Annexes,
vo4, amex 139. ïhis fromthEC ExpertwasanopinioontheSlovak
mpme tthemommendatimsofthEC WorkinGrouponaTwiporarWater
ManagemeRtegime.
10 199WWF Sment, p3;Annexe,ol5annex20.
11 1993W Statunep4; Annexevol5annex20.Danube and the Moson Danube;1 () the DanubeValley, which
encornpassesthe ma downstrearn from the SzigetkGzto the Danube
Bend ma; and (c) Budapest and the Danube Bend area,the latter
includingEsztergom, Nagymaros and Visegrid,conrlnuing downstream
tothe northem partofSzentendrI esland,andBudapest.
(4 TheSzigetkoz
5.16.
TheSsigetküzis pefhaps themost specialof thethree mas: it
consistsof ntiraidedçhannelsystemonan alluvialcone ,fan-shaped
deposit,mainiyfomed by couse sediment hm Alpine streams. The
SWgetkoz (togttherwithZitnyOstrov)fms thelastmajor idand delta
in Europe,the remnantofan ancientinner deltaofthe Danubeof three
millionyearsago.13
5.17. The alluvialzonesshelterintheDanube River aresomeof the
richestnaturalregionsin Europe in teimsofblodiversityb, iamassand
productivity. AEthough theycover las than one percent of theentire
Danube basin area,14 theb variety of habitatsallows for extensive
diversity. The fluctuation of the water level promotes active
mineraiisationand recyclingof organicmatter,allowing for highes
productivitythaninmorestableaquaticorterrestriaclonditions.
5.18. Alluviaifloodplainplay.avitalroleinthesuppor tystem ofa
river.A 15varietyofflora andfaunadevelopthere,depding on the
floodplainfor migrationconidors,for spawning and asrefuges hm
12 Ofttiis,appmximate280130s0quarliIometrewauldsufferfiaa dmp in
grounwateranda decliinagricultuproductionSeemapof Environmental
Impt ha, Map NO 9;Annexes,vol2.
13 EquipfiusteauFinalReport,p 2Amiexesvol5,anne16.
14 EquipCousteauFinalReport,p3Amiexes,vo5,annex16.
15 Resuiîderivefrom m h &ed outon theSlavak sidof theDanube
floodplahdhîe tha he phytwaiizoophkton intheDanube sidamisare
highlyproductade antribute theproductivofthemainehannelbecause
planlboiswashedoutofthefidplain çhanneldinfnthenxding of flood
watersPreliminaesultotainedfromforestfldplainsystemof thSouth-
eastemçoasoftheUSA showthattttorganimatteinputfromthefl&plain
inttheriveouhveig theprimarproductiooftheriveand areofthesame
impormm astheinputshm thupstrea wsttershT.he~epresenasubstanthi
foodsom sustaintherivericommuuitiesE CasteIJ,FFniget,Amoros,
& AL Roux,Las FonctiondesZunesHumideJ et deMilieuAquatiquedes
Plaines AlluvieneRelatioavec leCours Principdes Fiemes, mer
RapportInterniédhlaFondaiioCousmu, pp394 (Jmwuy1992).pollutionThe plainsalsoserveasprotectiofrom floodingby slowing
thepaceof the waterflowandprovidingthe waterwith spacto spread
out. The vegetationdong theriverbanksand in theplaingenerates
friction,furtherslowingthe ws speed, and itswater retention
capacitydecreasesdownstreamfloodlevels.I6
5.19. Alluvial floodplains,andespecidy alluvialforescreatea
most efficiensystem of waterpurificationandrecyclingof organic
mattex. Accordingto Quipe Cousteau,"theassimilationof nu~ents
(phosphatesnitratesbyterreshaland quatic plantEifeinthealluvial
plainoffersanimportanbtw-costandefficienmeans topmfy notoniy
thewaterof the rivbutalso thegroundwater."17Thenatura ldte~g
capacityoftheriverbecanprovidehighqualitydrinkuigwaterforlarge
populations.
5-20. The activealluvialfloodplain theGabciIrovosectorcovers
approximateI y,00 0ectaresontheHungarian sideand23,000hectares
on theSlovakside.lThis alluviaifioodpla, owthreatenebyVariant
C,is oneof the fewof its sizeremahhg intacinCentraiandEastern
E~ope.~9Its diversehabitatsina cornpamtivelysmd areadlow for
riçhspeciesdiversity.2At least3030% of aU speciesof Hungarian
fioraandfauna arepresentintheSzigetko~ Th~eailmialqder fed
by theDanubeextendsforappmximately 750 squh ontheHungarian
sideof theriver. ThewaterintheaquiferontheHungarian sidetatals
5,000 millionm3 wt ofthe 12,000millionm3 which isshd with
Slovakia,and isthelargesdrinkingwaterreserveof Hungary.Soils,
agriculturand naturaecosysgms throughoutthlmsater areadepend
on gmund waterlevelsandhenceon Danubeflows.
5.21. Owingtoitsspecialfeatures,theSzige&ozhas~quefresh
water andterrestrialEauna,botin temu of rare@es andspecies
combinationand composition. The main Stream of the Szigetkoz
belongstothe sub-montanezoneof theriver.Ithasa siopegradienof
40 centimems a Uometre and a mean velocity ofapproximately2
EquipCousteauFUzaleporpp172-74;Annexesvo5,annex16.
16
17 EquipeCousîea, inalRepor13Annexesvol5,amie16.
18 EquipeCoustea,inaiRepor29; Annexe,ol5,mex 16.
19 Fora discussioftheincreaslossofEumpm flodplaiforestseE L
Wmger, A Zinke ,tK A Gubweiler'%sent Sidon of theEuropean
Fldptetie Foresi(199033/34ForeEcologMdMunagemen t-12.
20 SeeAVida:A@ix No2;see&O FMészhs;Appendi No 1.
SeeFMészhs;Appwdix No 1.
SImetresper second,provildinhabitatforrar speciesaZ2Of thefauna
present inthe Szigetkoz,threehundred species are protected, either
pursuantta the BernConvention?3theHungarian Red Book24or the
EndangerdSpeciesCon~ention.~ Szigetktiz wili suonbeincluded in
theRamsarConvention becaus oefits importancasan"ovemintering
area"for aquatic bi~ds.~~ Currently some 10,000-12,000 duch
oveminter there, includhg a nurnberof threatened or endangered
specie~.~Its inclusioninthe EmportantBird Areas Project isalso
iniminent,2*
5.22.
In theSzigetkothereare96 speciesofcnistacean(outof 150
presentin Hungary),2% species ofbirds(of which 166 speciesare
protected)11 speciesof amphibia,md alargenumbr of othertaxa,
many includuïpmtected or endangeredspecie~ . ~~ice-age reliet
Microtusoeconomus , veryrarespecieswhichis0th-e only fond
in northem Europe,dso exists herem30 There is an unusudiy high
number ofspeciesofrnoUuçcs.
5.23. 65 speciesof fish,constituti80% ofthe nativeHmgarian
fuh species,maybefoundin the Szigetkoz.3One speciesislistedin
Appendix IioftheBernConventi~n~ and30(40% of listespecies)are
A Vida;AppendNo 2.
CdnvaitioontheConservatnfEuropeaWildli ne NatuaHabitat, em,
19Seprembe1r97ETS 104.
Hungion RedBook(1989).
ConventioonEntdmal Tradein EndangerdSpecies,Washing3hh,
1973;993UNTS 243(1973).
ConventioonWetlandsfIntenifiofmpmce, 9% UNTS 245(1979).
F M-s; AppendiNo 1.
R FA GrimmetandT A JornImportantirAreasinEurope,CBPTechnical
PublicatiNo9(CambridgU,K1989).
F M&szBtoAppendiNo 1.Orheinvaluabspe& canbefouadinthi~gion,
my ofwhichae~~ orshreatenForexamplethcmam 45-es of
odonatawhi& c~nstitmsm thanonehalofthosep t in Hungary1124
spseieoflepidoptua,42 specofnempbmidea, andapproxmiate2,,OMl
speciesofMes. ibid.
AppendixilIists 580 stnprotecŒ@es offauna"whichmusrnotbe
capnid, killexploitor intentiodly dimindany wayortheihabitabuichded in Appendix III. 313fish specie(32% of Hungarianfish
species)are listedinthe Corine Bioropes Manual pubfishedby the
Commission oftheEuropean Communities.34
Table 1
Comparativeichthyofaun analyssof theSzigetkozwatertype35
wakr types Total Numberof Nurnber
in Szigetkijz namber threatened of
offish species species
species endang-
eredin
Empe
Main 57 41(72%) 14
stteam (25%)
Flood plain
backwaters
Irrigation
Disconnec-
ted
backwaters
Moson-
Danube
-
intuferwith.Conventionthe-on ofEumpea WniIdlifeaNatural
bbitatçBem,19Septembe1979ETS 104.
33 Appwidixïiï i"spiesoffama whichmm bepmwtd, butforwhicsome
buntinmaybeauthmised". onventonthConsmationofEuropeaWildlife
andNanaalHabita,ern ,9Septemkr1979El3104.
34 niisisamualsettingforthlistsofthreaPenedspecieshan&orttoiden~md
descrioonsistenfitesofmajimpmtmcefornaturcamemationLtsliof
fsh includspeeiconsiderendaegmedandwhierablebywious instî~es
andmes.5.24. The Szigetkois qually richinflom. AU the planspecies
charackstiç of fioodplainsare present. There are near-na@
associationof forests,one of which,DerékForest, has not changed
since1930. Approximatel70 floodplaiplanassociationarepresent,
ofwhich 17% areconsideredhighlyvaluablfroma natureprotection
perspective.Acconhg tobotmicalsurveysofment years,morethan
one-thirdofHW's vascuiarplantspecieare found here, whichis
remarkableconsiderinitsmd area.Treesthatonlyexistinwetland
areasaïepresen om,eofwhichare quiteuncommoninEurope because
fewwetlands rem&. Thereisalsoone ofthefew swiving hardwood
ripariaforestinEurope.37Manyof theforests,especialthepoplars,
areofprimaryeconomicvaluetoHugary's foresihdusîry.
ib)TheDanubeVaIIey
5.25. TheDanubeValleyconsistsoftheintençivefarmedKisaIfold
(LittlI-Iungarinlain),thsteepw,oodedPilisHlll and historaînd
archaeologid sitesThe NagyrnarosBarragewould haverequiredthe
reinfoxcementndextensionofleveesalon&th banhsof theDanube to
contaithe waterfluctuatiosesultifPom peakpow production. If
theproposalto impoundtheentireareahabeenadopted,the&lands in
theriveswouidhave beensubmerged andthe remainingripariazones
destroyed.
(cJThe Danube Bend and Budapest
5.26. Over timetheDanubehasearved and shapedthelandscapeof
steepbillcms and gorgesoftheDanubeBe&. Thesize andspeedof
tfireverasitsweepsthroughtheFis andBonsonyhighlands provides
apanorama unmatchedinNungary. On rhisbendisthecitofVise%r$d,
now facingthecoffedam ofNagy~nrns.~~ Thespecidcharacterofthe
Danube Bend area has ken Intemationally~opked and the Pilis
36 SeeFM-; AppendiNo 1.
37 SeeFMkhs; AppendiNo1. Hmgaq"fioodplainforeurrwitlycomprise
onl4.6%ofalIungahmfmsts.Znthela20 yms approximatynethkof
Himgariaorestshadis- incluâi, riman, hard-wooforesEL.
Wenger, A Zinke, K A Gutzweile"PreseSnttuatconthe Eianpean
FloodpIaForestn(19903313ForestEcoloandMawgemed 5-12,at11.
38 SeeAnnexes,v5lPhotoNos29,30,31.distrihas been designateas aWorldBiosphereReserve.39 Hungary
hasplansfora newnationaparkin thePilisandBorzsonyhighiands.
5.27. More than90% of water used by Budapest isbank-filtered
waterproduçedfromtheDanube. This iça vitalnatural resouxInthe
36 kilometresectionothe Danube betweenNagymaros andBudapest,
thereare17waterworks,whichproducemore than700,000m3 ofwater
per day,amounting ta60% percentof thetotalwaterproductionfor
Budapest's2,000,000inhabitantsand its industnaluse. Budapest
accountsforone-thirdofHungarywsaterusage,
5.28. The Danube Bend retains deep btoric and cdtural
associati~ns.~Itfomed thenortheastemborderof theRomanEmpire
at itheightin the1st-4thcenhes CE. Xtwas a cenfreof He and
culturedwhg theearlyArpadianDynastyhm 997-1301,andimportant
sitesmain hm Uiisperiod.Inthe MiddleAgesit was theseatofthe
Hungariankings a:EsztergomintheDanubeValleyfiom970-132 and
Mer atVisegr6dintheDanubeBend from 1323-1405.The niuisof the
castlandsummerpalaceof KingMAty6s (1458-1490),whaduringhis
reignsuccessfulheldback theTurksa, rhere.
5.29. The Danube Bend dso importanthm a natureprotection
perspectiveA largenumberofbkds overwintertherefaunatypicalof
thewet habitats hve therasweU asariun aolmunitiesof thedry-
warmsand and slope-ste arpes.Remnantpatcfiesof aiiuviahard-
woudriparianfures survivon isolatedsectionsothe Danubeshore.
Homtypicalof wet habitatsasweii asof drhabitatsexistincluding
manypies valuablefromaspeciescompositioperspective.41
SECTION B:DAMAGE AND RXSK ASSOCIGTED WiTB THE
ORIGINAL PROJECT
5.30. The 1977Treatyenvisageda dam atDumkilîtiandan&cial
channelto supply thepower plant ofthe Gaixikova barrage,and a
38 EcologiandMFûRT, Gabeikova-NagymrBarrageSM. ProgrpmOptions
and Impmts {I~teReponJMay 1989(repobprqmedattherequestof the
HungariaGwemmentandParliametyateamofAmericanscientists,enginers.
ecwomists.plameandlawyerasernbledbyEcolounderthesupervisionof
INFORT , Hungarinornpy engageintechnolodevebpmentandtransfer)
@meinaitdled EcologInterîmReport),p47;Ann,ol5,annex6.
40 SeeArcheoIogii apMapNo 8;Annexe,ol2.
41 SeeF Mész8to; ppendNo 1.furtherbarrage and power plant at Nagy~naros.~T~he peak-mode
operationplannedforGabcikovo woddhaveproducedlargesurge sf
water diningparticdar timesof day.The waterflowingthrough the
DanubeValleywouldhavehadsi@cant ddy fluctuationsinveiocity
andlevel. Thewaterlevelsattheupperendof theNagymaros reservoir
atPdkovicovo would havefluctuated4.38 metreevery day, aneven
50 ldometresdownsBream hm the Gabcikovopower stationthe water
wouldhave fluctuatedmorthan onemetre daily. Toprotecthe river
bankl,arge levees wouldhavebeen builorreinforçedugstreamfrom
Nagymaros.43
5.31. Ininiroducing a descriptionofthe cornpleximpacton the
DmuWshydrologîca lystema,few generarem& are appropriate.
5.32. There is a direct connectionbetween surfacewater and
groundwater.Impactoneither wiLZhaveeffectsonthe other.At least
fivefactorsarrelevant.
5.33. FirsttheimpactareaoftheOriginaRl ojectincorporatsyfar
thelargesbank EiZW waterresourceinEurope,as we haveseenT .his
not onlypvides alargeproportionof Hungary'sment watersupply,
but dso tepresentsa majorrtnused reserve of national stmegic
importance. At presentthedrblchg waterproduced by thesenatural
fdte rquirespracticalyotreatment.
5.34. Secondly,exphence isnot availablforbarragesystemsof a
comparable sizewithby-passchanneisand peak operationmode. For
example,damsonthe upperDanube and the Rhine areeithermuch
smallerorofdiffant design.
5-35, Thid, theconceptioof theProjecgoes badctothe 1950s,its
design tothe 1960s andearly 1970s. There have ken dy minor
cofiectionssince. Inotlikelythatanyonewoulddesig tnheProjeetin
this mamer today, given cumt understandingof potentid
environmenta mpact. HaWrg buila damontheRhine atIffezheh in
1969G ,errna nnydFrancewere planningtoconsmet a Mer one at
Neubwgweiher (an agreementto thiseffecthad ben concludedin
42 SeeMq Campkg OnginairojectVariant,Mq No 5Annexes,vol2.
43 Seedso descripabovepara1-06-1.1andSirmmarJoinContraau:lan;
Annexes,ol3anne x4.1976). Butthe partiesdecidetobreaktheviciousçirclof correcthg
the negative impactsof a barrage by building a Mer barrage
downstreamandogtedfm the controlleadditionof riverbedmaterial
with the use of specially-des barnes.To achieve ecologicd
iaiprovementsndsaferfloodcontrol,econnectioofthefloodpIaiand
thechanne1isoccming on theRhine,
5.36. Fourth,manyrelevaritxamplescm bequotedof adverswater
qualitimpactsfrom existingreservojandsimilar~chemes.~ Tu take
one exampleof longer terneffectsexperiencegainedin connection
wih theirnpoundingoftheMosellehasshown thatchangesinthewater
quaiitfrom infdtrationgallehave beenobsewwi witha delayof520
10 years.Monitorinanddiscussionoftheresultsledtotheconclusion
that,dthough there are advantages to fiver impoundments,the
disadvantagefromreducedgroundwatea rndaquiferdynamics asweU
asthepotentiaenhancemeno tfeutrophicatinutweighthesetoa large
extent.
5.37. Fifih,theresemoirsothe plmed Rojectwould have ken -
andthe now existingmervoir actuallyis- subjecto pollutionbya
number ofdirectsewagedischargeandhighIypoUutedtributarie. his
is conbnrytobasicdesignprincip anedwillexacerbatemany of the
adverseeffects observefor0th schemes. Theimpaundmeno tfthe
waterinreservoirinmeasestheresidenctime,whichlu toincreased
sedirnentatioand clogging. This is accompaniedby increased
transpatencyof thewaterbody,which EogetPleriththehighnuaient
concentratiointheDanube waterleadstopotentieutwiphication. he
gmwth and the decay in algdbiomassincreasesthe depositionof
organicmaterialwithan assmisitereductioof Stration from the
-ou tothegroundwater.Thehîgher organimateridcontentof the
sediment and a shif to anaerobicconditionsmay reieaseiron,
mangrnese and ammonium intothesubsrrrfaweaters,causinthelatter
todeteriorate.
5.38, Indimcteffectçmust&O lx considemi. For example,peak
power productiowouldhave createdsignificawaterqualxtyproblems
for certaintrÎbutari,ith thriverreversingcorne dailyandwaste
waterbackingUP.~~
44 P Liebe, Enviromentol-Ec0101flectof rhe Gabcikovo-Nagymros,
Sdswfke Waterz AppendNo3.
45 L. Somly&dy"ApplicatiofSysterhdysiisin Watts PollutConbol:
ferspectrfoCentralanEasternEiwpe"(1991)24 (WaterScienceand
Techbgy 73-87. (4 Dunakillti-Hruso veservoir
5.39. The OriginalRoject envisaged a largerupper reservoirof
appmximately 60 squarekm, includingtheheadrace canal,whereasthe
Cunovoreservoiras operatedbySlovakiaisabout 30% smaller.
5.40. The riskof damage associateci itthereservofl includes a
number ofelements.
The organiccontentofthe Danube water anditsnumient state
5.41.
renderitunfitforretentionina reservoir.In additionbacterialogicd
contaminatioisknown to occurAs stateinarecentstudy:
"Dataof special targetexaminatiuns,carrjed out recentl,
limitedinthe butextendingto a greatnumk of parameters
show,thattheinvestigatesegment oftheDanubeis affectedby
s~ong poliutionof anthropogeni(communal, agriçuitmi and
industrialorigin.. mrom thebacteriologiçaiointof view
thewaterof the Danubecan be quaISed asking inverybad
condition(inthe rangeof 6 classe isb,elongsto the V-Vi
clas "47
5.42. Itisiikelythatthe surfacewaterqualityof thereservoirwould
deteriorateespecidy in dry years and summer periods due to
eutrophication.Itisestiniatethatthealgd biomasscouldbedoub1ed
andpeak chiorophyll-aconcentrations could exceed 200mg/rn3.Q8
Although themst importantimplicationrelateto groundwateqruality,
the impW surfac weaterquality wouldhave had WW serious
impactsdownsm, forexample,whm thewater wodd haveentered
themainDanubesection. Itwauld aisohave prohibit4 theuseof the
reservoiformational purposes.
5.43.
One of the most seriousrislrof the impomdmwt is the
contaminationofthe grave1aquiferklow SWgetkrizandZiény Osso~.~9
4 Mostofthechangereferrtoithhsub-sectialsoppitoVariantC.
47 VTïiKI Hydrologiclnstim, vaIuatoftheWateQualioofrheHungwian-
CzechosimaùSectiooftheDanubein RewuchesontheBankElteredWater
Bases.SubsiPfaceWatSuppliesandBiologicalTurnofSubstancesin the
DanubeandSzigetkoz,Appen1,p7(March1993).
48 L. Sdyody, "AppIicatiofSystemsAndysisinWaber PollutionContd:
PerspiiveforCeiiW andUern Europe"(1981)î4(6) WaterScienceand
Technoiog73-87.
49 SeeThidmessMapoftheNear-SurEacquifer,MaNo11andThiehess Mapof
the MainAquifer,MNo 12;Annexe,ol2.Thisis liketo bea longtermprocesstakingsome decades. The result
couldbe, however, tfiaa 12,000 million m3drinkingwaterreserve
rnighthome unusabIe,because treatment of the water, even if
technicallyfaible (whichis open todoubt)wouId be prohibitiveIy
expensive.The 5,000 millionm3 Hungarian parof this reservehaa
water exploitatiopotentiaof 0.5-1 muion m3 per day. This is
recognisedastheonlylarge-scaldrhhg water reserveforthecountry
in the Nationd Water ManagementFrameworkPlan of i9X4.
Approximatel9y0%of thewaterinthequifer isuppliedby the flowing
Danube --and notby lmd preçipitatioandInfiltratioThus he six
andqualityof the undergroundresewe,previousIydetemined by the
infi2tratihm themain armof theDanube andto alesseextenthm
thesidebranches ,iiidepend onthe new patterof rechargehm the
reservoiandriverchannels.50
5.44. Thedangerofharmful impactsof the ïesemoir ongoundwater
was recognisedby the WorkingGroup of IndependentExparts on
VariantC of the Gabcikovo-NagymaroP sroject. ItsReport of 23
November 1992statethatundercertaiconditions...
"dueto eutrophicaiiointhe dowflst~~apartof thereservoir
thegroundwateq rualityis mostlikeltube fheatened atthe
SamorinWater Works,whichproduces about40% ofthe water
supplyforBratislava.Thithreais associatetosedimentation
ofarganicmateriddue tostagnan taterand algaegrowth in
the dowmtreampart of the reservoir. A Iayerof organic
matenalatthereservoirbed,from whm theamtion tothe
quifer takes pIace,may resultin anoxic groundwater
conditions.Hencethie ffect maybe serioustartingwith the
growthseasonduringthe1993 summer."5'
5-45. Oeheradverseeffectsarexpectedto resultfimmchangestothe
pundwater flowregimecausedby thereservoir. ncreasgrdundwater
rechargewilJaccurdue ta on throughthe bed ofthe reswvoir,
50 Figure8iLiebeEnvimmeiltal-EcologEfectsftheGabcikovo-Na%yms
ProjecQbsifaceWatersApndix No3 illusmtethe obsermovementof
tritifmmthe Danubintothquifeovera30-yeapaiod.hisausefulguide
tothethne-scofcontaminmtveF.
51 Commissioonf tEumpeanÇommunitiesCzechandSIovaFedemiRepubsic,
RqmbliçofH-, WorkingGrriofIn&pcndenExpertonVarianCofthe
Gabcikwo-Nagynrarsmject,23Novanbe1982p 37Annexes,vo5,annex
14.althoughthisis expectedto reducedue to sedimentati~n.~~Direct
impacts of contaminationfrom recharge waterhave ken noted.
Hawever, inmases ingroundwatelevelsandchangesinflowpathsmay
also resultin inmased pollution of groundwaterhm domestic,
agiculturalandindustrilources.
5.46. A primatyconcer wasthereductionof discharto themain
Danubechanne1 downstsem of thereservoirandthepatternofwater
releasetootherriversandsidechannels,uponwhich thetiydrologyof
theSzigetkozde~ends?~
5.47. The flushing of the reservoir wouldre-suspendsedimented
materialleadhg to aconcentratedout£lowof (micro)pollutansnd
otherhazardoums aterials.
5.48. In the reservoiof the0rigjna.Projectapproxllnatel4-5
milliontonsof sedimenpm yearwere expectedtobe depositeddueto
the decreaseinaveragedischargeflowvelocityfrom approximatyl.0
m/s to0.11 m/s. Its organicmattercontentestimatedtohavebeen
ktween 13-15%,mîginatinrnostlyhm decayedplanctonicorgaiiisms
and sedimentalorganic p~uutants.~~However,toxic materials and
heavymetalswouldhave alsaccumdated inthesediment,whichcodd
have requirespecificmatment afta being dredgedanddepositedas
hazardousinchtrialwasteThe JointContractual landidnotprovide
forproperdisposal.
5.49. The establishmentof the ~eservoiwas tu lead to the
disappeara ofcehepreviousriver ecosystem,which occupiedthe
tenitoxy,destroyiislmds,sidebrancheand wetlands.
TheHydrologyof theSzigetkozRegion
(b)
5.50. Thesection belowthedam ofthe uppe reservoir(hukibti
underthe OnginaiRoject; Cnnovounder VariantC) and thejunction
bsweeri theby-passcanaiand themain riverbed('Palkovicovo)the
ody sectionofthePtojectwhese impoundmen toes not ocm but a
drasticdeclease in water dischargetakes place. Boththe water
managemenr tegimeasenvisagedby theJointConmd PIanari hat
practisedineonnectionwith Vahant C are bmd to have a large
negative impact on the hydmlogid conditionsof the Szigetkoz,
52 Seeabove,ar5.43.
53 'ïhezissuesdiscussd10winpara5.42.
54 Efhs ofarganicdegradaonrechargaowqualihavebeediscussabove
inpara5.42-5.43.impairingagriculturf,oresnandfisherieitsrecreationalvalasweIl
asits unique natvralvalue and biological diversityThis section
concentratesnthesurfaceand subsurfacwaters.S5
5.51. Hydrologicalconditionsof the Szigetkoz areessentially
determinedby theDanube'sflow tfiroughe mostelevatedsequenceof
itsfluvial fain ahanghg channel. Water fieringintotheriverhi
percolatesin a south-south-d eirsctionestabfishinga direct
relationshibetweenthe waterdischargeand water level in themain
riverbedandthe subswfacewatersofthe Szigetküz.Inshort there as
singleintegratentiv ofsurfacandpmd water.56
5.52. Thepotentidforadversechanges inthequanti9andquaiîtyof
surfacewatersfilterhg inthe groundhas been mention4alreadyin
comectlon with the Dunakjiiti-HRisoresewoir.sf Under naturd
conditionsthenvehed itselisthemajorsourceof atration,as areits
frequentlflushedside hanches. The annualaveragedischargeof the
Danubein thi sectionwas approximatel2,000 m3/s. UndertheJoint
ContracnialPlan, this watoberadvced to50 m31s.The Planwas
subsquentlyamen& to dow for a200 11131isscharge.Reductionof
thisorder(85-9796ofaverageflow) wouldhave lowereéthe depthsof
surfacewater,reducethearealextenof surfacwaterand thr isuseda
drastidecreasein theamount of kfdtraaon. Inaddition,diminished
waterdischargealsochangesthedirectionofgroundwatefrlow;instead
ofking a sourceof idtration, tmainchme1 now actsasa drain.
Shouldthe averagedischarge returnto themain chamel, infiltration
would be limiteddue to sedimentdeposition(colmatationoccurruig
duringthetimesofdiminishedwaterdischarge.
5.53. Chmicd changesassociat widh sedimentdepositionare
anticipamisimilartothosedeshbed above forresemoirsedimentation.
Eutrophicatiooccmhg inthe si& brancheandthe inmased organic
Ioadin thewaterleavingthe reservoiwill fmheraffectthequaIityof
thewater entehg thesubswfacesystem. Sincetheundergroun wdater
moves"latdy" at relative6highspeed(300-400 metriesperyear),
and sincethis movement occm in a south-south-esstediredon on
theHungariansi&of the Danube,waterinfdtratithmugh themervoir
Bedas wellaswatw coming hm themainDanube channe1endupin the
Hungarian aquifeunderthe Szigetkoz.Thus ,oththedecreasedwater
55 OthecomeqmceswiU bediscussseparatyehw.
56 Hungah GeologicaSiweyGeologiclettiofthSzigetko993)p34.
57 seeabove,para5.43-5.45.supplyand its toxic qualiaremely to impairthe potabiliof the
watm storedin thSzigetkozaquifer,possiblto aleveatwhichthey
becameunusable. The patentidtoestablisbank-filtereweiisdong
thissectionofthe Danube --the cheapestand most efficient wato
pduçe drinkuig wata --mightbe lo~z.~~
5.54. L3iediversionintothe powercanalwas expectedto causea
dropintheptmdwater level inthe several-kilomeîxs-wieloodplain
areaby upto 3meires,espeçiallyithecentrapartofthe affeetedriver
section,A smaller,butstillvery~ign~eantdropofgroundwateeveIof
up to2 metres wasforecastforthe protectedarea.This would have
inevitablyledto the decay of the uniqueflm of the floodplain,
especiallyits forest communities,rnd to losses in a&cultural
production."Undersvatewrek thatraisthewaterIevelwould nothave
povided a longtm solution,AItPiougncreasedwaterlevelstendto
increa sater pressure,thelow velocityof the surfacwaterflow
contributetosedimentatioandelogging. Thesewould have decreased
thepemeabilityoftheriverbedandgivenrisetowaterqualityproblems.
5.55 The radicalchangeinthedischargepatternwouldhaveled to
bank failuscaused bya$rop of averagewater-leveaftethedamming
and topdud degradatioo nftheriverbed.
5.56. There is an additionaland important factm relatingto
coenoIogicaisuccession.Ecosystee an adapt,giventirnand gradua1
changeH .owever sudden succession of unpredictablechanges,of
varyingand uncettah periodicity,preventsadaptation.Thediminished
and stabilisedflowrateentaithe loss onaturaldischargeandwater
leveifluctuatio,hichareessentialfortheecotonesotheregion.New
type sfecosystem sefieclingthe alteconditioncoulddevelopunder
thechanged conditions.Butsinceflwd flows(m excessof4,000m3/s)
wouldhavereqm theuse of thmain riverbedwhatever ecosystans
coulddevelopunder the reducedflow reghe would bewashed away,
disniptintheÇesfirformed ripariazones.
5.57. The 123 lun long reservoir includingtheDanube Valiey
upsl~amof Nagymmswouldhaveradically changedthe hydrologicd
conditions.Sedimenm t port studip eredictedsuspendedsediment
settliïgaiong the Labath-Nagymaros sectionof the mervoir,
Deposition ofsrIton the intilidon dace of bank-Wtrationweus
58 1989HardiReporp7;Annexes,o5,annex8.
59 Seebelow,paras5.70,5.73,5.79.abovethe dam couldhave resultedin adversewater quatitchanges.
The leachingof ironand rnanganese and theincxeaseof ammonium
concentratiointhe bank-fiiterweii waterswouldhavebeen a iikely
effect.60
5.58. Th- would also have kn a danger of the low quality
impoundedwatersinfiltratfninto thevaluablekarstiçwaterreservoir
nearEsztexg0m.6~
5.59. The operationof theNagymaros Barragewouldhave caused
erosionoftheriuerbeddownstxamof thedam, dong SzentendreIsland.
Bed degradationwodd have caused a &op in theyield ofthe bank-
filtereweUs. Largescaledredgkg inthe1960 s nd1970~ ~one partly
topreparefor theNagymaros Barrageand partlyfor othercommercial
purpusesd, emonstmtethe danger. Asa çonsequenceofthe0.60 me%
averagedegradatio nfthesiverbed,atleas10% lossincapacityofthe
bank-fdttredweiiswas~corded (ehais 80,000-100, rn00da~)~~ .n
additionflushingof fme sediment from the resesvohwas proposed,
which couldhaveledto lt~calisesedimentdeposition.Thecontentand
amount of deposited sediment wodd have impaireclthe filtering
çapacity.Adversewater qualityeffectswoddalse havebeen expected,
ashadindeed been observeclfor theBudapestwatersupplfy romthe
Danube asa conscquencoefbcalised sedimen teposition6This would
haveIed to asi@cant andnon-replaceablle ossin waterproduction,
threateninthesaf endreliablesupplyofwateftoBudapest.
5-60. Soirsarea key elernenof theriaturaienvironmentndare of
fundamend in~portance tr,naW ecosystems and agriculture. The
rnostimportantimpactson soilç wouldrxcurin theSziptkoz region
60 BechtelEnvironmentallnEnvironment0Ewluatiun of the Gabcik-
Nagy~ros Rher BarrageSystemFebniar1990, p2-12.See alsoLiebe,
Environme~l-EcologicWecrs of the Gabcikovo-NogyniarProject,
SubsiYfae ater;ppendiNo 3.
61 Thisproblews pointedoutin1989se Lnrh etal,Imestig~tion ofthe
RelutiomhipBehveenRiverDanandtheKmstic WaterReservoirsiArae
AfectPby thGabciRov~IVugynmosmrageSysreHydropwerScheme,I-V.
finHmgarianBudapesVITüKl,1989.
62 Liek AppendixNo3.Thereareeshateswhictiindieateaneiargloss in
CgpacirtygingbetweL00.0 00d 300,OmD3/dayIbi,39.
63 F.Laszlb,2sHomonnay , M. Ziroony,Impactof RiverTrainingothe
QuaiiiofBank-FilteWaters",1990235) WateScienc& Techologypp
167-72.withitrsichsoildivers,an aspectofits generaldi~ersiThe~nature
and fertil ifthe soil is dependenton many factors,but inthe
Szigetkoz,the waterregimeof thesurfaceIayersis pahapsthe most
fbndamental.The groundwaterlevel plays an importantrole in this
regime. Changes ingrotmdwateIrevelorcharacterwiLlimpacton the
sofiandon allhoseelernentsdependenon it.
5.61. The groundwateroftheSzigetkozhasa direcconneetionwith
the Danube, The Danube fiows are the predominant source of
pundwater rechargeandcontx-01groundwaterlevels throughouthe
region
5.62. The soils ofthe Szigetkozhave developed from alluvial
matd under the idluenceof clhate,vegetation and groundwater
conditionsGroundwatelreveb thusdemine long-tem soil formation
and ah màke animportanctontributiotothesoilmoistureregime and
hence to the waterbdance of the area. This contributiodepends
Miticaiion the depthof thewatertablewithrespectto theinterface
betweenfine-gahed topsoiandthe underlykggrave1aiiuvium.Where
thewatertableislacntedwithinthetopsoil,capilîaryeffesupplrthe
mot zone hm the gmundwater forplantuse.Thissubsurfaceinputis
essentialto support current a@culmd production and natural
vegetationandalsoplaysakeyrolein reducingwlnerabiiito drought.
The seasonalresponsesoftheDanuberesdt in highflows(and hence
highwatertableconditions)duringthe latspringand summer,when
plantwaterrequirementasrethegreatestIfthewater tablefalis below
thi snterfacet,hissubsurfwatersupplyiseffetivellost.65
5.63. PreliWnary estimates indicate that foraverage summer
conditions, orethan50% of the areapreviousreceivingsubsurface
water wodd nothave continvedto doso underthe Onginal Aoject's
&si=
5.64. Ap"t fmn direceffectan soiwater,thewatertablelocation
is&O criticdy importanforsoilchemistry,andthusto soistructure
Thesoils havea bighnaturalcalciumcarbonatecontent,
andf-ty.
due to theiralluviaorigin.This ismobilisedby plantactivi~ and
gradudlyleached tothebaseof the motzone. Groundwam a also
high in carbonates,and hencecarbonate-ricwateris drawn up by
capiuaryaction,asdiscussedabave. Changesin thewatertable bel
65
Lie&h+dixouiNo3.onthesoidependhontheildon inthSzigetko,eewiii distirthenahtralprofilechernicd equilibrium.A loweredwater
tablewillinduceadditionalleaching;a higherwater table,additional
upwasds transport.Increasedevaporation(opurewater) from a near-
surfacewatertablewiIlconcentratesaltsand carbonatesin the upper
partof thesoiistructurwith adverseeffectonplant gmwth and$02
structure.
5-65. Carbonateaccumulation is ofparticulçoncerninthose areas
wherethe&quentfluctuation of watertableleuelswouldbe expected
due topeakpoweroperation. Ifthe watertableIiesclostothe topsoil
alluviurnintesfacthe fiquent upwardsrnovementof carbonate-rich
groundwater int ohe topsoilwould be expected to cause carbonate
pxecipitatinoformanimpemioushard pan.66
5.66. The prob1mof carbonateaccumulation ishown to occurin
theSzigetkozand hasben widelyrecognisedasa probiemin theSlovak
Zitny Ostrovareafl Its acceleraiionwouldleadtolimitp elantmot
development, reductioninsoi1 moistureavdabiity toplants inthe
sunimer,andpmblerns of poor drainagein the winterwlth obvious
adverseeffecton agriculturandnaturaelco~ystems.6~
5.67. TheOriginal hject Xslikelto havecauseda largedropinthe
lévelofgroundwater. Theabove-mentionec dhanges tothesoil regime
wouldhaveensued.
(3) DAMAG A ND RISK SOAGRECULT UND FORESTRY
5.68. The 1977Treatypceeded on the bais tfiadamage wouid
occur toagicultureandforestry,but thattheproductionstructurefor
bothcould be changed tocompensatefor some of the lo~ses.~The
frE1IIofthe resmoirwouldhaveled toariseinthe gruundwatetrable
which would haveresdtedintotalsaturatioin thesurroundhg areafor
50 squkm (inbth Czechoslovakia andinH~ngary)?~Due to the
66 SecFigXX From GyVWlyay, "Soilsin tSzigetkORegion,W~thSpecial
Regad totheirWamRegion,"(iHimgaria, 4(No1)ActaOvariens65-73
(1991).
67 J Hrasko",arbonaerofiandCarbonatFom inChemozyemiç SoiIofthe
DanubianLowland",(1985) 13 Vedecki Vyshného Ustavu P&znala'ctv~
VyzivyRastlin7;J Wko, "SalSourceofAikaliSoils in SSlovW,
(1968)17AgrokémiasT01~1jnuppl105-12.
68
SeeHungariancademyofScienw,23June1989p4;Annexes,volannex7.
69 SeeJoinContractPlanSumrnar y;nexesvo3,annex24,
70 EquipeCoustea,ept1992Report,p24;Amexevol5,anne12.almost 90% reductionof thewater dischargeintothe Danube,the
Szigetkozwould have suffmd a &op in ground water.The qualitof
the water and soi1 wouid have ken substantialrnodiFied,7with
negativeeffecton agricultuand forestryThes ehangeswouid have
reqiruedmodificationsto theQpes of crops planted and the mes
cultivateditheregion.
5.69. Intensiveagricultuproductioniscmkd out in theSzigetkoz
region. The cropyield ofwheat, corn, sunfloweand aifdfa, major
crops forHungary,is normallyabut 1520% higherinthe Kisfldld,
includingSzigetkoztti antionally,andoh ofhigherqudity.
5.70. In theareasngar themernoir, where thepundwater level
would have been extremelyhigh, shallowmoting cropswere to be
gmwn because only thetoplayerof thesoi1wouldhaveken suitable.
In the areas where thegroundwaterIevel would have decreased
substantially,seplamment,deeperfootingmps were to be grown.
Thes e odd eithehavebeen extremelydependent onprecipitationi,n
which casethesemity ofyieldwodd havesignificantiyde~reased,'~or
on irrigatioûnly 8-13% ofthe farmlandintheSzigetkozis cmntly
imgated.Irrigationnotonly wouid becostly, but ithas a rangeof
potentiadisadvantagesncludingadverseffeçton soistnicture.
5.71. The SlovakUnionof Nam andhdscape Protectorshad
predid thatthe BarrageSystem woufdhave caused a substantial
decreasein agkulturalproductionon morethan 107,000 hectaresof
agriculturalandin CzechosiovakiaandH~ngary.~ T~hemostaffected
Iandswodd havetotdledapproximatel y6,00 hectareof which6,000
arein HungaryT. otaannua lroductiolossforthetwocountrieswould
haveken quivalent tîhut 40,000 tonsof wheator equivdent crop
ann~diy.7~
71 Seeabovepm 553 an5.62-5.66owateandsoiIs.
72 ReportofEicpeotsheH11ngaiaAeademyof Scienc1991Annexes,ol5,
amex 10.
73 SeeSIovakUnionofNaîmeandLandscapProtec atsrc4;Aiifiexvol5,
annex17.
74 Some havesddthat tnewspeciofteewouldtake100-13yearstharvest.
SeeSlovakUnionof NatuandZandscapPmieaorat se4;Annexes,vo5,
annex;seealsoHydmQuébewchich,affercommissionedbySlovto doa
smdy,fondthathePrrijt pourratinnuiAei'agricurmoinsdemesures
canemices H.&@&bec Sm& aparaXs3,2.1,p36;Annex.ol5mex 9.5.72. The fmt plays animportantrolein theecosystem. In the
Szigetkoz,thealluvialfurestsprimarilypoplars,areof great direct
economicvalue,as cornparedwithotherindigenousspeciessuçhasasb,
eh, and oak. This a- constituteone of the mostimportantraw
matenalresourç eorcelluloseproduction.
5.73.
Change isthegroundwatet rableandwaterregimenegatively
influencethegrowth and yield oftheseforests.Specifrcdy, these
changeswould have threatenedthesoftwoodriparianforestof poph
andwillowpresentin those are^.^^ Mthough speciesrequiringless
water could have been planted,theirbiomassproductionand annuai
yields wouldhaveben much less thanthatof poplars. Ihas ken
suggestedthatnew,slowlypwing forestswouldnothave beenableto
beharvestedfor60-120years.76
5.74. AdditionalforestswouldhavebeenclearedintheDanubeBend
andthe DanubeValley had theNagymarosmervoir ken completed.
The peak power fluctuatiotwice a daywouldhave inundated the
smunding floodplains,mng offthe fores&. The few remaining
paichesofhardwood riparianforestson small idandpeninsuI an d,
isolatedshoresectiowodd havebeen endangered.
5.75. "Szigetkoz"means"islandregions", and thesesmallislands
batches, mosaics) are vulnetable.7 T7he Szlgetk0z1 s osaic of
landscapeswith its varieîof habitatsand ecosystemsw, ouldhave
significantlydeteriornkause of thediversionoftheDanube intoa
by-passcanalfor 31 km as plannedputmiantto theOnginalProje~t.~~
These,in hm, wouldhave affectedfioraandfauna.Two factorwodd
havebeen responsibltforthenegativeeffects:thedecreasein water
fiow,followed by a drop ofwater levelsand theabsenceofregular
wam levelfluctuations,
76 SeeSlovakUnion of NatureandLandsProtecîorsec4;AnnexesvoI5,
mex 17.
77 SeeGemn~qhologicMlapofthSzigetko, aNo 4; Annex,ol2.
78 ForHnpy's eoncemsastothimpactoftheGarrasystemoflm andfauna,
seeHunphn DeçlarationtheTaminationofthe 1977Tmty, pp 21-22;
Annexes,ol4, arm82.5.76. No longerwouid thewaterlevel suppoaing theecosystems in
the Szigetkozhave fluctuatenaturallywitheach season.Fluctuations
ensuredby the flushof Danube waterin the sidbranch system during
flou& woulidhavealso çeased. Thelevel wouldhave been lower,and
rathersteady,
5.77. Water fluctuationsarenecessarytomaintainthese ecosystems
dong the river.Repeatedflooding and the ensuing immigrationof
species areUnportantfor themaintenanceof botanicalandzoologicd
diversity.Fimd watersentering floodplainsbrina substantiaamount
of nuttients, which are available forplant growth and are paaly
responsiblefor the hi@ nu~ent level of alluvialecosysterns.Tfie
uptake of these nutrientsby the floodplainvegetationïepresents a
potentiapurificatiomechanism fortheriver'surface~ater.~~
5.78. Under the Onghl Project,itwasassumed thatfIoodingwould
occur for approhately 1620 days a year. But this çould not
adequatelyrepresentthenatutalseasonalfluctuation.Fisproductionof
fluvialwetlandsandfluodplain waters ishighl cwelated toperiodic
flooding.Themaintenanceof connections betweenthevariousbodiesof
wateris necessab reycaus efthey are tuo isolatedand inkquently
flooded,theirbiomassproductivitybecorneslow. Thus, theOngXnal
Project'mpact onwaterfluctuationswouidhavenegativelyaffected the
fishofthe Szigetkoz.
5.79. The change in the water dischargein theSzigetküzregion
would havetransfomied the plantassociationsandthus affectedthe
habitatsof fauna as weli as thek reproductive capacity.80 The
diçappearanceof waterordecreasesin water levelwould have isaIated
aquaticecosystems andhgmented theflmdplains. ThemainDanube
nverbed would have kome desiccated,with new and less valuable
speciesreplacingtheformerspeciesmB1
5.80. Thefishpopulationin themain charnelwoirldhavedewed
due to isolationfromthe floodplain.Fish speciesthat livein smng
79 E CasidlaJFFmget,C hm, A L RouxLes Fonctio&s Zhms Hdes et
ah MilieAqwfiquesdesPlainesAllicvenRelationmec le CoursPrincipal
$eFleuvesmier rapportinîmnédi2laFonddon Coustea(Januq 15921,
atp40.
80 ReportofExpertoftheHungariaAdmy ofSciences1991Annexesvol5,
annex10.
81 Forexampie, aspeeloefsbeetnonndly chammistiofexmpely dryregions
bajustappml intheSzigetk6regiosimethe diversion. FeMdszBios;
AppendiNo 1.currentwithhigh oxyge evels andlowwater temperaturewouldhave
been likelto disappear. pecieswishingto migratewouIdhave faced
difF~cultisvenifthe fishladderhadben bu&for the Dunakibtiweir.
Aquatic iife wouldhavesufferedfrom the hunediatedropin water
Ievelsassociatewiththediversion.
5.81. IntheSzigetkoz,spawnlaiddong the bankorsidebranches
couldnot havesurvivectihewaterlevelduction or thesiltbuildup.82
Due tothe hi@ diversityofthema, 80% ofHtmgarianfishspecie ase
presentand it is a significantspawniarea.Eliminatingtheflow of
waterwould havewidemined the productiveaseofthe entirstretcb.83
The Danubewouldhavelostits sub-montane cfiaracter,thusaflecting,
indeedtramfonning fuhfauna,anddmasing itsbiological
5.82. The likelihoodof thesechangesis borne out byexpeience
elsewhereinEurope. Inregdatedriverssuchas the Rhone R,hine and
theGerma-AushanDanube,the fuh communities haveshiftedfmm
floodplaispawners tomain channe1spamers. The speciesdiversiof
thefishhasded becauseofthe demase in habitatdi~ersity.~
5.83. If theside-armsofthe flmdplainwere todisappeacrompietely
withconstructionofthe BarrageSystem,it hasbeen predictedtha he
totalichthyomasswould decrease by 578 inthe section between
Bratislavand theNagymms Reservoir,available produ~tim by 75%,
andpotentialyieldby82-91%, dthough theIosse wsouldhaveken las
ifsome oftheside-arm sad t>eeprnese~ed.~~Thehighestlosseswould
have ken inHungaqra , djacento thDanubebed,since theproduction
82 lRepooftxp&s ofthe Hun- AcademoyfSciences,1991;Amexevol5,
annex10,AVida,AppdixNo S.
83 Ecol~gLInterimRprt, p8Annexesvo5,annex5.
84 Even Hydro+he, commissiotlbythe SlovaGove~nmeritodo a study
expmsedcoficm tha"les@s rareoumenades .. .serapratiquement
dispandiepuilaoonstructdu cart& &vation." Seesec43. 2.2,93;
Annexes,ol5annex9.
85 E Castel,F Fm@, C AmorosgiA L RouxLesFonctiondeZonesHumides
erdes MilieuAquatiquedesPiaineAlluvideen RelatioavecleCoras
Prineipl dFleuves,Premhppm IntamediaialaF-on Coiislea(Jan
1992),ap43.
86 JHoicik1BastlM Eat& M Vranovsky,HydrobioloyndIchthyoloofthe
Cm41oslovakanube inRelatitoRedicteChangesaftereConstnictiof
the~ovo-Nagymms RiverBarragSystern(19813 Pr&e idoradria
RyWrma OHydrobioib19-158,app126-27.of thefloodplaiand accompanying yieldincreasesinhighwateryears
wouldhave ceasedto exist.
5.84. Peakpoweroperationasenvisaged in the OriginalRoject
would have affecteboththeentireGabcikovo andNagymaros sectors,
asweUastheir?ributanes (theRAba, theMosonDanube, theGmm,
Rgbca, Lajtaand Ipoly). In pmticular,itwodd have moMed the
seasonalQ.iversipinwaterlevel,with consequeneesforthe shorehe
flora andfauna,where the mostvaluablehabitatsarefound. FurcEier
downstream, thelargewaves causedby peak power operationwould
haveinterferedwithspawningin thesidebranches(whichis dependent
von specificphysical-chernicaplarameters, ith thehatchingof roe
and with development.
5.85. Plant associationsdong the shoreline would have been
threatenebychangesin groundwater a,ndchange to platassociazions
wouldhave afïectedthefama livingthere. Theam's biggesquatic
mnmmal, the otter, almost completelydisappearedbecause of the
Nagymms consiruction. Birdsnesting andovemintering inthe area
mighthave km detersedl,eaditoasipficant lossindiversity.
5.86. Mostof thefishremainingnow intheDanubeare &ose ableto
existinflowingwaters. Manyof themrequire a sandorgrave1'bottom
habitatorstableshoreliforspawning.Neither theDudditi resemoir
nor theshoresabuveNagymaros wodd havealiowedfureither,because
of the impoundmeno tf thewaterandhighdailf luctuationin water
leveLR7Freshwater speciesorspeciesrequirinthepraenceofsand or
grave1duririgtheircycleswould have beenxeplaced bylacusme or
opportunist~pcies.~* The high rateof sediment deposit in the
DuaaHiti reservoir(5-9cms ayear) would haveblanketedspawning
areasbelow thehighestleveofwater
5.87. The extensive destructioof biologicd resourcecould not
have been evaded,evenby îhemostcarefuioperationoftheGaWikovo
Barrage. Changes inthe water table,disappearancof theseasonal
fluctuations, ndmod5cation of theoxygensupplyof water a11have
theireffect.
87
ReportofEx- of theHungariAcademyofScience 23June1989,p3;
Ammes, vol5,mex 7; sah EcologiInteriReporp 80;Annexesvol 5,
mex 6.
88 Qu@ fiusteau,Se1992Repor>25;Annexesol5,mex 12.
89 EcologiaInteReportp 80;Annexevo5,mex 6.5.88. Physico-chemicaland bioIogical alteratitoswater quality
stemmingfromincreasedreleaseof sedimentswouldhave negatively
affectecthefauna.On theRhonedownstream fiomGeneva,substantid
amountsof sedimentare releasedevery2 or 3yearsin ordertoernpty
andclean two reservoirs.Theincreasein sedimenttesultedinphysico-
chmieal and biologicalaltedons to the water quality. These
alterationhaddifferenbiologicd effecton variousspeciesof fauna.
The effeetswere more markedon invertebratesthan on organisms
havingan entirely aquaticMe-cycleThe restoratioofthose affected
speciestooklongerthanthoseofaeridspeciessuchas insect~.~
5.89. New conditions of cornpetition,predation and other
interactioin thenewenviromnenw t ouldhaveken like1ytoleadtothe
localextinctioof speçieor theirdegradation.Bothplantandanimai
specieshavetocolonisenew habitatwiththechangingconditions.This
proces issnecessarilyaccompaniedby decreasedpopulationsize sa
bottle-neckeffect) andconsequentlydiminished genepuois, Ody
numemus, genetically diverse populationscan adapt to major
&nvironmenta lhanges. The decrease in genetic divwsityand a
conseque lntkof adaptabilityouldhavecausedMer extinctions.9'
Tfius,a reasonableprognosiswodd have predicted a severeregional
degradatioonftheregionand a seriomatage deche inthenumber
and thediversityofspecies.
5.90. AfterthecompletionoftheBarrage System,"theentireDanube
sectionstretchinbetwee BnratislavandNagyrnarow s ill [wouid]have
only madl a minunal biologicalimportance,and moreover the fish
populationsofboth thelowerandupper Danubesections cm be [could
have been expectedto showconsiderable decreases I."gu2ldhave
A L Roux,"TheImpacof Emwing andQeaning Rwoirs on thePhysico-
Chanical andBiologiealWaterQualityoftheRhoneDownstrDams,"ine
RegularedRivers16-70(LiiIehr Saliveds1984).
91 Reportof ExpeoftheHungariaAcadenyof Sciences,1;Annexes,voI 5,
annex1O.
92 J Holci1BasîiM Ert& M VranovsIr,HydrobioloyndIchthyoloofthe
Czechlovak Danubin RelatitoAediaed Changaft ereConsmictiof
theGabcikovo-Nagpms RiverBarragSystem"(190113Proce Laborarbrk
RybbrstvaHydrobiolb19-158at131.wiped out the floodplainwhich, togetherwith itsbranchsystems,
constitutheproductivebasisoftheregion.g3
(5) RTSK mS NAVIGATION
5.91. Peak mode operation woiifdhave entailedcertainrisksto
navigation, Aithough the by-pass channelwould have somewhat
hcreased thereliàbilîtyof tnavigational utethe largewaves and
high watervelocitieswouldhaveimpairednavigati fornseveralours
per day. Srnalierbats (approximatel8-10 metresin lena) wouid
havebeen especidlyvirlnerableandîheywouldhavebeenbanne drom
usingtheby-passcanal.
5.92. The Bmge Systernas envisagedundertheJointConiractuai
Plan wodd have causaithedryingupof theSzigetkozespeciallyinits
centralregion. The lack ofwata inthe side brancheswodd have
renderedinvatment in todsm useless. AreaspreviousIyavaiiablto
fuhemen, canoeists,bicyclistsandotherwould haveceased toexist.
Thebenefitstotourismof theOriginalProject,bycontraweregreatly
overestimated.
5.93. The lnndscad oeng theDanube downstream ofPalkovlcovo
would havedso ptly changed.Grave1bah, isleatnsdfige fmsts
wodd havedisappeated.Peakmodeoperation wauid haveresultedina
wide ban stripon bothside sftherivermghg between 3-12metses
dependhg on theslopeandlocation.g4
594. TheNagymaros Barrage, soriginalphed, wouldhave had
anovemhelming visualimpact. According toearlier&sigm, a tall
smokstack,overheadtransmissionha, largebuildingcomplexes,and
tractsofbox-likhousingwould have transfcmnetheDanubeBendinta
a heavyindustriai Theseplans weremodifiaiinthe1980s,but
despitethemodificationthe Bmge wdd have introduce"an aüen
architecturamass and fomi into a region of traditionavillage
arçhitecm&"'=
93 AccordhgtoHydro-Quékc ,hepject wouldhavecaused a"modifmiion
majeurdei'kquiiieiologideecetrégionHy&~-Q&becSfudy ,36,see
23.2.1Annexesvol5annex9.
94 ReportofExp oftheHungarlaAcademyofScienoe,3 Jm 1989,p 5;
dnnexe vol5amiex7.
95 SeeMapNo 6ofNagymiuos offerDamanBarrag; nnexe,ol2.
% EcologiInterReportpp53-54;Annexe,ol5annex.5.95. The Barragewould have been visible from riverlevel
throughouthe centraiportionofthe DanubeBend,frothewesternend
of V&emaxos to Domos (approximately 10 klJ~rnems).9~
Consmction of thedamhasalreadyhad a siflcant visualimpacton
theoldtawnsofNagymarosandVi~egrid .rom thesmunding hiUs,
thefacîiitywodd haveken dearly visibloverawider area,Iilcluding
thewell-hownviews hm theFellegvhCastleandSalamon Tawers. It
would have been cleartyvisible from most ofthemajorroadways
fiankingtheDanube inthe DanubeBend. fie damwould havebeen
locatedinthesteepvalleyotheDanube,andviewsfwus on thatvalley
noor.
5.96. The Nagymaros Dam wouldhave createthe onlyautomobile
bridgeacros tseDanube ktween Budapestand Komimm,99 amacting
iramitîdfic, whichwouldhaveincreasedtheMC relatepollutioof
thi sceniarea.
5.97. Therearesignifîcantarchaeologilites,rem* anddacts
datingback tothe Neolithic Period(3,500-2,500BCE).lWRoman
remants hclude one of the derisesdusters of watch-towersand
fomficatimsof theEmpire.;hes eereused toguardtheborderagainst
invasion.MW of thesewerethreateneand tosome extentdesûwyed
by the Bmge pmject. A totalof 45 nrchaeologicalsites were
endangeml intheareaupsm oftheNagymaroB s arrag: inDhiis,
14 inPilismar6t,and26in Esztergom.Of these,16 am importantfor
science,12 hahg universalimportanceand 4 havhg outstanding
nationalimportance. Three of the 45 sites were desttoyed by
constructioactivit Tiest.reatenemiversalsitesincludetheRoyal
Town of Esztergomthemains of aStephanikehmh inSzenMy,
remainsfm theBronzeAge, Celtic,Raman and Medievaleras on
SzigetIslandandtheViUvarOs (WaterTown) inEsztergom.The 0th
threatenedsites includ12 of the 20 Roman watch-tbwersand 4
foraficatioshatlinethriverbetweenEsztergomand Nagymaro~.~Ol
97 SeeMapNo 3Annexes,ol2.
98 SeePhotoNo29,30and31Annexesvol2.
99 Ecologbterim Report,pAnnexes,ol5anne6.
100 SeeMap No 18, inAnnexevol2. SeealsoEcologicrIntReport, p 49;
Annexes,o5,anne6.
101 SeeEeoIogiIaterimReporpp 49-50; Annexvol5,annex6 (discussing
çonclusion1Hom&, thDi.nxtmoftheBalintBalMuseuminEçzterpm,5.98. With the completionof theOriginal Roject,the groundwatex
table would have risen to endanger excavation of thesesites. The
dredging and rapi donstructionwould have destroyedmanyof hem
(withlimitedorno the forrescueciigs).loManyRomanfortifications
wouldhavebeen çubmerged.103The riverterraceto becovered by the
dykesystem were amongthe mostimportantsitesforearlysedement.
From thepointofviewof geology, thegeatestriskisthelack
5.99.
of detded knowledgeof the ma. Withoutsuchbwledge, technical
planningandenvironmentar lisk assessrnencannat anive atsound
resdts. A rehble prognosiscm ody be made based on systematic
stucliereveahg geologicalconditions.
5.100. 'Ihe Gabcikovo Barrage is brailnear a geologicdly young
faultiW Thepldg of the Bmge System was not precededby a
detaiIedgeologicalswey of theregion.los Therewas nodeepdrilIing
inthe areaoftheBarrageSystem to explorethestnrctirofthearea.
5.101. Researcb results obtained separately in Hungary and
Czechoslovakiahave never ken integmted. For example, the
Gabcikovo fmlt he discoveredinSlovakia hasnot ken tracedmer
inHungary. Mer the faultIjnewasdiscovend,the Gabcikovo Barrage
was relocated6ûQmetres away. Butit wu neverthelasbuiltin the
immediatevicinltyofageologicdy young fracture-line,aswellasclose
to the Uba line, when the AfricanandEuropean continentalplaîes
intem!ct.
5.102. Researchdme aftersuspension ofHungarian constructionat
Na%ymaro sasshowrithatthe seism icskinitiaisetforthintheJoint
Contractua llanwas utldemdimatdl05 In1990, whenCzeçhoslovakia
claime tdat thGakikovo part of theProjectwasalmost complete, a
in hiwark,DefenceofArcheobgical-HisroricalMonwnelrrafalacand
InteresintheRegionAbovetheNagymarosDam(1985)).
102 1989HardiRqn, pm, Annexes. 5,amex 8.
103 EcolugilnterirnRepp,48;Annexa,vo5,amex 6.
1W Slov9'nionofNahiraandLandswtpProfectors,sec4; Anne,ol5,amex
17.
105For adiscussiofthejacofseismicresmcintheareoatheBmage Systun,
see on of Hll~lgaontheTerminatioofthe 1977Trieapp 16-17;
Annexes ,o4,annex82.
1% See Slova knion of NatiandLandçcapFhtect~rs, s4; Aniiexevol5,
mnex17.johtplan waspreparedfortheseisrnic monitoringthe ma of the dam
systern.The plawas neverimplernented.
5.103. In 1991-92underthecoordinatiooftheAdHocCornmittee of
the Hungarian Academyof Sciences, withinthe framewarkof the
Hungarian-Cmhoslovak research programmeon thedevelppnt and
rehabilitadoofregionsofthecommon sectioofthe~anuk, a detded
and comprehensiveanalysisbecme possibleUr certaintechnicfields
(such as the detenninatioofseismic & exposure). The research
concluded that thseismologicalbasedata usedin the courseof the
fety's design work were not correct andthatthe impactof an
earthquak e ouldbefivetotenhes greatethanassumed inthedesign.
5.104 To sumrnarise,the seismology ofthe region is of great
concem.lo8 Theseismicityvaluesofthe JoinContractuaPllanare not
useful,becausethecompulsory bdding coda have not been applied.
For example,the expectedintemityestimatedfor theDunakiiitiarea
based upon historicaldata is8.7-9. M0SK atthe normal security
kshold, wMe the plansfor theOriginalPmject assumed 6.0MCS.
Studieshaveçbownthatwithin 100yearstheUelihoodof anearttiquake
occmhg whichregisters6.MSK is?O%, 7.0isIO%,and 7.3is5%.lo9
5.105. Waterwouldhave been dammed between Baergom and
Nagymaros abovethehighestrecordedfloodleveIduringpeakhom of
option. Ifthedam atGabcikovo Barrageweretohave fded due toan
earthquakeorfor otherreasonsa floodwave wouldhave beencreated
exceeding thehighestrecoded floodon theriver,affecti tngwfiole
areafromGabcikovo toNagymaros.
SECTION C: DAMAGEAND RISKSFROMVARIANT C
5.106. In general,nvironmenta elffectsofVafiaCtareexpected to
be skdar tohose outlineabove fortheDunakiliti-Hruso esemoir
and Szigetkozregion.ImpactsontheNagymaros ma will largestm
hm those upstreameffects.Thefocus ofthissectiowiU thereforbe
to identifmerences inimpactwithrespec ttthe OriginaProject,to
IO7 ReportafExperoftheHungarianAcademofScience1991Annexesvol 5,
annex10.
108 SeeReporof@ris of!$HungariancademyofScimc~, 23 J1989,pp 6-
8;Annexes,v5,anne7x;Hardi epo1889pp 1-12:Annexes,voannex8.
109 SeeSimimaryofFinaqmt, ResearchProgrme RelatetotheDmelopmrnr
and RéhabilitatofthH~garian-CzcchoslovaCommon DanubeStretch
and Connecsdrea-Sage1(iHnungmian20 Sanun1y92,pp 11-29. reviewabservedeffectsandto considerimplicationsof tVariant C
smctures.
5.107. TheEC ExpertsGroupl"and othebodieshaverecognisedthe
damagecaused by VariantC, Ina recentreporofthe WmldWildlife
Fund,itwasstated:
"Basedonthe year'experiencgainedhm thissectioof the
Danube,othm riverandsimilarengineeriprojectsitrnustbe
statethattheriverdiversionandtheoperationof Gabcikovo
n'nevitablwill result in detrimentalalmations for the
hydrology/biogmchernistryround-and surfacewaters),for
thegeumorphologicaplromsses(sedimentation/emsiand for
the floodplainecolo(diverçitof biocenoseand especidy
adaptedspecies) diirithe next yearsinthe wetlmd and
adjacenmas. Eventhoughmanyimpacts arenotyetvisib toe
thepublic,theycm dreadybemonitmd byexperts."lI1
5.108. Ina numberofrespectstheimpactof VarianC antheregh
may be less thanthe 1977BarrageSysm wouldhave been.The
principalreason is the smder resemir at Cunovo, opemting in
continuausmode.'l2 ThisIeadtoa sh~rterresidenctimeof waterin
thereservoiandthus de~easestheriskofeutrophicatioN.onetheless,
the dangerof euttophicatand al lf itsnegatiimpacts=mains, as
theReport oftheWorlUng hup ofIndependenEt xgms on VarianC
, oftheGakibrovo-Nagymaro Projecthasabserved."3
5.109. InotherrespectstheimpactofVariantC isoris UeIy to be
moresevere,espcidy ontheSzigetkoz.Thereareanumberof rertsons
forthis:
(1) Hungary didnotplanshorttemitechnicd fixetocompensatefor
thewaterloss becausteh= was noaccuratetimelineinformation
pmvidedaboutVariant C andnoconsultationson its designor
operation. Nlorwas thereanyopporhmityforthe diversioto
111 3993WWFReporip8 {emphasiioriginhm, vo5,anne20.
112 SeeMapNo 5comparhOriginalrojeetVht C; AnnexeVQ2I.
113 CommissiooftheEumpeanLomairmitiLzechandSlovakFedetalRepublic,
RepubIiof Hunpy, WurkGr- ofIndependetxperon VariuCtofthe
Gabcih-Nagyniluos Proj25tNovanber1992,pp 55-56;Annexvol5,
anne x4.
114 SeeFlowRathlq,Map No7; hxes, vol2. be intmduced gradually, aliowingfor some adjustment in
downstmam ecosystems.The changewas hposed withinafew
days.li5
(2) Hungmyreceivesabsolutelynobenefitfrom Slovakia'snilateral
activi.y
(3) Hungary has nocontrulovethe suppfyofwater,andatremptsto
achievesome sortof cooperativesolutito theproblems(e.g.,
thougha temporarywatermanagemenstegime)have fded due to
Slovaki annmigence.1l6
(4) As will beshownin Chapter10,the economic situatiin the
region has changeddraçticallin the period since1988-89,
renddg achang enproductiostructurextremelydifficult."7
Ifthe Bmge Systemhadken builtasoriginallyplmed, the
(5)
riverwould havebeen divertedfor31 kilometresbetweernh
1842 andrkm 1811. UnderVariantC,the riveis divertfed41
Hurnetmberneen rlnn1852 andrlon1811.
5.110. Thespecifiççonsequeno çfVsariant maybesummarised as
follows.
(a) AbruptDrying-outof theSzigetküz
5.111.
Shortiyaftethediversiontheriverbedanditssidebranches
were lefi practicaüwithout water. The discharge feu from
approximately1OOO m3lse-cto 150-30r 0n3/s,U8weU below the
minimum everregistd. The waterleveldecreaseby3.0 m atrlrm
1850 andby 2.4m atrkm 1825 inles sha n days.ll Ogn31 October
115 SeePhotNosIland12andaIsPhotobefoand&terthdiversion.PhNos
13-28Annexes,o2.
117 Seeklow, para10.74.
118 CommissiooftheEmpean CommunitiW,h andSlovaF& Republic,
RepubIofHungay,WorkingGroupofIndeperExpettonVariantofthe
Gakikovo-Nagyrnasrojecr,23Novem1992, AppendH-1 ,nnexe, ol
5,anne14. J
119 CornmissooftheEiwpeanCommunitiC,zxh andSlovakFeddRepublic,
RepublicofHungary, FaFindinMissioonVariBnC oftheGabcikovo1992the dischargeatBratislavwas morethan 2200m3k, ascompared
tolessthan 230m3/s, 20 kmdownstream atRajka. The width of the
riverdecreased55 metreçon average,with some sectionslsing 110
metresof widh. T'lisabruptchange had a severe impactonliving
communiéie istheregion,especiallyofish.
5.112. The immediateconsequeneesof the diversion includedthe
following:
*. thesidebmches wm eut offfromthemainçhannel;
$
the water hm the downstreampart of the side firanches
disappeare mmediately;
9 the groundwarertable decreasedup to 3 metres in the
floodplainand upto 1.5 meues on theprotectedside,threatenlnor
terminahg waterabstractiohm somedugweh used bypeople;and
*
waterhasdisappearedfromthenavigationportsofhv2inyrir6,
DwiakiJiti anRajkaalong a fortyImilong stretc(rh 1850 to rh
1811);
/b) Lmger TermImpacts
5. 13. 'ïhelongertermcansequencesofthediversionare detemincd
bytheradicallydecreaseddischargeanflawvelcity, thedropinwater
level,thedisappearanc efseasonaIfluctuatioand thelackof water
enteringthesidebranches.Thecoqences of theminimad l ischarge,
weUklow îhelowestTninimumeverregistereunderconditionspior to
VariantC, areexpeetedto be simil torthosedescribecinconnection
with the OriginalProjectandnsednot be repeatedhere.120A major
differencebetweentheOriginalProjecandVariant C is thathelower
endof thereservoiIslocared8km upsmm hm 'IhuiWti,depriving
the Danube bed ktween rkm 1851.7andrkm 1843 of80-905 of its
water.Underthe OriginalProjecthi sedon wauldhaveformed parof
the reser~oirh .~~a~cosequence, insteadofa rise ofgroundwater
levek in the vicinity of DuWti, a signif~candemase has been
experiencedZ2
Nagpwos projecr,MissReportBruriSIm,1October1992,12;Annexes,
vol5,annex13.
121 SeeMap No 5,aomparigriginProjetoV~mt C;Annexes,vol2.
122 DataweresuwttedinthDat aeparoftheHungariaParty, 21 Octobet1993,
Figure7inchpterhmd WamLevel(SubmittetotheGrouofMonitoring
andWaterMamgment Ex- for the~ovo Sysbemofbxks}. (4 ProblernswithIce
5.114. A specfi dangelinkedwithVariantCisthatheCunovo dam
is incapabofreleasingicenccumulatininthereservoir. Dutotheir
sizeand relativelyhighsilllethegatesoftheCunovo by-passweir
areincapableof lettingthrouluge blocksofice,whlch intum are
forcedtoenterthepower canawhere theymayfom anice bdr, as
happenedinJanuary1993, Lfiicsusedastoppageofnavigation,nd if
anunusual warminghadmot solvedthe problemby thawingthe ice
b& (whichtheoperatingcompanyhadbeen unable toremove),the
iceaccumdathgIn the headracecanal112-13.4 kmaboveGabcikovo
couldhave hadunpredictabconsequences. histateofaffaiprssesa
çontinuouthreatonavigation.
FloodDesign and ConstructionProblem
(4
5.115. Diiri heg"unexpected"loodinNovember1942,shortlyafter
theclusure,2-3millionm3 of sandandgraveerodedhm thestretch
nuuring500metxesdownstreamhm theCunovo dam, aconsequen oce
theunfinishedstateofthe constniction .le2riverdepositedthis
enornous amowitof materiin animpredicteandunregdatsd way,at
some place rsais@ therîverbedby 1 metre.Reconstructionofthe
navigationroute inthe main chel will be sigdicantly more
expensiveasaconsequence.
5.116. Therisk tothe stnictwefrom exme floods isextremely
serious.As stateinth ReportoftheWorking Group ofMonitaring
andWater ManagemenE txpertfortheGabcikovoSysm ofhcks of 1
Deceniber1993,thefaultydesignoftheSlovakby-passweiatCunovo
odypennits thedischargeoflesthanhalfofwhathadben daimed to
beitscapacit(600m3/s insteaof 1460m31s) .ince thtotacapacity
ofthe canaiinflood situationsisapxUnatel4500 m31sandthat of
thefloodplain(inundatiw)eu atCunovo4600 mVs,if thwaterlevel
isat131.1 abovesealevel(butonly1200m3/s ifit iat329.0m ad),
evena flood of 10,0rn31s12candy pass ifwery part othesystem
operatesperfectlThisjsanunredistipresumptiotakingintaccount
thatthme havebeen many wdcs shce ûctober1992 wheneithe trhe
Cunovo by-pas weiror oneor ?mîhofthe~ikovo shiplockwdd
123 SeePhatoNos& 10Annexes,o2.
124 Theris1%pmbabiIithasuchafld dl ocau.Takingthriskoanment
with suehhiprobabllisonlyacqtedfor brkf (ainstniperiod.A
structmeantfoahundredearsoperaniustbecapatohandleeventhe
occurrenowhicharetbeex* oncin10,00years.(8.pmbbility3not be operatedeven in emergency situation^."^The sû-uctureis
thereforbuiltustandardtshafallweUshortofacçeptedpracti~e.~~6
5.117. UnderVariantC theSlovakauthoritiedeterminetheflow-rate
intheDanube. Incaseof fioods,theydecideotheamount ofwater to
be discharged.Withoutwhg, ina matteof hom, a severametres
riseinthesurfa c etelevelsofthemainriverbedandthesidebranches
intheSzigetkozmay riccur.
5.118. The exclusiveSlovakcontroloverthe Cunovodamdeprives
Hungaryof thepossibiliofocçasionalllettindownlargeramounts of
water through the Danube bai to satisfurgent needs of nature
pmtectionor pollutionpbention. Inmmt to thepresentsituation,
Grticle14(3)ofthe 1977Treq entided bothPartietounilaterawater
withdrawd at the expense of theirallocationof electric energy
production.
5.159. Expectedimpactson soiistructurand chemistrywill be
primanlylong term.127Sh tem soilwaterchangeshave wcurred in
Esponse tathefluctuationingmtmdwater Ievel.12Foragricrilturof
1900 hecbsesof arablelandinMiddleSzigetkozbetwee Dnunasziget
and kvinyrdr6, previouslycharactesiseby anadquate amountof
groundwatert,he waterlevel demeasedon averageby 100-150 cms
duringthegrowingseason. On aMer 2100 hectaresthegroundwater
IeveldecrGasedby an averageof 60-100 cms. In theseareas t,e
pundwater IeveI usedtu fluctuatpermanentlyoroaasionallyin the
topsoillayer,whmw itstaysnow inthe graveiayer,whichmeansthat
tke isno suppIyof moistureavailabie. Accordintorneasments
made inMarch1993 ,n150 cms ofsuil40-100% of themoisturewas
125 Up toNovember1993die=were14dayswhennme ofthshiploçcouldbe
pted: CommissiooftheEtmpm Communitie,qublicof BungaSlovak
Republic,WorktGr- ofMonitorieiuf aterManagemeWrîs furthe
GqbcibvoSysteofLockData, Repo,November1993,55;Annexes,oI5,
hnex 18.
126TheSlovaU knionofLandscapeandNatureProkctodsocitedfindingsof
expertindicatthattheGabcikovDam Projewouldmgnify hazarods
fioodmg.Sesec4;Amexesvol5annex17.
127 Seeaboveparas5.-567.absent. The1993cropyield in theseareaslaggedbehd the averageof
theregion.
5.120, in theareasin theMiddleSzigetkoz,where the&round water
levellusdecreasedsubstantially,eplacement, eeperrootingcropswili
have to be grown. Even these WU be extremely dependenton
precipitationor irrigation.Again the secirrityof yieId wiil be
significantdecreased129
5.121. There is amajor ~iiff~culin interpretinshat tem effects
given the dependenceofsoiI moistureon chate and pundwater.
However, thereducedcropyieldsfortheregionare anindicatioof such
an effect.
5.122. The EC ExpertReport statethatforest wryuldbe"mainiy
positivelaffectedin Slovakiaandrnainlynegativelyin Hungary."nO
Specificallyifcurmt conditionsremain, thwe are likely tobe the
followingeffects:
"On theHwigarianinundation area(sidebranchesplusforests)
tli eecrease ofthe waterlevel fluctuationsmakes the site
conditionsworseforfloodplainbiocenoses.On the Hungarian
inundationarea the reductionof depsibon of fine matenal
(nu~entb sy!loods inthealluvialforestsmaketheh growing
conditionwme ...*131
5.123. mr June 1993,partialwaterdeficiencycouldbeseeninthe
alluvialforestsof Szigetkoz.YelZpatchesappeared onthe leavesand
branchesbegan toshnvel. FromJune on, mes startedtolose their
leaves. By mid-June3,%ofthealluvialfurestswere classifiedadead.
At theendof 1993,5% of thetreewere classifiedasdead
5.124. Spring-eariysummer thber, which has the largestwater
demands ,ufferedseverelin1993 . hecircuderenceof the.tninkswas
compared to theaveragesof 1991-92(caicuhd hm the beghing of
129 ThiswasalreatheprognosistheReporofExpertotheHungariaAcademy
ofscience1991:Anriexvol5,annexIO.
130 EC-Hmgar ylovak Wblic, Wcrking Group of Monitoring anWater
Management forthe GabcikoSysteomfLoch, Repoon Temporory
WaterManagemenRt egim1Wber 1993,p33;Annexes,v5,amex 19.
131 EC-Him&ary-Slov~tepublieWorking Group of Monitoring andWates
Managemen Expertfor thGabcikovSystemofZcicl,eporon Temporary
WaterMunagemenRtegime,Deoembe1993,p33;Annexes.ol annex19.thegmwing seasonte 31July).It demonstrataddecreaseingrowthin
mnk circumferenceranghg from 59-7096dependfngon the site. The
datawasgatheredby theHunganianResearchhtituteof Forestryevery
weekwith 0.1mm accuraq inseveralsamplefieldsofthe Szigetkoz
floodph.
5.125. Ifthe watertabledoes not improvefor1994, accelerating
deterioratiofthe alluvialforew3l occur .hisisa direcnegative
effectofVariantCsopemion. Damagesirnila tothawhichhadbeen
predXctedfor the SWgetkoz region hm operationof the Barrage
Systeml32isnow occinring.
5.126. The originplanshadcounted ontakingabout6months tofa
the DunWti reservoir,whilethewatersonthe floodplainandon the
protectesidebrancheswouidhavereceiveda continuouwatersupply.
VariantCresultedintheseriouslossfwaterwithinthecourseofa few
days,multiplyinthenegativeeffecon floraandfauna,1 in3articular
tofish.
5.127. This impactisof course continuing.Acc&g tothe EC
Experts:
"WatervelocitintheOldDanube ianimportanftactorforthe.
riveecosystem.The presentsituatiis hat,duetothe lower
watetvelocitytheorighaUyclean gravebed iscoveredwith
siïand 0th finemateridandthereforeit faiashabitatfor
riverbenthoorganismsandforfis hpcies spawninon grave1
gromd."1~
5.128.Of the53 known spawning-gmund or eçonomicaIlyvaiuable
Eishspecies20 ceasedtofunctionin1993. The nuïriberodeveloped
f~hdecreased to 6570% of the number beforethediversion. The
amountof second-summer-old fq deçreasedby20-30%. 150-450
thousandkirogramsof fishdisappearedhm Hungary or@hd
Approxhaîely30%of thosewere economicallvaiuablfishm
132 Se Hunm Dechmion ontheTeminationof the 1Treatypp 21-22;
Annexes, 4,amie82.
134 Lacer,FroMrJ.Schrein,rofessmdHeadoftheEC'IxprbGmup,tMrP
BenavideECDirecmûmd ofex^ EconomiRelatio,ebniary199p,
3;Annexes,o4,amex139.5.129. The lakes of Lip6t and hvh@6-&téssziget, specially
protectednatureconservationmas, becamedry temporarildurjng the
sumrnerof 1993,dueto a campletlossof water.By the secondpartof
thesmrner, waterwaspumpedart5cially intotheMortlakeofLipbt.
5.130. Itis clethatlong-tem effects anddamagewilloccurtu the
floraandfauna. Ifthesurfacewaterandgroundwater levelstabilisat
its presenlevel andthere is nochangein thedischargeregirne,the
mosaicityofthelandsçapeandthepresenceof ahightydiverseandwide
rangeof habitatsisliketo belost, Thosefeatufeswereuniqueto the
Szigetkoz. It is Iikethatthe she ofthe populationswilldecrease
considerablythe predictelongtermeffectis a declinein bbilogical
diversity.l35
5.131. Changes inalluvialecosystemswhichareLikel tyfiow from
VariantC were detailedinthEC ExpertReportwhichnotd, interaliu,
that...
"Reductionof dischargesitheOld Danubelads to reduction
ofthewaterbody,the flowvelocityandto sedimentatioffine
maW. 'ZliiwXUcause thelossofspeciestypicforstreams,
ofrheophiIeo~ganismse,speciallyof fishspeciesspawnion
grave1ground,
The flow velocitiin themain riverarenot large moughro
provideadequate living conditiofor the speciesreqWring
higher flow velocity, for example, fish species like
Streber.."'136
5.132. Theopeationof VariantC hasmadecommercid navigation
and the msit of internationlhippingin theDanube between rkm
1852-1811 impossible,andhasdeprivedHungaryof its ripariarights.
TheIack ofan emergency navigatioroute impliesthe dangerthatin
case of an acciden rtnderingthe by-pass canalor the shiplacks
135 F Mészhs;AppwidiNci1.
136 EC-Hungay-SlovakRepublicWorkingGroup of Monitorinad Wates
ManagementExpertsftheGabciho SystenofLoch, Repon on Temporq
WaterManagement egime1 kmnber 1993,pp 32-Annexes,vo5,annex
19.inaccessible,internatiolavigationmustbe su~pended.~"7Vania nt
hasehinated gowing srnaIl-botoirrisrn.
(6) GEOTXXjtCA LND GEOPHY SICAL RISKS
5.133. The implementationofVariantC withoutadequatehowIedge
as tathe geologica. ndseismichks is unacceptablasit wouldhave
beenfor theOnginalProject.'38
5.134. Concwnshavebeen expressedastothe slipshonatureof tbe
desigo nf VarianC. The consmction on thedamprior tothe planned
diversionresdted in flaws andcracks in thedam wall and canal,
suggestingthatat that timethe Projectmight not comply with the
requiredspecificationsconceminstructurastability.139Mattewere
made worse withtherapidimplementationofVariantC, whichshowed
itsdeficienciwithinamonthin thefloodofNovember 1992.
(8) J%VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
5.135. On 25 June1991,theSlovak EnvirumentalCommission he
centraauthoritfurwater economy,Lssueda binchg "Statement"nder
Section14 ofthe Slova WkaterAct.14According tothi statement19
conditionshadtolx compliedwith asa le@ prerequisitfor usingthe
waterand operathgGabcikovo.In summary hey included:
1. the documentatioonftheselfcleaningprocessansdmechanisms;
2. the documentatioonfpollutioofthesoilandgroundwater;
3. the evaluatioanddocumentatioo nftheimpact oftheGabcikovo
barrage and the provisionalsolution wariant C3 on the
pundwater system;
137 The dangemateri&& whenaftearshipaccidont11Fe- 1994inthe
rightshipl-cwhicledtotheshipwreçklyitbeshiploehambeformm
thsn50day- anotheraccidentheleshiplwan 20Md 1994(breaofa
500 ton do- pte) made ams to theshiplocksimpossibThe
intenialinavigationtheDanubebecamirrrprrr@lYS& andisstillin
thaconditiasof30March19%.
138 Seeabovepares96-5.10s.
139 SeeSlova UnionofNatrpandLankape Rotemrs, sec. hnexes,vol5,
annex17.
140 WaterActNo 138/197Zb,eiteby 1993WWFReport. p7;Annexesvol5,
annex20.the drafthof apmgnosis foxtheupgrnd ofthe qualitof the
pundwater ussd fothepublicdrinkingwatesupply;
the proof ofthe impact of the provisionidsolution on the
gruu~dwateqxuanti;y
thedetenninatiof thesideeffectsthemodifiecrieservou;
a provisionfor analyshg cohatationprocessinthereservoir
regionandintheregionofthe insulathead-raccanai"because
acceleratecoImatatioofthereservoibed içtobe expectedin
theaftemathof theincreasedhydraulicgradie, articulaony
thereservoirightside";
the assessrnenof effectsto the Danube riverbed on the
groundwate rystemon kth banksof theDanubefoiiowingthe
closm oftheDanu&,
thesolvingoftheorganisatiandnavigatiooftheDanubehm
PalkovicovototheIpolyestunr yartidatlin conjunctiowith
theneutralisatiofintensiveerosionbetweenthe Palkovicovo-
Moson-Danub estuary;
thepqm stotagofsedimentproducdhm thereservoir;
theparanteethatthehch systemWU beWed totheDanuk,
the parantee of constructionof facilitoehartdleshipping
accidents, articulymn fossilfueldamage;
theassuran ofthe Moson-Danube watersupplyinaccordance
withthe1947Agreement andPariPesaceTreaty;
the demonstrntiothatdamage wouldbepreventedorlimited
whilework ontheprojectaokplace;
theassessrn ofthedrainhg offloowaterandremoval ofice;
theoperation of continuousmonitoringprojectboth in the
Gabcikovaareaandintheby-passedDanube be&
thewnsikation ofthe pqmtion ofthe draftplanentitled"The
summary offlmdprokaion provisions";
thegwmtee of wateroutpuof appximately 1300-15m 001s
for vegetaticof theflodplain regioin theDanubeand the
maintenanceofthena- physiollogiplrocess ofhegmwing
seasonforthenecessartim e esiod(especidforthemonth of
March andSeptmber)the paranteeofa constanwateroutputin the main riverbeclwhich would allow for groundwaterlevel
contactwiththesoiIhorizonand
19. theguaranteeoffloodpmtection provisionintheareaof theright
clrainagcanal.
5.136. The Company ~esponsiblforVariantC atno stagebeforethe
implementaticiof VariantC cumplied with theseconditions.Itwas
frne for non-cornplianceithficenshg andpermitprocedures lI In
shortthe constnictioofVariantC was unlawfdunderSlovak law. Ch
17 April1993,aspeçificpermitfor us~ftheDanube waterwas gfanted
apparentlyreplacinConditionNa 18foraninterimpeÿiodbecause the
technicasituation(inparticula,hedesigndeficienciesdid notallow
for ahigher di~charge.~4 2ccording to aletterofthe Slovak state
attorneyon 19 August 1993 ,he csornpanyeceivedpermission on 17
May 1993to dam thewater. Appmtiy, thespecificorderwasgranted
by theauthmitymder theconditionsthaa minimum flow of o00m3/s
be guaranteedintheDanuk.143That conditiohas notbeen compIied
withasof 1 Apd 1994. C
5.137. ~ccsidin~ fo an informationrelease by the Slovak
Environmenta Clommissio onMarch 1993,the operationofthesystem
was then ody incornpliancewithconditions9,10,12,14, 15, 16,and
19. 'ïhosewere theconditionsof lemimportanceto Hungary .4 One
yearlater,most ofthe conditionsarestiinetmet --those ofgreatest
importancetoHurigary.
CONCLUSIONS
5.138. For thewons explainec inparagmph 5.04 ,is notpossible
tu bedefinitiveaboutissuesof riskanddamage atthisstage. Thisis
especidlyso withrespectto thoseelementsof theProjectwhich were
never comtnrcted (i.e., NstgymarBarrage)or which never opted
(e.g.peak power production),
5.139. Despitethis,thecataloguofrisk andhage presentedhere
demonstratestha htarmfulhvefsible processeshave startedand wdi
continueto emerge.Thiscallsint ouestionot merelythe operationof
141 1993WWFReport , 7Annexes,vol5mex 20.
142 1993MWF Report, 7Annexesvol5,anne20.
143 1993WWF Report,7Annexes,ol5,anne20.
144SeeIiifomaionMease, Mart993;Annexevol4,amex 172(Wbing non-
cornplianof majoriof provisionaswell athe actionstakenbe in
cmpiiance of remahprovisions.)Variant C but the underlyîngconceptioofthe BarrageSystem as
originallyplanneandultirnatecconstructed.As originaconceived
the BarrageSystem canied svbstantidrisks, includingnskto the
drinkinwatersupplyofthecapitalcitandtoHungzy's mostimportant
waterreserve.Iwodd havedamaged awetlandare afEuxopeanvalue.
VariantC cees manyof thesamerisksto thwaterreserveandto the
wetland,togethewithanurnberofadditionalnsb duetoitdesignand
modeofconstruction .otheextentthamy benefitscanlxathributto
VariantC,theyapplyalmostentireltotheSlovakside,theresuitofits
unautfiorisappropriatioofthewatersofa borderiverformore than
40 rkms.
5.140. Theconsequeno çftsh conclusiowillbe speiiout,within
theframework of theapplicabllegai nilesand-ciples,inPartsIII
andIV ofthi ç ernorial. PART m
BREACEES OF 'FHELAWATTRIBUTABLE TU
CZECHOSLOVIIIUA ANDSLOVAKLQ
BFtFAGHES OFTE 1977TREATY AND OF OTHE3
RELEVANT RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN
RELATION TU TEE ORIGINAL PROJECT
6.01. Agairithe historicaland factualbackgrset outinthe
precedkg Qiaptethi saroftheMernorialetsouand demonstrates
the breaches of internationallaw whichare attributabto
CzechoslovakandsubsepentlytotheSlovakRepublic. The present
Chapterfocuses on breacheof relevant maties, and of general
internatioiw, ccmmittebyCzechoslov paiiro thconstruction
andimplementatinf VnrianC.Chapter7willdeawlittheaegality
ofVarianC itself. Chap8wjU discusstheissuetheattributofn
theseunlawfulacts tthe Slovak Republic,and the consequential
obligationsofreparation.
6.02. C6 prehinary commentsarhowerernecessaconcerning
theaitributiof righandresponsibilitoCzechodovakiaandthe
SlovakRepubbc.
6.03. Riorto 1Januar1993t,heSlova kepubIididnotexistasa
Stateora legai persofintanational iaw. Untheconstitutional
arrangementsgovemingthe Czech and Slovak Fedd Republic,
intemationalcornpetencand reqoflsib'iüwere vested in and
exercisedexclusiveIybythe FederatiothecomponentStatehad
no separateintemationalexistenPrim tothatdatethe relevant
ma*, includithe 1977Treaty,werenecessartseaticoncluded
with Czechoslovakia.e SIovakRepubliwas neva a partto the
1977TreatyoritsssaciatagamentS.
6,04. On 1Jmuary 1993theCzechRepublicantheSlovakRepublic
came intoxistencasnew persanof intemationailaw,theCzech
andSlovakFederaRepublicceasetoexistasaIegd person.Neither
1 Sedm abovepars.0-2.07.theCzechRepublicnos the SlovakRepubliccraimedto be continuaus
withor thesame Stateathe formerFedd Republic.Both appliefoz
and were admittedasnew membersof the UnitedNations andof the
CouncilofEurope,whereas theCzechandSlovakFederalRepubii~ was
an originalmemk oftheUnited Nationsand amernberof theCouncii
of Europe shce 1991. There was thus a successionof Stateson 1
January 1993, the consequencesof which areto be regulatedby
agreementktween thoseconcernedin accordancewith theapplicable
mles ofinternationllwgovemin successi ofontates.
6.05. Parapph twg of thepreambletothe SpecidAgreementmites
that"theSlovakRepublicis oneothetwo successoStatesofthe Czech
andSfovak FederalRepublicand the sole successStateinrespectof
rights and obligationsrelatto theGabcikovo-NagymaroP srojec."
On 3 March 1993theCzechRgiubficnotifiedtheEuropeanCommission
"thaton Fehq 23, 1993 theHouseof Depusies ofthe
Parliamentof theCzech Republicapproved thatthe Czech
RepuMc wodd not becorne a successive [sic] stao the
Trea~ betweenthe CzechoslovakSocialistRepublicandthe
People'RepublicofHmgary onthe constructiandoperation
of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaro ystem of locks,si&ned at
BudapestonSeptemba 16,1977 andthecontractualocuments
relatedtthisTreat."2
Thesubsequentdiscussionsbetween theSlovakRepublicandHungary
onsuccessionissuesare outlineinChapter 10. Althoughthe Slovak
Republic soughtHungcuian agreementto itç successiob the 1977
Treaty,theRepublicof Hungarydeched to agreetothls.ForItspart
theSlovakRepublicproposedtonegotiatesuccessiotobilaterdtreatres
on a case-by-casebasisa procedure acceptedby the Republicof
Hungary.3
6.M. The SpecialAgreement drawsa distinctionbetweenthe 1977
Treatyas such(referredtoin thefkt preambulapramgraph) and the
Gabcikovo-Nagym Pauijct(refmd to in thesecond preambu3ar
2 NoteVerbalhm theCzechRepublitothEC Cmmksion, 3 Match1993:
Annexes,o4,mex 117.
3 NoteVerbaIhm MinisûyofForeigAffgiroftheSlovaRepublictothe
Emhsy of theRepublofHungary,5November1993Annexes,vo4,annex
128.paragraph). Ttis obviouswhy such a distinctionwasnecessary:the
Slovak Republicwas never aparty to the1977Treaty andbreaches of
thatTreatyçomrnittedby theCzechandSlovakFederal Republicwere
not as suchattributableto it.Moreoverthe 1977 Treatyhad been
terminateciythe RepublicofHungary,and effsctivelyrepudiatbythe
CzechandSlovakFederalRepublic,prior to3 1December 1992. Zthas
neverbeen infore between thepartietothepsent case.
6.07. Nonethelessthe questionofsuspension,breachandtermination
of the1977Treatyarematters fortheCourtto decideunder Article2 of
the SpeciaiAgreernerk4The reasonis that they relateto questions
whicharein disputektween theRepublicofHungary andthe Slovak
Republic --thatistu saythelegalconsequencesfor thepresentparties
of the ûmsactionswhich occmd beforeone of them came into
existenceas a State.Undernormalcircumstances questionsasto the
legalitor Uegalityofconduct asbetween theRepublicofHungary and
a thirdStatewhichhas ceasedtoexist wouldbemootquestions~and
wodd notbe within theadjudicatoryornpetencoefthe Court. Thisis
not so in the preseïicase becausa end rothe extent that legal
cmsequencesfor the partiesmay flow from the answers to those
questions.
6.08. TheSpeçialAgreementspecifies threq uestionwhich theCourt
is requestedtudecide:these aredirectiyaddress iedEhlsMm~orid.~
But it doeç notembdy any agreement betweenthe Partiesasto the
extentto whichrightsor obligationwhch amse between theRpublsc
of Hungary and the CzechandSlovakFederal Repubk are included
within the"rightandobligationsrelatinto theGabcikovo-Nagymaros
Roject" whichare applicable orin forceasktween the Republicof
Hungary and theSlovak Republic. Thatis a matterfor theCourt to
decide,applying relevannileo f intemationallaw. But theextentto
which particularrightorobligationsmay subsistbetween theparties
4 Seeaboveparas.0-2.05.
5 CfNortherÇmeroonsCe,ICI Rep 1963,p15Thisiquiteseparfmmany
constraihilposedbtheMonerarGoldpfinciple:CaseconcemMowtery
GoidRemovedjroRomein1943,ICReports1954,p32.
6 ThequestionidentifiArticle2(l(suspensiandterminatof worksiç
addd in Chapterthequesrioi-fied inArticleS[l)()legalitye
"provisionasloluisaddressmd-ter 7;thequestiidentifieArticle
2(l)(c)[terminnfthel9î7 TreatyaddresinCdhapte10. cannot be determinedin the abstract:it wibe addressedas needs
requireinthiMernoriala,ndinparticulinChapters8 and11.
SECTION A: BREACR OF PERTENENT BILATER&
mAm
,6.09. Itisnowproposed to deW the variousbreaches of relevant
t~eaties,andof generalinternatilaw,commitaed byCzechoslovakia
priortothe constructionand implementatiof VariantC. Questions
relatintoVariantC wiîbedealtwithin Chapter7.
6.10. Itisme rhatVariantC came intothe pictuat acomparatively
wly stage. According to apublicationoftheSlovak Republic,the
decisiontoproceedwith VariantC was takeninJanuary 1991,7 and
threatto doso weremadeI8 months beforethat.8Aa certainpointhe
threatof damagingunilateralactioncodd not besqarated from the
whole disputeover theBarrageSystem. Nonethelasit is usefd to
dismissthelegalitof Czechoslovakconductinrelatiotothe Original
Projectand inthecontextof kperativeconcms rais4by Hungaryas
to itsontinuation. nparticula,swilllxseen inChapter7,although
introduckgthe radicainovelty(andnew illegaliq) of its dateral
chmter, thedecisioto seup VariantCand thespeciw naychosen to
implement iwere alsato asignificaextent,basedonthecontinuation
of actions perfmed in kach of Czechoslovakia'internationd
obligations,npartiah the1977 Treatyandthe 1976Boundary Waters
Convention.
6.11. As wilI be demonsfrated In the following paragraphs,
Czechoslorakiawas inbreachof the 1977Treaty,iparticulaArticles
15and19, as wel as ofotherbilateratreatieinparticulathe 1976
BoundaqWatersConvention.Thesebreaches antedatethe suspension
ad abandonmen otfworksby Hungarya,nd wereneverremedied.They
fomed oneof thegrounds forsubsequentHungariandation.
6.12. As was natedinChapter 4, a number ofarticl ofsthe 1977
Treatydiredy aimedatenvironmenta plrotection.Artic15cmcerned
7 VodohospodarsVaystavspBratisla, Gabcikovo-N-s ProjeetThe
Temm SolutiontheTemitwyoftheCSFR-SIovak (iaaislav1993;
Annexes, o4annex173,
8 Seebelowpar9-07,the protectionowater quallty,Article 1theprotectionofnature,
Article20thprotectiooffishinghterests.
(a) Thescopeof Article15
6.13. Articl15 pmvidedasfollows:
1. TheCunmcting Partieshalensure,bythemeansspecified
inthejoincontractuaplanthatthe qualiofthe waterinthe
Danubeis not impairedas a resuiof the consmctionand
operatiooftheSystemofLoch.
2. The monitoringof waterqualityin connectionwiththe
constructionando-tion ofthe System of Locksshalb le
cmied outon thebais oftheagreementsonhntier watersin
forcbetweentheGovenunent osftheContracthgParties."
Theaimof Article15wasta maintainwaterqualityInthat contexthe
referenctobundary watersagreementisnforcwas legdy significant.
When the 1977 Treatywas concludedthe relevanthntier waters
agreementwas theBoundq WatersConvention of1976. Tt 15stilin
forc an,dcontainsise obligationwithregardtowaterq~ality.The
pointof Articl15was toensur teatnoadditionapollutionwouldbe
cad bythe constructiand theoperatiooftheBarrageSystem,and
the standarestabiisheby the1976 Conventioncodd not havebeen
intendedtoberelax& m rduced. On theotherhand,thatConvention
wasnot thelastword:subsequenbundary watersagreementsmigh be
concluded,andtheirstandards oulin turnberelevant.ThusArticle
15 alsohad theobjectivof enablinthe ContrachgPartiesto reach
such higherstandardas mightbe requireby evolvîngdomesticand
internationalnoms to fulfil healtand environmental protection
rqrhrnwts.
6.14. Thebroadscope of Articl15can beseenhm thedefinitionof
the wordç "the water in the Danube",and thedefinition afthe
impairmenotfthe qdty of thewakr. Referenceshouldalsobemade
tu thephrase"by themeans specifiedithe joincontracniaplan",
whichis common to Article15 and19 andobviouslyfiasthe same
meanaSi trboth.
Se abovs,paras4.-34.35.The1976BoundaryWaterConventionis an
ment relatto Phregimeofabounby andis thdo= dso inforce
benveetheRepubIofWunm andthe SlovaRepubliseealsoeIow,para
10,111.6.15. The term "water in theDanube" inArticle 15 includedthe
undergroundwaters comected withtheriveraswell asthe watersinthe
maincourseof theriver.The intentioofthepartiewas manifestinthis
regard A.rticl15 refemd tomonitoringof waterqudity "on thebasis
of the agreementson frontier waters inforce". The pqose of
monitoringwasto maintainwaterqualityasrequiredby Aaicle 15(1).
The definitioofwaterqualityforthepurposemust have ben thesame
and,in theabsence of anydefinitioin the 1977Treaty ilself, canbe
derivedhm the "agreement s nhnlier watersin force". Thefrontier
wateragreement in fme in 1977 andthmughout the disputwas the
1976Boundq Waters Convention.That Agreement isquite clear in
referrinboth to"di suface andsub-surfacewaters intersectedbythe
Stateboundaries" (Articlel)and in including withinits scope"the
protectioofsurfaceandsubsurfacwe atershm poliution"(Article2).
6.16. Theinclusionof subsurfacewaterswithinArticle15 çonformed
to generades of internationallaw onintemationalwatercoursesTo
illustratthe Dedaration on Waters adopteclby the UN Economic
Commissiun forEuropein 1980, systemaricdyassociatedsurfaceand
gound water.oHngaryandCzechosbvakia participateinthemg
of thisDeclaration.Subsequenitnternationaiinstrumenconfirmthat
surfacewaterand gromdwater mources mustbeconsidemias a uniin
preservingtheir quali.1 TheDraftArticleson theLawof the Non-
navigationalUses of LntemationalWatercoursesrtdoptedby the
Internationalaw Commission on 11 September 1991 reflectState
pctice andagreements, in thisand lotherrespects. Article 2(c), as
adopted,providestha:
"watercome means a systemofsurfaceandunderground waters
constitutingbyvirtueof theirphysicd rdationshipaunitary
wholeandflowingint ocoinmon tenninus."l2
10 Rintiples1,3,5,13. EIECEliOMECE/WAïEMS, pp1 -5.
11 ECEDeciamion oPolieon thNationalUseof Waters,1Princip3[e)5:
EQE DecisioD QX7CXV II)Iritematiod Co-operaon SharedWater
Reso~, 1982ECE Charteforthe ManagemetfGroundwate, ecisiEn
(441, 198Wi9CEI119 E7, EW4,lS. A-ing to Art1 ofthe1992
HelsinkiConventonntheProtectiandUse of TmshruidarWateFcomes
andIntemafionhl: "Transbinisawaùasmeans anysurfaceor ground
waterswhich crossorareloc9tedonbundanesbetweentwoor mm
Stat...WECQi267).6.17. Having regard to Article 1 of the 1976 Boundary Waters
Convention, theterm "the waterin the Danube"clearly includedthe
underground waterof the concemedma as well asthe water inthe
riverbeditself.
6.18. Thephrase "thequalityof thewater...isnot impaired"equdy .
had abroadsense. Impairmeno tfqualityrneandamage ordeteriorahon
and initsinteqretatiothe differenusesof waterhad to betaken into
consideration.ItcertainIyincludedpollution.Ininternationallaw, the
ordinarymeaningofpollutionwasat thattime ...
"theintroductiobyman,ditectlyorindirectly,ofsubstanceor
energy intotheenvironment resultingindeleténouesffectsof
such a natureas to endangerhumanhealth, hm living
resources and ecosystems, and impair or interferewith
amenitiesandotherIegitzmatuses oftheenvironment."~3
Thi sefmiti ochdesnot ody effectivdamage bypol2utianb,ut also
the apprecia rlkeof damage. It includeschangesinthe chemicd
composition,temperature or othercharacteristisf thewaters ofthe
Danube in sucha way asto injurtheinterestafeitherof thePartiesor
of anythhd States.
6.19. Each ofthetwo tems "ofsuch anature"(certaimaties usethe
words"likely to")and "asto endanger"inthisdefinitionencompassed
the conceptof riskin the definitionof pollution:reatogetherthey
cohed theinclusioof nsks and potentiadangersinthe conceptof
pollution.
6.20. The obligationsofthetwoContrachgParties werethus toavoid
poliutionorthe riskofpollutionofthewater ofthe Danube and of the
underground water relatedIO it"as a resultof theconsmetion and
operationof theSyskrnofLoch". The obligation was continuous:it
13 Thisdeflltion resultshmRecommendatimproclaimiprinciprelativeto
mJfroniierpllutioadopteby thtOEîD Couri~in1974(Tcecommendation
C(74)224.14Movembm19741,thtemisofwhichwerereproducinnumemus
intematianlnsîmmentse.gBarceIonConventiofortheProtectioofthe
MediterraneneaAgainsP011uth,16Febnmy 1976,Art 2((1976)15LM
290,aswellas aserisofconventioMd byUNEP for thprotectoifon
regionaseasConventiononLung-RangTmboundary AirPoliution,Geneva,
13November 1979,Art 1, (1979ILU 1442;Seah UNConvention onthe
Law ofthe SeaMontegoBay, 1aember 1982,Art1(1)(4), (1982LM1
1261.arose at theonset of the planningprocess, existed throughoutthe
canstnictionphaseandwas intendedtooperatethughout thelifetirne
ofthe SystemofLoch.
6.21. Findiy, brief referenceshouldbe made to thephrase"by the
meansspeçifiedinthejointcontxactudplan"inPstiçles 15and9,This
by no meanssieed thatthe implementationof theseArticleswas
subordinate o thePlan.The ArticlesconcePn draw acleardistinction
between theobligatioto ensureaparticularesiilandthemeans zo be
used todo so. Itwould be contrarybot.totheirordinarymeaning as
weU as totheir objeand purposeto intergrthe referenctathe Joint
ContracruaPllanasputentialiynegatingthem. This is especiasoyin
thatthe Joint Contracmal lanitself hnot kn concludedwhen the
1977 Treatywas signed. The 1977 Treatywas clearlyintendedasthe
dominantinstrument. The JointContracruaP l lan,inçontrâst,was
essentiallas a managementtool and ameans of handlingthe large
amountof detailinvolvedin theOriginalProjectwithouttheneed for
numerous amendment s. %
(b) Th scopeofArticle19
6.22. Article19 providedthat:
"The ContracthgPdes shall,throughthe means qecfied in
the Joint ContractualPlan, ensurc eornpliance withthe
obligationsfortheprotectionofnature hsing in connection
withtheçonstnicti~and operatioofthe SystemofLocks."
6.23. Hereagain,severalelementsmustbeconsidered:themeaningof
the "protectioofnature";themeaningof "obligation... arisingin
comection witathe constructioandoperationoftheSysternofLAK:ks";
and theidentificatiof "obligatiosortheprotectioofnature"l5
6.24. A bad interpretatiofnatureisreflectedithetitleoChapter
M1, "Protectionof the NatirralEnvironment" whIch includesthe
protectionof natureunderArticle 19 and the protectioof fishing
hterestsunderArticle20.The broaderterm "protectioofnature" thus
includedall otheelementsof the"naturalnvironment"tobe protected
ingeneralin diregionsoutsideurban anduidusmalareas:nativefana
15 Forthemeaningoftherefereto "thmeans-4 inthjoinwnrraçtwl
plan",seabovpara6.31.and ffora, habitats of wildlife,the alluvial plain and their
interrelationshipXnthir sespectit shauldbenotedthat, theterm
"naturetisnotstnctly lunitetofana and floq itwould includethe
naturdenvironmenitngeneral,includhgsoi1andforest.
6.25. The wmds "obligations ... arishg inçonnection with the
comtructionandoperationof theSystemofLocks" meantthatthe duty
to protecthe naturalenvironmentbegan upon commencement of the
planningprmess,andextendedthroughovt theconsmctionphaseand
thewholelifetimeofthe BarragSystem.
6.26.
Thecornmitment t o"ensurcornpliancewitthe obligationsfa
theprotectioof naturearoseas betweenthePartieswith thentrjinto
forceofthe 1977Treatyand was toendody wlththe definitiveclosing
downof the BarrageSystem. The languageitself cledy referredto
independent hteniationd obligationsfor the protectionof nature
pursuanttootheragreementsorto customaryinternationlaw, whether
theseexistepria tothe 1977Treatyor amse subsequently.Itimplied
theestablishmenotf a systemof '~nvimnmentail pactassessment,in
order to gatherinformationfor the Conmcting Parties as to the
consequencesofthe consmctxonand option ofthevariousaspectsof
the entirl?i-ojet powaterquality,natureandnaturalresources,and
fih stoch.
(c) Thescopeof Artrcle20
6.27. Articl20providedthat:
'The ContracthgPmties, wie the hework of national
hvestment,shaltake appropriameeasuresfortheprotectioof
nshing interestin confdty with the Danube Fisheries'
Agreementc,oncludedatBucharesot n29January1958."
The aim of Article20was to incorporatbyreference thesubstantive
and procedurd obligationsset forthin the 1958 DanubeFisheries
Convention. These included theobligationtoamelioratethe naturai
conditionsforcertaifishstocks(ktick 51,theprepmtion in advance
andapplicationofajointplantosafeguarndormalmigmury movements
(Article51and theobligatiotowork outand applymeasurestuprevent
the contaminatioannd pollutioof the DanubeRiver and itswaters
(Articl7).
6.28. It isme that Article20 requkd thePartiesoniy to "take
appropiaterne8sms1 f'othe protectionoffishingintereatdshatthislanguagecontainsa flexibland even discretionaeIement notpresent
inArticles1516or 19-1On the otherhandtherneasurestakenhad tobe
"inconformitywith theDanubeFisheriesConvention,and as hasbeen
seenin Chapter4,theseobligationswereclearandsubstantial.lg
6.29. ForpresentpurposestheeffectofArdcIe20 was two-fold. First,
itincorporated obligationswhichwexe additionalto theArticle19
obligations.Second,iservedtoemphasise theimportanceplacedbythe
Partietothe 1977 Treatyontheprotectiooffishinginterests.
Czechoslma?cinc o'sductinrelationtorhe 1977 Treaty
(d)
6.30. In respectof these obiigations,Czechoslovakiaconsistently
assert ehdtadequatetechnicalsolutiocouid befound toremedy the
environmenta lamage thatwould becaused by theBarrageSystem.'9
Such anapproach violatedthe clearobligationsofthe 1977 Treaty,
whichreferred to gend intemationaeinvUOnmento ab1ligations.The
fkt such obligation,universalagreedon,istheprmentionof damage
carisetuthe environmenk
6.31. Appendix2 of theAgreement of 6 May1976betweenHungary
andCzechoslovakia regardingthedraftinof theJointConmctualPlan
establishethe divisionof workbelween the two contracthgparties.
According to SectionB of the Appendix,Czechoslovakia was to
cornpletethehydrologicalandhydraulicexaminationsregardhg the
naturaIconditionof thesection between RajkaandBratislavaand
regardingthe developmentof new conditionsbetwcenNagyrnaros and
Bratislava.Czechodova% isohadthetask tolnxtiattheexamination
of floodingand tochec kamples ofthe sWg riverbed,takinginto
consideratiotheprotectioof Bdshva andthe circumstanceosfwater
managemen ts weli as"thecomplexexamination ofthe effectof the
barrageon the environment".Mer tasks weresharedby the two
couritriesuçh as amore accuratedetamination ofthe forecasof the
16 Art15:'W ensenbe,thmeansspeMfieinthejointcmmaaud plan,thet
quditofthewm intheDanubisnomipaltsd...". See&ove,para6.13.
17 Art 19:"Jhall,tbrothemeans inthjoincontractullan,ensure
compfarioewitthobligatiosotheprotectoifn-...". Seeabove,para
6.22.
18 Seeabwe,para4-48,
19 SeeinparticulPositionoihe CzechosloGovanmental elegatiigned
byMr 3Caniogursk, JuIy1991;Annexevo4,mex 52.level of thegromdwaterin thesurroundingsof the abandonedbed,
takingintoconsideratiothe situatiosubsequentto theproposal and
buildingand theeffectofthebarrageon water qualitand the region's
drinkingwater.
6.32. In particular,environmental assessrne rntuirernentsand
environmentaiobligationwere not &ed outadequately.Potentiai
environmentai effects of the constniction were assessed by
Czechoslovakiaoniyktween 14 Seplemberand 12 November 1990,in
implementationof a decisioof 27 August 1990 of the Mce of the
Prime Mhisterof theSlovakRepublic.Some expertreportscomplained
that ailnecessarydatawere not available. Negativeeffectson the
qudityof thesubsmfacewater were stressed,ridthesub-commissions
which examineddifferentaspectofthevariantobtainedsuchdiverging
resdtsthat at tfinalmeetingat Bratislav,n 12Ncivem'be1r990, no
conclusioncouidbereached.It was expiicitlystatethatheproposed
solutions reflected political concenot satifymg environmental
~onsiderations.~~
6.33. In a Note Verbale of 1 Septmber 1989 the Munghan
Governmend t ed thatit.,.
"hassubmitted a proposaiin two variationsfor the joint
investigatioof thefeasibilityoftheGabcikovo-Nagymaros
Banage Systemandinvited theCzechoslovak Gavernment to
make an assessrnentof the proposa1and to hold joint
discussionon thematter.
The submiteed versionof the proposaisuggested thatjoint
investigatiobe eonductedovera periodofeither3-5yearsor
in thealternativeversion1 year, and the wurking out of
ecolegicalparanteesandanoptimal systemofoptions. The
HungaRan Party &O propose dh intemationalscientiflc
organisationlxinvolvedinthesaidjointscienac work.021
6.34. Accordingto amdy prepared by Hydro-Qu& witmwional at
therequestoftheCzechoslovak Gcivernmen atndpubILSheinDecember
1990:
20 RepartofHydrwonsut nthGabcikovo-NagymmB-e SysteBratislava,
14Sepmberand12Nwmk 1990.
21 SeeAnnexes,ol4,mex 25.TheHungatiapasitionah qpeain Appendix1
oftheA&-MemoireoftheGvernmentPlenipientia, ratisl, Septemkr
1989. "des études environnementdes [sic] on et6 entreprises
parallèlementla constructiodes ouvragesducomplexe,soit
versCanné e975. La solutiontechniquedtantdéjchoisieces
étudesneportaientpassurune comparaisonde variantesmais
bienplut61surl'optimisatidu projetretenu... De façon
généraleIes principauxenjeux gouvernementaux considérés
dansces&tudesont traitsurtoutlaqualit6et lapropagation
de lanappe d'eausoutemine liéeà l'agiculture,l'exploitation
forestièrel,'induetrt'approvisionnemennteaupotable ...
U convienttoutefoide mentionner que cesélémento sntété
étudiépsresqu'exclusivernentrapportavecleur exploitation
6conomique.Quant à l'évaluatidesimpactsdu projetellene
respecte pasun cadre méthodologiqup erécis. En effet,
l'idenWmtiondes sourcesd'impactainsiqueles impactseux-
mêmen seseretrouventpasdefaçon syssérnaüqu etexplicite
danslesdifférentsapportdesynthèse comuités.Les impacts
se retrouventlutotdansladéfinitide lazone d'&de etdans
lesmesures proposées.Ces mesures proposéer selkventplus
d'uobjectifdemiseenvaieurdu milieuquedel'atténuatioou
lacmction desImpactsappréhend é.."22
6.35. On25 June 1991,theSlova rviinistofEnvironmen tecidedto
submitthe authorkatioof thefunctioninof theBarrageSystem to 19
conditions,phady almed atassuringthe protectionofunderground
water.As ofDecember 1993,fewof the19conditionshadbeen met.23
6.36. On3 October 1991,14 yearsaftertheconclusionof the 1977
Treaty,theCzech and SIova kederalParment adopted a sesolution
reguestintheFederaïGoverrimen otfthecountrto ...
"achievan unequivocaplositiowithregardtothecontinuation
of doubts about the qualit of the building work of the
Gabcikovo-Nagymaro s ydroelectnSystem."
Itdso askedtheGovenunent to...
22 HydroQuébe ctemationd, Rappo&opiniosurcerainsaspectsduprojer
@etont ,!mise en ~loitation & la centrale deGabcibvo. Rapport Générai
(kamk 1M]: Annexes,ol.5,annex9.
23 Forabriedfseussionofeachthe19conditioseabovepara5.135Farthe
fulltext, seSlovakim En-tal Roxeaion CommitoeDecidon,
Bratisla,5Juae1991(Ref35614SS ii).ForthChmittee'assessrn ent
campJianseeitInfmation Rele@dava, mi)Annexes,v4,anrme1x2.
Seeal%,above,pam 5.1-5.137. "initiatethestablishmentof a professionalcornmitteein
cooperationwiih the Governmentof the Slovak Republic,
which willassessthe ecologicd, economie,social and the
internationlgal consequeno cecasionedbythe completion
oftheGabcilravo-NagymmH s ydroeleçbneystem. .."24
6.37. Even latera Resolutionof the SlovakNationalCouncadopted
on3 1Jmary 1992 determinedthat:
"TheSlovakgovemment didnotproperlyusetheproposalmade
by the EnvironmentaiProtectionConunitteeofthe National
Council, number 4,116dated 22 Marçh 1991, especiailyas
regardthe evaluationanjudgmentof thefinadecision,orthe
proposd madeby the Cornmitteedining the kt quarteof
1990and theproposalmade bythe cornmitteeno 1-5wmking
as a conmittee evaluatingthe conclusionsof a panel of
independenexpertsduringthesecondhalfof1990."3
6.38. The Resolutionrequested the Govment of the Slovak
Republicto...
"=-examinethe plansforsewage waterpurifieratBratislava,
withspecialattentito Peuzalkaand the areaaffectedbythe
barrageW~QS~sewage nows directlyinttheDanubeand make
the commencement of operations of the Gabcikovo
Hydroelectripowerplant contingentuponthe completion of
the constructiofthepudiers."26
6.39. Inotherwords,the"mmediam l easureswhichwere supposex o
elhinate the damagingenvironmentac lonsequencesof the Bamge
System (and whichwere thesgecifiresponsibiiiryoCzechoslovakia
undm the 1976Agreement) were not detemirid at ftiebegkmkg of
1991,fourken yem aftetheconclusionofthe1977 Treaty.
6.40. Acc&g to reportofindepenhntexpertspublishedin1993:
"Thesolutionsenvisagfeorenvironmenta problems are'M
cm'.Rather than removingthe causesof problems,new
î4 ResolatiNo 200no3@),(d).
25 Slova kationalCouncir,ResolNoi24631 January992Annexesvol4,
annex170.
25 Slova kati~nCorinciRemliaioNo 24631January1992Annexes,vo4,
amex 170. technicddevicesaredesignedwhichare intendeto correctthe
consequenc ofsprecedingtechriicddevices. The results
sometimes attaitheabsurd. Forexarnple,heinstallationoa .
networkofpumps was imaginedinorderto compensateforthe
watertablekevelvatiationsdownsmamfromthe dam. These
pumps would have consumed a largepart of the electriçity
pduced by thedam!"27
6.41. Sincethebeginningofthe 1980~ ~cientifbodieshave sîressed
thatno swey hasbeendune to investigaandrnonitorsystematicaliy
theecologicaimpacts andconsequenceosf theprojectandconsiderthe
interactionofthetechnicalecologicai,economicaspectsandthe risks
attaçhedtothemaZ 8n 1989,the studiesby independen txpertgroups
stressed thedangersof the continuatioof the constructionwithout
assessinaH questionsconcemhg it mpacts ontheenvironment.
6.42. Acçordingtotheht:
"Our principal finding is thatthe unresolvedquestions
concenillithepotentiaecologicaandeconomicimpactsof the
[Gakikovo-Nagymaros p]ject rquirethataiiconstnictionbe
suspendecdltaingthe@od of decisionmakingon thefateof
thipsroject."29
6.43. The secmdwas anexpertreportof theWorldWildlife Fund,
whichrecommendei dnAugust1989 thesuspensionof theconstruction
forthre yearsandthe constitutionof anothindependenetxpertgoup
forstudyingtheecologicdconsequen oftsebartage.30
6.44. A
thirdgroup,composeciof independentHungarim sciwhsts,
concludedthat:
27 Equip eouteau,TheDunube, urWhom andfor What?EuropeanBankfor
Recommtion andDevelopmenAgreemen,member1991.FinalRepo(1993)
pp173-'74Annexes,d5,annex16.
28 PositioPapw of the HungariAcadmy ofScienaes20 December1983;
Annexes,ol5amiex2.
29 EcologiaanmRT, Gahikovo-Nogymars mragSm, ProgramOptjofts
andImpacr(May1989 ),17Annexes,o5,annex6,
30 WWF, SteI1wtglsahe esWWF zum Stairfcn-PreGubcikovo-Nagym~lfos
Gbshtt, August1989). "As indicatedby the ecologicd analyses, the detrimental
consequencesofa hydro-elecbicbarragçysternm irreversible
inmostofthe caseswhiletheactualscopeof theprojeçtisstill
unclear... D]he ecolçigicas,eismologicdandotherfactors
and thecclnsequentialequirementscd for a revisionof the
blueprints3l
6.45. An exper?report fitiatein199 1 and publishedin 1993also
declarethat:
"Basicreflectionothemattermustbeengagedinincorporating
thetechnicd,ecologicd, economicandsocialdataanddrnwing
on internationaexperts,the public and non-governmental
organisationforenvLronmentp alotection.It mustleadtoan
exhaustive and detailed costlndvantages analysis of al1
alternativeso1utiom.It must be carriedout in a spiritof
tramparency and its conclusions must guide decisions
concerninGabcikovo' s utt~e".3~
6.46. Thenumemus pposals forcooperationintheassessrn ofnte
ecologicalconsequencesof the constructionof the BarrageSystem,
wkich the HtmgarianGovemmentaddressed to the Czechoslovak
Governmen ctm lxunderstoodin thecontextofdemanding cornpliancc
withthe obiigationsothe1977 Tleaty. Facedwithsuchpmpsals, the
Czechoslovakauîhoritiesinsisteclon proceeding with the B-e
System o,nthebis ofanassertion thaadverseçonsquenceswouldnot
occur or could be remediedafter the event. This attitudewas
inconsistenwith Article15 and 19 of the 1977Treaty,sùiceit was
inconsistentwitthe obligatiotoensurethatno importantimpairment
of thenamal environment ingend or ofwater qualityinpartic*
wodd occur,
6.47. As explainedinChapm 5,Iznpïementatioonfthe 1977 Tseary
wodd evidently have anUnpact on theenvironmeni t bth corntries.
Mc1es 15 and 19were intendedto limitthisimpact, by aimlng to
-- -
31
Cornmitteeof Tndepdeat SpecialistReportExperReviewConcerning
theEcologicai,Environmel,echnologE,cunmic, InternatanIdLtgal
Imes oftheGabchvo-Nupros Bmrage$stem (Budapes,eptank 19&9),
pp3,16;Annexes,ol5,anne8.
32
EquipeCousbearTheDanubef,or Whomad for Whot?EuropeanBankfor
Reconsfnrctad Developmet greemenNovonbe19991. imi Rep(19931,
p 179Annexesvol5,annex16.ensurethatthewatetof theDanube wouldnot be impairedand thatthe
naturdenvironment would be protected.These prescriptionlmpIied
thatthe contenofthe two claus esadto becarefullyattendedtoand
that thstepswhichscientificstudierevealedasnecessay shouldbe
taken. Article15 and 19 were notapplied,forpoliticalRasonsand
becauseof .thelow prioritgivento ecologicalvaluesatthe tirnein
EasternEurope ,venwhen thosevalueswereincorporateintreaties.
Afier the fiindamentachanges in thepoliticasituation,the
6.48.
HungarianGovernmenttriecltoavoidconsequences whichseemed very
seriouand potentialimversible:
'TheGovernent of theHungârian People'Repubiicwishes to
drawtheattentioof thGovernent of theCSR tothefactthat
accordinto its assessrntnungary,andCzechoslovakia dso,
areinastateofnecessityActsof thetwoGovernmenth save ta
be assesse adcordingly. The Hungarian Partyfin& no
explanatioforthe rigiddenialof negotiationsonecological
guaranteeandoptimalmodeof operation.TheCzechoslovak
Party isnot even wiilingtonegofiate abouquestionswhich
would bring about anyamendmentinthe El9771Treaty
concludedontheconstructionandoprationof theGabcikovo-
Nagymaros BarrageSystem,noteven then,whenscienceraises
fundamentaldoubtsconcerriintheecologicalharmlessn efss
theBarrageSystem. The Hungaian Partyneverthelesshopes
thattheCzechoslovakParty will finallyadopta responsible
attitudeandtakeanactivpartinbindingasoluti occeptable
tobuthsides."33
6.49. At that theitwas alteadyclearthatalthoughtheenWonment
of bothcountrieswould sufferfrom the executionofthehject, the
damage causedts the environmentwouldparticularlyaffectHungary,
especialiyregmihg surfacewaterand sub-surfacwm, and thatthis
wouldproduce seriousconsequenc oenothersectorsotheenvironment
and theeconomy. Therefusal to cooperate byacceptingmeaningfui
negotiationinvolvedlackofgood faitintheperformanceof abilateral
treatybased,accordhgtoitspreamble,onthe "mutualinterestand the
"fraterndations" ofthe twocountries.Thus Czechoslovakiaviolated
the gendy recognisedprincipleogood faith,reflectedinMcle 26
33 NoteVerbafromtheHungarin inisofForeignAffatotheEmbassofthe
Gzechos1ovkocialRepubli1,Septemk 198Amiexes,vo4,anne24.of theViennaConvention on theLaw of Treaties,inthecontextoEts
performanceofthe1977 Treat.
6.50. As has ben seen in Chapter 4, a matsix of bilateraland
multilaterdstandardsapplied to theDanube region whether as a
comtnon =sourceoras aboundary betweenthetwo StatesInparticda,
the 1976Boundary Waters Conventioncambined bothelements. The
generalsafeguardsofthe 1976 Convention-- applicableinany event
sincetheBarrageSystemwaseitherIocatedon or directlyaffectethe
boundaxy waterscoveredby theConvention --weremadespecificalIy
applicabltotheBarmge -Systemby a bilaterdagreemenof IlOctokr
1979. UnderArticle 10C1)of[the]bilateralagreementonthe common
operationarlegulationsofPlenipotcntiasulfild litisreIatetothe
constnictionand operationof the GabcikoveNagymarosBarrage
System:
"Theprocedm forthe permissionof water rights,wates
managementwork, mesures forthe utilisatiof water
mes, protaion aght the pollution of surface and
groundwater,maintenance of the navigationalroute and
provisiothereclwithsip, preservationof theDamiWsbed,
protectionagainswaterlogging,protectionagainsflood and
'
the protectionaght ice flow SM be effected by the
Plenipotentiarisccordinto the[f9761Conventionregardhg
theregdationofboundaq watermanagemeni tssuesconcluded
by tbeHungh People'spublic and theGoverment of the
CzechoslovakSocialistRqublic.""
6.51. Thus the1976 Boundary Waters Conventionhad an important
mle in the system establishektween the two countrks for the
management andtheuWation of the water of theDanube.Accordhg
to itsArticIe2:
'?le materiai scopeof thisTreatySM includeany water
managenienatctivityperformedonthebclundarywaterçwhich
maybringaboutchanges in thenaturawater conditionssuch
as,in particular: the xegukion of water cornses, the
consmction of reservoirs and flood çontrol dyks, the
34 Agmment as to the-CommonOpmtmnalRegdationsofPlenipotwitiaries
fulfilIdutiedatd tutheConstructiandOperatiooftheGabcibvc+
Nagymams BanagSystem,1OctoberAnnexevol3,anne26. improvementof landto increasthewater holdingcapacitof
soir,theutilisatof waterresourçethe protectionosurface
anci subsinface waters from pouution, hydroelectric
developmentthe maintenanceandmarkingof waterways,the
locationof navigationalroutes,the conbol of flooexcess
groundwatearnd ice driftasweii as di watermanagement
activities,whimay resuiinchangesinthejointly dehed
waterconditionsintheupstreamanddownstream sectionsof
theboundaq reaches of watercourses,furthemore, in the
sectionofboirndarwaters."
6.52. Article 1dealswithdefenceagauiswt atepollutionIprovides
that:
"(1The ContracthgPartiesshalmake everyefforto maintain
thepurityoftheboundarywaters and,asfarastheheconomic
and technicaloppoxtmitiesaiiow,to reduce any pollution
presenbybuildingand mcrdernisipgollutitreatmentplants.
(2)The competentauthoritiesothe ContractinPartiesshall,
regularlycontrothepurityof thefioundarwaters,takejoint
water samples,adyse thern and compare Famiorilse]the
resultsottiesanalyses,
(3) If an extrawrdlnaqpollution event occurs âffecting
boundaq waters,thecompetent authdes ofthe Contracthg
Partiesuponwhose territorsaidpollutionhasocamrd SM,
withoutdelay,infom the competent authoritiesothe other
ContracthgParty andshd Mer take immediateactionto
closethesourceof saidpollutionanpreventmer poiiutim
fromocciirri-~gain."
AppendixI tothisTreatysetup a Hungarian-Czeçhos Bouvdakry
WatersCommission whichfunctionedregularly,uttheinvestigatios f
which werelhited tothepreseno cfcertaipollutants.Ionlydecided
at its 52th meeting, held on 11-15 November 1991, that its
hydrobiologicalampling andinvestigationwouldinclude,byJaauary
1992, systematiphysical,chernicalandmicrobiologicatests fothe
segment of the Danube between Bratislava and VisegrAd;
hydtogeologicatests,forthema ofSzigetkoz-ainyOstrov;and tests
fordetectinplanlaoneutrophicatinorthesecondaq branches.
6.53. Rior to 1992,neitherthe conditionsof the 1976 Boundary
WatwsConvention northoseof the1977 Treatyweresatisfiedafaras
investigatioandcontrolconceming waterpoliutiowereconcemai.6.54, The obligatiotoreducepollutionbybuilding andmodemising
poliutionmatmentplantswasnot irnplementeditherAsdescribeclin
paragqh 6.34, the SlovakNationalCouncilhad, inJanuary1992,
requestedtheGovemment of the SlovakRepublicto re-examinethe
plm forsewagewaterpunfier~.~~
6.55. Theabsenceof adquatesewage treatmenplantwsasa problem
on boa sidesoftheborderThe essentiaproblemno doubt,wasone of
Iackofinfrastructueapita,stherefeznceto"economic andtechnicd
possibditieinArticle 11(I)otheBoundaqWatersConvention itself
recegnised. But the point is that,facedwith theseproblems,
CzechosIovakianonethelesshsisted onpressinaheadwith a Project
which wouldin allrobabilitaggravatebotthecausesand theeffects
of the poUution.Thiswas inconsistenwiththeobligationto"make
everyeffortomaintainthepuritoftheBoundq waters".
SECTION B:BREACHOF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW
6.56. Ln additioto thbreachofbilaterl des existingbetweethe
Parties, zechoslovakalsoviolateddes of generalintemationiaw
initsappruachtotheconcm raisedbyHungary abouthePmject.
(1) BREAC OHFTHE OBLIGATION OFPRE~UN, ENTHELIGHT
OFTHE PRECAUTlONARP YRINCIPLE
6.57, Sinctheendof the1960senvironmentallw hasdevelopedwith
an mprecedentedintensityand speed. Therearenow thousandsof
national laws and regulations, approximately350 intemationai
muItiiatd treatiehun& ofbilateralagreement, oretha200 EC
instrumentsandseveralhtmdrednon-b'idinginternationaldechtions
andresolutionimingattheprotectiooftheenviramentor conmg
provisionswith thaobjective.Althoughnot al1thesetextsare duly
Unp1mented,internationalpracticshows a gened respect forthe
principlthnt thenvironment ustbe protectedAttheRio deJaneiro
ConferencinJune1992,172 States(outofthe178which thenexisted)
werereplresenteby appnixhately 10,000delegates,including 116
'fi@& of State or of govement. Ml the relevant intemational
organisatioserepresentSuch eventsshowthegend concm thais
felt al1 ovethewmld for halting the degradationof the planet's
environment.
35 Slova karionalCouncil,EleçNou24631January1992;Annexvol4,
annex170.6.58. Within this fxameworkthe FinalAct of the 1975 Helsinki
Conferenceon SecurityandCo-operationinEuropehad considerable
significance.Asfarawaterpollutioconttoland frewaterutilisation
areconcernedt,he1975HelsinkFi Actsoughttopromote ...
"Preventionandcontrolof waterpollution,inparticda of
irmsboundaryriverand internationakes; techniquforthe
improvemeno tthequalityofwaterandfurtherdevelopmenof
wnys andmeansfor industriand municipalsewage effluent
purificatiomethodsof assessrnentoffreshwata resources
and theimproverneno tf their utilisation,inparticularby
developinrnethodsofproductiowhichare lesspollutingand
leadtolessonsumptionofhh ~ater."~~
6.59. The FUid Actforese asotheraimsofcooperation:
"Fmtectionof natureand naturereserve co;servationand
maintenanceof existinggenetic resomes, espcially rare
animalandplantspecies;conservationofnaturalecoIogicd
systems;establishmentfnatureresmes and 0th protected
landscapeandareas i,cludingtheiuseforresearchtoutiJm,
recreatiandotherpurposes."37
6.60. Despiteitsnon-obligatoryhamtes,the 1975FinalAct hadan
greatidiuence onMer developments.Inthe presentcaseIthas a
specialimportancsincetiieFhalAct was partofa movetowards the
rapphement of Western andEasternEurope,and gavelegitimacyto
environmentacloncer~iin the latter. Thereisno daubt îhat the
ContriethgPartieto the1977Tmty were awareof andinfluencedby
thesedevelopments.
6.61. Ahost alllegalinstrumentn,ationalorinternatio,rebased
on theprincipleof pvention of enviromentaidamageat theeaxliest
possibIestage.One of thekst formulationsof theprincipleis that
insert iedsuccessivEC Programmes of Actiononthe Environment
sinc 1973: "The best environmental policy consistsof preventingthe
creationof poliutioor of nuisancesatthesource,mti3,ethan
subsequenytlûyhg tocounterncttheieffects."38
6.62. Theprincipleofpreventionunderlies thetutality ofinternational
instrumentsrelated toenvironmental protection. Apart from a few
exceptionswhichmainly concern liabilityforenvironmentalm -but
which alsomayhave apreventiveeffect- dlthe internationdlagreed
rulesand proceduresconcerning the environment ah to preventits
degradation:prohibitionof or standard-settingfor thedischargeaf
pollutingsubstance isnthe atmosphme he stratospheret, esea or in
continental waters; prohibitionor regdation of the dlsposal or
transboundarmy ovementsof dangernus wastes;prohibitioorregulation
ofactivitiesinptected areas, orof hunting,fishîng or internationai
tradeinendangemi species.Thereasonfor thi emphasis on prevention
is thadamage tothe environmeno tftencannotbe ~pimd, even ifthe
causalMc ktween thepollutorand tbedamage may be establisheand
evduated. Evenif the darnageis reparable,he costsof rehabilitatian
cm be prohibitive.Moreclver,amage cm haveupredictableand far-
reachingeffects.
6.63. The mainmciple of internationae lnviromend law is that
environmentddegradationmust be prevented. The prhciple of
38
EM: Progrmme ofActionon theEnvironmen22 November 193, mcbi
JournalNo C 112,20December1973. Latw he principleprwentiowas
prociamiebytheSinglEirropeActof17Feb- 1986,(198625IGM 506at
p 515,andbytheMdht Trmy onEirropeaUnion,7Febnrar1992((1992)
31IL31217atp2851aocardhtoArt130R para2ofwhich"Commmity policy
.. .sheibe basedon thepaiitionary -le andonthe princlpthat
preventiactionshoubetakenthat environmetamageshoulasa @or@
berectifatsource.."Art 3oftheFoirrEEC-ACF ConventiofIame, 15
hcemk 1989,pvides thk
''m dimensionoftheerivimmmtalpblm and ofthe meansto be
deployemean thaopwationswülhavetobeded wt inthecontexof
oves long-terpolicihwn upand imphted bytheAB Stateat
nationa,egionandinternatio1lwelwithintematsupport.
To îhiend,thePartaps togivepdoriintheiractivito:s
-a preventiapproacgimedaavoidiniiannfefîecon thenviromnent
asaregultfanyprogrammofopaatio..."prevention,which foms the basis oai1environmental law, must be
consideredanergaomnesobligation.
6.64. Theprecaurionaryprincipleisthe most developedfom of the
generalrulehposing theobligationofpreventionItproclamationat a
universaleveJcm be considereone ofthemostimportantresultsofthe
1992 Rio de Janeir Doeclaration on Environment andDevelopment.
PxincipI15 provides:
"I nrdertoprotectheenvironment he preçautionaqprinciple
shailbewidelyappliedbyStatesaccordhg totheircapabilities.
Where the= arethreatof seriouor irreversibdamage,Jack
offuli scientlfcertaintshd not be usai asa reason for
postponingcost-effectivemeasureto preventenvironmental
degradatio".9
Articl3(3) of th1992 ConventiononClimate Changeuses ahost the
same hguage.4 SimiIarlyhe preamble to the 1992 Conventionon
BiologicdDiversitystatthat:
"wherethere isa kat of si-cant reductionor loss of
biologicaldiversiIack of fullscienecc&ty shodd not
beused as a reasonfor postponingmeaswes to avoid or
minimisesucha tha~"41
6.65. Many otherexamplescould be given. The precautionary
principleappeared,forexample, in successive regionaldeclarations
adoptedby theIntemationalNortSea Conferencein1987. On 15May
1990, the environmenministersof the 34member Statesofthe UN
EçonomicCommissionforEurope (hcluding the repsesentativeof
Czechoslovakiaa)ndtherepresentatieftheEC, adoptedaDeclaxation
onSusthable DeveIopmenw t hichstates:
"Inordertoachievesustainabldevelopmentp ,olicimustbe
tiaseon theprecautionaryrinciple. Environmentmleasures
mustanticipate,preventandattacthecausesofenvironmentaI
depdation. Wherethere are threatof seriouorhversible
damage,lackof fullscientZce&ty shouldnotbeused asa
39 14Jmet992,UNDOEA/CONF15I/26,volI,p8.
40 UN DocüNGA A/C 37/18(PartI)dd1.
41 UN DoçUNEP/Bio.DivlCûNF/L.2, reason fox postponing mesures to prevent environmentai
degradatio~i."~~
6.66. Alrnostno new internationaiinsrniment,whetherregional or
universal,draftedsince 1989, ignoresthe precautionaryprin~iple.~~
ParticuIarIimportant is inthis regardis Article2 of the Helsinki
Convention on the ProtectioandUse of Transboundar Wyatercoarses
and IntemationaLl akesof17 Mach 1992,drafted in thehework of
the UNEconomicCommission forEurope. Itprovidesthatintakingail
appropriaterneasurestoprevent,conml and reduce anytranshundary
impactandinparticulca prollutioof waterscausing orlikelytocause
transboundaryimpact,thePartiesshdibe guidedby ...
"theprecautionar yrinciplby vhe of whichactionto avoid
the potentiatransbounchryimpactof thereIeaseof huadous
substancesshaiinotbepostponedon the gruundthatscientific
researchhas not My proved a causal link between those
substances,on the one hand,and the potentid~ansboundary
impact,ontheother harid."44
6.67.Theeffectiveapplicationof theobligationof preventioncm be
jeopanlised,due to scientific uncatabty, and this cm result in
kmediafile environmenta damage. Thus, actionmust k taken atan
early stagebas4 uponmodelsof potentidconsequences. Thisis the
precautionarpyrincipleAs anaspectof theobligatioofprevention he
precautionarpyhciple seekstoavoid seriousenWonmental damage. It
isof particularogencywhen tker iea dangerthatthe deteriontionof
the environmen t ouldbeirreversible.
6.68. One of theimplicationsf thepautiowy pnncipleis 2hatthe
causallinkmay be assurnedinc- situationseven itheabsence of
42 Ainciple7. See(192ûBEnvironmen&Ioliqandtow 1100.
43 See,g.,ConventionothePmtectiooftheMarinEnvironmenottheBaltic
SeaHelsink9 Apd 1992,Ar3C2)C;onventifotheProtectiofthMarine
EnviwnmentaftheNortheasAhtic, Pans 2 September 1992,Ar2(2)(a)
(199332 ILM.106% Convention theBanoftheImportintAfncaand the
Conml ofTtansboundaM rovementandManagementofH~OUS Wgstes
within AfncBamako, 29 Januar1991, Art43x0 (1992)3ILM. '163;
Wcht TreatyaEumpeanUnion,7Febniar1992((1992)31ILM247 atp
285)Art130Rpar2)(citeabovepara653).
44 ConventionontheProtectionandUseof TransbomdarWaterwme and
Intematiobs, Helsinki,7Md 1992(1992)3fLM 1312.scient5c certaintyCombined with thegeneralobligationnotto cause
damage to anothercountry e'sironment,thiçmeans that the Sîate
whose activitiarelikelytodamage the environmentof anotherState
must showthatthe proposed actionwill nothavesuch effects. Ithis
cannot be done,the proposedactivity must be modif~ed or even
abandoned.
6.69. It flowfromthe historyof theBarrage System,asrecorded in
Chapter 3,thattheCzechoslovak Governent failedin itsobligatioto
preventenvironmentah im by refushg totakethe necessarymeasures
forthi purpose,smting with therefusato investigatin asatisfaçtory
way the environmentaieffects of the ProjeInthe proposaismade to
the Czechoslovak Government ta investigate the environmental
problems caused by implementationof the Barrage System, the
Hungarian Government referretotheprecautionarypfincipland tothe
hversibility of thedamage thatcould resultfrom the construction.
Having ignored ils demands and xefused ta take the necessary
precautionaryneasuresC, zechoslovaka as Inbreachoftheobligation
topreventseriousenvitonmenta lam.
(2) BREAC OHFTHE OBLIGATIOT NO COOPERATE
6.70. h internationareiations,the preventionand thecontrol of
environmentadleteriorationnecessatilybasedon çooperationbetween
theconcemed StatesFor exampie,thefxs judiciaprecedentregarding
transfrontipoliution,theTrailSmelterArbitrarionrecommended that
the two States partiesshould cooperatein the future and regulate
poUuting activities takinplace on Canadian te11itory.Similarl,
Principle24 of the StockholmDechation on theHumanEnvironment
Statethat:
'Internationalrnarters conceming the protection and
impmvement of the environmentshould be handled in a
cooperativespirit by açountriesbig andsmd, ai anequal
footing. Coqeration through multilatd or bilateral
arrangementsor othes appropnate means is essentialto
effectively conml, prevent,reduce and eliminate adverse
environmentaelffectresultinfiom activitieconductedin di
spheres,insuch a way that due acçountis taken of the
sovereigntand hterestsofdl States."&
45 TrailSmeltArbiiration(13UNRIAA 1911ap 1938.
46 UNDac Nbf 48/141Rev.2. Thisprinciplappem, forexample,in Chapter 5ofthe Helsinki
5.71.
Final Actof 1975,whSch advocatedcloseinternationaclooperationfor
thesolutionof environmentalpxobkrn~.~~It isthe cornerstoneofthe
PrinciplesofConductin theFieldof theEnvironnienftorthe Guidance
ofStatesin the Conservation and HamioniousUtilisationof Natural
ResourcesShuedbyTwo orMore Statesadoptedby theUnitedNations
EnvironmentProgramme on 19 May 1978." Subsequentpractice as
expressb cddifferentinternationalinstrumentand inparticularby
thoseadopted atthe 1992ConferenceonEnvironmen tndDevelopment
attes o the fundamenta clhacter othe principleofcooperati0n.A9U
theinternationalnvironmenta lreatieandotherinstrumentsi,ncluding
resolutionand principlepmclaimedby differen tintenationalbodies,
withaut exceptionhclude a requinmentof internationa loopeiation.
This virement was also an explIcitbasis ofthe bilaterdtreaties
between Hungary. andCzechoslovakia in relationto such mattersas
boundary watersas hasken seeninChapter 4.50Ttcannotbe treateas
withouteffect.
6.72. Such caoperatioexistedatthebeginning.On2Decemkr 1954,
Hungasy and Czwhoslovakin rea~hedanagreementon thepreventionof
damage and, ifnecessary,the compensation foruchdamagecaused by
ttisinkingof thelerel ofthe undergroundwaterandon thesharuigof
thewatet ofthe The JointContractualPlanwasintendedtobe
theprincipaltoolforimplementingtheobligationsforeseeninpartEcular
Article15 concemingthe protectionofwaterqdty and Article19
selatedto the protectionofnature. Theseinsîruments representan
implementationof thegeneralinternationdlutto cooperate.But when
doubîsconcemingtheecoIogicaiçonsequeno cfeheconstructionofthe
48 UN Doc UNEPflG12 1978),Snnciple1;reprii(1978)17KM 1097.
49 DeclamiononEnhent andDevelopentUN-, UN Dm A/CûNF.151I5,
Prkip1e7; hework ConventiononLlimateChange,UNGA,UN DocA/C
237/18 (PaII)Add.1,pffambleArts3(1)(2), 4; ConvenonoBiologica?
DiversityUN DocUWEP/Bio.Di/CONF& k.2,5;Non-Ledly Binding
AubricativeStatemeotPnnciplesfaGlobalCansensusntheManagement,
CcinmvationanS~astainalevelopmntofAll TypeofForestUNCED,UN
Doc AKIONF.I51/6/Rev.l.
50 Seeabovepam455.
51 Enal minutesofthe mgdations betweenHungaryand aechoslovaki2,
Novemlm-2Decemk 1954on theusofthehydmlo@cd aiergoftheDanube
betweenDevinandVisegrAnnex I.Barrage System couldbeexpress adllowing the political changes,
CzechosIovakia refusedto amend the 1977Treaty, or to engage in
meaningfulnegotiationsaimed atalleviatinthe legitirnateconcernçof
the RepublicofHungaq.52 Czechoslovakiadsorefusedrenewed fmal
proposais teinitiata jointCzechoslovak-Hungaria snientifistudy,
with the involvement of international scientSc experts or
orgafilsations.53
6.73. Firiallduring an inter-govenimentaml eetingon 2 December
1991, it was agreedthatthe Roject constitutedacomplexteçhnical-
scientificproblemandthatit would be reasonable to setup a Joint
Expert Cornmittee. The Hungarian delegation accepted the
Czechoslovakproposa1 to complement the Committee with experts
designatedby theCommission of theEmpean Communities. However,
the Czechoslovak Govemmentdeclared that work towards the
irnplementation fVariantC wouldnotbestoppedduringtheuiquiryof
the Joint ExpertCommittee. This wodd have made suchinquiry
useless,sinceits resdtcouidnot havepduced anyconcreteeffect.54
On 26 Febniary 1992, a new fod proposal was submitted to
CzechoslovakXa. Itpposed thata Joint Expert Conmittee should
preparean assessrnentfaiitechnicalalternativtothe BarrageSystem
on a bash of a cornplexsynthesis,takingespecidiy into accomt the
protectionof the naturai environment,ffects on subsurfacewaters,
navigation,electricalenergproductionami security,asweU as water-
relatai socialandpsychologicalcedations andeconomicconditions.
Dunng theinvestigatioworkon VariantCwould besuspended onboth
bankçoftheDanube.55 Thisproposaw i asalsorejected.
52
See above,paras3.130,3.244,3.155,-3.163,3.1663.171,3.175.3.281,
3.183
53 See,e.gLettehm HungarirulimeMinistMr NémethtoCzeehoslovknme
MnisterM Calfa,1lanuar1990;Annexe,ol4,anne32;an en dation of
theHungariaGovemrnent2,2 ApnI199Annexesvol 4anne50;Letfefrom
Mr FMal, HungariaMinistetSlova kqiublicPrimeMinisterJCamogursky,
8 Wber 1991;Annexesvol 4,amex 63;LetterfiomF Mal, Hungruian
MinistetoMr 1VavrousekUinisterofEnvironmenPlrotectiotheCzech
andSJova Federl epubIi,I)ecembe1991Annexesvol4anaex68.
55 Zetthemr HungarjmPrim eiriisrAntalioCtechwlovakPrimkilinisMer
Calfa,26Febnia1992Amiexesvol4,anne75.6.74. Svch an attitudis contsarto theniles adoptein commonby
the 1977Treaty and0th instrumentsrelatetothe constructionofthe
BarrageSystem. It also violatesthemost general legal pinciples
govemingenvironmenta plroblemsconcerningmorehan one State,with
which the 1977 Treatyconfomed and which itincorporatein Articles
15 and 19.
6.75. The Danube isone ofthe most importantnanital resourcesof
Hungary and itsmainwaterresource. Iis cruciatomanyother States
borderingit. Onemayrecallthestatementof thiCsourtintheFisheries
case,which aapliemutatismutadis tu thepresentdispute:
"BothParties have the obligationtukeepunder review the
fisherymoues in the disputed waters and to examine
together, in the light of scientific and other available
information he mesures requiredfor theconservation and
development,and equitableexploitation,of those resources,
taking into account any internationalagreementin force
betweenthem. "56
6.76. One of the most evidenttools of çooperationisthe duty to
negotiate when difficultyappears in the managementof a shared
resource orintheimplementation of commonpject. The genéral
obligationofStatesto settltheirdisputesby negotiatlhas dso ken
recognisedby thlCsourtwhich notedthattheobligation.,.
"merely constitutesaspial applicationof aprinciplewhich
underies all internationalelations,and whiçh isrnoreover
recognisedinArticle33 oftheCharterof theUnitedNationsas
me ofthe methods forpeaceful setilment of international
disputes."57
In thepresen case,the Hamgaria novearimentrepeatedlyproposed to
&gin negotiationsinorderto reach anecologicaigumtee agreement,
withoutsuccess.58
56 Fishericwe (McrirIQ Rep1974,p200.Seealsp205.
57 NorthSeaConrilienlhelCaseICIRep 1969,p ap48.
58 See,eg.,NoteVerbalefromtheHimgarialMinistof ForeiAfEai trthe
aeChmlovakEmhasy, 1 Sqember 1989Annexes,vol4, gnnexW, Note
VerbalfromtheHmg& MinistrofForeigAnffauto theIlzechoslovak
hbasq, 30 November1989Annexes,vol4, mex 30;Aide Memoire of the
meetingberneentheGovemmentPlenipotentiaBratisla9~Janiiar1991,6.77. Other internationjusisdictiohave stresseseveral times the
need to solve çonfiictof interestby meaninal negotiation. The
award intheLnchoux arbimtionStatesthat:
"les Etats ont aujourd'huiparfaitement conscience de
l'importancdes ,int6rêtcontradictoires, ue met en cause
i'utihation.industriedes fleuves internationaux,tde la
nécessitede tes concilier les unsavec les autrespar des
concessionsmutuelles. La seule voie pour aboutirà ces
compromis d'uitSt estlaconclusiond'accordssurune basede
plusenpluscompréhensive La pratiqueinternationaleefl2te
la convictioque les Etats doiventtendreà conclurede tels
accords;ily auraiainsiuneobligationd'acceptere bonne foi
tous les entretienetles contactsqui doiventpar une large
.
confrontationd'intMbetparune bonne volontéréciproquel,s
met& dan lesmeilleuresconditionpourconclure desaccords.
Cetteindicationseraretenueplusloin,lo~squ'il'agird'&fiIt.
queues obligationpèsentsurla France etl'Espagneen ce qui
concerneIes contactsetIes entretiensantkrieus lamise en
oeuvr deiuprojettelqueceluiconcemantIelacLanou~."~~
6.78. IntheFisheriescasethisCourtstressaithanegotiatiommust be
conducted onthebasisthateachpartymust ingood faitpay reasonable
regardto thelegalrightsoftheotherandanequitabbappomonmen tf
the resourcesmust be broughtaboutmIt added that=asonableregard
mustbepaid toconservationrequirement sendhg theconclusionofthe
nemation."" qrequiremen tm beconsiderd ashaving a general
scope,sinceitflowsfrom theprincipleof gaodfaitfiwhichmustgovem
negotiations.
6.79. By contrast,Czechoslovakiarefusedtonegatiateexcept on the
basisthattheGakilcovohage wouldbeputintoopration imspective
of theresultsofindependent scientificstudies.ltdid nothesitateto
Annexesvol4, mex 41ProposaiofthHungariaGovem~~~t2,2April1991,
Annexs,vol4,anne49.
59 (1957)12UNRIAA 285atp 308. An ERglitranslaofotheawarappearin
theILL Ybk1974,vIIPt2p 194.
60 ICJReports1974,p202.
62
Mer fmm SlovaEPnmeMinista 1 Camcgurskto MT F Mgdl, Hungarian
MnisterWithouPortfol19September991;Annexes,ol 4,mex 62. prepareunilateraltepsinthissenseasearlyas 1990. On 27 July 1991
the Czech and SIovakFederaIRepublic authorisedthe filling othe
upper water canalin violatioof the JointContractualPlan,without
inforrnuitheJointBorderWater Commission.63 On 12December 1991,
theCzechoslovak Govanmentpassed a resolutiononthebasisof which
the commencementof the *rations of the power plant axidthe
constructionofVariantC was tobecompleted. On8 Jmuary 1992 M,r
CnrnopIry wrote to theHungarianMinister,Mr 'Plilathat"we çan
only accept a solution which isaimed at the commencementof
opratiorisofthe GabcikovoBarragew.@ Such statementswerenot only
repeatedbutalsowere underlinedbythe açceleratiooftheconstruction
of Variant C.65The HrmgarianGoverment in vain requested the
suspsion of theconstructiowork,which was a normal conditionof
thefunctioniriofthepposed dateral expertcommission.
6.80.Thepretenceof negotiatingwhile at thsame time theobjectof
the negotiationisdestmyedby unilateraactionsshow alackof good
. faith.Insuch circumsf~cesno negotiatedresultsarepossibleAs the
hanent Courtsaid,the obligatiothatexistsin intemationalaw is
.., " natonlto enterinta negotiatisutalsotopursuethemas faras
possiblewith a view to concludingagreements . . ."& As Judge
Nagendra Singhcommented inadissenhg opinion:
'Thisdm clearlyimply tha tverythhgpossibleshoddbe done
rioonlyto prumote,but&O tohelpto concludesuccessfvlly
themess ofnegotiationsoncedirectedforthesettlementofa
disp~te."6~
6.81. .Ln the psent case, the CzeehoslovakGovernmentrefusai
meaningful negotiationswhichcouidhavereached anequitablesolution
ofthe disputin theinterestofbatMes.
63 NoteVerbalefmmtheHm* Govemwt t~ îkEmby ofthe
rmd
SlovakFedwaRlepubli, udape30Jul1991;Amexes,vol4atmex57.
64 SeeAnnexesvol4,mx 72.
65 LeitefromHungariaFrimMinisteJAntaltoCzechoslovRime MinistMr
Calfa,26Fe- 1992;Annexes,vo4, mex 75. A drafagreemenwas
annex ethilem providifortheconstituofajoinexpertcomroittee.
66 RaihvayTee BetweeLithuaniaanPobd, (1931FCIJ SeriNes No 42;p
116quotebytheCortintheNu~h SeuContinentalShCasesICIRep1969,
atm47 -48,
67 Fkherks Care(Merifi)Reports197atp214.6.82. Thischapterhasdemonstratedhow, inhplementing the Original
Projectfrom 1977onward,Czechoslovakia showed very lirtleconcem
abut theprotectionofthenaturalnvironmeno tftheregion,despiteits
intemationalobligationspunded bothon treatyand customq law.
Differentmaty provisions,reflectingtheactualevoliltion of generai
interdonal law at thethe, gavea piecise anddefmitekaring to
Czechoslovakiai'stemationa olbiigationsofpreventiand cooperation
toprotecttheenvironment. PART LII
CHAPTER 7
THE DIVERSIONOF TEIB DANUBE
SECTION A: TB33EFFECTS OF TIiE DlVlERSION
7.01. Beginningon23 October1992,andafterworhg nîghtandday
forfourdaystheDanubewasblocked aCunovo and dXverteinta by-
passcanalconstnicteontheterritoroftheCzechandSlovakFederal
Repubiic.
7.02. Thediversionhadimmediate hamifuleffectsotheterritorof
Hungary ,nditscontinuedofleiationcaushg furha damageas well
as imposing substantirisks of long-term damageto agriculture,
sylvicultureanthe environment,includininparticulathe aquifer
wbichunderlietheregion.Thedamage causedand threatenhasbeen
snmaised inChapter5,2
7.03. ThisQiapterdiscussestheillegalofthe diversionundeboth
maty law (SectionBI andgeneralinternationallaw (SectC), and
demonstratesthatthere wasno legal just5cation oexcuse forit
(SectionD). Emphasiswill be plncedboth on thetllegiiiofythe
diversioassuchand ontheway in whichit wacarriedout.Theissue
of theresponsibilof Slovakiaforthediversiowilibediscussedin
Qiapter8.
SECTION B: THE ILLEGAIATY OFTHE DWERSPON UNDER
APPLICABLE TREATLES
7.04. Th= are manytreatiesrelevantotheillegalitythediversion.
Fi ithe 1977Treatyitseif,andtrelateAgreementof6May 1976
ccincernintheJoinContramal SecondistheBoufldaryWaters
Conventionof 31May 1976.4 Third,thm are other bilateraland
rnultilateraiconventions concedg such mattersas intemationai
1 Seeabove,para3.185,
2 Seeabove,pa5.10-5.137.
3 Annexesvo3,mex 18.
4 Annexesol 3,annex19.navigationontheDanube, andespeciaUythedelineationoftheterritories
ofthetwo Statesandtheirborders.5
7.05.These thre setsof agreementswere breached inthreeprincipal
ways. Firstthe elementaryruEof cooperatiolaiddom inthetreaties
was violatedThi sbligationihomologous withthe generalcustomary
m1eofcooperation bindingontwo Statessharinthe Danube asanatural
resource. Second,thm were heaches of specifictreatobligations,
includingprotectionof thenaturaienvironment,preventionof water
pollution,maintenancof theDanube' s atequality(includingground-
water) andthe protectionof hhuig interests. Finally, tmilateral
diversionoftheDanubetransgressedCzechoslova dutietowardsthe
Danube as a boundaryriver. Many of these obligationshavebeen
equallydisregardeblySlovakiasince January1993.
7,06.This Mernoriah lasahady shown thata generdobligation of
cooperationexistsicustomaryinternational wwhere theprotectionof
a common enuhnmmt or shmd natumi resourceisconcenied~
Patinent treatprovisionsernbody thb gerieraobligatioandobliged
thetwo Partietocoopmte.
7.07. The 1977 Treaîyincorporatethid utyby setcinup a general
system of cooperationin theform of a "jointinvestment",a "joint
venture"betweenthetwoParties,whereby theBarrageSystemwouldbe
"a single and indivisible operationai system" with coiiective
managementof the Dan~be.~The 1977 Treatydid not dow for
unilateralperatiooftheBarrage Systemby eitherParty.
7.08.The 1976 Boundaty Waters Convention pIainiy prohibits
unilateralperation.Itseektoregdate "anywater management activity
performed on theboundarywaters, whichmay bringaboutchanges in
thenatuai waterconditions,suchas,in particular:regdationof water
courses,theconstructioofreswoirs andflood conml dykes .. .the
protectioof surfacand subsmface watersfrompollutionhydroelectric
developrnent" Mcle 3 explicil statedunderthe heading "General
Obligations"t,at:
5 Theseboundary-es arebindingonSlovakiandHungaq,by way ofan
exceptitothegenernilagainssuccesstobilatelaries.Seealsbelow,
para10.111.
6 Seeabovepara s.6-6-70. "TheContractingPartido herebyundertaIreththey:
a)shal notcarryoutany watermanagement activltwithout
mutualagreement,which would adverselyaffectthejointly
dehed waterconditions;
c)shall mumally inforni each otheron their long-term
developmentplansof watermanagement, mairilyconceming
theimpactofwatermanagemena tctivitiesonboundawaters;
d)shallengage inprior negotiationtheimpacts ofwater
management activities,whialtethewatercondition[inthe
areacsveredbythe Convention].
7.09.Article 7 specifiesthat "the competent autharitieof the
Contracthg Partiesshallmuhiallyprovideachotherwiththe impact
datanecessa foytechnicalplanning".Article11imposes a special
obligatioto informtheother Party in caseof extraorbary water
poUution.
7.10. The 2976 Agreement cm&g Coopmaiionand Mutual
Assistancealmg theCzechoslovakian-Hu Bograriasn contains
obligationtoinforni.ForexampIe,rticl4rquEre sachstateborder
delegate"e)tainfm thebuder delegateotheotherContrachg Party
aboutoprationsperfomiednear theMer whichdght causedamage
on the temitorof cheothercountq or mightendangerthe lifethe
corporealntegity oheahhoftheinhabitnts...""
7.11. Such treatprovisionscldy setouttheprocedm tobe us&
by thePartiesintheir managemenotf commonlyshared waters:pior
infmtion, consultation,negotiatiand jointagreement.Hmgary
hasconhudly uphelditsduty toconmlt andnegotiate,especidy hm
1989 onwatd,asshown throughouthiMsemorial.lo
7.12. Czechoslovakiadid not complywith theseobligationsinfts
rmwihgness tainmpt theworkson VariantCpendinga negotiated
sedement,despitetheinvitatiomadebyHungary frum 1989 onwards
and by EC Commissimer Anhiessen in 1992.15Czechas~ov~aalso
8 SeealsArtsl(&)(4),3, 10(1),12(1).
9 Annexe s,3,anne20.
10 See~ve,paras3,78-3.185,6.72-5.73,andbelow.p~9.18-9.42.
11 Seeabovepara3.158. persistentiyrefuseto çommiinicateappropriatetechnical data on
VaRant C. A refusato provid ieformatiois hady anappropriate
ançwer to reiteratedinvitatiotonegohate,especidy when these
invitationwere accompaniedby successiveHungarian concessions,
fXom thesprinof 1989throughMay1992.12
7.13. This recalcittantbehavioclearlcontradictedboththespirit
andspecincprovisionof thetreatirefend toinparagraph7.07-7.10,
each of them establismg explicit obligationsofcooperation,more
necessaryeven wherea partyfacesunexpecteddXmhies in carrying
out its obligationThe Partieshadçommittedtbemselvesto mutuaI
idonnationand effectivenegotiations.
7.14. TheunilateraistablishmenotfVarianC,as the solesubstantial
respome toHungary'Wsed offersofnegotiatic,omtitutaserious
violatioofCzechoslovakia'nternationcornmitment..
7.15. Here,onemust recd theverysignificadifferenceshveen the
OriginalProjecand VariantC.The Originalhject,as defmedby the
variousbilaterreatiesincludeasetofdyke u holdthe reservoirmd
adam atDunalditi (iHungary)thatwould divertheDanubetowards
the supplymai andGabçikovo a hydmelectricstationBy contrast,
VariantC consistedofanewdam atCinovo (inSlovakia),ew dykes
modifymg therightbankof theresavoirandan 11km-longeart dham,
foUowing theIefbank oftheDanube with a 1km displacementofthe
mainnavigablechanne1.13
7.16- The most strikindiffefentiatiisht Variant C rimits its
perimete o SlovakimitorywhereastheOriginalProjecwns toremah
undw thejointconîrdof CzechoslovakiandHungary. VariantC thus
excludesHungaryfromany control of theBatrageSystm, with its
potentialfordamaging Hungaryk nad mornes, enviroment and
PO-
(a) Protectionofthe nar~ralenviroment
I
7-17. Czechoslovakiaclah4 (andSlovakianowclah) thathe 1977
Treatywas inforc aethetim efthediversion.YetVarianC blatantly
contradictetheprovisionsofthe 1977Treaty,bothin its designandoperatiun For4example,ilrticl15speçifiedthat the Partiesshall
ensur thatthe qualitof water inthe Danub esnot Unpairedtt,n
expressioncoverinboththe watersin themaincourseof theriverand
ground-waterconnectedwiththe riverT?k quired asaminimum the
prohibitioofpollution,anofcreatina seriouriskofpollution.
7.18. Article 19, requiringcornpliancewith obligations forthe
protectionofnature,particularfyrelatto Appendix2 to the 1976
Agreement on theJointConmtud Plan. In layingdom the"division
ofresearchwork"', zechoslovakiwas enh-ustewithcarjin gut "the
detailedexaminatiooftheeffectofthe barragon the en~ironment".~~
Such a dvty to estabïishthe impactofthe OriginalRoject on the
environment was not fulfilled by Czechoslovakia,anwas equally
ignoredwhendecidingon theestablishmentfVariantC.
7.19. Article20 ofthe 1977 Treaty,dso includedinchapterVI1
('Roteçtion ofNature")expiiciilrequiredthe "protectiof fishing
lfiterests".
7.20. The actuaand pentid environmenta damagecaused by the
constructioandoperationofVariantC, asweUasits effecton public
health,ground-wateruality,surfacwater,soiBora, fauna(especially
fish)andthegeneralecologicdbalanceoftheregionaresummarised in
Chapter 5. VariantC was obviouslyquite inconsist withtthese
provisionsothe 1977Treaty.17
7.21. Tdg tatreatieswhichcontinuedin fme inûctober 1992,
Czechoslovaki aisbreachedseveralprovisionsotheBoundary Waters
Conventionof 1976. InparcicdarA , rticl11 requirethatthe State
parties"makeefforttomaintaintheprnityoftheboundary waters".As
demoristmtedinChapter5,theestablishmenof VariantC,includingthe
Cunovo dam and 11 im earthdam dong the left-handbankof the
Danube,cannotbeseen as an efforttomaintah the pdty of the
watersl8
15 See abovepara6.15Cf alsArt5(5)(a)(S(bXl3)whicreqW the two
Mes to=tore thevegehtion. (b) Maintenance ofWuterProjects
7.22. The generalobligatioÉQproteçtthenamal environmentshould
beconsidered inconjunctionwith theobligationin Articl6 of the
BoundaryWatersConvention, which provide tat "the Contracting
Partie... shdIprovideforthemaintenanceingoodconditionof water
facilitiesandotherequipmeinplaceupontheboundary waterson their
respectivtmitories"The hastyandhazardousway in whichVariantC
wasconstnictedhardlmettheseqilirementsfthisarticl'9
7.23. TheCzechoslovak(and now the Slovak)clairthat the1977
Treat-yrematnedinforcealsocontraswith theaçtof abstractirnost
ofthewaterinthestxtch betweenCunovoandDunakiliti.Article14 of
the 1977 Treatyobliged thePartiesto establishthewater balance
betweentheBarrageSystemand originanavigationalhannelbymumi
agreemen t theJointContractuaPlan . dy withintheparameterosf
thiswater balancecould a Partywithdraw water from the Danube
"withougtivhgph notice".
7.24. Theoriginal balance estabiishinthe JointCmtracting Plan
couldhaveken reviewedprim to thediversioEia d zechoslevakia
serlouslenteredintnoegotiatioas requestedbyHungary.However,
themciple remains thatanyunirateral ithdrawal f wateÇom the
Danube,especialiyinthe extremerequitedby VariantC, wasstnctly
conirartu thespirand lettof the1977Treaty.
7.25. Turning totreatieswhichwere in forcein andafterOctober
1992 he 1976 Boundary Waters Conventionreq- that theState
Parties "shallmaintainigood conditionthekds ofwater courses,
seservoinand equipmentlocatedunboundary waterswith theirown
territoriesand shaii operate themsuch a marner as to causeno
damage toeaçhothml'.
7.26. Thi astpartofArticle3(1)(b)iof paramoun tntexesbecause
it demonstratiha, even&fore theconclusionofthe 1977Treaty,the
two Phes reçognised thebindingforceof thegeneralcustomaryde
prohibithgdamage tu the trambomdary environmentw , hichderives
from theWciple of bdess use ofterritor(silatertuo utalienum
nonloedas),as embudiedat thatime inPrincipl21 ofthe Stockholm
Dechiion.
19 Seeabove,para5.-5.137.7.27. IlThtiatyprovisionadaptsandintegrates hiseneralcustornary
mle Xntothespecialbundaty regimeestablishedbetweenHungaryand
Czechoslovaka, tu which Slovaki bacame aParty assuccess ora
bundary agreemen~2Q Slovakia cannot seriouslyargue that this
provisionandthe generdprinciplofharmlessuseof territoryhavebeen
compliedwith,considering therisks andactualdamagecausedto the
environmeno tfbothcowitnes.
(dl Respectfor andProtectionof theAgreedBoundaryLine
7.28. The dateral diversion oftheDanubealso breached another
groupof treatobiigationsrelatito thedeheation of theinternationai
bouri-daqbetweenthetwo States.
7-29. The respect by the two Statesof an internationally-agreed
bomdary he restson stronand long-standingmtomary law, and is
reflectedin bilaterand multilatertreatieto which Czechoslovakia
andHungary wereparties.
7.30. Ahhou& the1977 Treatywas nota boundarymaty (sinceit was
intendecio estabiishthe Mes1 obligationswithrespectto aBarrage
System which was separated hm the houndary2 i1)nevertheless
includeda provisiononthe DeterminationoftheBoutldaryLineof the
State Fmnîierin the BarrageSystem. Article22(1)(a)exphcitly
indicatedthatthe border"shdI remah unchanged",andrecordec the
defuitionofthe borderlininthebouridaryagreementbsetweenthe two
Statesasthe"centre-lineofthepresentmainnavigation charnelof the
river".
7.31. As Article22recogniswl,any change in the delineationothe
border,even aminor change,had tobedecidedon an agreedbasis.ln
additionthePartiesin1977 specifiedprecisetheextentofchange that
wasgedsible inthe characterofthe Danube as aboundaxy river,22
C=zechoslovakiaa'hialkhaviour with regardtoVariantC was doubly
inconsistent itthe1977 Treaty.First,itactioon theborderlinewas
Uten& secon dariantCshiftedthemain navigationroutefromthe
old bed of theDanube to anew chafulei,tenkilometreslong, located
20 ForSlovWs successitothe197Conventioseabove,mote topar6a.13.
21 Seeabove,an 4.39.
22 Art22(Io)fthe 197Treaicyearlydisthguishedbetrevisiointhe lime
itself (which,thminorwere to Sachievebya separaagreementArt
U(2))and"changeithechcter ofthStatfrontidSeeabovepar4.39.exclusivelonits territoryCzechoslovakiausnilateralactichanged
thecharacteroftheborderin away whkh the1977Treatycertainldid
not authmise.
7.32. The 1976 Boundary Waters Conventioncontains precise
definitiorelatinto "TheProtectionofthe StatBorder,itcharacter,
and thesignsusedformarkhgit".
7.33. Forexample, Article4(1Statethatthefartie"shalimaintainin
good conditiontheboundary waters,andthe structure,acilities,and
equipmentlocatedthmupon in order to protecpemanently the state
border".
7.34. Furthemore, Article 4(2) specifxs that"the removal or
displacemenotf boundarmarks and othermeauringmarks sehg for
the detemikationandmarkingof thestateborderis forbiddenduring
watermanagemena tctivitiescarriouton boundarywaterswithoutthe
prio approvalof thecomptent authoritiesfthe Contrachg Parties.
The boundary marksand the measuringmarksshallk protected hm
beingdamaged duringsuchactivitie."
7.35. Article4(3)addstfiat:
"For awater managementactivity, whichwould resulin a
changeintheline orthe chcter of thestatebordera pria
approvalis neededpursuanto the lawandthe replationsof
bothContracthgPaxties"
7.36. Article4 ofthe1976Convention makesperfectiycleathatthe
signatoriesmustkeepthe hundaq waters Ingood conditionandmay
not changethe borderline withoutprioragreement. Article4(3) is
cleatlyapplicablinthisrespect,sincethereis nodoubthaVariantC
involveda"watermanagemena tctivity".
7.37. The statementinArticle 22(1)(aof the1977Treaty that "the
positionofthatfrontiershd bedefin&by thecenw-line ofthemain
navigationchel ofthe riversimplyreflectthe defuitiogivervby
the PeaceTmty of Thon, the PeaceTreatyof Parisand the 1956
Hungarian-Czechos Ioeatk condg the Reme of State
Frontiers.7.38. The Treaty of Trianon placed the frontierlineas "le cours
principal de navigation du Danube".23The Treaty of Pâris,24 as
interpreteInthe SupplementarM y inutesNo 1to the Closhg Minutesof
the Meeting of the Hungarian-CzecholslovalB rorder Dmfthg
Commission of11 Octok 1948,clescribedthebordermoreprecisely:
"Along Border Section Ii, the originaldefuiition of the
borderlineextending thugh the Danube, as determined
between 1922-1925,mains valie thatistheborder isdefmed
by the thalwegof the rivermain navigablebed at thelowest
water level.
7.39. Futhermore, Article213) of the 1956 Treatyconcerning the
Regimeof StateFrontiersstat eçat:
"On sectorswhereit nins over water, the fiontierIine shail
foîiow themiddleof the bec!ofunnavigable rivers,canaisor
stre.ms, orinthe caseof navigablerivers,the medianline of
themais navigab chlennelatthelowestnavigable le~el".~~
7.40.From 1920 onwards, these treaty provisions consistently
identifieîhebordezline wiîhthemain migable channel. Theeffectof
the operationof Vanant C haskm preciselyto substitutea new
artificid main navigablechanne1 for the Danube. Now this new
navigablechannelflows exclusively inSlovak territory,pviriing
Slovakia with an additionaImeans of pressur oeer the comq
downsmam.
7.41. Finally,CzechoslovakiaCEiSregarda edothermultilatera reaty,
if not literallat leastinspint -- theBelgrade Convention on the
Danubeadoptaiin194K2' The danger that the Danubecdd be
diverîedfrom itsnatiirriva-bal, not surprhgly, didnot occurto the
23 Treatyofkace, Triano, Jme1920,in TheTreatiesPeae 1919-1923(New
York,CarnegiEndornent forIntemationlce, 1924)vol1,Art27(4)("the
principlavigatilineotheDanube")Annexes,val3annex1.
24 Treatyof PeawwithAungaryP, ari10Fe- 1947,Art 2; 41 üNTS 135;
Annexes,vot3, ame2.
25 UndertheTtieaofParisAr3,the"thalwegisthe!Hiefollowingthedeepestpart
ofa river,chansimmbedor vailey.
26 CEschoslovakia-Hungarr,atconcemirttheRegime ofStatFrontier(with
FinalRotmol),Prague1,Oçtok 1956,300 UNTS 15O;Annexa,vol3,annex
15.
27 Conventionconcernintheregimeofnavigationothe Danube,Belgrade, 18 J
Aupt 1948,33UNTS 181;Annexes, o3,anne4.signatoriesThus, the Convention does not contain an explicit
profiibitionagainst unilateral diversion.er, the Convention's
gend spiriis oneof fiendly cooperatioand mutual agreement,
therebyexcludhgany unilaterinitiativeby a Party,especiwhere
thematterisofgreatconsequence.
7.42. Thi spiriof cooperatiis, forinstancevidencedinArticle3,
which deals withworks requLredby unforeseencbcurnstancesand
carrieoutwithinthefrontiefsoonecountry.Eveninsuch a situation,
theBelgradeConventionexplicitlyrequirthasuch anaction maybe
cârnedoutonlyafteragreemenbetweentheripariaStates.
7.43. Intheestablishmenof-variantC,Czechoslovakianeglectedits
internationlbligatiotocoopte withHungary,astheyderivefrom
each andeverytreatconcludedwithits riparineighbourinregardto
theutilisatiofashare namalresource,theDanube.
SECTION C: l'Hl3ILLEGALITY OF THE DIVERSION UNDER
GENERALDJTEWATIONAL LAW
7.44. The diversionof the Danube water by Czechosluvakiaalso
vioM phciples of generalintemationalaw. The Czechaslov&
Govmcnt didnotrespe cteobligationot tocausedamage to the
environmentof0th- States. didnotprovideHungarywith tunelyand
adequateinformatioonitsplantoproceedtsthiact,whichwas clearly
harmful tothe environmentof itsneighbour,andit didnot accept
meanuigfuclonsultatiosithit.Tdid notappQ thegaranteesflowing
fromitsownenvuUnmenta legislatito thimpactwhichthediversion
was to produceon Hungarian tmitory, and it dinot obsme the
principlofquitableuseofshare ndaturdresource Fm.aily,itdinot
respecttheprincipleothepermanenstovereigntyofHungaryaverone
ofitçmainnaturd=sources.
(1 OBLIGATIO NOTTû CAUSE DAMAGE Tû THE ENVTROlWENT
BEYOND ONESBORDER
7.45. One ofthebasicnom ofinternationaIlawwasfomulnted inthe
çontext ofmwOnmental protectionby Princip 21eof the 1972
Stockholm Cmfenmce'sDeclatationontheHumanEnvjrunment. States
have, in accordan ceiththe UN Charter and the principlesof
intanationalaw,"theresponsibiltoyensurthatactivitieswithintheirjurisdictior controdonot cause damage tothe environmentofother
States..."28
7.46. Aithoughthe StockholmDeclaratianisa non-bindingtextthis
principiisrooted indecisionsofiritematiod tribunds.Itderives in
partfromthe TralSmelterarbitraawamlwhichriffmed that:
"na Stathasthe rightouseor pemiittheuseof ittenitoryIn
sucha manner astocause injurby fumesin orto thetemitory
of anotherothepropertiesorpersonstherein,whenthecaseis
of seriouconsequen cnd theinjuryisestablishedby clear
andconvincingevidence"29
7,47. Theunderlying principlwasconFumed ina differecontextby
thl sourtintheCo@ ChannelCase,when itreferreto...
"everyState'obligationotto aUowknowinglyits territorto
beusedfor actçontraryto thrightsofotheStates."30
7.48, TheLac Lanom arbitradecisionalsoaiiudeto theproblemof
transfrontierpollution,althouno waterpllutionwas alleged there.
TheTribunas l.aid:
"On aurait pu soutenir que les travaux auraient pour
conséquenc une poilutiondéfuiitieeseauxdu Carol,ouque
leseauxrestitua éeraientune compositiochunique ou une
tempéra-, au telle autre caractéristiqpouvant porter
@judice aux intédtsespagnols. L'Espagneamait alorspu
prétendrequ'aétait port6 atteint ce,trairementà I'Bae
additionnel,sesdro"1ts.Ni le dossier,niles débadecette
affni nee ortenlatracd'unteeUeallégation,1.
7.49. TheTribunallaterindicatthe consqpenceswhichwouldoccur
fmn such pollution:
"...e admettantqu'2existe un prjncipeinterdisantli 1'E&t
d'amontd'db leseaux d'unfleuve dansdesconditionsde
natrrre nuire gravement à lm d'avalun tel principe ne
trouvepas son appli~atiodansla présenteespèce,puisguial
éteadmis parle Tribd, h proposde la premièrequestion
UPJI)o~ff48l~4IRev. 1.
29 (13413UNRIiBA1938atp 1965.
30 Co* ChanneCase(Meri@ICIRep1949atp22.
31 AffaiduLuc Lanom (19512UNRZAA 281aip303. examinée plushaut,quele projetfranpis n'altèreasles eaux
du Carol,"32
7.50. Subsequentdevelopments haveconfirmed Princi p1lesa rule
of customaryinternationallw. Ln particulait hasken reaffmed in
various declarationadoptedby the United Nations33andby other
intemationaiorganisationsndconferences.3h içreflectein numerous
intemationaltreatie~.~ne ofthese,the 1979 Geneva Conventionon
LongRange Transboundar yir PoilutioreproducesPrinciple21of the
StoçkEiolmDeclaration,tatingthati"expressesthecumon conviction
thatStateshaveonthi natterw.36
7.51. The Helsinki Convention on the Protection suidUse of
Transboundm y aterçou~sesndInternationalMes of 17 March1992
specifiethe scopeof tiigeneralobligationnottocause damage to the
environmeno tfotherStatesinthipsarticulfield:
"1.ThePartiesshalI takeallappropnatemeasures toprevent,
controlandreduce anytransbmdaryimpact.
2. ThePartiesshall,ipartic*, take allappropriate easures:
(a)To preventconml andreducepollution of watm causing or
likelto causetmmboundariy mpact;
(b)Toensure thattransbundarywaters areusedwiththe aim of
ecologically sound and rational wata management,
conservatioofwaterresourçes mdenvironmenta plrotection;
33 Lg.,UN Charteof hnomiç IRigtitsandDurofsState12Deceaiber1974,
UPJGA Rw 3281;WorlChartefoNature.28Octokr 198,NGA Res37R.
34 Eg.,FreIiminaqDecimtion ofa hgramme of Actioof the Euqan
CammunitiesinRespectotheEnvironment,QBcipl Journalofthe European
CornmuniriCs1Iyl, 2Decunk 1973FinaiActotheHelsinkiConfereone
SeMmw and CooperatiinET, 1August 1975, (1975) ILM 12*,
DeçIadon onEnvirwmentand Development, N ConferenceEnvironment
andDeveIopment,iodeJaneir,une1992Princip2,UNDoc NConf 15115,p
2.
35
E.g.,UNConventioonthLaw oftheSeaMontegoBay,10December1982,Art
194(2)UN DoeAlConf 62/122(982);ConventionBiologicDiversitRio
de Jan&, June1992,Ar3,UNEP Bio.DivlCONFL.2;ramewwkConvention
on ClmateChange, Riode JaneirJune 1992, pmmble, UNGA Doc
4/AC.237/18(PalI)/AdI.
36 (1979) 18KM 1442,Reamble. See alsothe bambleto theFramewodc
ConventioonQirnatChangeR,ideJaneiro,un1992. Cc)To ensurethatransboundarywatersareused inareasonable
and equitable way, taking into particularaccount ttaeir
mnsboundary characteinthe caseofactivitiewhichcause or
arelikeltocause hmsbundaryimpact;
(d)To ensureconservatioand, wherenecessa ,restoratioof
ecosystems."3~
7.52. The so-calledHelsinkiRules on the Uses of the Waters of
InternationRivers stateasearlyasin 1966that:
"Cl)Consistentwith thpsincipleof equitabutilisatiof the
watersofan internationdrainagebasin,aState
(a)must prevent any new fom of water pollutionor any
increase inthe degree of exiskg water pollution in an
HitemationaIdrainage basin which would cause substantial
injuryintheterritoof aCO-basi ntateand
(B)shouldtakedl reasonablemaures toabateexistingwater
pollutioninaninternationa lrainagebasinto suchan extent
thatna substaritidamageis causedin the territoryoa co-
basb State."38
7.53. Anotherscientific body,the Institutde Droit International,
stressedthesame principlein aResolutionadopted on 12 September
1979, linkinitexplicitlwith theZanguageofPrinciple21 ofthe1972
StockholmDeclaration:
"hicle II.Dans l'exercicde leurdroit souveraid'exploiter
leurspropresressourc selsnleurpolitiqued'enWomment et
sanspréjudicdee leurs obligationsconventionnell,es Etats
ont ledevoir de faùe en sorteque leursactivi* ou celles
exercbs dansles lunites de leur juridictioou sous leur
controlnecausentpas, au-delàdeleursfrontièred,epoilution
auxeauxdes £leuvesetdeslaci snternatianaux."39
38 Intanaiionl awAssociati,-ft oftheFfi-Second Confere(Helsinùi,
1966atp484.
39 institdedroitintematio,essisms, Résoliaidu 12septembre1979.
SeedsoArtm.7.54. The same principlescm be foundinvarisus Bclarations and
DecisionsoftheUN EconomicCommission forEuxope.40
7.55. The hft Articleofthe InternationlawCommission on the
Law of theNon-Navigationai Uses of InternationalWatercourses
surnrnarisehe stateof internationallawinthisregardin Article 7
(Obligationotto causeappreciablearm):
"Waterçome Stateshd utiliseanintemationawatercoursein
such a way as not to cause appreciablehm to othm
watercourse tate"41
7.56. It isevidentthatthe diversionoftheDanubehas caused,and
risks eausing,substantiaienvironmentdamage to Hungary. In the
Szigetkoz,thdecreaseofthe undergrounwdaterlevel andthechangein
thewaterregimehashadsevere effecr.Inthelong tem,a majorwater
resourceis ktened.42 Due to thed@c natureof underground
water,thetotaextenéofthedamage maybemanifestonly inthe future.
However,theconceptofpollutionincludes theriskofthedeterioration
of theenvjronmenb ty the intcoductiof poiiuthg substancesThis
mus, in the presentcase, &mage to theunderpund water,an
essentiaeIementofthehydrauiicsystemofthewholeregion.
(2) OBLIGATIO NF PRIORNOTlFICATIOA NND
CONSULTATION
7.57. A Statewhichplan o undemkeorauthorissactivitiescapable
of havingsignificaneffeçtsontheenvhnment of another Statemut
hfom the lattandshould transmitoispertineninfornatioabout the
project.Thenaturaicumplement topriorinformationonprojectswhich
couldcaush earmfuleffectstothe environmenotf anotheState is the
dutyto consultwiththe latteState atitsrequest. Thisobiigation,
40 ECE DeclamionofPolionPreventiandControfWaterfoliution, Including
Traris~~ Pollutio@cision B m), 1980,EIEcEl108 JEE
WATER/38);XE DecisiononthCuqmationin the Fieof Tmsbounw
Waters,1986,tepmduinUN DocECE$EWWA/2 ,28,ECEDecisiononthe
RinçiplesRelatotheCooperatiizheFielofTrstnsboun daters,ibidat
p 32.recognised innumerousinternational ui~tniments,~isfomulated for
example h PrincipIe6of the1978 UNEP Princip ofeCsonductin the
Fieldofthe Environmen t othe Guidance ofStatesinthe Conservation
and Harmonious Utilisationof NaturalResourcesShared by Two or
More States:
"Itisnecessafr oyrevery States-g anaturalxesourcewith
oneormore otherStates:
a)to notifyinadvanc eheotherStateor Statesofthepertinent
detailofplans toinitiate,ormakeachange in he conservation
orutilisationofthetesourcewhich cm xeasonablybeexpected
to affectsignificantltheenvironment in the territoryofthe
othexStateor Statesand
b) upon requestof the other Stateor States,to enter into
consultationconcerningthe above-mention& plans;and
c) toprovide,uponrequest to thateffectby theotherState or
States,specific additionalpertinentinformationconcmhg
suchplans;and
44 UNGA Res 3139(XXVm),13 December1973UN Charteronknomic Rights
andDutieof Statehr 3, GeneralAssemblRes 3281, 12 Decenik 1974;
OECDResolutionsnPtinçiplconcernhgTmfrontierPolluti,(74p24 14
Novernk 1974,on thehplementationofEqanlRght of Acmss and Non-
DiscriminatinRelatituTmsfrontierPoiiuciC/77)28,17May,1977,on
Slrenghming InternationalCooperatonnEnvironmentalRoteetionof
Tmsfrontier Regions,C(78E7Sepmber 1978.Theptinci plnfmntian
andcmsultationaap- inregiontreaties:
inE-: GenevaConventioonLong-RangeTransbound airPollution,13
November1979Art5,(197918ILM 1442;
inAsiaKuwaitRegionaiConventioforcoqmation ontheProtectionthe
hilafbnhm~ hm Poliution,24 Apd 1978,Art 11, 1UNE5 133;
ASEANApersent on theConservatiofNatureandNatumlResom, Ku&
Lumpur,9 July 1985,Art 2Intémdtti~~Environmentlaw. Mdtilateral
Agrement98551;
inAfricaAfrim Conventionon th¢ Conse~vatiof Natm and Natual
Resourceslgh, 15September1968Art14,Internutiolnvironmentlaw,
Multhteral Agreeme868:68TheConventioonBiologicalDiversity,deo
JaneiroJune1992,alspvides fornotifidonexchangeof infmatioand
eonsuttatonnactiviîieswhiareIikelsignifieatoiaffeadverselythe
biologkd diversiaberState(Art 1Xc)). d)if therehasbeen no advaricenotificatiasenvisagedin
subparagrap a)above, taenterintoconsultatioaboutsuch
plansuponrequesof theotherStatorStates"45
7.58. The 1992 Rio de JaneiroDechration on Environmentand
Developmentp ,roclaimethesame principle:
"States providepriorandtimelyn~~cation and relevant
informatiotopotentiallaffecteStateon activitithatmay
have asignik& tmboundary envirommenta aldverseeffect
andshallconsuiwiththoseStatesatanearlystageandin good
faith".46
7.59. The Conventionon Environmental Zmpact Assessrnentin a
'Fransboun~ Cantextwas adoptedon 26 March 1991 at Espoo,
Finland,by 26European StatesincludingHungary,asweli asby the
EzuopeanCommunities ,anadaandthe US. Draftedundertheauspices
ofthe UN EconomicCommission forEurope ,hisinstrumentsa result
of Empean cooperationinthefieldofenvironmentaplrotectio,ooted
intheFinalActof the 197HelsinkiConference.Icanbeconsidered as
expressingthe legalstandardsappliedby the legislatioof many
corntriesandby intemational ctice. AlthoughCzechoslovakia did
notbecorne aContracthg Partyto thEspoa ConventionF, ederalLaw
No 17of 5December 1991of theCzechandSlovakFederaiRepubîic
(wkichis stiinforceintheSlovakRepubLici)ncludesprincip wIeicb
correspondtu those of the Espo Cmvention. Thislaw requires
environmentalimpact assessments for activities extendingbeyond
nationalders. Annex3 totheEnvironmentaAlctcontaina listof 17
pject typessubjectto intemationaiegotiationsinrespect of their
enviiromd impact. The listincludesdamsandreservoirswith a
heightahve foundatiobaseofover 10m, ora totavolumeofresemoir
of overIO&on m3. Appenüix 4 Iiststherequirdocumentationfor
the assessrneof suchplans. Theseassessmentsmustbe ~viewed by
theauthorltiosftheRepublicsasweU asby theFederalCornmitteefor
the Environment.Evidentlythe obligatioto infornother Statesof
activitieswhicpotentXalIyffectteirenvitonmentwas recognisedby
theCzech andSlovakFeded Goverment.
7.60. The Espw Convention contains fa-xeachhg provisions
concedg the duty to notify potmiailyaffectecStatesof allthe
relevantinformationconceniiag activities whiçh mayaffec heir
e~1Vironmen(Grticl3) andtoeotlsuwiththem (Articl5).Appendix Iof the Conventionestablishea special procedurto decide on the
necessityof animpactassessrnenandthenotificationandconsultation
whichresultshm it.The concemeclPartiemustensm thatthepublic
ofthe affectedPartyitheareaslikelto beaffecteshallbe infomed
of,and bepxovide wdithpossibiities fmaking commtnts on,the
pposed activityComments andobjectionsshailxtmnsmittedto the
competentauthoritofthe Partoforigin(Article8).
7.61. When theCzechoslovakGovernent pruceededwith VariantC,
itfailetocomplywith theobligatioflowingfromintemationaIaw, as
weU as fiom its own legislationto transmitdetaileinformation
foreseenbythelaw,Ietalonetoçonsulwiththe HungarianGovernment
and affecteHungarianre~idents.~~
7.62. The dutyof informationandconsuitationiscontaln edother
internationl.ocuments. Forexample*in thecontextof sharedwater
resowrces,theHelsinki Convention on the Protectionand Use of
Tmboundary Watercomes and InternationalLakes, adoptedon 17
March 1992 underthe aegisof the UN Economi c ommissionfor
Europe,envisagespricmrformationandconsdtatisn(Articles9(2)@),
10,13, 16).It atso insistthatinformation"on the conditionsof
mmboundary waters,rneasuresakenorplannedto betakento pfevent,
çontrolandduce îransboundarimpact,and theeffectivenessofthose
rneasms, ismadeavailabltothe p~bbc".4~
7.63, Animportant summary ofthegrinciplewhich shouldbeapplied
inthifsieldis containcintheDraftArticlesontheLaw of theNon-
NavigationaUi seofInternationl atercoursesdoptedonfirstreading
by theInteniationLaw Commission on 11September 1991. PartIli
(PlannedMeasures)describethe procedurtobeappiied. Watercou~se
StatesarereqM to "exchangeinformationandcomulteach otheron
the possibleeffectsof plannedmesures on thecondition of an
internationwl atefcome"(Articl11)to providetimeEnotiiïcationof
planned measures, accompaniedby "available techuical data and
informatioiP irdeto enablethnotifiesStatetoevaluatthe possible
effectoftheplannedmeasirres"(Grticl12)toal3ow 6montfistimefor
response (Article 13), and in the meantirne to ~~ from
irnplementationf theplannedmeasureswithoutthe consent of the
47 ~oslovak FederAicontheEnvimunentnI7/199 2,ts5,26Annexes1
-4;ActNO2440f15Apil1992AIX13.
48 UNDocm1267,Art lql).24EiuopeanStatesincludingHungary,thelEEC,
CanadaanUS signathtreatyThe4hchandSIovaMkral Republwaanot
asignatory.notifiedStates(Articl14). If anobjecuon is made,negotiationsare
required"with a view to arrivinat an equitableresolutionof the
situation(Articlef7(1))and theProjectmustbe delayedfor 6rnonths
attherequestofthe affetedState(Articl17(3)).UnderArticle17(2):
"2,The consultationsndnegotiationsshdIbeconduçted onthe
basisthaeach Statemustin good faEtphyreasonableregardto
therîghtandlegitimateinterestsotheottieState."
7.64.When the CzechoslovakGovernment decided to ordes the
executionof VariantC, theonlyn~~cation it gave totheHungarian
Govemment was anannouncemen t adebyitsrepresentativeuringthe
Hungkan-CzechandSIovakBoundary Waters Commission'Ds anube
Sub-Commission meeting in Masch 1991. According to this
announcementt,he work would begin on 2 April 1991.49On 24 Juiy
1991 he Hungarian Ministerinchargeinfonned thePnme Ministerof
the Shvak Republicof theanxietyof tliHungarianpublicopinionand
the Hungarinn Govenunent about the pressreports thatthe Slovak
Govemment hadstârtedpreparatorworksto divertthe waterfromthe
Danube intoanotherbed.50Evenlater,onlysummaryinformation was
given bythe Czechoslovakdelegate at abilaterdmeetingheldon 10
July 1991 and the consentof the Hungarian Govefnment was not ~
sought.51UntilDecember1993,nodocuments onVariant Ç inctuding
the relevant technical datawere communicated to the Hungarian
Govemment.
7.65. The unilaterlecisionoftheCzechandSlovakFederaR l epublic
and its executio&out real informationandconsultationanwithout
respecthgminimum delayswereconw togenerallyacceptedmlesof
internationaaw. TheCzechandSIova kederalGovemment (a)failed
to givedetalledinformationto theHungarianGoverment; (b) didnot
inform potentiailyaffectmidents onHungaiantdoq of anaction
whicbproduced a sigdicant environmenta il pact(c)in spiteof the
requestof the Hungarian Government ,idnot enterint consultation
conc&g the projectwkch wodd haveimplred thesuspensionof ali
furthesactioduringthe periodofconsultation.
49 Lettefrom MrM My, Heaéof theSecretaRof Mr F MMl,Bungarian
Mimistero Mr 1ka, HeadoftheSemmiat of tiiesidentofthe Slovak
Governmen t5March1491;Annexes,o4,anne46
50 ktter £roMr FMAdl,Hungarian inistWjthouPortfolto,SlovaPkrime
MinisteJCamowy of24July1991Annexes,ol4,mex 54.
51 NoteVerbalof thHungariiCmivemrnenotheCzechandSlova kmbassyat
Budapest,03uly1991;nnexes,ol4, annex57.7.66,Accordhg toPnnciple13 oftheUNEPficiples of Conductin
the field of theEnvironment for theGuidance of Statesinthe
ConservationandHarmonious Utilisationof NaturalResourcesShared
by Two or Mm States,StateshouIdtake into accounthe potential
adverseenvironmentae lffectsarisinoutof the utilisationof shaïed
resources"withoudiscrhhtiion asto whetherthe effectswouloccw
withintheijzaisdictioroutside
7.67. The consequenceof VarianC and thediversionofthewaterof
the Danube is thecosystemsof exceptionalintereonttheHungarian
sideareand increasinglwiUbe destruyedsinctheydo not receivthe
necessaryamouno tfwater toremainviable. Such consequenw cere
no1takenintoaccoun tytheCzechoslovak auttiorities.
7.68. Thiscan be seen, for example,hm the way in which the
applicableCzeehoslovakFederalleglslntiwas applied. The Federal
Act on theEnvironment,legallyenfmeable asof 16January1992,53
pvides forpublicinformaiion aboutenvironmenta lmpacts (Articles
11-16), the prevention of environmentalpoliution (Article 17),
environmentalimpact assessrn .endtmonitoring (Articl181, and
preventionof damage md therisk ofdmge (Article 19).The Act
enteredinto £me afte tbe decisionto divertthe Danube,birt in
accordance with its terms it should have beenappbed to the
consegueno ftse constructio,tlestinorderto mitigattheeffects
ofthe diversion.Infact,it wasappliin açertainmeasureon Slovak
tetov, butthe effectun Hungarîan territoryweremot takeninto
account.
7.69. Shce a relativelyearIstageof itswok on non-navigationai
uses ofinternationalatefcomses,theInternation&Law Commission
52 UNEPIlrG.12D. See alsoOECD Resolutionson PriricipIesConeemîng
Transsbtiw Polluti14November1924Aincipl4, C(74)22andonthe
IniplmentatioaoReg* ofEqwi RlgiofAecas ad Non-dimiminaiionin
RelatitoTransfronerution17 May1977,C(77)2Cf thUNConvention
onhlaw oftheSm MontegoBay,10lhcmbe1982,~rt227,~~~ocNhf
62/12(1982).
53 Law No17/159SMinisûyothEnvimimenoftheCzechRepubli, uitothe
Emir~nmentulLawsaRegdahm of theCzechReptrb, 10.estabfishedthatsuch uses include ail usesof the water of the
watercouzses,ncludingespeciallydiversioncmabstractof waterfor
powergenerationfacilities.s4Therebasbenodissenthm this view.
7.70. One of the pinciples governingthe use of sharednatural
resuurceby two ormore Stateis themleof equitableuse. Wateristhe
archetype of the shared natyral xesour~e.~For an international
watercourse,understoodas n system of surface andunderground
waters,56Shi S eans thatail theriparianStatesareentitied to a
reasonablshareoftheusesand benefiîofthewaters.Thi sequirement
hasbothquantitativandqualitatiimplications.
7.71. The quantiv oftheDanubewaterwhiçhHmgq receivessince
theconsû-uctionfVariantC hasdramatiçal1dyecreasd. Accordingto
weUestablisheddes of internationll w,eachof theripariaStateis
entitleto50% 'cfthewaterofthis boundarriver. Sincthediversion,
on average80-85% of the waterflows into the powecanaland the
remaining1520% is sharedbyHtmgary and Slovakia.ktead of 50%
oftheDanube water,Hungary onlyreceive7-1095. Evenprior tothe
beginningof theconstructioof theBarrageSystem,Czechoslovakia
dredged vastamounts of grave1hm the bed of thesection ofthe
.
Danubewhichissitedentirely on itstmitory. This ~nhteràl action
hdy had negativeconsequen ocesthe level of the watof the
Danubeandhadnegative consequen ontheDanube'h sydraulisystem
in HungaryT, heconstructin fVarianC aggravatedthesituation.
7.72. In additionhe qualityothe sharedwaterresourcemustnotbe
impW. Stateshavethe dutynot toexcee heir righto equitable
utilisatibydeprivingotherwatercoursStatesofwaterwtiichisfifor
SecondReporton ttieaW of theNon-navigatiol seof Intematicmai
Watawiurseby MrS Schwekl, SpecialRapprtUN DoeAEN.41332and
Add1,Yearbd oftheIntematioLawCommission,198volIpt1,pp 16-
66,
SecondReporton theLaw of the Non-navigationalUseEntemational
Watenmmes,by MrS Schwekl,Specialwu, UN DocMN.41332and
Add1,Yedxmkofthe kitmationLaw Commission,980volIpt1, p 180
andfothedevelopmen~nthconcepofsharremmes, pp181-83.
SecondReporton theLaw of the Non-navigatii ses of Intemaianai
W ~ ~ , by MrS SBwebel,SpenalRappom, UN DucW.4/332 and
Add 1YearboooftheInternatLlawCommissio1980,voIIpt1, p 16cf
Art 2of theDraft Articleson Law ofthe Non-Navig9tiaUsesof
IntematioWlatercomesadoptby thIntemaionaiawCornmissionn11
September991UN DocA/46/45.use:the waterresource shouldnotbe pollutedor its characteristics
changedinsuch awaythatotheruserscannotbenefitfroit Again,the
definitionofpollutionincludestheriskofsignificanftuturepollution.
7.73. TtioebligationofripariaStateto respec0th sipariaStates1
rightresultshm the principlesformulatby differentbodieson the
buis of generalinternationIaw. Accorduigto Article 10 of the
HelsinkiRules:
"(1)Consistentwiththprinciplofequitableutilisatofthe
watersofaninternationaldrainbasin,a State
(a)must prevent any new form of water pollution oany
increase in the de- of existingwater pouution inan
internationdrainagebasin wfiichwould cause substantial
injurinthetenitoryofaCO-basiSntate..."57
7.74. The 1978Prhciplesof Conductin theFieldoftheEnvironment
for the Guidanceof Statesin the Conservationand Hamonious
UtilisationofNaturalResourçesShed byTwoorMore Statescontain
shilarniles.sg
7.75. The ISra AfticlesadoptebytheInternationLlawCommission
affi rmtegoricaltheobligationotto causeappreciableam. Draft
Mcle 7 pmvides:
"Watercours etateshdlutilisaninternationwlatercomein
such a way as not to cause apprecia bamei to 0th
watereourse tates."
7.76, AïticleoftheHelsinkiConventionontheProtectionandUseof
TransboundaryWatercoursesandInternationl akesof17Mah 1992
may dso berecded:
"1.The Partieshd takeailappropriate e8sureto prevent,
con1~0a1ndreduc anytransboundarimpact.
2. TheParsieSU, inparticulatak elappropriate easures:
(a)To prevent,conh-0andduce pollutionof waterscausing '
orlikelto caustnmboundary impact;
57 InternatiLlawAssociati,eporofthe52nCoqferen(Helsink,366)p
484.See ArtXI(obligationofoesanreparaiion).
58 SeeUN t30eNEP/iGIST(19May 1978),PrincipIa1,3. (b)To ensurethattransbundarywatersareused with theaim
ofecologicdy soundand rationalw . ater managementc,on-
servatioofwaterresourtxsandenvironmentaprotection;
(cTo ensurethattrmboundary watersareusaiin areasonable
and quitable way, takinginto particdm account their
transboundarcharacteri,nthcaseof activitieswhicauseor
arelikeltocausetransboundztiympact;
Id)To ensureconsmation and,wherenecessary,restoratiof
ecosystems.
3. Masuresfor thepreventioncontroland reduction owater
pollutionshabe takenwherepossible,atsource."
7=77. These statementswhichcorrespond togetaerdinternationallaw
des, leaveno doubtabouttheitlegalitythediversionoftheBanube.
7.78. As to theissuewhetherthepurposesatwhichVariantC is aimed
cm jus@ the unilaterltep takenbytheCzechoslovak Govanment,
two çommentsshotdd bemade.
7.79. Thefirstlesults frthepdy of the "noappreciablhm"
principlwhencampared tothepruiciplofexpitabluse. Accordhg to
Profess SoMr cCdheyy ,ormer Rapporteurof the IntexnationLlaw
Commission he...
"prhacy of the'nohm principk'means thatthefundamental
rightsandobligationof Statewith regardtotheiuses of an
intemationawatexcoursearemore dehite thanthey wouldbe
ifgovmed in the ht instanc be the moreflexible (and
consequentllessclear)nilefquitableu&sation."59
This iespeciallso wkn waterpoliutionandconsequen tnvhmental
damage areatstake.
7.80. A secondanswerresultshm the verynatureof the damage
caused bythe diversionof the Danube. The HelsinkiRuleslist the
relevarifactors whichmust be taken into consideratiin order ta
59 S McWhy, "Th eawofinternatialatemmes: SomeRecentDevelopments
andUmmwaedQuestions1('989)1DenverJE &Polic505atp 510Another
authonotes thattWoridBankpolicmconeemb grojectsontransbunda~~
waterc~mesisbasedon a pRwityofthem-appreciablehm prineiple:
Goldberg,'UgdAspectsofWoridBankPolicy onProjectsoInternarional
Wakways" (1991)WamResomcaDevelopmen t25ap226.detemine what isa reasonableandequitableshar ef waters ofan
internationdrainageasin,Oneofthem i...
"thedegreetwhichthe needsofabasinStatemay besatisfied
withoutcausingsubstantidinjtoacebasin S~te''.~~
7.81. There isnodoubtthatthediversionofthewateroftheDanube
causes ubstantialnjurytoHungaryt ,he longer-ternidimensionsof
whiçhwillmanifestthemselvesonlyoveanumberof years.One of the
majoraspects of theproblejsthatthesupply ofa largepariofthe
Hungarianpopdation withM g waterisjeopardised. It musbe
recatledithiregmi thatevenif Mcle 10of theDr& Axticlesofthe
InîemationalLawCommission Statethatno use ofaninternatrond
watercoursenjoysinherenpri0rJ.overotheruses,ialsoaddsthatin
Iheeventof aconflicbetweenusesof aninternationwlaterçomethe
solutionmust befwwd with reference,inter dito the obligation
embodiedin draf AErticl7 notto causeappreciablharm, and that
specialregardmusbe givetotherequirementofvitahuman needs.
7.82. Since 1968 variousinternasioni orahave sbress ehatthe
freshwaterresourc ofsrnankindare in bite. quantity. Their
abundani cdhhkhing andthtipoiiutioisinming, Theymust be
conservedandmanaged.6T 1hisisparticularme for ÇentralEurope
and foHungary, whosewaterresoufesareextremelylimited.Thm is
no sustainabeevelopment ,ndultimatelnohuman Me, withouthsh
waterindequate quantitandqudity.
7.83. Both the Iritemtional CovenantonEconomic,Social and
CulhuaiRightsandon CiviandPoliticaRightsproclahinArticlel(2)
that
'M pappeopmiay,forihekown ends,freeldisposeof their
naturd ~4th and resources without prejudiceto any
obiigatioarisingoutofinternationl conomicCO-operation,
basedupon theprhcipleof mutualbenefitand international
60 Helsini ules,ArtV(2)&).
61 CoumilofEurope,uropeaWataQiartaCmmi#ee of MinistwsResolution
(67110,d@ on26May 1967UNConferencoenWaterl197MardelPIata
AciionPlaUN DoçEICONF~70/(JBP/terdonal ConfereonWw and
theEnvironmen, ublin,Jmua1992StatemenonWater anSustainable
Developmen;iodJaneiroCon€ere,genda21,Qiapter18. law.In nocasemay apeoplebe deprivedofitownmeans of
subsisten'la
The UN GeneraiAssembly ha many times affimiethe p~ciple of
permanenstovereigntofpeoplesovertheirnatural esource~.~~
7.84. Althoughthisprincih plsoftenbeendiscusseinthe contextof
foreign-ownedproperton the territoofa Stateitsscopeisbroder,
Inparticulathelass entenceof theprovisionsof bothHuman Rights
Covenantiscategorical.
7.85. Hungary has fwo mainnaturalresource is:soii andits water.
ûthernaturaresourçeswhichcm befound on itterritoraremuchless
important.Utilisationothesoilverylargely dependsonthequantity
and thequalityofthewaterresources,At the samethe, the intemal
renewablewaterresourcesof thecountryamouni to only591 m3 per
head peryear,wMe waterresourceskluding river flows from other
counuiesamountto 11,326mx 94%of surfacwateroriginatesoutside
thecountry. In thi segardHungary is ina situatiowhich cm be
compared tothaofmanyAfricanandMiddleEastern cornaie ststhe
only Empan country to"face a seriousmarginal water scarcity
situatio, ithmajorprobIemsocctrrriindraugh tearsV.a
7.86. Thus everythingwhichbarnpers'the quantivor gualitof the
waterinHungary risksproduchga majorimpactontheverybasis ofits
M. One mayrecd the rightsresirltingframsituationofeconomic
dependence andlong-termreliancon rightsto anad resource,the
legitimacand thelegaiconsequenceof whichhavebeenrecognisedby
thisCouztintheFisheriesJwisdicîiCases.65
7.87. The diversionoftheDanube in 1992 by adateral actof the
CzechoslovakGovernmente ,veifitwereinconformitywith otherules
ofinternationllw--which,as thiCshapteshows,itcwtainiywasnot-
- iscontrartoHungary 'ghtto haveitspermanentsovereigntyonits
basicnatumlresoufcesrespected.Nor,forthe samereason,could the
1977 Treatybeinterpre aseeprivinHungary of itssavereigntyover
oneof itmain naturaresources.
62 AdoptebyUNGARemlution2200(XXX).
63 See,e.gUN ChartonEoonmnicRightsuiDutiesoStateArt 2(1), UNGA
Remlutio3281,1Decembe1974.
64 FAO,TheStureofFuadad Agricultwe,R1993,p 2-238. SECTION D: ABSENCE OF JUSTIFICATION
7.88. The unilateraliversiooftheDanubebyCzechoslovakia cannot
bejustified asa counmeasure, precluding the wrongfuhess of a
?machof internationalfaw. As shown earlierin thiçMernorial,the
diversionconstitutea blatantviolationofinternationallaw, anno
circumstanceesxistha touldhaveempoweredCzechoslovakia to use
rneasures hich,bythemselves, ouldbebentrarytointernationallaw.
7.89. Two setsof reasonsunequivocallyprecludetheapplicatioof
corntesmeasutes.First-th easicgrerequisitefoa countenneasureis
absentkause Hungarytook no illîcit actito which theunilateral
diversion underVariantC could be seen as a legitimate reaction.
Second,even ifiwere possibltocharacterithe unilateriiversioof
a hundary river as a çounterrneasu,ezechoslovakjnasctionsdnot
accord witb the well-estabhhed conditions for admitting
countmeasures.
Absence ofPrim IlbiciAct
(a)
7.90. "Lapremihecondition - sinequa non - du droitdexm des
n@sailles estunmotiffoumiparun actepréalablec,ontrairaudroit
inteniati~nai."This cJearstatementtakenfrom the leadingcaseon
comtenneasures, the famousNauliZaa Case, has ben continually
repeatedbycourts~bunal asndotherbodies.Itesestablishsat aSîate
may takecountermeasureo snly in reactiotoa priorwrongful act,
affecthgthatsame state.
7.91. Czechoslovalciaouldht have to demonslratethatVariantC
was a respnse to awrongful actby Hungaryinorder to pkad its
justific;itasa countemeasuse.But Hu~igmyc&tted no wrongful
act, apmed by eventspriorto thunilateraCzechoslovakdecision.
Moreover, Czeçhoslovakiadsecisiocannot have ken the appropriate
67 A genmdmey ofthefite- andjurispnidedevotetothisbasicmleto
befoundinthReportonStatResponsibiyothfLC byitsuccessiveld
mppteurs:ProfessRAgo,EC Ybk 1979volipt 1p 1W;Riphagen,ourth
ReporonSmteRespomibifii,N Dm AEN.4/440,pp18-19,ChaptIL An
InternariWl m@d ActasaReconditimandG hgio-RI& FourtReport,
UN Dm NCN.41444 p4,.responseto the cautiouprovisionalandpadal suspensionof works
de~idedby Hungaryduringthes@g of 1989.68
7.92. Sincethe1977 Treatycontainednomechanismfor Itsrevision,
the criteriforassessinthelegaiityof theHungariaconductmustbe
whetber Hmgary intendedand clearlrnanifesteitwilltuachievean
agreedsolutionbasedon good faithnegotiations. Thigenemi de
stems £mm the"'goodfaithi'principle,asweas common senseand
generalcustomaryinternationi w.Itacquks even moreweightin the
presentcaseforArticl27 ofthe1977 Treatyrefersprecisetorevision
by joint agreement,eitheramong the goverment delegatesor the
Govements of the ContracthgParties,asthe methoof molution of
disputesaboutheTreaty,
7.93. ThelawfulnessoftheHungariacnonductwillbedemomhted in
Chapter 9 ofthis Memorial.6It is dy necessary tonote herethat
Hungary steadfastlyintended to reach an agreed solution,as
demomtrated bythe diplmaticcontactthattookplacehm May 1989
onward.70
7.94. For example,whenadoptingResolutionNo 3125/1989"on the
suspensionofthe operatioat Nagymaros" he HungarianGovernent
hadnointentionof pïesentingCzechoslovalua with afaitaccompli.
RathcrIHungasrsimplytook seledve in& measuresoversome of
the workstakingplaceunder its authoity,fperiodofa few months.
These rneasureswerelimited inbo%hscope and the. Provisionaiin
characterthey wm aimed atavoidinganyirreversibledamage to
mg-water resourçesorthe environment,whileat the sametirne,
facilitahg conditiofoxnegotiatinrevisionofthe 1977Treaty. The
Hung- Governent actedwell withinthehmework of the1977
Treaty,andinparticth Article27,andin thespiritof equalityand
cooperationwith Czech~slovak Tiaus~when the Resolutionwas
presented atthe intmnatiod level,the Hungarian initiative was
simultaneouslaccompanie dy aproposalfor negotiations,personally
68 Seebelowparas9.-9.05.
69 Se belowpar9.18-9.42.
71 ThisintentisfrntherillusbytheletfromtheHungariPrimeMinister
tothethennewGovment inPragw,IOJanuar1990.SeeAnnexes, ol 4,
annex32,addressedto thenew CzechoslovakPrime Ministerby his Hungarian
coUeague.72
7.95. Unfortunately,Czechoslovakinever agreedto a provisional
suspensionof workson VariantC, evenwhen, in Apd 1992,it was
establisheasapreconditiobyECCammissioner Andriesseupon the
requestfor mediationdirecteto the Commissionof the European
Cornmunities. M Andnessen specificaiiy reqvestethat "each
Governmenw t ouidnottakeanysteps,whiretheCornmitteeisatwork,
whichwouldprejudicepossibleactiontobeundertakenonthe bais of
themis fmdings." T h3Czechoslovakwhsals were theverymon
why thirnediatiocornmittewas notestablished.
7.96. In theyearsafterthesuspensionofworks,Hungay undertook
repeakd effortsto arrange: eaningfulnegotiationand an agreed
solution.By conwt, Czechoslovalricaontinuallystalland had no
otherpurpose than tocontinuethe Gabcikovoworks asrapidly as
possible, inothewordç to reach a point ofno retuni.7Thus, as
conceived andcanied out ,lwaysinconjunctionwith new offers of
discussionsaimed at achieving a common shared solution, this
provisionalsuspensionof work in 1989is not con- to anyof
Hungarytinternationobligations.
7.97.Hmgasy was alwayspreparedtocornpensatforcostcaused by
the alteratiof theBarrage System. It agreedonthe principlof
compensationandwanted ittbe applieon acommon ,haredbasis.
7.98. Czechosiovakia'secisioto implementVariantC, takenarthe
lates tn early 1991, whilenegotiationsover compensationwere
continuhg,cannotbecomidefedas areactiotopriorillegal conduby
Hungary.Comquently,Czechoslovakiad 'ecisiotaimplementVariant
C couidnot qw asa countenneasiueW.ihut any 1ega.istincatim,
CzechoslovWs unilateralstep ofbging Vdant C rntooperation
mains unlawfui.
72 Seeabovegar3.78,
73 Mer fTomMrF Andiessen,Vice MdenoftheEC Commissiono Mr G
JeszenszHky,gahnFomignMinista,AprillN2Annexevol4annex78.7.99. But quiteapartfrom this fundamental ifficultheunilateral
decision to divert would have additional Iegal f&gs as a
countemeasure.
7.100T .hesefangs appearwhen consideringtheproceduresnsed to
implementVariantÇ andareequaUy evidenhm itconsequences.
7.101.First,Czechoslovakisoughtto enforceitsviewof thedispute
overthe 1977Treatybythreatenhgunilateralctiononitown tenitory
as earlas August 1989.Moreover,Czechoslovakiarefusedtodeliver
appropriatinformationwhenrequestedbyHungary. Let usexaminein
moredetailthesetwoaspectsoftheirconduct.
7.102.Czechosiovakia'secisiotoîdce undaterastep ças mentioned
tutheHungarianMinisterforIndustras earlyas21-22August1989 by
his colleague,the CzechoslovakMinister of Fuand Energy.75This
threabecameevenmore apparenitn lettesentbyCzechoslovakPrime
hhister Adamec toHtmgmian Prime MinisterNémeth ,ated31August
1989. Inthislettehestressathat:
"we ] ill be forcto takesuch actionson the sovereign
mitory oftheCSFRwhichwillensur teeamountofwaterfor
theGabcikovoBarrageaccding to theTreatyof16 Sqtmk
1977".75
7.103 A.t thatthe, Hungary had nat takenmy final decisioto
abando nheworksforwhich it wasresponsible;ather,Hungarywas
despately searchingfor a cornmon agreement to revisethe 1977
Tm.
7.104G .zechoslovakZathreatto take dateral stepsconstituteits
only qmme to theHungarianproposai to negotiate.But evenif
Czechosiovakiahadagreedtoenterintnoegotiati&sthesubstancofits
positionwould evidentiyhave remained unchanged:thewurks must
continue,the1977Treatymust be fdîlled, andtherwas noreascinto
suspend theworks,eventempody. Such apositionamountedto a
refusaofnegotiations, n&y ofmeaningful,egotiatiom.
7.105.Czechoslovakia'usnilateralbhaviour not only violatedthe
principlof guodfaithwhichshouldinspirtheapplicatiof anytreaty,
but dso breachedthegend spint withwhich Czechoslovakiaand
75 Annexes,oI4annex1.
76
Annexes,ol4, mn23.Hungary had adogtedthe1977 Treaty,asweiias theBoundaryWaters
Conventionof 1976. Moreover, zechoslovakia'ehavioucontravened
the specific provisions of Artic27 of the 1977Treaty,which
estabhhed negotiations for bth ordinq cmperation (including
revisions)andfothesettlementofdisputes.
7.106.Czechoslovakia'usnitaiemibehaviourfùrthermo~ ignoredthat
the two Stateshad agreed,inArticle27 of the 1977 Treatyon an
amicable settlementprocedurein caseof disputesrelatingto the
opmationofthe Bmage System.
7.107. Moreover, Hmgary invoked 0th generaldisputeresoIution
procedurs euchasthoseestablisheby theCSCE.n Yet,inspiteof the
numerousmeetings held km spring 1989 to spruig 1992, the
Czechoslovakpositionneverbudged namelytha torksshouldneverbe
intempted,evm for ahief period.Thi snwillingneso consideeven
a temporarysuspensiondeprivedthe meetingsofamajorpartof theU
usefulness,
7.108. CzechoslovaEawas alsun-g tocommwicate thedetailof
iîs unilaterplans.Forexample,inmeetingsof theJoint@mative
Gioup, men as Iateas June 1991, Czechoslovakiastill opposai
X3mgq1swish fo rreciseinformatioonthetechnicalchatacteristsfo
VariantC,whichwasalready being built.Langafterwds, pcîicdiy
until December1993,aftercommencement of thepresentprocdgs,
Hungq had stillnobeenprovidedwith descriptionsoftheelements
composlngVariantC.
7.109S .ucha dexlil f infornationçiearlycontradictsCzechoslovakia's
(and,later,Slovakids)obligations,incluirtdeelk Article3 ofthe
1976 Boundary Waters Convention. Mo~eoves, inthe context of
countermeasures ,hidsenialof informatioseems to be inconsistent
with the welldlished practicaccordingtowhich a "weU govenied
state houlddiligentIprovidtheotherstatewitbacmful and detailed
technical descriptofthe countmeaswre,79especiallin a casesuch
as thi shere thephnnii~gandimplementatioo nf thediversiontook
severalyears, Insteaofappropriatecommunicationof its intentions,
Czechoslovakiaresorted tothreaof uniIateraliversion,evehugh
- -
77 The HungariGovemmentalsonid tode itdisputwithSlwakiInthe
fr;weworoftheCSCEMechanisforConsultatmdCoopedm withregard
toEmergeneSituatioSeeabovepar3.183.
78 Seeabovefmmotetopara3.194.
79 SM UNDoc ADJ.41444(12May1992)p40.the safetofHungarian peopleand the integityofHungarian tenitory
were atstake.
7.110. Tuming tothe tangible consequencesofVariantC, one must
realisethat the consequenc have ken, and will continuetu be
dramatiçally out of proportion to the Hungarian acts to which
Czechoslovakia responded.As dready noted,Hungarycontemplateca l
communly defmedsolution, entahg a revisionoftheOriginaiProjeçt
and intended the solutionto be sustainableand acceptablefor both
parties,notnecessarilyleadinto teminationof the wholeproject In
starkcontrast,theconquences of VariantC areextremelyhannful in
both theshortandlongterm8O
7.111. Even if CzechoslovWs actswere capableof amounting to
countemeasures, they contradictthe well-establishednile in the
NauliIuuCasethat:
"Mêm siIbn admettaique le bit des gensn'exigepasque la
qm5saille semesureappproxhativemen til'offenson dedt
chernent considbrercommeexcessives et partantillicites,
des représaillesorsde toute proportionavec l'acqui les a
motivées .1
7.112. Thisnile constitutthe cm of theinternationalZawgovdg
repris& a,sparticularlyrecailedin thereport of the two Specid
Rapporteur so theLC on the secondpartof theProjecton theLaw of
State Re~ponsibility.~~The principle of proportionaiity of
countemeasures is one of the best-establishedes of customàry
international ractice.aIt habeen refemd to soofterithatit isnot
necessarytorecallithereindetail. Nevertheles,onemustnote thatthe
Courtitself had the opportunity,a few years ago, ta ~iterate its
82 Draftart 9of)AofessoRiphagen(1984)andrafAd 13 ofhissuceessor,
ProfessAran&-Ruiz(1992)The lattproposaiwasisubstancadopteby
thDmftin gornmittin1993.
83 Drafarticle9(2) propbyW RiphageninhisFiftReportreadssfolIows:
"Thexwriseofthinght[c~prids]bytheinjurStatsMl no!initmec&,
bemaaifestdispropartitatheserioumesftheintdonafly wrongfolact
mmiüeù." A swey ofcaseandauthorsecognlzmthenilofpropcrrionaliry
iinProfessoArangiRuizs hirRepon,UN DocAICN.4144(1992)pp 32-
36.importance inthe Case Concerning Militaryand Paramilita? Activiies
inand againstNicaragua.g4
7.113. The disproportiondityof Czechoslovakia' asctionsis even more
stdcing becausether e as no Hungarian wrongful act to which it
responded. Further,theoperationof VariantC has and wdi produce a
very seriousimpact Hithe short,mediumandlong term, tothe aquifer,
ground-water surfacewater,soil,and the entirenvironmentbalance of
theSzigetkozregion,as previouslydescriba lnthisMemorlal.8s
7.114, AnotherweI1-establkhe detof des governingcorntermeasmes
deds with the inherentiimitationstothe exerciseof such rneasuresin
pmtectingfundamentalhumanrighkg6 Intemational institutionsand
conferenceshave stressedthe cornmonsemenotion thatthere isno life
without water.g7The avaiiabilityf asufficientquantityandqualityof
wnter isa basicconditionoflife. 'fhus,a seriousdegradationof water
resourcesmustbe an attackon themostfundamentai humanright --the
righttolifeitsei--whichis certainIa peremptoxy nomi ofintemational
iaw!gs
86 Sec UIpartieiG Arangio-Rui, omh Repon,UN DocA/CN.4/444/Ad (5.l
May 1992)pas 78-83.
87 Çounçi2ofEuwpe, EirmpeaWater CharteCmmirtee ofMinistm Resolution
(67) 10,phimeci on6May 1968,reprodud inUNDoc NCN.4/274,ILL Ybk
1974vo2p 342.
88 W RiphagenFifcRepor(1984)dmftArt12(b)G Aran@-Ruiz,FourthReport,
uiJ DocA/CN,4/444/Add,p38,cirafArt 14(c)(ïThe rigtolifshodd be,
in thimntextinkqmted in relattonanemmginghumanright,whichis"the
righttoacleanenvûonment",aid inthe1972hMbn on theHuman
EnvUonmmta ,doptedatthUnitedNationStoddiokConferencon theHuman
EnvininmentI,twasreikmid inseveralinternationalinstr, ong which
the 1989EuropeanCharDeorfEnvironmentandHealth,adoptedinFiaMim.
whichpmlaims thatevercitizbasthenghttoanenvironmenthichdlowsthe
highestpossibstatof hdth (WorldHealthOrganizatRiweionalOlficfr
Europe,Cophgen, ICI-RUD I13-11.Clairsçonming theptoteçtiofthe
enwwmientcm be foundinthconstitutiosfalmas50 State s.actieanoy
new constitutignoresthrmecesstitroteetthenvironment.Foa~implete
kt, see(1990)RevueUniverseldesDroitsdeIknme, 445,nn1-2 se alsE
Brown-WeissI, nFairntoFutureGeneratioirs(198297ff,7,115.Finally,itshodd be recallethat someof Czechoslovalria's
breachesof internationallaw are incompatible with the use of
contemeasmes. For example, as a result of the diversion,the
inkmationally agreedcharacter of the borderline betwethe two
countrieshas beenuniiaterallym0dified.8~Thisblow to Hungary's
territorlurisdictiiscontrarytothesubstantivdes lirnititheuse
ofcountmeasures.~
7.116.Variant C also&ges Czechoslovakia'treatyobIigations
goveming theinternationlavigatioontheDanube.P T1hisviolationof
treatyobligationagain,is inconsistentwith customaryintemationai
law, as identifiedin LC &aft articIes iimitinthe use of
countermea~ure s,9auseCzechoslovWs actionsalso affecthird
çounsies which are entitieto usethe Danube as an intemational
waterway.
7.117.To summaise ,hedenidofmeaningfun legotiationthelackof
exhaustionofpeacefulmem tosettlethe dispu,heun-gness to
comunieate technicadetailof its uniiatel lansandaboveaii,the
cirastdispqmtion of the benefitofVariantC tothe major%at to
the nghttoMth, Iif anda decentenvironmenotf millionsofpeople,
asweU asthelossof aniqlaceable wetiand,al lisqualifVariantC
km behg regard4as alawfulcountermeasure.
7.l18 . oreoverhesesamemngfui acts(wlththeexceptionofprior
attemptstosettiethedisputewould equdly invalidatthelegalitof
thesedecisioiftheactswexetobe reg- as mm retorsions.
7.119. Thewre of Czechoslovask mite's,thLoughou te late 1980s
andthugh thenight-and-day cons~ction oftheCunovd oamin 1992,
fiabseentoacceleratthe buildingofthedam, while clahhg thatthe
Gabcikovo workshad alreadseachecihestagewhm it wasimpossible
to stopthemS .uchan argumentf,ormuiateas apleaof necessi,has
89 Seeabove,aras72-7.40.
90 G Arangio-Rui, oarrthRepWrtDocAEN4444I Add1,p 38 (draftAa
14(c)(ii)).
91 Seeabove,ara4.4-4.47.
92 DrafiArt14;above,pafg7.112.always beenrnisleading,speciaiiysincethedecisionto diverhad been
envisagedandprepared evenbefore1989, atlestas ewlyas 1982.93
7.120. Theconditionsfor cl-g necessity as a justificatiofor
actionscontraryto internationallaw arewell-established.They were
veq precisely summedup anddarified by the InternationalLaw
Commission inthereportsof hfessor Roberto Ago, atthe time when
the ILC was working onthe fmt partof the draftarticleson State
resp~nsibility:and arereflectedinthe Ilraft Articles of Part1 as
adoptedon Fustreadi ng
7.121. As reflectein draftArticle33,a Statmaydaim a necessiîyto
actcontrary toits intemationalommltmentso , nly inprotectionof an
"essentidinterest".Hm, Czechoslovakia actuallactedçontrary toits
essentid interests. Czechoslovakiau'nild actioncreated a long-
standingthreato bothHungaryla snditsowndrinking-wate uppliesand
caussd ecologicddamageto itsOWR territoryTheseself-inflictedrisks
demonstrat ehatthe nationaintetestof Czechoslovakiawm notin the
directioof VariantC.
7.122 .he unilateraldiversion ako thteatens to undde the
fundamentab lumanright to lifefw thepopulationcsoncernai, on both
sidesof thehntier, andsuch arightisce&y apemnptorynurmof
internationallaw. Now, one of the most generaIly admitted des
conditionhgthe plea of necessityispreciselthat itcannotimpaira
peremptor yorm.96
7.123C .zechoslovakiasou@ tohave its cake and eat it,too. The
situatioof whichCzechoslovaki a ascornplainhghad beenfor alarge
partmat4 by itown conduct(i.e.itrefusaitonegotiatemeanuigfully
93 The Vice-Mident ofîheCzxshoslovaPlanningCommitteeMr K.Ujhazy,
mnouncedin 1982tiuu Czeehoslovawasconsid- thepossièiiof the
imilsrtwlcrnsmaimoftheGabcikovPowe rlantSeeReporîofMr PHavas
on theGovenunentlenipotentkeegotiafiohddon27 -29Odok and 2 -3
Novembw 1982Annexes,vo4,annex160.
94 See alsbelow.paras0.06.ff.
95 ReportofProfessr Ago, UNDc#A/CN.4/318Add5-7ILC Ybk1980voliï, pt
1,p 1ffdiscusso itne articlestheCommission,613tMeetingUN
Dm AJCN.4/318/Ad5 and6, W.41328 andAdd 1-4,ILCYbk 1980,vol I;
Reportof theInternarioml LCommissionon theworkofifsrhirwsecond
session,49para31inILCYbk1980volII,p2,
-
96 Draftar33(2)(m;eebelowpara10.08.fora commonlyagreedsolution). Suchan occurrenceequaiiypvents
Slovakianow hm using the argument of necessitin ternisof the
conthued option ofthe Project. PART III
8.01. SiovakSs responsibillttowatds Hungarydependson the
attributiof Czechoslovaki'srongfulconductitheimplementation
ofthe OriginalRoject andof VariaCttoSlovakia.Thisamibution
wiiibeaddress enSectioA ofdis Chapter.SectioB willexamine
SlovaZEiacsnsequentialobligatitornake reparatiofox damages
produc edthemngful conduct.
SECTION A: DAIMAG E ND LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TU
SLOVAKLAf ÇONDUCï
8.02. The secondpreambdarparagraph of the SpeciaAgreement
concludedktweea SIovakiaand Hungaryrecords that"the Slovak
'Republic...thesolesuccessoState[ofLzechoslovakl]nrespectof
rightsandobligationsrelatito theGalxîkovo-NagymarcPiroject",
As notedearlierin this Memoria1,lhifomulation draws a clear
distinctibetween the 1977Treaty andthe OriginalRoject, since
Slovakiwasnever apartytothe1977Treaty.
8.03, Thekt legalconsquenceisthatSlovaklcannotbe deemed
responsiblfor haches of treatyobligationsattributabonlyto
Çzechoslovakia,whichnolongerexists. NeverhIeCzezhoslovakia's
breachesofthe1977Tm, oh bilaterlreaîievariousmulaateral
conventions andcustomary hternationat lawmatecl a seriesof
secondaryobligations;namelythe obligatioto=pair the damage
causedby themngfd actsTbesesecondaryobligationwereneither
exthguishedby the tePrninatioof the 1977 Treaty nor by the
disappearancef Czechoslovakia.
8.04. Slovaki2continuestok responsif borthese secondary
obligatiobecaus VearianCcontinuaitoexisaadtabeoperatedafter
1 Jan- 1993.hdeed it wasfiuthmdevelopedmder thecontroland
responsibiloyfSlovakiandwithinitsexclusivetenitoridjiirisdiction.
Fromthe ht &y ofits existence assovefeignState,SlovalUa
mintemipkdiy contmued the opemion of Variant C, as earfier
1 SeealsothepositithChchRepubli,iteinpara.07aboveSeeabove,
pani6.0-6.10.Unpiementeciby Czechoslovakia.From 1 Januq 1993, Slovakia's
actionshave effectiveendorsed itsinternationalresponsibilityfor
VariantC.
8.05. The secondpreambulapraragmph of the SpecialAgreement
thereforesimply reflecashown fact Itis an explicit way of
delineatinalegalreiationshthawas alreadin existenceInshort,
this preambularparagraphis nothingbuta declamtory statement,
showing thatfromitsbeghnhg, Slovakiaassumedtheobligationas
operatorofVariantC, turepairdamage causedby presentand@or
breachesof intemtio~al Iaw. Fwthm, Slovakiairmediataccepted
thi seritagefkt by itsaction,Uieby its statemeninpambuiar
paragraph2oftheSpecialAgreement.
8.06. Slovakiis brefore respomiblefodamage andloss caused
by CzechoslovakianrelatiototheimplementatloonfVarianC until
the disappe8fanceof Czechoslovakan 31 December 1992. This
iesponsibilityexteto damagecausedbyany parof thematerialof
theOriginafrojeçtthaiwaswrungfdy converteortakenoverfm use
in VariantC. From 1 January1993onwards,Slovakia isof course
responsibl,sa succe-, fordamagecreatedbyitsowncunduct.
8.07, Iddcation here consistofthresetsof elementsThe first
two are the ide~~cation of the pertinentda# fiom which
Czechoslov~s responsibilitas subsequentlyndorsedby Slovakia)
shouldbeassesseadndthemngfd actscommitbe dftesuchdate.The
thirdelment deaiswiththedamageprodud tryhewnmgful acts.
8.08.
Itisht necessarto deteminethe "cnticdate aornwhich
Czechoslov~ should beheldresponsiblei,.thedatefromwhkhthe
Parti cond'ucshouldbejudgedby the Courtin acc0f:dane itthe
SpecialAgreement upn which the Carat'jurisdictionisbased.2
AccordingtoArticle2(l)(a) oftheSpecialAgreemetheCornshould
assessthelegalityofconductafteMay 1989,thedate of Hmgq's
tempwarysuspensionofworks.
8.09, AlthoughArticl2[1)( b)entionNovember1991 as thedate
hm whichCzecfi6slovakproceedetathe "provisionlolutio(i.e.,
2 Thetenn"criticaidate''hm inconduEftUowingthadatenot pior
eonduc.sid y appliegbnborddisputes.VariantC),3the Courtwill havetoassws thelawfulnessof Hungary's
conduct indirectrelation with the behavioof Czechodovakiaand
duringthe same period. Furthmore, itwas in*action to Hungary's
proposaltorenegotiatthe 1977TreatythatCzechosIovalcithreatened
toimplmentand operatetheGabcikovo BarrageSystemuniiateralon
it swn temitory. The criticdateshouldtherefore bethe fmt date
rnentioneinthe SpeciaAgreement (May 19891.4
8.10. Tbe datefiom whendies a qidothe wrongfd behaviow of
Czechoslovakiashouldbe assesseisnecessadycmtained between the
criticadateof 13May1939 and theteminationof Czechostovakiaon
31December1992. Thediesa quo shouldfirstbeplaceinthe context .
ofCzechoslovakia 'revipumngful am and,secondly,revealeby its
directconnectiowiththe"provisionaslolution".
0-4 Peformanc ofwrongfulacts overtim
8.11. The dernowtratjonofCzechoslova numier'ssbreachesof
lawhas beenaccomplishediat.hprevioustwo chaptm. Here,one must
establistheintemationalesponsibilityfthemngs bylocatingthem
aftethe criticaldaanddie s qgu.
8.12. Czechoslovakiaçommitted some ofthesewrongful actssoon
afrercommencemen tf the 1977Treatyandworks on the Chiginal
Project, Alîhougthesefaduresorîginatebeforethe&cal date,they
cumuiativelyand propsively contnbuted toendangeringthe na-
environmentand should be taken ho accormt in the preseat
proçeedings. Notonly wiîisuchananalysisasses tse antecedentof
nctualresponsibilitb,utmanyof theseactssimplycontinuaiaftethe
dcal dateand shouldbeconsiderd ascontinuhgbreachesoflaw.
8.13. Although thelegalgroundwhkh theyinfringeis basicathe
samewhen Czechoslovakia was effhg, one afte ti: other,the
Onginal Projectand thenVariantC, thehaches of theintdonal
conventionaland custmary obligationsto which the successive
performance of tfiesetwo schemes gaverise shouldbe carefully
3 As explaininpaxi.38- 3.140,tmay bethedatatwhichCzechoslovakia
achally begte corisfctriantCbutthe decicOsdosowas takeand
indeedofficiadmitttoHungary, ebeforthen.
4 Otha factucaZsideratcmhn thaMay 1989shouldbe considerdthe
datfnmiwhichCzeehoslwrùresponsibishouibejudged.Inpticulthe
fundamenialplitiandthe~cwiomichangeinhth wunttieskgan during
1989,
5 Lnrelatito tProjecin generalthe"provisioolutioinpadcular,as
mentioneinthseconquestionaskftheCourHithSpeciaAgremnent.aistinguishedThis is particdarthe casebecauseas dernonstratein
Chapter 7,theuniiaterdcharacterof the decisito undertakeand to
operateVariantC introducearadicalelementofnoveltyin compârison
tothepreviousmngful actsperformedby Czechoslovakia,
8.14. We maydistinguish between thre seccessiveperiodas faras
CzechoslovaWscondrzct is concmed: from thecriticadate(13 May
1989) untilthe acictuclommencemeno t fconstructionof VariantC
(November 1991)fkomNovember1991until23 October 1992,dateof
the unüateraidiversion;andfinally,from 23 October1992 untilthe
terminatioof Czechoslovakion 31December 1992.
8.15.
13 2MQy 1989 - November 1991: Duringthis first period,
Czechoslovakiasteadfastlyreftisetoengageinfair andrneaningfd
negotiationswithHungary.Hungary pposed negotiationsaspartofits
notificationof ttemporâry suspensionofworks atNagymaroson 13
May 1989.6mer than thebriefperiodduringwhichthe Czechoslovak
Governent showedsome goodwill, by Aupst 1989 Czechoslovakia
fomally threaten unild steps "securingtheoperationof the
Gabcikovo Barrage" if Hungarydid notpmceed with preparationsto
diverttheDanube andrefwed any overturetsuspen dark temporariiy
of pendhg negotiati~ns.~ In fact, thesethreats cohcided with
Czechoslovakiac'smmencemeno tf finapreparatorworksforVariant
C, whichmusthaveken conceived anddesignedmuch ear1Xer.
8.16. The sigdcance of theCzechoslovakrefusalofAugust1989
requiresparti& attentionas it shows,moreclexly thaanythingelse
shce 13May 1989,Czechoslovakia'nflexible refusto accomplish
anythhg other han the speedy implemencationof the Gabcikovo
Barrage.This haideningofCzechoslovakiapositionconstitutthefmt
steptowardsinitiahg anew serieof won* am, di connectedtothe
decisionto utldertaVariantC,andtheunilaterac-er oftheseacts
ispariicuiarIyoncilable withtheobligatiotound& meanhgfd
6 TheAideMemoiresignedythe GovemmentPlenipotentiarieJune1989
(seennexes,v4,annex17clarlstatesth"m 13May 1989thHungaxjan
[Stathm informm3heCzechoslova[Statofthetempomy suspensiofn
worh atNa-". Seeabove,ar3.82.
7 AideMewire of the negotiatbetweenMr G Czipper,HungaîanDepmy
MinisteïforIndwûy,aMr L Bla& CzechoslwakDeputyMiMsteforFuel
andEuergywiththparticipaofthetwoGovemmen tlenipotentisignai
by IMrT LacmiSzaboand Mr M Jaroshvseniooffkia nsthe respective
minisûies,-22August1988Annexesvo4,annex21.negotiationsDurYi ghis pied Czechoslovakiawas alsounwillingto
c~~municate theprecisetechicai informationVariant C.9
8+17. This rejectionof meanbigfuinegotiationsplonged and
confimicdCzechodovWs earlierhaches of law: fdure to comply
with its dutyto ~ooperate reû~saltoundertake a systematicand
rnwingful environmerita il pactassessrn ofntte OriginalProjecc
failwe toprovidetechaicd infunnation(through December1993, no
precisetechnicddat haadbeen providedto Hungary); allthe refusal
focomplywiththeprinciple ofpreventionofdamage to theenviromnent
(hcluding theground-waa terthe drinking-water) sestablisheby
severaltreatyprovisions(especidy Articles15 and 19 ofthe 1977
Treaty)andgeneralinternationllw '2
8.18.
November 1991 until23 October1992:This second pied is
chmctded by two majorbreachesof Czechoslovakiao 'bligations.
Fht, thedeion to m&rtake wmk forthe piupose of unihteraE
diversionof the Danube onto Czechoslovak territ0ry.HSecond,the
8 As su~cessivequesteé by the HungmianGoremment, Commissioner
Messen afththmission ofthEumpn Communities andtheauthorsof
tiirdifemitexpert-stusstablisbyhdqmdent non-govwmaentbalodies:
seeINFORT, Budapest& Ecologia, Northampto,asszbehuset,SA,
&kW-Nagymros BarragStud,ProgrmOptionandImpacfs(May1989);
Annexes,ol5,anne6FSielhngnakme&s WWFztuStaq6ez-ProGjeicto-
Nagywros (RastaAugum 1989)CommitOeofLidepemhtSpecialists,
ReviewCatrcernintheEcologiral,Em>ùonmen&l,echdogicril, Emmic,
Intermtiommà Legallws ofthe Gabcik4vo-No~s System(Budiipest,
Sepmber 1989);Annexes,ol5, anne8.See alsobme para6.78.inais
respeconecannarmgnize negotiatasmeaningfdionepaitdeswysth&
objectieymnhuing 5heworksthe&magethteao eawedichisprecisthe
aimoftheaallrç.
9 Seeabove, ar7.12.
10 Seeabove,par7.06-7.1(Wes), 6.69,6.80@merainkrnhd la*.
11 A veryefemeetaydescriptioof VariaCtwas pmsentedy JI Trilemi
.commi9siomW andeEC -. SeeReporoftheWorkinGroup
Independent&pem on VariunC gfthe Gok~Na&~~~ros Projeet, 23
Novemk 1992pp3 -10;Annexes,ol5annex14But thiaumotbeoompecî
wid~ thereguiremendii&ed by gemd inkxwional law withithe
dramewo rftheprinciofnf&ion ad consultath.
13 Accwdin goaSlovadokcmnentntitlTheTmpormysolutwnon theTemimry
oftheCSFR -Sfuva&a,atp1 "the gwmwmtsofh CSFRandtheSlovak
Republid&ded pocentimthepqadm ofthetemm soiutiwithinih
temta ofythCSFR inJonwrry1991@mpW adki); Ammes, vol:4annex
173.decisiontooperateVariantC, despiteeveryattempt by Hungary to
preventsuch a eatastrophievent.Indeedthe latteraggravatedthe
former,as this illicitprojectcohave ken suspended and easily
forsakenuntithedateofitfsinaaldconcreteimplementation,Special
attentionshoulequallbegiven tothehazardousmarnerbywhich the
final dosure operationswere undertakenby the Czechoslovak
authortiil4.
8.19. The secondpied is&o characteriselythecontinuationof
priorwsongfulacts,inparticda the refusaof faircooperationand
meaningfunl egotiatiwith Hungaryand thepreventioofdamage ta
the environment. DinZn he same period, Czechwlovakiafurther
violat he precauîionarplnnciple,whichwas gainingauthorityin
intemationaipractice and the opiniojuris of the international
community.'5
8.20. 23October 1992until31 Decenober992:Thi thirdperiodis
chafactaisedbythedhct andimmediateconseguen c tseoperation
of VarianC. Mo~over,practicallnone ofthecontinuhghaches of
intemationalawdisappearedduringthifinr pi2se,whichendedwith
the disaparance of Czechoslovakia as a sovereip Sute.
CzecboslwWs coriducdurhg this periodwas ch^^ by a
pistent refus taplrovideHungarywithappropriatnformationabut
VariantC ortocompromiseataU innegotiatiom.Eventheeffortsmade
by theCommission ofthebpean Communities,fromOctobet 1992,
pduced only a limitedrespume on thepart of Czechoslovakia,
unaccompanied byanysuspensionofworkson VariantC,which was
beingrapidldeveloped.
8.21. Frum 1 Janua~y1993 onwar&, Slovakiaeffectivelyendorsed
VaLiantC, now exclusivelon ittktory. The new sovereigState
rnaintainethe breachesof intemationallaw thatwere previously
attributabeoCzechoslovakia; deed it aggravatthem by itsbrutal
imphentatien andbyitsfailuretocomplywithArticl4 oftheSpecial
Agreement. The Court,of courseha juridictiotoassessSlovakia's
mngfui actsin relatioto VariantC tlirougto the date of its
judgmentl6
- -
14 Seeabme,para.182.
15 Seehve,paras6.6-6.65.
16 Seeabovpar2a03. 8.22. Every breachof the law cornmittedby Czeçhoslavakia in
imprementingVariant C infringedHungary' sights,asa partneror
fmer partner to theOriginalProjet. Suchinfringement sonstinrtby
thanselves legd damage forwhichthe Court shouldorderrepaaation,
having regardtotheircomprehensivaedoptionbySlovakia.Thisapplies
to wrongfulactscommitted by Czechoslovakiadurhgeachof thefmt
two periodsfollowingthe airicaldate.1-e damage caused by the
"provisionaslolution"conpises hth legal and materialdamage, as
Variant C has çausedand will continuto cause signifiçantandlong-
terni degradationof the mtural environment (includingthe ground
water),as welias damage to theinterestsotheHungarian and Slovak
populationinthearea.
8.23. The issueof how to assesesnvironmentadl amages isweii
knownboth attheinternationaalnthedomesticlevel. Theenvironment
tends tobe hmed incrementaliyovertime andcumdatively by the
- negativeinteractionofthe eIementsof inmementalham. Thesetwo
elements, the the factor and the cumulative factor, oftenme
=culties in establishina causallink betweenwrongfuiconduct and
enWonmentE dalmage.'*
8.24. SeveraItechnicalmeanshaveken used atthe municipallevel
to adaptthelegd instmments of thelawofdeiictstothe characteristics
ofenvisonmental damage. Theseadaptationms ayampli@ thetraditional
definitioofdamage,channe1 responsibiütyforthedamaging activity,or
simplifythedemonstrationinherentinthecausai relatiomhibetween a
wmg andtheresultmtdamage. By ïeversingtheburdenofthe pof,
other techniquesestablishstricliabiliton the operatorof harmfd
activitiaas providedby nationa lrlocallm orintedonal treaties
orconventi0m.I~
17 Seeabove,paras8-8.18.
18 SeeOECD,CompensarionorFolkutiDamage(Paris,1981)p 21DMagraw
(ed)InternatioLaw ad Pollution(Philadelp1hia,F Francio8nrT
Treves,InternutRespomibilyorEnvÙonmenrHIum (1991),pwticulRrly
PisilIo-Mazzeschi',Toms of intemaiionalResponsibilityfor Environmentai
Damage",bid,p15-37.
19 SecPM Dupuy,Lo respomabiliinternationale&s Etatspoudommages
d'origtechologiqezindusbiel(Paris,19R6Lmmert, "ChangeinCivil
LiabitityConcep,nM Borhe(ed),rendsinEnvironmentiolicandLaw
(Gland1980) p 237;PM Dupuy, "Iaoemzltioliability Tmhntier
PollutiinB&e, p 363.8.25. As earlieshownin chapter5 of thiMernorial,the damages
caused by VariantC areeasily identifiedbecause Czechoslovakia
undertookone direcoperationataprecisedate,witdeleterioueffects
someof whichwere manifestimmediatelyaftemards.
8.26. The most strkhg featureof environmentadlamage,though,
lies preciselyithe the factor. Muchof the damage will becorne
manifestovera nwnberof years,potentialeven yearsafterthe Court
hasgivenitsdecision.Thisisparriculathecase fordegradatiotothe
aquiferand ground-waterwithinescapableconsequencesto the local
drinkingwater,2aswel asthe eçologicalbuce of theSzigetkozand
otherconcernaiarea~.~*ucha aatic conclusionmaybe drawn hm
numerous independent internationai experé studies on the
implementationof theOriginalProJect orVariantC. The studyby
EquipeCousteau evenspokeofa "chernicdtimeb~mb"~? ne potentid
for long-terniimparabldamage is theprimq reason why Hungay
madesucbefforts torenegotiatheOriginalProject,andlater haJtor
reducetheimpactofVariantC.
8.27. The intamationallawof qarationasconcms thecausalZink
between VariantC andthedamage washdy weli-estatiiisbythe
timeofEagletonin 1932,whenhe stated:
"AU damage whichcan betracedbackto aninjuriouactasthe
exclusive generatingcause, by a connected, tiioughnot
necessady chct chah of causationshould be integdly
compensated -23
8.28. Su long as thereis a mitive lulkhm cause to effect
betweendifferentelementsof thsame channe1of factsorphenornena,
aL 1uchdamagemut becompensated . oechotheTribuna ilntheCase
conceming BritishAssefsinSpanishMorocco, thiissa case of"des
dommage sirec qusoiqui51oigrW"'"
8.29. ProfessorArangîo-Ruiz,hepresentSpecialRapporteurto the
InternationLlawCommission on StateRespensibiiity,alreacbedthis
conclusion, when considering the categories of damage to be
20 Seeabove,parasS.30-5.56 5.d5..11
21 Seeabovepara5.21-5.131.
22 mipe CousteaFinalReport(Mar1943p 174;Annexevo5,mex 16.
23 C hgieta,TheResponsibiyfStatinInternational(NewYork, 1932)p
202.compensated.3 Mer expressing misgivings over the deftntions of
qudifyingtemis like"director"indirect"h,esupportstheconvergi~lg;
opinionof thegnat major* of a~thors,~a~nd cas fora "cleat" and
"continuous"causallink between the wrongand thedamageto be
cornpensated. The concepts of "nodty" and "foreseeab'iity,e
clah, should alsocharacterisethe causalrelationshipbetween the
damaghg activitandtheÎnjuy.27
8.30. Internationalw thusrequins thatdldamagecaused tothe
naturalenvironment, as weU as to the intmsts of the Hungarim
population,houldk subjectoreparation,vided thatthedamage isa
consequen ofthe operatioofVariantC.
8.31. It may bediEtcult tofferproof foral1possibleor potentid
damages. h&ed, thedamming of a massive internati roveails
preciselythetypeof hazardou sitnatiuthat entailpotentiadamage,
theful extentofwhich canno tetbrnonstratedtthisthe. Thisisthe
core reason why the precautionaryprincipleis gaininginmashg
authoritirtrelegdconcms andpracticeofStates.
8,32. Relianceon probabiliîis usttherefm play a necessa prart
inthe reparaiioprocess The mation ofpotentialrisksby a S-,
which involve a threat to thefuturo ef entirepopul&ons across
intemati~nabiorden, constitutesinternatiolamage andisUe1y tu
generatematenalconsequaces. These material cmsquences deserve
akpk reparationt, bdemmined eittiebytheParties, nconformity
withtheCourt'sdecision.
25 G Amngio-RuiSeconRprt onSfatResponsibi,NtDoc AICN.414 25ly
1989)per3a-44.
25 G Amngî~RuizS~conRepolron$taiRespotuibiUN@Dm A/CN.4/425(July
1989)para3Tff.Seein~~ Salvio"La responsabidesEt- etla
fixaticiedommagesetiritQêparletribuuaintemationau"(I929/28f)
Recueidescours251:1BrownliSystemoftheLaw of NatioPart1State
Respomibiii@(Oxfar1983p 2S6;B Bdlecker-Sîer, préjudi&AS la
tliéordtlarespomabiiîntermrionalems,1973pp 185-223Rersonnaz,
Lo rPpmh'ondu préjdceendroitiritemtioml public Iparis,1938)p 136;
Reim La ripar&-ocommeconsdqienc& deaclliciendroiinternutbml
Paris.1938)espp 175; 3Graefrath,"RqmnsibtlityDamageCa&"
(1984/Ti)1Recue&S COWS9 ap95.
27 G Arangio-RuSeconRepoH onSm ResponribiUN~Doc WN.41425 (July
1989)para37. SECITON B: SLOVAKIA'S OBLIGATION OF REPAR4ION
8.33. Inaddition tothe specificenvironmentadlamageinflictedon
Hungary,taken here lato sensuzg reparatioshodd also follow the
relevantdes of public internationallaw gtiverningthe foms and
contentoftheintemationarlesponsibillofStates.
8.34. For example, Article 21 of the Legai PrincipIes for
Environmenta lrotectionandSustainablebvelopment draftedby the
internationalexpeas pup of the UN World Commission on
EnWonmentandDevelopmen 1987) providesthat:
''AStateismponsible under internationalawfor a breachof
anobligationrelatinto theuse ofa nad resome or to the
pvention or abatementof an environmenta l terferenceIn
particulait$hall:
(a) ceasethintematid wrongfu lct;
(b)as far aspossible,re-estabhhthe situationwhichwould
have existedif the internationl ngfui acthad not talcen
place;
(c)provideforcompensation forthe hatm whichresultshm
theinîemaxioaallwytongfulact;
Cd)whereapppriate, givesatisfactioforthe internatiody
wrongfulact "29
8.35. The draf ILC articIeonStateResponsibilita,sestabhhedby
two successive Spial Rapporteurs ,ortray similar obligatim:3o
cessationof the wrongful act;restoratioof thesituationprevfig
beforethewrongdoui agn,fullreparatiobyeveryappropriatm e eans,
includingsatisfaction. Spial Rapporteur G hgio-Ruiz madean
2& ln thisontextreparatishould iriclude notthdamage tothenaturat
environmen(tincluddamagetotheaiquiandgrciuw-) butalsodamage
ofanecwlomic,moraormenpuselyiegnaturwhichisdirieymrmkd with
theifliciîactivity.
29 UN World Commissionon Envirament and Develqment,Enviromenfui
ProtectioalrSwtoi~bleDevelvmmt (19873p 127Seeoommmtary by M
Spinedi"lm ainséquenmjuridiqusunfait internationdtllicmusant
un dommage a i'envbent" in F Francion& T Trieva,lnternutio~l
RespomibilforEmVonmentu iam (1991)75.
30 SeeW RiphagePrelimi~rRepo~t,iî Ybk1980vdIIpt1,pp 1lOfSecond
Report,ibi1981volIpt ipp85fiSah Report,ib1985volIIpt1,pp9-10;
G Arangio-Ruiz.Preliminq Report*Doc m.4/416 & Add 1;Secd
ReporiUN Dm NîN.41425& Add1.additionalsuggestionwhXch was acceptedby theILC, namely the
guaranteednon-repetitin fthewrongfulactthatcausedthe
8.36. Slovakia'sbligationsshouldfoiiowthesemles of international
law, aswill bedescribedin detailfor each component @ Slovakia's
responsibility.
837. Theoperationof VariantC isatypicdexampleof a continuous
wronal act.By itsvery existencedeveloprnenatnd persistency,day
after day,month after month, Variant C mates new damage and
additionalrisks, which accumulateto mate pater thrats to the
populationsconcemed, as well asfuture generations.Hungaryilong-
standinggoal has always been to obtainthe nuliificntionof the
environmenta riisposed by theOriginalBrojectbytakinthe initiative
toproposenegotiationorotherpeacefulsettlementrocedures.
8.38. The Courtdoes notneed todecidewhether cessationshouldbe
a pxehhary stepin advance of the applicationof Slavakaas
internationalresponsibdtytowardç Hungary,or whethercessation
alreadyconstitutn the fiïst elementof suchrespofl~ibility.~T~he
importantthingisthatSlovakiaceasethe operatioof VariantC,as the
fht resultoftheCourt'secision.~ithiut putthgadefinitiveendtothe
operationof VarianC, therewouldbenoZogic inaliocathgreparation,
sincethedamagewouidcontanue topw and worsen.
8.39. Oneof customary internationhlw'sbest-estabhheddes for
stateresponsibîliisthattheresponsiblStateshouidprovidesufficient
repdon to elllninatali damaging consequaces produced by the
mn&i am33 The situation tbatexisted beforethe wrongfactwas
31 G Arangio-RuS,econRepononStatRcsponsibi UNiryocEeN.4142(5uly
1989)par146-61.
32 For tbidiscussion G Arangio-Ri, relUnimtyRepUNtkc NtX.4/416,
paras29- 52;BGra&ath, "ResponsibiandDamageCaused 1984/11)185
Recueidescour9atp 87.
33 SeeRip-, PrelimUinReport, IYbk1980volIpt 1,pp9M, GArMgio-
Ruiz,PrelimitmyRepoUN DocAlcN.4141A6d,d1,para&s- 70. Sealso
Gtaefratii,"RosponsibDamageCaused"(1984m)185Recue&s cows 9
ap 204;E Jimen ezAtBchaga,IruemationalRaponsibiinM SiSrensen
(ed),MORUofIht~d~i h~ (1968)p565; & "Law~titutio
ininte- enla practicamteniaciod" (1943AnuarioHkpa?w Lusu
Amerteam dederechUlrernrtcio~261e 1BrownliSystemoftheL4WOf
NationsPan 1StdeResponïibility(Ox1983p)222; Nagy,"ThePmblem cornmittedshouidbere-establishedThis isthe restitutin integrum
nile,also cded restitutiin kind,which isrecognisedas the most
fundamentanlile ofreparationwhichwas followed by the Permanent
CourtinthefamousChorzowFaçbory Case.34
8.40. In this case, restitutiin Integrum ha very specific
implicationsimmediatelyafter cessatioof Variant C, the Danube
shodd be returneto itsnaturacoursedong the internationafrontier
between Hungaryand Slovakia(thatis,themain navigablechannel as
defmedby applicable treaties)and the Danube'swaters should tx
restoretothequalitysituationappiicabpriototheimplementation of
VaXiantC,
8.41. ThesestepsdI no doubtrequiresometime and raisetechnicd
problerns.Accordhg to Mcle 512) ofthe Special Agreement, the
Partieswouldnegotiatethese modalitiewithin sixmonthsafterthe
Court'sdechion. Hungary iç, of course, prep& to couperate
extensivelwith Siovakiatoaçhieve the bat technicaand economic
conditionsfotheDanube'rsestoration.
8.42. As farasrestoringthe flow of waterin the Danube'smain
came, theLondonAment of October 1992, as negotiatedand
adopted between Hungaryand Czechoslovakia,provides decisive
guidance.
8.43. Ifrestitutio iintegrwn isnot possible, internationlaw
requk paymentof ~ompensation.~ Isnthlscase,compensationas the
sole reparatiwould beunsatisfac beoauseirreversibdamage has
alreadyaffectecthenatd environmentwithconsequencesthat are
drfficultoevaluate. Indeed,by the end ofthese proceedings, the
damagesare likelytu have inmed to an unk;nownextent, with
unexpectednewconsequences.
8.44. As detaiIeearIieinth& Mernofial,armfulphornena are ta
be fmm as concerriIn particuiarthe aquifm,and,subsequently,
ofRqamtiiminIntérnatiLaw",inQuesrioqflnternm'oLaw (1986)vol
m, p 177PM Dupuy,"Lefaitg&nérader la respnsabilitirintedestionale
Ems''(1984/m) 18Recueides Cours92;M Spinedi, "Lcons5quences
juridiqu&un faisintemationalemillicicaesantim dommage A
I'aimmt" inF Fmcioni & T Treves,InternatiResponsibilfor
EnvirommiaHam-don, 1991p93ff.
34 Çhonav FactoCaseFCiJSeriANo17, p 47.
I 35
AKN.4/425(Jul1989paras0-105.nReporonStateRcspofl~ibU,NDmpund-waters, atrisikwaterresoms, soils,floraandfaunanotabin
theSzigetktiz.36
8.45. Fiathemore, the legal proceduresordindy usedfor
reparation,itheattheinternationlrmunicipallevel, mabepoorly
adaptedto thspecficityof enhnmentaldamage, ashasalreadybeen
shom (separa8.22).
8.46. Neverthelesthe costofthe measmes tahit theexisting
damage , ndrestorethepollutedareasweiiasthenegativeeconomic
impactof VariantC in particdaon agriculturef,ishaiand forest
exploitatioasweUas on mtionaI. valuesand taurismshoddbe
estimateasexactlyaspossibleandcornpensated.
8,47. Inconsideratioof thtfme facto rw,ouldbepremature to
embarknow uponan evaluationof the variousdamagerequuing
compensation.ThiswiUbe undertab kyenungaryatthelatestpossible
stageofitpleadings.
8.48. Due to the diffIcul ofievaiuatingthe costs of the
enWonmenta iamage,the Court shoulddetermine,aspreciselyas
possible,thcategorieofdamage andthemethodologyandcriterifor
whichcompensationshallbeestablishebybuth Partiesanperf~med
by Slov~.
8.49. Orreaspectof indamificatiodeservespecialattentioAs
fightlypointeoutbyProfessorArangio-RuiiznhisSecd Report on
theLawof StateRespollsibilc,ompensatioshouidcoverthe"md
damage"causedto the individual,ationah anagentsof theinjd
country.3Thatprincipwas applied,orexamplei,theLusitnniaCase
of 1923,3Hm, moraldamage shouldincludepretiumdoloriswhkh
affectBungdan nationalsregadhg theuuceriahfutureotbw kdth
and livelihwdfor themselveandfutur generations. Suca md
pressurand asourceofstresandanxietyformilliomofpeopleshould
beconsiderd asparofrepd~n.
8.50. Pretiumdolorisshanldbe c8fefdly distifiguishedhmthe
morechsical moral damagesufferedbyHungaq asa sovereigState,
37
1989)pmi7-12.conRqon onStatRespomibil,NyUN Doc:AICN(/u5y
38 Decisiou theMixedCluimsCommissi, niStoreandGennan(1925)p
17.as illustratedtheSecond Report of Profess orangio-R~i Azs.~~
person of internationallaw, Hungaryis specificaffectedby the
Czechoslovakviolationsothe 1977Treatyeven ifas inthekt two
periodsfoUowingthe critical da(seeparas8.14to 8.18)theremay
havebeen no matenialamage, To giveanotherillustratofthistype
of damage,Slovakia'snilaterdimplementationfVariantC moMd
internationaiestablishemateRa1 elernentforthe borderlinet;his
specfic Wingementof Hungary'ssovereigrightsdesmesappropriate
reparation. Reparatiofor this type of damageis generallycdled
"satisfaction.atisfactishodd beconsidereas anelementinsetting
thehancial compensation.^
8.51. Statepespomibiiitfor an intemationmg shouldMer
mquire agumtee ofnon-repetitionof theillica~t.Therewouïdbe
no sense,otherwis, nresolvingthdisputeif Slovakcouidcontinue
EOmate new Wts, risksanddamage inthefutur fr îheRepublicof
Himngar anditspopulation,
8.52. Certainstepsin particulSlovakia'sismantlingof itdam
locatedatrivekilome- 1851.7wouïdprovidesomeguafantee.But,as
demcmtmted bythespeed constructioandoperatioofVariantC,this
isnot enough . heCourt shouidtherefm providea complementary
guarante efakga?naturen, amela decisioaspartof its Judgmeno
impose onSlovakiaan obligationot torepeatsuchhighlyhazdous
anddama& initiatives.
39 G -*Ruiz, SecondRepo~onStatRespmibiiiUNDOC A/CN.4/4(July
1989para13-19,
40 G Arangio-Ru, ecoReporm StoreRespmibiIUNDoc A/Ct?.4/(July
1989)pam 106-145M SpinedlTa coh~6quencsuridiqm d'ufait
hwnationalemetliccmmt undoaimageSen- inFFrancid&
T Mes, Internm'o~iRespcmihyorEnvironmewHcum (Lmdon1991)p
If1.
41 GArangio-Rui,econReporonStareRespomibiü,Doc AICM.4/45My
1989) ISS-8.sadoptedythïLCsDraftmCornmittoftheitmatid
Lwv Commissiwtthe45thsessiotheCammissioi,n 19DrafArtic10
bhoftheSecondPartof~DraftArtic1esmState~sibi~readasfollows:
'me injraStaisentitled,wapppchte,tobtaifromthStatwhichhas
cwmnittean intanationwaroll acrassuranosrgmmtees of non-
iepetitofthe gfui a." PARTIV
THE LAWFlXNlESS OF HüNGARYS CUNDUCT
'ITE SUSPENSION ANDSUBSEQUENT ABANDONMENT
OFWORKS
SECTION A: INTRODUCTION
9.01. Under Article2(1) ofthe SpcialAgreement, theCourt is
requestetudecide:
(a) whethertheRepublicof Hungary was entitletosuspendand
subsequentlabandon,in1989, the works on theNagymaros
Projectandon thepartofthe GakikovoProjectforwhich the
TreatyattributreqmsibiiittotheRepubLiofHungary...
9.m. InthisChapteriwilllx shom thaHungay actedlawfullin
suspendhg andsubsequentlyabandonhgwork on the Nagymms
Pmject,andsubseqwtly in suspendhgand abandonhgwork onthat
pâctoftheGabciiovoProjeforwhichithadresponsibdity.
9.03. Initia itisnecessarto set oupreciselthechai nf events
wiîhrespectothesuspens iodabandonmen otworks,eventthatare
summarise dnafew wordsintheSpecidAgreement.
9. Hungarysuspendedwork atNagymamson 13 May 1989,
ç1-g that to constnict theBarrage might cause imparable
envhnmentai damage, includina seriousnskto thdnnkin water
supplieofBudapest.AtthisstageHungaq soughtnegotiatiowith a
vlewtocWcation of thmvîronmenta andscientificposition,the
modificatioofthProjecttoduce or eliminathedangers,However,
iftheconcernsexpressbeyHungarytunieouttobe justifiand if no
acceptablsolutiocouldbefoundtothem,itwas clearthatthere could
beno questioofbuildintheNagymarosBarrage.
1 Separa3.7GwernmenRt esoIut,o3125/1989,13May1989,Annexes,vol
4mex 147.9.05. After unsuccessfulnegotiations on a Hungarian proposal
envisaginganurnbeorf optionsincludhg thecontinuatioof theproject
with adequateecologicalguarantees,heHungarianGovenunent on20
July 1989 extended thesuspensi ofnworks at Nagymaros und 31
October 1989. Italsosuspendc ertainworks ntDunakiliti,elatirto
theplanneddiversion oftheDanubethroughtheGabcrkovo partofthe
Barrage System:thatdiversionhadken due to takeplace in October
1989. Oa 1September 1989,aHungarian NoteVerbale proposedMer
discussionsonthefuture ofNagyma~os.~ Again on30 November1989
Hungary propsedmodification of the Treatsayingthattherealization
of theoriginatreatywas impossiblebecauseof ari"ecologicd statof
emergency and ... seriousenvironmental damage .. .environmental
catastropheW .egotiationsfaileto achieveany agreement,andon10
January1990, Hungarynotified Czechoslovakia that it proposedto
canceltheprivateconmts forconstniction atNagyrnms,and to enter
intonegotiationswiththe contraçtorfor compensation. Itnoted that
"theHungaxian Govemment' sositionremainsunchange w ith respeto
theabandonmeno tftheNagymaros barragesy~tem." ~hiscm besaidto
mark theabandonmen ottheNagymarospartof theProject,dthough a
corniderableamount of workcontinued tobe done atthesiteaftexthis
date.
9.06. The positionin relationtoGabcikovo was different. In July
1989, as noted in the preceding paragaph, Himgarysuspended
preparatorwyorksatDunakilid TheDudditi weiribeE wasahady
vidy completebythis stage.Thissuspensionrelatedtu thfdhg of
theDunakîlitidam,tothe collectionofmaterialantootherpreparations
forthe actualdiversioofthe Daaube.Both the mg of thedam and
thediversionwould, inRungq's view,cause si@cant environmental
h, remedialprovisioforwhich hadnotbeen madeasThesuspension
2 Note VerbalefrtheHungatianMlnistofForeignffairs,theEmbassyof
theCzechoslovSociaüst epublic,I Septemkr 1989,AnnexeanneM.,
3 NoteVerbalehm rheHungwianMinistrofForeignAfFai,otheEmbassyof
theaechoslovak SacialktRepubliNovember1989;Annexesvol 4annex
30.
4 Lett er HungariaPrimeMinistMrNQnethtoCzechoslovPrimeMinister
M Wa, IOJan- 1990Annexesvol4,anne32.
5 To thadatemd infacîhughout thcourseofthdisputtheresponsefthe
Czechoslovaki(aecMlatby thSlovakRepublic)wnottosuggesnerrases
inthedischarrgimebutthebuildiofundergroundeiisSeethe letterfm
Mr JMartonyi, ungariSiaiSe~etayforForeiAffairto MrPBenavides,didaot affectthe constructiof theupstream sectionof theBarrage
System assuch, and Hungarian work on that sectioncontinuai
throughout1989andinto 1990,despiteincreasingrnisgivingaboutthe
environmenta indoh impactsof thehjeçt and itsscientifiand
economicviabilityinthe changingsituation. Inparticula, ungarian
work continuedtobeca-ed out on CzechoslovaktefntoryOn 16April
1991, the HungarianPatliamentrequested the Govanment, in the'
contextofcontinuednegotiationswith theCzlechandShvak FedeTal
Republic,tocease Mer Stateinvesîmentin the barragesystem asa
whole:thatresolutionchcterised thesituatioasoneof suspensionof
work.6The Gavenunent Bidnot respondtothePariiamentarRyesolution
until25 October 1991,whenby GovermentResoIution 2009/1991 it
cded foranhmediatehdt onStateinvatment intheBarrage System,
effective31DecemberlWla7 Hungarian wurkon the lower canalat
Gabçikovo was concludedand the workshanded overon 31Decemlrer
1991. Thusthe fomd decisionto abandonwork atGabcikovo was
takeninOctuber 1991,andbecame effectivattheendof 199Lg
9.07, Longbefore the suspensionofworkonthe upstrearnsection,
hre wasmason to believethatplamhg forVariantC was weUunder
way, On 21-22Augost1989, ata hi&-levelministerial eetingit was
disclosedthat Czechuslovakiawas considering the possibility of
technicalçoun~-measures.9 At a contempomeousmeetingbetween
delegations hm the HungasLan Ministry of hdustry and the
Czechoslovnk Wtry of Fuel and Energy,the Czechdeiegation
- - -- -
EC DirectorfoExternaEconomis Relationaccepting tEC experts'
remnuendationfoa temm wabzmamgment regime,14Jauumy 1%
Anaexesvol4aunex$32.
6 ParIiammtaResoluti26/I91,23A@ 1991;Annexes,o4,annexf54.This
Resolutiwasadoptedby Parliamento16Aprilandkame effectiupn
pubkationon23April1991.
7 GoveramentReso1utim2OtJ9fl991,25~k1991;Aanexes,vol4,mex155.
ThisResoliaiwas&ptd byParliametnt6 Apdandkme effectiviipon
pubMm on 23Aprill991,
8 nie kt meetingof theJoûpdmal Gtoupwhichsupervisdorkonthe
Pbjea washelon9Ckbber1991. niekup wasnotfmltllsiispenddtil
3hkch 1992.
9 MiutesofthemeetiabetweenhHmgmian Mstcy fo rndusüy,sigridMr
T.LgczaiSzabb, thebchoslovak MiniscfFuelad Eneïgsigd byMr
M Jarosla,1-22August1989Annexes,o4,annex21.insistaion continuedconstructioof both dams without modification,
andstatedthat:
"3. ûthenri he Czechoslovakpatty will undertameaçures
thatwillensurethe operationofthe GakikovoHydto-elecmc
Power Plant.Io
In itsNote Verbaleof 31 August1989,Hungarydrew aîkntion to the
seriousecologicalandenvironmentac lonsequences ofthese "technicd
counter-measu ~Bsuttlereafterthethrat of unilateralactiowas
never absent.1A laterSlovakpublicationonthe Fbjectstatesthat"the
govemmmts ofthe CSER andthe SlovakRepublicdecided to continue
the p~paration of the temporarysolutionwithinthe temto~ ofthe
CSEiR inJmuary1991". h'ving regardto thescopeofthoseplans,the
processof drawingthem upandconducting the necessa irvestigations
must havebeguc nonsiderablyenrli~.~hs reportsofworkonVariant
C led Hungary toraisetheissuewith theSIovakGovemmentinMarch
1991 .1There was noimmediate replytuthisquwy ,despitethefactrhat
on 29 March 1991the Slovakco~~structiCnompana yppliedinWniingta
10 Minute ofthm&g been theHun- MUiistforLidustrignedbyMr
T LgnaISzab6,nctheCzechwlovaMinistryofFuelandEnerg,ignedbMr
M Jmlav, 21-22Aupt 1989;Annexevol4,annex21.
11 NoteVerbalehm theHuean MinisîryofForeipAfEairsthEmW ofthe
~Iovak Socialis!Repu1,Septemk 1989Annexe sol4anex 24.
12 k e-gtheCzechoslovpositisetoutinAppendi2 ttheAideMemoweof
themeetingMwem h4PMedwessy,HungarianDeputPlimeMiniÇte,tmMt
P HriMak,~hoalovak DeputyPrimeMioister,Bmtish9aSeptank 1989;
Atmexesvoi4,annex25.
13 Vd&- Vystah spBratislava,"Ga~vo-NagymaroAoject.The
Temm SolutionthT&my otheCSFRSlwakiaU(Bratisland)ap. 1
(ewpbasiW}; Annexes,vol4, amex 173. Vodohospodarsvymh sp
BratislaisthSbvakianState-ownecompanyïesponsiforthecowmstion
ofVarianC.
14 TfipeianoVariantCeventuadiseIosbiySlovakinDmmber 1993(despite
many dierreqrie~)srdated199andarerat=pies tbemiginad4cuments.
15 LR#afromMrMMy,HeadofSecretari&ofUrFMadl,H~Minis~er
WithoutFdolio, tMr1hxa, HeadofSemeîaW Presid efte Govemmait
oftheSlovakRepubli, Mari c991,referrtoa Slovaskamnenthatwork
on thesecded27Vaiant(technilrovisiondsolutwouldbegiaon2April
1991;Annexes, 4,amex 46.the SlovakEnvironmentalPtotection Cornmitteefor approvalof the
Project.6Mr MU, theHungarian MinisteWithout Portfolinked the '
issueof VarianC againduringjointnegotiationsheldinBratislavon
15 July1991,and inafYrthelrettero24 Ju3y1991 7 Itwas ody on 30
July1991 tha he SlovakPrimeMinisterformallyadmittedthatVatiant
C wasto proceed,expressinatthesame timethehope thatthisdecision
would not disnirb "Slovak-Hungarian relations. This admission
coincidedwiththeunilatem%g ofthepower cmal.19
9.08. To summarise ,he positionwas thatwork at Nagymaros had
ken suspended inMay1989,andeffectivelycancelledbyJanuar 1990.
By conhast,work atGabcikovo(other thanpreparationforthe actual
diversion) was only suspended &r reliablereports had reached
Hwigary thatplanningforVarianC was inan advmcedstage and thata
decisiontoproceed with it hadalreadyben taken. The Hungarian
decisionto cwsestate investmentsinthe BarrageSystemas a whole
finallbecam oeperativon 31 December 1992,more than a yearafter
theSlova kovernmen teportedlauthorisdtheconsmctionofVariant
C, andsixmon& afterehosplanswerefomdly admittedtoHmgary.
9.09,Thus theinim fm so faas thesuspensionorabandonmeno tf
workis concernedmust beon theNagymatossectionof theProjeci and
on thetmporary suspensi ofonrepdons fordivenion at DunWti.
By thetime wufkonGabcikovowas abdoned in December 1991,
planningfor Vaniant C was wellunderway,and the originaland
"indivisibl"chemeof the 1977Tmty was in*S.
16 The datofthe applicatis mitdin thNoteoftheSlovakEnvironmental
Cornmittof25June1991in whi~conditiolqmvd wasgranteAnnexes,
vol4,anne168.
17 LRnefrromMrF Mal, HungaianMhisme rithouPortfoltoSlova%kme
MiaistJCaniogmky,24July1591Annexesvol4annex54.
18 LettefrriSmovakRimeWster J Camogmdq to HungariPrimeMinister
ARtaI30 Jui1991Annexes,vo4anne x6.
19 AgairistwhicbHuagapmesreatGovemment Commissimerlevon 29 July
1991;Mer froMrG K Khsondi,HuagaianGovemmen tleniptentitoy
Mt D Kocinge, hoçlwak Governent RenipotentiandbyNoteVmbak
fromtheHmgarianMinisqofMgn AH& totheEmbassyofthCzechand
Slova kederaRepublic,30 July 1Annexes,ol4,annex57. A protest
dkcted toSlovRimeMinisteCamogursiqwamadeon9August1991;Letter
hm MrFMM, HungariaMinisterWithouîPartfoliot,u SlovakRimeMinisterJ
CamogurskyAnnexesvol4,anne58. SECTION B: T'HlPOSITION IN 1989
9.10. The ckwnstances inwhich Hungary suspende wdork on the
Nagymaros partoftheBarrageSystemhave been setoutin Chapter3.
By 1989,thepositioninwhichthepartito the Treatwerepkcedcm
besummarised asfoliows.
9.11, Seriousdoubtshademergedaboutthe safetyothe Nagymaros
Bmge, buthin tems of physicaldesign(uicludingthe impactofpeak
powerproduction)and, mm hportantly,its environmentalffects.
Thesedoubtshave &ady been summarise idnChapter3and 5.20They
werecombined withmajorchangesinthepoliticalaneconomicsystem
intheregion,whichin tumled tosignificmreductionindemandfor
electricpowerandintheeconomicsofpowergendon.
9.12.Despite attempts to resolve some of the scientificand
environmenta lsues,andcontinuousassertionsby proponentof the
ProJecthatanyresultinproblemscouldbe"hed" bytechnicdmeans,
professionalandpublicdisquietremaine, ot justinHungarybutin
bothpartsofCzechoslovakia, dinte~o~y.21
9.13. There wasthusa situatioinwhichthe fmher modificatioof
the 1977 Tfe8tJrwas necessq, in pdcuiar to ensure adquate
envUrmmenta safeguardshdeed, the temination of the projectby
mutualconsentwas rveryrealpossib'rla,ndmighthave proventobe
thebest meansof escape fmm aproject datinfroman-lier and
unhappy periodinthehhtoryof thetwo corntries. Suchcancellation
had alreadybeensuggestedby respomiblebodiesandpersonswithin
bth ~ounties.~~
9.14. Above all,hm theHungarianperspectivt,ereweresubstantizd
anddevelopingdoubtsabut the threattodnnkingwater supplies,
presentandfutureof thewholeregion.6û% of the water suppiiof
Budapestcornefrombankflûation workdownstream ofNagymaros,in
theregio thatwould be affecteby theBarrage.2Thoseworkshad
alteadyben, quiteseriouslyaffecteby thedredging requuedfor
21 Seeabove,pa35 -3.59,3.U,3.70,3.ii.
22 Seeabovepara3.62(iiungaAcademyof Sciences),(SIov anionof
NatureaLandsca protators).
23 Seeabovpara5.27,and5-5.59.Nagymaros. There was noprospectofalternativsourceofsuppIyof
thimagnitude. A Governmen cannotberequitedbya bilaterl atytu
deprivethepeopleof its majorcity ofseatersuppliesOn plausible
scient& sc&os sugpted by responsiblbodieswitbinand outside
Hwigary,asituationofnecessitywould
9.15. The situatiocm ,beseen for example,hm the Gabcikovo-
NagymarosBarrageProjecf Study,undertakenby aStudyTeamof 1l
United Statescientists. Their Repowas issnedinMar& 1989. Its
exps aim was toadvisetheGovement on"mitigating measmes to
addtessenvironmenta dlamagestheprujecmight cause",sinceatthe
tirnetheGovernment hadamounceci rhatit wouldpoceed with the
constructionoftheproject. The Reportrecommended a numberof
mitigatinsteps ,hilemakingit cleathatthi"sshould,innoway,be
uiterpreteas supportfor me Project'implernentati~n".~ hatis
significant foment puspose ssthat the Report, which was
independen tftheGovernmenb tutwbichtreateasgivenitsdecisioto
poeed, included inits mitigatistrate#= thefeçommendation îhat
"Preparationfsorthe Nagymarosbarrageshould be stoppedund a
completeassessrn ofitsimpactsandpotentiamitigatinmesures is
undertakenW .2isconclusionwasmfhmed inthe rem INFORT-
Ecologîa Stiadyof May 1989, whfch concluded that "umesolved
questXom concemingthe potentialecologicandwonomicimpactsof
the BNE projecirequkethatal1co~tsttuctibeswpended duringthe
periodofdecision-makinonthefuteofshiprciject".27
9.16. Thesedoubts and difficultieshbeen repeatedlraisedwith
Czechaslovakiab,uwithoutresult.On thecon-, notwithstanding
mod (ahdy afte the installationoanew federalgovemment in
1990) whena more flexiblenegothhg positionapgearetobeshown,
theCzech and SIovakFederaGovemment' sesponsewasto continueto
ifisison thefdl implementationof the 1977 Tm, includhg the
24 C Reid RD Yaro(edsGabcibvo-Nugymros BarragePmjSiJu(March
1989);Annexeol5,anne5.
27 INFORT(Hunm)/EEOIogia (USA),~ikovo-N4gymaro ~arrage Shrdy.
Pr~grotllOptondImpact.nterimReport(May 1ap 17Annexesv,ol 5,
annex6(emphasismiginal).Nagymamssector,while atthe sametime issuinmore or less veiied
warningsabut "techniclountemeasures,"i.e. dateral diversion.
9.17. Ina NoteVerbaleinfomiingCzechoslovakabout thcontinued
suspension,the HungariaGovernmen statedthatthiwsas toenable
Mer examinationanddiscussionrelatitoecologid Liçksandthat
pendingthesefurtherdlscüsslons"irreverstechnicasteps"should
notbetaken.TheNoteVerbalewent ontosay:
"TheGoverment of theHungarianPeople'Iiepublichereby
wisfieto dlaw the attentionofthe Goverment of the
CzechoslovaSocialistRepublto thefacthatinits opinion,
both Hungaryand Czechoslovakiaare facing anecological
emergency.The actionsobth Govements mustbejudged
inthe lightof this fact. The HungariPartycan see no
explmatioforthe CzechoslovaPartyrigidrefusatodiscuss
ecologicguafanteeandanoptimum regimeof operatiofor
theprojectTheCzechoslwak Part wyouidnoteven goasfa
asdiscussinganyquestionswhichmightleadto the srnidiest
deviatiofrom the contentsoftheTreatybetween the two
corntrion theConstructionndûpmtion of theGabcikouo-
Nagymms Dam System,despitthe factthaon thebis of
the cummtscientifichowledge, smng objectionshavken
raisedngainsthe claimthathe projectwouldrepresentno
ecoIogicthreat.TheHungarianPartyneverthelesshopethat
theCzechoslovaPartywillMy adoptaresponsiblattitude
andtak enactivepartinfmdinga solutionacceptabtobath
side...
The Govemmentof the Hungarh People's Repnblichereby
oncemoreinvitetheCzchmlovakGoverment togiveserions
consideratito Hungdan proposaimade inWnting on 20
Juiy1989inBudapest, ndrepeateon3 Augustthesame year,
andurgesthe Czech~slovakGovernmentto respondwithout
deiato thesaiproposaisonthemerits.TheHungarianParty
proposethattheplannednext meetingtietweethefEea dfs
thetwoGovernmentb seprecededbyexpertmeetingsandthen
aconsultatiobetweenthe DeputyPrlnieWstm of thetwo
counarie. heobligatiofthetwo Govemments toclw this
complexproblem toth& nations,andtheir responsibîtoty
futurgenerationn,owdemands ofthetwoGovernment sfdl andappropriatreconcfiationof the3 mutuai andindividual
interests."29
There can beno doubtabouteithe tre good faith ofthHungarian
Government in raisingthese issues, orthe sdousness of the
enviromentaiconcems.
SECTION C: LEGAL BASISFOR TEE SUSPENSION AND
SUBSEQrnNTABANDONMENT OF WORICS
4.18. The positioatthtimeof suspensiooftheworksatNagymaros
inJuZy1989cm thusbecharacterisaifollows:
(1) Hungarydid notdenythatthe1977 Treatyremainedinforce.It
continuetiimplemen theTreatyinrelatito thebuildingothe
Gabcikovosectorofthehject.
(2) The tirnetablaiddom for workontheProjecthadnever been
treateasmatterofstriclegalobligatioInrelatioto apject
of thi somplexityandsite,to do so would have beenquite
unredisticDelaysinimplementation(whichhad bn hquent,
and notal1duetoHungaryh) adbeennegotiatebeforeandcould
be negotiatagainas necessa .ry
(3) Anypmblms causedby theMay couldbe compemated fur ,n
one way oranotheaspartofthecontinuhgsystemofadjustment
practicedby the parties, notwithstmdthe appamntlyfilm
- schedulea-ed betweenthem.
The essentialconhuing obligatonthepartieundertheTreary
(4)
was toseektoresolvMculties bynegotiatioingood fait hn,
thisHungaryssughttodo.
(5) But th& was subjectotheovemdingissueof thephysicaland
envimmentd safe tythepmject.Inpdcular, ifthe viethat
therewas a seriouriokof substantidlamaget~the drLiIMg
waterof thpopulatioand to amajorwaterresoiirof Hungary
29
Note VerbfromthHungariMhistq oFweignAffaitothQech06lwak
MinisûofForeignAffaiSqtembe1989Annexevol4,anne24. was justifid, anif notechnical orother mMication of the
schemecouldbe agreedon,a statofnecessitywould arise.
6 In its repaof23 June 1989,theHungarh AcademyofSciences
confhed thattheserida were Intematicinaiopinionsto
thiseffechad dso ben widelypublici~ed.~~
(7) Hungary continuedto drawa distinctiobetweenthe suspension
and even the temination of works at Nagymarosand the
continuatiooftheTreaty. Itacceptedtbarightsandobligations
arisinghm theTreaty wodd have tobe dealwithby negotiation,
andthatcompensat wionldbepayableboth toprivatandpublic
interestsaffecteIn respectofprivateinteres its,gotiatea
substantitenninatîonpayrnenti;nrespecof the interesoftfie
jointconiractinp-, iofferedtopayappropriatc eompensation
in anamount tobeneg~tiated.~T~he HungarianParliamentinits
resolutionof 2 June19893 and3 1 October198934 dso accepted
the needfora negotiatesoluti woihtheothercontracthgParty.
9.19. Inthese circumstancesH, ungarywas jusfied In suspendhg
work at Nagymms pendhg resolution of itsconcerns. As is
demonstratd in Chapter 10,intemationallaw allows a Stateto take
action whichis necessa tryavoidirreversiblhm to anessential
interesof that Stateorof itspeople, orto the environment. The
neoessityof suchactionis a circumstanceprecludingwr0ngfulness.3~
Mmver theprincipleapphes incases wherethe othemise mngful
30 Annexesvol5annex7.
31 Seeaboveparas3,5-359and3.64.
32 Seeabovepara3.%,3.103,3.110.3.126.
33 ParEiamentRyesolut91198(VLI3)2 June1989hxes, vo4,annex148.
34 Sarli~mentaResollaion241199XI.lO)1,October1989;Annexesvol4,
amex 151.
35 Seebelowp, 10.08 Thi sightdonot extwto a uofforceontratothe
UnitedNationCh-, orQtherwito actikt wouidviolaaenom ofjzu
cogensorcaussimildamagetoaneqWy esseritIn- of thotherStsite.
As idemonsrratinCIiapt1eroneofthesIimitatappliehm. Afortiori,
theydinotapplyo mereswpemionofworks.actionitaken underorwithrespecto atrea1y:thereisno disjunction
between the iawof statresponsibiitand oblrgationsarisingunder
îreaties.
9.20. Thelegalbasisofand limitatioona clairof necessiaxealso
analysedinChapter10,where itis demomtratethattheconditionfor
sucha Iegalclaimhadbeenmet.3T
9.21. Ifa Stathasa rightormayinaillikelihoohavea rightto take
actiononthebasisof necessitoavoid imparablehm toanessentid
intere Ist,ut beentitletopostponetakingany stepsthatwouId(in
the absenc efa stateof necessity)berequiretolx taken, wMe it
negotiatewith thotherStateconcemd on ways ofavoidingthe state
of necessityA Stateentitiedttakethepater stq rnayfmt tak e
laserstepreservinitsrightforthefuture.
922. Inthe context of theNagymarosBarraget ,hestepthatwould
have itrevocablyproducedserioushm would,ptesumablyh, aveken
thecompIetionandputtingintoopwationotheBarrage,Oniywhen the
Barragewas completeandhad beenfilledwithwateiwouldthevarious
signiffcantharnrfconsequenceshave begunto occur, But ifat an
eariiw stageit becme vay likelythatthese cumequences were
jnvolved,it musthaveben legitimatandmonable tosuspendwork
imm&teIy, notwithstandin ghatindividuaitemsof thawtorkwodd
not,treateinisolationcausethehm in questionThe pointisthat
suchitems are notto be treateinisolation. The conducthat was
suspende clastheconductof buildingtheBarrage("thworks on the
NagymarosRoject"), a stmctwe whîch itwas feare dould cause
define sdriouand putenMy irreversibleorneQuencesT.hatheform
of bt suspensionrelateto acerta stngeintheconstruction,andto
some Wang alargenumber ofindividuaactrequiruitobeperfomed
to constmcthe Batrage,inottothe pointsb thesactswere being
perfmd notinthanselvesbutforthepurpos of theconstructioand
operatiooftheBamgeas awhok. Internationllw doesnosquire a
Stateinasituationofnecessitoconsmct useIessandd-but-complete
st~~ctureif itisexcusedfWm puttinghto opemtion thecompleted
slrucm; Thwe ino pointinbuildingpmof adam.
36 r;hustILX :raArticlesStaeResponsibiP,art,IikehDraftArticles
asawhoIeqtpIitanyobligatwheîherarisunk aeeatorundergrneml
internatil w.
37 Seebelowparas1O,-10~40.9.23. Forthesereasons,once itbecme clearthatfuture workonthe
Nagymaros Barrage wassubjecttothemost serioudoubs refmd toin
pâcagraph 9s.1-9.15above,itwas laM for Hungary immediatelyto
suspendconstructionand to seek forthwitto resolvethedifficulties.
The sameptincipleof necessitythatwould justifyteminationof the
Treatyjusad investigationand negotiatiowitha viewto determinhg
whether theNagymms Banageshould bebuilt,orwhetherin thelight
of anyapd macarions construction couldpruceed.
9-24. Thdm it wasa matterfor the partiesin good fait th
negotiatwith aview toresulvinthedifficdties,ifpossible,ornotto
adjvstingthe hject plans, andeventuaily the 1977 Treatyitself,
accordhgly. The factthatwork was merelysuspended Indicatedthe
possibiiityofresumptionifthe difficdtiecodd be resolved. Ifthe
difficriltwere resolved,any basis for relyingon necessitywouEd
disappear.IncidentallossestoCzechoslovakia in ternisof any delay
could becompensated forby adjusbmentisnthebuildingprogram orin
the allocatioof pwer output, as had happened Xn the past.
Altematively, financial compensationcould be pvided for, as
successiveWungaria nsds ~~ognisd.38
9.25. Inthese circumstancesb,athpartieswereobligedtonegotiatin
good faithbutneithewas obligedto accepthejudgment oftheotheras
tothe existencor notofthe statofnecessiS. In particulars,inthe
initialproblemrelatetothe Nagymaros sectm oftheBarrage System,
whichwaslocatedwblly inHungarian territory,ndsinc teeconm
about safetand environmenitmpacr telatei hoIiytotheenviromnent
and healthof theHungarian popdation,theRepubficofHungary was
not obligedto accept theassertionof Çzechoslovakia thatno vital
Hiterestwodd beafE&. If no agreementcould bereachedby
negotiatiounderArticle27oftheTreaty,thedisputeovw whether there
wasastate ofnecessitywoddhave toberesalvedbythemeansrefemd
to in Article33 otheCharteroftheUnited Nations. No doubta State
covld not,ingoodfaith,asserttheexistencor pbabIe existenceof a
s~ateof necessitbut refuseal1suggestionsastoways of resolvinga
disputeover whethersuch a stateof necessityexisted. Butthiswas
never hgary's position:it repeatedlysoughtways ofresofvingthe
issue,includingbyrefmce tobm&g arbitrationorto thiCsourt.39
38 Seeabove,aot3.s6,3.103,3.110,3.126.
39 See,e.g.NoteVerbalfm the Hun& MmistryofForeignAnah tothe
EmbassyoftheChxhosIovaSmiatiRepublicSeptemk 1989,Annexe,ol
4,anne24. (inclrinnegotiatisf"internatialientiorganisatsnto9.26. There were advantages to both partiesin the suspensionof
works. Oppohty was provided for negotiation, exchange of
information,publicconsultation and of detailed argument as to the
respectivepositionofthepartiesand foradjustment ofthebject orof
the Treatyitself. In the seriouscircumçtancesprevailingin 1989,
suspension of works was a propodonateresponseto the situation.
QuaUy, however,itwas citempq andprovisionalresponse,and did
not detemiinethelong-tem consequences for eitherpartyarisingfn>m
thesituation.
9.27. The Cmchoslovakresgonse to the suspension of works at
Nagymms was outlinedin Qiapter 3.40 To summarise,rather than
seeking toresolvethe issuebynegotiationandpossiblemoldificatioonf
the Project,Czechoslovakkimistedon continuationof the Barrage
System without modification. This can be seen hm the letteof
Czechoslovak Prime Minister Adamec, of 31 Aupst 1989 inwbichhe
stated:
'Tollowingan exambition of aii sides of alIthe variants
includedin your recomfnendation [SCof 20 July 19891by the
respomible Çzechoslovak authorities,and by scientific,
techical, economicand otherktitutions, 1amforced to repeat
Uint the Government of the''Czeçhoslovak Socialist&public
continues to insist that constructionof the Gabcikovo-
Nagymms Batrage System pçeeds as per the Treaty [of
1977 ..and O- relatd treatQo~urnents."~~
In theperiodbetween 20 July1989and the sendingof thiletteron 31
August 1989 (apied includingthetraditional surnmer vacation),itis
thjointscientiandexpertwork"); üermm HungarianAime MinisteM
NémethtoCzechoslovErne MinisteLA-, 4 Omber 1989;Annexes,ol
4, annex27.(iüspecfiofgumntees byintemationscientiforpns);Draft
TreatattachtaNote Verbafmm îheHungmianMinisûyof ForeiMfairsto
thEmhy oftheCzechasloS vadist Republi,0Novmber 1989;Annexes,
vol 4annex30., Art 3 (refm of "rmsded questm..to aninternational
arbitlribunaortothinternationalCoofJustice"Asfarasisknown,this
wastheht occasiosince 1945thaanEastem orChIraiEuropea çuntry
proposedthesuhisionofapifie disputtotheCourt.
41 Annexesvol4, amex 23. Aime MinSberAdam& lettecontaineafurther
intimatiofVariant ("wewiltbefor& totaksuchactionon thsovereigm
ternt0ofrIiCSFRas araecessartensm theamounofwarerguaranteecithe
GabcikovBarragbytheConventionfSeptembe16,1973").not çonçeivablethat "alsides of all the variants"coulhave been
examined "by the responsibleCzechoslovakauthorities, and by
scientific,techical, economicandother Theletterwas
simplya flatrejectiofHungary" legitimateconcesns.
9.28. At no stageinthe subsequentdiplornatand inter-governrnental
correspondenceWeen the parties did Czechosluvah address
specificcaior in detailthe Hvngarianconcerns relatingto the
Nagymarossector ofthe Projwt. For example,the Slovakscientific
studyestabhhedin1989 andfundedbythePHARE program focused
exclusivelyonthe Gabcikovo bmge andon itçimpactonSlova?~ia.4~
Thiswasrepresentativevirhiallydithesubsequenetmphasiswaçon the
disputeoverthe (shared)waterresourceof theSWgetkOatny Ostrov.
The crucialsector dow~lstreaof theproposecNi agymarosbarrage,a
purelyHunguian resource,wasignuredin theCzechoslovakresponses,
althovghattentionwas drawn inrepeatedHungarian statementsto the
vital naturofttiiwater riesourceConcemsabout theeffectsofpe&
power operationin the sector upstream of Naparos also went
unanswéred. Czechos1ova.akuthoritiesrarelyreferreto Nagymaros
specificAly,butsimplyinsisbethatthe entireProjectbeconstmctedas
pvided forinthe 1977 Treaty.Thi sttitudremahcdunchang edtil
thediversionoftheDanube aspartofVariantC inOctober 1992,44
9.29. Underthese circumstancesi,t isubmitted thattheHungdan
authoritieactedreasonablyin abandhg work atNagymarosw , Me
retainuithe fhmeworkof the 1971Treatyin oniertomsolveissuesof
rightsand obligationsarisinghm the Project. No evidence was
produced byCzechoslovaki aoshow thatthefeus inrelatiotochking
water supplieof Budapest wae unfounded. To secm thesesupplies
was anessentialgovernmenta rlespoflsio bfizintyary,unsharedwith
42 A poinmadebyHunman PnmeMinisterNémetinfiis letoCEechaslovak
PrimeMinisterAdamon4 bber 1989.Annexevol4, annex27.
43 Far&tail sfthProjectseeabovpara3.113. Referringtothe prothein
aonrextoanaccouofthe-und waterqualiprublemoftheregitheleader
of theproject, Messor Mandacollaborôcomment&tha"[tlhproblems
aremordin9nIy cmplex, intdisciplittheibasis,uniqueftheexpert
poinofviewandofexme impbncefor thewholofSlmokia". SeMucha
& EPaulikov"Gmd Wakr Qdity intheDanubiLowlandDownwads from
BrsItisla"1991) 1(EuropeanWaterPoilutionConr13atp.16 (emphssis
added)Forthe-le seeAnnexes,ol5mex 31.
44 Secag.above, m 3.82,3.85,3.89,393.3.102.anyother State. Previousexpenmcehaddernonstrated that alowering
of bedlevels inthe stretchofriverfrom Nagymaros to Budapesthad
produced atIeasta 10% decline in watercapacityof the bank-filtered
wells,and had&O led totheclosureofcertainweUsdue topolluti~n.~5
The scientific reports annexedto thiMs ernorial,contemporary and
subsegueb nta,out the reasonablenessofthe concernsfelt by the
Hungaian Governnren~~6
9.30. AlthoughHW's concemâ abut drinkingwater supplies
downstream of Nagymaro sere partiCuladystrongthesewerenotthe
ody umsolved problems raisedby theFhject. Sofar as theupsmam
Gakikovo sectacwas concerned, two issues wereraised. The fmt
relatetu thewatermornes ofthe Szigetkozquifer,whichcontained a
majoruntapped sourceof snpply,themostsigmficant in theçount~y.~7
The secondrelated to theenvironmeno tf theSzigetkoIzregion,which
waç&ely to besignificantlyhmed (in effect, desü-oyedby the
dischargeregime providedforinthe 1977Treaty,evenassubsequentiy
amendedf h thelattercasethe impactwauld be feltimmediatelyafter
thediversion,ad serioudoubtshadben express asdtothetechnical
solutionsenvisagedforthem49
46 Theseientifrepm mayk foimdintheAnnexeinvolume5.
47 Seepar a30-559.
48 Seepara5.60-5.105,
49 Forexample,~~water~t~dbothdamsw~mwsentialmattes,
butneithe-0slovakia norHunpryhad thraouroesfothispuposeIndeai
khoslovakia hadmtiy annoiincethathadnomoney fosewag exsimnt:
seeC Reid%RD Yato(edsG),bcikoy~-hFu~os Bmge PrajectSruWhy
1989)9;Annexe vs5,annex5.Thelac kfçxincaforenviromnentaalmis
evident,fexample,iomtheJoinCod Plan,ScmimarDesrrIptic,977,
Annexes,vol3annex24. Afterstathtg"tüezhndonedriveW oftheold
Danubewould"ody gethewates@or ttheeapaciofthediversichamel"
@am 7.7andforrefermasto"thgbgndd riverbesee,e.gpara3.3.1the
Planwentan toststhatthinmitablwakr shortainthe mid8zigetk"cm
becompmakd withIirigattobe cmsmctedwithitheframeworkofneitional
investments,ndthaanyproblemsofIxk owaterdirrithevegetatipericd
muld beresolvedbylett200m3/sinttheoldDanubebed(ibid,pa7.7)As
is nowknown,200m3/s isnotwen closetoking dequateas a minimum
dischar:heJointihmctuaiPlappsed itasamaximum durintkcgrowing9.31. Açcordhgly,when Hungaryannounced theextension of the
suspensionofworksat Nagymarosi,talsosuspended work atDunakiliti
preparatoryto the diversionothe Danube. As noted already,this
suspensionwas of a more minorcharacter*sincethe Dunakilitiweir
itselwas essentiallyc~rnplete?~The HungarianNote Verbale of 1
September 1989,summarising a Heads ofGovanment meetingof 20
July1989,statedthat:
"duringthe timeof suspension,futtherinvestigatioof the
ecobgical risksentailby thprojectshd takeplace andthat
dm thi seriodno irreversibltechnicalmesures shalbe
taken.Thisis themon whypreparatory work conductedon
theterritorof Hungary andrelated to therelocationofthe
Danube'bsedat theDunWti Damwas alsoto includedin
therangeofactivititobesuspended."sl
TheNoteVerbaleadded that:
. 'Thesuspensionof prepatatwyoperationforthedosureof the
Danube 6ed atkndditi by the Hungarian Partyin itself
neitheritaterkreswittherealisatiof theconceptionof the
Gakikovo-Nagymaro s am nor withthe constructionofthe
GabcilrovoBmge. Thesuspensionunquestionablydelaysthe
commencement of operationof the et hyh-electric
generatorsbut it mustbe takeninto consideratiothatthis
periodofsuspensionisthekt possibiliforthetwo Partiesta
cohnt thoroughlyandfor alltimesthejoint workwith the
rquiremtints ofenvironmentplrotecti..
9.32. TheCzechoslovak responswas entirelynegative. Forexample
at ne go^^ heldat DeputyPrime Mnkter Ievelin Bratislavin
Septembw 1989, Uie Cze~hoslovakpositioncon&ined the foUowÿig
elements:(a} rejectioofany possibilitofchange inrequimnentsof
the 1977Tw; (b) anofferby Czechoslwakiato divert tDanube at
IbWliti atHnngarian expense;(c)thebat tohplement VatlantC
season.Astothe vppeSPgetkbz,tPb suggestetha"bottomsilis"Ii.e.
imderwa wtirs)coukdconstnie"teaseofriee("id).
51 NoteVmbrrlhm HungarytCzechoslwaki, Septemi1989;Annexevol4,
anaex24."intheintere ostothnations";d)"thesupplyoftheMosonsectionof
theDanube andof theoldbed oftheDanube wiLttheproperamountof
water correspondintothe contraçtuadocuments",inotherwords,a
refusatochangethedischargregimein anyway ata11.53
9.33. This attitudcontrasts.witthatexpressedby Prime Ministw
N6meth on4 October1989:
"1wouldlik o emphasisethatheHungafian Govenunentus&
internationenvironmentaliaw as itsstartingpointwhich
reqUues thatin the eventthat environmental dangersare
perceivedstatehavetherightandobligatioto suspendwork
intheinterestofavoidingundesirableecologicaleffandto
commencenegotiations.The HungarianPartyconsidefithese
measures,tothebest of iklief,tobe enhly lawfuI... We
consider the execution ofexpiments on naturehaving
uncertaieff~e tctsextraordinariy ."%
9.34. TheHungarian positionwithrespecttotheupstteamsectorwas
fmher expressedin a Note Verbale of 3 Novemk 1989. Having
nfmd to the "ecologicalstateof emergency" inherent in the
constructioof Nagymms andtheoperation oftheBmge systemin
peak-powermode, theNoteVerbalewent ontodea wliththeGnbcikovo
sector,
"TheHungarian Partyconsidersit necessarto concludean
inter-govemmentalagreement in der to minifnise the
enWomeritalisks presentinthenormal@on modeofthe
DunWti-Hnisovo Raenroir andtheGabcikovohydroelechc
powerplantand toprovidefor asystem of parantees,which
inclu& thedefence of water quality, techid opdonal
maintenance,andecology, relatito theDunWti-fsusovo
Resmoir, theGabcikovohydraelecttîcpowerplant,thepower
canaiami theriversectiontheDanubeas fa rsNagymms.
Thepwmdition of mg up theDunaWti-HnisclvoRwervoir
istheconc1usioof theinter-govementalagreement.In case
ofa Czechoslovakshtementofintentionabouttheconclusion
53 AidMemoireofthem&ng ktwm Mx PMedgyessy,m+ DeputyPrime
MhbterrandMrP Hrivnak, zechoslDeputyAimeMiniste9 Seprember
1989,Append2;Annexevol4,annex25.
54 hmr fromHungariaRimeMinistMrNémethtoCmhuslwak RimeMiaister
LAdam% 4 Octobe1989;Anna=,vo4,mnex27. of theinter-govemmentafagreement,the preparatorywork of
the riverbeddiversionat the [Dunakiliti]Resemoir cm be
continued"5s
9.35. Thiswas foilawedby a furtherNote Verbaleof30 November
1989 towhich was attachaiaM Treaty.The TreatytookLntoaccount
"the actuastateof advancemenot ftheGabcikovo Dam", and arnended
the 1977Treatyinter alitoprovidefora munialaccount"forthecosts,
expenditures,expenses and damages resultedor resulthg fiom the'
amendment ofthe Treaty".If noagreementcould bereached on "the
unsettledquestionsin connectiwith the constructiandoperationof
the [Gabcikovci]amincludingthedisputesresultulghm thenecessary
stepstakeninfavourof protectinthenaturalenvironment" t,hesecould
besubmitted tobinaingarbitrati~n.~~
9.36. In the absenco ef any Czechoslovak response to theNores
Verbales of3 and 30 November 1989,Hirngarian Prime Minister
Németh on 10January1990 wrote,referRngto the "so-calltechnical
substitutesolutionwhkh wouldif implemented becorn a "sourceof
tension"between theparties,and proposed thatthe newly-installed
CzechoslovakGovemmentshadd agreeta..
"a joint Czecboslovak-Hung saieitiicstudy, &riththe
involvement of internationalscientificorganisations,[ta]
examhe the complex ecologicaleffectsof the Du-ti-
HnisuvoReservoir,theGabcikovo hydro-elecic plantandthe
power channel, dong with the assesment of the present
enwonmentalsituationandtherecordhgtfiereuf, and that we
m&e thecommencemeno tfopmationof the reservoirand
Gahikovohydro-elec~cplant dependenton theresul ttsreof.
On the bis ofthe redts... we would decide uponan
amendmeno tftheinter-stattreator theconclusionofa new
maty."S'
55 NoreVerbalfrrrteHungariaMinistofForeigAfhirtothéEmhassofthe
aeeboslovaSocialistRqiub3Novemh 1989;Annexevol4annex29.
56 DraftTreatTransmittwithaNote Verbalfromthe Hunwan MUiistrof
Foreig nfhh totheEmbassyof theCzechoslovaSocidist RepubIic,30
November1989,Art2(c),3((3AnnexesV,O4,mex 30.
SI 1Lem fromHungariaPrimMinisEer NémetthuCzeehoslovkrimeMiaister
M Calfa10Janmy 1990Annexa,vol4anne x2.PrimeMinisterMa's repl,whilesupporthg"the lmmediaterenewalof
bilatera.egotiationswhichwouldleadtojointconductconceming the
puttinintooperatioof theGakikovoBarrage dinlngtheyear of 1991"
avoidedthe issue othe "technicasubstitutesoluti0n"Infact there
was a deiay ofnearlysix monthsbef0~ea senes of meetings of
GovemmentPlenipotentiaries.These were held, apparently, ithout
preconditionsn eitheside>gBut îhey fiareacheda standstiby the
endofthe ~ear.~
9.39. As alreadydemonstratedi,August1989,justa fewrnonths&er
the suspension,herehad beenclearindicationsof actionking taken
with a view ta the unilateradiversion of the Danubeand the
constructioofVariant ThiSedan entirelynewsituationand
was thesubjectofvigorousprotestsonthepartof Hungary as soonas
theCzechoslavakplanswerern~eald~~Whiie proposhg variousfom
of compensationfor theabandonmen otf works$3Hungaryrefusedto
tak eartinanyauthofitativetudytosettlethefuturof theGakikovo
proje dctss work on VarianC was fir satlted,whilenoindicatiof
wïhgness on the part of eitlier Czechoslovakiaorthe Slovait
Govemment tosuspen dhiwsorlpendinga msolutionofthe issuewas
evergiven@or toMay 1992.a
9.38, The positionofthekhoslovak Govenunent atthitme canbe
seen fmn severalexchangeswhich took placeinJiily1991,the same
month in whichitwasfonnally admittedto Hungary thatwork wouid
pmxd on VariantC On 11Juiy 1991, Slova kime Mhhter
Camogmky concededthat"[tlhematerialented by theHungarian
58 LRttferrCiechoslovRime MnistaM GdfatoHungxh Rime MinisteM
Németh15Febniary1999;Annex,ol4,annex33.
59 Seckg.,Minuteso!hmewingbetwe eneGovemnenPlenipotent helries
Budapes17-18Octobe19% Annexesvo4,annex3î.
60 Seeaboveparas.11-3.14.
63 SeeAideMemoVPregardmgthmeetingofthGov~~tmen tleaipotenrk9es,
Janaar2991,gat4 ;Amiexevol4,annex41;LettefromMI G S&nmiidi,
HimgaaiaPldpotmthq,tpMr D Kocingm*CzechdovakPlenipotenth15
Fetiniary15AmchmentA; nnexes,4,amex 45Hungariah-afTïeaty, 22
Apd 1991;Annexevol4amx 48-50.
64 Seeaime, pa3.162.paq regatding theconstructionof theGahikovo hydroeIemic plant
wouldundeniably lead toitpositionofrejection",utwent on toargue
ht the Hungarianfems were in fact unju~tified~But at Joint
Negotiationsheld inBratislavaon 15 Jdy 1991, the Slovak be
Ministerinsistedonthecommencemeno tf operationofthe Gabcikovo
plant,on the basisthatthe workingout of ecologicalrkb "may be
viewed durhg the operation of the barrage",and "additional
technologicaslolutions(suchasfilteringoail drhkhg water)couidbe
adoptedasrequired Thiswas anottierversionofthe "experime ns...
onnature" condemned byPrimeMinha Németh on4 October 1989.67
At the same the Prime PuPiniste rarnogisrsiryefusecltu delay
constnrctioof VariantC.68
9.39. The damage acdy causedtoHungaryby thediversionof the
DanubeinOctober 1992 has been outlined inChapter 5.69 Shiiar
damage tuthe Szigetkozregionwouldhave been cause bdythediversion
of theDanube atDunakilititself,ithe absenceof apatly rnmWed
dischargeregimeand other precautions. The rrsksattached to the
Dunakilitdiam and the Gabcikovobarragehave &O been andysed in
Chapter Theextentof bth ris akndhm is Mer analyseclin the
scientificreporannexed toth& Mem~rial.~ ~avingregard bothtu the
65 PositiooftheCzechoslovGovemmenta lelegation,signeSlovakRime
Ministe1CamogunQ,II July1991;Anmes, vo4,mex 52. Thesam letter
acknowIedgedha"hequalityotheirbterrannate[SoftheZitnyOstrois
unsuitabeothepmp~~ ofdrawindrinkiwatefmn theuppewaterlayerof
thewatersupplyofZimyO-. Thedegradatiof waterqua&@cm te,at
pnsnt, measiirto adm of 50metersdilongsîhefactthaaiiwsasnot
causedbytheGWivo HydmelemicPlant".Thistamnentwanotdcuhxi
toseassmtheMungariasideaboitscancanastotheSzigeW quifer.
66 ReportofMr F Ml, Hqacian MinisterWithoutPortfolitheHm-
Govermnm tgarding heidwitSlovaPrimeMinisrJrCamgurskyin
B&lav& 15Jtùy1991;Amiexe,ol4,amex53.
67 Seeabovepar9.33.
68 ReportofMr F MM, HungariaMimister ithoutPortfooitheHmgarian
Govemmenw t ng meetinheI dithStovaRime MinistJCamqgurek n
Bmthlava15July1991;Amexes,vol4aane53.
69 Seepara5.106-5.140.
70 Se para5.30-5.105.
71 Thescientificreportsmaybefivolume5ofchekme,xes.long-termrisks and the immediatehm to theenvironmentwhich
diversioniaccordan Wcitthe1977 Treatywouldhavecaused,andfor
thesarnereasonasthosesetoutin paras9.17.-9.24aboHungârywaç
justifiedin suspendhgworkatDunalditi andinsee- satisfactmy
safeguzrrasainssuchriskandharm.
9.40. Such safeguards were neveragreed on, and by mid-1991
Czechoslovakiwasadamant in refusintosuspendwork onVaiant C
toallowan agreedsolutionto emergeeitherhm negotiationsfrom
referenctothirdpartexperts.Thus thelargescde winding-dom of
Hungarianworks atGabcIkovo ,ndtheir finalabandonmetttheend
of 1991wasanintegralpartothe ovd disputewhichledHungarytu
teminatethe1977TreatyinMay 1992.
9.41. Thehistoryof thedisputto thatpoinwas aptlydescribel y
Rime klinisterAntaiin aletteto the CzechasluvaPrimehhher
Calfaon 19December 1991:
"Subseque ntthe decisionsregardinthe suspensionthe
Hungarianpartysearçhefora solutiovia negotiatiom. The
PrimeMnisteriaImeetingin1989 attesttshat.At thesame
the,in thesmer of1989 joint effortswmade to clarify
theproblems.
The transition2akingplace in our mutries off& an
opportunitfor the joint resolutionof seriouproblems
inheritedFrothe dictatorisystemof the past anforthe
conclusionofaresponsib1andhumanedecision,keepingin
mind the interestsof preseand futur generations. Our
governmmtskgan negotiatioinAprilof1991.
Theplenipotentiats etfirstiBudapestt,heniBrahiavain
JulyandonceagaininBudapestinDeCernber.
The delegationsemphasised on every occasionthatthey
considerthe issue of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Bmge
Systemto beprkanly a professionai-sc proentmi.che
ParliamentaryCommines of the two cuuntrieshave
mponsibilitfor environmental-eco isoesa@ al wiEh
thisintheir joint statements and urgthe earliestjoint
disclosuoftheseproblems.
Inaccordan wcih thidsirulthenegotiatiuninDecemberof
1991,bth partiesconside~thedetaminationofthemandateofthe cornmittewhichexaminestheprofessionaquestionto
bethek mostimportanatssigrment.The delegatipreviously
put their proposairegardhg thisintowritingand jointly
producedanagreement.Fm thipsointoview,themeetingin
Decembercouid haveconcludedwithresults.
At the same time theHungariandelegationrequestedthat,
duringthe examinationby the professionacornmitteethe
CzechandSlovak partyre% fromwork whichis inconsistent
withtheInterstatTreatyof1977 andwhich (incontravention
of InternationLlaw) aimsat a dateral decision.This
rationa. inimum requirement(whichai& theequanimityof
the joinresearch)was not takm intoconsiderationbythe
Czech andSlovakdelegation. Howeveritprnised tonotify
theCzech and SlovakGovernment oftherequest.In 5ght of
this he HungananParty offeredanother tendays forthe
deliberatiofthi ituation.
JanCaniogiusky he Piun eter of theSlovakRepublic,n
a letter da18dDecember 1991toFerencMa, thedirect oor
theHungariandelegatioa,nnounce hattheCzechandSlovak
partycouldoniy acceptasolutionwhichsupportstheputting
intooperatioof theGabcikovoBarrageand foi thipsurpose
con.tViuehe buildingoftheGabcikovu-NagymaroB sarrage.
This aIsoincludesconstnictionwhichdeviathm the Joint
ContractudPlan. The Hamgaian Part yas yetto receive
informationwithregard to theresults and aims of this
consmction,
Withregard totheworkscamied out unilateraandiilegdy
on thet&tary ofthe Czechand SIovak RepubZic1,regretu
stattha therIslessandlesosfa chancetosetuptheplanned
JointExpertCornittee and toreach a well-foundedmutual
decision.It wouldbe rationaltoestablishthJointExpert
Committee oniyifbothParti uendeztooto takeintoaccount
theconclusionsoftheexpertsithefuture, Thus[theParties]
shouidbeopen to theconclusionsoftheexpertsinsteadof
puttingimpropepressureupon hem byacceleratinthe work
andimplyingtheitseversibiloftE xensmçtiun.
Dear Mr PrimeMinister!
1amhopeful thattherepresentativsf theGovenunenandthe
ParliamenotftheCzechand SlovakRepublîc,havingregardto
theirhistorierespnsibity, wfmd anopportmityto takthe
above~easmabie points ofview into consideratioIf this 280
expectatioprovestobefutiletheGovment oftheRepublic
ofHungary wouldbe compelledtoreviewtheconsequenc oes
the discontinuationof negotiationthefate of the 1977
IntentateTreatyanthenecessarycounter-measures."72
9.42. To surnarise, whileprepar etai ltagetoreferthedisputto
anindependentthirdparty,antopayreasonablecompensationforwork
done uadw the 1977 Treaty,Hungaryr. efusetdnegoriateunderthe
kt of unilaterlctionthawould causeinmediateand serioushm
toit erritoryThereafterhedisputeaboutpossiblernodScationothe
1977 Tieatto allowworktoproceed atGabcikovobecamesubsumed in
a morebasicdisputeabouttheverycontinuatioof theBarrageSyscern
as awhole,givea thecombinationof radicallchangedcircurnstances
and the conttiuingbeat of unilateraaction on the part of
Czechoslovakia .hi suestioisaccordhglytaken upin Chapter10in
thecontexoftheterminationofthe 1977Treaty.
72 htkrfromHungariaAime MinisteAntd tCzeehoslovkrimMinSst Mer
Calf 9,ùamnber 199,nnexes,o4,anne70. PART N
CHAPTER 10
THE TEXMINATION OFTHE 1977 TREATY
10.01. UnderArticle211) ofthe SpecialAgreementthe Courtis
requestetodecide:
(c) whatarethelegd effectsthenotificati,nn19May 1992o ,f
theterminatioftheTreatby theRepubliofHungary.
InadditiotheCourtirequestedbyArticle2(2todetemine"thelegal
consequaces,includingtherightsandobligafartheParties,arishg
fmmit sudgment"onthisquestion.As hasWdy ben pointedout,'
theCourtcmot determine thelegai consequencforthe partiein
hs of theifuturconductinrelatiototheProject(i.ethe legai
consequacesasatthedateoftheCods judgmentw)ithoutdetennining
whethertheTreatisinforceasbetwee theRepublicofHmgaryand
the Slovak Republic, notwithstandhgHmgaq's notincation of
teminationthe sumuent unilamal'diversionof the Danube,the
disappearancof the Czech and Slovak FBderRepublic,and the
subsequentperatiobytheSlovakRepubliofVariantC.
10.02. Thus in ordeto determuithernatterefemedto inArticle
2(l)(cand(21,theCorn wiilnetoanswertwodistincquestions:
(1) Was theHungarîannoticeof taminationhwfdandeffectivto
teminate tTreaty?
(2) Ifnot,didtheTreatyceasetobe inforceby reasonofevents
subsequ on19May 1992?
Thesequestionwiibedealtwithinthi shapter.Chapte11 wiUded
withthe legal conseguencforthepartiesofthe answerstuthese
questions,
1 Seabov era2.03.10.03. TheHungarianDeclaratioof 16May 199Z2recitethefactual
andscientificpositatthetimeandreliedonthefolIowinggrowdsfor
termination:
(1) the necessityto modify the ixeatyto minimise ecological
consequenc (esclmtion,para121combined withtherefusaof
Czeehoslovakiaeven to consider such macations, which
togetherproduçedasituationof necessitywittherneaning of
Article 33 of the ILC DraftArticles oStateResponsibility
(DeclaratioP,ar1para 12,15,19,20,21Par Dtipara1);
(2) impossibiliojperfomnce @eclarationP, aID,para2);
fundamentalchangeofcircumstance(Jhlaration,Reamb1e;Part
(3)
m, para3);
(4) mrerial breach,takintheformoffallurebyCzechoslovakiato
cary out environmentampact studiesasrequiredby theJoint
Agreed Plai of6 May 1976 a,swellas provisio ofthe 1977
Treaty relatitu natureandwaterquality@echtion, Part1,
para1;partm,p=4)
(5) furthcmterial breachofthe 1977TreatybyCzechoslovakia,
particulathrough theplanned consrructionof "theso-called
provisional olutio(narianC)@eclamtio Pnar1,para20,22,
23,M; PartIIi, para4-5);
(6) sdsequently imposedrequiremenofinternationallminrelation
to protectionotheenvironment ,tecluchgperformanceof the
1977Treaty (Declmation, ar1pan 4; PartEl,para6).Thi s
relevanto othergroundslistedabove(iparticuir rounds1-3)
butwas listed alasa separateground,idance onthemaxim
dex posterior derogategi priorilex speciaiiderogat iegi
genera6(Dec1&0n, Par ItDpara6).
10.04. These&roundswm clearlenpressedobecumulativeintheir
effecrTo theextentthasnyoneof thesegmundsisjustifieijustifies
theactionofHungary inWmhting theTreatyof 1977independently
of theeffect oany ofthe others.Moreover,it iopen toHungary,
havingmade thcessentialbasisof itsactionclearbequestioninits
Declamiionof 16May 1992,tosuppIementand clarifthosegmunds.
2 ~nnexesvo4,annex2.Thi s ilbedoneinthefollowingsectionsof thisChapter, hichdeal
withthegroundsforterminatiointhe sameorderas intheDeçZaration
of 16May 1992. ThisChapterwillthen cornidertwfmthermatcers:
fmt, the appropriateneof the procedurefollowed by Hungaryin
tdnating the1977Treaty,and second,whatthelegalpsiti~n now is
on thehypothesisthatthe1977 Treatyrnay have surviv e dngary's
DeclaratioofTermination.
10.05. To summarise, the arguments inthis Chapterare to the
followingeffect. Hungaactedlawfullyixerminatinhe 1977Treaty,
forthereasonsreferreto itheHungarianDeclaratioof16 May 1992
and Mer particuiaisedhere. Buteveifthiwere notso,theTreaty
was terminateeitherby its repudiatbynCzechaslovakiinOctober
1992,orby thedisappearancefCzechoslovakion 31 December 1992,
in circumstanceinwhich no new State succeeded80 the former
Czechoslovakiasa partytothe1977Treaty.
SECTION A: STATEOF NJECESSITY
10.06. Inmoderninkmationdiaw, apleaofnecessitshouldonly be
admittedon a narrow and strîctdefd basisS3Pleasof necessity
shouldbeexwmelyMted because"necessity" dows asovereigstate
to commitwhat wodd othhe be anunlawful act,wMe avoiding
intemationalreqonsibility.
10.07. The internationl bw CofnrniSsiocomplet4 asystematic
surveyofstat eractice,jurisprudeand doctrinconcmhg pleas of
necessityand reachedthe conclusionthat"theUnperativeneed for
cornpliariwith the law rnusnot be allowedtomdt insituations
ctiaracterissoaptlyby thedm smum jussumma The
ILCinskted thattheconditionsunderlyiagpleaofneçessitmustbe
clearIyidentified.
10.08. Tfr eLCReport thusstatethat"th e ostappropriae ay of
detemining[necessi~y] astoindicatthatanessentialintereof the
Statemust beInvolved",andad&d that "theextenttowhicha given
4 ReporofFbfessRrAgo,UN PocA/CN.4/3181A5-7IL.Y€!k1980,voD[,
pt 1pp 14f,ordiscussiothedrafarticbythe Commissinee1613th
Meeting, DocAEN.4/318/Add5i6,AlCN.432& Aùd14;ILCYbk 1980,
volI,Rqo~ oftIfitermtionoCommisswnontheWordits 32ndSession,
p49,para3iLC Ybk1980volX,pt2.interesti'essntiai'naWy dependson theckumstances inwhichthe
Stateis plaoedin differentspecifslmations".TsheReportfurthe1
indicatethat:
"thedanger to what pmves In the circumstanceto be a
genuiziely'essentiitelest ofthe State,must have been
extmnelypve, thatitmust haveben a threatttheinteresat
theactuak, andthat theadoprionby tha ttatof conduct
notinconformitywithaninternationalbligationbinduigito
anotherStatemust definitelyhave ken its only means of
wardingoffthe exmrnely pve andimminentperilwhichit
apprehended.t'
Asrevisedafter dkcussiddrafeaxticle3adoptedby tfiIe Creads as
fo~ows:
"Statofnecessity
1, A stateofnecessitymaynotbeinvoked bya Staîas agound for
pmluding the wron~esç of an act of that Ssatenot in
confomiitywithaninternationolbligatioftheStateunless:
(a) theactwas thedy meaes of safe~~g anessentiaintexestof
theSm againsa graveand&ninent peril; and
@) the actdidnotsaicmslyimpair anessentialintereof the State
towardswhich theobligatioexisted.
2. In anycase,astatofnecessitymaynot beinvokedbya Stateasa
@undforprecluding wrongfuhess:
(a) iftheinmational obligatiowithwhichthe actoftheStateisnot
in confdty arises outof a pmptory nom of general
internationlw; or
(b) if thintemaionalobligatiowithwhich theactoftheStateisnot
inçonfonnity is laiddom by a üeaty which,explicitïy or
implicitly,excludes the possibilityof involr.thestate of
necessitywithrespectothaobligation;r
5 Reporofthe InternationCommiJsio~nthWurkofit32ndSessio,49,
paraJI.
6 nid,p49par a2.Cc) ifthe Statinquestionhas contributto theoccurrenceofthe
stateofnecessity."
10.09. Hungary perfectlyunderstanthestriclimits of custorn-y
internationallawin allowingpleas of necessiry, and neverthelas
contendsthat underthe explicit circumstancesof tcase,it was
necessay for Hungaryto tehate the1977Treaq, as itdidby the
Declmion of 19May 1992. ConsideringCzechoslovaik nne'ibility
inopposingHungq's everyoverturforamendmeno tf the1977Treaty,
andobservingthatthethreatplacedonthehedth and vitalintereofs
thepopdationsconcerned ina regionchcterised by itexceptional
environmentavalue@articularthe SWgetkozregion)theEoveniment
of Hungary had nootherchoice than to temiinatthe 1977 Treaty
udaterally.
IO .0. Thedeterminan&t terionforauthorisanpleaofnecessi,as
indicatedabove,ithe"'essenticharacterothe inter invtlved.In
assessinthepertinenStatpractice,theInternatiolawCommission
foundthat:
"particdaryelevant rthosecaseswherethe'essentinltend
oftheStateKwas ]hmateneciy a 'gravandimminent dan&
andsafeguardable t'roulgtheadoptionof conduetwkich
inprincipwas phibited byan internatioobligatiowas to
ensurthesunivalofthefaunaorvegetationofcerta areaon
landor atsea o maintainthenomial useof thosearea or,
moregenerallytoensurtehecologicalbalanceoaregionU.7
10.11. In ttirespect,theCommissionfumd, unsurprisingly hat
"moststatementsof positionproposintoprecludeon thatbasisthe
mngfuhess of conductnot in confomity with an intemaiionai
obligatiowdi befoundtobeconternporar ynes"N.evertheless, ucb
older@en& couldeqdy lxrelieon.
10.12. For example,over 100 yearsago, in 1893, theRussian
Govanmentsealeo dffthe Russiantoast, As recoud by the
Commission' seport:
"inview oftheaiarminginmase insealinactivitbyBritish
andUnitedStat fkhmen nearRussiantenimial waterand
7 RqurtoftheInrernatrLlawCommbariooathe work oifthirty-secd
session49par14. in view of the imminentopening of the huntingseason, the
Russian Government, in order to avert the danger of
extennhationofthe sealsssued adecreeprohibithg sealingin
an area that wascontiguous ta itsçoastbut was at the time
indisputablpartof thehigh seasand theLeforeoutsideRussian
jirrisdiction".*
10.13, The justincationmadeby theRussianMlllisterfor Foreign
Affairs,and acceptedby the BritishGovernment ,as grounded on the
"absolutenecessityof inmediateprovisionalmeasures" in view ofthe
imminenceof the hm@ season. Hisstatementwas accompanied by
proposaisto negotiatwiththeUnitedKingdoma , ndachievea peaceful
andp.manentseniernentofthe question.An agreement withtheBritish
Govemment wasconclusedin May 1893.9
10.14, TheRussianFurSeuls Case is padcularlyinteresLing,tonly
liecauseioccurred eightdecadb eesforethemodernindonal law of
the sea,I bot alsobecause it pphetidy pointsto the necessityof
revishg the classicd scop of cornpetenceof savereignStates to
safeguaradnd protectnatutamsourcesin theinterestsofboththecostal
stateand the internationalcommunity. This revision of classical
sovereigntyhas &y becorneoneof thestrikingfeatms of modg
inmational environroenta iaw, bth inmaritime areasand in other
contem.
8 Reportof the InternahaLalwCommmmis owthe work Qitsthirty-second
session,49para31.
9 JB Moore,Histoand DigesoftheInternatilrbitratitowhichtheUnited
Sraieshm kenaPm (Washingto,S OovernmenPnntingOffic1898)vol1,
p 826.
19 ThisCoiirhadshownthewayintheIcelandicFisAeCases(UnitedKinghmv
Zce- FederalRepubl4Germany vleeladICJReport 1974,3and p 175,
whm assessitng pfmtntiatnghtsoftheamtai stgtforpmbxhg wtal
fishenesonwhichidepwidsNotmuehlater,theTbiCmkence ontheLawof
ttiSea reagnizethesametendencyinArticle22oftheinfd Composite
NegutiatiTexthwn upbythehident otheconferenc,spointaouinthe
abovementionereporof ProfessRrAgoonthestatofnecess *ierhaving
refmd totheTomq CanyonCm Rep1980volIIpt1,pp26-27p,ra33).
The same prwwcapatimgaverisetoseveralrovisionstheUnitedNations
ConventiuoftheLawof theSeaadopteatMontegoBay(19821,ymwgnizhg
speci nghtsto thecoastastatforpresenrithenaW re~~uxxsand the
maritimeenvimrmmeittheExclusiveEammic Zoneaslaidom inpwticuiar
inarts6 (1aaV)and208~~.geology,scismology,pedologyand agricdtumiproductionheld on17-
19 July1989:"It is of vitalintertokeepundisrurbed watersupply
hm the Danubetmce concemed.Thisis the wateszrpplof3 million
(or,inthelongrun5,miIllonpeoplein Hungaryand5 millionpeoplin
Czechoslovakial3
10.21. As establishedearlierithi s emurial,theoperationofüie
Bamge System plannedbythe 2977 Treaty, an$ equaliythat under
VariantC, posea saus threato thisgroun wdaterresource,witha
hi& pbability of riskinthequalityofthedrinkingwater.4Thisfact
has been reinforeed by reliable experts,both Hungarian and
intemational I,l5pleaofnecessitwasrecagnised aslegay correcta
hundredyears agoto&fend theHe ofthousands offur seaithe sante
pIeaisequailylegitimattodaytodefendthelivesof millionofhuman
beings.
10.22. Hmgaryb second essentialinest ismaintainkgits naturd
environment. As shown earlier inthis Memonal,16 thepkipal
ecologicalimpactofthehplementationofthe1977 Treatyor VariantC
was a>decresscthewaterdischarginîhe DanuW'smainchamel*whkh
feedsthewatersysternoftheentireSzigetk6zregion. Theunavoidable
resultsof theserislq pb includea decrease of water vekity,
infitratioandmodificationislevelsof gromd water,deterioratiof
theaquiferintensivesedimentatio,idical formationofdeadwater,
cfeationof swamped areas and, hally, the substantialrkk of
eutrophication.
10.23. Refmhg again todraf Mtcle 33 of thekt IL€ Reporton
StateResponsibilit,he conditioputforwardmkr paragraph I asto
the"essenthlityoftheinterestseemsabundandymet,furtheprotection
ofpublichedtfi,welfatandtheenvironment.
13 Seeklmtion oftheHimgarin overamen,5May 1992p7; Annexevol4,
aiuie82. TheDechion wasmade on 16May 1992,handedmer to the
Embmsyof thCzechmd SIovaFederal epubonc19May 1992andend
intoforcew 25Ma1992.Hereinafi,wilberefd to athDechaion of
theHun- Gowmt, 16May1992.
15 Seeabove,pa5.10andgqc0mPanfinote;par5.30-559and5.106-5.113;
seedsoAppadix3andAnnexes,o5,annexe16,17and20.10.24. inrelatioto theconsideratiofvitalnecessita Statemust
protectthelifeandlivelihwof itpopulation.This traditiolule of
publicinternationlwshould als oeinterpretdoincludethe"righto
environment"asprovidedby numerous textsassessinthe relevant
opini jris.17
10.25. With regardtrtheconsideratioof (environmenta)ecessity,
thetmn "enWonments t' d includthesafegumhg of theecologieal
balanceof oneofHungary' sostattractiveandelicateregions,asweli
as theprotectionof uniquelandscap, ita hightourismvalue. The
extentof environmentanlecessitgoesfurtherand also concems the
protectionf theDanube as anaturdresource,commoniy shed by
Hungary andotherripariastates.
10.26, As for the second condition required by customary
intesnationallawanddrafiarticle3the imminentnature ofthepeRl
was equaüy satisfiinthepresencase.
10.27. As most repttably proven by events taking placeafter
commencement of theoperationsof VanantC, imme&e and very
substandd damagewassustainedq, uiteapahm thesubstantialiskof
mediumandlong-tem de~ental effects,especially topmd water,
drhhtg wnter,fmsts, fisheries,agricdtwe, landscap e,d the
mreationalvduesof one ofîhemostprestigiousegionsoftheDanube,
situated prhcipallon Hungarian territory.This appliesto the
Szigetkozregion,whichcontainsparticulardelicatespeciesoffauna
andflan, ofbth mlogicai andeconomicimportance.
10.28. Consideringthe chimental impacton growd water and
drinkl iatertheoperatioofVariantC and theimplementatioofthe
OriginalProjeccannotbe separatedAfterA, the workstoimplement
VariantÇ threatenetaturnhto actuality tenvironmenta isksrhat,
foryears,Hungaryhadbeentryingto avoidbypposing theopenkgof
meaningfuni egotiations.
10.29. Mmver, Variant Cwas liabltocreatesrmiladamage tothat
threatenebythe operationofthOrighd Project.
17 Seebelow,para10.38.10.30.The proximity of the danger kame manifest from the
beginniriof 1992,sinceCzechoslovakipaersistentrefuseto consider
any postponement inthe constructionschedule.As long aspossible,
Hungary had ken ûying toleavethewayopen for achievinanagreed
settlement.Ttmade asmanyconcessionsaspossible,withoutachieving
any actual change in the CzechosIovak position. In contrast,
Czechoslovakiashowedits intransigenceby deciding to implement
variantc.19
10. 3. WhenHungarydecided to terminatethe1977 Treatyin May
1992, theperd was manifedy imminentbecausb e,lem dated 23
April1992, theCzechoslovakMme Ministerhadset October31 asthe
date forthetudateraldiversioof theDanube.Hungaryhad to actas
quickly aspossible toshow its resolvein contesthgthe unilateral
diversion.Theodylegd possibiity wastoterminatethe1977Treaty.20
10,32. As for thethudconditionrequiredby customaryinternational
law, the unavoidablecharacterof the decision, Hungary had been
providingitscouritaparwithrelevantdataon theinmediate andlong-
tem detrimentalconsequeno cfehe 1977 Treaty, The databecme
morepreciseandextensive over theyears.MoreoverH , ungarydidnot
wait mtil the tamination of the 1977 Treaty before declarinthe
situationtohave mates a stateof necessityîmm 1989 onwardsit
coristantlurged propex ways for avoidulg risksto drinkingwater
seservesandtheenW.onment.21
10.33, In rem, Hungaqonlyobtained superfxialdiscussion, hik
Czechoslovakiaaccelerateconstructioon theBarrageSysîem.FMy,
the decisioto opemte VariantC,inbreachof many treatobligations
between the parties,convhced Hungarythat thesewas no hop of
fm&g asustainablsolutionthr~ughrevisionothe1977 Treav.
20 SeetltexoftheDecimariof thGovernentoftheRepubliof Hungaon
theTeminatioofttm erieaConcludedBetweenthe PeoplRepublicof
HuagarandthSdalistRepubIofCzechoslov a9Mia,1992Annexes,ol
4,annex82.
21 Seeth Note VerbalefmtheHungariaMi ofForeignAffairtothe
Emky oftheCzechoslo vakialistRepu1lSeptembe1989Annexes,vol
4iuine24.10.34. Due to the absoluteintransigencof the position taken by
Czechoslovakia,the ody solution left opentoHungary to avoid
extensivefuture damagwas twofold: onthe onehand, terminatioof
the1977Treaty,and, onthe otherthecommencemen otf anyavailable
steps foa judicialpfocedureaimedatpeacefullysettlinthedispute.
The terminatioof th1977 Treatywasthelastpossiblelegareactionto
Czechoslovakia'sillegitimatand persiste rnusal of rneaningful
negotiations, which was only underscoredby Czechoslovakia's
perseverancewithVariantC in spitof Himgaty'surgentinvitatioto
discontinuework,ashighlydamagingandincompatibl eith the1977
Treaty.
10.35.As forthe otheconditionlaiddownin draftarticle33 (2)(a),
(b)and (c)itcannotbearguedthattheyarenot satisfied,sincet1977
Treatyneitheembodied a peremptorynorm of generinternationalw
norcontainedanyprovisionwhichexcludedthepossibilityof.invobga
stateofnecessi.y
10.36. Fdy, Hungarydid notcontribute totheoccurrenceof the
stateofneeessity,sincithad earliertakenspecificsteps,micasthe
suspensionoftheworks atNagymaros to prevenkmts to the ecology,
the economyand, abuve allt, thepublichealthof the populations
concerneci.
10.37. Fmîhemiore, it should be noted thatf,arfrom impainng
Czechoslov~s essentialhterests(tusethe languageoftheWS drafr
articl33(1)(b))HungaryconsistentlynotinedCzechoslovakia of the
ri& to the ecology of the region and the healtof theriparian
populatiozlsonboih sidesoftheriver.AJ notedearlierthe dnnkIng
water supplieof the populatioin Slovakiawereendangered by the
BarrageSystem,inspiteofHungarianand internatiowl anhgs.~
10.38, The failurof the plannersothe OriginaRojectto consider
the detrimentalimpact on the drhbg water resources and the
environmentled Hungary toassestrepeatediythe rightsofpeopleon
bothsidesoftheborder,uiçlucbgthe rightsofuturegeneratim. This
pointwasregdar1yessed indiplornatnotesaddresse clHungary to
22 Seeabove,paras5-5.59.Czecho~lovak T has,~ ~rginghuman rightto thenvironmentcm be
definedas the right of eachgenerationto benefithm anddevelopits
natuml and culturapl atrimonyinsuch amarner sothat itcm bepassed
on tofuturegeneratiunisnno worsecondition tha twas recei~ed~~
S3 See,e-g.,thNoteVerbalfromtheHmgarianMinisüyofForeignAffaiftothe
CzechoslovakEmbQssy , Seplember1989;nnexes,vol4,amex 24, arithe
lettersenton 10 January199byPrimeMiriisteM Németh of Rungaryto
CzechoslovakPrimeMinisteM Calfa;Annexesvol 4,annex32; ancion 6
ïhmber 1991byMr S Kereszte, inistof EnvhnmentalProtection,andby
MT F W, MinisterWithoutPortfolito Mr J Vamusek, Ministerof
EnvironmentaProtectioofthe W and Slovak kpubliçAnnexes,vol 4,
anne6x8.
24 Thisfequiretheconservatiand,asappropria,heaihament ofthequality
andof thediversiof this hentage aspecifical.heansemation ofthe
divwsityand qual'iof biologicresoiaee~ofrenewableresou~.~suchas
fmsa, waterad thsoi1dlof whichfm anintepted systemt requiresthe
avoidanceofactiowithhanrifl nimersible mrisequencorthenaturalnd
culturalherita.eneof thefmtformulafiunsfthisnewlyarrivingrule was
My tobefond intfiStockholDeclaratioonHuman Enviromnen 1972)
which lays dom in itsverykt Principkthat:"Man ..km a solemn
responsibilito prokaand improvethe environmenfor preseand fut=
genmtions".Aoowding to kipIe 3 of theRio de JaneirDechation on
Environmen tndDevelopment,Therighto devdopmentmustbeMlled so as
to equitabmeetdevelopentaiand envirumentalneedsopresentandfume
generation(üN Dm A/CONF.151/5)Rdterationsothesamede cm alsobe
riia id the following conventions:Conventionon IntematiTdel in
Endangerd SpeciesofWildFaunaand FIora,Washington,March 1973,993
üNTS 243; ConventioontheConseTvationf NaturetheSouthPacifieApia,
12 June 1976,UNEP, 8lected MuiriluterTreariesin theField of the
Envuonmenr (19831p 463: ConventionotheProhiMionofMlitary orAny
€Mm HostileUseof EnvironmentalodificatiT6chniques, eneva,1May
1977,(1977)16ILM 8%; KuwaitRegionalConventioforCoqmation inthe
RotectianotheManneEnviramat hm Pollution,24 April1978,(1978) 17
iLM511;Conventioon the 43mmvaticofMigratorSpeeiesofWildAnimals.
Bonn, 23 June1974 ,1980) 19ILM 15; Conventioon the Consavatioof
EuropeaWnildli andNanaalHabita, em,19Septaber 1979EuropeanTreaty
SerieNo 104;ConventiofortkeProtectionandDevelopmentftheMarine
EnvitonmenotfthWilderCaribbemRegion,CartagedeIndias24Mareh 1983,
(198322ILM 22% ASEANAgreemeno tntheConsavatioofNatureandNd
Remmes, Kuala Lumpur 9, Jd1985,(1985)15EnvironnoentPiolicyanLmv
M; ConventionantheTransbomdarEyffectsofindusti ccident, elsin17,
March 1992,UN Dw:WECW1268P . articularlsyignisArt3(1)oftheVN
Framework Conventionon ClimateChangeR,io deJaneiro,Jun1992:"Che
Parti shsuldprotectthchte systemforthe benefofpresentandfuture
genedons of humanIrind..."UN Dot 41AC.237118 (ParWAdà 1). This
+ 10.39. Consideringthe presentstateof internationalIaw forthe
protectionof theenvironment , "well-govemed state"hasa duty of
diligenctoavoidinmediateandmajor risksto thhealthandlivelihood
of itspresentand futuregenerations.This preoccupationhas,very
explicitly,inspkedHungarwhenterminatingthe1977 Treatyina state
of necessity.
10.40. Consistent with other recent achievements in modem
enWonmentalintemationailaw, Hvngaryhas dways considered the
Danube asa naturamurce, which,althoughking partlynational,is
alsosharedwith the otherripariandates(includingSIovakia). The
terminationofthe1977 Treatyb, ecauseiisinspiredbythepurposeof
protecung the envitonment as a wholein the conceniedregion, is
coherenwiththis1% standingposition.
SECTION B: IMPOSS~IIL~ OF PERFORMANCE
1OA1. The secondpmd onwhichHungaryrelia3in itsDeclaration
of 16May1992 asa bais forthetedation ofthe1977 Treaty was
that of impossibilityof performance.^heDeclaration=lied onthe
principle"ad impossibiiiunemo tenatur m'ma" (sornetimesho
rende& as"lexnon cogitad impossibilim"),andstatethat Hungary
couldnot "be obligedtofulf aipracticalimpossibletask namely to
constnicta barragesystem on its own tmitoxy that would cause
imparable environmental damagest'?6 h that contextit cited the
Russian IndemnitCase.27
10.42. In îheRussianItrdemnityCase,theOttoman Empire=lied on
forcemajeure asa gruund foritnon-paymeno tfmoneydue toRussia
COn~eIIisthefollow-upseverUNGeneraiAssemblResolutio,bemoût
inp.>oranrhid concertheMon of GiobaQimate Chanforhsat
andFm Gendons ofMankind,GARes43/536 lhamixr1988,UN Dm
AIRés/431In. thConvention BiotogicDiversity(RioJan&, Jme
19921,noinforce,tContraetiPartisEgtbeirdetennina"tocorne
and sustainause biologidiversityfthebenefiofpsent and fuaae
geriemii(preamblel,astparagUNEP/Bio.Div/CONF/L2.
25 Seabovepara10.03.
26 Decldon ofTemination,PaIIp,ra2,26May 1992Annexes,ol4,mex
82.
27 (19111WRlAA 421.under a treaty.Theforce majeure tookthe fom of most extreme
fifiancialdifficulties, assocwithdinterna1tmnoil and confict
quiring international interventionthe financia&airs of the.
OttomanEmpire ,hesuspensioof paymmtsbyitc sentral.banetc.It
was, itargued,notreq& to pay monetaryinterestonthe unpaid
amounts duringtheperiodoftheseexme difficulties.
10.43. The fennanentCourt acceptedthepleaofforce majeure in
prkciple. Isaid:
"L'meptiande laforce majeure ... estopposableendroit
internationalpublic aussi bien qu'droit prive; le droit
intemationadoit s'adapteaux nécessitépolitiques. Le
Gouvernement ImpQldRusse admet expressémen .t. .que
l'obligatipourun Etaîd'executeles traitéspeut fl&hi'4
l'exisknmémedel'Etav tientàêtreendanger,si l'observation
dudev~irinternationls...self-dwtru~tive."~~
It heldhoweverthatdiaingtheperiodinquestiothe Ottoman Empire
had been ableto bormw aifavourabierates quite laramounts of
money, and thatit codd haveaffmid thepayment rsq& by the
-tY.
10.44.
ThePemianent Ms awd didnotreloynforce majeurein
thenarrow senseoftheternusedinDrâftArticle1 oftheInt~onal
LawCommissionk S DraftclosnSîateResponsibility.Thereforce
majeureisrestrictto "anirresistibleforceoanunforeseenexmal
evenL.. whichmadeit materiallyimpossiblefor the Statetoactin
confMMitywith tha tbligation".The presentcasedid not invoIve
materialimpossibaliti,nthe sense thatthe Barragesystem could
physicallyhavebeen built. iflarge-sc aaierpollutionhaci kn
cause&the water couldhavebeen physicdy treatb ed-ses of
purificati(howeverexpensiveandimpmcîical),or thequifers could
haveken abandoned asawater resource.h thelasresort,watercould
havebeenimprted. As to thSzigetkoz,idoesnot need toexistasa
wetland. EnMromentaS degradatioisalways a pkysical possibility.
W2dy uneconomic projectçanstd ixpaldfor.
10,45. ButthereXsno reasonto treDra£tArticle31as reflectior
limitingthebmaderdomineof impossibilityonwhich theTribuna lg
the Russianfndemnity Cese relied. This cm be seen hm an
29 (1912)UllRVcA421atp443(emphasinoriginal).examinationofthedoctrineofsuperveningimpossibiliofperformance
inthe law of treatieas reflectedfor example,inArticle61 of the
ViennaConvention ontheLaw of T~eaties.2~
10.46. Article61provideasfoUows:
"1. A patry may invoke the impossibilityof perfomiiaa
treatyasagroundfor tminating orwithdrawingfrom itifthe
impossibilityresults frothe permanentdisappearanceor
destructioofanobjectindispensablefortheexecutionof the
treaty.If timpossibiliis temporaryt maybeinvoked oniy
asa pund forsuspendhg the operatioofthetreaty.
2, Impossibiiitof performancemaynot beinvokedby a
party as a pund fortemimting, withdrawingfiom or
suspendhg theoperationofa wty iftheimpossibilityithe
resuitoa breachby thatparteitherofanobligatiounder the
treatorof anyotherinternationalbligatiowed toany other
. partytothetseaty."
10.47. At thetimethepartiesnegotiated,signandraîEed the 1977
TE*, the Viema Convention hadnot enteredintoforce, norwere
Hungaq andCzecboslovakia thenpartieto itS3Sincethe Convention
ody applieto treatie"whichareconcluded by Statesaftertheentq
intoforceofthe... Conventiowithregard tosuch States"(Articl4),
thematteris accodinglygoveniedbygeneralinternarionalw. As the
Court has observedin therefatedcontextoffundamentac lhange of
cirçumstancesd,ealtwithin Artic62, theConvention "mayinmany
~.especbe consideredasa cmcation of existingcustomarlaw..."sr
The Conventionis accordinglya guideto the content of general
internationllw, buttheCourt'stuW language("i mnany respects")
suggestsa ned forcaution,and in eaeh caseitwillbenecessary to
considerwhether the Conventionrequirements preciselyMeçt the
geneml internationallawposition.
10.48. Under Article O1 th- are two conditions for involang
Impossibilit(1) theremusthave ben a permanent disappearancer
U) Hungaryd d totbeVierinaConventonn19June1987Czechoslovaano
29Jdy 1987.
31 Fbhries JurisdiCases(JwrSdicti(UK,vlceland)IRep 1973p atp
18;(FederRepublofGemny vIceldl ICIRe193 p49atp63.desiructiofanobjectindispensablfothe executionofthtreatyand
(2)thedisappearancordestructiomut nothaveken the resulof a
wrongfulactby the invokinState.Theserequbments wiJlbe dealt
withintum.
(1) DISAPPEARA NFA NOBJEC ~DISPENSABLX FORTHE
EXELUTI OFTHE TREATY
10.49. Articl61 isnot limlteto casesof physicaldesmictionor
disappearanceof tangibleobjects, althothimnybe theprimary
situationenvisaged. The InternationaLaw Cudssion in its
comrnentarylisteanumberof such casesbut withoutsuggestinthat
its iiwasexhaustiveothecategorieofimpos~ibiIity.~"exampleit
is sometimessaithatthedisappearancoefa Statpartyto abilateral
treaty(insituatiowhereno otherStatesucceedstothetreaty)isan
exampleofimpossibilitofperfmance.33Yet a Statinot an"object"
inthe sens efa thing,andthedisappemce of a Stateand thenon-
successionofariotharenotsimpleautomaticeventstheoccwrrencef
whzchcm be determinewiihouttheapplicatioofle@ aiteria orthe
intapretatiof thetreatinquestionAstbe Commission pointedout,
bnpossibiiiof performancetendto overlapwithfundamentaclhange
ofcitcurnistanca,ndextendsto -caswhm 'hlegalsituationwhich
wasthe raisond'êtoetherightsandobligatiocontaineii thematy"
disappears.34
10.50. Thus Artide61 extends alsotocases wherethe objector
pirrposeofthetreatyhasbecme impossiblof performance,Le,to
casa where theexpre susrposeofthematy manifestlcm no longer
be carrieout. ThecriteriofphysicaldestnictasntheanJybasisfor
impossibiityiJboth hadequate and insd5clent. The criterion is
hadequatebecaus iepossibilityasckumstance, notthe automatic
resdtofthedestructioofanobjecthowever essential.Forexamplin
certaincasesthtreatinquestionmightk intwpreteasquiring the
33 SeeWaldock,IXYbk 1363voII ,p77-79;Brownli,rincipofPublic
Iilternutiuwl(4thdn, xford,ClarePress,199) 6191183Nguyen
QuocDinh,PDallie$ A PelIet,DrIntermional Pu(4thednLGDJ,
1992p 303CftheUs observatisnitsfinalCcimmeLyCrYbk1966vol
IIp256par(61.
34 ILCYbk 1963voIip,206.It gaveanexampleWatieoonnwtewiththe
operatiothecapitulasystms.desmyed objecttobereconstnicted(e.ga seriesof boundarypiliars
under ademarcationagreement),The critenonisinsuffic biecntuse
thereareothercasesofimpossibilitwhichgive risto equdproblems
ofperformancaend whichshouldsqudly begovernecby thmle.
10.51. In the presentcase,the object of the 1977 Treatywas
essentiallytwefold(1)a BarrageSystemfunctioningsafely on the
tenitoryof the Statesconcernai, i.eone which did not cause
"imparable environmentadamage" tothe State;(2) anobjectofjoint
managemenb tetweenthe parties,"jointinvesmientoperatintotheir
mutualbenefit,notanengineof discordanddestruction. As aresultof
subsequentenvironmenta lwarenessandunderstandingi, hadbecorne
clearthatthefmt object--anenvironmentall yaf eamge System --
couldnot bea~hieved.3As aresultofthewholechah of eventswhkh
eventdy ledto the implementationof VariantC, the objecof a
mutualiyheficid jointinvestmenhtadbecorneimpossibletoperfortn,
Taken togetber, thesedevelopments gave rise to a situation of
impossibitywirhinthemedg of Article61oftheViemaConvention
oritscustomaq lawquivalent.
10.52. An analogymight befoundina treatyto constrandoperate
alargenuclearpawer plantusingtechnologsubsequentIdiscovereto
beunsafe I.temationallawwouldnotrequirtheStatespartietobuiid
theplant--ortoconthe tooperatit--inthosecircumstances,ecause
anobjectof thetreatindispensable oitsimplementatiowould have
been a safe nuclearplant, anthi sbjectwould have disappeared.
SMarly iftwoStatesagreedtucooperatintheexploitatioofacertain
fisherushg specif'itechnologya,nditemergedthatthefisherwould
hme unsustainablefsooperatedhe pnnGiploefimpossibiliwould
apply,and at a stagepriortothe eliminatioofthefishery. Inthis
respectthenotionofimpossibiticontaina precautionarylement.Na
doubtifthetechnologycouldbemmed torendertheplansa£o erthe
fisherysustainabthe impossibilityrnibetternp~mry.~~ut whether
the modificationwas satient wodd be a scientific and technical
questionto whichthe precautionaryrhciplwould ap~lly.3~hereare
somerisks thainternationaw does notrequiraStatetoW.
35 Fm ananalysoftherisanddamagentdedbytheconstnicoftheBmage
Systemseabove,paras.305.105andthscienricepris referredthen
AppendiceandAnnexes.
36 CfViennaConventiArt61(1seconsentence.
37 See abovepara55.10.53. Ttmight be arguedthat theexampleof theunsafe nuclear
reactor or the unsustainablefishery isequally covered by emr,
fundamentalchange of ckmstances or necessity. The latte tro
groundsaredealtwithelsewhere in thisChapterand were of course
reliedonasparailelgroundjustifyingtheteminationtheTreaty.As
toenor,if thCourtwere toholdthattheappropriarubricinsituations
wherenew scientificknowledgeor undastandingrenders a projeet
unsafe,dangerouorunsustainablesenorratherthanimpossibili,hen
Hung;iryshouldbeequ* entitled torelon mr. Although a Statis
requiredtostatethe substantilroundsof its actioninteminatina
maty, it shauldnot be prejudicedifit chamterisesits action by
refm~ce to onerathmthananotherpossiblelahl, especidlywherthe
labelsoverlap.Internationallawis notasystemoffvted formJgAs
to thsubstantivrequlrementosf itwasassumedby theparties
in1977 thattheBarrageSysterncould be operatedeconomidy, in
pwership andwithoutsubstantidamage to Mg watersuppliesor
on the environmentgendy. Thatasassmptionmust have kn an
essentialbis of theconsentto bebound by the 1977 Treaty. The
presentunderstandhgof scientificnndhydrologrisk hasdeveloped
sign&antly since 1977, and the economic circumstaracechanged
dzJrinthe 1980s in a way that wasquite iuiprdictabIeThus the
c~ces of 1977 werenot suchasto putthepdes unnoticeof
passiblemir.
10.54. Atticle61(2) reqh, in the case of impossibLlityof
performancetbatthehpossibilityshonldnothavebeen themdt of a
breachby thepartyreIyhgon theimpossibility"eitheran obligation
under thetreator of anyother intemationalobligatiowed to any
oîherpartto thmaty".
10.55. ThedisqualiSringbe inArticle61(2) onlyoperatewhereit
canbe saidthatthsubmmtia lauseoftheirnpossibdiisthewon@
actofone oftheStatespartt0the treatyThepurpose of thatphrais
topvent a Statrelyingon itownwnmgful actasa justificatfor
terminaa'ng nothefwisevalitreaty.Thatpurposehas noapplication
where theessentiaorsubtial causeofthe hpssibilityisseparate
38 Cf Appetilrelto dJwisdictiofthICA0 Counci(ZndvaPaùistIU)
Rep1972p46aap63.
39 ViennConventinntheLawofTreati,155UNTS 315Art48.from anywrongful actwhictmay be imputabletothe Statrelyingon
impossibîlity. Theimpossibüimust be"theresult"inthesenseof a
causa sinequa non,not an anciuaryorincidentafactor. Articl61
envisagesasingleccitcumstanofimpossibility,anapartyshouldnot
be disqufied from relyingona genuineimpossibIliof perfmance
unlessitown wrongfulactwas thedominantorsubstantidcauseofthe
irnpossiilit~.~
10.56. Thus inthe presencase,evenif(asHungary contenddl)the
constructionof VariaC was abreachof the1977 Treatyandof other
intemationalobligationowed by Czechoslovakiato Hungary, that
would mt disqualifyCzechoslovakhm relyingon tResituationof
impossibiliproducai bythefactorsrefd toinpara10,47. Looked
at ovemll,it inot thecasethat"theimpassibilitisthe resultofa
breach byeitherpartyofthe 1977Treatyor ofany otherinternational
obligation.Thensks of environmentalarm werernherentinthevery
conceptionoftheBmge System andthisremainsthecaseeventhough
thoseriskswereexauxbatcdby theunwiiihgnessof Çzechoslovakato
agreeto mdil5cationstothe 1977Treatywhich wouldhave mitigated
thm,
10.57. In anyevent,forthereasomgiven in Chapter9 and inthis
Çhapter,thaimpossibiliiscertalliyotthe resulofany wrongful act
of Hiuigq vis-à- Cvlech~~l~e.
10.58. Forthese reasons,Hungary was entitieto nly onimimpos-
sibilityofperfimmmcasa groundforterminatioofthe1977 Treaty.
SECTION C: FUNDAMENTAL CHANGEOF
10.59. ~ethirdpundonwhichHungary~liedinitsDeclaratimof
16 May 1992as a basisfor the taminatiofthe 1977Treatywas hat
offundamentalchangeofcircumstance(srebusicsta~ibus).~2
CampareDrllArticleofPart oftheDrafArticlesStatResponsibility,
40
whichdoenotqplywhe~ theinvokiStat"hsconrributotheacciarence
ofthsituaiofmateriampossibiliemphassdded).
41 Seeabove,ars7-0-7.40.
42 Seeabove,ar1O.M. 300
10.60. Inorder tosubstantiathipsund for theterminatioof the
1977 T~aty,it is proposedfirto summarisethe de of fundamental
chang efcinumstançesin generalintemationallaw,and secondlyto
demonstrateihS thevariouschanges îhathad ocçd by 1992 were
sufficienttentitleHungartuteminatethe1977 Treatyonthatground.
f1) FUNDAMENTAL CHANG OFCIRCUMSTAPJC AS A GRO~ FOR
THE TERMINATIO NF TREATIES
30.61. The Court observed in the Fishenes SurisdictionCases
(Jurisdictiotha trticl62 "may inmanyrespectsbeconsiderd as a
codificationof existingcustomq lawonthesubjectofthe termination
of a treatrelationsliponacçountof changeof cir~umstan~".~~tis
çonvenientrhereforto stmwithArticl62,whichprovid assfollows:
"1. A fundamentalchange of circmstances wbich has
occumd with regard tothose existing atthe the of the
conclusionof a mty, and which was not foreseenby the
parties,maynot be hvoked as a pund for temhting or
withdrawinghm thetreatyunless:
(a) the existence of thme circumstanoesconstituted an
essentialbas&oftheconsentofthe partietobebound bythe
mty; and
,
(b) theeffectofthechangeisradicaïltotmdm theextent
l ofobligationstitobe perfomed under thtreaty.
I
2. A fundamentalchange of circumstancesmay not be
hvokd as a~~ forterniinatinor withdrawingfror ri
1 mty:
(a) ifthemty estabiisheaboundaq; or
i
(b) ifthefundamenta clhang estheresultofabreachby the
partyinvokingiteitherofanobligationunderthematy or of
anyotherintmnaîionaolbiigatiowed toany othepartytothe
treaty.
I 3. If,mder the foregoingpmagraphsa, partymayinvoke a
fundamental change of circumstances as a pmd for
tmrhting orwithdrawinhgm atreatyitmayais0invoke the
l
changeas agroundforsuspendhg theoperatioofa treaty."
,
43 FisheriesJurrrdiCase(Jurisdict{UK)vIceland)ICIRep 1p73 ap
I 18;(Fedd RqpublofGemny r Icehd) IRep1973p49atp 63.
I
l
I10,62. The Courthasken fuliypreparetoapplyAtricle62,orrather
itcsvstomarylawequi~alent,~inappropriateases.Itisme thainthe
Free Zones Case, theCourt rejectea Frenchargument basedupon
fundamendchangeofc~umstan~es.~~flu t didsoby referen tcthe
factsofthacase,fam whichwereverydiffemt hm thepresent.First,
Francereliedessentiailon a singlecircirmstanas the basisforits
rightoftermination:iz,thattheCantonof Geneva was in1815 a free
tradema, sothatthe free zoon theFrencs ideof thehrder hadthe
effect of matinga singleeconomicunit.4The Court deniedthatthe
absenceofcustomsduties atGeneva was thegroundfor thecreationof
theZones,and pointedoutalsothatther eereinfactcustomsdutiesat
Geneva atthethe, so thattheFrenchclah of afreemde zone asthe
bais foritsconcessiofaileinlirnit~e.~'
10.63. Secondly,theCourtstressethe importancef theConpss of
Viennaof 1815,in wlüchthemiginaistipulatiowascontaineil: mere
Merence indegree intheamount of GenevanorSwisscustoms duties
"wouid havebeenmuch toaprecaîoustoçonstitutthebasisofapartof
theEuropeansetdement afterthNapoleonicwarst'.a
10.64. Thitdy, theCourt point4 out thaRance had never,overa
periodof morethan60years, treatedtheexistenceofa Genevanke .
zone asessential,oeven relevanttothe maintenancoefits own £ree
traderegime.The Genevan systemof Jowcustoms hadbeenabolished
in1849, andyetsubsequentlFyranchad extendedisfreettade~one-~g
10.65. It shouldbenotedthatArticle435of theTteatyof Versailles
of 1919 expressldealtwith theproblm, providingtbat itshould6e
solvedbyagreemenr taîherthanmilateralaction.AccordingtoArticle
435, itwas "forFranceandSwitzerland to corneto an agreement
togetherwitha viewto settlinbetweentbernselvethe statuof these
texritories. rtic435 couldthusbe comed asexcludhgmilateral
acîion.
-
44 The Coiirasnothadtodeaiwitha casofmaty vdidity temiination in
circiaristwbm theViamaConventiowasdMy apiieabie.
45
PCrJSwAlB No44(1932).
46 plcuSerA/BNo46,pp156,158.
47 PCUSerA/BNo46,p156.
48 FCJJSer~No46,p 157.
49 PCUSezA/BNo46,p. lSI.10.66. In the case concerning Right of Passage over Indiun
Territ~ry,~Indiaarguedthatthetreatyrightsclaimed by Portugalhad
corne toanend asa resultofa fundamentalchangeof circumstances.
The Court rathea rtificialavoided dealing withthe point:' but
apped to conce.dthatIndiaauid relyonthe fundamentaclhangeof
circumstanceasrgumentforthefuture.Itsaidthatits decisionwou...
"leaveopen the arguments oflndia regardhg thesubsequent
lapseofthe rightofpassageandof thecomlative obligations.
Itis iconnectionwith whatmayhave to be decided,notasto
the past, but asIO the plesent and the future, thatthese
arguments may, if such questions arise,be taken into
consideratio".2
As commentators have pinted out, theCourt'judgmentleft open the
possibilitof reliace on fundamental change of circurnstancein a
situatiowhere Indiaitselfhadarguablyçaused,orat leassignificantfy
contributedto,thechange,dthoughincircumstances where the Court
heldhdia was notin bah of any internationlbligation.53
10.67. In theFisheriesJurisdicrion theCourt acceptedthata
changewhichwassuch asto "imperilheexistenceorvitaldevelopment
of one of 'the parties"would constitutea fundamentalchange of
circumstancefsorthepurposo efArticle62. Isaid:
"37,One ofthebasic requirementembdied inthatArticleis
thatthechangeof circumstancesmusthaveken afundamental
one. InthisrespecttheGovernment ofIcelandha, with regard
to developments in fishing techniquerefmd . . . to the
increasedexploitationof the fisheryresaurces inthe seas
sutroundhg Iceland and to the danger of still further
exploitatioWuse of an inmotse inthecatchingcapacityof
fishingfleets. TheIcelandistatementsrecalltheexceptional
51 As hident Klaestad0-4: idp 47. Two judgespBcificallyupheldthe
argument asednfundamentclhanoefcircumsîmcsudgeArmand-Ugonatp
87;andJudgMorenoQuintanatp93.
53 Se, e.gH,Th'Îlway',TLawandProdure ofthh~onai Couroflus&
1960-198.arFtd (199263BYIL1atp77.
54 FkhriesJurisdicriCases(Jurisdict(iUKv,Iceld) ICFRep 1973p 3;
(FederaRepubliofGemny vïcelan d)JRep1973p49. dependenceof thatcountryonits fishg for its existeand
economicdevelopment .
38.TheinvocationbyIcelandof its'hi inkmts',which were
notmade thesubjectofanexpressmervation totheacceptance
ofthe jruisdictionlbiigationunderthe 1961 Exchang ef
Notes,mustbe interpretein thecontextof theassertionof
changedçiacumstances,as an indicationby Icelandof the
reasonwhyitregardsas fundamenta tle changeswhich inits
viewhavetakenplacein previouslyexistingfishingtechniques.
Thisintqmtation wouidcorrespondtothetraditionview that
the changes of ~Xrcumstance shich must be regardai as
fundamentaolr vital athose whichimperiltheexistence or
vitaldevelopmentfone oftheparties."55
10.68. The essentid reason why the Court refuse tdo app1ythe
doctrinin thacasewas thattheobiigatioinquestionwas onerelating
topeacefdsetdementof disputesand thatheburclenandbenefitofthat
provisiowas unchanged:
"43.Moreover,in order tha tchange of ckumstances may
giveris eoa groundfurinvokingthetaminationof a maty it
. isalso necessa thytit shouidhave result ena radical
transformatioof the extent of the obligationsstito be
performed.Thechangemust have inmased theburdenof the
obligationto be executedto the extentof renderingthe
performancseomethingessentiallydiiferentfrumtorighdy
underlakenI. respecofttheobligatiowithwhichthe Courtis
hue concemed,thi conditioniswhoUyunsatisfied;hechange
of cimmstances allegedbyIceland cannotbe saidto have
trmsformed radicalltheextentofthejurisdictionobligation
which isimpsed inthe 1961 ExchangeofNotes. The
compromissorc lauseenabledeitherofthepartietosubmit to
theCourtany mute betweenthem relatintoanextension of
Iceland ficeries jurisdictiun inthe waters above its
conthentaisheifbeyondthe12-de limit. Thepresendtispute
isexactlyof the chter anticipatein the comprornissov
cIauseoftheExchang o fNotes.Notonly basthejirrisdictional
obligationot ben radicallytrmsfomed in itsextentit b
remakd preciselywhatitwas in1961 .56
55 ICiRep19739pp 18-1(UKvIcelaro)p63-64(FRGvIcelond).
56 ICIRep39ï3atp 2(UK vIcekzd),65(FRGv Icelad). JuFitPnaurîin
hisseparaopinisuggestedhatjraisdictioibligamightbeterminableThe obligationtosubmitdisputes to peacefs dettlement,fur example
underArticle36(1 or(2)of theStatuteoftheCourt,isno moreonemus
becausethe substantivlawmayhavechmged:theCorn's fwictionisto
applythatlaw,andindeedin theFisheriesJurisdictiCase (Merits],it
tookintoaccountIcelandicinteresin itmatment ofthelaw.57
10.69. Thus the Court Ieft open the possibility of reiiance on
fundamentai change of circumstances ifthe treatyhad not merely
providedforjudicialsedement of disputesbuthadpreventedIceland
hm relyhg onfuturechangesin theiawoffisheriesjuisdaçtionwhich
were toitbsenefitAs Thirlwayhascomrnented:
"If the Exchangeof Notes had prevented [Iceland]from
extendingthefisheryzone,therewould, it seems, avebeen a
case forbnvokingfundamenM changeof clrcumstancese,ven
thciughboth thechangesin thelaw of the sea andthose in
fisheryte~hniq~esmighthave been regardedasforeseeabre;
what theLoua rightlypokted outwas thatthemereobligation
tosubmitany&chextension offisheriejurisdictitojudicial
vehg was notthe sameas fmbiddingsuchextension."58
ItissubmittedthatthL istepetationof thedecisioniscorrect,andthat
--as theCourt itseif c0nfirmed~-a changein thelarwmayitselfbe a
circumstanceo, roneof the circumstances,iiowing aState toinvoke
fundamenta clhangeofcircumstance sntemimithg atreaty.
10.70. To summarise ,nparticular,he Court'jukpmdence, State
practiceanddoctrine supportthefoUowingconclusionswithregard to
thisnghtoftermhtion:
--
forfundamenchangofcrrcunistan"ithcharaetoftheInternatioiourt
itselfhadchangeùinthemeaeothaitwasnolongethe entitPartieshad
inmInd":bid,p 33 n1(UK v Zeelanp 77 111(FRG vIceIand). rather
aimilpositiowasrefend tobyJudgeSchwekl (disseritiin)theCase
concerniMilitcrand PurmiiitoryActivitinsmd againsNicaragua
(PreIUni~ObjectbnsICJRep 1984p 392atpp 520- 21as"a substantial
i3rgmm".
57 FisherJurisdictCmes (Merirs,UKv Iteland)ICIRe974p 3;{Federal
RepubEcfGmoiry vIcelanICIRep1974p 175.
58 HThirfway,e Lawand PrucedtmotheInternatioClornofJusti1960-
1989PartFou"(1992)6BYIL1arp 81. Itis notnecessarytoidentifone singlefactorasthe basisfora
(1)
fundamentac lhangeof chumstances. Such a change can be
cumulative,and resultfm theconcurrence of a numberof
factors,gnividedthatthecircumstancestaken as awhoIewere
essentiatotheagreemen to beboiind.60
ThePemanentCourtin theFreeZones Case usedlanguagewhich
suggestedthata particulamatteacouldonlybe a "circumstance"
forthi purposeifitwas "inviewof and becauseofthe existence
ofa particular statoef facts"tfiatthe treatywas origindly
con~luded.6B~utthisdoesnot meantha thecircumstancehas to
be themotiveorexpressed rationaiforthemty. Iis sufficient
thatthematterwas anessentiaiassumptioorbasisforconcluding
the treat--inthewordsof theVienna Convention,a'%ais ofthe
consentof thepartieto bebound". h determiningwheherthis
was so,the Courtcm haveregard to thetravauxof thewaty, to
the events smunding its concIusionand to the suhequent
conductof the parti~s.~he termsof the treatarerelevantbut
notdecisive.
A majormultilateralreatintendedtolaythefoundatim fm a
(3)
world orregionaiorderis relativeimpervioustoterminationon
&roundo sf frmciamentdchange of circurn~tan Bcyesontrast
thereisnosuch specidconstraint itrespecttomdhary bilateral
treaties.
(4) A changeinthe lawcan ccmstituteorcontributo afundamental
changeofcitcumstances.64
60 It ins wasessilthebasiaofthisumuIatichangefcimmstancesthaa
UnitedNationsSecretariaSconcludedthtbeinlw-warminorities&es
hadterrnina:eeUN DOCWCN.4B67 (1950JB KelIy"Nationlinorîtins
lnîmationaLaw"(1973)3DenverJ ofInL d Policy 253 atp 26ïhis
anclusiowasgenaaflyaccepte&
62 IntheFreeZonesCmethePemianentCourtreferrwh of theselanen-s
theh.avau(ap l56)smmduig dmmsmces, suchasthestaofGwievan
ciistodutiein1815(ibiandsubsequutonduct(Frencmductafte1#9
(atp 157).
63 FreeZonesCme,abovepara10.63.
64 FishcriesJwisdiCm.m above,ara10.69.(5) The stateof mind or lmowledge of theparliescm be a
circwnsrancefor thipurpose,asmuch as a statof "objective"
faetF.orexample iftwo Stateagreedtobuildadamon thebasis
thatitwas s& todo so,anda seismicfaultwas subsequently
discovered which made it unsafe, this could comtitute a
fundamentaichangeof cjrcumpances. Butin thatcase,no fact
(extemalttthe statofmindof theparties)wouidhavechanged,
merely thpartieslaiowledgeorunderstandingfthfacts.65
(6) By thesametoken theexistenceof adegree ofrisk canbe a
circurnstanceorth purpose A.s farasthesafetyof adamis
concerned,a seismicfault is a risw,hkh rnay orrnay not
materiaIisduring the lifetimof the dam. Ta take another
example,if thpartiesagreetoacertainlevelof exploitatofa
resourçeinthebeliefthathatlevelofexploitatiis sustainable,
butsubsequentlydiscoverthattheagrsedlevelrisksendangerhg
the suMval of the murce, a fundamentalchange of
ciraunstancemayhave occiirred.
(7) Thm isa comIation ktween the degree ofrisk and the
magnitude ofputentidhm. A substantiailncreinethe risaf
a slightmount ofham rnaynot be sufncienttoquafifvq a
fundamentaclhange. By contrat aperceptibuicreaseinriskof
greatdamage rnaywellbefundamental.
(8) A Staternayinvoke fundamentaclhangeof çircmstanceseven
though itsown wnduct has contributedto or even causedthe
charge inchmstances, prorided thathatconductwasnot itseif
unlawful vis-à-visanothpartyto the treaand thatit wasnot
the cause(i he senseoftheessentiaorsubstantidcause )fthe
change incircumstances.66
(9) A Staternayinvoke a changeofckumstances, notwithstanding
thasome change ofthatkindmay havebeen foreseeat thethe
65 On thedatiomhip betwedifferent.grof terminaof treatseedso
abovepara1050.
66 RightofPassoCae, hve,para10.66CfIMSinclair,TheVieConvention
on theL4W of Treat(ManchestUP, Mancheste, V3)p lm. On the
requiremetf"camefurthii pursesbelopara10.80. ofconclusionoftheûeaty,ifthemagnitudeof thechangewas not
foreseenandisfundamenta intherelevansense.67
(10) The quirenient in Articl62 thatthe changemust "radicaly..
transfomi thextentof obligationssttobeperformed underthe
treatyt'efertoradicachange inthestricsenseofchangewhich
goes totherootorbasisofthetreaty.Thereferenceto "extenis
not merely quantitative;itinc1ude.stransfomationsin the
consequenceswhichfollowhm performanceI.nthewordsof the
CourtIn theFisheriesJrrrisdicticasesthechange"must have
increasedtheburdenoftheobligationto bexecutedtotheextent
of renderintheperformancesomethingessentiaiiydifferehm
that originallundertaken."8Providedthat the change does
indeeddothis,andmeets theotherrequkments ofArticle62or,
as inthe presen case,of generalinternationallathereisno
requiremen hatthechangeshould haveben extraordinaroyrofa
singularcharacterBy the same token,afundamentalchange in
the "budm of theobligationstimay be sufficient:it isnot
necessarythatthephysicd characteroftheobligation(ive.the
actudstep tubeperfmed) shouldhavechanged.hdeed thiWsU
rmly bethe case.
(11) For thereasonsgivenby the Courin theFiskeriesJurbdiction
Cases, andrefend toin theHungarian Declarationthe words
"transfom heextentoftheobligat iiltobe perfmed" in Art
62(l)( shouldbeinteqmted to inciudetransformationsnthe
burden orimpactofthe actstobepdomied. So inmpreted,Art
62(l)(b) comsponds to gend internationaaw. Ifit were
interpretesoas tolimitthedoctrineto casewherethe requited
conductitself hachangeci,twould notreflecttheintemational
iaw requirement.
(12) Although theCourt in theFiskries SurisdictioCasesdld not
need to statcomprehensivelywbt amountedto a fundamental
change,itdidreferwithapparenatpprovaio "thetraditionview
thatthe changesof cirçumstanceswhich must be regard4 as
fundamenta lrvitalarethosewhichimperilthe existenceovital
67 H ThirIwa,Th Lawand Proced uftbeIndonai CourofJustic1960-
1989Pm Four"(1992)6BYiL1app80 -81.
68 IU Rep1973atp 21(UKvIceland),p (FRGvIcelariseealsobovepara
10.68. development of oneof thpartie~".~gompared withthe o'fand
discredite"vitalinterestdoctrine,thefundamentac l hangof
circumstancesde requires an objective detemiinationof the
conditionfor its invocation. As the travauArticle62 make
c1ear:OitisfortheCoint to detemiinewhetheïthoseconditions
have beenmet. Nonetheless theruleexiststo allow Statesto
adjusttheitreatyrelationincaseswhere,-out essentialfault
ontfieirpart,whatthey have becorneobligedtoda in the new
circumstancesis ''somethingessentially differenfrom that
originallundertaken".
(2) Tm RELEVANC OFETHE CONDUC OTFTHE PARTES
."
10.71. Indeterminingwhether a Stateina givencase isentitleto
terminata bSlaterteatyforfundamentalchangeofcircumstances ,tis
relevantoconsidertheresponseoftheotherpartytothesituation.This
isespeciallthecaseinrelationto theexploitatiof naturaresources
extendhg beyondthe boudaries of asingleState.7"~ example,ifa
Statepatbyto a Waty agree sconsiderlegihate concemsraisedby
theoffiepartyastosomechange in thecircumstancesfperformancei,t
maybepossible to adjustthetrearelationinsuchaway astoavoidor
limithe incidencof new andonmus obligations. Inthelightof such
adjustmentsit mayno longer6e the casethattheextentof obligation
sti uobepafmed isdcally transformed . bepositiowiUbe quite
diffmnt ifa Statpartyrefbsesto considermodificationormensures
which m&t theconcm tha tasben Isused. fortionithe otherState,
farhm seebg todealwith theconcem,itselftakesmeasms which
aredestructiveof cooperation,r areeven prematureorunjustified
countermasms. Although theWiple ofgood faitisnot asubstimte
forthe niles otreatylaw,it isrelevanto assestshecmduct of the
partieintheIightofth&principie.
69 ICIRq,1973ap 19(UKvZeeland,64(FRGvleeland).
70 SeeSuH Wdhk, SecondRepororithLawofTreatieUNDoc AICN.4f156&
Add 1-3(1963)paraReporoftheCommLssionothGeneruAssembl1963,
IL€Ybk 196volII
71 As JudgeJfsup poinouinhissepamtopinionithNonh Jeu Confinenrai
ShelCaseIC-Rep1969p6 atp83,"thprinciof immtional coopedon in
theexploitatofa mîmd moume iJ weiestablishinother jatemational
pcîicierefmintothHelsinki ules. (3) FUNDAMENT AHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCE SNTEE
PRESENT CASE
10.72. Tuniingtotfiaeplicatiooftheseconsideratiosnthe present
case,ir is subrraithatHungary wasjusWml, in1992, ininvoking
changeof circmstancesasa groundforterniinatithe 1977Treaty.It
isnecessarytoconside(a) thextentandonerousnessofthesubstantive
changesthatoccurred(,b)whetherthey werethe resultofa breachof
obligationon the part of Hungaq, and (c)whetherany specid
proceduralrequirernenspplied.
!'a) Substantiveeiements
10.73. T'h'expressedpurposesofthe 1977Treatywere analysec in
Chapter 4. To recapitdatethe 1977 Treaty was desiped asand
expressedtobe:
(1) a vehicle for "socialist integration"through COMECON
(prÊambula râragraph2);
(2) "a single andindivisiblopedonal system",combiningbuth
upstream anddomtream elementsin a systernofpeak power
production(Articlel(1));
(3) "ajointinvestment",-e., onewhichwaseconomicaliybeneficid
(Articlel(1)&O preambulapraragmph1);
(4) a hmework maty, requhingrevision inthe iight of "research,
exploratioandplanningoperatiom"(Mcle 5(3) 4)); (5)and
10.74. By contrastby early 1992 (QO years aftethe idea ofthe
BarrageSystem wasconceived)thepositiowas asfollows:
(1) Theideaof "suciaiktintegratiohadvanished, andCOMECON
itself had been dissolvedThe SovietUnion,havingfded to
makeavailablethe equipment promisedinçmection with the
72 SeeProtwldissolvjCOMECON (CMEA ,6rSessionofCorncil),Budapest,
28June1991). Praject on th"soft-loanterms applicablewithinCOMECON?3
eventuallymovedinanother direction.Forexample it changedto
world marketpricing for itsoil in 1990. Both Hungaryand
Czechoslovakiaweïe moving to free-markeeconomies,subject &O
the ful plressureof international energy markets, The Project
itselfhadbecornenot a force forintègrationbutthe singlemost
seriousource ofconfiictbetweentheTreatyParties.
(2) The "singleand indivisibloperationalsystem" had dissolved,
withthe barrage atNagymarossuspended as aresultof senous
(and unreb~tted~~ )oncems abut environmenial impact, the
barrageat Gabcikovo being constructedasa unilaterd scheme
uncontemplatecbiyandoutsidethescope of the1977 Treaty,and
al1thoughtofpeak-pawer productiongone.
The "jointinvestment" had tumed out,in the words of Prime
MinisterNémeth to be a "giganticinvestment fia~co".~sn the
periodshce the 1977Treaty (afortios rii,cteeactualdesign of
the Project)therehad been a substantiadeteriorationin the
econornictemis ofthe project. New technologies(e.g. for gas
turbinepower generation) were availablewhich could produce
pwer at considerablylower ~ost.~~Both coumes were in a
period of econornictransitionand were suffe~g economic
hârdships.Momver the basisforanyeconomic cdculationwas
changingby reason of the emergence of tln partiesgradualJy
dhg the yearsbefor1 e989 ,hen suddeniyi,ntoa free market
system. In that system, thecostof inputs would have to be
calculatedandpaidfox,to alargeextentin hardcurren~ie Tshe~~
73 ~eeabovepara3.39.
74 Seeabovepara9.25.
75 hm fromHungariafime MinisteM Nkneth fo Czechosloçime Minister
M Calfa,6Mach 1990Annexes,ol4,gnnex35.
76 AsHungarynotedUiitA.oposalastothejoinresoIutof questionsof energ
resultingfrtheabandonmenoftheGabcikovoNagymaros yhlectric Plant
SystemB, udape22April1991Annexesvol4,annex50.
77 Theprogms of thitransfomiarinanbeseenina seeioft~atieconcludeci
betweenHungq andCzechslovakl,sfollows:
* AgreemenonApplicatioofStampDutyse1atto mesofExchangeof
NationaCwencies forNon-CommerciaPlaymentof28 Decembr 1974
(amende byMer Agreemen tf16May 1985); distortionof acentrdly-pIannedeçonomy, conducted withinthe
framework of anartifiçi iastilledandrnaintainedtradingbloc
within Eastern Europe, would have no place. All of the
assumptions--scientific,ecooornienvironmental,politica--on
which the1977 Treatywas basedwere in questionThis ishardly
surprishgsincetheassumptiono sfa wholeeconomicandpolitical
systemweredirectlyand fundamentaUe yhalknged.
(4) Theframework tnaty,reqwisingrevisioninthe lightof "resemh,
explorationand planningoperations" had become, according to
CzechosIovakia ,nunmutable nom.78
The treatyconsistenwith environmentap lrotectiohad become,
(5)
accordingtoHungary , prescriptiofor environmentaldisaste,n
thatitrequiredHungaryto m unacceptable rlskswiththe actual
drinkingwatersupplyof itsmajorcityandwithitsmajordnnlYng
water =serve, and to accept the environmentaldegradation,
amounting todestruction,fa majorwetland arei1.~9
10.75. In pdcular the NagymarosBarragewas essential to the
OnginaiProject,whach was,asdemonstrate d Chapter 4,conceivecias
"a sulgleandindivisibleoperationaslystemof ~orks".~~In concept,in
option andin tems of any possibilityofaneconomic mturnhm this
'?ointinvestment"the Nagymaros Barragewas a keyelement.Without
h peak power productionwould not be possible, and a principal
economicadvantageofthe OrigiridRoject would disappear, The
seriousandsustalneddoubts as tothe environmentaa lnd other nsks
associatedwith theNagymaros Barrage castintodoubt the viabilityof
* AgreementontheAmendmentaf the CoefftcioftheConversionof
Non-CommerciaPlaymeninm Commercial ouble16May1985;
* Protoc01on theSetSlemenof MirtuaCIb and Obligationsin
Gonnectiowitb the Switch-otorSettlementsinFme Currencby 1
Januar1991,Budapest,1Decembe1990
* AgreementnMutua lradeandPayments,udapsr ,December1990.
Fmaily,îhechang ean bedattherefoto1Janw 1991dthoughme
ofIteffecwouldhavemurred afterthatdate,
78 ForthepersistentCzeehoslorefusto cauntenanany revisiontothe 1977
Treatyafter19seeabovepatas3.7-3.186.
80 19nTreaty,rt 1seeabove, ara4.1..theSystemas a whole. Havingregardto thetems ofthe Preambleand
ArticI1 ofthe1977 Treatyiwas inevitablthattheyshoulddoso.
10.76. Thegrosu snderestimationf theenvironmentaelffects othe
dam system,the insufficiencyof environmentalimpactassessments,
faultyknawledgeofcertainfiindamentadata,themassivedeterioration
inthe economicviabilityoftheprojec-- dlthesecircumstanceswere
accompmied bychanges in internationalenvkonmentIaw,and equdy
importantly ninternationelnvironmentawareness. Theseçhanges!l
increasedtheonus on a responsiblegovanment toconsiderthe long-
term implicatioof itsactionintems of thesafetyof thepopulation,
thesecuritofvitalwaterresourcesandthelong-ternviabilitandcost-
effectivenessofits energypolicAs a developingdemocracy,seeking
toçomplywithinternationastandardsofaccountabiitin thisrespect,g*
theRepublicof Hungaryhadnochoicebut to wonsider the Praject,
especiallinitsscientific,environmentindenergy-relataspects.At
some stage s n the subsequen egotiations, theswas a similar
~spomiveness on the Czechoslovakside, butovd thetoneof the
reply made by Rime -ter Adamec on 31 Aupst 1989 was
rnai~~tained,*devenWy anunprecedente dnd desmctiveunilateral
diversionothe Danube wasembarked on.
10.77. ?'hiwsasthe triggeforthe Hungarianactiontermiaatingthe
Treaty,inthesenst eha t wasthe essentiaireasonwhyHungar~t rook
that çterathethan continuhgto negotiatwithCzechoslovakia onan
agreedteminationormodificationof theTreaty. As PrimeEclinister
Antail'letteof 19Decemk 199184makescfear,it was therepeated
refusaiof Czechoslovakrao suspendwork on VariantC thatwaç the
higp for Hungarianactioa Buthavingdecided to actHungarywas
entitleto invokeallpunds for terminationof the1977 Tmty then
82 AJAected inAr21 ofthUniversi eclararof HumaRigfiandArt 2of
theIntematiolovenant CivilanPolitiRightsof 196Chchoslovakla
absraininthevotontheUnivenalDedatati(INDoc Ai811,1Wcember
3948);Hiaigwas nothea Mm& ofthUN. Hungar ytikdtheavenant
on17Januar1974;Czechoslovdaidiaon23 Decembe1975.Freeleçtions
complyinwitArt25oftheCavenawerethm&er helinHungaqforthefirst
th in Wh 1990,iCzechosbvakforthefirtte inJun1990.Seepara
3.109.
83 Seeabovep,r9.24.
84 Se ah, para934. availablto iunder internationlaw. Prominentamongstthese was
fundamentaclhangeofcircwnstancesi,nrelattonthechangesdetaiied
inparagraphs10.74.-10 abo6v.. Takenhàividualland collective~y
thesechanges wm of fundamentalsignificancthey had not been
foreseenby the partiestheyconstitutedanessentialbas& of their
consentto bebound andthey fundamentalt yffectethe burden of
continuepformance in therelevansense.85
(b) Thechange ofcircumstanceswas not theresulof abreachof
internationalobligationsbHungary
10.78.Article 62C2)provides that a fundamental change of
circumstaiics aynotbeinvokedasa gmundforterminatingamaty ...
"(a) ithetreatestabhshesaboundaq;or
(b) ithefundamentac ihangeis theresultoabreachby the
partyinvokuigiteithk ofan obligahonunderthematy orof
any otherinternationlbligationoweto anyotheparty to the
Wty. "
10.79.For thereasonsexplainaiinparagraph4.39 above,the 1977
, Treatywasnota treatwhichestablisheaboundary.
10.80. Article6212)fb)imposethe sarneconditionwith respecto
fundamentaclhangeof circumstrtnassMcle 61(2) doeswithrespect
toUnpossibiliof performanceandfor thesame reason--that pq
shouidnot beentitied treIyon itsown mn@ act. As the ZLC
Commentary Statesthisis "simplyan applicationof the general
principleoflawthaa partcannot takeadvantagof itowrrwroq("'86
By contrasnosuch conditioisimposed onteminationfor breach. A
partymayterminatea maty formaterialbreachunderArticle6û even
thoughit iitselfinbreach?'hesameinterpretatishouidbe givento
buth Articl61(2) and Article62(2)&). For the wons givenin
paragraph10.5above,Article62(2)(b)oniappüeswhereit Ganbesaid
that thsole or substantcauseof thechangeofcircmstances isthe
mngfui actoftheSîateinvokixthatchange.
10.81. The cumulativeeffect othe five circumstancoutlinedin
parapphs 10.74-10.76above was notthe faultof anyState,even if
86 SeeILCYbk1%m, p 260par(12)citingtheChorzbwFaCasePCLlSwA
N09(1927)atp31. individualelementsrnight haveben. The changes inthe politicaand
econorniclife otheregion werenotthe resulof anyone's"fault",utof
long-tem societd developments. Changedattitudes to environmental
management resdted bothfrom an increased scientifie understanding
and a preparedness to lem the lessonsof earlier "experimentswith
nature"thathad caused,and threatenedto cause,seriousenvironmental
hm. This was particularlthecase in EasternEurope,withwhat Dr
- Vavrousek has descxibed as its "appalIingtoll of environmenta3
destnrctionand the cruel arrogance of huge dams and inappropriate
industrial roject.87
10.82. Thus in the presentcase, thecombination of circumstances
referredto inparagmphs10.74-10. was not eitherindividuallyor
coUectivelythe resultof a breachof the internationaol bligation.of
Hungary to Czechoslovakia.
(~3 Proceduralelements
10.83. Tt is sometimes suggested that fundamentalchange of
circumstancesisnot assuch a groundfor thetermination oftreatiebut
merely aground thata Statemayinvokefor the revisionofn treatyby
consensualmeans. At an earlier stage of the development of
internationalaw,the gened problern of revisionoftreatieswasmuch
debated,88and thelaw ofmatytedation was alsostiluncertainand
un~ettled.~~ n the con- the present positionis ciear. Both the
j~mdencegO and the docmine91 supportthe view thatfundamental
87 J Vamusek, "Institutfor EnvironmentSecraity" in G Ains (Threcrrs
wirkourEnemie(EarthscPaublications,Lon1993)87-108atp 88. Foran
illusiratiof ehangingmitudes seccg. SV Vinogradov,"Intemational
EnvironmentaiectaitTheConoeptandIts Implementation A Caq & G
Danilenko(edsPerestroikaanInternatioLar Winburgh UP, Edinburgh,
1990)196.
88 Cfkague ofNationCovenantArt19.
89 HencethereticwiceoftPermanentornon thquestiointhFreeZonesGare:
abovepara10.6.
90 FisheriesSirrisdiCasesICJ Rep 1973p 18(UK v Icelmd)p 63 (FRG v
Iceland("pund foinvokintheteminatioorsuspensiofthemty").
91 Eg.G Haraszti',TreatandFmdamentaC i hangofCircmstances(1975m
146Rereuildescours1 pt86FA Tdth"Thehctrineof RebusSicStantibusin
InremationaILaw"(1974)JurIdicaIRe147app 168-9,265,27H;Thir1ay,change of circumstancesis one of the specific grounds of treaty
termination,subjecttothesame extentasthe othergrounds taprocedural
requirementssuch asnotification,ut not subjectto any specid regime
ofitsown. Inother words,itisnot rnerelyabasisforseekingrevisionof
a treatyfrom theotherparty. The reasonis quiteclear. The partiesto a
treatymayxeviseor amend ita& any tirneand foranyrea~on.~I ~f the
hm been a fundamenta lhange of circumstances ,partywhich has not
throughits own wrongful conduct caused those changes hasthe rightto
teminate orwithdraw from the maty, subject tocornpliance with due
procedures,andthatnght ccanno te negatedby therefusalof thecither
partyto countenance anychange.
10.84.This is the positionconfmed by the Vienna Convention,
whichtreatsfundamentac lhangeof circurnstancesinthe same way as dl
other gxomds ofntemiinationF3and which establishes cornmon
proceduresfor dl of them inMcIes 65-68. The question of the
appropriat erocedure sortemûnation isdiscussed below,in the context
of aUof thegroundsreW onbyHmgary.94
10.85. Forthesereasons,fiungay was entitleto invokefundamenrd
changeofcircumstance ssa groundfortemiinating the 1977 Treaty.
'TheLaw andProcedureof the InternatiCourtofJustic 1960-1989.Part
Four"(1992)63BYIL 1atp90.
92 CfVi'iena onventio,rt39,54. The Conventonlydealswiththmodalities
of revisioforrnultilatemes (Art40, 411, sinonly theypresenatny
difficulties.
93 Thevarious verbd fornularii onnsheVienna Conventionofgromds for
temiinationowithdrawaby a partyarto the sameeffecth:uArt 56 ("not
subjeetto denunciaionorwithdmwaluns.")Art60("entitlth0th- [party]
to invoketbreachasapund fortminatingthmaty");Art61("rnayinvke...
as a grounfoterminati...it.m";rt62 ('hmnotbeinvokedasa groun dor
tmminating.unle s.)Art63 ("doesnoaffect...exciso faras...O"nlyin
two casedoesdaaty teminate by operatof lawArt59("shallbecansidered
asterminateif...");64("becor voisandteminates").
94 See belowparas10.10-10.106. SECTION D: BREACH OF THETREAT'ES OF1976 AND1977,
INPARTICULAR THROUGH TBE CONSTRUCTION OF
VARIANT C
10.86. In addition, Hiingay relied on material breach by
Czechoslovakiinits Declarationof16May 1942as a bais for the
termination othe 1977 Treaty.This breachtook severadifferent
foms: breach of the environmentalobligationunder the Joint
Contractuallanof1976and thTreatyof 1977andin pattidar breach
of the 1977Treatythtougtheconstniçtionandimplementatiof the
so-cded "provisionslolutio,thenivlhown asVariantCmg5
10.87. Article60of the ViennaConventiodeds with the righto
termiriataire* onaccountof its breaby anotherStateparty. Xt
reads,irelevanpartasfoliows:
A materialbreachof a biiatertreatyby one of the
1.
partiesentitlesthe otoeinvokethebreachas a&roundfor
temiinatithetreator suspendhgits operatiownholeorin
par...
3. A materialbreach aa treatyforthepurposesof this
article,çonsiin:
a repudiatiof thetreatnotsanction&bythepresent
(a)
Convention;r
(3) the violation of a provision essentiato the
accomplishmenotftheobjecorpqose ofthetreaty.
The CourtstaîeUitheNamibiaOpinion thatthesdes "mayin many
respectbecwsidered asacoaificatiof existingçustomarylawonthe
subject".36
10.88. InChapter6 it hasbeen show thaCzechoslovakiawns and
remainedinbreachoftheobligati onrslatitowaterqualityandthe
protection otheenvironmentarjsingundeArticle15 and 19 of the
Treaty.9Thi sreachwasofan"anticipat kindy"ttookthefonn ofa
fdm to adjusthe plansfothe constructiof theBarrageSystem,
espcialIyinrelatiototheupstrea sectorso astoensurethat waterqualitywouldnotbe impaireciandththeenvironmen t"nature"would
k protected. As anticipatorybreaches thewere of a continuhg
chmcter: theywouldhavecontinued (udessremedied o the poinof
implementationof thBarrage System. Althoughtheprotectionof the
environment was not the main purpose of the originalMess,
nonethelesprovisionwere inserteinthe1977 Treatytoprotecwater
quaMyand to ensiirnaturepreservation.The provisionsotheJoint
ContractuaPlan mayhave ken hadequatein this regarbutthePlan
was intendedonlytobe the"means"of theMiment of theobligations
speltoutinArticles15 and 19.Thosearticlesmut betaken tohave
meant whatthey saidinwhich casetheir violatimoot bedisrnissed
as somethhg which was not "essentiao theaccomplishmeno tf the
objectorpurposeofthetreatyfl;
10.89. As demons~atedinChapter7,the decision to plan and
constmctVariantC wasitselaserioushch ofthe 1977Treaty,aclear
exampie ofthe"repudiationf thetreatrefmd toinArticle60(3)(a)
oftheVienna Conventi~n.~~
10.90.AccordingIy Hungq had therightoinvoke thesbreachesas
groundsfor terminationof theTreaty, once itbecme cIear that
Czechoslovakiawouldneithersuspendtheconstructiof VarianC nor
amend the 1977 Treaty so as to institutadequateenvironmentai
safepards.
SECTION E: CONELICT WrSH SUBSEQUENT OBLIGATIONS
ER GENERAI, INTERNATIONAL LAW
10.91. The sixtpund onwhicbiHungaryreiiedinitsDeclaratiof
16 May 1992 asa basisfortheterminatioofthe 1977Treatywas that
subsequentlyimposedrequirenrentofinternationalaY in relatito
protectiooftheenvironmenptrecludedpedomance oftheTreat~.~
10.92. As alreadyno&, thiis relevatotothergrosmdslistsabove.
Inparticdm thedevelopmentsin internationlnvironmentaIaw were
an importantpart ofthe backpund tothe furidamentachange of
circumstancethatoccd pior to1992.
98 Seeabve,pm7.04-7.43.
99 Seeabovepara10.03.
Seeabovepar10.64.10.93. But the problemof subsequentobligations under generd
internationallawwasalsoreliedonbyHungary asa separategound for
temination. In paxticularreference was made to the maxim lex
posterior derogat Iegipriori, Eex specialis derogatlegi generali
(Declarationof 16 May 1992, PartIII para 6) and to anumber of
importantinstrumentsincludintheStockholm Declarationof1972.
10.94. As hasbeen demonstratecin Chapter6,101the positionunder
genmdinternationa llw,as ihaddeveloped since 1977,wasas fdows.
The obligation enunciatein Stockholm Pnnciple SI not to cause
substantialdamageto thetemtoq of anotiieStateor to areabseyond
nation w isdiction, hauvertime becornea mle ofinternationalaw.
But Statehad corneto acceptthattheprimaryconsideratiowas bat of
prevention of substantialhm. Issuesof liability for hm already
caused couid&se, but the centralconcernwas to preventforeseable
hm hhg. hover, inthe contextofresourcesof sigmlicanceto
thepeopleof a regionextendingbeyond asingleState,thesobligations
wereobligationserga omnes. h extreme cases,theInternational aw
Commission hadrecognised thatthey couidamount toaninternational
crime.102
1095. Even assuming that the parties codd by treaty exclude
performance of general internationallaw obligations subsequently
arising-- which,sinctheywere ergaomnes obligations, bynomeans
clear --the 1977 Treaty rnanifestedno intentionto do so. The
obligationsinArticl e5sand 19codd be intqreted in away which
was consistentwith the developments in general internationaIaw
referxedtoinparagaph 10.94. Havingregardto theerga omnes status
ofthoseobligations,twas rightointerprettem inthatway.
10.96, If Czechoslovakiawas obiigedundergeneralintemationallaw
not tucmy outactivitieon itsteaitory thawould cause seriousor
substantialm toHungary, thenHungary was entitleto takeactioto
remove any pretextforsuchconduct. Hwgary's terminationwas forced
by the otherparty'refusalto suspendworkonVariant C. Hungary's
1O1 Se above,par6.57-6.67.
102 SeeLC bft ArticlonStatResponsibil, art2,A19(3)(dandsefurber
G Amgiv-RuizFifiReportonStorResponsibi(UNyDocNCN.4145 &3Add
1-3,1993).conduct was anecessaq andproportionateresponse tothis refusalas
hasalreadyken demomtrated.103
SECTIONF: THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BYHUNGARY ïN
TERMXNATING THE 1977 TREATY
10.97. Fmally, it is necessarto considerwhether procedurallythe
appropriatestepstareIy on thevanous groimdsfor temination ofa
treatyhave beentaken. A maty thathas ben breached,or which is
subjectto impossibilîtofperformance or tofundamental changesof
circumstancesdoesnot terminateautornaticaUorby operationof law.
It is necessq for a State partyto invoke the relevantgïound of
temation, asHungâry didby itsDedarationof16May1992.
10.98.Articles 65-67 oftheViennaConvention laydom a procedure
to be foilowedininvoking a ground fortemination. Althoughthese
provisionsarenotdeclaratorof generalinternationlaw,they provide
a guidetothereqriirementsofduefonnand good faithintheconductof
treaty relations.Also relevaistheeonductof theother Statewhen
confrontedwith legitimateconcernas tochange thathave den with
respecttoatreatgr.
10.99.Articles 65-67 require thState concmed (1) to no* the
otherpartyof itdaim andof its intentito terminateorsuspend the
treaty(2) exceptincases ofspecid urgency,not toproceed to doso
before the months have elapsed;(3)incasethe otherpartyobjectsto
terminationtoseektoresolvethedisputethroughthemeansindicated in
Article33of theUnitedNationsCharter ;4)tonotm the otherStateof
the teminationby a dtten instrument signedby theHeadof State,
Headof Govefnment,hiXinisteroForeignAffairsor someother person
dulyauthorisedtodoso.
10.100. In lat1991 and early1992,Hungaq gave a serieof warnings
thatunless workon VariantC was suspendedit would be forced to
considerteminationof the 1977Treaty. Itdidso, forexample,in the
letterofPrime MinisterAndl on 19 December 1991.lm As Prime
MinisteïAna made clear,the casewas oneof urgency. Work was
proceedhg incessan onlVariantC,andCzechoslovakia claimedthatit
had a rreatyrighto consmct thediversion--a rightwhich Hungary
103 Seeaboveparas9.1-9.42.
104 fromHungwianAmieMifisterAnraltCzechoslovaPnmeMinisteM
Calfa19December1991Annexesvo4,mex 70;seeabovepar9.34.vigorously disputed.Under thesecircumstances andgiventhat the
disagreementktween thepartieswerewell-hown,threemonthsnotice
was notrequirebyinternationaaw. ButHungary waç reluetantotake
thifsnalstepand morethan5 rnonthselapsed&forethedeliverof the
Declaration of 16May 1992s,ignedby the PximeMinisterandduly
communicated throughthediplornatchanneto theotherParty,
10.101. Hungary hadshownitselfatal1timeswillintonegotiateboth
onmodificationstotheTreatytomeetits environmentaloncernsasto
theupstream sectorandover compensationbyway of an account for
warkdone which wouldbe wasted-lmIt offerboth beforeandafter16
May1992, tofer thedisputetothirpartysettlemenincludingbefore
thiCourt. Ithadnegotiatedingoodfaith,andwouldhave continueto
negotiatonthe buis ofthe1977 Treat ifworkon VariantC hadbeen
suspended.
10.102. Under thescirmmstancesH, ungarynotmerelycomplied with
therequirementsof goodfaithundergeneralintmationallaw in the
contextoftreatterminaticiIalsocornpliewiiththmorespecificand
moreonmus requitementsof theViennaConvention.
SECTIONG: RJ3PUDIATXO ONFTHE TREATYTHROUGE
THE IMPLEMFNTATION AND OPERATION OF VARIANTC
10.103. It waspointedoutinparagrap10.89abovethatthedecisionto
planand constnicVâriantC was asenousbreach ofthe1977 Treatya
clearexampleof the "repudiatioofthe t-" refemd to inArticle
6û(3)(aof theViennaConvention. Afotlio -riftheTreatyof1977
had thenbeen inforce - theimplementationofVariantC in October
1992 wodd havebeena mostseriousbreachoftheTreaty,espeçially of
Article19. The damage done to thenvironmentof theSUgetkozby
VariantC was outlinein Chapter andis documentaiin the Annexes
and Appendices.O7
10.104. Thuseven on thehypothesisthatthe 1977 Treatysurvived
terminatioby Hmgaryon 19 May 1992,theimplementatioonfVariant
C amounted to repudiatiobyCzechoslovaki oaftheTreaty--asclear
105 Seeabovepara.126.
f07 Se%aboveparas.10-5.137. Se dso Appind1,2and3andAnnexes,vol
5,variousannexes.a xepudiatioasone couldimagine. Ttmay weillx that the decision
actudly to cany outthe finalphase of the diversion was made
udatterallybySlovakofficialsanswerabltothe SlavakRepublic,by
thenactiveipreparingforitsformalindependen~e.~~utasexpIained
in Chapter8, internationaiesponsibilityfthe actsof theSIovak
Republicwas stilvestedinthe Czechand SlovakFederalRepublic,
which didnotceasetoexistuntitheend ofthe yeaandwhichretained
thruughoutits monoply overtheconductof foreia ffairs. Thusthe
diversionwhich commencedon23 Octok 1992 was imputableto
Czechoslovakiaa,ndamountedtoackar repudiatioofthe 1977Treaty,
which thaStatestillçlaimto beinforce.
10.105 I.fa Statehas once teminate. a treatyand continuesto
maintainthatthetreatismt inforce,itinot requirebyinternational
lawtu continuetoproducenotic estermination whecohnted with
subsequenthaches or repudiationsof thetreatyby theotherparty.
Fmm itspointof view therecm be no point in therepetition of
completedformulas.Itcm simplyregardthe conductoftheotherparty
asconfitmatoryof itsview thatthe treatis at anend, leaving the
assessrnentof thaconduct tothe niles of gened intemationallaw
which,ofcourse,continutogevemthe relationsbetweetheparties,
10.106 .husHungary is entitltomat theimplementatio nfVariant
C inOctober 1992as confirminitsview thatthe 197Treatyhadbeen
temhated, atthelatesby thatdate.
SECTION H: TERMINATIO NF THETRIEATY THROUGH
THE DISAFPEXWNCE OFONEOF THE PARTIES
10.107, Even if- contrarytotheargumentspresentedInthisChapter
--the 1977Treatymnained inforcedespite~gary's terminationofit
and theundatexalmplementatimofVariantÇ,itceasedt6bein forceas
aWaty onthedisappemanceof Czechoslovakiao3 EDecem-fie1992.
10.108A . biateraltreatycannotsurvivethedisappearancef one of
the partiestu it, unlanotherStatesucceedstothatpartyeitherby
operationof the Iaw of Statesuccessionor by express agreement
between thatStatand theswiving party. Asisrecordedinpara6.05
above,theCzechRepublic tia xpresslydeciinetabecorne apartyby
108 See&ove,pat3.186.successionto the 1977 Txea~y.~~A~lthoughthe Slovak Repubhc has
sough~Hungkan agreementto itssuccessionto the1977 Treaq, no
such agreementhas been givenH0 Noris any such agreement given in
the SpeciaIA,greementbetweenHungary and the Slovak Republic. As
pointed outinparas 6.01- 6.M above, the preambIe tu the Specid
Agreement referstothe SlovakRepublic as "oneof the two suceessor
Statesofthe CzechandSlovakFedemiRepublicand thesolesuccessor
State inrespectof rights andobligations relatinpto the Gabcikovo-
NagymarosProject". This didnotamount tuanagreementby Hungary -
even acontingentagreement-thattheSlovakRepublic hadsucceededtu
the 1977Treaty. Hungary'psositionwithrespectothe1977 Tseatywas
well-hown: thatTreatyhad beentenninatedin May 1992,and noissue
of agreementtosuccessiontuitwouldhaveken entertained.
10.109. It is fothisreason,inpartiçularhat theSpecialAgreement
distinguisbesbetweethe 1977Treatyas such,whichisrefemd to ithe
kt preambular paragraph,and the Gakikovo-Nagymaros ProJect,
which isreferreto inthesecondpambular paragraph. Havhg regard
to thisexpressdistinctiothe secondpreambularparagraph cannotbe
constniedas anagreement byHungary to Slovak'sontingentsuccession
to the1977Treaty. Itis certainlnotan expressagreement,andunder
the circumstancesuchanagreemeni ts nottobeimplied. Moreover, if
such anagreemenh tad ben intendedi,t wouldhavebeen containedina
substantivprovisionof theSpecidAgreement andnotin apreambdar
P~PP~.
10.110. OfcoursetheCourt hasjurisdiction,underArtic2(2) of the
Specid Agreement,to detemine whether the 1947 Treatyis stilin
force. Itisnecessarytodetemiinethatquestioninorderto decidewhat
aretherightsandduties ofthepartiesarisingbrn theCouri'sjudgment
on the questionsenumeratedinMcle 2(1). The pointisonlythatthe
Court must detemine whetherthe 1977Treatyexpiredon 3 1Decernber
1992 (onthe assuqtion that it=main& inforceund that tirne)by
applying the 3awofStatesuccession. Theissueis notdetmined one
way ortheotherbythe SpeciaAgreement.
109 NoteVerbalfm the Wh Republito thFC Commission, March1993;
Annexevol4,annex117.
110 SeeNote Verhie hmtheHungarianmbassytothSlova k inisofyForeign
Affai23lkcember1992 .nnexes,vol,anne110.andhlow, paras1181-
10.119.boundary innegotiatiansfor th1977 Treaty,but these changes were not
accepted by Cseçhosl~vakia.~~~or did the 1977 Treary create
"obligationsand rigts...relatinto theregime of aboundaq"within
the meaningof ArticleIIof theViennaConventionon State Succession
with respecttoTreaties of22 August 1978.H2 The propusalthat the
boundary between Czechoslovakia and Hungay should be changed to
follow theline of the Gabcikovocanaland works was neveracçepted,
and the 1977 Treaty lefttheactud boundary ktween the IWO States
~naffected."~There is accordinglnobasisforarguing thattheSlovak
Republic çucceeded to the 1977 Treaty under the rules of general
internationallarelatingtrboundary treaties.
10.112. Inrespectof biiateratreaties (othethanboundarytreaties),
there is nomle of internationallaw which providesfor automatic
successionifpartofa Stateseparates,rif apredeces Stotedissolves
and severalsuccessor Statesernergein its place. Whether thereisa
succession tobilatemitreatiesin such cases dependsessentîallyon
agreement between thesuccessorStateand theotherparty to thetreaty.
In thepresencase therehasbeennosuchagreement.
10.113. Thisis thede stated,forexample,in RestatementThird The
Foreign RelationLaw oftheUnitedStates,section21O(3):
"When partofa statebecornesa new state,thenew statedoes
not succeedto the internationalagreements to which the
predecessosrtatewasparty,unless,expresslyorby implication,
itacceptssuchagreements andtheotherpa& orpartiesthereto
agreeoracquiesce."l14
10.114. Along similarlinestheArbitrationCommission establishedby
the International onferenceon the FormerYugosravia(the Badinter
Commissionr )eferreinitsOpinionNo 11to...
"the few weil-estabfished @ciples of internationallaw
applicableto Statesuccession. The fundmentnl mie is that
111 Seeaboveparas3.25,3.32,3.37.
112 UN DocAJCONF.801 1,22Augus1978 ,rintedin(1978)1JLhi1488.
113 Seeabove,paras3,32,3.57,4.39,7.30,-7.31.
114 hwican LawInstitu,esraremeofthehw ThirdTh ForeignRelationsLaw
ofthe Unit~State(AmericaLaw InstitPublisher,tPaul1987)vol1, p
108Fm commentarseeibid.,pp100,113. Statesmust achieve an equitableresultby negotiation and
agreement"ll5
TheCommissio wnenton topoint outthatagreementsasto succession
between two successorStatecsuld notbind thirdStateswithouttheir
agreement.116
10.115. It ime thatanileof automaticsuccessiontoal1treatiesis
providedforinArticle 34oftheViennaConventionon StatSuccession
withrespecttoTreatiesArticle34providesasfoüows:
"1. When apartorpartsof thetwritoryofa Stateseparatto
fom oneormore Stateswhetheïor not thepredecessorState
continuesto exist:
(a) any treatinforceatthedateofthe successionofStatesin
respectoftheentireterritorythe predecesçuStatecontulues
inforceinrespectofeachsuccessorStatesoforme&
(b) any treatinforceatthe dateofthesuccessionofStatein
respectonIyofthatpartofthe temtoryofthepredecessorState
whichhas becorne a successorState continues in forcin
respecof thasuccessorStatedone.
2, Paragraph1 doesnotapply if:
(a) theStatesconcernedotheMllSae-; or
) it appm from thematy or is othemîse establishethat
theapplicationofthe treatyinrespectofthe successorState
would k incompatiblewiththeobjectandpurpose ofthetreaty
orwouldradicallychang the conditionufitsoperatio.
1Q116. TheViennaConventi onnStatSuccessionisnotin fm. As
at31December 1992,ithad been signedby19 Statesandratjfied by
only12. Czechoslovakisaigneditin1979 butnever&ed it. Hungary
hasneithersigned nor ratinecit. Since1 January 1993,neitherthe
CzechRepublicnor theSlovakRepubIicbasacceded tothe Convention.
Not only is the Conventionitseif widelyregardai aslegislative in
characteandnot as astatementof exiçlinggeneralintematioIlawbut
115 OpinionNo11,Pari 6,July1993,repïinin(199332aM atp1590. See
alsOpmionNo 13,Paris,16Ju1993par1.thereisiittle nasupportforArticle34 asking declaratoryofgeneral
internationllw.l l7
10.117. The provisionsof the Conventiondealingwith sepmtion of
partof a State(now Articles34 and 35) went thmughan extensive
evolutionwithui theIntemationalLaw Commissionand at the two
sessionsofthe ViennaC~nference."~ Theendpduct did not refkct
any consens ustothe statofgeneralintedonal law,and was rather
more influencedby concerns at possible secession of parts of
independentStates.Nor havetheseprovisionsbeenconsistentlapplied
inthepracticeofthe variouStatesthahaveemerged inEastwn Europe
and theformer SovietUnionsince 1989,especially sofar asbilateral
treatieareconcemed. inthe case of bilateraltreaties,succeshasn
beennegotiatedktween the successoStatesand othepartiesona case-
by-casebasis. On the otherhand the= has ken ahigherlevel of
succession to mdtilaterai treatideuse,to the general interest in
continuityof multilaterobligationsand the importance ofsecuring
continiied adherencto humanrights and 'otheruniversalstandards.
Thus themember StatesoftheEuropean Communitieh saveUisistedasa
conditionfartherecognitioof theRepubiicsof formerYugoslaviaand
theSovietUnionwhich haveemerged asnew Statesthatthey shouid
expresstheirspeclficcommitmentto be bund by existingboundaries,
andby generalprinciplesAating to humanrights andthe nileof law,
buthave limit hedmselve so requllingthatthose States "settby
agreementi,ncludingwhere npppiaze bymorne to arbitration,il
questionscuncerningState successionandregionaldisputesW."g Tbe
17 RY Ienning&AWatts(eds ),penhim'Internatilnaw(9thdnL,xmgm.ans,
London ,992)vol 1. 236observihat"State @ce has km, however,
insflkîentunifortoprovievideneeocl= nilesof internati& lSee,
also1 BrownliePrinciplofPublic InternatioLaw (4thedn,Oxford.
ClarendoPms, 1999)pp668-7R;MuIl-, 'ThConrinuiandSuocession
ofStatebyderencetat?~&mer USSR and Yugoslavi(1993)42 1U.Q 473
atp488.
E18 Foranaccomtof thchangeseeJWord, "TheConwibittnfFrofessDPr
0'Co~eitotheDisciplineIntemaionL:aw"(1980)51BYIL1 atpp 34-44,
andfocmmatary seeISincla, SomRefktiwiscmtheViemaConventioon
SaceessiofStateinrespectTdes" in ZhkapM (edE,ssay~inHonouof
Erfi CAFB~1979)156atp 175.
119 EufopeaPoliticalvon, ExaaordinaMiniadai MeetingBnissel16
Decembe1r991"Dedaratin the'Gddhs ontheRimpaitionaNew States
inEasternEuroandinthSovietUnion".practiceofthe Counçilof Europehas alsobeen inconsistentwithany
theoryofautomaticsuccession.120
10.118. .On 18 kember 1992 the newly-establishedMinistry of
Foreig nain of theSlovaR kepubiicaddresseda Nole Verbaleto the
Hungarian Embassyin hpe, which statedinpart:
"ln accordancewith,and to the extentasdetmnined by,the
existingnoms of intemationalIaw,the SlovakRepublicinits
capacityofoneof thesuçcessorStatesofthe CzechandSlovak
FederalRepublic,considersitself bound, with effectfrom
January 1, 1993, byal1 bilateraand rnultilatd treatieto
which untilthiesime one of the partieswas the Czech and
Slova kederaIRepublic.121
In ann~uncinginreply itwillingnesstoestablishimmediatediplornatic
relationwiththe SlovakRepublicH, ungarystatedthaitwas...
"&y to enter,within the shortest possible the, into
negotiationwith the Government of theSlovakRqublic on
questionsrelatintostatsuccessioninrespectoftreaties"u
10.119. Subsequentlythe partiesexchangedlistsof bilateralireaties
which they were prepared to see continue inforce as between
themselves.The two listarenotidentical,ando notincludedi treaties
whish were inforcebetween Hungary andthe formerLzechoslovakia.
The Note Verbaleaccompanying the Slovaklis satedthatthe klinisûy
ofForeign Affairwas...
"&y to holdnegotiationson the questionsof the SlovaZr
Republic'sstatsuccessiontubilatwalintamional conventions
and agreementswhich were conçluded between theCzechand
SlovakFederalRepublicand theRepublicof Hu~gary."~~~
120 See,eg.CounciloEiiropCornmittofMinisters,"Memmdum on Council
of Eiwpe PractieewiregartoStateSuccessionthe MatteofT?eaîiesW,
Srrasbour12Januar1994Wic (94)61,ara10Annexes,ol4,anne278.
121 NoreVtrhlehm theCzechoslovMinislrofForeigAffairstheHungarian
MiniskoyfForeignflairs,hcem6a 1992;Annexes, 4,annex109.
122 Note Verbalfrwnthe HungariEmbassyto theSlovaMk ifiisûyof Foreign
Affai 23D ecember992Annexesvol4, annex110.
123 Note VerbalfromSlava k inimyof ForeiMnfah, tothEmbassy ofthe
RepubliofHmgary,I5November1993Amtexes,ol4,annex128.Theattachedht incorporatersecommendations hm therelevantSlovak
Ministry recommenduigwhether the particdm treaty should be
rnaintainedin force. Against some treatiesisnoted a proposal ta
maintain theireatyin force;againstothersa ~.iroposto maintain it
temporarilyinforcemtii agreementcan be reachedonamendment or
replacement;1z4ngainst stiU othersit is proposed to rescind the
agreement, Thus the pctice of the Slovak RepubIicitself is
inconsistenwiththe conceptofautomaticsuccessionto bilateraltreaties
containedinArticIe 34 of the 1978 Convention. In fact negotiations
betweenthe partieon issuesofsuccessionto treatiareproceeding.
10.120. Evenif thelaw of maty succeSsionembodies a preswnption
thattreatiesremain inforce aftertheanergence of a new State,this
could oniy apply to treatieswhich would be workable in the new
chumstances, andin the caseofbilateralreatiesimustlie amatterfor
agreemenk tween thepartieswkthw thi wsiUbe so.lZSInthe present
case the 1977 Treatyhad ken suspende add then terminateclby
Hungaryfor clearlyarticulateand cogent reasonsweii before the
successionofStates.Irhadbeen violat byCzechoslovakia priorto the
temination,and tepudiatedby it ssubequentl yugh the unilateral
impositionof Variant C, causing substantialdamage tu Hungary.
Immediately prioto thesuccessionneitheHungary norCzechoslovakia
werecomplying with the 1977Treaty,and sincethe successionneither
Hungaq nurthe SlovakRepublic hasdune so. Thefsuictionofthe law
of Statesuccessioisto assisthepartiestoîreatieand theu successors
to maintainvalid and operativetreatiein force so as to faciiitate
cooperation betwm them. Itis not its functionto resuscitate
inoperativetreatiewhich were previouslyasourceof disputebetween
t24 Thisisme,e-g.forthBoimdarWatersConventioof31May 1976(Item5on
theSlovakList)whichtube maintaindfothethe being,untiIaamended
agreementiseoncluded".
125 Cf DP 0'-, 'XefieetimontheStateSuccessioConvention"(19739
Zei&chr@fwAuslandischsenrliches Rewrd Volkerrect 2arp 743nie
UnitedStathasqspiiesucapresumptioinrelatito"multilaragreements
ofgeneraiapplicatoalstatesand"bilat ereementsthatestabhruleof
generalapp1ic;tnonceniingcerrelation,uthasalsxceptedtha"@va
theunsettinameof thegovernile@ des andthediversiof agreemenin
questi...theonlywayto estabIishclewhatagreementswouldd n in
force.wouldheanexplifit,case-breviewofoutstandgpements..."See
ED Williamso& JEOsborn,AUS PerspectienTmty SuccessioandReIated
ISSUÊSin the Wakofthe Breakuof theUSSR and Yugoslavia"(199)3theoriginaparsiesandwhich,ifsuccessiontothernwas toberequired
by internationallaw, would continutobe a source of conflict and
disapement, Itsfunctionisto facilitatecooperat,otntoexacerbate
conflict.This is why the emphasisin Statesuccessionto bilateal
Wes (othethan boundarytreatieand treatirelatinto theregime
of a boundary) is on the mumd consent of theparties. In the
circumstanceanypresumptioo nfsuccessioniplalnlyrebutted. PART TV
LEGALCONSEQUENCES OF THE TERMINATION OF
TRE 1977 TREATY
11.O1, UnderMcle 2(2) ofthe Spial Agreement,the Courtis
requestetodetmine "thelegalconsequenc Uisiudintherightsand
obligationsforthe Parties,arising itsJud&mentoWn thethe
questionsidentifiedinArtiZ(1). The legal consequencofsthe
suspensionof works by Hungaryin 1989 (Artic l(1)[a))were
discusseinChapte9* Thelegalconsequenc oeszw:hoslovaki(snd
subsequentlySlovakia's)operationof VariCnwere discussedin
Chapta8. ThisChapterdiscussthelegalçomequencesfotheparties
ofthetedation ofthe 1977Treatythe matterefemd toinArticle
2(l)(c) ofthe SpecidAgreemewithitheovd remedid coatexof
thecase.
SECTION A: CONSEQUENCEF SOR TfXE PARTIES OFTHE
TFXMKNATION OFTHE 1977 TRF,ATY
11.02. In intemaiionaw thingsdoneicmpliance withamty are
lawfuEasbetweenthepartito thtreatyOn theotbehand,when the
treatyis terminathe futurconductofthepartieinrelatiotothe
subjectof ttreatisgovernedonceagainbygend intemationaiaw
wbich,inanyevent,am asanirreducibeamewmk hw underlyinthe
maQI.1
11,03.This position isreflectein Article 70 ofthe Vienna
ConventionontheLawof Treaties,whichdealwiththeconsequenm
ofthetaminationofatrea.tyofarasbilatertreatiareçoncerned,it
States:
"1. Udess the maty othde providesor the parties
otberwi ame, thetaminatioofa treatunderitsprovisions
orinaccordancwiththpresenConvention:
1 CfNicaragCase(MeriICRep1986p14. (a) releasesthpartiehm anyobligationMer topexfonn
thetreaty;
@) dms notaffectanyright,obligatioor legdsituatioof
thepartiescreatthroughtheexecutionofthetreatpior toits
temination."
11-04. Thw the primaryconsequen ofehe t~ation of the1977
Treatywas thatireleasedthepartiefro mheobligationtocompIeteor
tooperatetheGabcikovo-Nagymaro BsarragSystem. As from25 May
1992, the obligatioof Hungaryand the CzechandSlovakFederai
Republicin relatito theDanuberevertedto thosewhich applyunder
general internationalaw. At no stageduring the dispute did
Czechoslovakiaassertthait hadtherightto divertheDanube,or to
alterthemainnavigationalchannel,or drasticaUtoalterthe flowof
wnterin themainbedof theriver,hdependentlyof theexistenceothe
1977Treaîy. The 1977 Treaty,havingtenninatedsuch permissions
lapsed,withtheconsequences iscuss indhapterTm2
11.05. ButArticle70alsocontemplatethatany "rightobligationor
legalsituationsofthepartiesthatexistedormay have existedatthe
timeof thetaminationof theTreatwdi notbeaffected.In thepresent
case,tfiesights orpatentirightfd jntothreclasses:
accruedrîghts ofeither partyreiatintobreachesof the 1977
(a)
Treatybytheother party;
(b) clairnsoa financialcharactewhichcould be madeunderthe
1977Treatyh relatiotuworkdone on theProjecc
(c) proper cirhtsinrelatito thedifferent installationswhichwere
partoftheProject.
Something willb saidasto eachof thesecategoriebeforeturningto
considertheovd remedldpositiontheCourt wiiIhavetoface,inthe
lightof Mcle 5of theSpecialAgreement.
2 Seeabovepara7.4-7.87.11.06. Under internationalhw, there is in general no rule of
succession tointernationarle~ponsibi l ithe.absenceof a maty
provision,asuccasor Stateisnotliableforthe mngful conductof its
predecessor."On theotherhandthisgeneral nileis subjecto anmber
of qualifications.Firsifa successorStatedaims nghts or titlewhich
belonged to the predecessorState,itmay berequired to assume any
correspandinogbligations,ndcarinotbe ina hebetcersitiowithrespect
tothe nghtor titlclaUnedthan itspredecessor.Secondly,a new Stateis
responsibleifithasadoptedandmadeits own awngfui actor situation
exlshg at thedate of independenceo,rifithas faiiedto comply with
internationaaw tequirement sithrespecttothepvention orcessation
ofthewrongfui act orsituatioafterindependence.5
11.07. App lingtheseprinciplestothepresentsituationthe following
concJusion apply:
(1) As pointed out in patagraph2.08 and 6.07 the Court has the
cornpetencetodecidewhethereither partyto the1977 Treatywas
inbreachof thatTreaq, to theextentnecessary todetennine any
3 See ,.gRobertE BrownCase(19232 ILR66;Hawiian Claims(1925)20AIIL
381;LighthousesArbi~atberneeFranceandGreec, CluimNo 120(195623
ILR 106. SeatsoOppenhelmI'sterinatlaw(9t hdn.Longman,1992ed RY
Jmings BL AD Watts)vol 1, pp 218222 1 Brownlie,P~nciplesofPublic
Intemtiomliuw (Clarendns. ûxfd, 1990)pp66667;NguyenQuoc DiiiP,
Dallie8rAPellet,DroitlntemtiPdJic(4thedn,LGDI,Paris1992)p524.
4 Thishasnothintodowiththeçontrriverssueofth applicationthedoctrine
of continnonationaiinsiîuationswheretheclaiStatisa sucŒmr State.
CfPanaveqs-SaIdutiss uilwayCCasePCLlSm AIB NO 76(1939 )tpp 32-35
(JudgevanEysinga,dissentinorwiththeçontinuatioofprivatlaw cl-
betwem entitwhichcontinutoexistassichderthe relevantlsystem.
5 LighthousArbitrarionhhveeFr~nceandGreece,ClaimNo II& 4 (195623
8 1atp90,whre tiFemanentCourtofArbieatimnoteîhat"fahm doing
anythintochecor prevenitts shiCompan hym Iwidiniklf tothesiBqal
~ansactlms, reecon the cmimy, kept forcand thusanetimedtheillegal
practicunderitsown directresponsibility the acquisitioftemtorial
sovereiay.Itmot bedoubtedtba n actininthi say Greeeundemk a
mpwisibiMyofitsownfothe@od subsequeno thacquisitiofsovaeign...'" oftheissuesspecifiUiAïticl2 oftheSpecidAgreement.Thus
theCourtmustdetemine whetherthe1977Treatywas terminated
for any of thereasonssoutinChapter10. nese issueshave
beendeaitwithearliinthis Mernorid.
(2) Whenthe SlovakRepublicbeçame independenton 1 Jariuary
1993,itinheritethesituatiocreatedbytheillegal diversionof
theDanubea ,ndthe continuhdamage andxiskofdamage king
suffereby Hungaryasa resuitThe 1977Treatywas bynow no
longerin force F.arfrom takingpromptsteps torestorethe
Danube to its migincourseand tomitlgatthe damagein the
meanthe, the Slovak Republic maintained the position
unchanged. Thisdedy constitutedanadoptionofthewrungful
conductof CzsçhoslovakiwithrespectoVariantC asa whole,
withdl thelegdconsequen thasflowhm thatadoption.
(33 Thewrongfwc lonductofSlovakiinthisrespecisaggravated,n
factandin law,byreasonofitsfailursofartocomply with the
obligatioto instituta temporarywatermanagementregirne
underArticl4 ofthe Spial Agreement.Ithas se farfailetu
ap onminimalreqwTementsfora temporarwatermanagement
regime,asrecommendebdytheEurupanCommission'e sxperts6
~ M S UNDER THE 1977 TREATYM RELATION TO WORK
(2)
DONEONTHE PROJECT
11.08. ahe 1977Tmty envisaged thattherewould bea sharingof
costsrelatitotheconstmctionoftheProject.Artic5(6)ofthe !377
Treatyprovlded:
"6. The apportionmentfhbaiirand supplieder thejoint
investmenasprovidedinparagrap5 shalIbeevhted bythe
Contracthg Partiinmonetary tms inthejoint contractual
ph. Thevaluationof thehbourandsuppliesshallnotaffect
th apportionmentfthewarks(labour)spfied inpatagraph
5;however,anyamount dueforsetdementmay notex& 2.5
percentofthebudgetarvalueofthework anddeliverietobe
ched out by the Conmcting Partiesin accordancewith
paragaph5. Thesetdementof anydiffefenasaforesaishall
dsotakethefonnoflabourandsuppiies.Thecostsofcarrying
out thejoint investmentshall be sgecifiein the joint contractuallanonthebuis ofthemutudiyagreedbudgetary
figuresandshdl beexpresse dn theHungarian forinand the
Czechoslovakkom at thannualrate of exchangein effect on
1January1975."
11.09.Hungaryalwaysacçepted that thtemination of the 1977
Treatywouldrequirean accountofworkproperlydone in accordance
with ittem, and a settlementothat accountasktween theparties.
Thishad nothuigtodo wlth anyissueofStateresponsibilionthe part.
of Hungaryb, utwas a consequenceofthe regimeofthe 1977Treaty
whileit~mained inforceandunimpaired.The accountwould ofcourse
not haveextendedtoany work doneto giveeffecto VariantC,which,
as demonsmted inChapter7,constitutea breachof the1977Treaty.
Nor would ithaveextendedinany circwnstancestoworkdone after25
May 1992, the dateof tedation of the1977Treaty, other than
necessaryrestmtion work.
11.10. The righttoanaccount, asçontemplatedin the1977Treaty,
was no doubt a "legalsituationof thepartiescreatedhugh the
executionofthe treatpior toitterËxiinationUItwasnot adomestic
legalrightunder~e law ofeitheParty,buta bilatera.onsequenceon
theinternationllvelofArticle5of the1977 Treaty. Thusitwas not,
and isnot,a "legalsituationinthe senseof a vestedtreatrightof
Slovakia. Slovakiwas nevera partyto the1977Treatyandhasactsd
quitecontratytoitç km, despiteclahhg ht itcontinuesW force,
sinc 1eJanuary1993.
11.11. Hungaryhas no infamation abouttheintenialamngements
wiîhin the Czechand SlovakFederalRepublic in relatioto the
financingof theBamge System,or fortha mtatterof Variant nor
does itluiowonwhatbasisany continuhgfinancialobligationrelating
to theProjector toVariantC were dividedon the dissolutionof the
Czech and SlovakFederalRepublic. Inthe ht instance it asmatter
fortheSlovakRepublicto substantiaenych itmaymake,bothas a
matterof factandlaw. Hungarywilireturnto theissueatthestageof
theCouter-Mernorial.
7 ViennaConventoftheLawofTreatiI155UNTS 315,Art70.11.12. The 1977 Treatywaç aninternationareatywhich providecthe
hmework for ajointhvesûnent effectedwithintheterritoryothetwo
Parties. Thmateriairesultsoth eointinvestmengaverise toproperty
rightsundertherelevantnationdlegaisystem. This was regdatedby
Artic8 lefthe 1977Treaty,whichprovided asfollows:
"Ownership ofworkscarriedoutunderthejointlnvestment
1.hong the worksof theSystemof Lockscdd out ajoint
invesment, the following shall be johtly owned by the
ConûactingPartiesinequalrneasure:
(a)theDudiliti dam(article1,paragraph2(b));
(b) thby-passcanal(articl1,paramph2 (c));
Cc)theGabcikovo serieofloch (articl1,paragraph2 (d));
Cd)theNagymaro seriesoflocks(articl1,paramph3 (b));
2. On thebasisof thejointownership,theContractingParties
shallhave therightsandobEgationsarisinghm the relevant
provisionsothisTreaty.
3. ûwmrshipof theotherworksoftheSystemof hks Çamed
out asjointinvestmentSM vest inthe ContracthgParty in
whose tenitory thwere ~onstnictd."~
11.13. In the aftermathof the terminatioof the 1977 Treaty,the
situationofthe pperty rights mat& underArticle 8 needs to be
resolved.No ficulty anseswith respecto the"otiiewmW refend
to in PSticle8(3). Those works on Hungarian territorycontinueto
belong to.Hungary;thuse workson Czechoslovak tenltorywould no
doubt havepassedto theSlovakRepublicunderthearrangementf sorthe
distributionofassetbetween the CzechandSlovakRepublicson the
dissolutionothepredeces Stotr,
11.14. Thepositionwithrespeet to "theNagymaros seriesof loch"
refmd toinMcle $(l)(d) is aisoclear, Thatiristdlatiowas never
built.Whatremains atNagymms isa cofferdm, a temporarymcture
ated to aliowfortheconstructioof theNagymaros sysw of lwks
8 UnderArt 2a(l)(eachpartwas mponsiblefotImainmanw and =pairof
jointlyswnedplanitterritory.itself. It fomed part of the "preparatoryconstruction stage"at
Nagyrnaros , ithinthemeaningof Aaicle 21 ofthe 1977 Tmty, and
wasnotpart ofthe "System ofLocks"itself. Ina NoteVerbaleof 13
July1993, theSlovak Republicassertedjoint ownershioverthe coffer
dam pursuant toArticle8of the1977 Treaty.9Thatclaim was without
substance,sincethecofferdam is covered by Aïticle8(3)and not by
drticle 8(l)(Io.
11.15. Thus the onlyjointpropertyissues arisewithrespect tuthe
otherthre estallationcoveredbyMcle $Cl)of the Treaty,vizthe
DunMti dam,the by-pass canaland the Gabcikovo seriesof loch.
Hungary assumesthat under the anangemats for dishbution of
prqmty as betwee he constituenrepublicsoftheformerCzech and
SlovakFederaiRepublic,the joint propertyintere untderArticIe8,
whichwould have continuedafterthe teminationof the 1977Treaty,
would have passed to the Slova k epublic. This assumptionis
consistenwithpreambulap raragraph2 ofthe 1977Treaty,andwith the
des ofStatesuccessionwithrespecto publicorstatpropty."
11.16. Butdthough thesethe instdhtionsweresubject inprinciple
tothezghe ofjointownmhipunderArticle8of the1977 Treaty,there
is the difficultyttheGabcikova seriesof loclcsantheby-passcanal
wereconvertedfor use aspartof VariantC, In otherwords,theCmh
and SlovakFe&& Republicandsuhequentiy theSlovakRepublicused
a jointlyiownedinstallatifor thepurposeof the udawful diversion,
causingtherebysubstantialdamageto Hqq and the riskof even
moresubstantiadl amageinthefuture. It isa mattertobe detemiined
betweenthepartiesor, intheabsenc ofagreementb , theCourt under
Article5(3) of the SpecialAgreement,whatthe dispositionof any
joinily-ownedinstallatioshouldbe.
-
9 Noie Verbaleffm thSlwaù Ministof FareigAffairsto Embgssyof the
RepublieoHungarB,zatisI1,3Jul1993A:nnexevol4,annexf21.
19 As theHmgarianRepublicpoint4outin qly: seeNote Verbalfrom the
HungarimMiisûy of ForeignAffaitotheEmhsy oftheSlovakRepublic,
Bwlapes,5Novernbe1993 ;nnexes,o4,mex 129.
11 CfPeieP&zmbirUniversi0CasPCLTSerA/BNo61atp 237;iennaConvention
onSuccess iontahz,with resto StaPrqxw, ArchiveandDebts,8 April
1983(1983)22ILM306,Art8. SECTION B:TRE OWUL REMEDIALCONTEXT
11.17. The variousdaim, rightsandlegal situationsrefmetoin
SectionA donotexhaustthemattepwhkh have tolxtakenintoaçcount
in any settlementothe dispute.Inadditionitis necessartohave
regardto:
(a) the daniagesdone toHungargr asa redt ofthe breachesof
intemationai lacommitted by theCzech anciSlovakFederal
Republicprioto 31Deceniber1992;
@) the damages cloneto Hungaryby conductatûibutableto the
Slova Rkepublic,ncludinthe operatiofVarianC;
(c) thebreachbySlovakiaofthe Artic4eoftheSpeciaAgreement.
As notedin paragraphs11.06-11.0abuve the manersreferredto in
paragraph(a)werenotassuchimputableto theSlouakRepublicwhich
was nota partgto th1977 Treatyanddidnotexistas aninternational
legalpersonattherelevantime.By contrast,thwholeprocessof the
imp1ementationandoperatm of VarianC isattributabeothe Slovak
Republic, havingregsud toits. conduin affimiing and extendhg
VariantC sincitsindependenceT. hebreachofArtic4eoftheSpecial
Agreementis,ofcourse,alsoimputabltotheSlovakRepublic.
11.18. Therem& positionasbetween thepartiesis evidentay
complexone.May legaiissues areinBisputbetween theparties,ad
theyimplicatea vaxieof scientificatechnicaissues. Hungaryhas
givenindicationoftheextentof damagesithas suffered,inparti&
from theimplementatioof Vht C and fsomthelackofanadquate
dischargeregimenotwithstanditheconmitment undataken inArticle
4 oftheSpecialAgreement.Butinthe natrrofthingsthesindications
arepbinary and tentative.ere would benopoint in s&g to
quantifydamagesindamstances whm much ofthedamagerelatesto
futureeventwhich cm stilbeaffectabytheconductoftheparties.
SECTION C:SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
11.19. The RepubiicofHun%ary respectfdy requeststheCourMt
to detede theanswers toeach of thethre euestionsspecifiedin
Article2(1) oftheSpecialAgreement. Forthe reasons@en inthis
Mernorialt,hanswerstothosequestionshouldbeasfollows:(a} that theRepublic of Hungary was entitied to suspend and
subsequentiabandon theworkson theNagymaros Projeetanon
thepartof theGabcikovohject forwhichtheTreatyatû-ibuted
res1ponsibiIothe RepublicofHungary;l2
@) thattheCmh andSlovakFederalRepublic wasnot entitieto
praceedtothe"provisionasl lutio(dammin upof theDanube
at rivekîiornetr1851.7onCzechoslovakterritorandresnlting
consequencesonwaterand navigatiocourse);l3
(c) that by its Deçlarationof 19 May 1992, Hungary validy
tdnated theTreatyonthe Construction andOperationof the
Gabcho-Nagymaros Barrage Systemof16September 1977.14
11.20. InadditiotheCourtshoulddealwith anyotherdisputaiissue
which has to be resolved inorder to detemine what the legal
consequenceareforthepartietotheprr>c&gs, i.e.whataretherights
andob6gationsforthepartieatthedateofand arishghm theCourt's
judgment.In accordance ittheargumentpssented inthi Msemonal,
these legai consequencfesunder fie headings. In particulathe
Courtisaskedtodetemine:
(1) thatthe1977Tm5 has neverken inforc eetweentheRepublic
of HungaryandtheSIovakRepublic;l5
(2) that theSlovakRepubiic ha. responsibilito Hungaryfor
mainîahing inoperatiothe"provisionallutionl6
(3) that theSlovakRepublic isintemationallrespunsiblefor the
damage andloss suffereby theRepublicof Hungaryand by its
natiods as a =suit of the operationof the "provisional
solution;7
12 Seeabove,pa9.18-9.29.
13 Se above,pa7.01-7.123.
15 Sm aime, par10.0-10.102,10.-10.120.
16 See&ovepara8.02-832,(4) thathe SlovakRepublicis underanobiigationtomakereparation
inrespectofsuchdarnageandloss;l*
(5) thathe SlovakRepublicis alsunderthefollowingobligations:
(a), torem the watersoftheDanube to theicourse;
(b) torestorthe Danube tothesituationiwas inprior totheputting
int offecoftheprovisionaslolution;and
(c) toprovideappropriatg euaranteesagainstthe =petition of the
damage andloss sufferedby theRepublicof Hungary and by its
national19
Butfor the reasonsstatedinpatagraph 11.18,thequantificatioof any
damages orlosse asndthemodalitiesof hplementationof the Court's
judgmentshould be lefto bedetwmhed bythe Court,ifnecessaryat a
Mer stageof the proceedings,ascontemplated by Artide 5 of the
SpecialAgreement.
18 Seeabve,par833 -8.51.
19Seeabove,pam852- 8.53.On thebais of the evidence and legd argument presentednthis
MernorialtheRepublicofHungary
Rm-ueststheCourttoadiudeeanddeclare
First, that thRepublic of Hungarywas entitledto suspend and
-
subsequentlabandot nheworks onthe Nagymaros hject andon the
part of the Gabcikovo Project forwhich the Treaty ahbuted
responsibilitothRepublicofHungary;
Second,thaitheCzechandSlovakFederal Repubiicwasnotentitleto
proceedtothe"provisionsoIution(dammin gpoftheDanubeatriver
kilornetr1851.7on Czechoslovatenitorandresdtingconsequences
on waterandnavigatiocourse);
Third, that by itDeçIaration of19 May 1992, Hungaryvalidly
tenninatedthe Treaty on the Constructionand Operationof the
Gabcikovo-NagymmB s arragSystemof16 Septaber 1977;
ReciueststhCourtto adiud~anddeclarmer
thatthelegd consequencesfthesefindhgsandoftheevidenceandthe
argumentspresentetotheCourtareasfdows:
(1) thattheTreatyof16 Septernk 1977hasnever beenin force
betweentheRepublicofHungary andtheSlova Repubk;
(2) thatthSlovakRepublichem responsibiltoytheRepublicof
Hungary formaintahhgin operatiothe"provisionalolution"referr~d
toabove;
(3) thatthe SlovakRepubliisinternationalyesponsibfor the
damage and losssuffmd by the Republicof Hungary and by its
nationahasaresuîtofthe"provisionslolution";
(4) thatthe SlovakRepublicis under an obligatioto make
repdon in respectofsuch damage and ioss,the amount ofsuch
reparatioi,itcannotbea@ by thePartiewithinsixmonthsof the
dateoftheJudgmen t ftheCourttobedetemhed by theCourt;(5) thatheSlovakRepublicisunderthefollowingobligations:
~
(a) tu~etur nhewatersof theDanube to theicoursedongthe
internationafirontierbetweentheRepribof Hungaryandthe Slovak
Republic, that itosay the main navigablechanne1as definedby
applicablmties;
fb} torestoretheDanube to the situatiit wasinpria to the
puthg kto effecoftheprovisionalsolutiand
(CI to providappropriatguatanteengairistherepetitionothe
damage and loss sufferedby theRepublicof Hungaryand by its
nationah.
(Signed)JhosMARTONn
Agentfor theCovernmenotftheRepublicofHungasy
s ~pri11.994 341
GLOSSARY
Permeabluendergrounwdater-bearing
formationcapablofyieldlngexploitable
quantitissowater.
Alluvium: Thesedimentardyepositsresultifiomthe
actionofrivers.
As]: Above (Adriati) ealevel
Barrage System: Barrieamss a riverprwvidewitha series
ofgatesor0th controIrnechanis(ssee
Lock below)tuconfmlthewater-surface
levelupstreamaregdate thefloworto
divertwatesuppliehto acanal.h this
Memonal , arrageSystemincludethe
entirsystemofresmoir andlocksateither
Gabcikovo orNagymaros.
Biotope: An ecologlcaterntodesignatanareain
which dithefaunaandfloraarunifdy
adaptedtotheenvironmenht whichthey
OCCUT.
Mammade open channe1,suaiiofreguIar
cross-sectishape,
By-PsissCanal:Canalbuiltodiverflows
from apointups-am of aregiontoapoint
dowllstream.
Head-Race Canal: Canaitha&ings water
toa waterwheelorturbine.
Tail-RaceC+zt.wd: anathaconductswater
away hm a watewheelorturbine.
Bnrrieconstructeacrossavalleozriverbed
forimpomding waterorcreatina reservoïr.
CofïerDam: A watertigtnclosurehm
wtiichwateripumped toenposethebottom
ofa bodyofwaterand permiconstruction
(eg,aturbin he)nceNagymmscoffer dam isthetemporarysature atNagymaros to
enabletheconstructionotheNagymaros
barrage.
Dyke: An artificialembanhent constructod
, preventflooding.
Eutrophic: The statofa waterbodywhenit finan
excessofplantnutriena.
FioodPlain. Nearlylevellanddong a streafloodedonly
when thestreamfiowexceedsthewater
carryingcapacityothechanne1.
A hardimpewiouslayerwithh thesoil
resultinfromthecementationofrelatively
insolublematds andtheleaciiuigof
solublematenais.
Theproces bywhiçhwatersinpercolating
downwardtshrough asoi1removehumus in
solution,solublebasesandsesquioxihms
theupperhmkun.
A cand enclosure(singulawithgateat
eachendused inding orlowming bats as
theypassfiomleveltolevel(egina Barrage
System).
OriginalProject: TheBarrage ProjecasdesMIibe dnthe1977
Treatyand theJoinContractualh, which
includeworkatNagymarosD , mMiti and
Gabcikovo*
Nagpmms Sector:Seetionof theOriginal
hject concernintheNagymaros bartage
systemandhy&ldc plant
GabcikovoS-F: SectionoftheOriginal
hject concenthgtheGabcikovobmge
systerandthehydroelectriclant,kncluding
theheti Dam
DumMiti Dam: SectiooftheOriginal
Projectconceraithedamand~servoir at
Dunwiti.
Body ofwateteithenaturaor man-made,
usedforstoragregulatioand controof
wamresources. A tem refeningtoIargefragmentsofbroken
rocktippeddong abankorshoreiineto
protecagainstemsion.
hwest partofa rivevalleyshapedby the
flowofwateranddongwhichmsst ofthe
sedimentandrunoffmovesin interflood
periods.
Smctuxe ûverwhichexcessfloodwaters
flow.
UnilateralCzechoslovnplaninvolvinthe
Cunovo damand reservoirwithwater
fiowingthugh theGabcikovaSector.
Water: Theiiquidthadescendshm thecloudsas
rainfms streams,lakesand seasandisa
combinationoftwopartshydrogenand one
partoxygen.
Gmnndwater:Subsurface wakeroccupying
thesaturatezgne,
Headwater: Stream fïomthesourceofa
river.
SurfaceWater: Water thaflowsoveroris
storedonthegroundsurface.
SubswfâceWater: Water thafiows under
thepmd surfaceandoftenpassesthrough
largeinterstices,sascavesorcavms.
Overfiowstructurthatmaybeusedfor
controllingtupstreamwaterlevel,for
meashg dischargeorfor both. Compare
withDam, whichis usuaiithebher amss
theriver,whkhmayor maynot includa
W&. APPENDICES
Appendix 1FMésziros , Rohy & A VoInits,TheNature
ProtectionAspectoftheGabcikovo-Nagymaro
Project,Budapest2 0ctok.r 1993.
Appendix2 AVida,Ichthyoiogical specssotheGabcikovo-
NagymarosProject,BudapestO, ctober1993.
Appendix 3PLiehe,Enviromntal -EeologicalEffectsfthé
Gabcikovo-NagymrosPrujèct SubsurfacWaters ,
BudapestF, ebniarE994. THE NATURE PROTECTION ASPECTS OF THE
GABCIKOVO-NAGYMARO PSROJECT
EditebyFerençMészciL,arzlORonkq andAnVojnits
ZoologiDepartmenftheHungariNaturmtory Musem.
October1993 SECTION 1.NATURAt VALUESAFFECTED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION OFTHEGABCIKOVO-NAGYMAROS
PROJECT
ItisaweU-hown factthathenaturalvalueof agiven Iandscapare
not reçtrictto the living componenalone, but iricluinanimate
formationofnature. Ithi studywe shallexaminthefloraandfauna
oftheareaaffectebythediversiooftheDanube,and ho discustheir
conservatiovalue.
The affectearea may be divided intothreemajor seLtions:the
Szigetkoz,the DanubeVailey(fromtheSzigetkozdommeam to the
Danube-Bend) and the Danube-Bend(includinthe northern pa of
SzentendrIsland.The thtanicaassessrnet fthesethe sectionwas
basedon aunifmly distnbutesamplingthe zoologicalonleevenly
distributcollectingefforts.WhiletEaunaandfloraoftheSzigtkoz
isfairlyweli-known,thefauna of theDanubeValley is practically
unexplored, sis the zoologicd assessmentheDanube-Bend,since
thisbeganonlya yeaagoin1992. We woufdlikeÉOemphasisethough
that, excefortheSzigetkoz,researisnotexclusivelyfocuseonthe
dm's effectonthe fama andflora,butis aimedto clearlshowthe
prese ntatofBoraandfauna inHungary,
I
The detaileenvironmentailmpactassessmentotheflora andfaunaof
theSzigetkoziofparmount importancsincethiregionwas themost
highlyaffectedby humanactivity arisingfrom thebilateralmty
betweenHbzngaryandCzechoslovakia nd bycontinuedSlovak worh
afkrtheterminatioofthemty byHungary.
(1) GENERA CL ARA~ATION OFTHE FLORA ANDFAUNA OF
THE SZIGETK ~ITSSTATEPRTORTO THEDIVERSION)
The Szigetktisa uniquesectionoftheDanubevaiiey,sinca braided
branch-çystemon a simh duviai cone neitherexistupstreamnor
dowriçmam, In a relatively smd ma, thisbch-system
accommodates a wide range and an amazingdiversity ofhabitats.
Considerinthesiz oftheSzigetkazthefloraandfaunaarerem&bIy
rich.
The greatesvahe of theSWgetkfizisthe laadscapitseIf, whiwas
createdbytheDanubew , ithuniquegeomorphologicalndhydrologiçal
fornationand naturaialuesbothbotanicdandmological.Becauseof
extensivriverreguiatioandtheagicnitmd useofdi availableland,
the ma covered by siparianwoodIands elsewhereIn Europeis
continuousland drasticaldecreasinw,ithalteratiototheinatural
stattandbiologicaldegradationInconttassignifiç sandsof softandhard wood ripariaforesremainintactin theSzigetkoz. Therefore,
theseripariaforests,andnearbyborderingareas wiwitheir faunaare
naturalvaluesofEuropean~ig~cance,
Owing to itspeciageological,geomorphological,lirnatand water-
regime features,thSzigetkozhas uniquefauna.. The watersarriving
from the Alpç comtandy carry plant seeds and other reproductive
componentsw, hichoccasionallgetstuckinthedow sidebranchesa,nd
whenotherecologicdcircurnstance srefavourable(forexample,cool,
moisttempaatwes),mayeventually settlinthe Szigetk~z. Thenear-
natural,owland-typeforesstandsowe theiruniquenesstothedealpine
andmontanebeechforestelements(foe xample, thefouowing species:
Selaginellakelvetica,Achilleaptarmica,Lilim bulb$enGentianella
ciliataG. atcstkca, Carexalba, Parnmsiapalustris). Azthougha
majorityoftheseplantassociatiosirenotrarertispies composition
ispeculiac.FOL example,thediversityof orchidspeciesis markable
(23species).Inthemaintenance ofbotanka1diversitytheimmigration
of speciesandtherepeatedinundatioareessential.Bothofthesewwe
previouslyensure bdyvat flow of theDanube into theside branch
systemduringfloods.
As açmequenceof thedecreased£lowoftheDanube, theSzigetWz has
receivedsi@cantly lesswater,resdtingin a dtastidemase inthe
size of thwetlandhabitat(moors,fenwoods,marsha). Therefore he
remairhg patchesof thesh abitatswiththeh exceptiondy richbiota
shoddbe stRctlyptected. Athigherelevatims,in certainlmalities,
theoriginalsteppvegetationisstipfevailing.
Theseconclusionsholdû-uefor the fauna,too. As a generalrulethe
fama of the greatCentral-Empan river basinsare very similar,
regdess of theiexact geographlcalocation.However, thefaunaof
theSzigetkozisunique fromthatof anyotherriverbasinbecaus ofits
special geographicalsituation. Simethefaunaof the SWgetkoz is
enrichedwithpaaicuiarvies assemblages, tspeciescompositionis
unequalled(for exme, kt-Alpean, Atlantic, Iower-montanand
steppespecies-beetiesLRpturarriaculic~m~s,candhucinusaedilisA.
grisearslepiclopteram:ricia armxenes, Scopula mbelaria, Acasis
virerata, Perizomasagittata;f~hes: Cotius gobio Hucho hucho;
manmals: Microtmus oecommus) .
Thus,not only the highiy valuablerarspecies,but alsothe species
combinationand compositioof theSWgetko zreunique.
Thehighspeciesdivetsityoftheflom and faunaisindicateby thefact
that30-50% ofthe speciesoftheHungarian faunamay befound inthe
Szigeîkoz,andin thecaseof sometaxa an evm higherproportionmaybeestablished.Thesespeciewererecorded onthe 9000hectaresof the
Nature Reserve. Thehighnumberof speciesmay beexplainedby the
presenceof a largequantitof mosaic-likepatchesof habitaover a
relativelsrnaIarea.h thespatcheç,many of themain habitattypes
may be found:submontanr eiver,connecteandisolatecisidebranches,
canals,rnoorlands,marçhes, hard andsoft wood riparian forests,
Convallario-Quercetum, Salicetum triondrae-purpureassociations,
relict Carpino-Quercetuassociations,fens andremnant patchesof
forestedsteppevegetation.
The estimatednumber of pmtecteéplantspecies is64,and animal
speciesisapproximately00.
(a) VasculutPlants
Accardingto botamicalurveysundertakenoverthelastthe years,the
nu& ofplantspeciesktweenthe Moson-Danuba endthemain stream
ofthe Danubein theSzigetkozareaisapproximatel8y20.Carnidering
therelativelysmd area andthe highperçentageof landcultivateor
othemise affectecby forestmanagement, thl sumber isquite high
(thereareonly2150 speciesofvascvPaphts inHungary).Açcording
tobotanicalliteratuie,tnumber of speciescoulbe as highas870,
sinc severaispeciewerenot founddiirinbotanicdsurveysandmight
have disappearedriruigthepastdecades (cg.,Sellaginellahelvetica,
Daphw cneorurn, Carlim acaulis, Cefifuurea arenuria, Salvia
aethiopis).Vascularplantsare eithersomewhatrareornot always
piesentintheflorainothercasest,ekexactplaceofocmence cannot
bedefined.
(b) PlantAssociations
Approximately25% of the26000 hectaresof thSzigetkoziscovered
bynear naturaorsemicdtivatedassociation,uchasfmsts, poplarand
willow stands, quaticplant associations,marshes, andpasfures.
Althoughpoplar andwillowstandsare orighllycdtivatedplantations,
thieare nevertheleregardedas nearnaturaassociationsbecausthey
accommodate floodpIaiandmontane elements.
Acconhg to recent botamical assessments,several floodp1ain
associationslivintheSzigetlrOin anaturdornear-natura ltate.67
associationshaveahady beenfound inthi srea,and thenumber iJ
exptxtedto rise.Fmm thepointof viewof natureprotection17% of
theseassociationarehighlyvaluable,incluchgrelias (2 associations
and thosedemandingprotection(10associatioris);6% are valuable,
includingneat-natur(25associationandpioneer(6associations)9%of theseassociatioaredisturbancetoleraantd6 ate categoriseas
lessdegraded.27% however,arehighiydisturbed weed associations,
with degradationof 18, which is the direct'outcoineof intense
agiculhiraidisturbance.
Cc) Vmcukar (Flowerlng)PlantSpeciesandPlant Associations
oftheWater BodiesandAquatic HabitarsoftheDanube
(1) TheFZura
Thevascularfloraof quatic andmarshlanhabitatsirich.Exceptfor
someraritiesaB characterisspeciesoffloodplainsarpresentinthe
Szigetkozarea.Characterisaquatiand protectespecies:
Elodea canadensis,Groenlandiadensa(Upper-SzigeÉZro z,llitriche
cophocarpa, Ceratophy1lm demersum, Hepuris vukgans,Eiottonia
polmtrisuwer-Szigetkoz), Hydrockarismorsus-ranaeLemm minor,
Myriopkyllurnspicatm,M. verticillatuNajas minor(Middle- and
Lowes-Ssigetkoz),uph lutem, Nymphaea alba,Nymphoidespeltata,
Pedicularis palufis (Middle- and Lower-Szigetkoz),Polygonm
ampkibiurn(Lower-Szigetkoz),otamogetonacutfolitP.,cornpressus
(Atlanticspeciesthat mcur only inthe SzigetkozinHungary), P.
crispusP. gramineus(hwer-Szigetkoz), .lucensP. natans(üpper-
Szigetkoz),. nodosus(Upper-SzigetkozP,.panornitanus (Lower-
Szigetkoz)P. pectinarusP. perfoliahrsP. tricoides(Lower-
SzigetkOz)Ranunculus baudotii (Lower-SWgetko,zR. circinnatus
(Upper-SzigetkozR,. fluita(inHvngaryappem odyin the Upper-
Szigetkoz),R. petiveriR. rdms (Midde-Szigetkoz),R. rionii
(Lower-Szigetkoz)R. brichophyllusSaIvinianatans, Stratiotes
aloidens, Utriculaawi~aàis(Lower-Szigetkoz), . minor (Upper-
Szigetkoz)U. vuigari(Middle-Szigetkoz, allisneriaspir(ispper-
Szigeîkoz). Fdw marshlandvegetationelements and ptected
çpeciesEpipactipalustris,Irispseudacorus,DacsyIorrincamata.
(2) ThePlant Associatiom
Widespreadaquaticandmmhlandassociations,which areclassif ised
reiictordeservingprotection:
Lemno-Spirodeletum, Salvini-Spimdeletum,kmo-U~ricuIarietuni~
Hydrochcarà-Strat( iopteer-mzigeîkoz),BatrachietufluLtantis
(which is only found only in the Wpper-Szigetkoz)W, otconietsrm
palustris (Lower-SzigetkQz),Zodeetumcanadensis, Myriophy llo-
Pormogetonetm, Potamogeîono pedoliati-Batrachietm circinnati
(vpper-SUgetkOz), Potamagetonetum lucentis, P. na fantis,
Nynephuectm ab-luteae, Nymphoidetwn peltatae, Scirpo-Phragmiteturn austro-orientaleSparganietum erecti, Glycerieturn
maxime, Rorippo-Oenunthetum,Sparganio-Glycesierumfluitantis,
Caricetum eliata, Carici-Menyanthetum, Carici-Typhoidetun,
Caricefum acuifomis ripariae, Caricetum vuipinae, Eleochari-
Caricemm bohemicae(pioneerassociations),Calamagrosti-Salicetum
cinereae, dry opteridi-Alnetu(wîliow reliçts and dder marsh
vegetaiion).
(d) Vascular PlantSpeciesandPlartf Associatio~lofthe
SzigetkiiFloodplain
(1 TheFIora
Speciesof theSzigetkfilisteintheEmpean Red Data Book:Actaea
spicaraCerastiumamense,Erysimum odorutm;
SeriousIendangered orstrictlprotectespecies:Ophrys opifera0.
insecfifer(these two arerare inboth Htmgary and the Upper-
Szigetkoz);
Rvtectedspeciesincludeaiof theMer 21 specioefstheOrchidaceae
family: Anacmptis pyrm'dalis, Cephalantheradamasoniiun, C.
longifolia, C. rubra, Epipactis atrorubens,E. heileborins, E.
microphylla,E. palustris, Orchis coriopkora, O.laxifora mbsp.
palustris, 0. rnï~iteri0. morio, 0. purpurea, 0. mulata,
Dactylomhizaincarnata,D. maculata,Neottianidus-av Gym,mdenia
conopaeL asteraovataPIutantherabifolla;
Other protected species, including some montane elements:
Ophioglossum vulgatm, Dryopteris carthmiana, D. dilarata,
Thelypîerispalustris, Adonis vernalis, Anernonesylvestris, CIemtis
interifoliP aa,massia palustris, Astragalw axscapus, Lathytus
pannonicus,Dictamnus albu, Vitis sylvesrrGentianacnrciata, G.
pneumonanthe,GentionellaciliataG. austriaca,Astemellus, Inula
oculus-christi,Jmrrimollis,Pyrola rorun$ifolia,Dianths~perbus,
Primulaelatior,HemerocaEE ilio-asphodelus,Liliubulbiferm (this
mes wcigs in theSzigetkoLplainonlyatlow elevations,wherits
richestpopulationin Hungarymay befound),Seilla vindubonensis,
hucojm aestivum,IrispsercdacotuI. pumila1. sibirica,I. spuria,
Eriophorum angustifolim, E. latifiliumStipa bovsthenica, S.
pennata;
The Fagetalia species aredso characteristic of the Szigeiklizm:
Euphurbia amygdaloidM esj,ntkemum bifolium,Carex pilosa,C.
alba, Gallium odoratma, Viola syivaticaAllim ursinum,Amm
orientale,ana montaneelment:Pyrolarotutid#oIia; In the marshIand meadows, importanspeciesincludeSnnguisorba
oficinali sesleria uliglnosa (raspecies),with the foLZowing
representativendemicsMulinluhungarica,M. arundirmaceaAZZim
angulosum. Inthemeadows andhayfieldrarepecieshcludeAchillea
ptamiica, Galliuboreaie.Inthe fdlCulckicum autumnaleoccursin
masses. SteppeelementsincludAnemonesylvestrisFestucarupicola,
Peucedununatlsficurn,Tunicsaxifraga.
The above-listedspeciesshothediversitofthe rich floodplainflora
andindicatethe importance of the prhnaryandoriginastatof the
Szigetkoz.
(2) ThePlantAssociations
There are nearnaturaiassociationsofforestsnearthe villagesof
Magyar6vi.rFeketeerdO , al&zi,DunWti, hjka andHéden&,and
Molinietalia,MolinioandArrhenatheretaliucommunitiesare found
in the Upper- md Middle-SWgetkoz.The near natiiraor relict
associatiorequrrinpgrotectihclude:
Salicetwn triandrue-plupweae, Salicetum aIbae-fragilis, Fraxino
pannonicae-Ulmeturn iseved stand fs,example atDunasziget,ith
the cdominant speciesAlnusincana),Quercorobori-Carpineturits
only standintheSWgetkoz is foundnearHaEasziintheMk forest,
The speciescompositionof th&beautifrelictforesthanot changed
since 1930a,ndsimilfamrestareonlyfound-inHungaryon theGreat
HungarianPlain),Fesîuco-Quercetwrobori(atPüski,withhgments
&O presentintheWei forest).Deschampsietm çaespitosaecroato-
pantwnicm, AlopecuretumprabensisAgrostem albae, Cirsiocani-
Fesrucetm pratemis, Agrustio-Typhoidetm,Trisetemmfïavescentis,
Carici fimae-Eriophretwn, Succiso-1Mofinietu(Lower-Szigetkoz),
Arrhenatkeretumelatioris et suhsfe~tucetosm rubrae,Bronaetm
Pectonun, Astragale-Festucetum rupicolae,Potentilio-Festucetum
pseudovinae.
Thereiictsof bogand associationsof aiand willow,whichdeserve
protectionareofgreaimportancebecausetheyare thlas tants of
the Onginalmarshland..The Phr~g~retwnand Glycerietwnnoxinae
associationscovethe largestarea.There are srnalierfmgmentsof
NyrnphoidenimH, ottonietum,and fragmentsof Cancerm elotae and
'
Seslerietuuliginosae.Rekt andprotectespeciesalsowcur inthese
associationsThehighnumber ofnatualassociationisa characteristic
oftheSzigetJcoazndthismosaiciisa cruciallment oftheiandscape.
mer importanefementshclude willowstands,Fraino-pannonicae-
Ulrnetzmrripariaforest, andPotmetea-, Phragmitetea-,Molinio--Jwicetencornmwiities.tîsworth mentioningthathe onlyoccumnce
of Ranunculacttrmfluitansassociation is ithe Szigetkoz. The
pservation oftheseremnantpatchesisessentifortheconservatioof
the region'soriginalbiotbecausethese patchescouid serveas the
staaingpointforreconstnictitheoriginastatof theSzigetksz. The
plantassociationofthe meadowsand pasturesfortunatelyindicaae
lowerlevel of &turbance. Severalhundredyearsof agiculturaluse
undoubtedlyfaciiitatheinvasionof weedassociations.
(3) Tm. FAUNA OFm SPGETKOZ
The descriptioofthe Szigetkofaunaismore mcult than thaof the
flora,becauseanimalsarnot asconstanandascIearlydistinguishable
asplantassociatioandvegetationtypes.We a botanicadatarecord
(theoccumnce ofa certainspecies)showsthatany@en species (or
individualplant)isa memk of a specificassociationelt,zone) a,
zoologicalreferenceonly showthat agivenanimal was spottedat a
particulaplacesui d ayormaynot lx amemberof thatçommunity.
Furthmore, therisnocharacteristcroupofbals intheSWgetlroz,
in contrattothevascular(floweringplantttiacharacteristheplant
community. Therefme, the faunaof theSzigetkôzisdescribedhere
accordingtolargetaxonomicalnits.
(a) Molluscs(MoIlwca)
116MoUusca specieswerecollectedfrom74 localiti(thisconstitutes
48% ofallHungarianMolluscafauna).On thebis ofdetailedstudies,
we concludedthatthe numberof speciesisvery high andthat the
Szigetkozisof patamountimportancein thepreservatioof Mollusca
species. Severalspies occurre odly inlimited lodties. The
patchinessofthe Szigetozmightexplaintbisphenornenon and these
patçhesareimportantmoirs insome cases. The occurrenceofan
additional13 spe~lesis possible, anthesemay be introducedor
ïheophllousspies. Specimensof Paladilfia oshanovwerenotfound
in thevpper reachesofthe Danube,although in~nsiveresearchwas
carrieout inGermany andAd Thisground-dwellingnailhas gills
and iivesinthe pund waterof thealluvialfan.It is pbabiy an
endemicspeciesof the Szigetkoz.As thePaldiZhia speciesarereal
stygobiontorganisr tnsymay Iiveinholeswithmovinggraund-water.
Theothermoiiuscçaregroupedaccordhg totheirhabitats.
Rheophilousspecies live in fast-flowingwaterbodies,with stmng
current:
Gasm poda: Theudm (Tkeodoxus )ammersalis, Theodoxus
(Theodoxus )anubiuli,Viviparus(Viviparu}acerosu,Potamopyrg usjenkinsi, Lidhoglyphusnticoides,FCrgfia (Microcolpia) acicularis,
Fagotia (Fagotia)esperi,Ancylufluviatilis; BivalvUnio pictorum,
Unio crassus, Anodonta (Anodonta) cygnea, Pseudanodonta
cornplanafa, Dreissena polymorpka, Sphaerium (Sphaerimtrum)
rivicolaPisidim amnicum P,isidiumhenslowanum Pisidiumsupinum.
Speciesin slowly-fiowingwaterbodiesi,ncludingthaselivingincanals,
ponds,deadbmches:
Gastropoda V:i~iparu(Viviparus)contectus,VaIvara(Valvatcristara,
Valvata(Cincinna)pisçinaZis,Valvata(Cincinna)pulchella,Bithynia
(BythiM ~e~cirlutu, 3ithynia (Byfhinio)Icochi,Arro[oxuslacustris,
Lpnaea (Lymnaea)stagnalis, Lymnaea (Galba) truncatulaLymnaea,
(Radix) auricularia, Lymnaea (Radix) peregra, Physa fontimlis,
Physelln (ConstateEla) acuta, Planorbarilks corneus, Planorbis
plonorbis, Planorbis carinatus,Anislcsvorta, Anisus vorticu2rrs,
Bathyompkalus contortus, Gyraulus (Gyraulus) albus, Gyraulus
(Torquis) laevisGyraulus (kmorbis) riparius,Gyruulus (Armiger)
crista, Hippeutis complanatw; Bivalvia: Sphaerium "(SphaerilsmJ
cmeum, Sphaerim (Mmulium) 1acwtreQisidiummilium,Pisidium
nitidumP, isidiumobtule,Pisidimasubtruncatum.
Speciescapableof livininmafshes andwateraccumulatinginpits:
Gastropoda L:ymnaea (StagnicolapalustrisAplexukypnorum,Anisus
spirorBis,Segmentina nitidu and Bivalvia:Pisidim casertonnun,
Pisidim personabm.
Gastropodp aies chamteristicofCarexvegetationand wetmeadows:
Carychiminimum, CochIicopa nitens, Verrig(Vertilla)angwtior,
Vallonia(Vallunia)enniensis,uccinea(Succinelàà)blonga, Oqioma
elegans, Nesovitrea hammonis, Deroceras (Deroceras) Inwe,
Pe@uratellarubiginosa.
Snailscharactmkticofmoistmeadowsandshaded places:
Cochlicop lubrico,'Vnfigo (Venigo pygmea, Pupilia (PupiEla)
musconun.
Speciesocc~g indrygrasslandosrdongroads:
Coçhlicopa iubncelle, TmncateIiincylindricu,Grmia frmenm,
ValiuniaWailonia)pulchella, Helicella(Helicellaobvia , elicopsis
(Helicopsis) striata,Monacha (Monacha) ca~*una, Cepaea
vindobonensis.
Snailapeciescharacterisocfrnarshland,ipariaforest:Caryckiumtrideniaturn,Vertige (VertiantiverrigVerrigo(Verrigo)
moulinsinna,Succinea(Succinea)putris;Macrogastra(Macrogastra)
ventric~sa,Arion (Mesarion) subfuscus, Semilimax semilimax,
Zonitoides (Zonitoides)niridus, Vitrea (Cry~tallus)crysrallina,
Aegopinellanitens, Euconulus(Euconulus)fulvus, Trichia (Trichia)
srriolata, Trichila(Trichla)hispida, Honnc(Arianra)arbustorum,
Cepaeahortensis.
SnailslivingImoistforests:
Colurnellaedenrula,Acanthiraaculeata,Clausili(Clausilia)purnila,
Balea (Alinda) biplicataPunctum (Puncrum)pygnureum,Discus
(Discus) rohrnhtus, Discus {Diseus) perspectivus,Bradybaena
(Bradybaena)fruticum,fe.foratella (Monchuides)umbrosa, Trichia
(Trich ini)entata.
Snailslivinindrydeciduousforese:
ValIonia(ValloniacostataChondrula(Chondrula)tridens,Cochludina
(Cochlodim) laminata,Vitrina(VitrinpetlucidaAegoplncllaminor,
Limax (Lima) cinereoniger, PeJSoratel(Monachoides)incarnufa,
Euomphulia (Euomphalia)strigellHelix{Helixpomatia.
Snailscharacteristofthe humanenviromnent orliving oncdtivated
land:
Cecilioides(Cecilioi acicula, Ario(Arion l)sitnnicus,Oxychilw
(Oxychilus) draparnudi, Tafidonia budapestemis,Limax (Limaxj
mimus, Derocerus(Agnolimm)retictslatum ,ohnia vermicu2ata.
Hungaryhas a totalof 150 crustaceanspecies (90 Cladocer 60,
Copepoda)9 ,6of whichare presentintheSzigetkoz(64Cladocera,32
Copepoda) The SWgetkoz is exûmnely nch inspecies, forseveral
reasons.Firstofdl,thefacthattheDanube mets aplaicreatesahigh
diversityof aquatichabitats.Thefauna of the main-branchs ,ide-
branches,deadamis,canaismd stagnantwatebodiesisfmher affected
by thedynamicsof the waterregimeand by flooding. This patteis
demonsmtedby materidculiectedhm the side-branchsystem at
hvh@r6 in 1991. Desiccatingshallowaterbodiesarecharacterised
byDaphniamagna andMoinabruchiata. Samplescollectecinearlake
&s ccntainthesespeciesss weiias Chydoridaespecies,which are
usuallypresentinthevegetatiooftheliaoralzone.Daphniacuculha,
widespread h iqer stagnantwater bodies,was dso found in these
sampIes. Eurytemoravela were alsa fond,the ficstrecordof thisspeciesin Hungary. In 1992 this species wathemost widespread
crustaceaintheSzigeikoz,andifiacolonisedseverawatex-types.
Wecanconcludethatthe Szigeîktizasveryçpecies-riin~ru&aceans.
(c) Dragonflies(Odonata)
Forty-fivespeciesof Odonawirrefmd intheSWgetk~z (adultso42
andlarvaeof 32 specieswerecoiîected). Thisis morethanhalfthe
HungarianOdonatafauna. The high species diversity is partly
rnaintainebythe slow flowingoftheDanube intheSUgetk~z, which
transportandaccumulatessedimentas weUastheweU-developed side
branchsystem. TheIaruaofedragonflibreathedissolveoxygen hm
the waterand waterqualityisthereforeanimportantfactofor their
sumival. The= arethreeareasinthe Szigetkothatareofparamount
importanceformaintaininOdonata:theMoson-Danute G,d theHolt-
Danube(Sérfeny6sziget-CIka oldthziNoeak)ecsatom(Halhzi,
fiski).
TheMason-Danub esameanderinDganubebch, whichgeservedits
origindstatefairlywell. Becauseof itsdifferentsize of sedirnent,
severalhabittypeshavedeveloped.Thesehabitats,asweU asthebug
patchesoccdng intheriparianforest, offer excellentcondiforns
Odonata.Species livingherinclude:theStylurufimiceps (proteçted
by theBeniConvention),eshnacyanea andSympetm dnnae.
The G& HoSt-Danube andthe NovaIr-csatombranchingfrom itare
the onlylocafitieswhereEpitheca bimacdata may lxfomd in the
HungarianLittlePlain.ThepopdationofAeshnugrandjsisremarkably
3trQnghm*
The Navak-csatoma istherichesinOdonataspies of the Szigetkoz
waterbodies --23 species were found. The mostvaluablespecies
hclude Somoiocklora flavomcialata, Aeshna grandis and Anax
parthenope.
(d) Aguaticand semiaquaticbugs (fiteroptera)
Dataon27specieswereobtauieA dlthoughHeteropteraspeciewere
absent infast-flowingriver sections and lakes fomed in grave1
excavations,aquatic Heteroptera are rich in other Iwalities.
Interestingsemiaquaticspeciesarenoasdiverse.
Speciescharacteristof waterbodipady coveredbyvegetationwere
dominanthi thesamples. Thewiderangeof waterandhabitattypesin
the Szigetkfiaccommodate diversespecies ofaquaticand surface-
dwellinghetempterans,comparable to thatofLake Balaton. The
populati~nsarelimit bednad changesofthe water-regime. Fourspecies (HydrometragracilenrumMicronectagriseola, Hesperocorixn
sahlbergand Sigarafossanun)areinterestihm a faunisticalpointof
view,.andthelatterspeciwasrecordedinHungaq for thefirstthe.
42 speciesof Neuroptera,nethirdof diHungaianNeuroptera,were
çollectedat 35 localities ithe Szigetkoz. In addition to the
characteristicspecies lower montane areas se,vd westerly and
north-westedydistributEuropeanspecieswerefoundinthe Szigetktiz.
ConiopteryxaspoeckiandthreeotherNeuropteraspeciesdevelepingin
waterdongthebanks of theMoson-Danube (SialismorioS. nigripes
andSisyrateminalis)areofhighnaturdvalue.
The H~ ferestisthe most naturalstandofthe hardwood riparian
forestscoveringhigherelevationsthefloodpfaiïi.Thna- stateof
thlsforest is indicatedbthe factthat 7 of the100 charactmktic
Neuroptmnswere recorded here. Fourneuropteroispecieslivingin
theforestdesme protectioni,ncludiNinetacarinthiaca.
Basedon our howledge of theÇoleoptemofthe Carpathan Basin,the
tstimatednuber ofbeetlesotheSWgetko s 2000.One thir ofthese
has dreadybeen recordedWe haveprovidedbelow alist o44 species
characteristcf theareasdesening protection, The species maybe
pu@ as(i)proteçtedspecies;(ii) endangespecies,whichshould
be protected;(iiraref,unisticdlimportantspecies(characterisofc
Hungarianhabitats)and(iv)extremerar speciesinHungary(recorded
ody iftheSzigetkoz)thesurvivaloftheirpopdationsiuncd
Calosoma auropunctatm (Herbst, 1784) - protected, endangerd
çpecies.
Caiosoma reticulahu(Fatniciu, 787 )protectedspecies,dso listedin
theRed DataBook.
Cprabus CO~UC~W cariaceus(Linnaeus1758)-protectedspecies.
Carabrashungaricushungarictc(Fabricius,1792)-protectedspecies,
highlyendangered.Carabusscheidkri baderle(Md, 1965)- endangeredsubspecies,its
protectionirecommended i;Hungary itisfounonly intheSzigetkoz.
Cychruscaraboides(Limaeus,1758)-protectedspecies,
Nebria livida (Linnaeu1s,8)- raremontane species, inHungaryit
oceurs only dong the Danube and R5ba rivers; itsprotection is
recommended.
Trechusobtusus(Erichson1837) -rarespeciesoccumhg sporadically
inthewesternpartofHungary,
Bembidionfascàolatum(hftschmid, 1812)- raremontane species,in
Hungary it occuodyin theSzigetkozanddong theRAba river.
BembidionrnodestwrrFabncius ,801)-spmdicdly occurringmontane
specieç.
Perileptus aredatus(Creutzer, 1799)- raree,ndangemi species,
occurringdong goodwater quaiityriversandclearlakes,anddwelling
on saturategravesurroundinhgsh lakes.
Abu paralIelepQedus(Wer et Mitterpacher,783) -characteristic,
abundant montanespecies,accinnn onlyin the Szigetkozonplain
locaLitisflowelevation.
Runtusconsputus(Sturm ,834)- acharacteristcpeciesofriversof
continentalteppor foresthabitats.
Gaurodytessubtilis(]Enchson,837)-characteristcpecies of cooler,
moist,montanehabitats.
Hydroporus ruffian(IMkchmid, 1805)-inHungary itoccursodyin
theSzigetlçoz.
Gyrinulusminutus(Fabriciu1798)- oneofthethre.hown Hmgarian
1w;ditiesothi speciesiintheSzigetkOz.
Orect~chiIusillosu(0.F. hfükr, 1776)- livinh fast-flowingcool,
clearwaterbdies,inlargestreamsandrivers.
Blediw pallipes (Gravenhorst,802) - thereare on@ two hmwn
localitiofrhisspeciesiHungary,oneofthemin theSzigetkiSz.
Dicercaain i=hm, 1823)-iîoccurrenceis sporadinHungary.
Lircanuscemuscervm(Liius, 1758)- pmtectedspecies.
Dorcuspurallelipipedu(Linnaeus,758)-protect seecies.
Odonreus amiger (Scopoli1772 )a widespreadbutrarespeciesinthe
forestearea osHungaq; itsprotectiisrecommended.Potosiaaeruginosa(Dnuy, 1770 )proiectespecies.
Osmodema eremito (Scopoli,1763) - protected species,highly
endangered iiroughouEturopeit occursporadicalonly inoldwillow
stand songrivers.
Megopisscabrm'corn s copoli,763)-protectedspecies.
Rkamnuséism hicalor (Scfiranl1781) - protectedand endangered
species.
Lamia textor &innaeus, 1758) - endanger edt not yetprotected
species;itsprotectiirecernmended
Obriurnbrunneurn(Fabricius,1792),Leptura maculicornis@e Geer,
1773, Leptura ru& (Linnaeus, 17581, Lepdura sanglrinolenra
(Linnaeus,17611,Monocharnu salloprovincialpisfor(Germa, 18181,
Acanthocinusaedili(Ljnnaeus,17581, canthocinugriseus(FabPicius,
1792) -arecharacteristcpeciesofmontanedeciduousandpineforests;
inthe SzigerkitheyLiveinthePinlassilvestplantati~m.
ObriumbicolorKr-, 1862 -reachhg thenorth-westernborderof its
ma inHungary, itis abundanin thehardwoodriparianforestsof the
SzigetkOz.
Aromia moschata (Linnaeus,1758) - characteristic ofwillow stands;
deservesprotection.
CalamobiusBlum(Rossi,1790) -protectedspecies. l
Timarchatenebricosamoruvica(Bechyné, 1949)- occm sporadlcally 1
ontheplains,foothüland lowermontane areas.
64specieshave been c-ed. Considerhgtheplaincharacterofthe
Szigetkijz,thiis avery IUghnumkr. For example,on îhe Great
Hungarian Plainonly92 speçieshaveben mrded. The 64 species
comprisessome30%ofHungatianTrichoptera (ofa totaof202 ).
The foliowingspecieareofgreatfaunisticimportance:
I
Ceracleanigronenosa - a new speciesofthe Hungarianfauna,itwas
recorded forthe kt time in 1992 in the SzigetWz;Rhyacophila
dorsalis;Agapetuslaniger;Oxyethirflavicornis;Hydroptilaforcipata;
Polycentropus irroratus; Cyrnus trimaculatus; Lype phneop;Brachycentrus subnubillss the populationsof these specieswere
estabfishedoniyinthe SzigetkoLinmephiluselegans-rarethroughout
the wholeof Eqe, andits occurrenceinthe Szigetkozis important
both hm faunisticaiand ecologicalpointsoview; Halesusradiatus;
Lepidosrornhiriam;Athripsodealbrfrons.
The highspeciesdiversitofTrichopterin theSzigetkazismaintained
by therelativelyclearwatertheDanube anditssidebranchsystm, as
weïl asthecmmt conditions,hernical.characterisndcqualityothe
sediment.
1124 speçiesofLepidopterawere identifï(663 rnamlepidopteraand
461 microlepidoptera).On thebasis ofthe avdable knowledge,the
expected number of species is probably around 1300, which is
approximately30%ofHungarian Lepidc.ptera.
The disîributi~nof specieswithin the main taxonomicaluni& of
lepidopterane,speciaUytheratioof spies richnessofNoctuidaeand
Geomeûidae,is similarto thaof thelowermontaneforests. Namely,
there isnosignific aiftrencehm the ratio fond inthe whole
Hmgarian fauna (53).
Although thLepidopteroaftheSzigetkijissimzIatrthefaunaof other
Central-Euopean riverbasintherelativelyhigherdiversityagreater
numberof species aredisectlinfiluencdby thepresenceof scattered
patchesofAlnus stands,(othhse typicaiofAtlanticolowermontane
areas a),wellasbythernosaicitandhurniditofhabitats.
The LepidopteraspeciescompositionofripariaforestsinCemal and
SouthwestEurope arenotexclusiv eetymiinedbyexactgeographical
location,andare generallyfairlpoor in species. The differenin
speciesassemblagesisnotpredominmtlyaffectedbythediversitofthe
treecanopylayer,butby the richnessoftheherb layer. Intenseforest
management or floodingcm aZmost cornplereldestroytheherb layer
and hence facilitatethe invasionocertain weedspecies(Impatiens,
Solidago spp.), which eventuaIiybecorne dominantin theaffected
associations.This pess lads to a decreasein diversityas the
invadingweed associationsausuallyuniform.
Although thesetendenciegendy holdme intheSzigetkliz,tharea
isneverthelesuniquebecauseof dn characterisfeatures:itsub-
Atlantichnate, andtheeffectsothenearby &S. Severalkpidoptera
speciestha ive hereareusuallyabsenthm, or rar en,other riparian
forests. These faunalelementsarechmcteristic species of closed
montane mlxed fmst stands ,tlantic-plaor lower-montane aldaassociationorfensandmoistStreambasins,IntheSzigetkoztheymay
befound in the remnantforests ohrgherelevation,orinthe small
vncultivateforest mosaics ofthefloodplain.Consequently,thek
populationsaroftehgrnented andisolated.
The dry ,andypatchesofgrassiancoveringthehigherIocditiesothe
SzigetIroareimportantandscapeelementsshcetheyconserveseveral
characteristicspeciesthe steppeforestvegetationdthough these
patçhesarebecomingincreasinglydlsmbed.
(i) Oribatida
I
176 species of Oribatwere coliectein theSzigetkoz,whichisan
exceptionallyhigh number comparedto other name =serves and
nationalparksofHungary. For example109speciesofûribatidshave
been fond in theHoxtob6gyNationalPark, 195 in the Kiskunsdg
NationalPark,103intheBms NatureResem and 164 intheBgtmliget
NatureReserves.
I
The compositionof Oribatidscm be characteriseby chnological
categurisatiand ecologicaipuping. Thesizeofthesegmups isdso
important.
1. Wide-spreadspecie(489%): I
cosmopolita(10 species),holarç(40spies) andpalearctic
(34species)foatotaof84 specie(48%)
2. Speciesgmupswithsmallermas:
l
Empean (24species),Central-Empean(18 speeies),West-
North-Europea(6species),South-Westen end European
(24species),Meditemean(12sgeciesa)ndHungariaEnndemic
(5species)
3. Unidentinablspecies3
TOMof92species (52%)
Accordhg to previous surveys wide-spreadOnbatid species are
dominant elsewhweinHungary ,ven insuçh particularplaca. the
BgtmIigetNature Reserves(MMP%). In contrasthigh numh of
Atlantic,AtZanto-Meditma* andevenbmo-alpinefaundelements
wax foundintheSzigetkoz.
Highiyvaluablefauml elementsoftheSzigetfizwe havebstedklow
the most importantspies of thearea (occdg exclusivelin the
Szigekoz,demmding striprotection, rindicatitheuniquene as s
sensitivitytheareal.bufo,Bufo viridis, HyIaa~b~t-eaRana arvalis woltersfor$ÇRana
lessonae,Ranaridibunda,Ram esculenta).
The amphibians mcunhg in the SzigetkGzcan be divided into two
majorpups. The fust groupconsistsof speclivinpemanendy in
thewater,whiiememh ofthe secondrequirwateronly tempordy.
The arnphibianpopulationsof thefloodplainarektly controlled
thmugh theirreproductivebiologb yy the quanti@ and temporal
distributiof water. The repeatedlackof a highor medium water
levelsinspringwill severelyendangerAmphibianpopulationsin the
longterm. Presenthyhidisaticonditionsandchangesinwaterreghe
facilitathe spreadof Rana esculenta.Similarlythe sizeofRana
lessonaehabitawillobviouslyshrbk.
206 speciesof birdswererecordedithe Szigetkoztha s 57% of the
Hungarianornithofauna.166 specieare protectedof which134 nest
here. The highnumberof speciesismaintainedby themosaicityand
habitatdiversityothe SzigetkOzwWe the densityofthe species is
increaseby thedenseshb layerand theedge effect.
The species-compositioof the Szigetlrissimil arthat of lower
montaneforests,but withahigherdensity(ï5@20Q%). The presence
andCO-occmnceof divershabitattypeabws thebreedingof seved
st&ly protectedspeçies(CiconiaciconHaliaetusalbic'ca)
Montane faundinfluenceis indicatd the nestinofParus mofibanus.
The smng breediagpopulationsof PmelIa modularis and Hyppolais
icterimare&O worth mentioning.Withregardtospeciesrichnesand
diversi,theSzigetkozisthemostvaluablefloodplaiinHungary.
Thisareais ofvia importancasan ovwwintming gound ferwiIdfowl.
In factthis areisoneof thelargestoverwintmhg area s nEurope.
Some 1û-14 thousand individualof variousduck species have
ov-tered hm inpreviousyem. Maximumnumbers were reçorded
inJanuary. The mainchanne1 and the side branchesprovidefeeding
sitesof differenqdtia and flow speeds. Hi& numbers of the
European-wide white-taileeagle (Haliateus albicilla) winter hm
regularly.Either becauseof their exceptiondyhighabundanc(cg.,
mallards Am piutyrhynchos)or because of their international
conservationvalueasa hatend species,thfouowingbisd species
shoddbementioned(the estimatenumber of oveminterhg Lidividuals
isshown iaparentheses):
Mallard-Anaspla~rhaynchos: (Wû-7000) Goldeneye-BucephaInçlangula: Ica.3W)
Pochard-Aytlzyaferilta: (ca.1000)
TufteDuck -Aythyafuligula: (500-1000)
Goosander-Mergus merganser: (200-250)
Smew -Mergusalbellus: (&a.400)
White-tdedEagle-Haliaetusalbicilla:(ca.15)
Kingfisbe-Alcedoathis: (5001000)
The inclusion oftheSzigetkozinto the RamsarConvention, as an
importantoveminteringarefor aquatibas, is iprogress.Shilarly,
theacceptanceofthiare intotheBA (ImportanBt irAreas)Roject is
onits way. Owing to the dmp inwaterlevel, the food supply of
waterfowlwiiîplrobabIyecrease,andwinminggroundswill sbrinkor
might evendisappear. This richvkety of wuiteringbirdfaunais
seriouslythratenecl.
Theice-ag rliaMicrotusoeconomusis a veryvaluablespecies.Itis
fomd in almostevery largermd bed of the Szigetkoz,anatcertain
placesit ia dominantspecies. Athe kas outsidethedykesdry up,
thispecieswillprokblydisappearentitely.
SECTION II.TEIFE, FFECTSOFVERSION C ON THE
BIOTA OF TEE SZIGETKOZ
The effects ofthediversionofthe Danube can be demonstratedby
discussingthe alteadydetectabl(a),andthe preaictablelong-tem
effectsanddamages(3).
(a)DamagesRlreadyDetecdable
Theimmediate impactmainlyaffectedaquatiorganisms n sornecases
disastrouslyIt ialso cleathattheeffecon terrestrifaunawillbe
perceptible duhg the next vegetationperiod,since most of the
invertebratewerealreadyprepxhg forwintering,ad, kir activity
wasiower atthethe ofthediversion(October).
(b) PredictableLong-TemEfects:Damages and Changes
The naturai aluesofthSzigetkozaremaintaineblytheDanubeRiver*
As aconsquenceof thegeopphical andclimaticchamteristicsothe
Szigetkoz,it is the westemost fragmentofthe zond forest-steppe
vegetationinthe CarpathiaBasin. IfwwatesuppZementatio isnot
carriedoutthefollowingchangeinthefaunaarelikelytomcur. As a çonsequenceofthediversiontheUpper-andLower-Szigetkowz ill
changeincharncter.Theboundarybetweenthetwoareas will probably
mn ataroundthe Bagamkr side-brancsystem,wherethereare already
signsofhpounding,
IntheUpper-Szigetkoz,he radical chanof the waterdischargwill
transform planassociation,ndwiU alsoseriouslaffectthefauna. If
the surfaceandground-watelevelarestabilisatthepresentlevel,the
mostvaluableand characterisbotmicaland zoologicdfeanirof the
Szigetkowiiibe lostthatis,themosaicityofthe landsçap ae,dthe
presenceof ahigh diversiand a widerangeof habitatina reIatively
smdlarea.
The diversitofaquatiçhabitatsithefloodplaiand outsidthe dykes
wileithervanish,orSM& to acriticpoint. Thereforethe aquatic
floraand fauna,andseveralaffecteterrestriirganismsmay becme
extinca emigratetootherlocations.Thesize of thepopulatioMl
considerablydemase. In thelong-tem, biologiealdiversitwill
. demase, althoughspecie dsivmity (inweeds)might evenincrease
initia.W eylissome exampleshaeunder.
During thesummerof 1993rapidweed invasionwithhighproductivity
occurreinthedesiccatdsidebranchsystem.Great quantitiand high
speciesdiversitiesweed associdi oersrecorded. The foilowing
specieswerefound:
Chenopodiumrubm, Polygonm mite, Artemisiaannua, Sonchus
asper, Plantago heeolata, Urtiça dioica,Rorippa sylvestrisR.
islandicaR. mphibia, Chenopodium sbnabm, hter frudescenti,
Bidens tripartituGnaphalium uliginosum,Poiygonum persicaria,
Lythrumsalicaria,Potentla supina,Polygonm lapathifoliwn,Juracus
Bufonius,Rumex conglomeratw,R. smguineus, Matricaria inodora,
Bromustectonun ,SeneciovulgariSolidagogigante.
Mer twoorthree samil aears,thoriginaaquaticmmhland andfen
vegetationwillbeseverelydamaged.Thefloodpb forestsçannoteven
endurethatlongandwiUpbably be destmyedmorequickly..
The desiccatedgravebeds andshorelinesof thehg Danubehave
becornexmthemi habitats(Iika desert),wheregreatnumbersof
xerophiloubeetle specieshave recentiykn found(Amarafulva,
Amata similara, Anthicusschidtii,Colores hpei, CoccineIIa
undecimpunc~ata)for the firsttime inthe shore habitatsof the
Szigetkisz.
Lnthestagnanwaterbdies ofthesidebranches, planktonstock of a
veryhighdensityemerged(for example,in the Sziget-Danube6073-28368 individuah pro 20 litres).This amount of rotatorinnsand
plmhonic mustaceansisusudlyfound inpolytmphicwaterbodies.
Theflsraand fauna preservingcapacityoterrestrimosaic patchesis
stronglycorrelatewiththeirsizeandshape. As a consequenceof the
decreaseinthegroundwam level, and its stabilisaat asignificantly
lower levelthesernosaicswilbe Iostorwiil struggon even srnder
mas, under~i~cantiy worscconditions,especidly on the floodplain
andlocalitiesnearthehg Danube. The development of hardwood
riparianfmestsshouldtakeplace. The possibilitiesof groundwater
uptakeWU be bothspatialland temporarilythe deteminhgfactorsin
the developmentof the new biota. Inthis respectlocalities close
togethermayVary widely.
Outside thedykes he spreadand dominanceof zonal forest steppe
vegetatiunis expected. Theirspecies compositionWU be patiy
affectedby thespreadingcapacityof the species livingithe smd
fragmentsofpresent steppepatches.Perhapstheonly localitieswhere
quickchangewill nottakeplaceare thealluvialforeststandingdong
theMosonDanube.Ecologicallyplannedwater-regimr eegdationofthe
MosonDanubeand theçanalsoutsidethedykesmightslow down the
desiccatiopcess.
The expecteddegradationwiilfmt destmythe herbspecies--themost
vduatilebotaniciielementsarwiîhb thigsroup!Moreover ,hespecies
richness of phytophagousfauna is basicdly detdned by the
heterogeneitoftheherblayer.
The mesophilizatiotriggaedbydesiccatiowillfacilitatethespreadof
ubiquitousspeciesattheexpens of stenoeciouspecies. Thisprocess
wilEprobablyinitidy inme thenumber ofspeciesbut theduratioof
theincreasecannotbe pmücted. Thereaftera sharpdeclinindIversity
wiUoccur,as açonsequen ofehedisapparanceof thebhta ofthewet
habitats.
The effectonthe biota ofthe Lower-Szigetkoz cannot be easily
assessed .tis veqprobablethathevalue-at leasthenatureprotection
value -of this arewillbe morerespected. Thissectionwillbeless
desiccatedand,thereforetheexpd changeswillbe less pronounced
or nottak elaceat all.The Bagm6r branchsystemdesmes special
attention,incethesebranchestilcarrywater,Thereis noinformation
on the hydraulic and hydrologicalFesses going on in these
watehdies, but we suspectthaseveraiparametershavechanged since
the diversiooftheDanube.There isnochance thathi hch system
willsubstimtforthedamagedorvanishedbranch systemsoftheUpper-
SzigeMz.In theSzigetkoz,anenhancementof the rnulti-directilnigration
processis expectedIt is impossibto preûicton thbais of ou
biologicd howledgwhichspeciesgroupswillbeabletestablistheir
populationundertheconditiotocorne.
SECTION IE CONDITIONS OF CONSERVATION AND
REHABKLITATIO NF THE EXIS'SING HABITATS
Under present circumstances or even with n minor water
supplementatiosystemthe characterishabitatmosaicitsustaining
îhe diversiandnatural valuesotheSzigetkozcannotbepreserved.
Under the conditionspriotu the diversion,nature protectand
landscar peconsîruction-reha werlitantiaomed at enlarging
the areofmosaic-iipatches,anatmathg largerzonalhabitats.
OuL adviceconcemhg therehabilitatandpreservatioofhabitatis
inmediateand straightforwathemwition of the ecologicaifactors
susthhg the original naturalenvironment. These factorwere
controlledoriginallybthe Danubeitself. niereforethe highest
possiblevolumeshouldbfed- withouçtoriPintherewoir -intthe
Oid Danube.Butthisissueisnot&y abiologicaionebutapolitical
andtechnicalproblem.
Itis, neverthel, ossibtoattempttopreservsome aquatihabitats.
The @ce ofthis effort wouliexceptionalhigh. Sincethe basic
ecologicalrulespreditheoppositewe mustbear in mind thatina
considerablychangedenvironmentthelong-ternipreservationthe
biologicvaluesoftheseisolatedsmdareaisalmosthopeless.
SECTION IV: THEFAüNA AND FZORA OFTHEMIDDLE
SECIION OF THEPLANNED RIVERBARRAGE SYSm
(FROM GY~RTOTHE DANUBE BEN))
The particulpartofthebarragsyste rhatwouidhavefundamentdiy
affected the ecological conditionsof tiver sectionwas not
consaucted.Considerinaspectof natureprotectithis riversection
containtheleastnad valuesand mostofthefew fond herearenot
locateddirecm alontheshorelioftheriver.Theresearccd out
intfiiareaIsfarhm complete,limitto miil ateasandfew taxa.
Since 1987,btanical monitorinhas onlybeen camed outat two
locahties (TA- Molinietalia community,Ahbnesmiély - riparian
forest)withinthriversection,
SECTION V: NATUML VALUESOFTHE DANUBEBEND
The landscapcoulditsebethetargeofnatureprotectioandvalnable
landscapes should becmsidered in their entirety whenmbgconservationefforts. The beautiDanube Bend is an exceptionally
valuableregioninboththe geurnorphdogicaalnd aestheticsenseA
gecilogicalprocessIastseveralmillionof yearswas neededfw the
Danube tocutthroughthevolcanichiiitoform adeep andpichuesque
gorge.The outcomeofthislongandnatural pess iç oneofthe most
beautifullandscapesof Europe. Recenyears of hurnaninterference
have causedthemostdraçtilandscapedamage hereintheconstruction
oftheturbinepifortheplannedpowerpointntNagyrnaros.
The World ConservationStrategdefmes wetlandandaquatichabitats
and temperatedeciduousforestsasecosystemsdemanclhgthestrictest
protectionThe latteecosystemsarefoundto&y inthePannoman and
Kamchatkan biogeographicalegion. ThePannonian regionispartof
Hungq and offmer Yugoslavia. The protectioofaquatichabitats
and wetiands - inHungary severalsmali regions belong tthese
categ~rje-isofparmountimpoaance inEmpe.
It is impossibto predicttheindirecteffectsthe fillingupofthe
plannedreservoiratNagymamson biotanot directlylocated on the
shorehe. Nevertheiess,we arecerta tiatsuchaninterferencein a
rivervdey border4 withsteepmountainsides wiimnsiderablyaffect
the micro-andmeso-chnateand, hence,damage thevuherable and
sensitive membersof thebiota cspecidy those sufferinhm the
effects ofpreviousanthropagenienvironmentaldamage. The most
vulnerablevegetatiocmponents arethe Quercetiam-petraeacerris
associationslocateon theslopes facinthe Danube;Chpysanthemo
(corymbosi)-luzulo-Querçetuc~~munitiesof thesteeplocalities;and
the Corno-Quercettunpoetosm pannonicaeand Ceruso (mha1eb)-
Quercem pubeseentisplantassociations. The Festucion rupicolae
vegetatlonofthe southparof theBQrzsony rnountaimmight &O be
endangered.Also endangemiisthe mal),thoughvduableinspecies
compositionandhagrnets ofloesssteppevegetation.
The origid plantassociationsdontheriverIn theDanubeandIpoly
basin- Le.n,nturalsoft ahard woodriparianforest- werealready
severelydamaged bytheregdationoftheIpolyriverand theadvanmi
work on thebarragesystematNagymaros.Onlythewillow and pplar
associationssurvived.The remnantpatches of alluvialhardwd
ripari forest(oak,ashand elm treesare stilthrivinon thesmall
islands,peninsula,nd protect sedtionof theshore,butevea these
standswodd bedirectlyendangerdbydammingbelowor abovethe
barrage.Ammg the relativemm abundantwet habitatsoft wood
riparianfores&(poplarand wiiiow),Salicetm tiartdrae-purpurem,
MoiinietaliaArrhnatherefalin,andNanocyperionassociationwouid
be endangereand@aps ktroyed.The long-termeffects endangertheAgropyro-Kochie tndmgras
associationonthehighbanksof theDanube betweenVgcand God, and
theMolinioncommunfies atGüd and Sz6diiget. Moreover,thefateof
ex-mely valuable gras (Festucionvaginatueassociations,whicare
essentiallysimiItothosefoundintheGreatHungarian Plainthesand-
coveredpatchesand sanddunes neartheshoreof theSzentendréIsland
isuncertain.The future ofthe specifichabitatslocatednorth the
planneddamis dso doubtful.At present,thisteaischaracterisby a
high degree of mosaicity,wetland associations(Phalaroidetum,
Agrosteum albue, Magnucariçion,Pkragmiteturn,in thedead ms
Hydrocharition,Salicerm albae-fragilis,SaIicetm cinereae, Carici
elongatae-Alnetm, Nymphaetumalbo-luteue)and dry habitapatehes
(Festucionvaginataethatmay be presentneareachother. Thisshore
line zonationis determinbythegroundwatertable,and theplanned
reservoirwiU change the prevaihg gound waterconditions. The
Fraxino pannonicrae-Alnetumand Carici elongatae-Alneturhabitat
patchesdong the Ipolyfiverwhichare locatedfaztha wrayfrom he
Nagymaroswork site, areof outstandingvalue and demand strict
protection.As aconseguen ofthelastregdation oftheIpolyriver,
thesehabitatwereseverelydmaged and arepresentlin acriticstate.
Any Mer disturbancmight entireIywipe out the biota othese
wetlands.
Ttis verylikeIthatthemicro-and meso-climatichangesafisinghm
thepIannedconstructiooftheNagyrnarorseservoirwillmfom these
plantassociatioandconsequentlyaffectthefaunalivintfiereBefore
these slow-actingchanges,thedirectimpactof theconstnictionand
damming will heavidamagethe biota. The faunofthewet habitats
(marshlandsf,enss,orelinelareespecidy endangerdbybt effects,
while theanimalcommunities of the dry-wm sand,loess-wd, and
slope-steppelocalitiewilZbe mainly affected byindirect effects,
Consequently,the futureofthe icreplaceablefaunaelementsof this
regionis doubtful.
The populationsof protecte(orstrictlprotected)animalinhabithg
the ma - some of whichareincluded inthe RedDataBook - were
alreadyseverely affect&by the constructionofthe round-dam at
Nagymaros,because theirhabitatsdisappearo erd,ere constantly
disairbebyhumanbeings. nie habitatofthebiggesaquaticrnammal,
livingin EIungary ,he otter(Lutra lufra)was ahost cornpletely
destroyedmund Nagymaros.Someobrs migratedupstream intothe
Iply riverand migbtstiilbe fmd in themountains,but theformer
populationfocuswasclearlylocateontheDanube.With regartobirdstheaquaticbirdsanwadersshouldbementioned,
of whichmostresonthe Danubeduringmigrationoroveminterthere.
Bothnear thewaterbodieandsome distanceawayseverabirdspecies
buildnests:Mallar(Anas platyrhynchos),LittIeGrebe (Tackybaptes
ruficollis)andMoorhen(G~liinchloropus).Theendangemiandrare
Blnck Stork(Ciconia nigra)nests inthe riparianforests othe
floodplain. The LittleRingedPlover(Charadriusdubius)nestsdong
the Danube. Diiringmigratiomany birds rest or find shelterhere
durhg thewinterincludhgtheGreatWhiteEgret(Casmerodiusalbus),
theSpoonbiU(Plataleleucorodiaeleven speçiofducks,theLesser
White-hnted Gmse (Ansereryfhropus},the White-frontGoose
(Anseralbifi.oPheRed-thraateDiver(GaviasrellatandtheBlack-
throateDiver(Gavioarctica). Thelargwratesurfaccreateby the
dammingwilfenhancethevirtuaspad of theaquatifama (thsprd
of thenon-sensitiaquatispeciessuchasswans(Cygnusspp.)might
be expectedbut thevaluablesensitivespeciesmaydisagpbecause
tkeyrequirenotonIya substantiloodsupply,butapeacefulhabitat.
The constnictiof theriverbarragand the powerstatio-and the
concomitantdisturbanc-wouldprobably scareaway the fdowing
speciesofwinteguets : Merli(Falcocolurnbariu, eregni(Falco
peregrinlcs)Spottedeagle (Aquila clanga), White-tailed Eagle
(kkd~ed~~albicillandOsprey(Pandionhaliaetusas weil asseversal
striçtprotechxispecithatnestonthesteepcliffsfacitheDanube:
Raven(Corvuscor@ andSaker(Falcocherrug),sincethesespeciesare
extremel sensitt ivdisturbance.The constructiof thereservoir
would sutefcaustheirdisappearance.
SECTION VI: LITERATURE
A BOS (Gabcikovo)-Nagparosi Vizl~pcsOrends~ kapcsolatos
testulet~&sfoglai&ok. In: A Magyar TudomAnyo skade
testülekinekiiihfogIaliisai,Budap1989,p. 9-95. [Standpoints
conmnhg thBos(Gabcikovo)-NagparosRiverBarrageSystem. ]Ln:
The Standpointsofthe Conmittees of theHungaian Academy of
Science,]
A Gabcikovo-Nagymarosi Vi21épcsOrendszer adott m6szaki
rnegral6sM esaténvkhat6 kmyezeti ha&ok.el6rejelzése.MTA
KozpontiHivatal Budapest,22 pp. me PïedictedEffem of the
constructiooftheB6s (Gabcikov0)-NagyR maveosarrageSystm
ifCaniedOutAccordingtotheResentPlans.]
A Gahcikovo-Nagymaro s zi6pcsOrendszer kOrnyezeti
hatihtanulmhya. VEiTERV, Budapest,1985,67 pp+ tables.CThe EnviLonmen mpact Assessrnenof theB6s (Gabc&ovo)-Nagymaros
RiverBarrageSystem.]
A Duna-IpolyNemzetiparklktesitk6nekel6tanulrnhya. Budapesti
Temészetvédelm Iigazgat6sig,Budapest1.9Kézirat@rehinargf
StudieConcemingtheEstablishmentftheDuna-IpolyNationalPark.
Manuscript]
Boros,M (témafelelOs)991: AFelsO-Duna-szakaézrségokologiai
cklrendçze5s kornyezetfejl eavatéta. OKO RT, Budapest,91
pp + szakéa6imeilékletekme EcologicdSystem ofthe Upp-
Daube Region, and itEnvironmentaiDevelopmentPlans. Expert
studieincluded.]
Boros,M (temafele16)992:A "C vdtozat"hatasaa szbzfoIdi
vegetacih OKO RT, Budapest,46pp + figures.me Effectsof
VarianC onTerrestril10ra.j
Bos (Gakikovo)-Nagymmsi Vizlépcs6'rendszer területi
rnegfigyelOrendsreGsszefoglaljeleds a rnegfigyelkezdet6t6i
1985-ig Szigetko1-II Iudapest1988. (Reporon the Areaofthe
BOS (Gabcilrovo)-NagparRiverBarrageSystemfromtheBegiruking
l oftheResearchund1985.1
GdyBs, P. 1993:A Dunafoiigsibaa, Mosoni-DunBbana,huElbtéri
meU6kigakban6s amentettoldalivi;tfoly&oknegzettzooplankton
vizsgbtuk eredménye(i1993junius-julius).Budapest,5 pp,a7 tables,
Kdziratme ResultsoZooplsiïiktStudieCarrieOut intheMain
Branch,thSideBranchesoftheFloodplainotheDanube,theMoson-
Danube, and Water Bodies Outsidethe Dykes (June-July 1993).
Manuscript.]
KovBcs,Gy, 1986:Tewek,aggiüyok,feladatoIn- B6s-Na%ymmsi
Vizlépcshdszer, MagyarTudomhy 21 (4): 249-271. Flans,
Concems andDutiesRelatetothe Bk (Gabcikovo)-NagymarRosiver
BarrageSystem.]
Lang,E. (szerk) 199A:tervezeDuna-IpolyNemzetiPafkbtanikai
%Ifapotfeh6rése.Budapest. KéUtat. potafiicdEnvironmental
AssessmentoftheDanube-IpolyationaPark.MmusMipt.]
M&szhs, F. 6sBaâi, A. (szerk 19)92:A tervezetFe&-tavi+
Hans6gi és SzigetkOziNemzeti Park botanikai 6s zmldgiai
diapotfeh6r6se javasoltovezetirenàszereSzigetfcozBudapest,
325 pp. Kezlrat.me Botanid andZoologicalAssessment ofthe
PlannedFert&taviandHansggiand SzigetkoWNationaParkandits
Recommended Zonation.Manuscript.]Mész5rosF,. ésBnnkovicsA. (szerk1993:A Szigetkozbevégzett
6kol6giaikutat6seredmenye(iZoologia)Budapest,28 pp.Kézirat.
[TheResultsofEcologicalResearintheSzigetIr6z.Manuscript.]
Mészhs, F. (szerk.)1992:A szigetkoziDuna-szakaszmagyarorszigi
dszénekzool6giaiAllapotfelméréosszefogld6jelentb).Budapest,
81 pp. Kézirat.[ZoologicaAssessmentofthe HungarianSzigetkoz
Danube SectionReport.]
MahunkaS ,.,Mészhs, F.,Ronhay,L.és Simon,T. 1993:Tanulminy
a Szigetkoztmészeti értékeira6s a C-~iltuzavirhat6hataskbl.
Budapest,86pp. KéWat. me Synopsisof theConservatioValuesof
the Szigetkoz Regian and the Expected Impact of Variant C,
Manuscript.]
RosivalA. (szer k.93:A tmezettDuna-IpolNemzetiPark tkrsége
regionas éstajrendezésim. Vkçgiüatésprekoncepcio.Budapest.
K6Wat. mgional andLandscapeManagemenP tlanfor theDanube-
IpolyNationalPark.AssesmentandPreconceptio. anuscript.]
Simon, T.,Hohm, A. undKov6cs-Lhg,E. 1980: Potentielle
VegetatianskartderDonaustreckemvischenhjka und Nagymms.
PotentialVegetationlosof the DanubeBed between Rajka and
Nagymms.] Acta,Bot.Acad.Sci. Hung. 2(1-2):191-200.
Simon, T. 2987:TmüIetimefigyeI0rendszerbiolbgiaprogramjaa
GNV aItdérintettérségbenII. me Biologicdh&ram of the
RegionalEnvironmenAtssessmentSystemintheAreaAffectedbythe
BOS (Gabcikova)-NagymmR siverBarrageSystemII.]
Simon, T. 1992:Területirnegfigyel0rendsriol6gia.ipgramjaa
GW gltalhtett thegben, VIX. me biologicalprogramofthe
regionalenvironmexltssessrntysteimntheareaaffectebythe BBs
(Gabcikovo)-Nagymam RsiverBarragSystem.VU.]
Simon, T. 1993 : Szigetktirecensbotanhi ért6ke(1991 1-93).
Budapest,5 pp. Kézirat.merecentbotanicd valuoftheSzigetkoz.
Manuscript.]
Vojnits, A*[szmk.) 1992-93A:tewezettDtuia-IpolyNemzeti Park
zooldgiai aIlapotfeImérs-,I. Budapest. KézUat. [Zoulogical
Assessrnent thePlannedDuna-IpolNationaPark.1-IIM anuscript.]
Budapest,2 Octobe1993ICHTHYOLOGICAA LSPECTSOFTHB
GABCXOVO-NAGYMARO PSROJlECT
And Vida
HungariNaW Histoq Museum
DepartmeofZoorogy
October1993 SECTION k INTRODUCTION
The waterbodiesoftheSzigetkohave specialsignificancewhen
analyzlzitheichthyologicaleffeeausedby theGabcikovoBarrage,
siricetheswaterbodieshaveshown themost drhmatichangesso far
and areexpecteto suffe£romthegreatestlong-termeffects. Forthis
reason,theichthyologicaianaIysithe areamustbe discussedwith
referencetochangesithewater.
The exaMUled changes arepresentedinthree chronological
periods.The fmt "initiperiodpertaintotheconditionpriortothe
diversionoftheDanubein Octok 1992.Althoughcomction work
inthema durhg thiinitialperiod,suasthe workon theDunaIciliti
reservoir,alrehadhadcertaineffeçtonfuh-fauna,sucheffecwere
much less importathanthe changesfoliowingthediversion. The
diversionresultedmainlyindimhkhing thesize ofthe floodpiain
habitats,dongwith itthe totdstock of fish.The second period
describes changesthatoccurriefollowingthe diversion (between
October 1992andthe conclusionothi studyinOctober1993). The
discussioofthethimpIriod,Le.foilowintheconclusioofthisstudy,
gives predictashlort-anlong-tem changesforailindividuaiwater
typesbasedonthepriordataandobservations.
SECTION Iï:SITUATION BEFORE DïVERT'ING TEE DANUBE
i(Xchthyologia.luesotheinfluencearea)
The ichthyofaunofthe Szigetkozis highlyvaluablebecauseof
thepreseno cfunmua!speciesas weU asbecauseofitsspecialmies
compositionand combinatiosAccordhg to investigatiundertaken
befor teediversio,hesimx& watertypesoftheSzigetkozsustained
65 hh species. Thisspeciesdiversitoutstandinfor bothHungary
and Europ ae,awhole. Thenmba ofspecies inthesmatlfloodplain
andmain stm systemismique arnongsimilarEuropeawaterbodies
(Le.,thosewithody fresh-watefauna). Inaddition,80% of native
Hmgarianfish species can befomd in the Szigetkoz. Thesetwo
characteristicsshoulbe sufficient for demmding UiternationaI
protectioto theareaas one ofthe most importanichthyofaunistic
"paradises"nEurope.
RatioofendangeresdpeciesotheEuqean level: 22%(n=14)
Ratioof me speeieontheEuropeanlevel: 22%(n=14)
RatioofvuhesabIespeciesntfiE uropealevel: 43%(n=Z2)Themajorreason fortherichnessanddiversiîof species(highspecies
diversity) is th"cramming" (mosaic-likeoccurrenceof numerous
habitats ancomparativelsmallarea.
The water Mes of the Szigetkozcm be classified intsix main
ecoIogicalcategories:
- mainStream,
- hundatedbranchsystemofthefloodplaui,
-wetlandanddisconnectedbackwaters,
- mation and water-supplcanalsofthefloodfreema,
-gravel-pponds,
-Moson-Danube
A cornpletspecieslistanthefrequencyofspeciesinthewatertypesof
theSzigetkozaswellas theintemationaluatificatiofthespecieSare
summarised inthetableofthe Appendix.
The mainStream of thSzigetkozbelongsto thesubmontmeof
the Danuberiverandits charactespeci desvelupedaccordingIy.The
slope gradie n40cmb) andthevelocity(2.54s) of theSzigetküz
mainsmamare uniqueinHungary andprovidea habitatfoseverarare
rheophiiousspecies,such as Pararutilus frissi meiclingGobio
kessleriZingestreberand Gymnocephaiu schraetzer.
ThepopulationofHuchohuchoin theSzigetkozian outstanding
ichthyafaimistid value because this species lives in Hmgary.
Elsewhere,it sopulatiomustbe maintainedbyartXic ieledhgand
fryreintroduction. ormaly, thspeciescouldbefd inotherareas
of theDanube.
Fm the 25 yearsprecedhg thediversion,populationsoCotfus
gobio wereabundani tnthemain streamofthe Szigetkozbutwere not
report4 elsewhereinHungary.
'Fhechamcter species,Barbu barbusand Chortdrostomanasus
with @ealpineelements,uicludhgCotdusgobio,Hucohucho andSalmo
trutta m. fario, occurInconsiderablenumkrs. Sevd rare fama
elementsmayalsobefoundin theSzigetkoz,includimigratorPyont*
Caspianspecies,whichseldom occurinHungary,aswell asvoucher
specimensfoundexciusivelinSzigetkozincludingCaspialosakesslerl
pontica, CoregonuaibulaandCoregonuslavaretus. Theoîherspecies
ofthecommunity are&O primadyPonta-Caspian. The uniquequality,slopgradientndvelocitofthe mainStream
rnakes ireadilyunderstandablw,hy onthis60 km long tracsuch a
greatnurnberof &h species(n=57 3erefound beforthe diversionof
theDanube.
River regulation, floodconaol, navigation,and agricultml and
sylviculturl.tilisatiothe landdrasticdlyreducethe tenitariof
aiiuvialfloodpkns dl overEmpe. InHungary,however,floodplains
of considerablsize remainedintaictthe areaof theSzigetkozand
Gemenc,which togethewiththeifishfaunarepresentenanualvalues
ofEuropean-wid sipificame.
A characterisfeatureof floodplaibranch systernis high habitat
diversity. Side-amof theriverprovidespawninsitesfortwth native
Fishspecieand migratorspecieshvhg from greadistancessuchas
Vimba vimba. The highhabitatdiversityaccounforthe highspecies
diversity(n=52).
Notablefishspeciesithefloodplaiinchde:
A specialwatertype oftheflushedfloodplainbranchearepermanent
innerlakes TheseinnerIake savefaunasimiiarto thbackwatersofa
flood-&e area. Due to seasonalwaterleveI fluctuationstheselakes
temporarilycomect wlththe side-armsandprovidereproductionfÏy
development areas,aswellas feeain sites forflaodplainspeciin
additiotothebasicfauna.The mastimportan ter Iakeis OnthLake
1yinginthe~sviny branchsystem.
(3) WEILANDS AND DISCONNECTE BIACKWATERS
The backwaters of the flood freearea became isolatedhm the
floodplain duriformer waterregulationsThesebackwatersincluded
marshes, rnoorsand isolated waterbodies. ThespecXficphysico-
chmical parametersof thewaterare toleratedonlybya few species.
Due to thedisaparance ofsimilarwatertypes elsewhereinEmpe,
mostof thesespecieshavebecomeendangered.Forexample, a highly
valuablespeciesin theshabitatisUmbra krameriIndigrnousinthe
CarpathianBasinandrecord e dthe HwigarianRedDataBook. Its
mostsignificanpopulatiointheworldisfound intheSzigetkOz.Other
speçiesh thesehabitatincrudMisgurnusfûssil Cia,assiuscarassius(the dominantspecies), Proterorhinmannoratus and Tinca tince.
IR~caspitkselineclisa me, protectefaunaelementthatis abundant
insome partofZatony-Danube I.thebacwatersoftheflood-fieearea
23,speciewere recordeduringsamplecollectionsbefothediversion.
(4) IRRIGATIONAND WATER-SUPPLY CANALS OF TE FLOOD FREE
AREA
Between 1896 and 1900 a drarinagsystemwas constructein the
Szigetkozwhich,is now part of nearl300 km long cd system.
Althoughexistinriverbeds arealsousedIn this drainasystem,the
majorityofthe candshave mgulatedstraightbanks. Ichthyologically
intereshgareascouldonlydevelopatpointswithdiversehabita(e-g.,
bridges,mes fden intothewatermeanden andwiderpartswith thick
water vegetation).The outstandingprotectedand endangeredfish
speciesofthecanalincludeGobioalb@innatusandUmbra krameri,the
lattebeing veryscarceinthi s atetype. The totalnumber offish
specieshereis27.
Because thesubsoiintke Szigetkozis gavel, man hadduout grave1
formanyyears@or tothe diversion.The higgroundwaterlevels of
the Szigetkothengave risto lakein theseabandoaedpitsscattered
throughouttheSUgetkQz.
The fih faunaofthesp~nds istheïesd ofadficiid htr~du~ti@. dy
a smallportioofthesecommunitiesu, sualcyprin&, orightes hm
naturalcolonkation.Since&eh-faundmsnot considerablydiffher
other pondsrpnagedbyanglerassociationsî,heywilnotbediscussed
in detail.
The Moson-Danuba eIsohada flushedcharacte,imilatoatherDanube
branches with both sîmng mts and stagnant water bodies.
Migratoryfish speciesmove according towater fluctuations. The
ichthyofauna of the Mosan-Danube canbe divided into upper,
intermediatandlowermiches. At theupperreachof theMoson- 1
Danube, whichreceivewam sokelyhgh adyke ofthemain Jtrearin,
the kgest Gusterosfeuaculeatuspopulatihn HungaryGan befound.
Tworar eyprhidsParanitilusfrisii meidingeriandRutiluspigusvirgo
shoulddso occiaatthemouth oftheMoson-Danube.
Riversflowingint oheintermediatepama, RAbcaandLajta rivers)
havea greatimpactontheichthyofaunof theMoson-Danube. Owing
totheinfluenceothe Rgbariver,alargepopulationof Cobitisaurata
muybefoundnear Gy6r.This speci errneduponly ononeoccasioninother locatioof Szigetk~z(inthe Asv5ny branch systemnear the
&ai-dam in 1991). Ncarthe delta the RibaandLajta riverstwo
rar engelspecie(Zingelzingel,2streberwere recorded.
Thehydrodynamic conditionsandthefaunacompositionof the lower
ïeach athe Mosan-Danub eso havecertain connectiototIi ebove
mentionedrivers,but here the influence ofthe Maui-Danube is
considerable;orexample,Acipemr suthenus,which ischaracteristic
ofthelowertractofthemain streammay befoundinthelowerreach.
Mthough thehabitadiversitoftheMoson-Danubeis lawerthanthatof
the mainstream-floodplairisystem,thenumber of species is simila
(n=54 becauseoftheexternaeffectmentionedabove.
Comparativeickthyofaunisamlysis ofthe Szigerkwtztetypes(Vida
1993)
(Speciescategori-seeLelek 1981)
SECTION IIk CHANGESRESULTING FROM THE DTVERSION
OFTHEDANUBE
Followingdiversionthemainstreambecamedividedintothe distinct
sections,bas&onthehydrodpadc conditionsandf1shfauna typesthe
uppermach(hm Rajk totheend of the Asv9nybranch system)the
intermediatrcach(from theendof the Asv8nybranch systemto theuiflow of the artifcanaI)andthelowerreach (fro theinflowof the
artificicanaltothemouthoftheMosan-Danube).
The continuedinterconnectionof thevarious watetypes could have
guaranteedthe consemationoftheichthyofaunisticaluesfoundin the
upperpart. However, thediversionalmostentkly disconnectedthe
main stream from the floodplainwhose diversityis importfor the
survivalof manymain-stremspeçies. Thuson the upperreachof the
mainstream,dailyand seasonalmigrationktweenthe twoarea became
impossible. TEusfactwilllead to apopulationdeche andprobable
decreasein speciesdivmity ithelong terminthis sectionothemain
stream. The rnajorityof main-streamfish species spawned and
develaped asfry inthebranches,with theexceptionof the foLIowing
rheophiiousandstenoeciousspeciesthatspawnedin themain charnel:
Zinge zirtge2. streber,GymnocepbalussreatzerHuchohucho,Salmo
trutta m. fario ,. gairdneri,Gobio kessleriand Cottus gobio.
Strearnfiowandçhanneldepthdecreasedconsiderablyitheupperreach
resultinina reducedcarryingcapacityThenarrowedmain streamlost
most of its contactswitthetidalzone,thelittorapartof whichwas
indispensablformanyspecies.
CO~S &obi0living in the littoralzones is a characterisalpine
prealpineelementin thefish faunof themain stream. Aithough the
internationalsi@cance of this populationissmdl sinceitis wide-
spad atthe SalmonoidlevelsofEurope,overthelast25 yearsitsonly
recordedoccurrenceinHungary was inthe Szigetküz.Today,aserious
populationlossistakingplaceinthe upperSzigetkoztracof themain
stream,wIierit sabitathavesignificantlyIessened.
Specimensof Cottusgobio were notfoundatailin themiddlereachof
the main stream. The inflow hm the diversiocanal created a
submergedsection irihemiddiereach. Consequently,hemfddereach
entirelIostitssubmontanecharacter, sweU assigtiificantpopulations
of chatacteristsubmontane specie(themajorityof thefishmigrated
outof thetemitory).Tfimeainstreamnear theBagamérb imcheç dso
bec- a problem ara for fish speciesMg sampling afterthe
diversion,the followingcommunmain-smm speciescould net be
found(n=14):
-Abram iballem -Cobitistaenia
-Lota lofa
-Gymnocephalub saloni
Lesscommonspecieswere no1foundinsampiesfrorn thitracteither,
butttieirabsenceperhapscoube dueto samplingerross.Howeverthe
specieslisteabovesbuld havebeen foundduringany of the three
samplingperbds iftheirfrequenchadremained unchange d.us,not
onlythe totastockof fish,butthenumberof speciesdso decreased.
These demaseswere tikelycausedby thedisappearancoef the main
stmmts submontanechamter and the subsequent migration of
rheophilousspleciefauna. Compared to othermain stream tracts,
changesinthe fishfaunaarethmostrelevantinthe middlesiretchAt
this moment,the impactof the Gabcikovobarrageon the migratory
speciescannotbe ptedlctedNeverthelessthetemporarywatersupply
ofthebranchesonthe Hungariansideupstteamof thima isconnected
tothemain streamand thusthelackofwater inthemain streammay
hinderthereproductionmaligratiofmainStreamspecies.
At thetractdownstream ofthe powercanal,considerablempact was
observedover a one yearperiod. Potentidichthyofaunistchiuiges
cawedbytheinflowof smrd watercmot bepdicted atpresent.
Thus, the upper and submerged kactsunderwentnegative changes
çompared to thinitiastagbefore diversion.Thmches downstream
of the retuming diversion canal did not show considerable
ichthyofaunistchangesoveraoneyearperiod,
As a resdt of the diversionthebrancheslostmost of theirwater.
Consquently, the branches now la& even the most elementaq
conditionsfor typicalsi&-am fish fauna,including Esox lucius,
Cyprinusca~io, Scardiniuserythrophthalmusnd Tincatinca. Body
conditionsnecessaryfor hibernatbecame dical faseveralspecies,
astheirintensivefeedikame impossible ntthethe ofthediversion
inOctaber. Inthemain strem,theycouldnotfindenougfhood, Manyfishperishedordisappeared,(estimateat3 to 5time he annualfish
catchor)150-450,000kg,accountingforseveramillionsofindividuds.
Speçiesthahad ahendy startehibernatiogot snickinafew remairung
waterbodies and eventuallydied due to thecontinuedhabitatloss,
Aithough the inundationof lateMovernberfded upthebrancheswith
water, it was notsufficiento change the situation. Some of the
individuafiçhresettleinthe side-amis,butwhen thefloodwas over,
theirhabitatagaindlsappared. The watexlevelinthewater bodiesof
thefloodplaindecreasedtothegroundwatel revel andthenfdowed its
fall.Durhg the fustmonths aftetrhe diversionthemajorityof the
isolateresidud waterbodiesfrozeto thebottomseveraltimeç. Tfius,
thehibernakghh couldnot survivthewinter.Inseveraitractsofthe
kvhy branchesthousandsof fiswere fomd nozenin thefragmented
icecover. Astheconditionsforfishhihating underthe içeindeeper
areaswas notsufficienthefuturof thesunivorsis uncertain.
The diversionalsoseparsttethe upperand the lower sectionsofthe
Szigetk~zfloodplainWater levelsintheupperbrancheswere critically
low beforewater supplementationhad started.The former Iargeand
continuouswatersurfaceswere dividedinto'severalma.water bodies,
whichhindered migration,.ndthe feedinggmunds and spawningsites
alsobecameinaccessible. The populationsofthe rheophilousspecies
demasedto a greaterextenthan theothers.On the bais of coliected
smples, itcanbe assumed thatthenumber of predatooldmthan three
yearswas reducedto one-tentof theirIevel inpreviousyem. The
quantityofthetwo-yearoldfrydecreasedby20-30%.
Becauseof theabsenceof anicyfloodin Iatewinteand thePen (late-
s@g) flood,exceptionallyfewmain streamspeciesreachedside-am
spawnfngsites.
Due to temporarywatersupplmentation,several igratingrheophiious
speciesreappearedinthenffW partof thefioodplain.The majority
ofthesefishespresmablyretuniedfrom themain streamtothebranches
through theconnectedside ams and reappearedthroughoutthe upper
flmdpiain.
Suchrecordecispeciesare:
-BarbusbarbusNeverthaless, the number of non-rnipting, rheophiJousspecies
diminished in cornpaison to the initiaistage. For example,
Gym~rocephalu saloniuçedtobe abundant thefloodplalli.Therwas
anaverageof40spimens on a50m longriprappelittorâreaofhi@
velocityin 1989 ,sopposed to only 1individualon every100-120
mems in1993.
TheBagamérsiide-ann systemis alessendangeredfloodplaima. In
springtime,threproductioof severalcyprinid(e-gAbramis brama,
ChondrostomcnaasusandVimba vimba)was obsenieC dhangesinwater
conditionarelesss*g here.Owing tothe mainchmjeI, migrating
sheophilousspeciesmaybefoundin thelowersectioof thiswatebody
andtheratioofnon-migrahg rheophiIouspeciesissMar totheinitial
stage. Although subrnergingalsoaffectthis area, ichthyofaunistic
changeshavenot yetbeobserved.
Thewater disappearefrompracticdlyeverywhereinthebackwatersof
thefloodfrexarea. Theremaininshorttracwere soshdlow thatbirds
and 0th piscivorehaveconsiderabithhed the fishpopulations.
Mer thewatersupplernentationftheatony-Danube Umbra krmeri
couldnot be foundamong thecharacteristspecies(seeChnpterïI).
Thedisappearancoefthispopulatioisaserioulossinthegenetivalue
of thespeciw. InAmtria,where not evenashgIe specimenhas been
capturedfurfiftyears,ihasbecorne asymbolofnatureconsemation.
IntheLip6t Holt-Danubei,sestirnatdensitywas 3-10individuaper
squaremem in1992.
In additiothewates upplementationoftheZitony-Danubecausedthe
backwaterswithstagnantwaterand marshestohome, inmany parts,
"canals"with a cmt velocityof40-80 cm/$.Gmvltywater intake
fsom theMoson-Danub ceausedits f~hfaunta appearintheZitony-
Danube.Consequentiyt,he number of fisfispeciesinmased,buoniy
Misgurnusfussil remain edminantfrom thernembersof th"initial"
fishfauna. This seeminglypositiveeffecwas like1ycausedby the
colonisationoftheeuroecious,cornpetitspecies thatsupersedthe
originafauna.Lepomis gibbosw ap~leareinlargenumbers,afish-egg
consumina g,msive territorispies thatbadalreadysuppssed the
indigrnouselementinseveralwaterbodies.
Arnongthe rare,protectedelementsothemiginalfaunathepopulation
ofLeucaspiusdelineatusintheZgtony-Danubç eriticailydecreasIdn.
thekt few monthsitcould befoundsolelyat theedge ofa dyke(an
ma with stagnanwater)thoughfmneriy, itwas abundan tnseveral
partsof the Zatony-Danube. Instead,Alburnus alburnwsbecameabundant,nspecieswithbroaderecologicaltolerancatypicd pioneer
ofnewlyformeclgraveponds.
TheLipdt H~olt-Danube,which had had prominentiçhthyiofaunistic
values,driedout completelyafterthediversion. Al1itsfish fauna
perishedWater supplementation ithdrawhm themainstreamcould
not save the origifishfauna.The physicd, chernicandbiological
parametersof the water did not enablthe resettlemen(na- or
&cial) ofthisfaunaofEuropean value.Durhgsampling two pioneer
species (Carassius auratuAIburnusalburnus) and a one-yearold
specirnenof Cyprinuscarpiowere collectethe lattepresumablyof
localintroduction,Speciestheoriginafishfaundidnot oecuratdl.
(4) IRMGATION CANALS OFTHE FLOOD FREEAREA
Diversionbroughtabout a signifiant dropinthe waterlevel ofthe
canais,theiflow .wareducedorbecame stagnant.Consequently ,he
statusof rheophilouspecies becme criticalAs theeffects ofthe
diversioare delayethroughexclusivecontaclwithpund water,the
dhate mults becameevident onlyafewmonths Iater.Thepreviously
dominantspecies inthese canals,sufferea signific ponpulation
decrease:
-Gobiogobio -
-Gobioalbipinnatus
-Cobitistaeni~
The increasingdominanceof Lepomisgibbosus andRhodeussericeus
amam overmure valuablefma eleaientsistriking.
Fmm among thewaterMes oftheSzigetkoz,odytheMoson-Danube
hm notgreatlysufferesinc teheinB.owinrivershm the Hmgarîan
side (LajtaRgbca and,Wba rivershave alleviatthe effectof the
diversion.The evaluatioofdatacollectebt year doesnot showany
siHcant changes.
CONCLUSION
Themajority ofendangeredspeciecannotbe reproducedb,ecaus eeir
&cial b~hg isnotensurecl.Sufficiinformatio nnablinglarge-
scalebreedingis availabonIyforeçonomicallyimportanfishspeçies.
Our knowledge regadhg thenamal histor,reproductioandbehaviow
of rhesrar endangeredspecieisscant. SECTION TV: LONGTERMEF'FECTS OF THE DrVERSXON
(Tendencies,prospects,problems)
Theriverregimeof thmainsectionofthe Danubeisof alpinecharacter.
Inthe eventthatthe"alpinrhythm" seasonawaterlevelfluctuatiois
notsustauiedinthe floodplainmainStreamsystem,the spawning,fiy
development and hibernationofmain Stream fish speciesbecomes
questionable,ecausetheyarebas& oncyclicahydrologieconditions.
The hibernation,pawning,feedin and fry deveIopmentsites dnut
overlap,andisolated,mosaic-likwaterbodiesarenot convenientfor
thesespecies. Migratorspeeies livinin othertractof theDanube
fomerlyspawned inthesidebranchesofthe Szigetkoz.Thusadecrease
inspawningsiteswillaffectthefishfaunaof theDanube downçtream
from theSzigetkoarea.
An outstandingelementof the Szigetkomain s~am was the Hucko
Riho population.Theoccurrenceof thls çpecieswas aided by the
mng curent, high concentratioof dissolvedoxygen, Iow water
tempera- andsuitablenuwientsThe simultaneoupresenceof these
factorin themainStreamhas becornequiteimprobable, ndtbu, the
suxvivaofthi speciesiSzigetkozisverydjkely.
Thm are sevd otherPrealpinelementsintheSzigetkomaincharnel
of theDanubewhich aresensitivetofluctuatioof even oneor two
degreesin thewater temperature.The lowestreamflow oftheupper
reach,the decreasedmnt veIocityof theintennediatreachandthe
re-enteringofstoredwaterintothelower sectiowiU &t iranin-
creasedwatertemperatureord reachesinsummer- The future of Pre-
alpineelementislargelydependenantheresulthgwaterternpture.
Amongthewater trpe sftheSWgetkoz t,hefloodplaIs thernosmm-
plex system.Therefore,anevaluationofongoingchange is themost
difficulUpper-andLower-Szigetkoz wilibedividedmorecmris-
tically.Tbeirhrdewillpresuumblybethepointwhere the submerging
effectoftheDanubevdl spread(attheBagamé ide-amisystem).
Temporary watersupplementationcm at kst deviate thedetrimental
effectof the diversion.However,the Isolationothe mainstream-
floodplainsystemhasdecrease dabitatdiversitThe regularflwhlng
of theflmdplain was primarilyresponsiblfor the greatvarietyof
habitatandthestabilisatioofthewaterregimewill lead to alossin
habitadiversityIn theeventthatthefluctuatihydrodynamico sfthe
floodpIauichange,reproductionaalnd ontogeneticcycles a&ptedtoalpinehydrodynamicconditionsmay severelsuffe'Thesepotentid
change willleadtoadecreaseinspeciesdivmitinthlongtenn.
Thefish fama oftheseareaswaçmostprobablycompletelydesmyed
afterthediversion.With the exceptionof the Lip6tHolt-Danube,
temporarywatersupplementatiocornesfromthe Moson-Danubea ,nd
theimmigratingandrecolonizingspecieswiUoriginafrom kat area.
The stabilisatoftheelementsinthenew comunity dependson the
watersupp1ementatiolevels ofthenew habitats. At presentwater
velocities, the resettlementof the original community cabeot
expected.Ratherthedominanceofeuroecis opeciesilikelytoresult
and will result the nad devaluationof the area. Before the
establishmentofa stabilised,stationarycommun@, however, the
overdamZnancoef certaispeciecm beexpected,aswns observedin
similar,newlycolonisedsystems.
(4) IRRIGATIO NANAIS OFTHE FLOODFREE AREA
At presenti3sdifficuto predictthfuturdevelopmentof fish fauna
in theimgationcanals,becausetemporarwatersupplementation ay
considerablmodifr the situatioA,situationsimilto theZgtony-
Danube wouldlxfavourablefothecanais.
Due totheinflowingrivermentionedabove,littichangeoccmd to
thefishfaunaoftheMoson-DanubeT . heabillofthimsa toconserve
variousspeciesmay kome siWcant later with regarto the
ichthyofaunofthewholeSzigetlLOz.
Balon,E. (1962)Vazeichnis und6kologiscChmkristik derFische
derDonau.Hydrobiu1ogi(aBratislava,4441451.
1alon E.(1964)VerzeichnisArtenund quantitatZusammensetning
sowie Verandmgen derIçhthyofauna desLangs,und Querprofilsder
tshechoslowakischeDonauabsçhnittes.eipzig26pp.
-olèik,J.Basti, Im, M. & M. Vranovsh (1981):Hydrobiology
andichthyologyof theCzechoslovakiDanubeinrelationtopredicteà
changes afterthe consmdm of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaro iver
barragesystem,WorksLab. Fish.Ra. Hydrobiol .:19-181.
JancsbK. & T6thJ. (1987)Ahalfoldi Duna-szakas zsakapcsol6d6
melldkvizekhalai6 hdhzata, in : aHv 2, (szerk A):isalfoldi
Duna-szakasztikol6gi6ja.MTVeszprém AikaderniaiizottsAga.Schiemer,F. & T. S~indler(1989):Endangerefishspecieof the
Danube River in Austria. in: Regulated rivers: research and
management,Vol. 4:397407.
-6th J.(960) EinigVeriXndenrngeKiderFischfamaderungarischen
Donaustreckhe dervergangenenDekade(DanubiaiiaHungarica, ).
ARn. Univ.Sci.Budap. R. EotvoNom., Sect.Biol3:401414,
Ta J. (1965):Eine Abhancilmgüber die Verdndmngen des
Fischbestandesdes Mosoner Donauarmes(RanubialiaHungarica,
m. O~USC .d., 5(2)235-239.
Vida,A. (1990a)Szigetkoz6halai valtazisokWben, 1.Haliszat,
1990(5):157-60.
Vida,A. (199ûb)Szigetkl6shalaiaviütoz6sotiildben, Balhzat,
P990(6) 1:8-79.
Vida, A. (1993a)Threatenedfisheof theSzigetkoz. Misç. ZooI.
Hung,,Vol.8.
Vida, A. (1993bE ):pectedeffectofthe GabèikovoRiver Barrage
System ontheXchthyofaunoftheSzigetkoanditsvalues. Mis2001.
Hung.,Vol.8.
(2) RELEVANTMANbJSCRtPT AND REPORTS
MészikosF, Q Baldi,A. (smk.),1992A:tervezetFerto-mi-Hanshgi
6sSzi&etkiSNziemzetParkbotanika6i szoologiaiaIlapotfelmé6se
javasoltivezerendszere1. SzigetkoBudapest,25 pp.K~~L
M6shs, F. 6sBankovicsA. (szerk.),1993:A Szigetkozbvdgzett
okol6giaikutathokmdményei(Zodbgia).Budapest2,8pp*KéUrat.
Mészbs, F.6sVida,A, (szexk 1.)3: ASzigetkotem6szetimi
(ahogyismertü6sami vW). Budaph 20pp. K6Wl;t.
Mészhs, F. (smk.)1,W2:A szigetkoziDuna-szakasz agyarorsagi
ré&nek zool6giaigllapotfehéré(osszefoglal6jelentés).Budapest,
81 pp. Kézirat.
I Globdly hmed fish speciin the watertypesofSzigetkoz.
(Source:Anton klek: Threatenedfishes oEurope. 1987,AULA-
Verlag) TableI
DistrIburioofFishin theSzigetkozm comprue tuneighbowing war budies,
tkir mure conservaion stafuand represemionin uw collection
Table 1/1 387
Table112
Legend:
St=Szigetko1= mainchnnei2= sideamis,3irrigatmmls,4 -discohneaimcl~wter, =MW*
Danube;
H =Hungary:1=othwprtsofthecountry,2=DanuRiver3= catchmenareoftheDanubintheSrigek6z;
S1= Slovakanubereaeb(aw Holceial1981)1 =mainchanne, =siby @ems, 3 =biotap0ut4d ee
flo*Iain; l
A= Austn Daaubereacbenm Vknna andthSlov aorderafterScheimr Spider1989):1= main
ChaMeI , cpnnectedbaekwa - disco-edbdrwaters;
R =Submontanweaeofthelhnga&mWon of theRihaRiver;
C eollectfdtheSPgetkat(1983-93);
P=pmteetedbylawinHungary,
Th =~~ inEurope(afLelek1987);
BerrConvU. =ipeludedBeniConvenrioAppwidiII;
Ber CnonvII=IinciudinBernConvA,pndk IiI;
Cor.BM =kluded inCoripeBiotopesManriaIibytheCommissioofthEmpeanCommunities;
SymboIs-=am += ?=assimiedoamerm,*=randorn~nirr eaeae,2=c0mmo4
3= abht ENVIRONMF,NTALECOLOGICEAL'FECTS
OFTHEGABCXKOVO-NAGYMARO SROJECT TableofContents
1.Introductio.......................................... 1
1.1 On theeffecrsof ribarragsystemsonsubsurfaçe
waters:-geneconsideration...................... 1
1.2 Afîectedzonesalong the Rungatianside ofthe
river...................................... 5
13 Potentieffectinvariouphasesoftheconsmiaion
oftheMs-Nagymaro HsydropoweSrchemeBNV .......... 6
1.4 Developmen otfthmonitoringystemofsubsurface
waters.................................... 23
2. Summary of howledgeon subsurfaceatersandtheimpact spon
them .......................................... 24
2.1 TheSzigetkGaznditsadjaceareas ................. 24
2.1.1 Hydrogeolog yfthe
area............................ 24
2.1.2 Effects of the
hydropowe scheme .................. 30
2.2 AreasOn ttiHungaria sideof theDanubereach
betweenGonyiiandNagymaros .................... 34
2.2.1 Hydrogeology ..................... 34
2.2.2 Effects of the
hydropowesrcheme .................. 36
2.3 The Danube ban& downstreamof Nagyrnaros........... 37
2.3.1 Hydrogeology ..................... 37 Effects of the-
hydropower scheme .................. 42
3. Summary evaluation................................ 43
3.1 Summary groupirigoftheeffect.................... 43
3.1.1 Favourable and
unvafourable effects
of the original
design,asof KET ................... 43
X1.3 ' Expectabledamages
in the case of
maintaining the
praentconditionsof
waterdistribution................... 46
Risksrelated tothe
alternatives which
emerged at the
tripartite
negotiation....................... 47
3.2 Reliabiliofknowledge ......................... 48
3.2.1 Lackof knowledge
in variousphasesof
the bistory of tbe
BNV system ...................... 48Environmental/ecol effecsaof the Bos-Na~vmaros hvdro~ower
project
SUBSURFACE WATERS
1. Introduction
1.1 On theeffectof rivwbarrage -stems on subsurface
waters:-generaclonsiderations
Coristructionand operationof river dams alter water levels, the
hydrologicaregime, sedimentmovementand, in many cases,water
quality.Al1oftheseaffecthoseneighbourinsubsurfacewaterswhich
are hydraulic idleyconnectewith the channeflow.Thesegraund
watersare mainlyfoundinthealluvialgravedepositsof therivers.In
some situationthegroundwateris rechargedfromthe river,whitein
otherstheriversdraitheshallowaquifers.nparticularasesrecharge
and dischargconditionsalternate, aryinasa functionofthe water
stageinthechamel. In rarspecificasetheriverisinterconnectedot
ody withtheground watersofitsown alluvicone, butalsowiththose
of othergeologicallyolderformationsIn such situationthetivers
generallydrainthe ground waterthatflows in the oldergeological
formations.
Effectsof riverbarrageson thegroundwatersof the adjacentara
include:alterationsfthe groundwater tableand hydraulicheads,
changesof thevelocitanddirectioofgroundwatef rlow, modification
oftheconditionosfrecharganddischargeandchanges ofthequalitof
ground wate.
Eventuallyg,roundwatertablerisesinthevicinitofimpounded river
reacheswilaccutdue toincreaserechargefromtheriver.Howeverthis
effectcm be subsmtiallyreduced ifthe depoiitioof finesediment
particleonto thechannelbed resultsin clogging(colmarationhus
reducingthepermeabiiityfthechanne led.Under such eircumstances
the qudityof waterrechargedfiom therivermighcdeteriorate,asa
functioof thechernicalompositionofthedepositedmaterid.Ground
waterlevelrisemightbe sufficienthighinthe initiaiphasewhenthe
effectof çolmatatiis stillnegligthatseepagecanals(catchdrains)
rriusbeconstmcted inordertodrainexcessseepagewaters.However,
withtheincreasindepositioof finersilrypartictherateof recharge
of theground watercould be reducedby orders of magnitudeThisprocessmight resultisubstantiyl reducedexfiltrat(groundwater
rechargewhichin turncouldreversetheformerriseofthegroundwater
table,causinggraundwatsubsidence.
One ofthecmcid issueofthe effecofriverbarragesystemsandriver
impoundment osnsubsurfacwatersisrelatetothequalitandquantity
of sedimentdepositinontothe channelbeddue to thereducedflow
velocities.Thetheoretplrinciplofsedimenscouranddepositioare
relativelywell founded,dthoughin practiceestimateof sediment
behaviourare subjecttohigh levels of uncertainiHowever, the
cornbin cadeofsedimendt epositicoupledwithex- andinfiltration
fromlintothechanneldoesnot evenhave anagresdtheoreticablasis.
Relationshipsf sedimentrnovementdo not, general,considerthe
changesoftherateof infiltratntothechanneas affectby thejoint
effectsoscouringanddeposition,lthougitiswellknown thatinthe
caseof intensivewaterabstractifrombank-wdls,thedepositionof
particland theclogging(colrnatato)thechannebedçan occureven
when high flowveiocitieswouldhave ben expectedto preventthis
proces.
In the nineteen-sixtsnvesiationswere carriedoutat the Water
~esources~esearch CentreS~U Iih respecttothe "estionsof
diqnrl bedclogging(colrnatatipn)'(S t aro so&).znkh,esa
seepage,.@mitwasofoundthath.~processtakgsplacundercondrtsonsg
characteristcftheDanubem sdimentproperties.
In thecaseofbank-filterdaterabstractinchemes thefluctuatiof
riverwaterleveiIsgeneralsufficientyighthatsomeinfiltratinto
theriveroccurfrorntirne-to-tiehiscanhaveaneffectsimilatothe
wash-backor flush-bacprocesswhich isappliedinthecaseof man-
madeslowflters usedinwaterand wastewatertreatmenprocesses.If
thisprocesdoesnotoccurinthebank-filterwaterabstractisystems
problernsmightariseeven incaseswhen theriverflow velocityis
considerdhigh enoug o preventdepositionConsequent lyif river
traininmasures resulintheeliminationfthistwo-wayflow pattern,
thecontinuouslylowtoward he groundwaterfromtherivercm result
in thecloggingof thechanne 1ed thuscausingdeterioratioof the
hydraulicreiationshbmeen the groundwater and theriverflow
regirnes
Inplaceswheregroundwaterishydraulicallonnectetotheriver,Ioss
of headof ground waterswlll occurin ateasadjacen o the river
channeldsownstreamof thedams andin thecaseof powercanaltypearrangementalsointheriverreachesofreducedflow andwateclevel.
Rechargeof groundwatercouldceasor eventheflowdirectionreverse
along riverreacheswherthe rivehad formerlybeenfeedingground
waters.Inrivereachëswheretheriverhadbeendraininground waters
the rateof fiotowardsthe channelmightbesubstantiallincreased.
Along riversectionsanarmsofreducedflowandwater stagtheabove
effects mightsuccessfulbe counteracteby rivertrainingmethods
whichreestablisormaintainpreviouwaterlevel(e.gtheconstruction
of bottom dikes). These rnethods, howevercm not be applied
successfullin case shere the reducedflowis associatewiththe
depositionoffinparticlsediments, hichclogthechanneibed.This
situatioisliketo beepeciaIlyserioatlocationswherethriverhad
origindlyfedthegroundwaterresources.nsuchriverreachesteducd
flow velocitiesmightalbe associatewiththedeterioratiof water
qualityofthe riverandof theporewater ofthe depositedsediment.
Ground watersubsidencea, in principlebe counteracteby the
constructionfinfiltrat(rechargeanalsandbains. Neverthelas,in
practice,thissoluticm give ristoa rangeof otherprobïemsasis
clearly shownby therelevanliterat Tureseincludewaterquality
deterioratidue tocolmatation.
The greatesproblemsrelatetotheeffectofriverdamsonsubsurface
water resourcearelikelytobe associatewithbank-filterdrinking
waterabstractioschemes and withthechanges ofthe groundwater
tablewiththechangesbf thewata ofshallow' roundwater sndwith
theassociatewaterqualitproblems.(Fimire.)
Along theimpounde riverreaçhes,omeeFCectsnighbepositivesince
increasedrechargfrom theriverreducesthechanceof groundwater
abstractionywelb frumtheusuallmore polluteoff-rivbackground
zones.In periodof lowriverflaw,whenbackground waterof worse
qualitymighthavebeenabstraetepreviouslyi,mprovedgualitofthe
abstractewatercouldresult.However,negativeeffecanbe expected
in termsofthewaterqudityoftheirnpundmentsw , heredepositsilt
cm induce undesirablehangesC.hernicdlreductivconditionmight
develop,resultininthedissolutioof ironandmanganeseand inthe
increaseofammonium concentratioHsydrogensulphideandmethane
prublems mightmise andmicmpullutant souldbe mobilizedunder
teductivconditionsThesituatiocanbefursherworsenedif dreûging
disturbthebottomdeposits.The aboveprobIemscana!soaccur icaseswhereimpoundmen toesnot
actuallyincreawaterlevelbutmaintaintheoriginariverwaterstages
atreducedflow rates.
Enthe caseofioweredwater stages,dong thdownstream reachesthe
water yieldingcapacityobank-wellsrnighbe adverselyaffectas a
functionoftheextenof loweringofwaterlevels.Thisrnighbefurther
aggravatedbychannebl ederosioalongthedownstrearrneaches,which
couldfurtherdeçreaswaterstage,especialundermean-andlowflow
conditions.
Effectonthe shallowgrourdwatertablandon thewaterbalanceof the
phreaticaquiferareespecialimportantfromtheviewpointsofnature
conservationf,orestandagriculturet,hIsfromthe viewpointofthe
wateravailablefor vegetationanthe ecosystemas a whole.In this
context,asinkingground watertablecm çreatethemostproblematic
situation,especiallyincaseswhenthevegetatrelies,duetothelack
of sufficienlocalprecipitati, n the supplyof moisture£romthe
ground waterresources.ncaseswherecapiilartisedoa notreachthe
topsoil, thlocatioof thegroundwate ablebecomes irrelevanrom
thispointofview.Excessiv eiseofthegroundwate ableçan alsobe
problematicr,esultiinmoresoi1moisturetha nesirablandinexcess
water inundation30th positiveandnegativeffecton thesoi1water
budgetcanadverselyaffectthesaliniofthesoil,sometimetohmful
extent.
Many literatureexamplescm be cited ro illustratethe observed
occurrenceof suchadverseffectsForexample:
fi'teredzoneadjacenYoethe reservoofaaebydtopowerstationot-the
RiverLirnmaw t asdecrmed tozero,resultingintheappeararufiron
and manganese IntheabstractewaterThe reservoiistherecipienof
thewaste watersofZürich.(Miirki1961) 1
Black typlcallyanaembic,siltof higharganmatterandironcontent
was de qsitedon'e bottom ofther+eqoir of thehydropowelswon
of Verloion theRiverRhone,resultin intheappearanc efhi hiron
andmanganesc eoncentratioInthesu6surfacwater(Mkki, 861).
At areservoioftheRiverAaare theoxy en
to appr.4.0mgll andthewatec abstraed
rnanganaecontent(Schrnassmanaln.58.gressiveIn spitepf having thehumus removed from the filtezone rapid
deterioratioof the qualityof well waiwas observedat the river
iron and rnanganesewere detectdeedonubswithiincreasedoxygen
cunsurnptionwd ammoniumconteq andLe presence*ofhydrogen
sulfidc. Bactermcountshad dramat~callincreasedleadito severe
operationaproblemsforthe waterworksheber. 1981).
In the casof the Abwinden-AstehydropowerstationoftheAvstrian
Deube reachrapid deterioratofthe quaityofwater
reservojrManelageseap eredwehinasyearfollowedr
ammonium anbdissoivdiron(Frischrez.986).
Inthe Altenwoflhreservoir(Danube,Austri-where4 miliionm3silt
has reachd6srrn-theiqreasedatrqparencynof.theyateran4nrirer
nutrieytsup lyresultdm ,a20% incraseof biologicalactrvityand
teductionO?oxygensaturatio1.nJul to63% 1HarvandNachtnehel
1989). Inthe reservoi$eposiiiqnH? sedimentparticlesof rnodera!;
anaerobicconditqnandtheconcentratioosammoniumdam, issolvediron
and mariganse inthe groundwaterincreasedEnrespectp de ositsd
toxicheav metalsthepresentconditionareof noappreciabiYlzard
(Colley.1J88).
1.2 Affecteionesalon?theHun~ariasnideofthe river
The Danube reachaffectaibytheBos-Nagymaro hsydropowerscheme
stretchebetweenRakj a(thebardestation)andBudapestDownstream
of Budapestte effectsareeitnegligiblor indirect.Wigure2.)
Flow in theriverreachof çoncernis bydraulicaiyonnectedtothe
adjacenground watersdong thfulllengthofthereach.
Followingacoursedownstream t, efirstaffecare astheSzigetkoz,
the areabetweenthe Danubeand theMosoni-Danube H. owever,the
affectaiareextendsbeyondtheMoson Dianubetotheareabetweenthe
RiverLajtaandtheMosoni-Danub e, tharea soutof theRiverLajta
and totheareaof Hansllasfarasthemaincanalof Hansag.Thisarea
bas tobe subdivideintothreepartsbothwithrespectto thoriginal
conditionand totheeffectoftheriverbarragscheme:
-
In theUpperSzigetkozasfarastheRiverLajtaandtu
the SW hm bis line the groundwatertablebas
generallnotreachedthefineuppersoi1laye(which is
missing atmany locations),nd the effects othe
hydropowe srheme canbemostlycharacterizinterms 396
of therisofthe groundwatetable;
-
Inthe MiddleSzigetktizthe relationshbetween the
groundwatertable andthetopsoi1isvarying and the
effeetof thehydropowerscheme can be characterized
bygroundwate ablesubsidence.
- In theLower Szigetkoz,downstreaof Szapwhere the
tailwatercanal rejoins the River Danube, the
groundwate tablehrtsgenerallyreachedthetopsoiland
theriverbarragesysterorthediversioof Danube did
notalterthisituation.
Thenext riverreachfurrhedownstreamis theone spa~ing between
G~nyü and NaevrnarosA. lonthi seach,whereatpresenthardlyany - ,
effwtsof thehydropowesscheme canbe felt, dto thehaltinof the
constnictiooftheNagymarod sam, thealluviagrave1depositsof the
riverareoflesserthickn estsdiscontinuits.etweenDunaalmaa snd
Esztergom,theDanubeis hydraulicallinterconnectd itthekarstic
waterreservoioftheDunantiiKozephegyseg(Midd IMountainRanges
ofTransdanubia a),situatthawillbediscus bsedowinmore detail. l
Downsrream of Nagymms, where no impoundment had been
contemplatetd,eeffectsofthehydropoweschememust be investigated
from theviewpointofthebank-fitterdrinkingwaterresources fthe
IslanofSzentendre ,saffect bydhetailwatesftheNagymaro sam.
Sincethi latterha not beenconstructeno obseeveà effetsof the
hydropowe schemecanbe mentionedinthiscontext.
1..3 PotentiaefCec ofvarinushasesof theconstructiof
the]Ms-N~EQ~~~o HvdropowerScherneBNV.
Prepaatoryinvestigatiaismedatsiipportiheelaboratiooftheplans
ofthehydropowe schemehadairdy beea carriaiutinthe nineteen-
filliemainlyinthe researccerivVITUKI.
Beforetheelaboratioofthe MutuallyAgreedPianKETthe following
snidiewere made inthefieldofsubsurfaceaters:
- Predictionof gtoundwater levelsubsidence in the
Szigetko(Honti,1953;Vargay,lm; Csornane 1965); -
Hydraulicscale-modelstudieof seepag (catchdrain)
systemsof theSzigetko(Vmdk, 1965,1966);
- Laboratory analysis of colmatation{dogginof the
channetbed)(Starosolsz,y1966);
- Investigationnto the strengtheninof dikesin the
SzigetkO SzUvaS y, 1970);
-
Investigatioofthewater budgetof thetopsoilin the
Szigetkoz(Major,1976);
- Investigatiosf thegroundwntebrasinof Komdrorn (
Varrbk, 1966), Esztergomand Pilismarot(Vargay,
1964);
- Investigatiof theproblems of bank-filtedrinking
waterrmurces, causedbysiltdepositi(Bulkai1976).
- Investigationsintochannel changes and sediment
movementdid not indude questions related to
groundwater recharge,butprovidedinformation for
researchintothisubjectCsoma, 1966 ,967)
InthisperiodVIZITERV carri outthefollowinginvestigations:
- EffectsontheWateworks ofGy& (VIZITERQ 1976);
- Effects of the channeldredging downstreamof
Nagymaro( sAujeszky,1966;VIZITERV1 ,976)
The originalplansof theriverbarragesystemwere includedin the
MutuallyAgreed Plan"Km" (VIZITERV-HYDROCONSUL Ti.se
planconsiderdtheeffectsotheprojecon thegroundwate rithrespect
tothefollowingaspectonly:
- IntheUpperSzigetkoz an increaseothegroundwater
table elevatiowas foreseedue tu the effecof the
Dunakiliti reservoir. Counter rneasures were
çontemplatein theformof catchdraincanals.
- In theMiddleSzig&Oz, where a flowof50 -200 m3/s
was to bernaintainen theold chmnel,ground water table subsidenceof severai meters magnitude was
foreseen.Irrigatiwas plannedto alleviathe adverse
effectsofthis subsidenceThe constructionof bottom-
dikes in the abandonedDanube hanne1 was also
conternplatedong withtheadditionasupplyofwaterto
the floodplainand tothe protectedsideof the flood
levee.However,specifclansforthislattersolutihad
notyetbeenelabrateciatthattime.
The plansdidnotconsider atthattimetheproblems of
diminishingwaterrechargeiatathe valuablepotential
subsurface drinking water resource of the grave1
formationosfthe Szigetk~zAn earlierstudy(1976)by
the resporisiblplanningagency VIZITERV did not
considerthe effectçoftheriverbarrageprojecon the
operationofthewaterwork nthe vicinityoGyBr tobe
harrnful.
- For the impoundedDanube reach between Szap and
Nagymaros the MutuallyAgreedPlanKETçonsidered
the increasedexfiltratifromthe RiverDanube,only
from the view point of preventingexcess water
inundation.
-
LossofcapacityofthewellsoftheIslandofSzentendre,
abstractiwater from thebank-fllterrdesources,as
foreseenby ET, due to theeffectsof the planned
dredgingoperationsdong thetailwaterreac ohfthe
Nagyrnarods am,
On thebasisoftheaboveconsiderationiscanbestatedthattheKETdid
notdealwiththeeffectson subsurîâçewaterresourcestoa satisfactory
extent,inspiteofthEactthattheimportancaendlocation ofthealready
utilizedandpotentialutilizablbank-filterdrinkingwaterresources
was weil known even atthattime. Although the nesd for relevant
investigatioandremdialmaures had beenbriefl mentionedt,hese
were tobe considerelateramong thenationatasia.
In thepetiod 1977-89severalsnidiesddt with the above mentioned
problem:The foilowing investigationswere caroutnt the WaterResources
ResearchCentreVITUKI:
- Groundwaterlevelchangesof theSzigetwereforecast
by a twodimensional numerical cornputet mode1
assurningquasi-steadfiow conditionand by taking
localseepageraistanceintoconsiderattoo (Székely,
1977);
- An analogue rnodel was usd for studying the
effectivenesftheDunakiitseepagecanai(catch-drain)
andof theinfiltrat(rechargesystem(Varr6k, 1978;
~jfalud~,1979;Hqa, 1979,1983; fijfalud1984).
Neverthelestheproblemsrelatecto channelclogging,
maintenance-typeredgi ngdwaterqualitywereonly
mention&andnotevaluated,andanisotropy wasody
considerdbyestimatedvdues,However infiltratfield
experirnenrserealsocarrieout(ujfdudy, 1985)
- Investigationof the water quaIity conditionsof
waterworks relyingon bank-filteredrinkingwater
resaurces(LllszI6,1981)Estimationofthe expected
qudityofDanube watetwas ddeawtithinseverdstudies
(Hock, 1985;Laszldetal.1987);
- The relationshipbetweenthe river and the karstic
resewoit system was studiedfor the vicinity of
Dupaalmii sndEsztergom(Lorberer,1987-1989)
- Effectofthe hydropowe rcherneon subsurfaceaters
(Szabdn 19,5).
- ResearchrelatatothetopsoilintheSzigetkl(Hutyb,
1985; Vargay, 1985), and to ehannelchanges and
sediment movement(Rakbczi, 1985, 1986, 1988;
Bogdr, 1987-89 ;ornisnd1,986;aczay,1987-89)dso
provided informationfor theunderstandingof the
problem sfsubsurfac eaters.
-
Thiswas theperiodwhen resea~chers jfdudy, 1988)
startetomnsider subsurfaceaterqualitproblemsof andsurveyedtheagriculturlndotherlocalsourceof
pollutionitheSzigetküz(VGI1988)
TheHydraulic DesignCompany VIZITERV a1socarri edtseveral
investigationrselatedtobank-fidrateresourcesin1978and1984.
The proMems ofchannebedclogging(çolmatatiw)erementioned,but
"fine" dredgingwas considerd an efficietooP in solving these
problems.
-
In1981a studybyVIZITERVr ,elat odtheregulation
of the groundwatetablehad been dealinprirnarily
withtherelacionshpetweengroundwater,agricultural
production,floodplainforests,natuand Iandscape
protectio,ndflooddefence.Groundwater regulation
(rechargw)aspraposedbymaking useofthewater(50
m3/s)deiiveredbythe catchdracanalstbatsurraund
theupperresemoiwiththehdpof seepag (nfiltration)
canalstobe consttucteinthe floodplainandinthe
protwtedsidofthefloodlevee.Howeverthistudydid
notdealwiththeproblemsof colmatatio(clogginof
thebottomof infiltratcands) andneitherwiththe
potentialrelatwaterqualityproblems.Thepotential
vdue ofthewaterresourceofthegrave1formationsf
the Szigetki,zsa drinkingwaterresource,wasnot
ccinsiderdithr
-
The BudapesUtniversitofTdnology dso starteto
studysubjecrelatetoseepaghydraulicinthisperiod
@ME, 1988).
- Attentiohad beeridrawn tothe potentialharmful
effectoftheHydropoweprrojecon subsurfacwaters,
sming in 1983,firstoalby M. Erdklyi,withspecial
respecttothe Szigetkozareaand to the DunAnhlli
Kozephegyseg (Middle Mountain Ranges of
Transdanubia).These studies wete, however,
professionlublicatioonly,beingindependenofthe
officiairepor,ome ofthemore importanstatements
ofthesestudiewilbe refend tobelow:
In 1979a publicatiob Erddlyipointedout, with
respectotheeffectsofde hydropoww scheme onthe
10constnictiworks"the conneaio+betweenthe maing
channaalnd.thegravelformatisllpe weaken.4and
thatothesidsriver-arwsill practicall !errninated.
importantrecharge section fo*thegraund watert
resourceof the thickravel basinof 43yEl. oday
groupdwaterresourcearebeingrefreshinthedown-
keacoatemrlatedconstructprojqtthe rechar~nto
the grounwater,storagbasin wriEbe ,substantiaJly
rduced, narrowtndown the zonereceivingrecharge
substantiatoo.
ThegronindwatertaMewilfa11ovea substantiarea.
Mwy plant cultyrp tyght be de radd or cm be
irrigatilac#tngO?pollutansuchasfertilizrnightid
be expecteto mcreee, since tvat coarse-aq~cle
basinof theKisalfo1withoutany.naturaroection,
dangerIFassociatdrtbnitratekachingandownwardt
penetration.
detprieratinfwaterquaiitrnightefalsoexpectedes,
uaiitative deteriorJirnightbe further
ed, ind~pendentlyof the effects of the
esticidespao eother poliutant+ri inatinfroms,
~ouseholsewage andlargescalanimalusbandry.
rqourceofe*eanation1sfou@utinthe tayeisof Ne
KisalfolbasinA resourcof sirnivafue1sfoundin
thesouthernT~szarivede ressioonly.The coarse-
partiefoqationsoftheG $ Basinhaveatotavolume
Calculatinwith 25% orositytheevolumeofhwater
storedthereamounttoP.43km3.
the identificaofoprobemsredtedithe ydrcipower
scheme:
barrageproec1smoreethan30yearsold. bruigmeser
thrseded esmany-chan geveoccurredintertrof
bol thenaturalnvionmentandthenatiqnaleçonomy.
shouldberevisewhefheritisoutdatdr notandifsot
eowhat extqt?Are theprioritioftheobjectivesthe
same +s or1inally se, namely: navrgation,power
inte~ated objecti,of agriculture,watersupplyand
environmentapirotton?
He wnsidered the role of the cont~mpf@ed
armsaepositione:ersuppiyschemeto the side riverlongedrurationwoujdbeethesmostvaluablefor the
refreshpenandcjeaningof grouwaterresourcif by
re tatipgthe sidearms the had also servedfor
surfacthahad%eenavailablebeforetheriverîegulation
forwharge çouldbe reestabli sferd, thelargest
osslblsurfaceforrechargidurin ,thI ortestrrme
Pargevolumesofwatermo me .
In 1983theHungarianAcademy of Scienceshadbeen
dealingwith the scientificallydisputtxiissthe of
hydropowerprojectBNV. It drew attentionto the
urgencyof investigatof issurelat eothehazards
of pollutiofthRiverDanube andtothosethreatening
thfidrinkingwatersupplyof Budapestwhich relies
predominantlynbmk-filterddrinkiwaterresourcs.
Preparatioof an appropriateenvironmentalimpact
assessr n entropos&.
In 1985 VIZITERVprepared a documenton "the
Environmenta mpact Assessrnenof the Gabcikovd-
Nagymaros HydropowerSchemen.The impacts on
subsurfaceaterresourcewere investigatfromthe
pointofviewoftheSzigetkoareatheSzap-Nagymaros
Danubereachandof the karststoragereservoofthe
DundntdliKGz@hegys.ég T.he ned to protectboth
utilizeand potentill utilizablesubsurfacedrinking
waterresourcesasalsmoention iethi s ateri. he
documentunderlinesthe problemexistingalong the
Danube reacofconcern ,iscuss hengonditioprior
to the establishmetf the hydropoweprojectThe
potentialharmfueff'ecofthe hydropoweschemeon
subsurfacewatec resoiircare considered,in this
material,were to be either negligible oreasily
diminatedPositiveffec havealsobeenmentionedas
follows:The increasof theDanubewater levelwas
considereasa phenornenocnounteractigolmatation.
Groundwatelrevelwere to beregulat lster-toan
extent which would be betterthan the previous
conditions-by mificial drainageand infiltration
systems.
With respectothequalitofsurfacewaterrecharging
subsurfacwatersto channdbd aiterationandin this
mntext tothequalitatiandquantitatieonditionofwaterdischargeintthegroundwaterbearingformations
the impactassasrnentdidnot go intosufficiendetail
(amongother aspects itdid not considerthe partial
resultsof the KisalfdldResearchProgramme of the
Hungarian State GeologicnlImtitute,which wete
availablatthattime)The investigatiintotheimpacts
of groundwateclevelchangeonagricultureandforestry
caribeconsideredawellfoundedone.
Jnthefrarnewor kf anexclusivround-tablceonference
theHungarianAcademy ofSciencesmadea statementin
1985, on the contentof the abovemention4 impact
asassrnent.Wirh respectro subsurfacewaters the
followingstatements eremade:
-
thewateryieldingcapacitof thebank-wdlsof
theam sumundingthe Nagyrnaros reservoir
willdecreasduete theeffectsofsiltdeposition,
Jtmustbecounteractebdy reguldaredging,
- unifieenvironmentmalonitorinnetworkshould
beestablisheinordertobe abletoquantifythe
.,changesexpected.
It wasdso of relevanceto subsurfacwaters tfiathe
document consideredthepossibilitof inundatingthe
floodplainforestsofthe Szigetkoz.Anothetissueof
relevacewas theconsiderationfanirnprovemenoftthe
waterqudity ofthe RiverDanube andthereductionof
poilutiolaads,prioto tliconstructin fthe dams.
A reportof theHungaria n cademy of Scienceto the
Councilof Ministers,in1988, considea rrdady the
possibiIitiesandconsequenees of nat building the
Nagymaros dam. Among the reasons the risks of
pollutioofbank-fiiterdroundwaterresourcest,heloss
ofpotentiabank-fitlerwaterabstractiocapacitiesare
mention&.
In theperiodfollowingthe preparatioof the impact
assessrnenttudymanysuch investigations erecarried
out,theresqltofwhich shouldhaveben availablwell
beforemaking theMutuallyAgreed PlanKET (suchas studies on surfacewaterquality,sedimenttransport,
supplementarywater conveyancintotheside-armsof
Szigetkoz, subsurfacedrinkingwaresoutcesandthe
situationof karswaters)In 1989therewere several
questionsstill opedue to inadequatylcoordinated
researchinvariousfieldand tothe lackofa unified
systemsapproachR . ecognizinthi s largeresearch
projecttemode1 alof theabovernentionepdrocesses,
includi subsurfaceflow and transporth, adben
initiatedwiththemaintasksto be undettakeby the
researchcentrViTUKIin closecooperationwith,and I
supervisio(andalso financiaisupporby IIASA (the 1
InternationaIlnstitutefor Applied SystemsAnaiysis,
Laxenburg,Austria) (Szollasi-Nagyet al. 1989).
Althoughthe projectwas launchaibythe Hungarian
pmy with amajoreffort,ïesultinaipreparatorytudy
of sevenvolumes,whichreviewsdal1former research
resultof therelat eilds,thislarge-scprojectwas
nevet çompletd,due toseasonsbeyondthecontrolof
theresearchinstitutiisnvolv Iedte 3rdvolumeof
theabovm eentionepdreparatorreportSzoll6si-Nagy,
S~ekely and Ujfaludy, 1989) the following
çonsiderationselatetothequdityofsubsurfaceaters
ofthe Szigetkoz,ecemade:
"Even if we make the unrealisticallyoptimistic
assurnptionhat
-
- the waterqualityof threservaiwill notbe
worsethanthatof the RiveDanube now, and
that
- therechargeratesof the artificialinfiltraion
systemwillnotberducd bychannelclogging
(co~rnatatioa),that
- thequalitofwaterrechargedwiIInobeworse
thanthaoftheDanub e atenow, andthat
-
theuseof agriculturclhernicsndtheextent
of poliutionby communalwastes will not
significantly deviate from. the present
circumtancesa,ndthat
-- themervoir willnotoperateinpeakinmode, even&enwemusttakesubstantia clhang efthepresent
groundwater quality conditions into consideration.
Namely, upon the effect ofthe operationof the
hydropower scheme the groundwaterflow will be
substantialdteredflow pathwaysandtheirlengtwill
be aitered"
"Theonlychances ofirnprovinthegroundwateqruality
are
- thesecucinof morerationalseof agricultural
chernicasnd
-
theremovaiorreductioof communap lollution
loadsn
Theauthorsfurthestntedthat
- Theeffectof theplanneàdrainagsystemwill
befavourabledong theDanubereachbetween
Gydrand Nagyrnaros;
= the imp&lidmentwill have Mme favourable
effecîan the.bank-filterddrinkingwater
resources"thesafay ofwatersupply wiIlbe
increasefrom thequantitatieointof view"
and"contaminatifnom thpollutebackground
zonewill be reduced, since the ration of
groundwatef rlowfromthebackgroun dowards
thebank-wellws ibe decreaiog.Nevertheless
bottomdepositsofratheruncertainîhickness,
particlesize md chernicalcompositionwill
"inereasthecloggingof theChanneo ln one
hand",and "car ieteioratthequaiytofwater
producedby thewells"
-
Inthecaseof thekarsticgrouwaterreservoir
inthe vicinity of Esztergothe "additional
exfiltratfromthe Danube"willbeincreased,
by the year 2000, by 30%" and "the
deteriarationf karsiicwaterqualitymustbe
takenintoaccoun ttcertainlocations";
- Along the Danube reach downstrearn of Nagymaros one must, in any case, consider
substantial changes of the quantity and
compositionof sediments,which ,-dong with
further changes of water qualofythe River
Danube-, rnighhrther modify the quality of
waterof thebmk-wells"
Due tutheabovementioned reasons,andassociatewith
politicd change,heGoverment of Hungarysuspended
the Nagymarosconstructionprojectin May 1989 and
orderedtheacceleratioof additionlpecialstudies(in
the field of biology,hydrology, sewage treatrnent,
seismologyandenvironmenta plrotection)dong withe
estimatioand evduatiooftherisksinvolvedInAugust
1989theGovernmenC t ommissioneorthe BNV project
haddecisionsupportmaterialrepared. ollowingthisan
independen expertcornmirteerepareda reporfor the
Council of Ministers(September,1989)in which the
expectedharmfu lffectonsuhsurfac e atersplayea
decisiverole:hazacdtoexistingwaterworksCteIyion
bank-filteredrinkinwaterresources),u thepotential
water resourcofthe graveformationsoftheSzigetkoz
(mainlyfrorntheiriepointofqualitatideterioration),
to the ecosystemas awholeand tothe gsoundwater
regime wereemphasized . evertbelethedocumen tid
not prove, interms of detailedresearchresultsthe
magnitude or probabilitof the mentionedpotential
hazards anddmages.It mentioned t,hariskanalyses
cmid outup tathattimecouldnotbe considereas to
beof suffichndetailorscientificbasis,sincemonitoring
datawere notavailablforalrelevanissues(whilethere
were possiblytoo manyobservationstationsof near
surface ground waterestabtishd).With respect to
subsurfac eatersitiofsignificancthatthCornmittee
'didkt considethe damming oftheriveran acceptable
*&tutiono,wingto thelackof appropriatweastewater
treatmentDue tothe expectedenvironmenta hlazards
and riskkthe cornitteesuggestedtbatthe optimum
decisiowas toterminat el1constructionorksof the
BNV projet onceforal]Thecommittee alsusuggested
rhatthechannel-closurof the Dunakiliti-KGrtvAyes
reservoibe suspendeduntiîan appropriatecological guaranteewasobtainedanduntitheoptimumoperating
ruleoftheRis hydropower statiowas definedThis
issue alhas relevancto thequestionof subsurface
waters,
- Investigatioselateto problemsofsubsurfacewaters
werealsocontinuedin1989(Lhsz1andPhczayn6 , 989;
Motyovszk ,y 1989; hrberer and Csepregi, 1989;
Bognar ,989;Laczk6,1989)
- In 1990theBechtelConsultinagencyofSan Francisco
considerd"thegeneralmethodsaimedartheprevention
ofthe etiecof harrnhlchangesofthesubsurfâçflow
regime"appropriatoenesandmadeproposais forlocal
modificationsn thebasisofmore detailemonitoring
data.
- In 1990 Erddlyirais4 again the questionof the
relationshipetweentheriverbarragesystemandthe
subsurfac eatersHe statedthatafterhavingtheMis
hydropowe tationcunstructet,efollowirisituation
willbeencountered:
"Rechargeof ground waterwiH b.ealmostcompletely
[email protected] lositsroundwater
regulatinunctioow,hichwilfbetakeove53ythe side-
arm systemonly"
artificglmundewaterrechargsystem:hecontemplated
"The self:!rificatcapacitof Danubewilldecqease
viewhofdrinkmguwatersupfyioncthedownstreamside
(dsoforBudapest)
w#er cesourcealmgtheaianuerreachoftheSzigetkoz,
willbelost.'
"Seepagewaterhm theDunakilitrieservoof 354
systernwillnoticauseanytfavourablchanges sinceion)
mostot rhiswatewülbs aviistionalconveyedbythe
grave1aîtertheconsider81osof hydraulcead.
Channelsof thpside-mnsystem wilEmostlyform @e
elementsof tbis roundwater rechargscheme. Itis
questionablah&er ornot thisaystemwillbe abltocloggingofthechance1beds,youl occuat,thsdjerthe
slopeandflowvelocit condition,ftehavingtheside
arm channels îegulred, and whether or not flow
causqthe quality of thegrountrwaterzresourceto
deteriorat'?
in 1991 the studyon "theprob@leeffects of .the
danarniqandawaterqualityof Danube"n(Szab6LM.,al
1891) ii~semdanydisputes. hisissuedso relateto
subsurfacewatefs. IIndiscussions
autho. (Varadyand Vevanné 199f)dr
-!etles to be exaggeratedbut the
decisionmakerseven-moreuncettain.
After the goverment decision rnentioneabove,
problemosf subsurfaceaterresourcehavealsobeen
discussed at internationdCzech-Slovak-Hungarian
negotiationS.olutitusheseroblem wsertobefound
by the joint expertcornittees (Intergovetnrnental
negotiatiuosnthe2ndofDecember ,991)Subsequent
intergovernmen teiotiatiosndcorrespondencweere
inefficiein findingsolutions,theCzech-Slovakian
partneridnothalttheconstructinorksandwanted to
cary outthecontemplateinvestigatiosnthehazards
involveduringtheperioof constructinndoperation,
withthe suppor tftheEC. In thisperiothe Slovak
partylaunchedlarge-scainvestigationss,upporbyd
PHARE, telatetothemodellinogf subsurfaceaters.
The Danish WydrauficInstituteDHI assumed a
significatoleinthesestudies(itexpertparticipated
from ECms part in the subsequentnegotiatioThe.
resultsoftheseinvestigatio becompletedby 1995,
havealreaûyproved the potentirisksof damage to
subsu&ce waters if the original plans ofthe
hydropower scheme were implemented;in order to
protecthewaterwork ofSomorja (Somorina)dditional
measurehsad tabetaken tochangetlowpatternofthe
reservoir.
Between 1989 andthesumer of 1992 therewere no
investigatiosf appropriateetailintthe problems
relatetothehydropuwe scheme andneithewere joint
ptojectscarriedout. However there were someachievementsinthreefields:
- Furtherplanswere made to find appropriate
solutionfor the artificialrecharge(infiltration)
system (ÉDUVIZIG, 1989-92)although bey
have not been finished; thequestionsof
colmatatiocharnebl ecloggingthatmightbe
expecteduponprolongedrechargethroughthe
channelbedof theside armsstilltemainsstill
open ,longwiththoserelatedto waterquality
deterioration;
- Under acontcactwithHungarianAcademy of
Sciences,etail4 investigatserecarcieout
intthestatoftheenvironmen it theSzigetkoz
andtheecolagiclequiremen Investigatioof
subsurhcewaters were part of this praject
(MAFI 1991;Somlyddy a al. 1992).Tbesr
investigatisonsiderdconditionwithoutthe
existencof therivebarrageschemeand were
expandeùody afterOctober1992, aftetthe
diversionof Danube, to iacludecunditians
affectbytherivetproject.Prdiminarresults
of these investigationshave influencthe
subsequendecisionrelataitatheriverbarrage
projectEn1992 an ad hoc carnitteeof the
HungarianAcademy of Sciencesprepared a
Statemenon the ecoiogicarisksofthe Bos
Hydcopowe Sreherneaking researcresuitof
1991 intoconsideratio. tatementhm this
studywithrelevancetosubsurfacwaters,are
citedbelow:
"Due. thespecial drogeologicclqnditiosf
thSzi etk~hapfu Isubstances,qing int@e
afewndecades,ornleteypoilutthesubsurface
warer.resource.%unherm9re pntemplated
dredgingof accuqulated s~lt will noonly
completelremovingmeffilter,laitwillopen
Ehpwayfortherntrusionf micropollut andts
mscrobeisntathegroundwatetoo.
"The mificiarechargesystem airnedat thetheabandon4 Danubecharineldownstreamlof
theDunakilitidamwili aIsocause,due to the
i@Iowingrawwaterandalsoof the stateof the
side-arma charnels which are pmnf: to
deteri~ratrof thefull waterresourçestorede
there.
charnelrb@ bwithlrespecttoeorganicmafiere
decornposionandfilterintheprqentdynamics
ofDanube shouldbepreserved. rthoutiipne
oxygen-sup ly, tavoutable sfl purrtication
ropertieoPthe Danubeandregularrerrewalf
&e channe1surfacwhich actsasafilterlayer
ïseveralposybilitiq for
effeçtofyariourivertraining
dreding operatonson the
waferprod~ion, as the
resourcearefoundainthiregion'.inkinwater
"Accofling to the r~lts *of c@mi,cal,
thetwateroquality(atbank-w-ells)sasanon-s
objectionablinperiuâspreceditnhe ans. of
dredgingoperatiom. urin qnda erdredging,
algae,iron, sulphurbaderia, col1 bacteria,
~ncidentserefrequentlyetected.ollution
"IFare. withgroundwat arblesubsidencehe
the organic ma~rialcontenteof theesoi11s,
de~reast ehevil structudeterioratsndthe
dqger of leachi plgptnutrienfromthesoi1
rootzoneswillbe termiYedwinplaces, dueto
roundwatertablelowering,fromthe-ficover
Bayerto thunde~lyinggrave1formationsAs a
cons uenceof thitheyieldofcuit~vateülants
substanti@lyecrwed,8e $roughtsensitiviof
theara 1s-~nçrea tsisuppl of waterto the
foresiswi11 aiso &ange anJ *g pr-entiy
spliin.nindependentatchesthqqrganimatter
produqon of communities will be
decreas ~ng,
anaerobic processes b-orneldoprnant,itheg
dangerof Fxcesswaterinundatronsinq~asing
uiareaswsthpoornaturadl rainaconditionsTheCommittee ofWziterManagemenS tciences
of thHungarianAcademy of Sciences(March-
April, 1992tooka contradietostandpointo
thatof tad hocCommittee,alsointhefielof
aubsurfacewaters.The "Opinion" on the
Statementof the adhoc Cornmitteeof MTA
(March,1992)referto the impoundeDanube
arm, theSoroks&iDanubeam, asanexarnple
notverifyingtheaboveraisedanxiet(actually
herethe conditioof bank-filtratnremuch
more unfavourabli, tecmsof bothqualityand
quantityPhanitheSzigetkaor atthIslandof
Szente&lre).~iscussinbottom depositsand
damagestothefiltezone shestudystatthat:
"Potentjalamages tothe bmk-filterqwater
~finenmdredginghebottomsrltoroby g-ves7
dredgingconcentrat4atcertalocationotthe
reservolrn
The same is repeatin relationtheplanned
artificwatersupplyandrechargesstem:
"Ifchainebedclo ingaffecrtchargint toe
roundwate o un!efirablexte(, thclogged
kYer canberemovecbiydredging
The opinion ofthe Cornittee for Water
Managemen StcienofsthHungariaAncademy
ofSciences,formulatdnApril1992inrelation
to the BBs Hydropower station and to
'AlternativeCassignsless significtocthe
water resourceofthegrave1cornplexof the
Srigetkoz:
"Inthisarealessthan1% ofthe po ulatiof
the countryreceiveswatesupplyR om these
resources.The NationalWaterManaement
longtermutilizatnfthiswatercesourc,ince
exhaustin-of theNationes drinking water
resources1snotexpectable.The geograhical
coursethewnveyancerofwatervrawatermains
overlongdistanceuneconornic".l The above quotationproves that therwere
substantiincertainitnjudgingthelongterm
significanofthesewaterresources.
Jn May 1992 the Goverrimentf theRepublicof Hungaryissued a
statementon theterminationofthecontractof 1977.Part sf this
statemenrelevanto subsurfawatersinclüdethefollowi:g
- The mostsignifiantdrinkinwaterresourcesfboth Hun ary
and Slovakicm be founddon theDanube reachesafïect b
drink'rigwaYraproductionoriginatesfromthebank-filtered
drinkingwater resourcesaffect4 by the, B6s;Na ypafos
HydroowerScheme.Budapest hasbeensuppliaiwithi5ieking
Pozsonyr(Bratislav)elieonithesametypeofcdrinktn watery
resourca.Mostof theaaturalfiltratprocessetake4-acgin
the upperfew cm qf the channebed.Consequ.entlit1s a .
presemethefo~iinastatofrthi+biologicaactivelayerwhich
providesphysi5-chernicfiltratiaswell.
- The qudity and uantityof watesyed in thealluvial rave1
cone of severa\ undredmeers thicknessof thCsa okoz-
Szi etlr~araarealsodeterrni bytdefiltratpro eqis of
theflanubediane1bed.Human interventioassocitxwiththe
riverbarragescheme have notyet affect. thcontinuousl
kmclongriverramesouaravallablerespectivi-S!ovakiaand
Hungary asdrmking watecteservesforlatutilizatlas,was
indicat bed,the tesultsof deiailewatec quality and
fortob,ungaryca -ci;iin4hwater*tproduction reserve of
appro~imately1 millionmMay (beingufthe same arderof
ma nitude as Be presentFateof. d~inkin water supply of
aucon$nwusbais,cofor Sloyakia. Uponme weffectof'tha
Dunakliti reservoirsubstantialchangeswill o-rnrth+e
resourcesme mostslgn~ficapobleq willbe asspçiatW.
conditioandoin@edissolutiqof tgnandmanganesenaswellc
asin theinfiltratofncertaintoxisubstances.he bottom
sIudgewillcreateat the same time, permanenhazard of
rnfectiby viruses.
lnrelatiototheeffectsof theDunakilitidamttextoftheStatement
is thesameasthatof thadhoc CornmitteeftheHungaria n çademy
ofSciencesWithrespectathelackof investigatnesu1stStatethat;
"The extenof resourceof the
investigationsinthe Itis tube notd th.the aboveoutlinedopinionofHun arian
express.eintheir finalrepoofFebruarye199Qa.eerysi&ilar'
conclusions,inresect tthelackof investationsbave been
drawnbythe ~analianfirmHydroquebq, w fch wasinvitaiby
theSlovakGoverment forconsuitatiinthe Faiiof 1990.
Just before and aftthe diversionof the Danube in 1992
investigatiowereaccg!erat@bqtthe focussedmaiplyon the
durationof these inv-atigatrohe cantonotrbeaconsiderd
cornpletalthoughthyrresultyu1 crbevety muchneeded f~r
supportinthe~rrpartitenegotto thathavebeen.aunched in
the meantir(in reparin thisd~ument, whichwilform p~
weretaçed,sinceare. outsidetheSzigethavenotdbenflately
dealtwithataIevelsimilatothaof theSzigetkostudres)."
1.4 Devehpment of the manitorinsysternof subsurface
waters
In accordancweiththeproposaisforenvieonmentail pacassessrnent
VIZITERV prepared,in1985,a planfortheenvironmentaml onitoring
system,which,withrespectosubsurfacwe atermeanttheoperationof
theexistingroundwate revelandqudity observatiosystem of wells
and theexpansioofthe network(VIZITERV 1,986 ; antuano,988)
In the nineteen-fiftapprciximatel00 observationwelIs were in
operatioalongtheDanube reachof concern, ostof whichfomed part
of thenational ydrographieetwork.Intheperiod1980-86additionai
wellswereestablisheintheSzigetkozandlatedownsrrea mfGonyü.
Some 6Oûwellsweredrill4 and thisprovedlatetobemore thanwâs
needd. In 1991morethan100wells were excludedfrorthe network
and subsequentlythe number of weltsusai has fiirthdecreased.
Evduationswere preparedbyVIZITERV alsoin 1987-88dealingalso
with the qvaliand quantityofsubsurfacewaters.Evaluatioof the
periodof 19861992 (KGI,1993)was madeonthe bais ofdataof 150
select4 wells,sinthesewellshad longandreliablrecordsSomeof
the wells werequipped with dataloggers,butgood recordswere
availabîefoody thosewellsthatareoperatedby theStatGeological
ImtituteMAFI .heBudapestWatervorkshas its own monitoring
networkon theislandof Szentendr. atecqualitchangeof the wells
ofthe BudapesWt atenvorkseremonitoredat200wells.
withrespectodeeperwellstherecordasrelascumplete .3piezometer
wells ofVlZlTERV and3 deepwellsofMAFI weremonitoredbutthisprovidedinsuficientnumbeafdata.VITüKlhasproposedtheextension
ofthemonitoringsystemseveratimes(Liebet al.1993).Withrespect
towaterqualitythemonitorinsystemshouldbe expandedwithregular
waterquaiityobservatioftheproductiowellsAtthepresentthereare
nearlySU productionwells in'theareaof concern assignedto the
subsurfacwaterquaiitmonitoringnetwork.
The greate prtblemisrelattotheinappropriaevaiuatioofthedata
oftheobservation etwork.ven thefauitdatahavenotbeenscreened
outindue tirne.
2. Summaryof knowled~e nf suhsurfacewatersandthe im~acts
upon them
2.1 TheSzi~etkozand itadiacenareas
2.1.1 Hvdroneolonovftheara
The Szigetkozis loeatedanplainwhichis formedbythe Quaternary
alluvialconeoftheRiveDanube. Itisborderehy themainchmel of
theDanube andtheMosoni-Danub andthustheareaisactuallanisland
of52 km lengtand 7-8km averagewidthwithanareaof375 km2T . he
ailuviacone of theDanube extendsfarbeyond the Szigetkozand
includearea nosthofDanube cailedtheCsall6kGp,artiareas lying
totheW andS oftheMosoni-Danub h,eare aetweenMosoni-Danube
andthe RiverLajtaand partofthe area
calleHdansag.Inthisstudywe wilfbedealiagwithareassouthofthe
FüverDanube ody (Fimire3).
A sandy,dayey complex, storing thermalwaterat largerdepth,
underliethe alluvialQuaternaformationwhichreacha thicknessof
700 m (Fimir4) at Mme locationThe effectofthe riverbarrage
systemon thesunderlyindeep layersinotconsiderdtobesignificant
and thuswilEnobe discd indetail.
The Quatemar complex,consistinofroughclasticformatio, asfirst
describedin 1938 and river morphologiçalh, ydrologicaand
hydrogeologicasludiewere undertakenin the nineteen-fifM.eore
detailehydrogeologicealduations erprepareidtheearl seventies.
Geophysicd studieof ththirtiedealtmainlywitthe deepstructural
aspects. alogicaknowledg oftheQuaternarcorne clastformations
was rathesparseuntitheeightieandcorresponde dothenearsurface withsmallerwater Ievelin theUpperandLowerSzigetkoz,due tuthe
deepeningof thechanael.Thae effectscabe observe.inthe variation
of theadjacengroundwateiIevels.
The Danube,havingsuspenda ihannel,hasalwaysbeen,evenbeforethe
river regulationthe main supplierof water tothe aquiferof the
Quaternargyrave1complex. The infiltratof precipitatiwater has
been generallinsignificanicornparisoo therechargefromtheriver.
Hydraulicconnectio akesplacernostlythroughthewellwashedgravd
channebl ed ofthemainriver,whiieleswater infiltrasvertheflood
plainand acrossthemostly sedimentcloggedchannelbeùs ofthe side
arms.Accocding to researcraults theoverailratof rechargeofthe
aquiferdong theDanube rmch oftheSzigetkozamounr o 8-10 m3/s.
The groundwatetrablehasaslopeof 0.- 0.5mlkmtowards S-SE ofthe
Danube (Figures5a. Sb.)Groundwate lrvds, sIopand thedirection
and velocitof flowVaryas afunctionof thewaterstageof theriver.
Groundwatelr evels (Figure6.show closecorrelatiowith thewater
regime oftheRiverDanube,which alsoholdsfor the waterlevels of
deper wells. This effet' diminisheswithdistancefromthe Danube
(Eimre7.)D .ependingon thedistancehm therivertheresponseofthe
grouridwntetr thechangesofwater leveofthe riverhasathe lagof
1-8 days,butthefuIleffectwilltakeplaceafterseveralrnononly.
Waterociginatinghm the Danube cm be identifia(on thebais of
tritiumandoxygen18 isotopestudiesatseveralhundredmetersdepth
andalso beyoad the MusoaiDanube. This latterindicatethatthe
Mosoni-Danub tepsthegroundwatefrlowonlypartialjyandthe ratof
,the flowproceedstowards theHansdg,where itis drain4bysrndler
mals , andby theRiverRgbca.Thisisthecharacteristisituatioaiso
inthesouth-eastempartsof thLowerSzlgetkiiz,wherewaterworksare
tappingtheflowinggroundwaterO.nthebasisoftritiuinvestigatithe
actualflowvelocitievarybetween250 and 400mlyear.Propagatioonf
tritiumconcentrationeakswhich occutredintheRivetDanubein the
earlysixtiewasanalyzed bythetritiummethod inthegraundwate rnd
itwas foundthat thepeaktoday (thirtyyearslater) ha reachd the
middleof the Szigetkii5-10 km hm theDanubeFigure 8.).Flow
velocitieare thehighestat 50-100 rn depth.Usinganotherisotope
method he ''0method, itwasfound thaDanube water hasflushethe
entiregravecomplex oftheSzigetkoz,nd moreovecrm betracedinthe
groundwater as faras areassouthof the Mosonf-Danub end in the
wansag.Thequalityofwaterinthe gravelcornpisgood,suitablefordrinking
watersuppty.Knowledge ofwaterqualitandflowvelocitiehasbeen
significanypdatedbyresearchcarrioutin 1991192underacontract
withtheHungarian Academyof SciencesAccordingto the resvltsof
isotopeinvestigatshewateroftheseverahundredmetetthickgravel
formatioof theSzigetkforiginatentirlhm theRiverDanube.In
spiteofthisiis desirabeoinvestigaebequalitof theupper20 m
deepwaterIayerseparatelfromthosof thedeepewater layers,since
human activitofsCheareamostlpollutthena surfacgroundwater
as indicatbyIocaliyidentifidqualproblemsatseveralplaces.
Evaluatinghewaterqualitdataof watesamplestakenfrom84 wells
of themonitorinsystemwith respecttothequaliof theupper20m
deep layerit is founthatthe concentratiosfthemost important
qualityconstituesaryoverwide range butdrinkingwaterstandard
valuesareviolat bediron,manganese and ammonium only.The
reiativehighaveragevalue aseduetothedataof afew wellonly.
Excessivdyhighammonium concentrao tiignsathm directlocal
sourc efpollutio:penfertlizstorage,ffectofanimafim, etc.
ThequaiityofthewaterofIayersdee~erthan20 m ha ben segularly
measured inthe wel1sof themonitoringsystem.Due tosampling
problemsh,oweverthesedataarenotsuitabfortbecharacterizatof
the quaiiof deeperaquiferConsequen ytthedataof 76 production
wellshaveben us4 forevaluatio.hequalitof wateof thoselayers
of thegravecornpl eftheSzigetkowhich aredeepecthan20 m is
excellenmie 1)withtheexceptioof manganes endironinsomeof
the wellsEven ironand manganese remainbelow drinkingwater
standarvalues,withtheexceptioofafew data.Nitratis ouniform
distributiI.sconcentratinnowhereexceede dalof the limvalue
(20rngllinthedeeperlayen,andmoreover itremaineddow 10 mg11
in thewaterof 90% of thesainpieexamined.Nitratandammonia
concentratioosf samplestakenfrommonitoriandwaterworkswells
didnotexhibiany rlsingtrend,.whichwouldhaveindiçacontinuing
pollutio. oreovethewaterqudityofcertaiwdlswas improving(for
examplein thewnterof wellNo.Kl ofthe R6vfaluWaterworhiton
contentdecreasehm theorigina3-4mg/lto 2-2.5mgIl duringthe
periodof19M-40, thendroppedto 1mgll by 1991/92Theammonia
Ieveloftbewaterof welNo, 91E oftheKisbajcs-SSgyeWaterworks
has beencontinuouslyecreasinghm the origina0.6 mgll tothe
present0.2mgllvalue).Intheneighbourhciodf Szigetkothedissolvesolidcontentofthewater
of layersdeepethan20 m, which receivonlypartiarechargefrom the
Danubeonly, ishigherthanthatof theSzigetküfis 1%is mostiy
characterizcbythesubstantiailncreaseof amrnoniai,ron,manganese,
hydrogencarbonate andsodiumaswell as by tfiof conductivity. his
mightbecaused byblendi niththewaterthatisrisinfrom thedeeper
confinedPannonian layers.This is supportby the resultsof isotope
investigations hichindicathatinthevicinityaf Szigetk25% ofthe
groundwates tems fromIacaEinfiltrati,hile20%originatafrom the
deeperPannonian layecs.
Evduatingthe above sesultswith respecttotheirarealdistribution
(Figure3.)itcm bestated,lthoughwithreducedreliabilitdueto the
relativelylownumbesofdata,thatinlayersdeeperthan20 m (Table1.)
- waterofthebestqualityisfoundintheUpperSzigetkoz
(Q,
-
furthetowacdsthe LowerSzigetkoz(III)the qualitof
wateïisdeterioratigiron,mangrnesea,mmonium) ,ut
intheMiddleSzigetkozthequalitisstillgood(II),with
theexceptioof locallyhighironcontent;
- intheareabetweer niversMosoni-Danub and Lajtathe
waterisgenerallof goodquatitywith theexceptionof
highermanganseconcentratioo nsa few wells.Nitrate
anairishehigtiesvaluesherebut nowhae exceedsthe
drinkinwater standard;
- in theareasouthof theRiverLajta (V) the qudity of
wateriisimilarintheHansgg (VI-VII)nitraislowbut
highmanganesa endironcuncentratianare found.
Thequalityof groundwateo rf layerslas dq than20 m isextremely
variablewith differencsfseveralorderof magnitudeT. hebestwater
quality(in termsof ammonium ,on and manganse) is found inthe
watm parts(IV-V) whereflowrateisthehighestof thewaterbearing
layersof corne particlsize and goodhydsaulicconductivityI. the
shailowzones nitratconcentrationsrehigherthanhalfofthedrinking
water standard*hehighestvaluesarefound inthewesternparts,dueto
thelack ofthetop coverlayer(Table1., Figur3)In 1991 theHungarianState Geologicalnstitute carriout ground
water surveyin thevicinityof the mainDanubecharnel andtheside
river-arms.Theresultofchernicaanalyseunambiguously verifithe
Slovak finding(Mucha etal.,1992),accordingto which the water
exfîltratingfromthe Danubethrouthegrave1preservesits oxygenatd
characterthus securingood waterqualityin the casof thepresent
water qudityconditionoftheRiverDanube.However,in areaswhere
the exfiltratoccursthroughsiitylayeof highorganicmattecontent
(forexampiein thesideriver-ams)reductivconditionsrecreatedue
to the decreasingdissolveoxygen contentof the groundwater.A
consequenc of this is the remobilizanf iron,manganesand toxic
metnls ofthe aquifer,associatedoccasionatwiththe generationof
amrnoniaandhydrogen sulphide, eepegroundwaterof suchorigican
be foundinthesouth-easternartoftheSzigetkozarthewaterworkosf
RkvfaIu and Kisbajçs-Sdgye. The water of both waterwocks is
characterizedynearlyzeronitratecontent,las t0.5mg11dissolved
oxygen andhigh manganesei,ronand ammonium concentrations hich
indicatareductivenvironmenS t.imilarreductivconditions ouldbe
expectedtooccurin thewaterexfiltratgnm thegrave1iftheorganic
mattercontenof theRiverDanube waterwasincrwed or itsdissolved
oxygen contentdecreased.
Organicand inorganicrnicropollutantsere analyzedby MAFI iri
samplestakenfiomthe shallowgroundwateIrayeradjacento themain
and side branchesof taieRiverDanube. Somedeeperwe1lsof the
floodplainhavealsobeeninvestigatinthisrespectNo concentrations
exceedih nealthcriteriawerdeteçteinthe deeperwelis,butinsome
of the near-bankborehoIesbenzopyrene,carbontetrachloride and
chloroformwereobsewed in concentratioasbovetherespectivelirnit
values.
The volumeof the abaveground watersesourcewhichis continuously
rechargedfromtheDanube isestimateas 5km3. Itigeneraliyofgmd
qualityandthusiforrnan uniquepotentilrinkingwaterresourceven
on aEuropea ncale.TheNationa l ateManagemen Mtasterpla1984)
considersthisdrinkinwaterresourceas atiitutresourceof750,000
m3/dwateryield. Most ofthisresourcehasnotyetben utilhed.The
waterproductionof existinglargerwaterwor(Gydr,Kisbajcs-Sdgye
andRévfdu : 0,00 0 3/dIvlosomagyar6v4r :7,000m31d)amountsto
appr.70,008m3/d,togetherwiththe productioof thewellsofsmaHer
settlementofthe region.Therearenodetailedplansfor thepotentid
futureutilizatof thiresourceandneitheforthepotential ateusersinvoIvedEarliertherehadbeenplansmade forthe expansioofexisting
waterworksonly.InvestigatiolatinchaibytheHungarianAcademy of
Sciencesin 1991-1992(withtheuseof rnutti-layrumerica lornputer
models)arefocussedonthe identificatofpotentiasitesandquantities
of abstractaelwater(withoutenvironmentadl amage)for long terrn
futuredweIopmentT . heresulthowever, arenotyet avaiiable,athe
moredetsiileup-tu-date odellinstudiabegun in1993 only.
The locationoftheshal1ow groundwatetableinthetop layeraf fine
particlsizeisaveryimportanfeanirefcamtheviewpoint ofvegetation
and thusagricultureIthenineteen-eighttsemeangroundwatel revel
ofthe UpperSzigetkozwas4-6 rn belowgroundlevel,.whilitwas 1-3
rnbelowtheterraininthe MiddleandLowerSzigetkoz.As was aîready
mentianetdheara of theSzigetkocmbesplitinto thteepms hm the
view pointof soi1moistuceupplyhm thegroundwater i:theUpper
Szigetkozgroundwate droesnotgenetallyreachthetop layer.Inthe
MiddleSzigetkoz irvariesfromtime totime, while in thehwer
Szigetkozcapillarrisealwaysreaçhethetoplayerof fineparticsize
F-). Thesecircumstanc ereespwiallyimportantndrought
years.Inthisçontextthseasonalluctuatiof groundwate evelisalso
ofimportance I.thecloseproximitoyfDanube the fluctuatinxceeds
2 m.while in themiddleof the.Szigetk&itamounts toabut 1.0 m.
Sincethefluctuatioof groundwate evelsisincloserelatiowhipwith
the changesof thewater stageoftheRiverDanubethe groundwater
levelsareaisocharacterizedyhigher stagesinthespringtirne, hich
canbe considerea favourabieonditiosinceitcoincidewiihtheonset
ofthe growingseason.
2.2.2 Eets ofthe hvdrotmwerscheme
According to the the Danube would have been impounded at
Duaakiliti.IntheDunakilitieservoisettlinof suspend &olidsand
thu theclogging(colmataîion)fthecharnelbledwere tobe expected.
The infiltrationcapacityothe channe1 bedwould have been thus
substantiylreducedw, hile,owintothemuchIargef surfacand tothe
higtierwateIevelinthertxervoirinltialtherwould havebeen much
higherinfiltratiratesthanunderthe originaconditionsf theRiver
Danube . partofthiexçessexfiltratwas tobecaugbt bytheseepage
(catchdraincd, inorderto avoidharmful1hyighgroundwate revels
inthe vicino iftyeresewoir.Thewaterqudityof theraervoirwould
havebeenworse,rnostly intem ofthe oxygen conditions,thatheoriginal qualitof the Danube water. Seepage through the silt
accumuaftinon thechannebledwouIdhavecreatadanaembic,reductive
conditions,anthusthedissolutiof manganesand ironwas expected
probably assoçiared with the increase ofamrnonia and sulfide
concentrations.thelongtermtheexfiltrationfrom reservoirwould
havebeensubstantiallrerluced,ban orderof magnitudedue to the
thickeninsiltandtotheclogginofthechannebl edSincea portionof
thewaterexfiltratfrom thereservointothegroundwatetwouldhave
been rejoinintheabandone d ainchanneldownstreamof thedam, it
couldnot havesubstitutethe missingquantitithatwere originally
rechargedbytheriver.AccordingtotheKET, groundwatesrubsidence
of severalmetersmagnitudewasforeseenalongtheold.mainchanne1
downstream oftheDunakilitiam Fipuce10.).Inordertoimprove the
moisturesupplyzothetopsoilirrigati,nasplanned,butitseffecon
thepropertieofthesoi1wouldhavebeen harmfuolnes.
After theKET had been acçepted,studies on the possibilitiesof
alleviatingharmfuleffecthave been launched.Tfie contempiated
strategiincludedsupplementaryecharg(infiltrati)ystehsonboth
thefloodplaiandtheprotectesideoftheleva, andtheconstructinf
battomdikesintheabandon chdannelwhereoniy50m31s flowwasto
beleftinthechanne lscontrasteoitheorigina200Qm21m s eaflow)
inordertoraisethewaterlevels.Thesesolutio, ttheigivenleveof
elaboratior,praentedhazard so hesubsurfac eaters. hechannels
of mificial reehargsysternscouldbe cloggedand thequalityof
infiltratigatewould bealsoquestionablehe constructinfbottom
dikeswould,forthelow flowsthatwereta blefiinthecharnel,again
resultintheclogginofthegrave1bed oftheçhannel.Dredgingofthe
claggedchannel bedscouldperhapsmaintainthe originalinfiltration
rata,butthiswouldbe associa titdwaterqualitproblems.
Summarizings,olutionsuch asthosecontemplatedintheKET would
have endangeredthe above describeddrinkinwater resourceboth
qualitativeandquantitativel,eplacintheoriginal,naturdrecharge
conditions,provideby theRiverDanube, byanmificial systemof
ratheruncertaicharaaer,thatwouldcteateworsemnditionsthan the
originalReduced flowvelocitiesandchange-flowdirectionswould
have iaçreas atsome location,headverseeîfectoflocalsourceof
pollution(NevertheleinthislattecasethesolutionIstheelimination
ofthesepollutiosourceand notthemaintenanc ef subsurfaflow at
any cost).Theeliminatinflocalsourcesfpollutioisunderway and
thusonlytheeffa of earliercontaminatimnusbetakenUitoacwunt.Frornthe viewpointofsubsurfac eatersthe"Varian t" strategy,thar
isthe impoundmen t Dunacsuny ,smorefavourahlet ,o someextent,
than the impoundment at Dunakiliti.Water of unknownquality,
exfiltratifrom thepartofthereservoidownstream of DunaesrSnyis
draine.by theabandonedmain channel.Consequentlthemainrecharge
areaof thegroundwate r nsshiftedupstreaof DunacsJny,where the
waterqualityandbottomsludgeconditionsarelikdytobebetterthanin
the downstream partof thereservoir.GruundwaterIevel riseinthe
UpperSzigetkoz was srnhilerinthiscasethitwouldhave been inthe
case of the Dunakilitiimpoundment ,lthoughit isstilsignificant.
Subsidenceof thegroundwatetableof 2-3metersocçurredintheclose
proximityof the RiverDanubeonly, white in the MiddleSzigetkôz,
outsidethefloodlem, thesubsidence is0-1meteras compared tothe
earIieconditions. rounwaterlevesubsidenc easalleviateo certain
degretby theadditionaslupplyowaterof 5m3/s,startingithespring
of 1993,tathetloodplaiandtotheoutsideofthelevee.Some otbw,yet
unknown f,ctorsmighthave alsocontributal. Riseinthe leveland
increasofthe fiowofthisçomplementar y atersupplysystemthawas
start weth10 m3/sin August1993 m,ightfurtheimprovetheelevation
of thegroundwatetrableby a fewdecimeters,butin a 0.5 -1.0 km
widezone alongtheDanube no groundwate revelriscanbe iaduçedin
thismanner. No qualitativchange hsve yetbeendetected upon the
effecofthe waterexfiltratfrom thereservoiandinfiitratfromthe
waterrechargesystem ,rduetothe alteregroundwate lowdirections.
Quantitativchange s reillustratby Figures11-24 ns afunctionof
temporaalndspatialhangesofthegroundwatelrevelandalsoinrelation
to thechangesofthemoistenedtopsoil.
Figures11-13 show thetypicalgroundwatertablgraphs.Graphswith
index'a" show themeasuredthe series,whilehosewithindex"b"the
ground watertablescaiculaton thebais of mrrelations. orperiods
afterthediversioofthe Danubethelatteshow thesituatiothawould
have occurred if the full dischargof the Danube (mea~ured at
PozsonylBratislavaw}as flowinin the originalcharinel.Theground
watertablemarked with "c"wouldoccur whenitdepended onlyon the
toweredwaterlevds ofthe"abandoned m"ainchannelDue totheeffects
of the reservoirtobackwatereffectsand to theartificidadditional
suppty(rechargem)easuretheactual roundwatetablewashigher,after
the diversionof the river, thanwhatis shown in the figure.The
substantidgroundwatertableincreasineffectofthe mervoir is best
illustratby Rgure 111. 423
Figura 14-17illustrathegroundwatetrableintypicalpointsof tirne:
15 June1991: Approximare averageconditionsinthe
growing seasonbeforethediversionof
theRiverDanube.
01 March 1993: Typlcal,lowestgroundwaterrableafter
the diversion of the Danube,
characterizintheenrireaffect4 area,
with the exceptionof the imrnediate
vicinityof thereservoir.
20June 1993: Groundwater conditionsestablishedin
the firstgrowing season,after the
diversioof theDanubeandbeforethe
artific suaplly of water to the
floodplain.
30Septembe r 993: End of the vegetationseason with
artifieiasupply of water to the
floodplain.
Figures18-20showthedifference betweentheactudgroundwatet rable
and the groundwatetrablethatwouldhave occurredin thepreviously
mention4 pointof time,iftheDanube wasnotdiverted.
Figurw21-24 show thepositionof thegroundwattablerelativtothe
bottom ofthetopsçiil-ia(+ whmgroundwate ablesisinthetopsoiJ-
l layer;-when thegroundwate tableis belowthetopsoilinthegravel)
Sincethe diversioof theDanube t,atissincetheimplementatioonf
"AlternativCu therehavebm severalnegotiatiosn thesubjectof
sharing (distributi)f the flowof the RiverDanube. The solution
proposed bytheHungaria pnartner,ndsupporte dytheEC, according
to whichflowsraryingasafunçtionoftheseasonoftheyear,butalways
representingmorethan halfof theoriginaflow,shouldbe redivetted
back to themainchannel,wouldcertainlyimprove both therecharge
conditionsofthegroundwatea rndthestage ofthe groundwatertable.
However,thisallocationpatterhas notyeî ben agreedupon and the
mostrecentnegotiations eredealingwitaschernewhich would dlow
the releasof flowssornewhaitrgerthantheprsent200-300m3/s flow
intthemainchanne n associatiwiththeconstructionfbttomdikes
andwith theeomplementar sypplyof waterint toefloodplaiand to
the outsidareasofthelevee.Althoughthesesolutionwouldsomewhatofthe riverThe capacitof thewaterworksf Esztergom-Szentkiyil
is about 2,000 m31d. The water quality is rathet poor dueto
contaminationromtheoff-riverbackgroundoneand tothewashoutof
pollutantfcomthesludgedepositinfrontoftheislandofT4t.
BetweenSmb andNagymaroswaterworks of small(lethanthetotaof
1,000m3/d)capacitiestof goodqualityarefaundonbothbanksofthe
river(Szob,Zebegény ,omos).
In additioto theexistingwaterworktsheteareunusedbank-filtered
drinkingwater resources"kepitn stock":In the vicinitof ACS-
KoWorn-AIrnAsneszme 39,000 rn3/d,and 75,000 m'Id at the
neighbourhoo dfEsztergomT. hesepotentil rinkingwateresources
havenotyetbeen fullyexploreandtheremightbehydtogeologicalnd
waterqualityproblemsncountered.
Wete we must mention therelationshibetweenthe karsticwater
resourceofthePunhtdli Kozéphegys kg iddlMountainRanges of
Transdanubi aa)dtheDanube Hydropowe scheme.The karstiwater
system in dira? connecrionwith the Danube at Esztergom and
Dunaalmi& w here,undertheoriginalonditions,arstwaterfed into
theDanube rhroiigbottom springs.Dueto mine drainagoperations
hydrauliheadsof thekarstweresomuch decteasedthatthedangerof
Danube waterintrusionintthe karsbas to befaced(Emre 26). It
would havebeenveryharmfu lEsztergome,ndangeringoththequality
andthetemperaturo ef theluke-warkarsticspringof Esztergoand
alsothethermalwelisof tothersideof therivatP4rk;ln(Sturovo).
Accordingtu theresearchresultsof VITUKI(Loherer,1987-89)the
hydrauliconnectionakesplaceinvatyingforms:
- "Thereis directconnectibetweenme.mainkarsticqeservoir
andtheDanub e Esztergomi,thevicinrtoftheTurkisBath;
= Triassic-.Eoceneformationsofthe karsticsvra e system
communicat eiathegrayetenacesofDanube with& e rivein
Esztergom ,ttheriversipromenadea ,longalengthofappr.
650m;
- A moreindirectelationshisfoundatDuyalm& qveya length
of aboyt300m, whereamung the Jurassic-Triapcimestone
formationsfthemain karststorae systeraPl~ocene pet
Pannonians)andya uiferof 35dm depthis found(wiSout
impermeab layey9ayers);
- A gimilarlindjrectrdationshis foundin Esztergominthe
vicinio?he lido."(Fi m7)reOn thebasisof cornputr ode1studiestheauthfindsthat
- "Atpresenttherisabout3 m3/minand2 m31rnin~echare of
the rave1t*r.actozthemoinkarsntthesratesaredecrwing
due o restrictiosetonmine waterdrainageoperationssince
1990"
Effectsof thhydropowetscheme
IftheplansoftheKET hadheen implementedt,hisDanubreachwould
haveben an impoundedone withdailywaterlevd tïuctuntdue to
peak operatioof the BBs hydropowerstationEven the KET had
foreseenconsiderabeediment epositidong thirench epeciallyin
thesectiobetweenNyergesujfalandNagyrnaroAs.naerobic,reductive
zoneswouldhavedeveloped inthebottorsiltlayer,furtmplifying
theproblemrdated toironandmanganese . orpronouncedrductive
processemighthavetesultedithegenerationfhydrogensulphidand
methanegasesT.herewouldhaveban positiveffwttoo,intermofthe
qualitofthegroundwate resources,sincetheintruofcontnminated
groundwatefrlowsfkomtheoff-riverbackgrouzdoneusociatedwith
low flowslwaterstagof Danube,would havebeeneliminateby the
impoundment O.bviouslthiisnottheway toeliminatpollutiofrom
theoff-rivbackgroun dreas;butthesourcof pollutionmustbefound
andremoveci.
WithrespectotheconnectiobetweentheDanubeandthekarsticsystem
theincreasoftheDanubes waterlevebytheirnpoundmew nouldhave
anly increa heedangerof Danube waterintrusiointothekarstic
systemwhichhasalreay reducedpressurheadsN. evertheleswithe
curtailiofminedrainagoeperationthisdangerbecornelesand less
signjficant.Relevantreseresulof VITUK1 (Lurberer,987-89are
quotedbelow:
- "InEszter qm,in thevicinit theTurkishBath,thekarstiç
watq levkis 2-3 m lower&an theyater levelsqf Danube.
Sbeneededbecausetheimpoundmenethatwill increasethemean
waterleveloftheRiverDanube by4.6 -9.6m would,vq
iikdybreak thcougthe Olioçeneimpermgablleayes whiq
wqerheadshcanberexpmedfduetothqderessionasausedbythec
mineLencsehegyIIinthecloseproxtm!y"
- *Ithevicinit oEszterorntheimpoundmew nould(aqcording
toourcalcuaions)-rauina maximum 3.3m pressurencrease mo/mi!. yiExtiltratioand backwaterswould not 1cause
O erationnprohlemseitheratthe thermawel! nu. FGS-1of
&khy (Sturovo),oratthe LsnesehegyII. mine, n+atthe
karstiwaeryistraction".Dorog basin,thelatterrelylngon
-
pressurheadincreasonly,assorat4wrthtransfiltratnf1.2n
-1.5rn3/min.
- "excesspansfitratioand pressuqeheadincrea+eassociatd
conditionorthewaterhudgef.ThemaximumffeffecwiIloccur
dong tlse point-like sections wherethe main karst
commynicate sithDanubeand heretheeffecarebyno means
negligible."
- "Inthevicinityof Sutta-LdbatlaNrgeshjfalthechannelof
theQanube wascutintothetower 6rettaceouMsiddleEocene
theimppundrnenfttZhedecreaseofrates19sfrom-thekarstic
reservoirtthe riverareto be exgecteûinassociatiowith
swler increaseof the rate of dischargeof the near-bank
Springs'.
The differene etweethe karstwaterlevd andthewaterstageofthe
RiverDanube isillustrabydFimire28.
2.3 TheDanubehanksdownstrear nfNagyrnaros
2.3.1 Hvdrogeolo~y
Along theDanvbereach betweenNagymaros and Budapestthe most
significabmk-filteredrinkinwaterresourceisthone oftheIsland
ofSzentendruetilizbytheW atenvorkosfBudapes(tigure291 .here
isa 18-20m deepgrave1aquifebelowdl of theareaofhe Island.At
mean waterstagesoftheRiverthedepthofgroundwaterin theaquifer
is 10-1m,whichis decreaseby2-3 m dueto thedepressiocauseby
the wells.Atlowwater stagesof thriverthe wateryieldiagaquifer
depthisfurther.re d uceut 2 m,and thenanirafilteareaofthe
chatmelbeddecreasesaccordingly.
Water isbeingabstractat17 waterwork sitesfro31 shah from83
radialand439 pipewdls.The maximum capacitoftheentiregmupof
wells is 0millionm31d ,hiletheannualaveragewaterproductiois
nearlythesame. Thisis abouttwo-îhirdof thetotadrinkingwater
demanùof Budapat.IngeneralthequaIitofwaterabstractdbythewellsisdirectisuitable
for humanconsumption. Average valuesof han, rnanganeseand
ammonium are0.01mgll,0.04mgIland9-06mglltespectivelIn some
areasnitratcontaminatiornepresentapotentialhazardue to local
sourcesof pollutionsome Icrcatinittatinthegroundwate rxcds
thehealthIimitvalueof40mgII,butitwill notappearintheweils due
todilutionwatedrawn fiom the Danube).
Inthe periodof 1970-1987approximatdy16.5millionrn3gravelhad
been dredged from the Danube channel between Budapest and
Nagymaros,mostly for commercial(industrial) purposes.Three
characterist"dredging reaches" canbe distinguishithe section
between NagyrnaritosdVhc fromwhereapproximatel y0millionrn3
gravelhad beendredgedintheperiodof 1970-7 7 .esectionbetween
VBc and Gad yielde fdur millionm3 gravelin 1974-1980, while
somewhat les gravelhadbeendredgedfrom thechannelbetween G6d
andthedownstream endoftheSzentendresland(2.Mm3) .ntheother,
theSzentendreriverarm mostof thtotalof4.0millionm3gravelthat
hadb&ndredgedinthe periodof1970-1987originatdfromtheriver
reaçh betweenDunabogdany and Kisorosziand from thatbwwn
Szentendreand Tahi. Cornerciallindustriglrave1dredging was
teminatedin 1980.Dredgingoperationin 1985were relatedto the
constructiooftheNagymaro siverdam.Dredgingactiviticontinu4
intheSzentendrearm dso in 1987.
Aq R&D projecon "theprotectionand.developmentf bank-filtered
theleafershiofetheWaterwor.pf Budapesth. nderthefiameworkof
th!spro ramrnea surveyof existingwaterworandof thepotentially
utilizabe bank-filterd drinkiwater resources wgs made. The
Waterwor., wa+androrninentreaofthesestudie.omeoftthefindings
of hls projewillIequotedbelow:
"ThewaterlevelofDanube hasdecreasein thelow-to-medium
flowdomain. both ithe Main Danube and inthe Szemendre(3.0mcatthe~uda~estgauge)"he meanwater staof the river
channelof the RivePanuheh~ changedsignificantly
commercipa'ravedredgin(20miiliom3)T.heaveragechmnqiof
rubsidencamounts to1.grn,while inthemain.strearnliit
reaches2.5 m. The low-flow channecross-sectiareawas
increas an dthechannebedbecameuneven.
Thesechanges,,esultedin the changeothe slo e anflow
velocttyconditionsothe rwçhof conqernIn rRe low flow
cdkmdtandtheemeanvetocitofthecross-sectiaraeremains,
atsornelocations,bel50 cmls.
Themnsequence are: The pemeabilityof the riverbed
decreasesceducrioprocessesare takin place;the iron and
mananFe contlt ~f the wapr pro auçed increase The
m3/d".tioncapacityinvolvemlght be asmuch as 100,000
"ThegravelterracundetheDanube channel,cbedividg into
socalledfilterlawhichi1s?iatew-cemimeterthicknesand
actsas.an ultra-slofilterremoving 99 per centof me
contaminantTshesecon pdrt1the ravea uiferroperwhich
thewqedthperimeteofthecross-secticnnactasafiltzonef
deppendingon the water levelof Danube and on local
clrcurnstances.
thicknesoftheaquifebelowtheDanubechannew1g about4-7
m,both inthemainand thSzentendreaFmof lher!veDueto
the effect of commercilrave1dreding this thicknesshas
about2 icqpilptheassociaaocaedcitloss abouet00,000-
300,000m kd.
Island1sdeterminalbyDendqualitotutheDanubeSwater, the
mveness ofthefiltratProcas andthe activit(sources
of pollutiontheoff-river6ackground-zone.
Water ualityprocesstakingplaceduringfiltrationacthes
groven@atamostof thprocessetakeplaceinthechannebd.n
bependin onthebedmateria(lreduqtiendoxygenatezones),
theyexhkitspatiaandtemporavlariation.
ItfoI1owsromtheabaveconditionhatthelossofcaapaciyill
be thehighesunderunv-afourah lydpl~gicalcircumstançes.
The wellsbecame sensitiro thevariatioof Danubewatet
39 staes. Thereis a dqger of the çoqtinuin tendencyof these
unkvorableeffets,since in the perioof low .watestage
filtratvelocitieareacceleratetoanextentwhrchresultsin
theincreaseofilreresistance.
The onlyremedidor contra?trategytharemains+rtvaÎiaor
thesnorthernsubsurf~e drlnkingwaterresour1st.maintain
thecaseofkrrthe~dynagetothefiltezoneehedeterioratioof
the complete,drinkrngwater resource must,betaken into
consideratiinthelongterm a rocesthatmightlead tothe
ofNadymarosomustbesplannedwithdue concesrforthetabove
hazarS.
Inorderto demonstratehevulnerabiliyfbank-filterdrinkingwater
resourcetorivertraininiaterveatiosedeterioratiof thequalito.f
thewater of someof the wellsofseriesof 20wellsof the Sirhy
Watemrksis illustrainFiare 30 (L-16, 1987):
drill4ui865ran?1966sandthqwatersamplesatakenfromthese
wdls iqdicatdgoodwaterquafityfr. of iron,manganseand
ammuniat-husprovingthebanklme suitablefortheestablnhing
watetworks.
The watefwotks of Suhy isone of the best protected
waterqualitdeterioration,houldbeoalsornvestigatedithe
mainchann eside.
4.5ande1.mondsep,raspectivelyf,illedwithasidenti#JbYs
channe1surveandsediment sampledata.
pis dfedEn pitcontjnud toward*wellsNos,8. and 9.ina
bioloicai,anbacteriolog~.$ataarovidgtanexactpictureofe
me sPi thicknesand position,Sn providedevidencefor the
intnpionof mananeseandironfrom thesludge p thewater
therenetratiyof bacteriaqd other.mrcrrxirgarïiistothe
aquier,thatisthbank-fil;trafunetiowas severelydamaged anditsefficienwasrendered insufiicient."
AlongtheNagymaros-BudapeD stanubereachthefollowinbank-filterd
drinkingwaterresourcecm befoundon the rigbank oftheriver,in
additiontothe abovediscussedSzenrendreIslanresource(valuesin
bracketsindicattheaveragproductionrates):
TheDunahogddny Waterwork 700 m3Jd),
The aquiférat LeAnyfaIu (aisoutilized by the Szentendre
Waterworks()14,000 m3/d),
TheNoa-therwnateresourc eftheSzentendre aterwarks(500
m31d),
TheSouthernwaterresourcoftheSzentendrWaterwork 2500
m31d),
The Southernregionalwater resourceof the Szentendre
Waterwork (8,000m3/d).
Thesewaterresourcaarefacingproblemsrepresen btecontamination
originatinfromtheufT-riverackgrou zonesof theaquifers.
On the lefbank of theDanube reachof concernthefollowingbank-
filtereddrinkiwaterresources rfound:
The Ver& unitof theVdcWaterwork(s22,000 m31d),
TheBukiIslandunitof theViicWateworks (outof operation),
ThesouthernunitoftheVic Waterwork (outof operation),
TheFeMgodUnitof the G6d Waterwork (s800m3/d),
TheAlsbgod Unitofthe GOdWaterwork 1,600 m3/d)andthe
Dunakesz i ateworks(1,500m3/d).
These water Tesourcesare also characterizedy the intrusionof
ccintaminatgedoundwatefrow fromthebackgroun done.TheSouther
waterresourceoftheVdcWatetwork secamehlly mntaminateadndits
operationhadto be teminated.The Fels8gGdunitisutilizedin peak
operatiomodeonly (e.gtobeblendedwithotherwaters)due toitbad
waterqualit,At thewatertesoutceoftheVer6cemaro snd Feldgod
unitswaterqualityproblersccuralsoattheriverside:siltdepositions,
causedby sluggishtlowbehindrivertrainingstructur,reatediron,
manganese andammoni aroblernsFigure29%). 2.3.2 Effectsof thehvdropowercheme
Downstrm of Nagymar hseriverbarragsystemwouki havecaused
problernsfthebank-fil dterkengwateresoutcesduetathechmges
of thewaterregirne,sedimentloadsandthe channegecrmary asfar
dowmtreani asBudapest.
Theoutstandingimportancefthedrinkingwaterïesourceof theisland
ofSzentendrewouldnot haveallowedtheslighteincreasof therisks
of damageto thesersousces, whichwertohe causedhytheexpected
changesof waterandsedimentregimeandofthe waterqualityof the
river. -"
If the facilitiescontempldyeKT wereimplementet hefollowing
riskwouldhave bwnfaced:
- The water qualityof the river upstreamof the
Nagymaros dam cuuIhdavebecorne worsethan the
originalwatequait,
Remova alfthesiltdeposiupstreamoftheNagyrnaros
dam was tobe faciiitabydtheoccasionaflushingof
theheadwate rasin.Settlipatterofthethusreleased
excas sedimenloadsdownstrm of thedamçouldhave
createratheruncertaiconditions;
Reduced sedimentcontentof the rivassocia t td
the energyofthe waterrelwed, couldhave caused
channelerosiodownstreamofthedam. The risofthis
waseven highersincethechannelherecuntainsmore
sandthan thaof thegravellychanneofthe Szigetkoz
area.
Withrespecttotheabovemention4risksno detailedinvestigatihat
couldhavequantifidtheseeffec hasbeenmade. Neverthelasneither
wereresultsof investigatsvailabltoprcivethinsignificanofthe
abovehazard seseascintothemechanismofthebank-filtratnrocess
of theSzentendrislandhasprovidedevidencthattheprocess,which
convertsDanube waterof non-potablqeualitinto groundwater of
excellentualittakeplaceina fewcm thicklayeoftheriverchannel,
where theattachedecosysternasanimportan btiologicroleinthis
treatmenptrocesT.hithinlayeisverysensititadisturbancaendthus
oneshouldavoidanyrivertrainingrregulatinorks dongtheDanubereachof concern,which could endangerthe stabiliof thischannel
laye.
3. $ummarv evaluatia
3.1 Surnma- nmuning oftheeffects
3.1.1 Favourableand unfavorableeffects of
theorigindesign.as oftheKET
Theproblemsofgroundwater resourcethatwouldoccurinthe case of
irnplementingheoriginalplansof thehydropowesrcherneBNV (asit
was contemplateintheMutuallyAgreed PlanKET)canbesummarized
asfol1ows:
- In theSzigetkozandtherelatei anubereach:
- Itis very likelthat thquiity of thewater
exfiltrng into-the groundwater from the
Dunakilitimetvoir throughthe silt deposited
therewill be worsethan the waterrecharged
originalby Danube throughthegrave1chaonel
bd: due to maerobicconditionsissolurioof
iroaandmangrnesi es tobe expected,whi1e
reductiverocessersesultiinthegeneratioonf
hydrogen sulphuror methane gassesare las
probable.One might statealso with lower
pcobabilitthat the above processes would
acceleratethe enrichmentof organic and
inorganimicmpollutan .Wsiththepropagation
ofthecharnebledcloggingproces(colmatation)
therateof exfiltratfromthe iesewoirwou1d
certainlydecreasebut there is no reliabie
knowledgethatwoutdallowtheestimatioof the
timedependenc efthisprocess.
- Itcmbe alsostatewithconfidencethasimilar
problerns ouldoccurif thewaterlevel inthe
abandonec ianube channelwasraised by the
constructionfbottom dikes snce tbiswould
alsobeassocia@withdecteasedflow veiocities.
There arecontradictioamong the opinionof
expertson themagnitudeof flow velocitthat would be requiredfor avoidin he above
harmful effeçts.The range of criticatlow
velocitiesi0.15 -0.3mis. At flow veloçities
largesthanthis tfieis las probabilityothe
clogging of the channel bed and of the
occurrencoef waterquaEityeterioration.
- In thecase of artificialrecharge(infiltration)
systems,aimd at thecomptementarsy uppiyof
waterintothedewateredsiderivearms andihus
to thegroundwater,thecloggingof channels
andthedeterioratio nfthequdityof recharge
waterscanalsobe expectewith greacertainity,
althoughtime variatioof theseprocessescan
notbeestimatedreliably.
-
Severalmetersloweringofthewatetlevelofthe
abandon4 mainchanne!downstream of the
Dunakilitidam would certainly result in
substantislubsidencof theground watertable
of the zone near to the river.Knowing the
hydrogeologicpalrameterosfthisgraveaquifer
oneisableto estimattheexpectedchangeswith
1-2dm accuracy.Groundwates rubsidençewill
be counteractedrnoderated,byseepage flows
from the reservoiandby the mificial water
rechargesystems.Knuwledg ehatwould allow
theconfidenptredictiof theseprocesse s not
yet available. The "topography' of the
groundwatertable resultingfrom the above
processeswill, athe sametime, influencethe
rechargeconditionsetermininthedirectioand
velocityof subsurfactlow. Itismst certain
thattherewill be changein this field buthe
extent,andtimevariationof thesechangescm
notbe predictedinadiable way.
- In the Iightof theabve consideration t is
certainthatdamage 10 the potentiadrinktng
water resourceof theSzigetkGwz illocçurbut
itsextenor magnitudecmnotbepredicted ina
reliab1manner.Among otherfactorsthereisno knowledge availabfeabout the sitesand
withdrawal rates of çontemplated future
waterworkasndwaterabstractions.
ln the LowerSzigetkozand inthe Gonyü-Nagymaros
reachof the river therewouldcertainlybe sludge
depositionowing tothe lower flow velocitieof
impounddriver sections,andthis wouldcertaintbe
associatedwith water qudity deteriorationat the
waterworks relying on hank-tilteredwaterrresources.
Sineetheexistingwaterworkosf this reachare any
casefacingwaterqualityproblemindependentlof the
riverbarragesyste mhedamages due totiirthewater
qualitdeteriorationannotbequantifidina reliable
way.
The intrusiofDanube waterfromtheimpounded reach
into the Karsticstoragesystem, inthe vicinitof
Dunaalmds and Esztergom, would bave occurred in
variousways,dependingofthechangesofthehydraulic
headconditionofthe karstExploratioofthissitwas
insufticienin respect tothe hydraulicconneetion
betweenthe riverand thekarstand oeitherwere the
effeçtsofthebanninof large-scminewaterdrainage
on the rateof risingof hydraulheads in the karst
known.
Inthereaçhdownstream of Nagymaro osdy theeffects
ofpreliminaryredging, scorrtemplateyKET, on the
capacitloss ofexistinwaterworkm s uldbe forecast
withrusonablereliabiii.yurthprroblems,uch asthe
sinkingofthe channe1downstream ofthe Nagymaros
dam and the depositioofsilt, areonly estimatesand
thereis no knowledgthatwouldpermit the confident
predictiooftheextentoftheseprocesses. 3.1.2 Actualdamage
Damagethathascertaintyoccunedduring theconstructioworksof the
projectisthe loss ofwater productioncapacityofthe wellsof the
Szentendre Island,causai by the prelirninarydrdging operation
downstream ofNagymaros. The magnitudeof thislossistildisputed,
with estimatesvarying in the range of 70,000 - 300,O m3/d.
Uncertainitiosfjudgingthis&mage stem fiomthefactthatdredgiag
was madenot only for the purposesof theriver dam but alsofor
commerciallindaistronalsandthe extentof dredgingwasalso larger
thancuntemplatixblyKET.
Followiagthe diversioof theRiverDanubein 1992,thatis uponthe
implernentatioof "Alternati(3" the groundwatettablehasactualt
subsided,as it wasdiscussedabove.Thissubsidencehas resultd in
damage relatetonaturaicosystems orestryandagriculture.heactual
damage tothe existingwaterwatksof theSzigetkoz çannot yet be
evduatwl.Damage tothepotentialrinkinwatersesourc efthe gravel
cornplexcçanot beunamhiguousld yetermind:Thelocation,direction
and magnitud efrechargeintothgrave1havesubstantialyliangedbut
thedetetiorationf thequaliofsuhsurfacwe atersis expecttooccur
inthe longtermand cannut yetbedetectd.
3.1.3 Expectablheure damages inthecaseof
maintaininnthe meseritconditionsof
waterdistbution
Ifthepresentconditionweremaintainedinthelongmn thendamage to
natureconsemation,forestryandagricuiturewillbe done,with high
probitbilit,tal1thosesiteswherethe topsoilof fineparticlesize had
earlierteceivedmoistufiomthegroundwatet ,ndthissupplyhasnow
beenterminated.
The potential rinkiwaterresousceof thegravecornplexwiIbe most
certainldamaged butthisis along process that wlldevelopover
severaldaades.Damageis mostly expectedin tem of waterqudity
deterioratibnutheform and magnitudo efthisdeterioratcanno? be
quantitatiyelestimateci&. The possibilitof establisfh urnher
waterabstractionellsinthispotentilrinking aterresourceremuch
curtaileby thefactthatthesourceof waterrechargto thegravelwas
shifiedfrarnthemainchanne lf Danube tothe ara of theDunacsiinyreservoirandbecameratheruncertaiandalsotothesimilarlyuncertain
sourceofrechargethatisprovidby theartiticialrechargesystethe
floodplaiandthe areaoutsidthefloodlevee.Ihas becameanurgent
necessittoeliminatthelocalsourcesof pollutatanacceleratedrate
and byal1means.
Itis expectedwithgreatcertainithatthe impoundingeffectsof the
tailwatecanalwilcaus thesettlingofconsiderabi11quantitinthe
ara ofthe riverarm systemof Asv8nyand Bagomdr and thiswill
influencthesubsurface aterHawever thereisinsufficietnowledge
availablfortheestimatiooftheeffec ofthe relataprocesses.
3.1.4 Risksreiatedtathe alternativeswhich
emerged atthetripa~~ete~atiations
In the tripartnegotiatioheldin 1992-9 withthe participatnf
SIovala,Hungar yndtheEC thepossibiliofredivertinDanubbeack
to itoriginalmaichanne l asaisodisçussedIntiiimateridwe will
notbedealingwiththksolution.
The EÇ hassupportetdheHungaria proposaalccurdbgtowhichmore
thanhalfofthefow ofDanube wouldbe redivertea,safünctioofthe
seasonoftheyear,to theoldchannel, hilekeepintheetablishrnents
andstructuresof "Alternative H.This could,however,anly be a
temparary solutiofor a periodof afew years,since groundwater
siibsidencwouldalsobe associa wiehthisolution,tthoughhigher
rediverteratesrequestedforthegrowingseason, might duce this
subsidenc o a tolerahlevet.Waterofdegradedquality,expecteto
infiltraiefiomtbe Dunacsliayreservoirintothe gravel,will be
encounteredalso in thcaseof this alternati;orwver this migtit
becorneevenmorepronouncd withthelesseninof thedrainageffect
bythe now abandona i ainDaaubechannel.
A recentproposaisupportebythe EC waszhatmorewater would be
dischargedintotheoldchannelthanthepresentratbut lesthan that
discussedabove andthis wouldbe associatei iththe simultaneous
constructionfbottomdikesandwiththeartifi rcchalgsystertothe
floodpiainand tothe areaoutsidethe floodlevee. T'bicouid, in
principlesolvetheproblemsrelatetogroundwate srbsidenceandto
thedamage to thepotentiadrinkinwater resource.everthelesthis
planbas notben elaborateinsufficientdetaItis highlyuncertainwhether cloggingofttiechannelbed(colmatationwould occurin the
abandoned mainchannel aberimpoundments arecrated by thebottom
dikes,whetheritwouldocçurin theartificlechargesystemornotand
whethertherewillbewaterqualitychangesandif soof whatmagnitude.
The same isthecasewiththeothercomplementarwyatersupplysystems
whichare toutilizwater fromthe partiallyimpoundereachupstream
of theDunakilitiam.
3.2.1 Lackof knclwldge in various nhasesof the
historof theBNV svstem
Beforethepreparatioonf KET andbeforetheelaboratioof theimpact
assessrne nttdyanduntithesuspensioonftheconstnictiworksof the
river barragesystem, until1989, the lack of knowledg cean be
summarized asfollows:
- Specialistdealingwith subsurfacewaters had no
knowledgeof the expectedqudity of water to be
'rwharged intothe groundwate resourcesandneither
wereknown the extent,siand rateof accumulationf
pollutants inthe impoundrnentsT. his referto the
Dunakilitireservoas wellas to the Danube reaçhes
, upstreamanddownstream oftheNagymaros dam;
The abovementioned water qualitandsedimentation
(colmatatiop)roblem havenotyet been raolved and
theyalsorefehotheproposedartinciawatersupplyand
rechargsystems tou;
Bydrogeologicarlesesuintothegravelcornpl eixed
atthemoredetailedexploratioof theinhomogeneities
'of thegravelformatiohasnotyet ben cornplea tedd
the same teferstothe hydrogeologicaml odellinof
transporprocesses as wellas to the actud design
activitiesrelatodtheprotectioof water withdrawal
systemstobe basedon thesresources;
Moredetailedexploratiooftheconnectionbetweenthe
Danube and the karsticwatec storagesystem wauid 439
providemuchneededfurther information;
- Theoutstandingimportancandhighvulnerabilityf the
bank-filterdrinkingwater resourceof the Islanof
Szentendre,downstieamof Nagymaros doesnot aliow
the undertakiof risksduezothe lackofknowledgeof
thepropertieofthiscomplicatesystem.
Between the suspensionof the constructiowotks (1989 )nd the
cancellatioofthe contract(1992)knowledghas beenexpandedin the
followingfields:
l - Hydrogeologicaclonditioofthe Szigetküz;
- Moredetailedinformationn thecontemplate drtificial
watersupplyand rechargsystems.
Mer thecancellatiaofthecontracatndthediversioof Danube(1992)
knowledge ofthe Szigetkozarehasheensignificantlexpanded:
- Ground waterlevelsheforeandaftethediversionofthe
Danube havebeenevaiuatsd;
- knowledgeonthe efficiencofartificilomplementary
watetsupplyand rechargeystemshas beenexpandd.
There is still insuficient knowledavailablewith respectto the
folIowingissues:
- Clogging(coimatationo)f the channel by deposited
sedimentandtherelataiwaterqualitproblems;
-
Water movemena tndwater qualitofthedeeperlayers
ofthegrave1complex oftheSzigetk~z;
- Concreteplansforthefutureutilbatioofthe potential
drinkingwaterresourceof the Szigetkoz(aboutthe
consmictioof wells);
- Risksrelatetorivertraininintewentionsorrtemplated
intheareaof theIslanof Szentendre.HantiGY. (953);
A fels45dunaivizer6hasznosftAskdvetkeztkmegvdltozd
hidrografiviszonyokatdsatalajvizre,(Efftfhydrographic
condition, lterbytheDanube HydropoweS rcheme,onthe
groundwater).Budape:st.ITUKl
SchmassrnannH,.(19591:
Der Eintluss industriellAbwaser auf die Gewaser.
Beseitigunund ReiningungndustrialArbwaser,1959.
Weber, 1. (19611:
Chemisch-bakterioloU gnterhuchungen an einem
Trinkwasserstauund sraunahem Gmndwasser, Wasser und
Abwasset,1961.
VacaavJ. 119641:
A Szigetkoztaiajvfivjszonyaimeghatilm&a, a dunai
vlzeri3mGvekegépittuth vhhatbtalajvhhizetreldrejdzés
(Forecaskinof groundwater conditionin the Szigetk6z
expectablafiathe constructiof theDanubeHydropower
Scherne.udapest.:ETUKI
Vargav J.(19641:
A bom4romi 6bIijzettalajvlli82tar6saavdrhat6helyzet
eldrejelz(eroundwatebudgetoftheKomhm basin andthe
prdictioofexpectablchangs), Budapes: ITUKI
Vargav 1. (19641:
A PilisrnardtiBbl6trirajvkhaztart6sa vdrhatdhelyzet
elorejelzé(, roundwateudgetofthePilisdt basiandthe
prdictioofexpectabiehanges)B,udapest:ITUKI
Varaav J.19641;
Az Esztergomi4bllizttlajvizfiazta&t$aavkhat6helyzet i
el6rejelz&(,GraundwaterdgetofthEsztergombasinandthe
predicatinf expectabchanges),udapest,: ITUKIVarr6kE. 119651:
A Dunakiliti vkl6pcsi3 munkagtgodrénevlzteIenités&vel
kapcsolatsziv4rgbikismintavizsg(,calstudieofseepage
conditiorelatatothedewaterinoftheconstructinitofthe
BunakilitidamBudapest,VITUKI
Var~av J.(19651:
A Duna ésLajtakW# elteridteriiletdajvizviszonyainak
rneghathzlsa, a duzzasztb utdn vdrhat6 taiajviszonyok
eWtejelzés(,nvestigatnfgroundwateconditionsfthearea
betweentheriversDanube and Lajta,predictiof changes
expectabeftertheimpoundment ),udpaest, ITUKI
Starosols 6.(196566):
A dunaivher6mbrendsze &ral erintetttefiletekkolmatAcibs
kerdésenekvizsgalata, (Investigaofonchmel clogging
(colmatationi)n areasaffecbyithe DanubeHydropower
Scheme),Budapest,VITUKE
Csoma J.n6(1965):
A dunai vizerBmfirendszeenih-i programjgetl6készft6
tandmhyok. - A rbgi mederkürnyezetdnet kalajviiszin.
szabiiiyozdsP,reparatostudisfotheinvostmenptrogramme
of theDanubeHydropowe rcheme; egularioofgroundwater
conditiosntheviciniof theolchannel)BudapestV, ITUKI
Vacr6kE. 11966):
A dunai vfzer6mrirendszmregépitdsutan a Szigetkozben
kialakul6 talajvizrnozmeghat&ozbsa,(Determinationof
groundwatedlowexpectablafcetheconstructioftheDanube
Hydropowe rcheme)BudapestV, iTüKI
Vam6k E. (1966):
A Duna Yhr8mtTrendszelrétesltésévealpcsolaszivkgbi
vizsga1ak, a Kornatomi4bl6zevtedl irnUvenekvisgalata,
(Seepagestudierelat adthe DanubeHydropower Scheme;-
Investigatiof thedike of theKom&om basin)Budapest,
VITUKICsoma J.(1966):
A lebegtetett hordalékviagalata diiuasztotttdrbena
kisrnintakis errlmeteyeinedhaszn&lhA~ an,vestigation
of suspendedsolidsin the reservbyrutilizithe cesultof
hydraulicscalmode1 studies),BudapeVlTUKI
Aujazkv G. 119661:
Anagyrnaro slvizikotrhatasBudapesvtizeIlAt&&a(,Effects
of dredgingof the tailwaterchannelon the watersupplyof
Budapest),Budapest, IZITERV
Csoma3. (1967):
A felddunaialdalcsatorndsreimiiesetenkialakuldelhagyott
meder sz&Aiyo&i tervenek elkészirhe, (Preparation of
regulatioplanfsorthechanneltobe abandonedinthecase of
constructingthe power-canaltype hydropowerscheme),
BudapestV, ITUKI
Szilvhsv2, 119701:
A szigetkiivadvonalszakasz onlepitetttoltlésefisith-kiserIeti
szakaszoktalajmechanikelt&&a(,Soil-mechanicelxploration
of the experimentaltrengtbenflood leveeoftheSzig&Oz
area),Budapest , ETUKI
MiirkiE. 197 ):
Gewisserschutzproblem en Staugewksernin der Schweiz.
Wasser und Abwasser,1971.
UifaludL. (19741:
A Dunakilitinisovi duzzasztbmu szivdrghi visuinyainak
megallapfthaelektromosanaldgiaalapjh (~etermhationof
seepageconditionsttheDunakiliti-Hnidvam,usingelectrical
analogy),Budapest, ITUKI
Maior P.119765:
A Dunakilitiviil6pcs8 haaa a Szigetkeztalajviszonyaira,
(EffectsoftheDunakilitiamon thegroundwate conditionsf
theSzigetktiz, udapest, ITUKIVIZITERV E1976)
Gabcikovo-Nagymarosi vfzl&pcs6rendszer hatasa Gy&
vfzellatAsd, ffets theGabc iovo-Nagymaro Hsydropower
Scheme.: VIZITERV,1976.
VIZlTERV 119761
Nagyrnarosialvizi kotrib hat&a Budapest vizell4t&&ra,
hidroldgiaidapadat(Effectsof cbannl redgindownstream
of Nagymaros on the water supply of Budapest;-basic
hydrologicdata),Budapest,IZFTERV 1,976.
VIZITERV-HYDROCONSU(L 1977):
GabcikovoNagymaroG Vizldpcsbrendszer,izSEgyezményes
Terv,( The Gabcikovo-Nagymar osydropowetScheme, the
Mutua1y AgreedPlanKET, Budapest-Bratislava77.
SzkkelyF.11977):
DunakilivizIep& hama a Szigetktalajviszonyaia,ffects
of the Dunakilii amon the soiconditionoftheSzigetkoz),
BudapestV, ITUKI
VIZlTERV 1977)
Nagymaros alvizikotrh hatba Budapevbe1lat;lskaakies6
vkmennyisbg @tl&dra, vizelosztdsr(Effwts of dredging
downstream of Nagymaros onthewater supplyof Budapest;-
supplernentigthe reduced capacity, water distribution),
BudapestV, IZH'ERV1 ,977.
Varr6kE. (19784:
A Dunakiiititaro& sziv&gd csatordi hatdkonysighak
vizsgalata,(investigaofotheefficienof catchdraicanais
of theDunakilitieservoir,udapestV,lTUKl
VIZITERV 11978)
Gabcilçovo-Nagymaro Vsi 6pcsëirendszr&hat6vizmineSségi
hatha, (Effectof the Gabcikovo-NagymaroH s ydropower
Scheme on waterqualityBudapest,VIZITERV, 1978.
UjhludiL. (19791:
A Dunak iti taro26 szivkg6 csarornain& hatékonys gg
vizsgalata(Investigatinf theefficiencof the catchdrain
. cariaioftheDunakilitieservoir, udapest, ITUKIVIZITERV (1979)
SzigetkozikozsdgevfzeIl4ti5Wacer supplytothevijlageof
theSzigetkoatea),Budapest,VIZITERV, 1979.
Hasznra0. (19791:
A Dunakiliiarofi sziv&gdcsatorntlikatékonysAvizsgfilata.
II osszefoglald jelentds(1980,ok.) 21 Rovid jelent&
(1980marc.),(Investigatioof theeffrciencyof catch-drain
canalsof the Dunakilitireservoir;II SummarReport (Oct.
198012, ShortReport(March 1980)BudapestV, ITUKI
VIZITERV (1980)
Damos-Dobogdk6v iizrnuathelyezbe,NagymarosiVizldpcsTi
jobbpmi térsdgenek vfzellAt&a,(Transferof the Domos-
DobogdkB Waterworks; w-atersupplyto the tight-bankareas
downstrem of Nagymaros)B, udapest, IZITERV 1,980,
Erdélv i. (1979):
A KisalfiihidrogeoI6 g ididrodinamikaj(H,ydrogeology
and hydrodynamics of the Kisalt5ld)HidroldgiaiKijzlony,
197917.
VIZITERV 119791:
Szige~üzikiizsdgevizell&a, Tanulm yterv,(Watersuppyl
tothevillageofSzigetkozVIZITERV ,979. ,
Vv':
GabcikovoNagymarosV i fzIépcstirendseTanulmhyok. A
szigetketdajvfzsziseab4iyozitanulmibya(,TheGabcikovo-
Nagymarus Hydropower Scheme, Studyon the regdation of
groundwaterIevelsoftheSzigetkoz)VfzYgyi Ternez6Vdllalat
terv.dok.,May198'1.
LAszlbF. (19811;
Gabcikovo-Nagyrniirospartis&eJa kiitjainak vizsgaata,
(investigationofthe bank-filterd wells of Gabcikovo-
NagymarosB },udapestV,ITUKI
Szab6 Mnd (198tl:
A Dunaki ii &ozd kisérletit6lt&szakaszdnak szivhgb
vizsgaata,Seepageinvestigatinftheexperimentadlikeofthe
Dunakilitieswoir), Budapest, lTUKIErdéiviM. (19831:
A Gyori-medence termbzeti-gazdasdgi rtdk6s a tervezett
vttl6pcs6, (Natuand economicvaIuesintheGy&. Basinand
theplannedhydropowerscheme)FGldrajzirtesitXXXII.evf.,
198313-4
Haszpra 0.(19831:
A Dunakilitiuzzaszt6méisszigetkozalajvfz(TheDunakiliti
dam and the groundwatersof the Szigetkoz) Viziigyi
Kozlem6nyek,
MTA (1983):
A~ibfogiaib a '~abcikovo-~agymaros Vilzlkpcs6rendszerrel
kapcstatm, tudom8nyoscviitatotkérdeJekr8(1tatementon
scieificly disputeissuesreIattotheGabcikov6Nagymaros
HydropoweS rcheme),BudapesDt ecernbe1,983,
UjfaludiL. (19841:
A hulldmterielkasztd 6 besziv6rogtatrendszerhathhak
vizsgalaaaSzigetkoztalajvizmozg&&a,(Investigatiofthe
flwding-infiltrasystemofthefloodplaion thegroundwater
movemeno tftheSzigetkGz),udapestV,ITUKI
UifaludiL.(1984:
A komdram i talajv izôblozet vedelrni mîivének
szivArg6shidrlulivizsg6lat(Analysiof seepage-hydraicls
fortheprotectiondikeofthe Kornkomgroundwater basin),
BudapestV,ITUKI
ÉDUVIZIGf1984):
Szigetkozivfzp6trendszekiaiakitka,(Desigoftheartificid
rechargesystem of the Szigetkoz)Északdunrlnt~Vlifzügyi
Igazgatdsag1984.
VIZITERV (1984)
Partiszilrbvizmdvek dlapotfeivétele(Baselinsutvey of
waterworkrselyinon bank-filterdaterrésourcesB,udapest
MTA f19851:
V6lem4n yGabcikovo-Nagymsi Vklépcdrendszk eornyezeti
hatslstanulrnitna&tliirakerekasztkonferencihelhangzott
vita(1985.jun. al4pj), (Opinionaboutthe environmental impactassesrnen tf the Gabcikovb-Nagyrnaroydropower
scheme,onthe basiof thediscussioof theexclusiveround-
tablconferencheldon the24thofJuly,1985)
Szab6 M.n&(19851;
A GNV hatdsaa fdszfn alatvizekre, (Effectsothe GNV
hydropowe rchemeon subsurfacwaters),Budapest,VITUKI
HockB. E 19851:
Gabcikovo-Nagymaro vzlépcs6rendszerzrninbs6iathainak
vizsgdiata,(Investigaof the waterqualityeffects of the
Gabcikovo-NagmyaroHydropowe cheme)B, udapest, lTUKI
RdkdcziL. (19851:
A Gabcikovo-Nagyrnarosvizl6pcs8rendszer hatha a
horddékjAtaJr-A. lebegtethordddkletakddbaGabcikovo-
Nagymarosküzott, (Effects of the Gabcikovo-Nag yaros
Hydropowes rchemeon thesedimentconditions-epositioof
suspendedsediments betweenGabcikovoand Nagymaros),
BudapestVITUKI
Hutvan R.11985):
GNV szigetkOfedBrktevizsgalat(Investiganf thetopsbil
in the Szigetkin relatiotothe GNV scheme),Buadpest,
VITUKl
Var~av 2.(19851:
GNVszigetkiiziedbrétevizsgdat(Investigatonfthetopsoil
inthe Szigetkain relatiotoihe GMV scheme),Buadpest,
VlTUKI
StarosolszkO. (19851:
A Gabcikovo-Nagymarosivfzl6pcs6rendszer kornyezeti
dszlel6hdbzat4nkoncepcidja,Theconceptof environmental
monitorinnetworkof the Gabcikovo-Nagymarh osdropower
scheme)BudapestV, ITUKJ
UifaludiL. (19851:
Terepklsbletea SzigetkOzszivbghi viszonyainakfe1tar;lsa
ç6Ijib61(Field experimentfoc the exploratiof seepage
conditionntheSzigetkoz), udapest, ITUKIVIZITERV 19851:
A Gabcikov6-NagymarosVilslépcs6rendsreatAstanulmihya,
(Impacassessrneof the Gabcikovlo-NagymarHsydropower
Scheme)June, 1985.
SzabbM.n& (19861:
oj GNV kutaktelepltbénekmuveretésees dokumentalba,
(Constnictioof newobsrvatiowdls oftheGNV hydropower
scheme),uda~e;t, lTUKI
KoînisneAkantis2s..(19861:
Oreg Duna-mede szabAlyoz&Av vilsglatok,(Investigations
relateto theregulatioftheold Danubechannel), udapest,
VITUKI
RAkdcz i (19861:
DunakiIitithzd és a BNV dial drintetDuna-szakasz
hordaI6kj4rhdnaeleirejelzése(,TheDunakilitireservoirand
predictioofthesedimendischargeregimeaslntluenchy the
BNVhydropower scheme)Budapest,VITUKI
Laczay1..Hock B.(1986)
Duna komplexvizsgdla1.ütem -1.-(hidroldgi,orfol6gia),
2. (vfzrnin8ség), ornplnvestigatinf Danube,Phase1.;-
1 .(hydrology morphology),2. (waterquality),Budapest,
VITUKl
Frischher...Junn,H..Urban.W(.1986):
Beeinfîussungdes Gnindwassersdurch Flusswasserinfilat
OsterreichiscWeasserwirtsc.Jtg.1986.
LorheterA.119871:
A Duna folyam és a GNV hathteriiletere kiterjeda
k~fztdrol6-rendszerkapcsolat vdnsgdnta-1részjelentb,
(Investigatinf htic storagsystemsin relatiotoDanube
andthe GNV hydropswerscheme),Budapest, tTUKI
Boendr.S..Rakdcz i.119871:
A dunakilittdroz6ésa BNY ;UtaérintetDuna-&asz
horddékjAr&ha bkecslés(Estimatioof the sedimentload
conditionof the Danube reachaffect4by the Dunakiliti
reservoiandtheBNV projectBudapestV, ITUKIBomAr S. (19871:
Hordal6kmozga JlzsgalataaNagymaros-Dunatijvh koatti
Duna-szakaszon(,Investigatiof sedimentmovementin the
Danubereaçhbetween NagymarosandDunaiijvhs), Budapest,
VITUKI
VlZlTERV 119861:
Lerületi megfigyei6rendszerA Dunakiliti duzzasztdmfl
hathterCIet6a985-i QgUItészlelëikutnegvaidsuldstirve,
(Fielmonitoringsystem.Constructionlanfotheobservation
wellsintheara effectedby theDunakilitim, built before
1985)VIZITERV ,986.
VIZITERV (1987):
TerGletinegfîgydrendszer. ompledinarniku;IIIapotrtigzftés
fe1szaimniuizeire,(FieldmonitorgystemCornplexdynamic
baselinstudyof subsurfacwatersVhügyiTerva Vallalat,
1987.
Lkl6 F,-Homanna v .nbZimonviM. (19871:
A foIy6&dlyoz&, iiletaz iparkotrdshatiha partiszlirbfi
vfzbeszerzbce,(Effeetof rivertrainingand çornrnerciai
dredgingon the bank-fiereddrhking water abstractions)
ViziigyKüzlemenyek LXIX.dvf.8713.f.
Laczav1.(1987):
Foly6szabalyolaiparikotribsa partisziursibhis, (River
training, commercialdredging bank-tlred drinkin wgater
rmurces) VizligyKozlernknye kXlX-év,f..füzet
LorbererA. eta11987-1989):
ADuna folyam6sa GNVhatbsteriiletkreerjedkacsztv[ztdrolb
rendszer kapcsolathak vizsgaata. (Investigationofthe
relationshbetween theRiver Danube andthe karsticwater
reservoiinthearea affectby theGNVhydropowes rcbeme)
1-V.V ITUKIB , udapest.
UtfaludiL.f19881:
A BNV tiatbaak6rnydS terliletfelszalattivlzmin6s6gdnek
aiakul8si-rÉvesjelent&,(EffectoftheBNV projectonthe
watetqualitof subsurfàweaters)Budapest, ITUKILaczav1.t19881:
A DunamderanyagaBudapest felett,(Materiasfthechannel
bai ofthe RiverDanube upstream of Budapest),Budapest,
VITUKI
R6k6cziL. 11988);
~llapotr6~zftas Rajka-DunaijvAro lctiztiDuna-szakasz
hordal6kj8rrlsrs mederaIakul&&v aanatkoz6a.- 2.1. A
felhagyottmederszabaiyoztkdaonatkozdeddigivizsgdatok.
drtékelésP,aseline study of sedimentload conditiand
channelmorpholugyfortheDanube reachbetweenRajkaand
Budapest;-.IEvduationoftheresulrsf investigatiselatai
tuthe rgulationof thechanne!o be abandoned}B,udapest,
VlTUKI
MantuariJ6.119881:
B6s-NagymarV osfzI6pcsBrendteriiletimegfigr3endszere,
Gonyü alattszakas F,ieldmonitorinsystemfor theBos-
Nagymaro sydropowesrcherne)BudapestV, IZITERV
EDUVIZ 1IG9881:
MBszakilefrds a GNV r&gi Dunameder szab4lyozQa
tanulmdnyterv&ezTechnicaldocumentsof thestudyon the
replation of the abandoned Danubechannel, at GNV)
lhkdun~nhiliVLzligyligazgatdslgi.dok. 1,88.
BME (19881:
A Regi-Duna viih&tartasivizforgali érlegemt egalapozd
sziv&g&viizsgalato(Seepagestudieforsupporththewater
budge tontrolftheDanube :hanrisectioto beabandoned),
BudapesUtniversiofTechnologB yMB, 1988.
VIZITERVI19881;
Fdszinalatti tdajvminbs6g.Szigetkozitaiajvlzészlel6kutak
vfzmim3seg Q,ualt ofsubsurfaceaters.Watequa tyofthe
ùbswationwellsoftheSzigetkliz, IZITERV ,988.
UifaludiL,119881:
A BW hatasaak6myez8 tediletfelszhdattivlzmin6segenek
alakulh4ra.vesjelent&,(Effectof BNV on thequalityof
subsurfaeeaterinthe neighbouringra),ViTUKi, 198%. ,
Collev.R.(1988)
Heavymetaldistributiointhe Altenw~rtReservoir,Danube,
Austria,ActaHydrochim.H, ydrobil,1988
VG3(19881;
Felmdrb a Szigetkoz teriiletén talalhalakossdg is
mezdgazdasdgi talajviz szennyezdforrdsokrd, VGI
tkmabe~zhold, (Surveofcommunaa lndagsicultulourceof
pollutiointheSzigetkozara), Budapes, 988.
MTA (19881:
~lldsfo~lal&s NagymarosiVkl$cso esetlegeselhagydsanak
lehetos~gk kr6v1tkezrn&ny6r6S1,tementn thepossibilities
of thepotenrilrnittanfetheNagymaro siverbarrageandon
itconsequençe sudapes t,kt.1988.
Sz6llZisi-Nav..Alm6ssyA.. Bir1..lolankaiG.. MichelG.119891:
A Ms-Nagyrnaros i [email protected]és-e
1.kotet.El6zmenyek,kitiiz&,iittekiisrnertet(,Modelling
theeffectoftheMs-Nagy marosHydropowe rcheme:-Vol.I.,.
Background objectiveresearçhreview),Budapes, tTUKI
SzCYli3si-NaA..SzbkelF.,UifdudiL. (1989);
A BBs-NagymarV oslzlépcs6rendshertdsainkodellezéseV.
kiiteFelszindani vizekkuWi 6 modellezés ehetaségei,
(Modelng the effectsof the Ms-Nag ymaros Hydropower
Scheme;V - o1.V.Modelllnandresearcofsubsurhce waters),
Budapest ,ITWU
SrGll6si-N A,~JolrlnkaG..HarkaiivK., CsermAkB.. NovakiB.,
BakonviP..fiifaludL..SdkelyF..s&~Y& L..Hoek B..ZotteK.,
Dar& A..Pesti€3,-andLhzl6 F,
TheBBs/Gabcikovu-Nagyma rydropowerScherne;-Vol.VI1
Evaluationof Researchand Models Suggested(Condees4
Engiish versioof the relevantHungariaStudy),Budapest,
VITUKT
Üled~ks~enn~azettsévkggillata a BNV hatasteriiletbn,
(Investigatofthecontaminatioofbottomsilinthechannels
efcectby tbeBNV scheme),BudapesVt,iTüKiMotvovszkv T.(1989):
GNV szigetkozi talajnedvességrnérds(,Soi1 moisture
measurementisntheSzigetkoz),BudapesVITUKI
LorbererA..csepregA, 119891;
A Dunafolyar6saGNV hatasterüladLitaje.0 karutvlz~rol6
rendsze rapçsolatinakvizsglta, (Investigatioof the
relationsbpetweethekarstistoragsystemtheRiverDanube
andtheGNV hydropowesrcheme),Budapest, ITUKI
Bo~ndr S.(19891:
A DunakilitiAroz4hordaidkjar&Anbakcslés(,stimationof
the sedimenregirneof the Dunakilitireservoir),Budapest,
VITUKI
WWF (19891:
A WWF frermészetv8ddmi Vildgalap) dIl&foglal&aa
Gabcikovo-NagymarosVizlépcs8rendszerrek l apcsolacban
(StatementfWWF(WorldWildfiteFundl in respecto the
Gabckov6 Nagymaros H ydropower Scheme) WWE-Anen-
Instit,tastatAugust1989
BNV KorrnAnvhizto (sa895:
Dontésel6kész izsgalatoéstanulrndnyo Decisionsupport
investigationsand stuies, Phases 1, 1-11> )g.1-11.,
II.mukaszakas,)1989
LorbererA. (19891:
A nagymaros ifz1épcseSaekelszfnalatvkk&zletrevdrhat6
hatdsa.(ExpeczalffectsotheNagymaro samon subsurface
waterresources)
X-thInternationClong.ofspeleolog13.-20,,Aug.,1989.
BudapestFieldtriguaa A.-1.
METESZ-MKBT-VITU k idv.
Laczk6 A.(19891:
A BBsNagymarosV i izlépcsgvlapcsolatkutat&ok,(Studis
relatetothe Ms-Nagymaro HsydropowerScheme)Fi3vhosi
Vtzmfivek, muscript,une1989.EDUVIZIG11 9891:
Szigetkovzzp6tl6rendsze.ullfimtdilzpdtl6Mentettoldali
ontoz6 Cs vizpdtl6 f6miS.Bunaremetevfzkivdtelicsatorna,
(Complementarywater supply to the floodplain-.rtificial
rechargesystemoftheSzigetkoz.Watersupplyandirrigation
schemefor the ara outsidthe floodLeveeIntake canalat
DunarerneteÉ)szalcdundniillziii Igazgat6s1989.
VIZITERV f19891:
A GNV hatasa iv6vfzbdzisciaaDunajobbpartjdaz 1718-
1791 fkm kâzoct,Tanulminytew, (EffectsofGNV on the
drjnkiagwaterresourco enstherighc-bansideof Danube),
VEïïERV, 1989.
Aarrv N..NachtneheHl.11989)
EcosystemstudyAltenworth.mpactsofahydropowe rlanon
the Danube.UNESCO-MAB V,ienna1989
Eü9getlenszakértbiizottsd~(IndependtxperccimmitteeE119891:
&szefoglalbaMinisztenandrcsszerenagymarosmi unk4îatok
felfliggeszdms vbgzetthazaés nemetkaz iogi, gazdasigi,
okol6giai, rnfiszaki kovetkezeeket feitat6vizsgdlatok
eredmenyeirGl(, ummaryforthe Councilof Ministeon the
resultsoinvestigatiosbouttheHungariaa nndinternational
legal,ecologicl ntechnicacsonseqinenocfsuspen ng the
constructinorksoftheNagymarod sam),BudapesStept1989
ErdglviM. 119901:
AKisalfolhidrageold gvfdjapcs6k egépitésebttéut&
(hydrogeologof KisalfZtiiehreandafietheconstructiof
riverbarrages, üldraÉirtesft6,14904-1
Bechtelm&nokirodm a echteConsultinp:rslf l9Wl:
FüggetIen szakért6i felülvizsgdlat a B6s-Nag ymaras
Vfil@cs6rendszer6rnyezeti athair(Reviewof independent
expertson the environmentaecectsof theBas-Nagymaros
Hydropowe Srcheme San Francisco+Budape 1s.,0.)
vJ~
Vlzrnin6ségillapotfeIm6r&s ha?&becstdas tewezettBBs-
Nagymaros Vfil4pd5rendszerbe(,Baselinesurvandimpact
assessrneftrtheplanneBos-Nagymaro HsydrripuwSecheme)MAFI E1991l:
A Kisalfild fildtanitkrképsorozS,eries ofmapsfor the
Kisaifôld)MagyarAllamiFoidtaInttrzet,1.9
MAFIEl9 9):
A SzigetkozpartisziirfindszerénevfzminBs6gvizsgalata,
(Investigatofthewaterqualitof thebank-filterdraources
intheSzigetkti,)agyarAllamiFfildtaInthet, 1991.
Szab6 I.M.(19911:
A nagymarasi vhldpcs6 val6szinhftethatasa a Duna
mikrobiolbgia-biokhidinamikajilas a fblyaminyersvlz
minBségé P r,bableffeetsofthenagymaroiverbarragon
thernicrobioiogandbiochemicadlynamicsfDanube andon
thequalityof Danube water),HidroIdgiai ozIony,1991.
71.évf./3.
Somlyddv L.et-a11992):
A Duna ésa SzigetkopartisziirvfibAzisaiv,elsziaiatti
viik&letdvel és biolbgiaianyagforgalm;ivaklapcsolatos
kutackok(Resmch relateto thbank-filterdrinkhgwater
resourceof Danube andthe Szigetkozto subsurfacwater
resouccsnd tobiologicl asstransf)1991),VITUKI , 992
EDU-KU (1F92):
A DunAn az fin"C" valtozamiattelBdItrendkivülielyzet
drtekelése, valuatnftheextremeconditionsreateby the
sofalled'AlternativCM)Északdunhtillli hyezetvédelmi
FelligyelbJV,hvédelmOisztdyajel.1992.december
DHI 11992):
DanubianLowland-GrounW d atet modd PHAREIECAVAT
InspectiReport,DanishHydrauliInstitutJuly1992
Starosolszky0-
SzigetkezvizgazJodhanakmepal to&a, (Changeof water
managemen ittheSzigetküz) ITUKI,September1992.VO1~ves i.(1992);
Vlzbdzisoa Szigetk~zben@rinking waterresourcesinthe
Szigetkoz)SzigetkoziAnket1992.
MTA VIzg:az.tud.Bizntls(Cornmitteof WaterManagement
Sciences1(19921:
VklernenyzMTAad hocbizottsdg Wasivtziépcokoldgiai-
kornyezeti kockhatait 8sszefoglald "~ll~sfo~lal~s~val"
kapcsolatban(,Opinionon the"Statement"of the ad hoc
Cornmitteeof MTA on the ecological-environmenasks
associawtitdtheMs riverbarrage)Budapest, arch 1992.
Véleménya Msi vizl6pcs6ve1,illetva "C" vajtozattal
kapcsolatban 199,Bp.ril(OpinionontheB6sH ydropower
statiand onthe"Alternatie ")Budapes t,pril1992
Mucha 1..Paulikova. .. Hlavm. 2RodAk D..ZelinaL.(1992):
A Msi vhier6mG Cs& 6 Szlovdk SztjvtségiKdztksasdg
teriilettortishefejezéseneoptimalizaikaa talavizekre
gyakorolt atdsszempontjabd(lOptimizatiofttheeffe~of
theBasHydropowe rtationaseompleteon Slovakterritory,
onthegroundwater szlovakComeniusUniversit,Bratislava,
1992.
MTA ad hocbizotts6IadhocCornmitteofMTA1(1992):
Tdjékozta tbS6svizlépcsi3koldgia-khyezekockdzatairdl
1991&ben végze: tutathokfigyelembev~telé(l,nformation
aboutheecologid-environmentalisksof tMs Hydropower
Station,takitheresearcresultso1991 intconsideration),
BudapestFebruary1992
ErdelviM. 11993):
Hydrogeolog h. ofttlPannoniaLnuwlandandthe Danube
zonetoBudapes(tinprint)
LiebeP. &.al(19931:
A Duna6s a Szigetkopartisziirvizbihisaiva,elszinalatti
vlzkészlet6ve6s biol6gia,anyagforgalrnilvklapcsolatos
kutathokResearchrelateto thebank-filtetdrinkinwater
resourceof Danube andthe Szigetkozto subsurfacwater
resoutcesandto bi1ogical masstransfprocesses)(1992),
VrrZJKM l arch1993.MTA [1993):
Szigetkoz.Kornyzettudomhny iutatdsokkornymetidiapot,
okoldgiak6vetelrnenyekSzigetkozEnvironmentaslesearch,
environmentalconditionsecologicarequirements)Magyar
Tudorn&~yo Askademikiadv.,1993
MAFI11 993): I
Gealogicaiseningofthe SzigetkGrMagyar AllamiFfildtani
Intbetkiadv.1993
KG1 119931: 1
Fels6Duna kfirnyzeti Iapotv8ltoz&o1986 januarés1 992
decemberkozott(k6rnyezetatiapot6tt&el&),Changesofthe
environmentaclnditionintheUpperDanuberegion between
anuary 1986andDecember 1992)KornyezetgazddkodI4stket
jd., k993.dewmber
Starosolszky. et-a(19931:
A Szigetkozfelszi6ifelszinalattivfzkészlei indségdnek,
valamint a befolyholt triilet hidro-okoszisztdm$j4nak
mepdtozisa a " C" tozatiizembehelyezQdnekhataska,
(Changesofsurfaçeandsubsurfacweaterresourceand ofthe
aquaticecosystemintheareaaEectedbythe implementatioof
"AlternatiCe")VITUKI ,anuary1993.
Starosolszk0. et.al.119931:
Szakvélern6ny a szigetkozi mellékagakvlzp6tl&$nak
rnegoId&&o zszlovdk"Cm vdltozattlapcsolatba(, xperts
opinion onthesolutiontocomplementaw ratersupplytothe
river-amofthe Szigetkozinrelatito theimplementatioof
"AlternatiCm),VITUKI, March,1993.
Starosolszk6. e.al(19931:
A szigetk6z.i mell8k4gak felszlni vizeinek p6tlAsa 6s
megval6sithar6s&gvizsgalata meglév6 adatok Japjh,
VMattew,(Complementa ratersuppltosurfacewaterofthe
Szigetkozfeasibilitystwdon the bais of availabledata),
VITUKI, 1993,LiebeP.-P.T.Hunp(19931:
A szigetkozivizp6tldstalajvfzregyakohathAt szimullld
mode1 kalibrdliaz 1993nydriadatokalapjdn,(Caiibratofn
a rnodesimulatintheeffectsothe artificl atersupplyand
rechargesystemof the Szigetkoon the basis of daofthe
summerof 1993)VITTUKI ,9931
LiebeP. et.a(1993):
A szigetkiiiullarntfeiltolsathhak becslés6sellenbrzése
a Mosoni-Duna 6 kornyezet:tévikI>Çitl&a(,Estimitgthe
effectof fioodplaiinundationndof thewatersupplytothe I
MosoniDanube), VITUKI,1993.
LiebeP. et.aE.(19931:
A szigetkozihullateri feltolth hathaés a Mosoni-Duna
Allapota(,ER=& of the inundatioof thefloodplaininthe
Szigetkozandtheconditionsfthe Mosoni-Danube V)ITUKI,
1993.
LhzlS F,-Simonffv2,(19931:
Slkvidékfiyamithzdk hatasaafelszlnalai izekmineSségére,
(Effectsof flat-landriverimpoundmentosn theqiidityof
subsurfacweater(Manuscrip Otctobe1993.
Liebe&.al.(19931;
A Duna monitoringfeliilvizs agbluateIterelésdv&1 a
Szigtkozvizpdtl&iivkapcsotatba(, evieof themonitoring
systemof Danubeinrespecttothediversiooftheriverandto
thecomplementaw ratersupploftheSzigetkoz)ITUKIJ ,une,
1993.
LiebeP. &.al(1993'1:
Hidrol6giai6 medemarfol6giaivilsgaatok a Duna fela
szakaszdnds a szigetkihiagrendszerbe(Hydrologicaand
charnel-morphologidinvestigatiintheUppecDanube andin
the river-arsystemoftheSzigetküz(1992)VITUKI,March
1993.
FdvdroisVhmbvek11 994'1:
A "Nagymaro aslvizmederIrotrh4.staaFBvkosiVlzrntivek
vhbeszerzbQe, (Effec ofchanne1dredgingdownstream of .
Nagymaroo snthewaterproductioconditionsf theBudapest
W aterworksF)6v4rciifzmiivek, anuscripJt,anuay1994.surfacewatcr
Componentç of Seditnentquality
Groundwarer Background
erïects
Fig 1. Effect of barrage systems to the groundwater.
PrincjpaI scheme. (After 2. Sirnonffy)Expxplonation:= boundary oftliealliivialplain;2 = arof theI.lanriswamp (in
1769);3 = groundwamcontour a-S.!anddirrriionofflow; 4= niicrboundary ofthe
DanuLe riverechargeof thcgroundwaier(higlriver stage5;= areaof groundwrrer
susceprible for surfcontaniinaiion(tlgravelysoils)6 =Iiiglia1luvialterracq7
= Iiigllcvelof oldgrave1sheet;8 = borderof pre-Quaierniuyrocks;9 = upthsr
(Cepek, 1938); 10= fault-zone(Cepk,1938). 11 = fauli-me (geologic aalpof
Austria,196lj 1;= westernfrontierofHunw RELATIOTHEGROUNDWANTHE
DANUWBETERELSZICETKoZ
Fig6,Change in groundwater level correlated to 1 meter change in Danube
water level calculated on the base of rnanthly averages cross section B -
~anube MoeonF Danube
LEGEND
-1~5- (ma.s.1.)ein originastate
- shaklowground waterf the
recharged romthe Danube30
yearsago by tritiumdata
borderof the ground water
originatfnqdominantly
42 isotope ratiosby orygenFig. 9~. Fig. 10. Decreasingof groundwater table referringto the average
of original state, in North part of Kisalfold. No
groundwaterrecharge. (On the base of Szekely model, in
h d j 1977)
*&4%' DATE : Mar 01, 1993
Water level at Rajka : 120.05[m asl]
Discharge of Danube : 218 [rn3/s]
1
Fig.15.- DATE : Jun 15, 1991
Water level at Rajka : 124.84 [rn asl]
Discharge of Danube : 2380 [m3/s]
Fig.21. Fig. 25. Working bankfiltered water-works along the riverDanube,.
(Except the water-works of Budapest)
4;
r -.
I
r '
I
I
LI.
Dorogbasin
t, Gy& - Rivlatui
1. Cy6r-sr& ci
3, Xom&orn -Koppénymono~iof,
L. Tait.
5. Ççricrgor-Srcntkralyi
6. Esrrergam-Pr;mtis s~igcii
7. 00m05i
8. Oaboshcgyt
10. Ounabogd~nyf
ti. LcEnyfo~-~kt#
12. Szcnirndre-Esraki
Y3,Sztnirndft-Rigi-
U, Srcnlrndr-RegionQli- Dib ~ydrogeological modelling of the Transdanubian Central
Montains Range-Predicted piesometric levels of karstic
water (m a.s.1.) on 1st January 2010 (VARIANT No,l.:
with low infiksration, maximalmining-water-withdrawnls
and with the operation 05 the barrage Nagymaros from
1992)
Computed by andr6s Csepregi
constructed by ~r.Arphd Lorberer
Research Centre for Eater Resources Develepment VITUKI
Institute of Hydrology, 1988 - - : damned
m ...I. ..C. 'I -
,,iu3,C8~,~12..-fi:~~-~--:.-.--a-.-,---- level in Danube average .
f
Fig. 28. Obgervedand simulated kalostuater level in Esztergom with
the predkctions (Csepregi A., Lorberer A.: 1988)Fig 29. NORTHERRWATER-WORK OF BUDAPEST
19-Ya
12.P
Operating water abstraction
BI
19-Va micaiüata:
12p intaiofuells,typaofwatat
l2.19 dep~i oecree(a- ni)
160 capadtymateeetmtFig. 30. Hanganeseand ammonia concentration causedby siltation,
near Suranp. (Lbsz16 et. al. 1987)LISTOFANNEXES MAPS
Map Mo 1 -UpperDanubeRiverSectionEnvironmentIlmpactArea
(BratisltoGdnyii).
Map No 2 -UpperDanubeRiverSection,Environmemal pacha
(GOnyiioSturovo).
Map No 3 -UpperDanubeRiverSection,Environmenhpact Area
(SturovtoBudapest).
MapNo 4 -Geomorpho~ogic aapof SzigetkGz.
Map No 5 -CornparisoofOriginProjectanVaxianC.
Map No 6 -NagymarosCofferDam andBarrage.
Map No 7 -ChangesintheMonMyAverage Flow-Rate1991-1993
(11131s).
MapNo 8 -Locationofhhaeologicd Interest.
Map No 9 -UpperDanubeRiverSectio-Environmentahpact Area.
Map No 10-GeneticType sfSoil.
Map No 11-ThiclaiessMapotheNearSurfaceAsuifer.
MapNo12 -ThicknesMapoftheMainAquifer.
PHOTOGRA OPHVARIANC T
Photo1- ConstructinfVarianC. (ClosureotheDanubeatCunovo)
Photo2- ConstructiofVarianC. (CZosureftheDanubeat Cunovo)
Photo3 -ConstructiofVarianC. (ClosureoftheDanubatCunovo)
Photo4 -ConstructiofVarianC. (ClosureotheDanubeatCunovo)
Photo5- ConsmctionofVarianC. (ClonueoftheDanubeatCunovo)
Photo6- ConstructinfVariantC. (ClosuoftheDmuk atCunovo)
Photo7 -ConstructiofVarianC. (CfoçuroftheDanubeatCunovo)
nighshift
Photo8 -TheAftermatofCelebrationsoilowintheOpenhg of
VarianC.Photo9-A ConsequencoeftheNovember1992 floo-thesinkingoa
barge.
Photo10- AConsequenceoftheNovember1992flood-the washing
awayofa twentytofloodweYgate.
PhotoIl-An area.r thediversionotheDanube.
photo12-An areaaftethediversioftheDanube.
Photo13A -An areabetweenDunakiliandTejfaIuszige:dy1990,
Photo13B - AnareabetweenDunakikiandTejfaluszig: ay 1993.
Photo14A -An ma betwenDmaWti andTejfduszigeJune1992.
Photo14B -An areaktwen DunMiti andTejfdusziget:Ma1993.
Photo15A -An areabetweenDunakilitiaTejfaluszig:uty1989.
Photo15B -An ma betweeRunaküitiandTejfaluszig: ay1983.
mioto16A -An ma ZIetweeTejfaluszitndDoborgazsziget:uIy
1988.
Photo16B -An areabetweeTejfaluszigtndDoborgazsziget: ay
1993.
Photo17A -An armbetween TejfaluszitndDoborgazsziget:uly
1988.
Photo17B -An areabetweenTejfaluszitndDoborgazsUget: ay
1993.
Photo18A -An areabetweenTejfaluszitndDoborgazszigetJ:uiy
1989.
Photo18B -An ma betweeT nejfalusziandDobmgazszigetMay
1993.
Photo19A -An areamund hborgazsziget: Septem1992.
Photo19B -An ara mund DoborgazsWgeM t: a1993.
Photo20 A-An areaaroyndDoborgazszige:ul1989.
Photo2013-Anare arounDoborgazsziget: ay19PX
Photo21A -An areabetweenDoborgmzigetandSerfenyoszige:uiy
1988.Photo2133-An areGetweenDoborgazszigetandSerfeny6sziget:May
1993.
Photo22A -An arearoundSerfeny6szig:uiy1985.
Photo22B -AnareaaroundSerfenyBsUgeM:ay1993.
Photo23 A-An arearoundSerfenyoszig:uly1992.
Photo23B -An areamund SerfenyBsUgeM: ay1993.
Photo24A -An ma mundCilroIaszigeJ:ul1988.
Photo24B -An areaarounCikolaszig: ay1993.
Photo25A -AIYarearoundCikolaszige:uly1988.
Phots25B -An atearoundCLkolaszigt:ay1993.
Photo26A -An am mund Cikalaszige:uly1988.
Photo26B -Anara mund Cikolasziget: a1993.
Photo27A- An areaundCikolaszipt: Juiy1988,
Photo27B -AR âremund Cikolaszige: a1993.
Photo28A -An areamund~svhyrh6: March 1992.
Photo28B -Anare aaroun~ v ~ ~ : November1993.
PNAGYMAROIS Aw (THE DANUBE BEND_)
Photo29 -ViewofVisegt$danNagymanis.
Photo30- ThecofferdaatNagymatos,
Photo31 -VisegraCade.VOLUME
Annex 1. Treaty of Peace, Trianon,4 June 1920, Arts 27-35
(publishediTheTreatitsofPeace 1919-1923(New York,
CarnegieEndowmenf torInternatioPleace1924)vol 1p
457.
Treaty of Pace with Hungary,signai atParis, on 10
February1947,Arts2,38,41UNTS 135.
Closing Protocol Regardingthe Work of the Border
I)raftiaCommission Consishg ofRepresentativeofthe
HungarimandCzechosIovak Governments inaccordance
withArticle1Paragrap h,Subparagrap hD"of thePeace
TreatyofParis,Bratisla2,2December1947.
Annex 4. ConventionconçeniingtheRegime of Navigationon the
DanubeB , elgrad, n18August1948,33WS 181.
hnex 5. Agreement between the Republicof Hungaq and the
Czechoslovak Republic on certain issues of water
managemena tndcessionofterritorpursuan o Aaicle1,
parapph 4, subparagrap hC"of theParisPeace Treaty,
Bratislav9, Octobe1948.
SupplementarPyrotwolNo,I totheClosingRutoc01ofthe
Meeting of theHungarian-CzechoslovBaorderDrafting
CommissioninBratislavaon22 December 1947 on the
SubjecMatterofDefinhgBorders 1 Octobes1948.
Annex 7. Treatyof Friendshi, o-opetatiandMutualAssistance
between the Hmgarh Republicand the Czechoslovak
RepubiicB, udapes, 6April1349,47UN95183.
Annex 8. Convention regarding the Agreement between the
Hungh Peaple'sReputilic and the Czchoslovak
Republicon CertaiIssuesofWater ManagemenR t eI&g
to the Watw of the Sajb River(SM), Prague, 29
Movernbe 1r950.
Annex9. Apment betweenthe HungaianPeopIeT Rsepnbficand
theCzechoslovakRepubliregardingthEstabiishmenotfa
RiverDirectoratentheRajXra-GthyRieachoftheDanube,
Budapest29May1952.
Annex IO. ClosingAotocolofnegotiationsbetweethe Govemment
klegations oftheHungh People'sRepublicand the
CzechoslovakRepublicconamhg theutilisationof the
hydro-poww oftheDanube alongthereachfYomthemouth
oftheMoma toVise%rIBid,dapest,8July-2August1952.Annex 11. Agmement ktween the HungarianPeople'sRepublicand
theCzechoslovakRepublicotheRegdationof Technical
and EconomiQ cuestionsConcerningFrontier Wate4s,
Febmary1954.
Annex 12. Agreementbetween theCzechoslovakRepublicand the
HungarianPeupleRepublicconcernlnthe Sealementof
Technical and EconomicQuestionsrelatito Frontier
Watercomes, signedatPrague on 16 April1954, 504
UNTS 231.
Annex 13. ClosingProtoco.f negotiatibetween theGovemment
DeIegationsoftheHungaian People'sRepublicandthe
CzechoslovakRepublicon theutilisatiof the hydro-
powerof theDevin-VisegrreachoftheDanube,Prague,
8-10July 1954.
Annex 14. ClosingProtocolof negodationsbetween Govemmental
Delegationsof the CzechoslovR akpublia cnd the
HungarianPeople'Republic regardintheutilisatiof
waterew&y intheDevin-VisegrasectionotheDmbe,
Budapest,20 November-2December 1954,and Annex:
"Bo* PartiesStandpoinonthequestionsto whichparties
areinagreement."
Annex 15.Treaty ktwm the Czechoslovak Republic andthe
Hungarian People'sRepublicconcemhg the Regime of
Stathntiers, Prague,Ol3tok 1956,30 UNTS 150.
Annex 16. Conventionbetween theGovemenis of theRomanian
People Respublitc,ePqle'sRepublicof Bulgmia,the
FedernlPeopleRepublicof Yugodavia antheUnionof
SovietSocidisRepublicsconcemihFisIiiintheWaters
of thDanube,Buchatest,9Januar1958,33 U9NTS 23.
Amex 17. Agreement betweentheGovemmentof theCzechoslovak
SociaüstRepublrcandtheGovenunentof sheHungarian
People'sRepublicconcernitheestablishmeof aRiver
Ahinkmtion intheRajka-GonyUsectoroftheDanube,
Prague,27Febniar1968,W WS 49.
Amex 18.Agreementregardhg thedraftinoftheJointContractual
Plancon-g theGabcikovo-NagymaroBsarragSystem
betweentheGovenunentofthHungarianPeople spublic
and the Governpent of the CzechoslovS akclalist
Republi Bc ,tisl6avaay1976. Amex 19. Convention concluded between the Government of the
HungarianPeopIe'Republicand theGovernent of the
CzechoslovakSocialist Repubiiconthe Replation of
Water ManagemenI t ssuof BoundaryWateas,Budapest,
31May 1976.
Appendix1Statuteofthe Hungarian-Czecho BouovdakWaters
Commission.
Appendix2:RegulatioontheCrossingofStatBordersandResihcy
ontheTenitoryoftheOtherState.
Amex 20. Agreement betweenthe CzechoslorakSocialist Republic
and theHungarian People'sRepubiic ConcerninCo-
operatioand MutclalAssistanceaIongthe Czechoslovak-
HungarianBorder, rague19November1976.
Hungary-Czechoslova Treaty concerning the
Constructioand Opemion of theGabcïkovo-Nagparos
System of hks, Budapest,on16 Septemk 1977, 1109
UNTS 236;32ILM 1247(1993).
3 Annex22. Agreemenrbetween the Govmrnents of theHungarian
People'sRepublicantheCzechoslovakSocialistRepublic
on MutuaZAssistance in the Corne of Building the
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System, Budapest,16
September1977.
Agreementbetween theGovermnent of the Hungarian
People'sRepublicandthe Governent of theUnion of
Soviet Socialist Republicon Co-operationin the
Constructionofthe NagymarosBanage on theRiver
Danube as a partofthe GabcikovoNagymms Bmage
System,Moscow,30 November 1977.
Annex24. Summary Descriptionof the Joint ContractuaPlan,
Gabcikovo-Nagymaro BsamgeSystem,1977.
Annex25. Agreement hetweenthe HrmgaianPeople'sRepublicand
the Czechoslovak Srniaikt Republic asto customs
questionconcerningthepreparatiand executionofthe
constructionand operatiof theGabcikovo-Nagyraiaros
BarrageSystem, udapest19Januar1979.
Hungq-Czechoslovakia,Agreement as tothe Cornmon
OperationalReplations of PlenipotentiariesFulf~~g
Duties Reiatetothe ConstnictionandOperatioof the
Gabcikovo-NagymaroB s arragSystem, Bratislava11
Octok 1w9.Annex 27. Agreementbetween theHungwinnPeople's Republicand
the CzechoslovakSocialistRepublicato Questionsof
Border Crossings in Relation to the Preparation,
Commction and OperationoftheGabcikovo-Nagymaros
BarrageSystemRasa, 5Febniâry1980.
Annex 28. RotocolconcerriintheAmendment oftheTreasybetween
the HungarianPeople'sRepublicandthe Czechoslovaik
Swiallst Republic concerningthe Construction and
Operationof theGabcikovo-Nagymms Barrage System
signed inBudapest on16 September1977, Prague,10
October1983.
Annex 29. ProtocolccincemingtheAmendmentof the Agreement
between the Govemments of the Hungarian PeopIets
Repubzic and the CzechoslovakSocialist RepuMicon
MutualAssistanceitheCourseofBuildingthe Gabcikovo-
Nagymaros BarrageSystem signed inBudapest on 16
September1977 ,rabe, 10October983.
Amex 30. Prot0~01conceming theAmendmentof the Agreement
between the Govexnmentsof theHungarian People's
Republic and the CzechoslovalcSocialkt RepubIicon
MutuaAl ssistancetheCourseofBuildingthGabeikovo-
NagymarosBarrage Sym signed inBudapeston 16
September1977 ,udapest, Fehary 1989.
Annex31. Aped Minutes of the Meetingbetween the Ewopean
Commission,theCzechandSlovakFded Repubhcand
Hungaty ontheGabcikovoNagymms Roject, London ,8
October1992,32ILM 1291 (1993).
Annex 32. The RepublicofHungaryand theSlovakRepubllc,Specid
Agreement for SubmissiotcitheInternationalCourof
JusticeothePifferencesbetweetheRepublicofHungaq
and the Siovak Repubiic con- the Gabcikovo-
NagymarosProject,Bnisseis, 7 April199,2LM 1293
(1993). VOLUME 4. ~LQMATIC CO~PONDENCE, TES
OF IMERGOVERNMEN MTEAELTING PS,BLIC
STATE~NTS ANDbVIXRNAL DOCUMENTS.
Annex 1. Letter from Mr Encire Sik, Hungnrian Permanent
Representativto theDanube Commission,to Mr G.
Mommv, Fresident of the Danube Commission, 5
Novemh 1951.
Annex2. ReportoftheSeventCh4EA Session,Berl30May 1956.
Annex 3. Protocolothjointnegotiationsaiatthinvestigation
ofthe utilisationschemtheDanube,fromWolfstahl-
BratislatotheViUagof Fajsz,Budapest,lû-15 Jmaq
1958.
Annex4. Closhg htocol of Negotiations othe Gavemment
CornmirteecmUtilisintheHydLo-Poweorf thDanube
betweenBratislavandNagymaros,Prague,6-7Oetober
1958.
Annex5. Memorandum on Negothtions oftheGovesnmentsof
Hungq andCzechoslovaki13-14November1967.
ARnex 6. Note Verbalhm theMiitry of Fmign Affaira the
RepublicofHungarytothehbassy of theCzechoslovak
SocialistRepub23Januar1974.
+-
AMex7. Letter hm Mx Istv41uszir,HungarianDeputyPrime
Ministerand Mr Rohhcek,CzechoslovakDeputyPrime
-ter, toMrLesetJko,SovietDeputyPrimeMi&&,25
0ctobe1974.
Annex 8. Lettehm Mr A Kossygin,SovietMme MUiiste,oMr
GyijrgLazarHuagaria~rime Miniar,June1975.
Annex9. htwol of theMeetingofthHungarianandCzechoslovak
Guvment Plenipotentia, udapes24-26November
1980.
hnex 10. Lettehm Mr Lubomii:StrougdCzechoslovakPrime
PuiLinier, rGyOrgy HungariaPrime-ter,
19October1981.
Annex11. Lettehm MKGyorgyr, HungariaRnimeMinister,ro
Mr LubomirSmugal, ~hoslovak Prime Minister,9
November 1981.Annex12. Aide Memoire onconsultationofthe co-chairmenofthe
Hungarian-Czehosbvak Commission on Econornic,
ScientificanTechnicalCmperation,9July1983.
Annex13. Aide Memoire of the Hungarianand Czechoslovak
Boundary Water Commissioners, Topolcianki, 7-8
Becemk 1988.
Annex 14. Letterfrom Mr PéterSzhyi, Hngarian DepuryErne
Mater, toh4r PéteHavas,Hungarian PIenipotentia21
March 1989,enclosingMinutesoftheRotocoloftheXXIlI
Session ofthe Hungarian-CzechoslovaCkommissionon
Economic,ScientificandTechnicd Cooperation, March
1989.
Reportof the co-presideoftheHungarian-Czechoslevak
Commission of Econornic,Scientifie and Technicd
Cooperation8A@ 1989.
LetterfromMrPéterMedgyessy ,HungarianDepuv Prime
Minister,oMIPave1 hak, CzechoslovaDeputyPrime
Minister24June1989.
Aide Memire, Meetingof Mr Uzl6 Udvari,Hungarian
GovernmenP t lenipotentia,yndMr Vladimir Lokvenc,
Czechoslovak Govanment PknipotentiarBudapest, 26
June 1989.
Annex 18. Aide Memoireof thescientifiexpertin connectionwith
the temporary suspensionofworks on theNagymaros
Barrage,signedby Mr Pa1 Stefanovics, aMr WtimiY
Barus,Budapest,17-1July1989.
Annex 19.
Proposalof the CouncilofMinistersof the Hungarian
People'sRepublic,afferedby Hungaian Prime Minister
Miklbs Németh to CzechoslovakPrime MinsterLadislav
Admec, Budapest ,0 July1989.
Note Verbalefrum theMinistryof ForeignAffairs the
CzechoslovakSrniakt kpublic to theEmbassyof the
HungarianPeople'sRepubli,8Aupt 1989.
Minutes ofîhemeetingbetweentheHungaian Wstq for
Industry,si@ by Mr Tibor Uczai Szabd, and the
ÇzechosIovakMnistry of FuelandEnergy,signed byMr
Matura JmsIav,21-22August 1989.Annex22. Minutesof themeetingof theComrnitteofEicpertinthe
Matter of the Gabcikovo-NagymarosBarrage System,
Budapest,21-2Augvst1989.
hex 23. Letterfrom Mr LadislaAdamec, CzechoslavakPrime
MinistertoMcMiki&Nkmeth,Hungarian grime-ter,
31August 1989.
Annex 24. Nore Verbalefromtheklinisiq of ForeignAffh ofthe
Republicof Hungasytothe EmbassyoftheCzechodovak
SociaiistRepubl1cSeptember1989.
Annex 25. AideMemire ofthemeehg betweenMr PéterMedgyessy,
HmgaRan DeputyPrimeWster, andMrPave1fivnak,
Czechoslovak Deputy Prime Minister, Bratislava9
September1989.
Annex26.Aide Mernoireof themeetingbetweenscientisto discuss
waterqualitandecologyrelatetotheHnisovo-Ihmdditi
reservoi,5-27September1989.
-ex 27. Lettefrom MrMiM6sNémeth,Hunganah Rime Mlnister,
toMrLadislav Adamec, CzechoslovakPrimeMinister4
October1989.
Amex 28. Note Verbale theWstq of ForeigMais ofthe
CzechoslovakSwialist Repubiito theEmbassyof the
HungariaPneopleRepubLi c,0Octaber1989.
Annex29. Note Verbalehm the Wstry of ForeigAffairsofthe
RepublicofHungary totheEmbassy oftheCzechoslovak
SociaiistRepubl, Novemk 1989.
Annex 30.Nose Verbalefrom theMinistqof ForeignAffairsofthe
RepbEic ofHungaryto theEmbassy oftheCzechoslovak
SocialkRepublic30 Novaber 1989,
Annex 31. Note Verbalehm theMinistryof ForeignAf£airsothe
Republicof HungarytotheEmfiaçsyoftheCzechoslovak
SocidktRepublic11 kcember 1989.
1990
Annex 32. Lettehm MrEvlikl6sémeth H,ungbaa Me Minister,
to M MarianCalfa,Czechoslovak Aime Minister,10
Jan- 1990.
hnex 33. Eetsehm MrMarianCalfa,CzechmlovakRimeMinim,
to Mr Miki& Nheth, Hungarian Pnme ëvliniste15
February1990.hex 34. Lettehm MrMarianCalfa,CzechoslovPrimeMinister,
toMr Mildos Németh,HungarianRime Minister20
Februar1990.
Annex35. LetterfromMr MiklosNémeth, ungarianPrimeMinister,
toMr MariaCalfaCzechoslovaPrimeMinister,Mach
1990.
hex 36. Letter from Mr Dominik Kocinger, Czechoslovak
GovernrnentlenipotentitoMr GyorgyK. Shsondi,
HungwianGovenimentPlenipotent,y19Jul1990.
Annex37. Minutes of the meetings between the Government
Plenipotentiaseldin Bratisla, Septembe1990,and
inBudapest17-1October1990.
Annex 38. Letter hm Mr GyCirgy K. Shsendi, kfungarian
GovernmentPlenipotentiato Mr Dominik Kocinger,
CzechoslovakGovernmentPlenipotentya15 Novernber
1990,
ARnex 39. Letterhm Mr Dominik Kocinger, Czechoslovak
GavernmentPlenipotentitoPveGt.ikgyK. Shsondi,
HungariaGovanmentPlenigotenti,y1 Novemkr 1990.
Annex40. Letterhm Mr J6zseAfntall,HungarPnmeMinister,to
Mr Marian Calfa, CzeçhosIovakPrime Muuster,14
December1990.
Amex 41. Aide Memoire of the meeting of thHungarian and
Czechoslo vaokernent Plenipotenti Br atisla9va,
Januq 1991,
Annex 42. LetteÇom Mr MariaCalfaCzechoslovaPrimeMinister,
toMrJ6zsefAna, HungarianPrimeMinister15January
1991,
Annex43. Aide Memire of themeetingof the eicpertof the
HungarianandSlova Akcademieof Sciences,Budapest,
13-14Fehq 1991.
Annex 44. Letter hm Mr Dominilr Kocinger, Czechoslovak
GovernmentPlenipotent ioary,yorgyK. Shsondi,
HungariaGovemmenP tlmipotentr,y15Febniar1991,
hex 45. Letterfhm Mr Gyorgy K. Shsondi, Hungean
Governent PlenipotentiartoMr Dominik Kocinger, Czechoslovak GovernmentPlenipotentiary,15 Febniary
1992.
Annex 46. Lettehm MrMikl6sMy, Headof theSecretartfthe
HungarianMinisterWithoutPortfaiitu Mr IvanLexa,
Headof theSecretariaof the PresideofttheSlovak
RepubZic25March 1991.
Annex 47. Letter hm Mr Dorninik Kocinger, Czechoslovak
GovernmentPlenipotenthy,to MrGy~rgyK. Shsondi,
HungarianGovernmenPtlenipotentiy26Mmh 1991.
Annex48. Proposaby theGovment oftheRepubliofHungaryfor
thesuspensionof works on the Gabcikovo-Nagymms
BarrageSystemonthebais ofajointagreemen,3udapes1,
22April1991,
hex49. Proposaiby theGovernent ofthe Republiof Hungary
reg&g thetemhation of thTm concludedin1977
betweenthe HungarianPeopleRepublicand theCzecha
andSlovakFederaRepublicregarcünthConsauctionand
Operationofthe Gabcikovo-NagymaroBsarsageSystem,
Budapest, 2AM199 1.
Annex50 Proposaby theGovemmen oftheRepubi cfHungaryfor
thejoint resolutionof energyquestionsarifromthe
abandonmen ottheGabcikovoNagymmsBarrage System,
Budapest,2Apnl1991.
Annex 51. NofeVerbalefrom theMinktryofForeignMairs of the
Czeçhand SIovakFederdRepublicto thEanbassyofthe
HungarianPeopleRepublic,8June1991.
hex 52. Position othe CzechoslovakGovemmentalDeIegation -
regardinthePositionof theHungaxiaRepubiicandthe
Hungarian Academy of Sciences on the
Ecologic~vironmental EBects of the Gabcilrovo
Barrage, ratisla,1Juiy1991.
Annex 53. JointPressRelw ofM[L Fmnc Midi, Head of the
Hungarian Govenunentd Delegaion, and Mr Jan
Carnog~~~k Head of the CzechoslovakGovernmental
DeIegation15Jdy 3991.
Annex54. Lettefrom Mr Fmnc Mg& Hungdan MinisterWithout
Portfolio,Mr JanCaniogwsky,Slvak Prim -ter,
24July1991.Annex 55. LetterfromMrJanCarnoguxsk,SlovakErne Unisterta
MrFerencMhdl,Hungarian Mhhter WithoutPortfaho30
Juiy1991.
Annex 56. LettefromMrJan Catnogurslry,lovaPrime Ministerto
h4rJ6zseAntallHungariaPrimeMinister30July 1991.
Annex 57. Note Verbalfrom theMinistrof ForeignAffairs othe
Republicof Hwigaryto the Embassyof the Czech and
SIova Federai epublic,30July1991.
Lettefrom h.lFerencMMl, HungarianMinisterWithout
Porofolia MzJan Camogursb, SlovakPrimehhister, 9
August1991.
LetterfromMrJ6zsefAntaliHungariaPnme Wster, to
Pvnh4ari aanlfCzechoslovakPnmeMinister,12 August
1991.
LettefromMr J6zsefAntaIlHungarianPnme -ter, to
Mr Jan CaniogurskyS, lovakPrime Ministe14 August
1991.
NoteVerbalefrom thehainisûyof ForeignAffaiof the
CzechandSlovakFeded Republic to theErnbasçyofthe
RepublicofHungaq, 27August1991.
Amex62, Lett fÎrmMrJan Camopky ,SlovakRime Wster, to
MrFerenc MM, HungarianMinisterWithoutPodoiio,19
September1991,
Annex 63, Letter hm MrFerenc MM, Hungariahhkter Without
Portfoli,oMr JanCamogrrrslq, lovakPrimeWtef, 8
*ber 1991.
Annex 64. JointDeclarationof theParlramentaryCornmitteesof
En~en~ Protection of HungaandCzechoslovaJaa,
Budapest ,1October1991.
Annex 65. Lettefrom Mr Jan~ o ~ , SlovakPnme Midter, to
Mr FerencMAdl,HungwianMnhterWithoutPortfolio,21
October1991.
Annex 66.Letta from Mr GyOrgy K. Shsondi, Hungarian
Goverment Plenipotentiâryo Mr Do- Kocinger,
Qxxhoslovak Government Plenipotentlar,9 October
1991.Annex 67. Lettebrn MIr FerencMidl,HungarianMinisterWithout
PortfolitoMrJanCarnogursh,SZovak PrimeMnister,7
November1991.
Annex68. Letterhm Mr Shdor K. Keresztes,Hungdan Minister
for EnWonmentaiProtectio& TerritorialDevelopment
andMrFerencMidi,HungatianWster Without Portfolio,
to Mr Josef Vamusek, Czechoslovak Pdlinistof
EnvironmentProtection6December 1991.
Annex 69. Lettehm MrJan Cmogursky, SlovaPkrimeMinisteto
MrFerenc MM, HungariaMinisterWithoutPortfoli18
December1991.
Annex 70. Letterhm MrJ&sef Antall,HvngariaPrimehbister,to
Mr MarianCalfa, CzechoslovakPsime Minister, 19
DeCernfi1991.
Amex 71. Lettehm MrFerenceMicil,Hungarian MinisterWithout
PortfolitoMr Jan Carnopky, SlovakPrime-$ter,
23December 1991.
1992
Annex 72. Letta hm Mr JanCarnogurslq, lovakRime Ministeto
Mr FerencMgdi,Hungmim -ter WithoutPortfolio8
Januar1992.
Annex73. LettefromMr MarianCaJfa,zechoslovabe Minister,
toMrJ6zsefAnta, HungariaRnime Minister23 January
1992,
Annex74. Note Verbalfrom the MinistofForeignAffaks ofthe
RepubIicof Hungaryto theEmbassyof theCzech and
SlovakFedd Repubfic,14Febmary 1992.
Annex 75. Lettehm MrJdzsef AntaîHmgd PrimeMinister,o
Mr Marian Calfa, CzechoslovakRime Minister, 26
Febniar1992.
Annex76. Note Verbalehm theMinktryof Foreign Affairsthe
LzechoslovaFederaiRepublito theMinistrof Foreign
AffâirsothRepubhc ofHungary,17March 1992,
Annex 77. Lettefrom MrFmnc MM, HungaianMinisterWithout
PortfolitoMr Jan CarnogurskySlova krimeMinister,
30Mach 1992.Annex78. Letterhm Mr FransAndriessen,Vice-PresidentheEC
Commission toMr GézaJeszensk Hy,ngariaForeign
Minister,13April1992.
Annex 79. Zette$om MrMatian CalfaCzechoslovaPrime Wster,
toMrJ6zsefAntall,HungarianPrime Minister23April
1992.
Annex 80.Letter fromMrJanCamoguadq, SlovakRime Wster, to
MrFerencMadi,Hungarian MinisteWithoutPortfoli11
May1992.
Annex 81. Letter fm Mr Fmnc MM, HungarianMinisterWithuut
PortfolitoMrJanCarnogursky ,lovakPrimeMinister,
13May1992.
Annex82. HungarianDeclamion on the Teminationof the 1977
Treaty, signed by MrJ6zsefAntall, Iiungarian Prime
Minister,Budapes16May 1992,withcoverinlettefrom
Mr J6zseAnU, HungarianPrimeMinist orl.rMarian
CalfaCzechoslovakrimeMirister39May1992.
hex 83. NoteVerbalefrom theMinistryof ForeiAffairsof the
Republicof Hungaryto theEmbassyof îhe Czech and
SlovakFedd Republic,19May1992.
Annex 84. Letterfrom Mr Géza Jeszenszky, Hmgarian Foreign
MinistertoMrFransAndriessen,icePresidenoftheEL
CoMmiSsion ,9May 1992.
Amex 85. NoteVerbalehm theEmbassyof theCzech andSIovak
FederalRepublito thmûy of ForeignGffairsthe
RepubliofHungary ,2May1992.
Annex 86. Note Verbalhm theWsq of ForeigAffairsofthe
RepublicofHungary to the Embassyofthe Czech and
SlovakFederal epublic,10Ju1992.
Annex 87. NoteVerbalehm theMhistryof ForeigAffairsofthe
Republicof Hmgary to theEmbassyof the Czech and
SlcivaFedd Republic8, Jdy1992.
Annex 88. Lettehm MtRudoif Chmei,CzechosIuvakAmbassador
toHungaryt, W H. Strasse, irectoftheSemat of
thDanulx Commission 5,Augus1992.
Annex89.LetterfromMr JanSm, ÇzechoslovakPrime Minister,
toMr J6mef Antaü,HurigariaPrimeMhister,6 August
1992.Annex 90.LetterfromMr J6zseAntallHungarianPnme Ministeto
Mr JanStrasky,CzechoslovaPnme Minister6 August
1992.
Annex9 1. LetterfroML Ivh Baba,HungariaRepresentatitothe
DanubeCommissio toMr RudolfChmel,Vice-Psesident
oftheDanubeCommission ,7Aupst 1992.
Annex 92. LettefromMrJOzseAf ntd, Hungari animeMinisteto
Mr JanSWky, CzechoslovakPrimeMinister18August
1992.
Annex 93. Letterhm MrIvh Baba,HungariaRepresentatitothe
DanubeCommission ,oMr Ion Diaconu,Presidentthe
DanubeCommissio 2n,ugust1992.
Annex94. Letter fromMr Géza Jeszenszk Hy,ngarianForeign
Wter, to Mr Josef Momvcik,CzechoslovakForeign
Ministe14 Septembe1992.
Annex95. Letterhm IMTJ6zseAntaliHungarianPrimMiristerto
Mr Jan Sû-hky, Czechoslovaknime =ter, 18
Septembe1992.
Annex 96. LettefromNr Jan StraskCzechoslovakPrimeMhister,
to Mr JOzse fntail,HungarianPrime Miriist er,
Septemk 1992.
Annex 97, Letter hm Mr Josef Moravcik,CzechoslovakPrime
Plilinis, MT GézaJeszensz kungariaMinisterof
ForeignAffairsSeptemk 1992.
Annex98. Letterfnr m rJdzsefAntall,HungbaPrimeMinisterto
Mr JanS*, Czechosiovak Prime Mhister, 28
Septembe1r992.
Annex 99. LetteÇom kiiJan StrBskC,zechoslovkrimehbister,
toMr J6zseAfntall,HungariPrime-ter, 2 October
1992.
Annex 100.NoteVerbalehm theMhistryof Foreig nffairsothe
Republicof Hungaqto theMstry of ForeignAffairsof
theCzechandSlovakFederal qublic12Octobe1992.
Annex 101.Note Verbalhm the hljnist~~ofForeignAffairthef
CtechandSlovalcFedd RepublictotheEmbassy ofthe
RepubliofHungary ,1ectober1992.
Annex 102.ApplicatioftheRepublicof Hungaqto thInternational
Courtof Justicfor the Republicof Hungaryv. the CzechoslovakRepubhcon theDiversionof theDanube22
October1992.
Annex 103.Note Verbalefromthe Ministryof ForeignAffaiof the
CzechandSlovakFedd Republic tothe Embassyof the
RepublicofHungary2, 7Octobe1992.
Annex 104.Note Verbalehm TheMidstry ofForeignAffairof the
Czech and Slovak Fsderal Republic,Slovakicto the
Embassy ofthe RepubliofHungary5, Novernber1992.
Annex105. Agreed Minutesof the meetingbetween theCzech and
Slovak FederaIRepublic, Hungary and the European
Commission on the Gabcikovo/NagymarosProjeçt,
Bnissels,2Novemh 1992.
Amex 106.Letter£romMrE Vdencia-ûspina,Registrao MrFerenc
MGd, Hungarkm lvIinisWithoutPortfolio4 December
1992.
Annex 107.Agreedmutes of themeetingbetween Czechoslovakia,
Hungary andtheEuqean Commission on theGabcikovo-
Nagymaros Psoject,Bmssels,1Q-1ecember 1992.
Annex 108. Note Verbaiehm theMUushyof ForeignAffairsofthe
Czech and Slovak FederalRepublicto the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs otheRepublicof Hungary,Prague, 18
DeCernbe r992.
hex 109. Note Verbalfkom theMinisûyof ForeignAffairsofthe
SlovakRepubiicto thebhistry of Foreignaffairs of the
RepulicofHungaryB, ratisla,8December 1992.
hex 110,Note Verbalhorn theEmbassy otheRepublicofHurigary
tothe MnistryofForeignAffairsothe CzechandSlovak
FederdRepublic,23December 1992.
Annex 111.Lem hm MI-J6zsefAntali,Hungmian PrimeMinisterto
W JacqueDselon,EC CommissionPresident4 January
1993.
Annex 112.EC, Discussion Paper, Establishment of'a Joint
HungarianlSlovakWatex Management and Monitorjng
Commim, Bmsels, J8ï1ur-y1993.
Annex 113.Apd MinutesofthemeetingbetweenHungaryS, lovakia
andEiiropeanCommisaion on the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros
ProjectBrussels,19Jauary1993.Annex 114. Letthm Mr J6zsefAntail, HungaPrim e inistto,
Mr VladimirMeciar,SlovakPrime -ter, 5 Febniary
1993.
Annex 115. Communiquo éf theTripartMeetingktween Hungary,
Slovakiand theEC ontheGabcikovo-NagparosProject,
Bnissels16February1993.
Annex116. EC PressRelease of the Tripmite Meeting between
Hungq, Slovakia and the EC on the Gakikovo-
NagymarosPmjectsof 16 February 1993, Brussels,17
Febmary 993.
Amex 117. Note Verbalfrom theMinistsyof ForeigAffairofthe
CzechRepublictutheDelegationotheEC Commission ,
March 1993.
Annex118. Letterhm the SlovakForeign MinistetoMr Boums
Boums-GhaliU, NSmtary-General,19 May1993.
Annex I19. Lettbrn Mr Jhos MmtonyiH, ungariaStateSecretary
. for ForeignAffairsto Mï Jan Lisuch,SlovakUnder-
SecretarofStatforForeigAffairs2June1993.
Amex 120.Slova StatemenrejectitheEC andHungh proposais,
signe dyMrMiroslavLiska,18June1993.
hnex 121,Note Verbalfrom theMhhtry of ForeignAffairofthe
SlovakRepublic to the Embassy of the Repubiicof
HungaryB, mishva, 23Juiy1993.
Annex122, LetterfromMrPabIoBenavides,EC DireEtorforExtemai
EconomicRelationtoMr Jh Martonyi, ungariaState
SecreîarorForeignAffai 9s,uly1993.
Annex123. Letterhm Mr Jhos Martonyi,HungariaStateSecretary
forForeigAffairstoMr PabloBenavideE,C Birectofor
ExtemalEconomicRelations22Jdy 1993.
Annex124. LetterfromMr Alm Mayhew,hcipd Advisorto thEC
Directorate-GeneflrExtd EconomicRelationstMr
Jhos Martonyi,Hugarian StateSecretarfor Foreign
Affairs, August 1993, attactiiEC, Draft Working
Damnent, Establishmentof a Group of Independent
Monitoringand Water ManagementExperts for the
GabcikovoBmge System,Brussels , August1993.
Annex 125.EC PreliminW arorkingDocumenkEstablishmenotf.a
GK,up of Independet onitorinandWater Management ExpertsfurtheGabcikovo Systemof Loçks,Bmssels,18
August1993*
Annex 126.Gmup of MonitoringandWaterManagemenE t xpertsfor
the Gabcikovo BarrageSystem, Minutes of the Fit
MeetingofExpertsBratislav,-9September1993.
Annex 127. GroupofMonitoringandWater magement Expertsfor I
the Gabcikovo Bamge System, Minutes from Second
Meeting oftheGmupof ExpertsBudapest,27 October-2
Novemkr 1993.
Annex 128.Note Verbalhm theEvlinistofForeignAffairs otfie
Slovak Republicto the Embassy of theRepubbc of
Hungary,15November1993.
Annex 129.Note Verbalehm theMinist. of ForeignAffaks othe
Republic of Hungary to the Embassyof the Sbvak
Republic,5 November 1993.
Amex 130. Groupof Monitorinand WaterManagemenE txperts for
theGabcikovoBarrageSystem,Minuteshm thirMdeeting
of the Group of ExpertsBratislava28 NovembeL-1
December1993.
Annex131. Note Verbalefmn the Minisq of ForeignAffairsof the
Slovak Republic to theEmbassy of theRepublic of
Hungary ,2Jauaq 1994.
Annex 132.LetterRom Mr Jhos MartonyiH, ungariaStatSeaetary
forForeignAffarr,oW PabioBenavides, LDirectorfor
ExtemalEconomic Relation14 hary 1994.
Annex 133.Note Verbalehm the Wsiq of ForeigA£€& ofthe
Republic of Hmgary to the Embassy of the S10va.k
Republic19 January1994.
Annex 134.LetterfromMrJhos MartonyiH , ungaRanSW Secretary
forForeignAffaittoNErPabhBenavides,EC Directorfor
ExtemalEconomicRelations,4 Jmuary1994.
Annex135. Letterhm MrPabloBenavides ,C DirectoforExtemal
EconomicRelations,oMr JanO s monyi,HungarianState
SecretarforForeignAffair27January1994.
Amex 136.Nore Verbalefromthe Ministty of ForeignA"airs of the
Slovak Republic to theEmbassy of the Republic of
Hungary,1Fehq 1994.Annex 137. Letter froMr JanLsuch, Slovak StateSecretaryfor
ForeignMairs, toMrPabloBenavides, EC Directorfox
Extemd Politicl ffaks, 8Febmar1994.
Annex 138 Letterhm MrDominik Kocinger,SlovakGovemrnent
Plenipotentiat,Dr LajosZshboki, Managing Director
ofOviber , Febniay1944.
Amex 139.Letter froProf.J. Schreiner, eadof theEC Experts
Group,to MtPabloBenavides, EC DirectorforExternai
PoliticaiRelati,0sFebnrar1994.
Annex 140.Lettefrom Mr PabloBenavidesEC DirectorfoExtemal
PoliticalRelatiotohiiJ&osMartonyiH, ungariaState
SecretarforForeignAffair18Febniary1994.
Amex 141. LetteErom MrJhos MartonyiH, ungasiaStateSecretary
forForei Agffair,oMtPabloBenevides,ECDiratorfor
ExtemalPoliticl elatio,3 Febniar1994.
Annex142. Note Verbalhm theMinistryof ForeignAffairsothe
Republicof Hungaryto theEmbassiesof Gemimy, the
Netherhds, hce andtheDanube Commission2,4March
1994.
Annex 143.Lettefbn MrJhos MartonyiH , ungatiaStateSmtary
for ForeignAffairsto Mr Pablo Benavides,Eupean
CommissionDirector for FrternalPolitical Relations,
Budapest, 4March1994.
Annex144. Note Verbaifeom theMinistryofForeignAffairof the
Republicof Hungary to theEmbassy of the SIovak
ICepubli28March 1994. IWNGARZAN PUBLICSTATEMENTS
Annex 145. ParliamentResolutio7Octotier1988.
Amex 146.GovernmenRtesolutiNo.3004/198 9anuary1989.
Annex147. GovermentResolutioNo 3125/1989,13May1989.
hnex 148. Parliamentayesoluti9/1989,(VI.132J,ne1989.
Annex149. Governent ResolutiNo 3205/1989,2JuIy1989.
Annex 150.EovernmenRt esolutNon3305/1989,30October1989.
Annex151. PmliamentaryResolutiu2411989(XI.lu), 1 October
1989.
Annex 152.HungaryNsationRenewalRopm (Budapest,September
1990)p~85-87.
Annex153. Govemment Resoluti3507/1990 D,e0ember1990.
Annex 154.PatliamentaryResolu26/1991(IV.23 16AM199 1.
Amex 155. GovemmenR t esolut2#9/1991, 2ctokr,3991.
Annex156. PuliamentarResolutio12/199(IV.4)24March1992.
Annex 157. GovernentResoMon 3190/1992,7May1992.
Amex 158. StatemebyMrFerenc M&dl,MinisterWithoutPortfolio,
totheHungariaParliamen1I May1992 (Excerpts).
Annex 159 Parliamentayesolutio91993m. S.)5Match 1993.
Annex 160. Reportof P6ter Havas, Hungarian Govemment
Plenipotentia,o the HungarianGovenunent on the
negotiatiosoncernintheGabçikovoNagymarosBamge
Systemhddan 27-29Octoberand2-3Novemk 1982,11
Nwember 1982.
Annex 161.Memumdum hm Mr. Péter Havas, Hungarian
Government Plenipotentiarto MI Jozsef Marjai,
HungarianeputyPtirne Minist, Janua1983.
Annex 162.Letter brn Mr Jhs Szentagothai,Presidentof the
HungarianAcademy of Sciencesto Mr Jdzse Mfarjai,
HungarianegutyPrimekliniste,3December1981.Annex163. Reporofa meetingotheHungarianStatSecretatofthe
Mnisûy of EnvironmenandWater Managementand the
Slovak Ministerfor ForestWater Managementand
Timber hdustry, signed byh/lrMikl6s Varga, the
HungâriaStatSecfeîay11Januq 1990.
hex 164.Letter hm Mr G.K. Shsondi, HungariaGovernent
PlenipotentiteMr Gyorgy Szaloki,ChiefCounselorof
theParliamentayommitteeonEnvironmentalProtection,
17Septembe1990.
Annex 165.Reporhm Mr FerencMM, Hungarian MinisterWithout
Portfolito theHungarianGoverrunentregardhg the
Negoiiations withthe Czechoslovak Governmentd
Delegaiio15July1991.
bex 166.Lettefrom theSlovaUknion ofNatuteandLandscape
PrcitectmtheHungarîaGn ovament,24May 1989.
Annex167. Positionof Czechoslovakiaonmaterialspreparether
CouncilofMWters oftheHuaigarineople's epubficon
the decisioof temporarilystopping workon the
NagymarosBarrage,6June1989.
Annex 168.Note oftheSlovak EnvironmentaCornmittee,25June
1991,
Annex 169,Fedd ParliamenRt esolutNo.200,3 Octobe1991.
Annex170. SIovakNation CalunciResoluti No .2463,1 January
1992.
&ex 171.DeclaratioftheNationaCornciofthe SlovaRkepublic
totheParliamentand to theNation ofthe Wald, 1
Janiaa1993.
Annex172. Monmiion Release by the Slovak Enviramental
Committeeof theStaturon Waters,BratislavMarch
1993.
Annex 173.Aiblic RelationsBrochureof Slova"The Tempomq
SolutionontTdory ofthCSFR-Slov~" Bratislava,
1993.
Annex 174.Proclamatioconcarhg Gabcikovo-Nagym Barrsge
System,signby 232organisatios0Octuber1987.Annex 175.ResolutionoftheParliamentftheEuropeanCommunities
on the Gakikovo-NagymarosPower StationConstruction
Prsject,29Octobe1992.
Annex 176.Resolutioof thParliamen tftheEmpean Cornmunities
ontheGabcikovo-NagymarB osarrage10March1993.
Armx 177. ResolutionotheParliamentoftheEuopean Communities
onthe Gabcikovo-Nagym Barorag e,June1993.
hex 178, Counciof Europe,Memorandum on Councilof Europe
practicewithregardto Statsuccessioninthematterof
treaties,Janvary1994.
Annex 179.ResolutionofthParliamentoftheEiiropeaComunities
on theGabcikovc+Nagyman Biarrage12Febniary 994. VOLUME 5 (PART 1). SCIENTIFI CEPORTS
Amex 1 WorkuigGroupof the HungarianAcademyof Sciences,
Summary of the Report on the Agricultural and
Environmenta1Impact of the Gabcikovo Nagymaros
BarrageSystem,Budapest, ctober11.
Annex 2 ResidencyoftheHungarianAcademyof SciencesPosition
Papa concemingthe Scientifically-debaQuestioonfs
theGabcikovo-Nagymaro Bsmge System,20Decernber
1983.
Annex 3 HungarianAcademyofSciences,Opinion28 June 1985.
Annex 4 NationaWater Board,The Gabcikovo-Nagymms Barrage
Systern. EnvironmentalImpactAssessrnent. Summary,
Budapest,une1985.
Annex 5 INFORT(Hungary)lEco( loSgia,C Reid &RD Yam
(eds),Gabcikovo-NagymarosBarrage Project Smdy ,
PrellminaryReporMarch1989.
Amex 6 INFORT (Hungary)lEcologia WSA), Gakikovo-
NagymarosBarrageSmdy.ProgramOptionsandImpacts.
Inte& Report,May1989.
hex 7 HungarianAcademy of Sciences,ReportonEnvironmental--
Ecological,WaterQualityand Seismic Aspects of the
NagymamsBarrage Constructionor its Cancellation,
Budapest,3Juae 1989.
Annex 8 Cornmitteof IndepenhntSpscialistThe HardiReport,
Summwy foxtheCouncilofMUiisterofthe Rdts ofam
ExpertReviewconcemhg theEcological, Envirunmentd,
Techndogical,Economic,nternationl,ndLegalissuesof
the ~abcikov0-~8gymarosBarrage System, Budapest,
Septemkx 1989.
Annex 9 Hydro-QuébcInternational,Rappod'opiniosurcertains
aspectdu projetaffectanlamise enexploitationde la
centraGabcikovo.Rapport~~, JIember 1990.
Annex 10 Govemmmen tftheHungaria~e~ubhc,Standpoinof the
Govanmentof theHvnganan~epublic andthe Hungaian
Academy of Sciences conceming the Ecologicai and
EnviromentaTl.mpactsofGabcikovBacrageBudapest, 2
Apil1991.
Annex 11 I Mucha &k E PauiikovaGround Water Qudity in the
DanubianLowlandsdownwds from Bratislava[19 91
l(5) EuopeanWaterPollutiConml 13.Annex12 EquipeCoustea, heDanube.F..rWhomandForWhat?,
TheGabcikovoDam:A TextbuoCase,Septembe1992.
Annex 13 EC-Czechoslavakia-HM unisonyvepor, repareby
theFact-Fiding Missionon VarCaof theGabcikovo-
Nagymms ProjecBratisla31,Octobe1992.
Annex 14 EC-Czechoslovakia-H R engtoft,eWorlrinGroup
of IndependeExpertson VarianC of theGabcikovo-
NagymarosRoject,Budapes,3Novmber1992.
Amex 15 EC,DiscussioPaperDr& princip foeshestablishment
of a TemporaryWater ManagementRegime for the
GabcikovSystem,Bnissels,Janu1993.
Annex 16 Excerptfrom theEquipe Cousteau,Final ReporThe
Danulx.. .or Whom andForWhat?, preparedundera
contractothe Ewqxan Bank for Reconstructionand
Bve1oprnent, arc1993.
Annex 17 SlovakUnionofNatureandLandsca peotect andthe
Slovak Rivers Netwofk, DammhgtheDanube,March
1993.
Annex 18 EC-Hungary-SlovakRepubEc, Wmking Group of
Monitwing and Water Management Experts for the
GabcikovoSystemofLocks,DataReport-Assesment of
Impacts oGzbcikovoFmject andRecammendationfsor
StrengthenXnof Monitoring System, Budapest, 2 -
Novemk 1993.
Annex19 EC-Hungary-SlavakRepublic, Wmbg Group of
Monitoringand Water Management Experts for the
GabcikovoSystemof Locks,ReporonTemporaryWater
Managemen Rtegime,Bratisl, kmber 1993.
Annex20 WorldWdWe Fund,A New Solutionforthe Danube,
WWE; Statemenon the EC Mission Reports othe
WorlongGroupof MonitoringandManagemenE txperts
andon theOvedi Situationof theGabcikovoHybdam
hject, 13December1993.
AkadéWaN i yomda,Budapest
PrinteinHungat.r
Memorial of the Republic of Hungary