Reply of the Republic of Hungary

INTERNATIONALCOURT OFJUSTICE

CASE

CONCERNiNGTHEGAB~~KOVO-NAGYMAROS

PROJECT

(HUNGARY/SLOVAKIA)

REPLY

OF THEREPUBLICOF RUNGARY

VOLUME 1 III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

SectionA ?Ire Specificityothis Dispute

SectionB The UnusuaICharacterof theSIovak Argu~ne~~ts
SectionC FormandStructureofthis Reply

CHAPTER1 THE 1977TREATY AND THE ORIGINAL
PRUJECT

Introduction
SeclionA The Character oftheOriginal Project

(1) TIrePoIiticaIChar-acterotlreOrigirraI Project

(2) The Econo~nic Character othe Origirral Project

Section B The Treaty aia Legai1nstru1-1-ie1rt
(1) Characteristics the 1977 Treaty

(2) TIre 1977Treaty and Gerrera1InternationLaw

Section C The Original Projeet: TheIssueiriDispute

(1) No Adequate EIA Was Ever DonePrior or

SubseqrrenttoEnteringinto the 1977Treaty
(2) Studies Indicatedby1989 thatthe OrigirraIProject

Raised Serious Quesrions abouRiskand Da~nage
(3) The Project aitSrood in 1989

(4) SrrbseqrrerStudiesCo~ifirrnConcernsabout the
OrigirraI Proje(1989-1994)

(5) ProposedRemediaIMeasures would not have
SoIved theMajor Probie~rrs

SectionD TheCorlduct of tlrParties

SectionE Summaryof ConcIusionsin this CIrapter Page

CHAPTER 2 VA RIANTC

Section A The Prehistoryof Variant C

1 (I)TIre Pus1World War 1 ~ettlemént

(2)The Post WorId War IISettIe~nent
(3) UniIateraICzechoslovak Aspirations

(4)Threatsof UniIateraI Diversio~rafrer the Conclusion
oftire 1977Treaiy

Section B The Timingand ImpIerne~rtatiorf VarianC
(989- 1992)

(1)Tite Tirnetable for IrnpIementatiTIie Evidence

(2) Preparatory Work, Studiesand Finance
(3) LegaI AnaIysis iriPreparatifor VariantC

(4) PreparatoryEconornic Analysis of Variant C

(5) Other Indicationof theReaITirnetable

(5) SIovakia'sNeed toSliow that~o&rnmenra1
Approval for VarianC OnlyCame on 25 JuIy 199I

SecrionC TIre Irnpacof VariantC

(1) Irrtroduction

(2) SIovakia'sApproach to the I~npactsof VariaCt
(3) Significa~~dveise Environmenta1 Effectsof

VariantC

(5) Navigation

(6) SeisrnicityandGeoIogy Page

Secrion D Variant C and the OrigirralProjecl 102

(1) Variant C ÏTecIrnicalIyDifferent frorn tOriginaI 1O2
Project

(2) Varia1-C~ isa PermanerrProbIem, Not a Ternporary 105
SoIution

Section E Mitigationof Damage andthe 1935Agreement (the 108
Issueof aTe~nporaryWater Management Regimc) ,

(1) Auernptsto Mitigate Damageof Variant C 108
(2) Mitigationthruugli"Undenvater Weirs" 110

(3) TIie 1995AgreementConcerningCertain Ternporary 1I1

TechnicaI Measur-esand Discharges
Section F Surn~~raroyf ConcIusio~rsinthis Chapter 113

CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE2 OF THE SPECIAL AGREEMENT: 115
THE QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT

SectionA The Suspe~~sionand ~ancé~~atio ~iWorks II5
Srrrnrnaryof Hungary'sArguments on Suspensiori 116

(11Did tlie 147Treaty PrecIrrdeHungary'sRight to II6
Invoke theLaw of State ResponsibÏIity?

(2) Was Joi~rtAscertainmenof rhe FactsJustifying 119
SusperisioriofWorks Necessary Priorto

Srrspension?
(3) DidHungary Meet the KequirementsforIrivoking 121
Nccessity?

Section B TiieIIIegaIityof Variant C 128

Surnrnary of Hungary's Ar-gu~r~entsn VarianC 128

(1)IIIegaIitof Varia~-t underTreaty andGeneraI 129
I~iten-rationIaw

(2) SIovakia'sDistorrio~lof Hungary'sPosition witlr 133
Regardto Prol-ribitionof TransfruntDamage Page

(3) Slovakia'sMisconceptionof the Principleof
135
EquitabIeUseof TrarisboundaryNaturaIResources
(4) TIre1IIegaIitof VariantC is Aggravated by its

PermanentCharacter
(5) Irrelevanceof Slovakia'sArgument onCounter-

Measures

SectionC TIreTerminationof the 1977Treaty

Surnrnaryof Hungaiy's Arguments onTermination

(1) JustificationsforTer~nirratio~~.

(2) Repudiationof the Treaty throughtlre
ImpIementationand Operariorr of VariantC
(3) Issuesof StateSuccession

(4) Conclusion

SectionD Restitution,ReparatioralidCompensation

(1) Basisfor SIovakia'sInterriatioriaIResponsibiIity

(2) Applicationof WeII-Established RuIesof Reparation
in the Frameworkof State Respo~rsibiIity
(3) Adaptaiionof CIassicaICriteria andMeans of

VaIuation totheSpeciaIFeature ofErrvironmentaI
D~I-nage -

(4) Account in Respectof Work DOII~
(5) Property RigIrts

(6) '~onc~usion

BectiorrE Surnrnaryof Conclusions in this Chaprer

SUBMISSIONS

&ISTSOF ANNEXES VI1

LISTOFCOLOURPLATES

Faci~rg
Page

I~rrernaito1Boundariesaccosdingto the
PIatela
Tria11011reaty(192I)

PIate 1b Irrter~iationl ou~rdariacco~di~rgrothe
ParisTreaiy (1947)showingrheCessatio~i
of tirTIrreeViIIages

IIIustrationA Tirni~rgand Implernentationof VariantC:
A Chronology, 1989- 1991

PIate2 ErrvisonmentalIn~pactareaof the
GabEikovo-Nagyrnarog BarrageSy stem.

0rigi11aIPIan.ScaIe1:30#,000

Plate 3 Envirorr~nerrtaIImpactarea othe
GabE ihovo-N agymaros BarrageSystetn.
Variant C. ScaIe1:300,b00 INTRODUCTION

I. TIlis RepIy is sribmitted by the RepubIic of Hungary in

accordance witli the Court's Ordes of 20 Decenrber 1944.' It
suppIements $lieargu~neritsand evide11cepresented by Hunga~yin ifs
Mernorial and Couriter-Me~norialand responds to issues raised by
Slovakia in itsCorirrtei--Mernori&

SECTION A, THESPECIFICITYOF THIS DISPUTE

2. Article 2 ofthe SpeciaIAgreementasks tireCOUI? to ariswertlisee
1egaI questiorrs wlricl~ arose beiween Hungary and the former
CzechosIovakiaas to the GabCikovo-Nagy~~larn P1.ojec1(tlie Original

Project). Theçe questions cuncern (a) tiresrrspeilsio~~~rdabaado~rment
of woi-ks by Hu~rga~y ,b) the adoption of the "provisiona1 solutio~r"
(Variant C) byCzechoslwakia, and (c)tireIegaIeffect ofthe notification
of tire ter~nirratio~rf tlie1977 Treaty by Hungary. It is necessary to
answer tIiesequestions in order tu detei~niriethe IegaIposition in respect

of the coriti~rrringdispure between Hungary arrd SIovakia ovei- tlre
Original Project a~rdover varia-ntC. Hencethe reference in ArticIe 2(2)
of the SpeciaIAgreementto "the IegaIcoIrsequeIices,incIadingthe rights
and obIigatio~rsfor the Parties, arising fro~a"the arlswers to tire tlrree
specific qrrestions2

3. Tlie partiesager that flieCourt should firstaIisiver-tlrequestionç
identifiediriAi?icIe2( 1)_and(2) of tlie SpeciaI Agreement by way ofa
declararion of the "rights and obIigations for the Parties".: Isçueç of
i~npIe~rreritatioa~1dcjua~itification,if they caiinof be resoIved by-
agreement behveeri the parfies,wiIIIiave to be deaItwith in a subsequenr

phase of the case,as co~~terrrpIatby ArticIe5.

4. The IegaIissues whiclr tireCourt is asked toresoIve arise fro111a
cornplex, long-running dispute over- tlre OriginaI Project arid over
' VariantC, a dispute rnaintai~red by SIovakia afte~.its i~rdepe~rdericien
Jar~uary1993, alrd which activeIy co~rti~~r~te osday. The COUI?is of

course oriIyasked to deaI kith ~hispar?icuIardispute, a disprrtebetweeri
hvo Eui-opea~ri~~dustrialiçedcountries, countries associated witI7 the
European U~riorland me~nbersof Eurapean segiorialorga~iisatiorissucIr

I SeeICJRepI994.pISI.
See HM. paras2 O1-2-08,

.'. 5ee 1-IM, ara 11.20.SM,Introduction,para7.as the Eui-opeanBank for Reco~~stiucitori and Deveiopnient, tlie CounciI
of Europe and tlre UN Econornic Comn~ission ~UI.Eur-ope.

5. On tIieother hand The Cou13 is not asked to pronounce ori ge~reral
issues of governrnental poIicy in sectorsof energf or the environn~enr.j

It içceflai~rlyrrotasked to take a positioir011 tiredesirabiIityor orherwise
of the coristruction of dams on major rivei-ç."

6. 111the pieserit case it wiII be necessary for-tire Cour-î to resolve

factrralas welI as IegaI issrreswliich have bec11 at the heaftof the dispute
over rhe Origirial Project and over Varia~r? C. Irrdeed, the dispute is at
Ieast as concerned wirh factuaI aswitlr IegaI issues. On a nu~nber- of IegaI
issues. tllere is broad agreement between tlre pai-iies,a~rdas to those IegaI

issues wlrere there is sharp disagreenre~~t,the positions of the parties al-e
by now weII defi~~ed.

7. There are also sig~rificaritdisagreernerits on qr~estions of fact. III

the context of a dispute ovei-the impacts of a rnajo1-i~~dustrialproject on
one of tlre most importantEuropean rivers, the factual disagreementsare
11otIimited to those about tlie ~rrear~irror impIications of dipIornatic
exchanges, but i11cIrrdescientific, eco~romic and enviro~r1ne11ta1issues.'

TIle parties evide11tIyagree as to the necessity to deaI witlr [Iresematfers
as they ai-ise &I tiie co~~textof ibis dispute. Botlr Irave put in issue the
viability arid tire extenof the impactsof bot11tlre UrigiriaIProject and of

Varia11t C.

8. The Court itçeIf 110 doubt envisaged that this necessiv rnigirt
arise in tlre coritext of environmental disputes wlrerl it estabIished a

Bu1 see SM. puas 1 30-1.56 for an attack on I-Iungarienergy poIicy on Ille
grounds of 11s r-eIiarroir ~ir~clcarporver (iesponded to briefiiii HC-M,
paras 1.190-1203)

But see SC-M, pal-as9.64-9.103 for a presentatIoof Hu~iprinn cnvironmenral
poIicyasex~cssircand unreasoned.
Hr~ngaryshaies the yieof themajordevcIoprncni and financial agencIes ilraleacli

projecthnsro bc justified on its a\irn merits, apylying approcrileriIn the
presentcase itaptes-rv~ttlicvicw of the EnropeanBank for Rwons1ruction and
DeveIopmenrrhatthe OriginaI Proleclhad "dubioriseconomic ~aIucand ~regatiue
environnientaeffects.See HR, An~rcxes,voI 3, annex32. Br~tsecSM: para1.52
for~heviewthat Hungary isopposed tohydroeIectric potverinPI-~nciplc.

' AI~hough SIovakia sceks to drive a rvedge bbelween '.cco~ro~nic'.and
'-environmental"argumenD(see beIorv,paragraphI.8IlproperIyunderstood ard in
tlicontextof pubIicdecision-rnaki~rg,ttisno such distinction Theissueshave
to be 11-cati~an inXegraalnd in1eneIatedmarrncr. Forp~idance in-Thisrespect see
R Norgaard,TireEcoi~oiniAnabses oJfihGabikovo-iVugl;iiiuroBarruge Sysiem,
HR,vd 2,Appendis 4.ProfessorNorgaardisa Ieadingenvironnientalecoirorrrist. 3

Charnber- for C-rvirori~irentaDIisputes. IIIdoirigso, ir 111adeit cIearthat
such disputes mightaIso be deart witlrby the Court as a wh01e.~ Other

cou~?s have been faced w itli major envisonmental disputes, as clie
exarnpIesoutlined in Appe~rdix5 show; and the ~reedfor resoIution of
such disputes by 11eg;tIneans is increasing, botlr at the rrationa1.and

iriternatioria1IeveI?

9. TIie ai~nof tl~is RepIy is tu assist the Corr1-tin its task of
addressing the questions specified i~rthe SpeciaI Agreement. In
par?icr~Iar,tire RepIytviII seek t~identify with precisio~rtire varioas

factua1and IegaIissues rvhichcoriti~rrre to divide the parties, tooutIine
their respective positiorrs (witlr references to earliei. yIeadirigs a~rd
reievaritari~~exesanci to respond to specific argurne~~tspresented in the

SIovakCounter-Mernorial.

SECTLONB.THEUNUSUAL CHARACTER OF THE SLOVAK
ARGUMENTS

1O. SIovakia'sapproach to the case Irasbeen unusual, in terrnsof its
to~reand in a numberof other respects. TIreto11eof theSIovakpIeadi11gs
carrbejudged fr-011tie "111dexIOCertain Words and Phrases"attaclied as

Appendix 1.IO The navour- of that Appendix may be sa~npIed frorntlre
foIIowi~rg:

Word or Phrase Occurrence inSMISC-M Occurrerice irrHMIHC-M

a1Ieged 80 5

ignores 62 21

t puipo~?ed' , 89 8
srrpposed 18 5

InitCoirrirruni$No 93/20 of 19luIy 1993: the Court describcd thc Gabtikovo-
Nagymams case as one "witlr important ~rnplications for internarIawaon
matterslelatiIorhe environment". It aIsocxprcsscd ttlr15"bcpi-epare10
ihe fulles1pos5ibIe cxtIOtdcaI witir arrye~rviro~rnierrlacIase falIing r\-ithinils
jurisdictio~i'..
See --SomeMajor Dam DispuIcY': HR. vol2. Appendis 5. \\-hich inçludas

seIection of dxn disputes deaItivith by in~ernational and nri bu nind
othci-auttrorit~es.
ID See "111dexof Certain Wordsand Phrainthe Slovakand HungaiiaxrMernorials
arrdCounter-MernorialsHR. voI2,Appcndix 1. i
Utlierterms used in the SIovakpIeadi17gs furfl~ertlreirnpreçsiori- ifntust

be said - of i~~tenrperatoeppositiun. TIroseIistedin Appendix 1 i11c1udc
"absurci", "arrdaciiy", L'grotesqua", "~~~ockery","ironse~~se"~arid
"preposarorrs". It wiIIbea ]natter for the Court io assess the respective

evidence adduced by the palTies. BrrtSIovakiais weIIahead inthe nratter-
of epithets.

I 1. It is of course foi-each paq before the Couri to choose how ro

present its case, and Hungaiy wuuId not rnakethis coritrast were it not
relevarit to the ~neritsof tlie present dispute. It i.7relevanr ~II tlre
foIIowi~rgway. To jrrdge fsom the SIovak pieadidi~~g Hs,urrgary is aIr

"armga~rt'~,~ "dernagogic"12 party, "ruthIessIy"I3 errgaged i~r
"fabricatio~~"i~with a "cavaliei'attitude7"fi - atflie same tirne with its
"headin the sarrd"1hand 1ivi11g in a "wor-Idof make-beIieve".17 Above
al], Huiigaryisa1Iegedto I~aveaçtedthroughour inbad faitli; I8 it did not

even beIier7e its own r-epeated erivironmentai arguments, arguments
reIating to "e~rvirorirnentaeIffecrsthat iraIoriepercéived" 9

12. Yerdie apparent poinr of al1 this SIovakargurnentand assertion

is to force Hungary to engage with it in a close arid continui~rg
paitrrershiprequiringday-70-daycoope~+atioa ~nrd mutualtrust on a rnatter
vitaIIy affecting .riree~lvironment arrd natural xsources of borh States.

TIrercis a co~rtradictionbeiween SIovakia's rnathod of pIeading arrd its
avuwedaim.

13. At rhe procedura!IeveI,SIovakia IrasfaiIed to providedocu~nents

evide~rtlyin ifspossessioridespite repeated requesrs,disectIyalid through

SM, para8.114:SC-M,paraIO.IO.
SC-M,para 1-17.

SC-M.para 10.121.
SC-M,pal-a 4.16.

SGM. para 10.09.
SC-M.pan 7.53.

SC-M.pal-a 11.06
SM. paras 829-8-57: SC-M, paras 5.29-5.62.See aIso SC-M, paras2.16, 10.73
(;heri?onzidittip-ny>.ioiii~trpiflidinealleguns) See. Iior~e~er,HC-M.

paras2.118-2.128:kvhertheaIicgationofb~dfairislreaItwillr.
SC-M,para59.3. For exaiiiylcof independe11b1odies rsIrav"~icrccived'.these
effects seeHM. paras3.38' 3.74. 3.94;HC-M. paras2.123-2.124: see fui?trer
SclenttjîReb~itia, R,vol2. cllaps3-6.tlie Cour1,20whereas Hurigary has resporided in EuIIto eacli of rhe
r-eqrresrs171adeof it.21

14. At the Ievel of evidence, the sitnatiori can be surrirnarised as
f01Iows.~~ SIovakia feeIs the r-epeared need to qake mtegorica1
scienrifrc assel-tio~is,brrr seenls to' feeI no need ro justify tliese with

scietiific evidel-rce. It is trrre tlratSlovakia criticises rlie Hungaria~i
position exte~lsively 011 tlregl.bunds tliat no evidence \vas adduced to
substantiate conceriis.23 But in addition ro [lie iarçe riurnber of stirdies

previously aniiexed,refeiredto and discussed, the HuiigariattCouiiter-
Meiiiorial (in particular volume 2) prescrits the suppoi-tiiigevidetice iti
coiisiderable detail. Receilt observations are preseilted to quantify the

iminediateshort-termimpactsof VariaiitC. Relevaiitfiiidingsare drawn
from Hungariail and international experience. Coinputer simulation
studies are adduced on a range of issues and tliese are extended to

rernedialmeasures.

15. In contrast, Slovak assertiotis frequeiitly lack supportiilg
argument or evidetice. For example, it is asseited that eutrophication

"has beeri extensively stud ied..in relation to this particular Pr0ject",2~
yer iio evidence ispi-ovidedeven iri surnriiaryfom. On the critiralissue
ofaquifer recharge, no eviderice is inrroduced in srrpporz of the srafe~ne~r?

that "it is eqrraIIy urideniabIe that this reservoir..wilI contintle to be a
good sour-ce of aquifer recharge7'lj Wheresuppor ing documents are
referenced there is often an inappropriate assessiiierir of their scientific
credibi lis; as witIi aspects of the Bechtel Rep01-f.~~ Unwarranted

coliiments are made about reputable oigariisarions (cg. Equipe Cwsteau
and WWE). So far Slovakia has relied alrnost excIrrsiveIy ori natiorial
scientific wor-k, has not yet provided infarmarioii as to the resulrs of the

20 For tlic requestsceLetier oAgeiitof Ilungai-10 Açcnt of Slovakia,1IAugust
1991,repeatingi-eqiiestcotitainedNote Verbale of HutigarytoSiovaki af 27
Julie1994:in 1-IC-MA, nnexes, vol 3: annex 17;LetterAgcnt of Hiingaylo Lhe
Registrar of the COUIZ: September1994, repcatingiequesland requcstirig otliei-
documents; ]IR, Annexes, ~013:annex II. A requcst for accestodi-edgingdata
was made on 29 September1994 in a letter from ihe Hungarian Agent to the
Registrar othcCourt: HC-M, Annexes, vol 3, aniiex30. Arterthe filinof the

HC-M: a further reqiiesluasmade for al1 documents earlier i-eqiiesizd:HR:
Annexes, vol 3, annex18Slovakiahas notrespondedto anyof thciequests.
21 HC-M,Annexes, vol3,annexcs 5,6:9.
22
SeegcncrallyScienrifRebiittalHR:vol 2,chap2.
23 Seecg..bclorv:par-agraphs.85. 1.1003.18.3.33.

z4 SC-M,para7.34.
25 SC-M:para 7.52.

SetScienr$c ReburialIN. vol 2'chap 2.2.EC PHARE Project, and when ic does refet to independeiit scientific
assessments, ofteii mischaracterises theirco11clusions.27

16. Slovakia liasfailed toproduce relevant studies or It has
consistently maintained that ailextensive programme of environtnetital
studies hasbeen undertaken undei-the title 'Bioproject',but has faiIedru

producerhern despite repeared req~esrs.'~ WIre1.estud ies have been
introduced, forexarnpIe in reIarion ro sails,they are provided in Slovak
and withorir translations. In fact rhe soi1 studies reveaI tllat SIovak
scientists share Hringarian coriceriis about tlrecornpIexifyof tlre issues,

the rreed for frrnher scientific work, and tlre Iack of informatio~roIr
remediaI ~neasures.~~

17. SIovakia frequent Iy demonstrares a failui-eto appreciate basic

scieritifiissrreçNrimerous exarnpIeç relatingto sur-facealidgroundwater
qualiiy issues, inoriitoring,risk assessrnent arrd environmenta1 issues
gener.alIyare identifiedand explained in the ScienrfR iecb~ttal.3~

18. The Slovak Counter-Memorial distorts and misrepresents the
Huiigarian position. The ScientijïcEvaluarion and the Scientlfic Rebutfal
document inanyexamples. There is inisquotation (for example, where
Hungary identifies grouiidwater subsidence in the Middle Szigetkoz as

"0-1 inetre" tliis is described as "a decrease of just 0.5 ~''3~) and
mischaracterisation of views (Hungary has atno point argued that "dams
aie generally not to be favoured", as Slovakia suggests).33

27 Se, Scienf$cReb~~lta. R!vol2: chap2.5.
2g
See Scie~$c R~birr~ui, Rvol2: chap2.3.
29 HC-M, Aniiexes, kol3, annexeslm7: 30; see also HR, Annexes, vo13,
annexes11, 18.

30 Secbelow,paragrap2 h.69.
31 Scientifc Rebutrai!HR,vo2.chap2.4.
32
SeeHM:vol 1,Appendix3:p 422,and SC-M, para8.23.
33 SC-M,para7.29. SECTION C. FORM ANDSTRUCTUREOF THIS REPLY

19. The ai~n of tliis RepIy istoprovide arr uveraII guide to rlrecase

a~rdits associated materia15in resporrseto tlie SIovak pleadings?whiIe at
tfie sarne tirne rnaIdraIIi~rgtlarguments and evidence arid piovidia ng
guide tu the pteadings aridreIevant annexes.

20. TIredispute over the GabEikovo-Nagyrnaros Pr-ojectirrvoIvesriva

disti~rcteIe~nerrfs:(1) the OriginaIPrqject as pr-ovided for in tlie 1977
TI-eaty, arid (2) Variant C, a sche~ne urrilater+aIIyimplemented by
Cze.echoslovakia and adopted IrySIovakia.j4 The first trvo chapters of
this Reply deal witlr the issues wliich dividethe parties as to tliese two

eleme~rts. Chaptes3 t11enturns to confront the questio~~sforthe Court as
defined in ArticIe 2 of tlre Special Agreement; tlrese are dealt witlr
successively, drawi~ig on the discussion iiCliapters 1 arid 2 and in tlie
eaiIier pleadi~rgs. IIIeaclrclrapter,reIevant factual a~rdIegaI issues are

deaIr with inan infegrated rnari~~era;11dari attefnptmade throughout to
ideritiS, a~rdto cIarify rlre essential issues whiclr separate the parties.
Cliapter 3, in particuIar, can be =ad aç a fsee-standing guide to the
specific rjuestioristhe Courtis askedtu de~ide.~~

21 . VoIurne 2 irrcIrrdes a 111o1.deetailed ScieulificReburral of the
ar-gu~r~e~rptsesented in'the SIovak Counter-Mernorial, pr-epared by the
Hungarian and internatio1ra1çcie~~tificteam wI.richwas responsibIe for

tl-reScienlifc Evaluation preseiited as volume 2 of the Hungarian
Corrrrter-Me~noriaI.it alsoco~itainsthe foIIowi~rgsix apperidices:

1. Index of Certai~iWords arid Plirasesin the MenioriaIs and
Counter-Memoria1s

2. Some Misreprese~~tatio~fiiithe SIovak Counter-Mernorial
3. COMECON and tlie "IdeoIogical NeutraIiiy"of the Project

4. Professor R Norgaard, The EconorrzicAnalyses of rhe

Gubkovo- Nc~gv~~zui- Bonrruge Sysretrr:A Repo~r
5. Sonie Major Dam Disputes

6. The Histoiy -ofthe Dispute: 1989-1992

j4
SeePlai.~s2 and3atIIrce~rdof thisvolume.With texceptioof Piaies1-3, al1
referencecolwr plates~naybefoundirheScteni$c Rebui~ul,HR,va11.
33 Fora surnrnatyf the cnriclusio~rsreacliedin eaclrchapier. sce beIurv,piiragraphs
1.149-2.106and3.179,rcspcc~iveIy.Appendices 1-alrd 2 set out in tabuIar foin i~~fo~matiora ibor11 SIovak
argrr~nents. Appendix I IlasaIready hee11rne1rtioned.3~ Appendix 2 sets
out and responds to some misrepi-esentat ions in the SIovak Counter-
Me~noi-iaI,thereby avoiding ciescendi~~g to ~nairypoints of detail in the

text of this Reply. Appendices 3-6 deaI with a ~rrrrnberof important
issues wIriclrequise more detaiIedtreat1-11e11t.
\
22. VoIun~e 3 contains scienrific and otherarinexes (docu1-~~ent snd
studies refeued to in volumes 1 and 2). VoIu~ne 4 is a stand-aIone

chronoIogy of tire dispute,which may assist. the Cour? irr p~pvidi~ra
guide fo the key events fronr1988 to earIy 1894. CHAPTER 1

THE 1977 TREATY AND THEORIGINALPROJECT

1.O1. The first majw aspect ofthe dispute wliich the Court is asked to
address conceuis tlie OI-iginaI Psoject as envisaged by tlre Treaty, in
pa~zicularivhetl~ei- upga,arvwas entitIedtoçuspend the worksun ifs parts
of the Projeci i111989 and subsequently ca1rce1 tlre~ri.The parties

disagr-eeon the critica1issues wlricli ~reeto be consideredin relatiorr to
tlie Origi~ral Project. TIiiChapter addresses the SIovak arguments on
the foIIowing issues: the esse~rtialcliaracreand objectives of the 1977
Treaîy (Section A); its IegaI status and its relationship to other

agreements and general iritemationaI Iaw (Section BI; the adequacy of
preparatoiy e~rviso~mren~iI impact assessmerrts, the evidence of the
OriginaI Project's IikeIyeffects on the environment and the econornic

and otI-rerconçequences of addressi~r ghose effectç (Section C); and the
parties' corrdrrct f1.011484 to 1992 (Section Dl. It coricludes wirh a
sumrnaryof the esserrtial poi~rtç.

SECTION A. THE CHARACTER
1 OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT

1.Oz. SIovakia reduces the place of socialist iritegratio~and CMEA

irrvoIvement to a "siylistic formaIity". I It rejects the econornic
argurnent~.~ Iristead it reIieson a rnotIey collectiorrof "purpases"
depending upon the exige~rcies of tlie argument. These incrude
"restoratiorrofprevious graundwater IGvels; preverrion of frri.rhererosion

of the riverbed; rehabiIitaio~rof the riverbranches ..."-' This approach

I
SC-M. para 06. Fora detailed rcsponscsecbelom, paragraphs 3.82andHR:
vol 2.Aypend~x 3 on CMEA inwlvemenr. CMEA is tire abbrev~alionof the
offIciaInameofihcorgn~risnt{rCounciIfor MuruEconomic AssisIance). bu1i~r
11011-corriniu~Iti~era~uend foreign policy docunrentat~on rhe acronynr
COMECONis alsotkridespreandxvÏIbeused here.
Foia.c~.iiiquetheoriginal economic pi.ojecsce~HR, voI2,Appendix4. For
tirc clra~riieconomic riabili-ytoivfriclru~raccou~r~eednvironrimpacts

contributcdgrel~-seeparagraph3s.82-3.86. bclow.
SC-M, para9.60. Thc SM alsospeaksof "revitaIisatofntlre dricdup side arrn
sysIe1rr"as a "PI-in1bjecrive''(SM,pra 6. I32), or "amoniloring sasaem"
'-basiciiiirr"corroi~hcOriginalPi-ojectand Variant C{SM,p5.261.eveIr presents the Treaîy as focu.~ing 011 "the preservatio~~ and
i1np1-ove~~~ efitthe e~-rviron~-~rentB"utalthough the Tieaiy did contain

provisions relating fa e~rvironmental protecfio~t,arrdaItI-rougIitlre paaities
assurned thaf the Origi~ral Projecf couId be buiIt i~ia way wlriclr was
consisie~irw~itlr e~ir-o~rme~~tparlotecrio~i,the p~+incipIbjectiveç of the
Treaty were asstated i11irs preambIe. TIrey ivere irs ~-aisud'èli-e.

(1)THE POLITICALCHARACTEROF THE ORIGWAL PROJECT

1.03. The 1977 Treaîy waç understood as a manifesratiori of
"bsotIierIy" CO-operation between twu sociaIist Staks."If cornmitment

to the execution of the project wavered, COMECON e~rsuredthat tlre
parh of socialist intenrationalisrnwouId be foIIa~~d. This occurred in
19566 and aagai in 1'970-1971 .7 In negotiatio~~sfoi-tlre 1977 Treaiy,

COMECON'S roIe %vasiieser. fafsorn the 1-11indsftlrose responsible for
the Psojecr. In 1974 the Deputy Prime Ministers of Hungav and
CzechwIovakia describecltlieProjectas -

-'a11integraI pa1-rof the cornprehensive programme for the
deveIoprne11t of socialist econornic integration of rhe

COMECON countries... rpmotling] -the i-eaIisatiorr of
objectives..for the çornprehensive use ofthe Danrrbe ...'18

TIris exacrIy mirrors the hvo objectivas adopted in the PrearnbIe to the

Treaîy .

1.04. Slovakiaseeks to evade the relatianship betwaen the Original
Broject and COMECON: this is1rie1.eIHungary'ç "Iitigatioa ~trategy".~

But there is no indicatio~itlrat the drafterof the Pi-earnbIeIiad Iitigatioo
in irriird. And their reference tu "sociaIist integrarion" was no "mese
stylist ic for~naIitl0:rrootfier ~rr~-r~ar-iari-~zectI reatyseop~aessly
mentioned COMECON i1rtegratioi-ri~iils pi-earnble. I RatIrei; a more

ge~iera1formula was used. I

SC-M.para IO.12.5.
j l?K:wI 2:Appendix3 totliis ReylyeIaborates tfresepa1greaterdetail.

HM. para3 12
HM, para3.27.

HM: Annexes:voI 4,a1rnex.
9 SC-M. para2-03.

Io SC-M:paras2.03-2.06.
II To IIrco~iti-sccSC-M. para2.07. ~rotc8.

I2 SeetheanaIysisofCOMECON lrealprûcliceiHR, vol2.AppentIix3,paras4-5.1.05. TIie PreambIe operated as arenvoi to COMECON pi-incipIesa~rd
objectives. In accordance witlr A~ticIe 3i(3) of the 1969 Vienna
Co~ivention, COMECON principiesthus for~aedpa~r of the conkxt of
the 1977 Treaty and Iielp explairr itobject and purpose. COMECON

princip1esas to projecf corrstrrrctio~and finance were aIso ~+efleccedin
fl-rbody of tlreTreaty: they provided, inter uliri,for direct costs to
exdude ge1rem1overl~eads as weII as otIretaxes and charges, foi-transfei.

inIo co~~veriiblerubles, and for differences arising as tu operatingcosts
to be settIedby the perfoimance of furtlrer work ratherfl~anby fiaa~rcial
transfers.]"uch provisions are distinctiveto COM €CON, and are not

to be found in the -contcinyroraiy Western European wafercourse
agreements mentioned by SIovakia.14

1.#6. SIovakia recognises that tfie Soviet Union "did foIIow the

biIateraI negotiations thatIed10 the 1977 Treaiy" but rnai~itainsthatthis
was of Iitfle sigrrifica1ice.Infact,the Soviet U11io1iinitiaIIyagreed to
provide frnancia1assistance to tlre Project,IS and in 1977 agreed witl~
Hunga~y to provide eqnipmcnt (includirrg turbiries} and specialist

services.l7 SOV iet experiç were closely invoIved i~rpIa~rr~ing,18 wliile
poIiticaIand economic difficulties were referred to a higher fevel for
resolutio~rI9

(2) THE ECONOMICCHARACTEROF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT

1.07. BotIr pa~?ies agsee that the OrigirraI Pi.oject wasto be a "joint
investment".20 The ferm "joint" irrdicates a colIaborative project. The
teim "invest~nent"inrpIieseconomic viabilily. IIIils consideration of fhe

"joint investment" Slovakia focuses on the ''coIIaborative"aspect, but
haç ~rotl-ri~iubstantive to say about eco~~ofnic~iability.~' Itssile~rce
and repeated e~npl~asisoi~ Hungary's eco~ronric aç disti~~cf from

1977Tiealy, ArI2(4)(61{,7)Scc HM. Annexes,rini3annex2 1

SC-M:para 2.07ilot8
SC-M. para209.

HM. paras3.16-3.43.a~seeHR, vol2,Ayipendix3.
SeeHM, palci08,HM. Annexes,y013:anIicx23.

Minuies ofIllercsuIis of tconsuItatioregarding theGabtikovo-Wagyniaros
Barrage Systcm conducted drh Soviet expertsthe rimeof their visto the
Peop1e.~se~lr%~iocf Hungary,7-22 February, HR,0Annexes.vol3:annex 47.

SecHR,\id 2.Appendix 3.
SC-M. paras2.17-2.19.

SC-M .aras2.17-2.19.1.08. Trepidatio~~ about engaging i~rto the econornics of tlre Project is
unde~sta~~dable. Tlre European Bank for- Reconstsuctio~~and
DeveIopmenr Ilas chai-acterised the Project as beirig of "dubious

ecorro~nicvaIue".23 SIovakia's treatme~itof tlre economic issuesz4 is
diçcussed - arrdcornprehe~rsiveIy refuted - intlieindependentanaIysisin
Appendix 4 to tlrisRep1~.~~ By coritrast Slovakia rnakes no detailed
c1ai1ns as to the econornic viabiIiS of the Origirial Project as a "joint

invesr~~~ent" .tprovides no inreriia1or independent arrafysisin support
of the cIaim that tlie Psojecr "was arrd is susrai~iable..in...economic
ter1ns''.~6

I.09. As aIr "investrnent" the Original Psoject was to selve botlr
nariorra1economieç by producing electriciîy ,irrrproving11avigaticr-aind
flood protectio~r, and inducing regiorral deve1op111errt. But Iike many

othe~.Iarge-scaIeco-operative projects impIe111e11t uedder COMECON'S
auspices, thc Project could nof produce a reasonabIe ecoiiornic return.
Economic analyses carried out prior to Hurrgary'ssuspe~rsiori(in 1975,
1978, 1983 aiid 1986) were i~iadequate," but everrtlrey indicated Ille

i1nIikeIy economic viabiliiy of the Project. As Professor Nor-gaard
concludes:

"those earIier economic anaIyses pipvide no evide~rcethat the
GNBS Project was ecoriorniCallysound ..on tlrecailtrafy, tliey
provide considerabIe reason tosuçpect that it was unecorromic;

that if a sirnilar projectwas pr-oposedtoday il1Eumpe osfor
furrdi~rgby an inte~natio~iaa lgency it rvouId rot receive a fuII
evaIuationa11d WOU IdprobabIy be rejected n prio~i."'*

I.1O. Investme~rtdecisi~ns in market economies on projects of this
kind wouId incorporate"externaIitie~"~suc11 as the decsease ~IIthe vaIue
of rota1economic capitai a11d rratural resource Iosses. Suc11

22 SC-M, pal-a4.01: 4.13.In rrurh ecuno~rriccoircernscannbe scpriraied from

e~ivironmenraIconceInsiitliis categoriciray:thc cwls ofa Prqect foit.he
en~~ron~nenstould be faclorectoa~ryassessmentScebcIow, paragraphs1.81.
23 HR A~i~icxcs.oI3,annex32;cfSC-M, para 7.136.

24 SC-M.parar i.122-7133.
2s See Prof R Noipard. Tire Econornic Airrrkseof fbe GnbEi~v~-;'r~~~~~na~-o.r
Btrrruggcys~mr(1995);HR,vol 2, Appendix4
26
SC-M,para7. I36.
27 Noi-gaardHR. YUI2,Appendix4 aipartsIV'V: YII. YIIalrdIX,respectively.
2g
Norgaard,HR: uol2:Appendix 4.p 2. coiisiderations did iiotfigure iricoriirectiorr ivirrhe Project. Even
eiementary envirozr~nental pr-otecriori rneasirihesdinot appear in the

baIances: tIiey were to be treared as (iinquaiitified) "national
~~V~STIII~II~S".~~

1.11. III aIry eve~itexpected econumic gi.owth in both corintries was
repIaced by receççion fwm rhe early 1980s oiiwards. This rrndercut

projected increases in dernand forelectricity and navigation. By 1992
the original purposes of the Project, politicaland econoinic, had been
contradicted by dramatic and unpredictable changes within both
countriesand externalty, and theProject iieeded tlioroughgoingreview.

SECTIONB. THE TREATY
AS A LEGALINSTRUMENT

Although there appears-to be much in commoil in tlieParties'
1.12.
analysesof the 1977Treaty,30 there isa significant underlying difference
of approach. SIovakia treats the 1977 Treaty as a lex specialis - a
virruaIIy irnprescriptibie. code, legal; environmenta1 and economic,
inlpressoe ndthe region. For Hrrngary the Treaty must be appIied in irs

internationa1context, related te orher agreementsand to reIevantrutes of
interitationa1 Iaw.

f 1CHARACTERISTICSOFTHE 1977TREATY

1.13. WhiIe acknowIedging triai tlie 1977 Treaty was a "fiarnewor-k"

iiistrutnent,SIovakia Iirnits ifs relafionsliip to other relevant
agreement^.^ I'wrongly asserts that the Treaty establjshed a "specific
'territorial ~egiine",and itapparently refuses to recognise that,likeany
other bilateral agreement, the 1977 Treaty could be the subject of
revision.33

29 SeeNorgaard.HR. voI2, Aypendi4.
30 SGM, para 2.01.
'
SC-M.paras 2 13R, 2.5ff.
32 SC-M.paas 2.45 fi.

33 SC-M,para9.22. (a) The1977 Treatyandoiher agreements

(i)TheJoin t ontrucsual Plan (JCP)

1.14. There is iiodisagreeinent as to the general chasacter of the Joint

Contractual Plan. SIovakia describes it as "cornpIe~~reritaryarid
de~ivative"~~ in ifsrelation to the 197'7Treav.3 H~ungary agrees with
this characterisation, which recog~iisestlratthe JCP was subordinare to

theT~aty.~"

1.15. Tlie Parties howevei. disagree as to tire status of tire JCP.
SIovakiaseeks fo pr-esent itas an "accordenfwine solt.nn~li$"' tl-reseby
e~rhancing itssta~iis.~~TIiIs içof iioreIevariceto tlieissues in dispute.

TIre JCP had an essentiaIly tecIinicaI char-acter, si~rce tlie basic
paralneters of the Projecf were establisl~edby the 1977Treaty. In any
event, it cannot be seriously argued that tlie JCP was "en fouiiie
solenpielle":it was not subject to ratif~cation,~~ but according to tlie

Agreement on its drafting, was to be approved by the enlarged Joiiit
Technical Coiiimittee. TlieParties reniainedfree at anytimeto introduce
further clianges.Thisthey did very regularly.39

1.16. As an instrument for the impleinentatioiiof the 1977 Treaty the

JCP waç çuboidinate aiidancillary. This is thecritical point.It follows '
thatthe JCP catinot modify in any respect the substantive rulesset out in
the 1977 Trzaty, and it cannot in itself-createiiew obligatioiis for the
Partiesto the 1977 Treaty.

1.17. The OriginaI Project,as defined by the 1977 Treaty, was i~~terided
as a bIuepriiit, nor a rigid scheme. Ir was i~~tendedto evoIve as
knuwIedge and circrrmsranceschanged. The JCP waç orle ofthe rnearis
to address n~atterçnot addressed indetail by the-Treatyjo This impI ied

a fIexibIeapproach.

34 SC-M, para2.58.
35 SC-M, para2.58.

3u Seefui-therHM,para4.15; HC-M,para4.08.
37 See inparticularSC-M,para2.63.

38 Neithertuasthe 1976Agreementregardingthc Drafting of the Joint Contractual
Planitself. I-Annexes ,ol3,annex 18;HM,para4.03; HC-M, para4.08.
39 HC-M.para2.22.

40 HM, para4.I3. SIovakiadevotes aIrnost20 paragr-aphsin i-esponse tu Hu~igav's
1.18.
characterisationof agree~nentsselatedto the 1977Trea~.~' It conte~rds
tlra~their r-eIationsltu the 1977 Treaiy "is far more compiicated than
Hurigaryasse~~s''":[w]IliIsttheTreaîy implernentsand can-iesout cefiai11

of these instiurne~ror certai~rof their provisions,itreplaces or nod di fies
th ers."^'But irrecognisesthat "tIle~-eare mariyagreerne~rtspost-datirlg
[Ire1977Treaty" whicfr ai-1.e1cvarit."~

1.19. Hrrngary di-aws tlrreeconcIrrsionçwith respect to the Tseatyarid
its relatio~rshito oLier.agreements and standards: "tire 1977 Treaîy
was... ap.rof a ~r-ratrof biIatera1and rnultilatei-a1rreaties specifrcally
applied to rhe cornrnoIrboundary and its waters, or to the Darrube

gerreraIIy";fie treatiesi~rquesti011 wese often i~rrpIe~nentedunevenIy,
rvith ipom foi reiregotiatio~ra~rdadjust~nent; and the treaîy Irornls
tliernseIves ivere consistent ruitlthe developing body of internatio1ia1
I~W.~The firstconcIusioriliasnot beerrrefutcd by SI~vakia.~~

1-20. Tliat the 1977 T~.eaîyis to be r-ead in the corrtext of r-elated
agreementsbroadenç the baçisupoiiwlrichthe Iegalityof the Pa~Tiesa'cts
iç to be determineci. This is reflected irrArticle 2(I) of the SpeciaI

Agreement, &hich refers to "such otlier treaties as the Coui? nray find
appli~abie".~6

1.21. TIre Pai-iiesagree that the 1976 Borrndary Waters Agreement
remains i~rforce bdween therr~.~~ Other agreements to be takeri into

accorr~rtin tiie reIations between tlre Pa~tics incIude the Biodivelsity
Conventio11,~8the Espoo Coriventiorr 011 Enviro~i~rientaI I~npact
-Asçessrne~ritn a TrarrsboundaryCo~itext:~ arid the SufiaConventio~rorr
Co-operation for the Protection a~rdSustainable Use of the Danube

41 SC-M:pa~-a2.74-293.
42 SC-M, gar2.85.

43 SC-hMp,ar2.92.
44 HM. para4.56.

45 SC-M. para2.97.
46 HM, Annescs.vol3,anncx32,p 343.
47
SM:para6.46; HM,para5.50.
4s For tfreBiodi~ecetyonr~entirJune 1992sce(1992)31 ILM 818; HC-M:prs
4 23-4.24.Doth Hunga.ary'(Z4brr~ary1994)and Slovaki(25 Augusr1994)are
paiqierutheCo~iueiition.

49 ForIexsee(1991)30 ILM800.Botli Hrrngavand Slovakiahavesip~rcdtheEspoo
Convcntio~r.Secalso HM,paras7.53-7. 60,-M, paix 1.21. River.50 TIieprincipIes set out in these agreeme~lts appIy t0p.e-aisiing
as weIIas to new projectç.

@) The "fer~iforialify" offhe 1977 Treap

1.22. Slovakia argues that rhe incIusio11in the 1977 Treaty of what it
char+acterisesas a boundary provision (A~~icle22) ri-ansforrns itinto a

"dispositive treary, the object of which is to inçtitute a territorial
regime".51 Hungary denies that the 1977 Treaty is dispositive eitlier irr
gerreraIos in relation to rigIitstu use riiewater of tlre Danube. The 1977

Trearydoasnot"appropriate" riglits over the water.

1.23. "A treaty binds the co~itracti~igstates onIy ..Pucta terfiis nec
Hocen{ nec yr.osunf.''~~

'Cette formuleIapidairede la Canvenriorrde Vienne sur le droit
des traitéscodifie un principe si évidenique l'on a pu errdire

qu'ilconsrituait sous une forme négativeune autre definition du
traitéinternati~nrtl."~~

EGccptions to this fundainenta1 su Ie must be interpreted strict-ly.This
explains the reluctarrce of the ILC to irrtroduce irrto the Viknrra
Co~rventianon the Law of Treaties any suc11category as "territorial

-treatiesWor "objective regi1nes".5~

1-24, Srrchregimesarise oriIy in excepriona1 çituatio11ç.5~ Itiç true that
treaty provisions establishingbou~rdarissor specific territorialsituations

are generally accegted t> yIrirdstates. ~evei-t~ieless,twoele~rrentsmust
be taken inroaccount: the acquiescenceor accepta~~ce bythird States of
the partieç7.cornpe toensteblisIrthe territorial situationwtratever it,

50 Sofia. ZYJune1994;HC-M,An~rexes, vol3:nIrnex71 BollrHungaiy and SIovakia

Iravesigned the1994 DarrubcRiver Protection Con~e~rtion. For i& reIcvnn10
iheifuture rcIntionsseeHC-M.paras4.36-4.39.
j1 SC-M. para2.56.

Sec R Jennings & A Warts (cds). Oppe>rlieirrilrierirafiorLaiu (9th cdn.
Lo~ig~nais,Idondon,1992)vu11,p 1260.
5;
P Reurer. ..Du consenteniendes tiersaux nomies d-r~ntnlte-in A Bos and
H SbIesz(eds).Renfis~iiid LaivAhking, hsny5 in I~r!ernarionaiv in Honri~ir
ofWiiIiu~Ripl~rrgcnAsserInst~tut.he I-Iagr:c9%).p 156.
54 SeeP Cher, "Le pblerne deseffeisdcs irairésàI'fgadesEratst~crs"(I974iII)

142 Recueildescours 662.
j5 See A McNaii. "TreatiesPoducingEffccts 'Ergn Oinncs'.-Sc~it~rn orraidi 'T
Perasb-i(Gluffre,M11a11.957)vol2:1)2i,seealsuCahier, 1974.p663 fI: Inay be, and, in practice everi more irnpo~-tarit,wher11esthe regirhe
corrsti~utes thepue expl-essionof rheir ~es~siecriveir?renrioro crecite a

lerriror.iregirne.

"L'irnporra~~cede la voIonté des parties est apparue ...toutau
Iong de I'éIaboratiorides articles 35 et 36 de Ia Convention de
Vienrie. Ici aussi, iI XI-11b1e que Ies parties doivent avoir
I'interrtiorde créer des droits et des obIigations dans un but

d'intérêt

1.25. Inthe present case, Hungary and Czeclroslovakia souglit to
establish a "joi~rt i~rvest~ne~rt.Ireir ai~nwas poIiticaI and econornic:

Cliapter.One of the Tseaty does not mention iravigation. It ca~i~rot be
conteridecl tlrat the colnrnori wiIof the two parties was "de créerdes
droirset des obIigations dans un but d'intéret ge~ré,aI".~~ The wIioIe

focus was joint contml, joint management and even joint properiy in
respect of the Systern by the two States.5g For- aII tlrese r-easoris,
SIovakia cannot atrribute arr "objective chasactes" to a situation
uni1;ireraIIyimposed onHunga~y.~~

/
(iiT)heT~eat)a ,ndrheinternarionalbouncfav

-1.25. There are two simpIe points Iiere. TIre firsisthe rniiior natureof

tirchanges envisaged to the characterof the bouridary, oIrce tlie Original
Prqject was oper-ati~e.~~The second is thataccording to Article 22123,a
separ-aterreaty was to be conc1uded to revise the baundary. Article 22
dissociates tfie Barrage System f~+ornrire agreed boundaiypJ while

recog~iisingtIiat thenavigat ional chanriel wouId rro Io~rgerfoIIow 01.be
ide~~tifiedwitli tlboundary for aIimited stretch of the river.

1.27. Fur Slovakia tu clairn tlre 1977 Treaty as 'Teri+irosiaIis to

srrbstitute for.tlreaI object an artificiaone. Its explicit object was fo
redise ajoint investrnerit. Notlii~~g,eçpeciaIly in ChaprerOne, "Purpose
oftfieTreaty", çuppo~fsthe conteirtion tira1the TI-eatywas inrended to be

territorial in charactei-. 1s itIikéIy tliatthe Treaty rvouId "instaII a
territoria1 regime withi11the rvlrole of tlre region cove~+ed by the GM

3G SccCalriei1974,p661.
57
The internationalright of navigation on the Da~iuis securcd by IIr1948
Convention,tu which Art 18 of rhe1977 Trcay icfersalid defei.See HM.
paras4.46-4.47
38 Sec 1977TreatyAnicIe O; I-IM,nnexes,vol3,annex 20,p 272.

59 SeebeIow:pai-zgraphs.18-2.43.
60 HM, Annexes :013,annex 20:p 243.

, ~hisco~~onds withTheiristov of !Iremalter: HM: paras4.57-4.39.Psoject",S2 a regio~ri~rciuding Nagymaros, Iocated soIeIy on Hu~rgarian

tei-ritory? A "territorial regi~ne''oveOU1km in Icngth is IroteasiIy to be
pseçu1-~red.

(iii) TheTi-mryandihe "apprr1131'iuIio onrrlale~righrs

1.28. SIovakia's appsoach to justifying Variant C appears tu be baçed
upo~rthe view tbat tire 1977 Tsenty gave if "pesmarie~-rtiglitç" overan

agreed qua~rtityof rvater. The poi~rt is not ~rradeexpIicitIy in tlre
pleadi~rgs, but it was rnade i1-dipio~natic cosresponde~-rce,and it is
reflected irrirrte1.na1government docun-re~rts. For exampIe, in Octobei-
1989 CzechosIovakia infor~r-redHu~~garythat the "prov isiorial soInrion

ivou1d ~ntaiIdirecti~rga.r~r~uc h urei.intotheGabeikow da111as agreed
i~rthe Joi~rtConrractuaI PIan".63 Si~niIar-Iy,iJanrrary1992 the SIovak
Government toak the view tllat tlre "psovisiona1 solutio~r"was subjecto

tlre conditio~rtfiat "wates flow intthe Dariube bedhas TO be secut-ed in
accordance with the amount determineci in [tire Joirit CoiitractuaI
PI~II]".~" Tlie urrderiying assurnption seuns to have been that Hr~nga~y
had conceded a quasi-proprietosial or vested rigrrt over the quanrityof

wates detem~ined by the JCP.

1.29. Hu~rga~y denies that the Treaiy was intend* to estabIish a
perrna~rentaIIocation of water rig1irç. A fo~lior ti, JCP, given itç

subordi~rateand iristrurnental roIe, couId 11otIravedone

(c) The ''intaurgibilil y of& 1977 Tmary

1.30. SIovakia argues tkat,since Yhe 1977 Treaiy contains no revisiori
clause", "CzecIrosIovakia was...u~rder no duiy to corisult or- ~regotiate
concerning the arnend~r-renotr rem~inationof the 1977Treaty".66

1.31. However, orice serious issues Iiad been saisedas to trieco~rtiriued
viability of theTreaty, bath frorn aIr e1rvir61rmentaand econo~nic point
of view, tire pa~~ieswere obIiged tu u~idertakein goad faith mea~ringfuI

negotiatio~isto address tirese concern~.~~ Tu seek Iorefute this argrr~nerrt

G2 SC-M, pra 2.51.
t3 HC-M:Aiinexes,vol3'annes 47 (e~nplrasisaddecl).
64
InforrnaIioDocu~rrenNo 239 for snh~nissioiiarthe meeting of the Slovak
RcpubI~cNationaAssembly .anuary1992; HR:Anneses,vol 3:aIine84.
65 FU^tliissue othe 1977 Treav asa "tcri-itoi- al rein the coritextstare
successioseeheIortr:paragrap3.143-3.11.

6G SeeSC-M:para9.22.
67 HM, para6.71;IIC-M.para4.24.by reference to tl-reabsence ofa 1.evisionclause issui-prisi~-rgp,arricuIarIy
in the case of a bilaterd fi-arnewofk treaty gorre1-1-ri1 ire use of an
i~nportantshared riarusalsesour-ce68

132. SIovakia aIso argues thar Hrrrigary had failed to slro~v'batleast a
'priirrafucie' case" as to the existe~rce of grour-rdsfor the amendn-rent of
the Treaty.fi9 At one IeveI this iç simply a joindei of issues: Hungary

açserts, and Slovakia denies, that there were very serious gsounds for
conceilt, sucf1 that the Origirial Project could riotproceed as pla~ined.
This is one of the issues for the Cour?, and it wiII be discussed i1-r
Sectio~iC, beIow.

1.33. But the argument tl-ratno pl'irrrfncie case Ilad been made out
a~nounted in yrucrice to an insisterice by CzecIrosIoi~akia that tlre
OiigiiraI Prqjact rnust proceed as pIanried, without esse11i1aI

~r~odification.~~ No doubt Hui-rgaryassumed the risk of pi-oving before
an indepe~ident third par9 that its colicerns as to the Project we1.e
justified. But eqrtaIIyCzeclrosIovakia assunred the risk of i-ejectingthose

coricerns ir?limine, as being not even prima faciejustifred - wliich is
what i~isubstance it did from October 1989 oriwardç. Neirher. par-ty
could be ajudge in itçown cause i~itfiis I-espect.

(2JTHE 1977 TREATY AND GENERALINTERNATIONALLAW

134. The Court is to apply iri the present case the applicable treaties
and any relevant ruIeç of generaI inter~~atiorial TIrrce
corisequences folIow: first, the 1977 Treaiy inust be interpreted and

applied irr Iight of gerrer-al internatio~ral Iaw; seco~ld, itç application
cannot be separated from tlie IegaI frameivork existing at the ti~rieit \vas
irnpIemented; alrdthird, tI.rCoui-i nrnst take into account the subsequent
evolutiorr of geneeral i~rte~.natianaIlaw. TII~ I877 Treaty should be

i~~terpreeedand appIied "withiri tIieframework of tlre e11tire IegaI systenl
prevaiIing at the ti~ne of its inte~pretation".~ TIiiç Iasr point is of
particuIar i~nportance.

tg As poinied ou!inOp~leirl~eik InicrirniianLait(9tli ed~~,pI25.i''cucnif tire
IreaIyexyi-esslye.ucIude5a~nciidirrenst.incc[liepartiescanalrvi10ri.aivor
amcnd thal provisioitsc'.

69 SC-M,paia9.22.
Cf I-IC-M.paix2.22. On IheCzecliosIovarefusaltu contemplate aiiyaniendrnents
IO tli1977Treaty iiselsec HM.paras6.30-6.43:TIC-M,paras2.26-2.56.

71 SeeSpeciaIAgreenient .i72: HC-M; para6.04 ff.
72 HC-M, esppxa 6.12. (a)Sluvakiu 3 equivocnlpusifion ~stu

gcned inrermlionnl law

135. Slovakia's treatrne~rt of this issue is equivocaI, exIl

contradictory. On tlre one hand, it irrsists that"a rule of i~~rernarional
law, wllethercustomaryor conventio~taI ,oesnot operate ina vacuum; it
operates in r-elationto factsand in the context of a wider frarnewoi-k of
IegaI rrrlesofwhich irfonns o1i1ya Urithe other hand, it artacks

"Hurlgaiy's rnisguided ernphasis on the ge~reralirrternatiooal law of the
enviro1irne1rt",7~a~rdseeks toexcludethe appIicatio11of every pr-e~ailing
ruIe of gene~+aiI~rtei~~atio~rIalw by "absorbing'Yit into rIie provisiorisof

thc 1977Treaty.75 Hungary agrees with the former view and rejects tI~e
Iaiier.

1.35. As indicated in Chapter One ("Prispose of tlre Treaiy"), its

essentiaI ain~ was the construction of a Bai-rage Systern. Nevertheless,
consiçtency witir erivirorrrnentalprotectio~rwas psovided for i~iAr-ticles
15 rthe quaIity of watert'),76 19 ("protectiori of rrat~re"),~~and 20

("protection of fishinginteres~s").'~

1.37. These airicleswere impo17ant i11severaI respects. First, they
established certain specifIc obligatio~is as,to the protection of tlie
e~iviro~~~nen t.Ycovrd,tl~isin turn estabIisI~eda srrbsta~rtialIirrbetween

the Treaty and ge~~er-a 1ternationaI Iaw, as it evolwd and n~aturedafter
1977.73 Accordingly, Hurigary doeç riot accept Slovakia's
characterisation of the 1977 Treaty as a "/ex ~~cialis"~~ nor does it

agree tliat Articles 15, 19,a~td20 rnerely refIect"the standardsof ge11era1
iirtei~rationaIIaw" asat 1977.81

SC-M. IlarI.05c.iingIil~erpre~nfofilrAgreenieM625 iibrch 1951bcfirreen
theJICH UndEgypr,ICJRep 1980,p76.
SC-M: para9.01-9.15.

Thisappruach 1sparticulai1-eflcc!iiiSC-M.paras9.O3ff.
See HM: pai-a6-13 ff.

HM.paras6.22 ff.
HM, paras6.27 ff.

For a sirnilarlybroad approach to Ihe interpietarion oa nari-orvIdcfined
"poIIr~tioi-rovision in a Treay. see the decisionof theInte~nationalJoint
Corn~riissio(CanadaDS) co~icen~i~ithe 1909 Boundary Water Trea~y irrthc
GarrisonDivei-sionUiritCaseartlicHigIrRoss DaiiiCasc:HR.vol2, Appendix3.

SC-M:pra 1.39.
SC-M, pais1.39.1-38. RatI~er, Huilgary accepts Slovakia's descripriori of rlre
envirorirne~~tal provisio~is as "ge~rei-aI, on-goi~rg arid continuous
obIigatio~is"~~w11icI1 couid give effect ta an evoiutionary appioach to

technical srandards and the state of scie~itific know iedge as tl~ey
de~elop.~~ Ariy other appr-oac1-w r uld freeze the 1977Treaty in time,
a11drequise international Iaw "to erifor-ceout~r~oded science".s4 It itrue

ttrat tlie 1977 Ti-eaty i~nposed onIy "reIativeIy generaI Iegal
obligat io1rs7'85in relation to t11e erivirorr~nerit. But by theis very
geriei-ality those provisions couid evolve as genesal inksnationai Iaw
evoIved.

I.39. The equivocation i~rSlovakia's pmitio~rappea1.s for example i11
the fu1Iowirrg passage:

"In the period prior fo tlre Tr-eaiy's coriclrrsio~~t,lie pai-ties i11
effect appIied generaI priiiciples of environmental impact

assess~nent- iuhich, everr if tlrey Inay have some rrormative
force today, Irad not acquired that character i~itlie 1970s - by
corrducti~rgthe riuInerous studies that Ied to the decision to
,appsove the Project ~I1974 aridIo ils fina1de~ign."~6

Hungav does d roagree tliat the studies identifid by SIovakia satisfred
the condition ofan enviro~ime~rtalimpact assessrne~~t.~~But the SIovak
positiori refects uneasiness as to the normative status of devcIuping

rules. SirnilarIy, havi~igderiied aily IegaI cl-raracteto €lieRepo1.t of the
WorId Corn~rrissiorion E~lvisonmentand Develupment or other "soft Iaw
instrumenrs",88 it not %nly accepts the priricipIe of sustairrabIe
deve1oprne11tbut briilds a Iarge part of its argumentation on it. But

sustainable development oriIy e~ner-ged as a IegaI terIn in 1987, being
giverr fornral and widespread legal recogriition by the Rio DecIaration of
199ZX9 Slovakiais wiIIi11gta reIy on "soft" concepts and principIes
which emerged after 1977 w1ier.etliey suppor he exigenccieç of ils

case.90

SC-M:pm 2.30.

SGM, paras 2.27-2.34.
SeeSirRobcrt Jc~r~~iicikd beIotr, aragraph3.107.

SC-M, pra 2.33
SC-M,para9.0%

HC-M: paras1.23-140:seeaIsoScienr~QîcunluutionHC-M: voI 2.cliap 7.5
See SM:pans 8.1 11-8.112.SeealsoSC-M.para9.57.

14lune 1992.UN DocAICONF 131126, 1.p8.
E.g..InternarionConferenccon Watei.aiidthe E~rviron~rret:evei~p~rrenItssues
for the 2Isr Century. 26-31 Januaty, 1992: Dubli~r: Ireland, "'I'he Dubliii1.40. The same seIective appsoach chasacterises its position concerning

~iri~~ciplesf gener-a1applicatiorr rr~~dei-ibsequerit ti-eaties. It seetos
accept - since it invokes - the reIevance of treatiessuch as the 1991
Espoo Coriventioir oii Errvii-ori1nerita1Impact Assess~ne~it iri a
Transboundary Conte~t.~' But itgoes on to state that:

"Any IIIes of genesal internatiorra1 envimnnrenta1 Iaw tlrat

deveIoped subseque~it to the concIusion of the 1977Tseaty and
that ruese both (a) more specific than a~rd(tr i)consistent witlr
the provisio~rsof theTr-eaiycould o~ rydisplace tlrose provisio~~s
if it wer-e establiçhed tliat botIr parties ro the TI-eay...so

intended-''92

1.41. Theissucisratherhow to ensure tlieimplerneritationof the 1977
T~aty in an evoIving rnanner consistent with Ille Parties' ot11er

inter~ratiot~alobligatiorrs.The geriera1 1.111e sf interrratioria1 Iawfor-
protection of the environment which- have developed since 1977 and
wlrich we1.errotpersistcritlobjected 10 by either party to this disputare
applicable. ReIevant articIes of tlie Treaty shouid be i~rterpretedarrd

applied in conformity with thern. CzechosIovakia br-eachedobIigations
flowing f1.011A1iTicIes 15, 19 and 20 of the Treaty, inlei. ah, by not
carrying out any in-depth e~ivironrneiitaIstudy,93 I>y rrot e~rsur-inthe
preveritiorrof damage ro wates Izesonrces,nature, dora, fauna, çoils,

agricultuse and forestry,g4 and,i~iparticular, by 11ottaki~rgirito accouilt
tlre potentiaI irrevesçible effects of the Barrage System on water
resources alid biodi~ersity.~~ It refused to cooperate in a spirit which
wouId have aIIoured a serious investigation into the effects of the

Prqject,Yh~rce evidence indicating seriousprobIems had been presented.
I~rstead,the Pr-ojectwas to be compIeted, by wIlaTever means, and its
results could tberibe "~nonitored". TIrisde~riedtlre prwentive appr-oacli
of e11viron1rrenta1protection reflecnd both in provisio~ls ofthe 1977

Treaty a11dirige~-1erai~ite~~nationalw.

Stntcrnciri~:1-cprodi~rLJNDuc AJCUNF I.lIPCJI12. Annex 1p 7,citcdin
SGMr para9.61; Agend21. citeSC-M:para9.60.

91 SC-M' pal-a9.30.
92 SC-M: para9.99.

93 HM. paras6.32-6.49.
HM: para6s.57-6.63.

95 HM: paras5.64-6.69.
95 b1M,paras6.70-6.81. 01) The 1977 Trrtdy und the obligarionrocovperare

1.42. According to Slovakia, thepalTies-

"co~r-rpIiedwith the ge1iera1obIigation to cooperate by rlie very
negotiatioria~rdconcIusiorr of tlre1977 Tseaty.

1.43. TI-risisnot, horuever, tlie end of the matter. TI-reTreaty did flot
exliaust "the fuffil~neritof tli..obiigatiozi to coope~+atein seIation tu
shared freshruater resor11-ces".~8The general obIigation to cooperate is

deeply rooted i11tlre internatioria1IegaIorder?and has beeii specificaIIy
endorsed iirthe context of susrainabIe deveIoprnen7 a11drvatescourse
Ia~s?~

"[I]IIevoIving areasof Iaw ..the obligation to co~rrrnunicace and
discuss ivitlr tlre other partyhaç becorne essentiaIIy paif of tlre

substantive nor~ns ..11ifor1-1iontsliarirrgand consultation...have
beco~nean eIement in co~npliance with tlie substa~itiveIrorms
thernseI~es."~~~

1.44. The obligation to ccioperate iritlre protection of the errviip~t~rre~it
was streçsed by the Arbitra1Tribuna1 in the Lac Lanoux Cuse.lol It is
rot Ii~niredto the concIusiurrof treaties: a treary is not a goal in itselfTt
inspires aIso tlie general rklatio~rs of countries co~rcei~redin tlre
-
deveIopment and protection of a given ~egiori. III t11isrespect, the
obligatiorrto cooperate carrnot be separated frorn the pr-i~icipie of good
faith. This prirrciplerequires the pai?iesto an international agreeine~~tto
cornpIy w itlr incorparateclevoIvi~rgnorms, i~iparaIIelwith tlre evoIution

of "reIevant factç and circr~~nstarrces o2 This appIies especiaIIy irrthe
case of a biIatera1agreement in whiclr there içn8 designated arnertd~nent
procedure.

97 SC-h4.para3.18.Tosi1niIai~effect,set.fIM,prira6.72.
9g
SC-M:para S.18.
5i9 Rio Declaralion, PrirrcipIe 2: also fhe work of Ihe UNIECE, beIorv.
parapaphs3 100-3.1O1,ii&es233-240

R Higg~ns,--1nri.oductRe~nar-ks"T,opi2, UNCongrcss onPr~blicI~rternational
Laru, 1Mar-ch 1995,pp3-4.
'O1 Lac Lano~rxArbifi-afion (finfvcSpin) (1357)24 ILR IO1at 129-30 and sec

HC-M,paras6.47-6.57.
Io2 As ackncrwledgedin SC-M,paix9.16.1.45. Hungary and Slovakia agree thar rI~epri~~cipleof sustainable
deveIoprne~-rta ,s formuIated -in the BrundtIand Repo1t,lo3 tlie Rio
Deciaratio1i~04 a~rdAge~-rd a1 Io5 is applicabIe tothis dispute. Brrrtlrey

disagreeon its171eanina gnd itçapplicatiorrtotiie facts.

1.46. Hunga~y is not "ariti-deveIoprnerit" w "anti-darno'.lo~ts
approach is w11oIIycorisiste~~twith international Iaw in the fieId of

sustainabIe deveIopme~~t orle wIrich treats e~rvii-unmentap lrotection as
an iniegrnl partof the developn~ent process.

1.47. Internariona1 law in the FreIdof sustainable developmcnt is now -

suficierrtly weII established, and both Parties appear to accept tliis'O7
Butaccarding to Slovakia,Hungary'sapp~+oacr Irflectsa "singIe-minded
pursuit of e~tvironrne~~tp arotectioil01- the non-attention of the status
c&"'lOs Hu~iga~ywishes "to frustrate efforts to acl~ievesocial and

eco~~oi-~r dieveloprne~it",'~~cor11rseIs"blind pussuit of environmenra1
values in isolation fsom Iiumay need~",~~ and takes an "absoIute
position tfiatenviip11rne1itaconsiderations forecIod seveIoprne~itof the

freshwater resources ifshareswith SIovakia".I II

1.48. These daims are urisupporred by the evide~ice. Hungary was
concerned tu eIrsure that tire 1977 Treaty was impIenre~rted so as to

balanceenvironmentaland deveIopmentaIneeds. Slovakiaby contrast is
seIective in its reIiance on the applicable i~rstrrrrnents,incIudi11g
Agenda21 .IIZ Itfocrrses ori P~I? A of Chapter 18 (Integrared v1atei-
resources deveIogrnentand mai~agement)but ignores tlre six othei-parts

concerning otlier progranrmeareas, wlricliare of particulasreIevance foi-

SC-M.para9.59.

SC-M.paras953-9 55
SC-M,paras9.57-9.59.

As SC-M.paras9.G 1:9.65alIeges.
SC-M,para9.54, note15. Hungaiyivouldadd PrincipIc2cfttrc Rio DecIaiztIOn
theIisrof Principlesdescrihedasbeing'pariicuIinteresto IIrdispute.

SC-M,paia 3.35.
SC-M, para9.55.

SC-M,para9.59(ernghasi asdded).
SC-M. para9.64.

SC-M, paras9.57-9.60. the present case."VThus Sectiori C of Clrapter IF caIIs for the
protection of groundwate~. and aquatic ecosysterns, which are to be

psesenred frorn "any form of degradation on a drainage basi11basis".''3
Agenda 21 aIso supports otl-rer-riorrns r-eliupon by Hungary: the
poIIuter payç ~rinciyle; a precautionary approadi i~r water qualis

rna~ragerneritmandatory environmenta1impact assessrnart on al1 major
rvaterresource deveIoprnent projects potentially impairing water quaIify
and aquatic ecosysterns,a~rd use of riskassessrnentand risk mariagenrent

in reachingdecisions and ensur-i~rgcornpliance with them.l15
i
I.49. Each of these eIan.re~.rts consistent witll Hrrngary's approach.
The desire to prolect the drirrkirtg water supplies and biodiversiry is
corrsiste~t itfi applicabIintcrnationa1 noms, as reflected irrAgenda 21

and the 1994Danube River P~+otectionConve~rtion. II6

1.50. For deveIopmenr to be çustairrable, it rnrrrecognise the links
between develop~rteritarrd the Iife conditions of future gene1.ations.I7

TIre scientific studiepr0dLI~edby Hrrngary sliow tIrat thesituationthat
would have been created by tlie OriginaI Project was not sustai~iabII8~

rd)Pre vention and p~ect.lurion

1.51. BotIr Parties accept the existence a? a11 reIevarit tirnesof an

obligation to prevent serious envirori~nental Iiar~rr.~'Where the two
sides differ is (a) otlre extentof the obligation,(b) the degreeof hamr
to be prevented, and (c) Irow far Hungary has to go to prove tlre
IikeIihoodof harm,

1.52. Again SIovaki maischaracterises Hurrgary's approach. Hungary
never ~Iaimedthar tlre obligation to prevent harm iç absoIute.1~ It0

Seeesp,Agenda 21, Chaprer18. SectioC.(Protection owaleireson~ces.rvarer
quaIily aiaquaticecosystems)D (Drinking wier suppIyand sariIationE,
(Waterand susIainabledeveloprnenr).

Agenda 21, chap 18.paras 18.37-18.38 (UN Doc AIConf IfiIPLG)(emphasis
added).Seealschap 18.para 18.35.The naIionaIreportof Czech andSIovak
FederaIRepublilu the Rio Conference expresslyrecognisedllrreposed by
thGNBS lurvaterresources. alsoHC-M, Intra,para 16.
lbid: ch18,para18-40.

Sofia,29June1894;HC-M. kr~rexes: v3:annex 71.SeeHGM, paras4.23-4.39.
SlouakiaapparenragreesSGM, para9.54.

HM, paras 3.30-5.9 HM;:Appendices 1-3; HC-M. paras 1.46-1.168;Scien?ijic
EvuIuufzunHC-M, vol2. SeebeIo~v.paragraphs86-192;1 100-1.140.

SC-M,paras9.67-9.69HM, paras6.57-6.65.7.05,7.7HC-M, par4.24.
SC-M,para9.58agreeç tliat tlie applicable standardis that reflectedin tI- arvard of the
Puil Sinelre~arbiti-atio~r."' ItwiII be for tlie COUI~to decide wl~ose

ev idence issufficiently"clear ah convincing". IZ"

1.53. Hunga~yspecificaIIy i~ivokesthe test referred tu by Ausistria in

a1.gume1itin the Nuclear Teds Cases: activitiescannot be corisidered to
be IawfuI unless they are "generaIIy regarded as natrrraI uses of territoiy
in rnodei-IIirrdustria1society and are toIerated because, wIiiIe perhaps

psoducing some inconvenience, tl-reyhave a co~nrnunitybe1refit".IZ3The
IikeIy consequences of tlie Original -projecl \vent far beyond mere
i~~convenience, or an iricidenta1 arrd toIerabIe effectof an otlienvise
sociaIIydesisable scherne.

1.54, This appi-oaclr isconsisrent witl~ the ILC Draft A~-ticIeçon the
Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of InterilationaI Watercourses, a1su
selectiveIy quoted by SIovakia. IZ4 Of particuIar reIevance is A~ticIe

2 I(2):

"Warercourse Statcs shaII .. .pvent, reduce and contr-01pollutiorr
ofan iiiter.~iationalwatei-coursetlrat arny cause significarit 1ra1~1n
10 other watercuurse States or to their environment

By contrast SIovakia impIies that the injury must Iiave alreudy
occur~red.26

Slovakia aIso argues tlrat the precantionary pr-i~rcipleis rlot yet
I.55.
partof international Iaw.IZ7 But the generaI practice of States since
1989 slrows tlre ernergence of tlie principle of precautionary action,
associated witli.arid grafied o~i to tlie weII-estabIished p~+i~lcipI .of

preverrtion.IZ8 The precaut ionary principIe iscIearly expresseclin terms

SC-M. para8.69 andsee3 UNRIAA 1738at 1963.
HM,paras 7.45-7.36HC-M,paras 6.29-6.41.
~t'~iclIèm Cases,A~isiralvaFrance.PIeadings.525-525.

SC-M,para 3.711.

Emphasis added.The II,CCommenrarymakes iIcIearrhaAi-i21applies10th1-ears
offuture harm: Repor~OJ iheIniernniinlzINW Coniinissiorl (A141, 1334).
236 ff.
SC-M,paras 9.69,9.74.

SC-M.para 9.80.
See D Freestone,'-ThePrecaulionay PrincipIer in R ChurchiIIDaFreestone.

InternaliannLaw and GlubuiClirnuiChange (Tijhoff. 11) p2 1K. SeealsuA
Kiss andD SIrcItoIriler.nurioEfivi~oniiicnraiLo[Trans~rûtio~IubIistrers,
II-vinglon-on-I-ludsw 19pp)64-67.69,SI95; A K~ssandD SIrelton.hfanrrulof
Gu-nj~ennEnvironliieniLaw (Grorius PuhIications; 1993) pp 37-33, 1234, r-eflective of custornary law iiitire Bergen Ministeriar Declaration orr

Sustainable Deveioprnent in the ECE region of May 1990,Iz9 in
PI-i1icip115 of the Rio Declaratio~i, in two universa1 con~entions,'~~tlre

Maastricht Treaiy or1Errropean Union,I7I and the UN ECE Convention
on the Protectiorr aiid Use of Transboiindaiy Watercourses and
Internariona1 Lake~.13~ This is stsong evidence of an emergirrg

acceptance of €lie precautio~iaiy psi~icipie - especialiy in tlie region
affected bythis dispute.

I.56. more ove^; tlie precantionary priricipIe Iras been suppofled by
SIovakia in tlie 1494Danube River Protection Convention,'33 a11d irrthe
- Strategic Actiorr PIari for the Danube River Basin 1995-2005, drafted in

the frarnework of the Enviro111nen~a P1fogramrnefor the Danube River
Basin.'j4

1.57. Oespite its citation of authorities to rlrecontrary, at no pointdoes
SIovakia aciuaIIy deny the appIicabiIiiy of precautionary principle.I35

Where the parties disagree iç rather on the appIication of the principIe to

261.2g 1,455; H Hohmann, Prerauiionc~zLegul Dufiesand hnc~yles QJ Modern
Iriiei-nnrianalEnvironnrenlalL(Nijhoff, 1394) 12.334, 341, 344; T Ijlstra,
'"MarinePuIIution". YbInr?Enviro~iirrentiaw 2 (13311,p 147.

129 Bergen, 16 May 1990, pam 7; IFE (ITBIICi-05-90).This i~s suppo~ted by
CzecIrosIo~akiaand Hungary.

130 Fl-arneworkConvenlion 011Cliiirale Change. (1992) 31 ILM 849' Art 3(3):
Conue~rtio011BioIogicalDiversity(1992)3 1ILM8 18,preambIe;Rioneclaration
on Environnienand Devebpment. Pi-1ncip115.
I3'
Maasiricht7 February I992,At 130 R, (932)3 I ILM147.
13= Helsinki17 March 1992,An 2(5)(a),(1992) 1ILM 13 12.SIovakiaargues rhaithe
HelsinkiConucntion is not relevaArt2(5) issaidtube restrictcd 10the i-eleaseof

hmrdous subslances 0111~:SC-M, para 9.24 and nole28. This ignores tlie
definition of "transboundary ~nipacr" givenhy the Co~r~e~rfioiiitself rony
sigrrificaadverse effcct on tlie e~rviian~rrraquIiingfrom a chnngc i~i tlic
conditron of transbou11daiivatcrscaused by a human activity... (Art I(2);
crnplias~sadded).
I33
HC-M, Annexcs, vol 3' anne,71 . See An 1(4):..TIrcPollutepays yrincipIand
the Precaurionaiy principle coirstitute a bufoi a11 measures ai~niirnt tire
proteciion ottrDa~rubeRiwrand ofthe wateiswitliinifscatchmentarea."
134 Sc, HR, voI 3. Annexes,annex 102, csp scctIon1.6,Fundamenta1Principles and

ApproaclresforEnvironmentaIProtectioii,para 32. aseealsopara33
13' SC-M,para 9.90.SC-M, para9.80cites P W Bi~iiieandA E BoyIe,inleiliori~noi

Laluand rliEnvironirrei(CIarendon Press,Oxford: 19921,p 38ouiof conresr. In
fact thcy insis1oir rhe obIigatioprevent env~roiimentiham: ibid, pp 95-35
r...Iisnoru...rmarily an obligarionof diIige11tpiel~entionand coandoin ttris
sense:it can be raid ~Irariir~eiaational law aIready adopts a 'precautio~rap
approach"'S).eeaIsopp 303,413,455.the facts.I3 Hungai-ydoes notdaim that tlreprincipIeisab~oIute.~37It
I-rastobe appIied in a baIancedfashion, îaking i~iroaccou~rtbof? the
gravis of the i~itei-esirivoivedarrdthe Iikelihoodof harm. But in key

respects,iriHuiigary's view tlre pr-ecauitonary approacharasnot appIied
ar ailtuthe Project. The1.ewaç no proper EIA irdation to theOriginaI
Project, before or after 1989.138 SIovakia does 1101eveIrcIairnto have
appIied the grincipIeto VariantC. I39

1-58. Hungary irivokedtlre pi-ecarrtiorrpi-incipIeto seek a scientific
re-examination of the IikeIy consequences of the Origi1-ra1Pr-oject. No
systernaticenvironmentalassessrnenthadbeen carrieci ont. Hrrnga~y did
not ask rfiatCzecIrosIovakia "de~nonstrate with scientific cerîaintythat

the PrqjectwouId norcause I~arrn''.~~I~ts behaviouiwas fuIIyconsistent
with generally recognisad international pri~rcipIesthe niore so si~iceit
had to protect orle of its 11iajornaiural resources from parentiaIIy
irreversibIeIianriI4I

SECTION C. THEORIGTNALPROJECT: THE ISSUES
IN DISPUTE

1.59. This Sectiori anaIyses the r-easorrsfor- tIiedispute owr the

Original Project, as it arose in 1484and asitdeveIopedtlrer-eafier. TIie
questiorrforthe Court may be forrnulated asfoIIows:

(a) were ihere s@cientiy serious environmental concerm
associnted with rhe operaliopr ofthe Originnl Projecl, borh
downxii=emn anCfups~?-ea~l ru warraut suspemiotz of wor-k
and ufuil-scnle rcview of theProjeci; and

fi)if hos sceoncms wepe juslified, were ~lwy ~-~@cieuf to
warrant subs~nnlinimnod~$carian Eoor abaPrdor?nre nrlhe

'frojecr. eilher irrwhole or as ro eilhel-of ils cotnponent
paris?

'36 SC-M,paras9.23-8.24.
'37
ButseeSC-M, para932.
38 HC-M,par-asI.201.I; Scienr@cEvaiunrion,HC-MvoI2:d~ap7.5-7.6.

139 SC-M,para9.84.
140 Bu1cf SGM, para 9.89.
141 SecHM, paras7.85-7.86.1O.17-101.I60. ReçoIntioriof tliis inrpo~rantissue reqrrires tlreCourtu r-esolvea
nurnber of issues of dispund fact. and having done so to appIy the

appropriate IegaI standard - the standard of necessity - to those facts.
TIris Sectio~rsu~nrnarisesthe factuaI disputes; tlte Iegai cu~~sequenceare
drawn in Chapter3, Sectio~rA, within the framewoskof the questio~istlre
Cou1-iis to resolve nnder Arricle 2 of the SpeciaI Agreement.142

1.61. As to the issues of fact I-eIati~rto tlre Origi11aIProject,.the
foIIowingspeci ficquestions need tu be considered:

(If Was a proper EIA (or its equivalent) ever carried ont on the
OsiginaI Project?

(2) Were tlrere studies pr-iorto [Ire suspe~rsiooif construction which
provided rtsufficie~~tasis forHunga1-iarcioncenrs and actions?

(3) Did tlie çrateof work on the OrigiriaI Project as of May 1989
preclude a reassessment of fhe Treaty?

(4) Do studies producedduring the suspension of construction of
Nagyrnaroçand sirbsequenr to termi~ration co~ifir~the vaIidib of

Hungai-iaiicoriceriis?

(5) CouId diese concerris Irave bee~iaddressed by specific rernedial
rneasures?

1.62. The parties disagree on the answers to these qnestioris.
Slovakia liresponsesare as folIows:

(1) "Environn~e~itaIissues were carefuIIy studied both prior to and

tlri-ouglroutthe periodby bath partiesto the 1977 Trea~."'~~
(2) 'none of the scienrific reports..ropvided erivironmental reasons to

suppo1-t tlre Hu~igaria~r Goverriment's atternpt tu deIay tlie
Pr0ject."I4~ '

(3) "TIte aba~rdorr~nentof tlie Project for Czechoslovnkia wouId
cIearly..have been economicaIIy disasr~.ous."I~~

(4) "[T]Iier-eis~io support for Hungary's daims tliat firsr Nagy~rrar-os,
and then DunakiIiti, couId not be made operable because of the
threatposecito tlie e~iviip~~rnerrt."~~~

142 Seebelos,:pragraphs3.03-3.40.
143 SC-M-paw 4.01(e~riplrai~iorigina1).

144 SC-M,pam4.35.
14j SC-M: para7.132.

14' SC-M:para 7.03.1977 Treaty7"s1 and rhat "where considered riecessary, [the Trertty] was
updated by cornmon agreement to rakeaccount of the Iatest research and

anyteclrriological de~leIo~~nents".l~ Hungary's position is that aIthoug11
some seIected environmenra1 issuem say have been "carefully studied",
the issues were rrever comprehensi\~eIy studiedinthe rnanner required for
projects of thisty and that updates çouId onIy "take accou~~tof the

Ia~estresearci-r...""if a fuIIEIA was performed.lS5

{u)The nurrrber of srudies

1.66. First, SIovakiasuggests that tlre riu~nbeof studies cai-riedour on
the OriginaI Projecl is indicativeof tlieir compi~herrsivenesd What is

criticalis not the nutnber- of studies, but tliescope of issues addressed,
the qualiiy of eaclr çrudy, and [Ire extentto wlrich tire differ.ent çtudies
Irave been iufegruled to provide a coherent overview of the
enviro1rrrre1rtaprobIems yo~ed.'~~ TIiese criter-iawere not met by

studies doire priorQI.subsequent tu tlie1977Treaiy.

1.S7. HighIigIrting the Czedroslovak 1975-76 Bioproject, Slovakia
11otes "the favourabIe cornparison between the Bioproject a11d

env iso111ne11taa1sessrnents carried out during the sa~r-rperiod in North
A~nerica"I.Fg and co~~cIudesthat "[ilt wouId be diffrcuh to envisage a
more co~npiex orcampleteexalninationofthe effectof the Projecton the

environmerit" tlrarithe Biop~oject.'~~

I.68. Hungaiy Iraç requesfed access to the studies co~rstitutirig tlie
Bioproject on at Ieast four occasions. No response has been received

fro~rrSIovakia.160 The Cou1-IshouId draw its owii co~rclusio~isfrorn fhe
unwilIing~-ressto make inforraation avaiIable. Tfdocu~ne~rtsreIating to

SC-M, para 4.0(e~npliasinoriginal).

SC-M. para4.35.
See HC-MTpras I.23-1.41;L Heiis 1994. I-IC-M,Anncxcs, voI 4 (part 2):
annex23:chap 5.

SC-M, pal-4 432.
HC-M. parris1.31.41.

See SM. paras 2.17-2.22SC-MT paras 4.04-4.0 Fo. oilresludies ouisidthe
fra1riemo16of theBiopiojcctsee SM. paras 2.IO-2.16;SM. AnIreses, voI 2,
annexes23 and24.
See I-iC-M, para1.24;sceaIso L Hens 1994. HC-M. Annexes,voI 4 (part 2).
pp843-85 1;see aIsoScienlgEvfiiiiaiiHC-M. vol2.chap7.5p ,p247-251.

SC-M,chap4, noteI1.
SC-M,paix 4.06.

Sceabove. paragrayh13Irore20,leitreferencetu ttcorrespondence.tliesubstance of arraIIegationare 11ot pIaced in evide~ice,t11entlie con^?
shouId infer rhat, "if there are sudi .report[s] artd stud[ies], tlrey do rrot

supporttheassertions [made]."361

1.69. SIovakiastates tl~at99 studies "reIating to waler qualiiy and

enviru~lme~~tiaslsues"J~' were cariied out prioi- to 1973.163 01rIy 16of
tliese reIated to tlre ilripartant subjects of wate~.quaIify, biology, arid
rature protection, a~rdof these 16, oriIy 4 were fully applied by tlie

project designers. Uniy 3addressedissuesof the naturai IrabitatilseIf.

1.70. Of the period after 1977,lfi4 SIovakia says tlrat "continuai
improvements were being made in the Iight of the 011-gaiiig

enviro~r~nentasItrrdyprograrns". B'6t5of "the detaiIed Iist of the Iiew
studies ca~ried out by Czechoslovakia &r the sigriatureof the Treaîy
and up tu 1990",166IIistedin Annex24 of tlre SIovakMe1rroriaI,'6~ aonIy

7 appear -to relate to ccosystems, groundwatel; location alternatives,
protectio~rmeasures or wares quaIity, ropics normaIIy cuver-ed in an
EIA.158 Si~icetlleyIravc not beerrmadeavaiIable,?IreCourthas no basis

uporrwhichto consider rheadequacyof tllesestudies.159

1.71. Hungaria~i studies prior to 1989 also failed to addresstlie issues

in a cumprelie~isive manner. Of tlre 340 comrnissionedresearchprojects,
only 24 addressed water qrrality, hydsobioIogicaI and ecological topics

SeeSC-M. prn 4.14,note 26 the ~-eki-e~isioa reporf,issucd on 28 Apr2952
mfricIrIiad concluded rhat vIeoiipeakenergy production iwre diverse aridthar
fufiher investigat\vas needed,(HM, para 3.47).SirniIa docume~rIsindicating a
lacl;ofcoiisensuabouithe Projecrvereannexed 10the Hr~ngarianMernorial,=rd a
c~pyuf tirrcpoi-iin question has bpiiron filwirhtireCourr.

SC-$4,para 4.04
SM, Annex 23 offcrssrulIIisofs~udiesprior Io 1973

In the period beIrveen 1374-1377,only 4 sIudies in SIouakia's"deiailed Iist'.1-eIate
to theseIopics. Yetthis \vaIIrc kcypeiiod when "tlrc panies ieffcctnppIied
gciienl principlofenvii-o~iincntailmpact assess~rre~it"S;C-M, para 9.05.

SC-M. para4.08.
SC-M, para 4-09(ernphasisi~roriginal).

AItl~wgh the Bioproject was -'updated"in,IV86 (SM, para 2-22], it is uncIeaz-
mlrettrcrtire 1986 upda~islr~diesare incIrrded in this An~rex.Funherniit is
noruhcrcstared thâtilsconclr~sio~isxwre actuaIIy adoptcd in the designs of the
01-ig~nal rojector lheimpIeirrenation of VariaC.

These are arnoagrirstudim rreques~edfionr SIovakia and not providedl src aIroi,a
paragnph 1.68.
SIovakia basrefuscd to provide ieqrrestudics sta~inthat-'[tIIrcactua1conlents
of rhc ~por~s,arnol reIevarrlto the contenrio. eItcfi-nr[Ir P 1-unikata Gy

Szen&i.3 August 1994;I-iC-M.@~rexes:wI 3.annex II, p38.''M~~I~OU Iiving an.vvers {O rhe que~rious pyi-opundeCr' . This suggests

tliar tlie OriginaI Psoject itseIf was rrevei-sr~bjectro a Eompsehensive
assessrnent. I I

1.72. SIovnkia repeatedIy invokes tlre Hydr-O-QuébeR ceport as "an
independen1review of t11ese[earIies] tud dies"' ^^But tliat Repoi? does
riot support its cIai111" :La solution technique éfa~rtdejh clroisie, ces

érrrdesrie portaienr pas sur uire cornparaiso~rde varia~rtes,mais bien
pIrrtôtsur I'optimisationdr~projet rete~rrr...."~~~ No strrdiesidentifid by
SIovakia address tlre desirabiIity of the Project or its ovei-a11

environmenta1costç os aItenrafives. Sucl; arrar~aIysisisa prerequiçitefor
an EIA.174

1.73. FinaIIy,SIovakiamus!be faken to have i-ecognised tlie Iackof an
adequaa envisonme~rtaIimpact açsessnrencin its appIication to the EC
PHARE programniefor hnds to underiake ari i~rrpactasseçsmenr. The

appIicafion stated that the GabEikovo secto~.1.eqiitre4 a "thorough and
cornplex study of a proper impact assessme~itmode1 to errsur-etlie

protection of ~iaturaI and anfhropic resorrrces, balancecl ecoIogica1
deveIoprnent, as weII as opti~nized decisi011 makirrg alid
rnanagerne~it."~~ It~wassubrniiiedinOcrober 1990.

1.74. SIovakiacites the posifiveconc1usio1o 1f tire1985 HurigarianEIS

in oi-der to de~r~o~rstra that "there were no environment-relatedi-easo~rs

I70 HM:Annescs,vol 5(part 1).anrics7.p 135(eiirphasis addecl).

171 As I-lungrirypointedouatthe lime:HM, A~~~rexev.ol 5 (pa1):annex 7ar p 141.
I7] SC-M, para 4.09(ernphasisadded) quoles Hydro-Québec Report asproof of that

yoiiit{i~rIIM.hiieseç. vol5 (part1).annex 9: at278-2791.Tlic passageqiiored
mcreIydcscribcstfrcnaturcofttiworkof ser~ciinsiilutesinCzechoslovakiii.
I73 HM- Annexes, volfi (part 1).ann3,p298.

174 According IO SC-M,para 4.1% tlie Hydm-Qr~ébecRcport cuntradiclskiungary's
sutenient thatsludies pria !o 1992 suffci-cdfi-ornserious insufficiencies.Bur
Hydro-Quebecpoinied out nu~nerousai-cas rvhere data \vas Iacking (MGM,
paras 1.32--37 1.14Il,asdid BechIeI(HC-M:para 1.140).

i7i HC-M.Annexes'voI3.annex 48. Fordiscussioiiscc HC-M.paras I.33, 2.53-2.63.
The SInvakMi~iis~ry of Eiiviro~riiie~ratnthr inrplementarioof Variant C
expressedseriousconcern tfrattli.iveIradbeen divenedrvithouta prciperimpact

assesSIneIr: C-MT hrnescs, vol3. annesfi7at p202:HC-M: pal-as21-21.why the Pi-ojectcould not continue."17s It nerier addresses-the adequacy
of that EIS.Iï7

1
1.75. The 1985 Hr~~rgai-iaS ritudy did not nleet i~lter~ratioriallacccpted
ci-iteriafor an EIS.'78 It did riot discuss the issues irr ari integrated
~na~~rier gave no basis for the inrerpretation of the tiata; did 1101 describe

the standards, assum~>tioiis or vaIues used; a~id Iefi nlany impo~.rarir
questio~~sunans~~esed.~~~ III palficular,it pl-ovided no irtfor~nationon
the Origi~raIProject 'seffect on ecosyste~r-rs.~~~ The Hungarian Acaderny

of Sciences co~rcluded that "[tlhe incornpIere state of tIre ecoIogica1
r-esearcli has not ceased to exist with the comp1etio1rof tl-re EIA."Igl

Like Hydr-O-Québec ,t stressed that the 1985Study "only deaIs witli tlie

17G SC-MT para 4.27. Slosakia tries10 discrcciit tlie 1983 Hungar-ianAcadc~ny of
Sciences Staienient rvfriclrhndrcco~nmendedthat a cornpi-chensiiree~ivironmenIaI
impact assessinent bccarrieclousta1ing thail--considcrcdpoIitica1:technicd and
envi1-o~riiie~rnslues(in ihatorder)" (SC-M.pain 4.18). But the Starernentspecifies

ilrat it'-doesnot deaI ii-ittpoIiItcaI qr~csIions. ee IIC-M. An~rexes,\TOI3,
annex 36.
SC-Mypara 9.05 caIls the sraiemenan LIA; SC-M p.n 9.20 caIIs itthe ..rnwi

rccciiIand thorough" of the EIAs.
Infoimatioir tobe i11cIudedin an EIS is outIined Scienf$c EvaIuatloir, HC-MT
voI2, chaps 7 2-7.3.TIICEIS IcgisIationnow inforce in Slovakia ducs rotdiffer
signifIcaiitIyi~rits rcquiremenis fromrhose of the Espoo ConventioAs of 1983,

EC Diiecii~e 88513371-equiredMcmbcr StaIes Io incIude a number of difïerent
apecw inair EIS. L HFIIS1994.HC-M, Annexes. vu1 4 {part21,aIines 23, chap 3.
discr~sscstlie deveIopmeni of EIA In various rcgions. SIovabia disniisses tlic
argument based 011 Iack of-EIA Ieg~slationas "an iireIcvant comment having
noihing to do rraithihe meriis of the findiofsthe m~ngarianscientists"; SC-M.
para 4.28. This confuses scienrificresearchrvith arrEIA. If aprocess has 110
stiuctr~i-ctciisurethat a111,eIevaissuesare stiidied in a sysremaiic fashion arrd

ttrat IlleconcIusionaretaken iuioaccouIrt i~rIhedecision-making pl-ocesitdqes
affect rhe scieniific findi~igsand tlicir implementation. Thc 1985 EIS obviousIy
suffered fio~nttreInckof a IgisIatiw frameiuork.
179 As Io the Incof public psrticipalion, SIowkia comrnenrsthathis.-showstlmt an

effort Iladb~enmadeto keepthe study a strictlyscie~itificon<': SC-M,para 4.28.
nore45. Hr~nga~:a11dSlovakia have both adoptedIegisIatio~rin thpastfetvpars
ivhich prol~idesfor public participation in Iarge-scaIePI-qcctdccision-makByg.
conIras1 neither Hungay iior Czecl~oslovakiaprior to the IaIc 1980s permilted
involvc~nentby thepubIic. It isrvidely1-ccognia5dimportantioinvolve IIrcpubIic

inthe EIAplocess tomariethe euentua1decisionsopen ard transparent
IS0 See ah HFIIS,HC-k1: Annexes, vol 4 {part21, airnex 23: pp888-93 912-13:
Scieni~jc ~vuliialion,HC-M, vol 2, chap 7,at 249. SIovakiii suggest Ihat lire

BechieI Kepo~t is a11ciiviio~rmentaIimpact slaternen(SC-M. paix 7.191, but it
cleailydoes no1meetthe critel-iaofarr EI-nor \\.ai~intendedIO.
181 HASOpinion. 28 3une 1985,HC-M, Annexes. va13, annes 39, pp 106-7.in~pacts to be expectedupon the renlisatioriof the JointCo~rtractrraIPian

or-of itsn~odernised ~011cept.''~~~

1.76. Both pal-fies i-ecognise "the evoIutioriary nature of the
Project".'83 IfHunga~y Ilad received Czechoçlovaki co'peratiorr i11

carryirrg out a rhorong11EIA ~I-ren Hungary first requested ir in May
1989, it rnight have beeri possible to modify the Ti-eaty to minimise
~~egative ecoIogica1 conseqnences. IS4 SIovakia cIain~sthat "various

importarit rnodifications ijlei.e na de '','but none of the tI~r.ee
nod di fi cation~se~~tioiledy itwere partof the p1a1rsfor. the Original
Project i11May 1989.

1.77. First,the "i11cr-easeof the mirrimu~fi fIow into the oId riverbed
frorn 50-200 1n3/sup 10 350 rn31s, with a periodic increase up to
1,300 rn3/s'86 was never proposed to Hungary. IS7 "Periodic"

apparently rncarrs "each week".'s8 As Figure 7.1189 dernonstrates, [Ire
IeveIs of surface water- i~ithe Danube wouId have decreased on average
by 1.5 m, even if suc11a plan had been adopted, with the resuItant
irifluence on groundwater IeveIs.IYOSuch a weekIy flushing would have

been usehl, however, in providirrg rrecessary water Ive1 Ructuatio~rs.
OccasionaI floods apart,there are nosuch fiuctuatiorrs eventoday.

HC-M, Annexcs.voI3. annex39. SIovakiaco~rte~rdtshat because rheHAS "openly
opposed the Project w eco~ro~ni~~aunds~',"a biasapi~ist the Proieci xVouId
certai~rIyhavemanifestiese1i~tireAssess~rren. hich "came about pnrtly as the
resiilt of the i~rsivuctionAcademy-'(SC-M. para 4.24,emphasisadded).But
tireAcademy rvasconccnicd ttrat cosilymeasures tu mirigale environmenral effects
rvouldnot be taken sincethey had not yet becn rnandared. That is not tlic same as
opposiirtheOriginal Prqiec01eco~romicgrounds.Secondly. tfrc EIA was carried
out by scie~itinvol~~eintheimpIcrnen~atiu~orf 01-iginaProject.

SC-M, para 4.32HM: paras4.1.7-21.
See HR, vol2.Appendix 6.

SC-M, para4.33.
SC-M,para 4.33.

TIreloue in boih the SM alrd SC-M as to rhesemodificais ucryu~rceiiaNo.
refcre~iceisgivIO aPienipotentiaiyIncetmgor otherdocument;SC-M. pal4.33.

SM,para 2.69.
ScienfifiRebaifnlHR. vol2.chap7.

See Plaie73 shc\vi~rgtlre simuIa~eddifferc~rcesbetween pre-damconditions alrd
conditions u1rde1--e riginaI Project,caIcu[arad200 m5/sdischai-geinto the
riverbcdiviibm rveiranda 100m31sdisclru-gcintothe side-am srstem. S~ISCI
pûragraph s.141-1.144beIoxvon mit~gationmeasures. I.78. AIthoügh the Plenipotentiaries ayeed ,in Jrrne 1989 chat Iow

weirs sIrouIdbe desig~~ed foi-the main riverbed, rveirsnever becalne part
of tlre pIa11sfor the Original Projec~.'~~These "low ~veiis" wouId not
have pseve~rteda significant decrease in gi-ou~rdwater lie drop wouId

stiIIhave been approxi~nateIy 2 metres. Lackofwater-IeveI fluctuations
wouId also not Iravebeerrr-e~nedied 92

1.79. CzechosIovakiaconsidered the monitoring sy stern iriadequatein

I990, statingin itsEC PHAREappIication that "An integrated1nodeI1ing
system is to be deveIoped ...The objective of the I-equii-edcojr~pr-eherisive
.rrudyisroevttIuareand verify the effects of previousactiviries and ..the

new hydraulic sysreilrofhydro-power develngment.. ."'93

1 20. SIovakia aIgueç tlrat "there can be no question tlrat the Treaty
parties Irad tlre administra1ive independeilce arrd fiexibiiii toyexamine

and re-examine tlie Project, aild that they did ~0.''~~~ In practice tlrat
fIexibiIity was Iirnited to proposing technica1 fixes to the Or-iginaI
Project, as distinct from a thorongh envirorr1-11errtia r1pact assessrnent

which might have questioned the basic assumptions of the Project.
Moreover the most imporiantchange cconcivved by CzchosIovakia (the
Court is now toId), the inci-ease in discharge lewls to 350 m3/s i~itlre

n~airidtan~ieI with increases up to 1300 rnqs eacli week, was never
comrnunicated to Hurigaiy, Iiever incorporated as part of the plans, arrd
Irasrrotyet been irnplen~entedbySIovakia iriits operation ofVariant C.

1.8 1. SIovakia argues tlrateconomic, not environmental rnatters,were

the prirnary reascin for suspension of consiruction. '9" '0th
environmenral and ecorromicfactors pIayeda role in Hungariaridecision-
making, a11d tl-ris is not surprising as the two are i~rextricabIy

in~erIinked 196 Environmental concerns have econo1-nicconsequences.

191' Slovakia Iro Io~rgsccmsIo consider rhoseweirs the most app1ap1-iale,i~istcnd
propwi~rgOIICwir. See SC-M. para 8.13.
192 Ihid. For a discussionof the i~radecjryf weirs, sebelorilparagraphs I.i$I-
1.144.SceaIso Scien~1jRebufioi,11 .vol2,chap 7.

IY3 HC-M: hneues. vol 3annex 48.SeeSciei~rlfrc vnluurion.HC-M. voI2;chap 3.
pp 48-5Qfoi discussionofthe needformodelIingand siateiiieIby~IioscfamiIiar
iui~hthenionitoringyrogralnsin ireregion,e.g.: Mucha,1990,Refsgaai-CI al,
1994.

SC-M. para 4.13. note 37. citing Mariai IeItcrs.For refrrneeiHC-M, paias

2.12-2.19and seeHK. vol2. Appeiid~6.
For IIrhistorofihe Projectprio10 1989.sec HM.paras3.41-3.108.Econo~~~iacctivities have environmenta1effecrs. An EIA requires ari
assessrneritof the eriviro1rrnerrta1onsequeIlcesof variousoptions raking

intoaccount their economicaspects. 19'

(c) The BechteI Repti~',

1.82. SIovakia addresses tIle adequacy of earIier studies through
selecrive qrrotation. For exarnple, a quotation from the BechteI Report

states that "[tlhe IiydroIogic regime of the project area has been
thoroughIy studied and porentiaIIy significant impacts have been
identified by VIZITERV and associated expertsT' .q8 TIrisgives a
rnisieadi~~gi~npr-essi01of confidence. The BechteI Report raised many

importantaspects of the Project which hadbeen irradeqrrateltreated, irr
particuIar its bioIogica1 aspects. Iq9 These in turn affect the entire
conceptionof theProject and its operating modes. Specific comrnerttsby

BecIiteI inciude tde need for more detailed smdy of surface and
grorr~rdwatec rondiriorrs,a central issue in rhisdispute.?oo The authors of
the Bechtel Report uiere cIearIy aware t lrat significant deficiencies
existedin the knowIedgeof surface and groundwaar conditions,and that

further detaiIed studies were required, integrati~ig bioIogicaI and
hydroIogica1 aspects. This is in starkconrrrtsttu SIuvakia's contention
tliat "the best evide~rce {BeclrteI] did not suppor? any such

postponement- at Ieast onenvironmental gr ci und^."^^'

df C3onclusion

1.83. None of SIovakia's Iines of argument sliow that there was an
adequateEIA or EIS. The corrtraiyis indicated by an exanrinatio~rof

Czechoslovakia' own actions. Tu su~n~narise:

Ig7 SecdiscussioninScwmIJ;,Evaiuo~zoiHC-M. voI2,chap7.1.
IB8SMvip:ara 2.31,ciIing BccIjtcI.1-1a~rd1-2.TIre BechteIRepoiisco~rtai~rcnd
HC-M,Annexes. vol 4(part11,nnex1.

ISiP Scc HC-M,paia 1.140.HC-My A~rnexes,vu14 (par1),annex1 a1 1I5,16.7.FOI-
numerous sirnihquotationsseIicIorScienfificRebuff~l,HR:vu12:chap2.
200
BechrelKeporI,1-IC-MAnnexes.vol4 (par1).aIinexIaip17
201 SC-M: paix 7.17. FOI-orher exampies, see Fie-M. paras 1.30-1.37, citing
u~iccrtair~rsiscdby Ihe CzechoslovaAcadenryof SciencesBiologicalSociety.
WWF and Hydi.o-Québec.1additia~rluBechtelarrdINFOKTIEcologia. * In 1989 CzechosIovakiai~ritialIyagreed to fir~.rIres ~tudy,202 but
o1r1yif construction continued alrd Hungary cIosed tlie Da~rubeat

DunakiIiti,thesebyp1.e-e~nptirrtghe study.?03
*
In 1990,Czec~iosIovakia appliad to theEC PHAREProgrammefor
funding to ca1-~oyuta "thorough and compIexst~dy".~~~
*
Since 1990,Czechoslovak arrdSIuvakexperts have i~rdicatedthat
airadequatestudy was Ia~king.'~~

1.84. IIIa~rurnberof instances ~i~ajodsam pi-ojectswhich twesea11nost

curnpleteci have beerr postpaned until a thorough EIA couId be
cornpleted. Major dams w11icI. r ere co~npleted or a11nosrco~r-rpIeted
Iravenot been put into operatiorrbecause an EIA dernoiisrratedthat the

project wouId cause sig~irficarit harrn.=0To tlie exterrt the Hungasian
coricerns iri1989 were soundly baçed, rfie Iack of an EIA was a ~najor
deficiency in tIreOriginal Project. Itmeant tltat r11ePrajectproceeded
without adequate inforn~ationon its IikeIyor potentiai envirorimental

im pacts.

(21STUDIESMDICATED BY 1989TKAT THE ORIGINALPROJECT
RAISEDSERIOUSQUESTIONS ABOUT RiSK AND DAMAGE

1.85. SIovakia asserts "that &I the environmental studies upto May
1989 sllowed that the GN Project was envir~nmentaIIysustainabIe",207
that "none of the scieritific repo...providecienvirorrmentalreasons" for

suspe~isiorr.~~~~~the contrary, mmy studies raisedserious questions
about risk arid~Iarnage:?~ a~surnmaryof these is provided in annex IO.

Agreerne~was reached duringhé meeting bctween Nemerhand Adamcc 01110
July 1989seeHM, para 3.85.
See CSFR Aiolei'erbule,30 October 198HM: Annexes, wI 4:arrnex28. See
belorvpaagraphhsI.13-1.f24.3.32-3.fordangers of fiIrirreservoir.

Sceabovc. parngrap1.73.
See, eg, Kesulution No 44, 24 October 1990 (Environ~ncn~aIand NaturaI
Protection Cornmilofethe SIovaIrNat~onaICouncil slatesthat the011Ihet
e~ruiro~iinttoulbe of 'magnitudeunparaiIci~din the hisloryofthe muntj');

HR,Anrrexes,vu13,annex53.
SeeHR, 1.02, Appendix5forareviewofsome cases.

SC-M: paix4.01SecaIsuSC-M, para1.05.
SC-M,para4.36.

Slovakiaclaintlia"u~rceflaihad heen folIorvby a deiiberrpolicy ro ahort
the Projeci" asMay 1983:SC-M,para 10.05. Thisub-sectiondemoiistiaIesthe
justificatio~rsfor Hungarian concernç.SD:beIarv (in conjunctrvitHR.This sub-section outIines the concerns eviderrced by May 1989, which
reasonabIyIed to Hungaria~rsuspensionof constrrrciio~~ borh downstream
and Iaterupstrea~n.

(a) Doruns-~i-eam N:agvmaros arildPeak Powei. Operafion

1.86. By tlre ti~rreHungary suspended construction of Nagymaros irr
May 1989, serious questions had been saiçed, requiring re-examinatio~r
bot11of the Nagyinaros Barrage ifseIfand of peak power operation. By
the fa11of 1989, tlieconcernshad not beenaiIeviated.

(i)Befor-eMay 1989

1.87. Studies prior to 1989 uften supportedthe Original Project or
came to no conciusion, brrtnonetheless raised co~r~pIexquesrions.

Studies Iladto bepaid for out of the sarne srarefunds which financedthe
Project, and there were rio funds for researclr wlriclr miglit have caçt
doubts orr the Project. As of March 1984,tlie Hungarian Acadetny of

Scie~ices (HAS) reports, opi~iions and staterne~rts were "stricrIy
confide~iitaI" or "confidential" accordiiigtoHungarian Iawsand IegaIIy
couId not be pubIi~Iied.~I~Horvever,somc HASdocu~ne~rtd sid Ieakour
as poIitica1changes.indicated tllar the secrecy Iaws might no Io~tger be

strictIyerrforced. Under rhecir~u~nstarice tsieextent to whichcoricerrrs
were actuaIIyraised irtlrisperiod is striking. TIrattlreconcernswere not
foIIowedby fi11tI.redretaikd studies is not surprising, given the politicaI

situatio~i.I~ Hungarian scientists occasioriaIIy suggested that certain
condirionsbemd befor-econrrnencingpeak power productio1r,212and as
early as 1983Hungarian scientists wer-e reconr~neridingreassessrnentof
peak power operat However, studies would oriIy rnerition

concerIrs and IikeIyi~npactsbutavoid co~itsovessialconclusions.

1.88. As the goverrime~~b tegarrto Ioosen itsgrip on pubIic affairs,
rrrore information becarne avaiIabIe and den~onstrations agaiirst the

voI 2Appendix 6):wiIIdemonstrate IfratHfngaaitempiedin good faith Io fi~rd
an agreesolu1ion.
SFFHR. hiiexes.voI 3,annex55.

SECdiscussioinHM, pras 3.57-3.73.
SeeK PerczeIetal.17Februa r985.andtIieUpinionoftIie HASon hisProposa1,
28June 1983:su~n~nai-isnEIR,Annexes.ud 3:annex 10.

I JTGiil,boli!soriiep~-cd&leccoiogicoprolrlenrnndenvii-nnriien?ali~~pofts
ihc Ga.$~ikuvo-~i~agvmar~B~a.rrage Sysferii. 1983, FOIdrajzi KozIe~nÉnyck
(GwgraphicaI Tra~isactio)rXXINo 1,pp 1-11 (inHungarian);sr~rnrnaiisedin
HR, h~rcxcs, \ru13, an49.OriginaI Projecr irr~reased."~ Arnorigst many concerns raised prior to

May 1989 by Hurigarian, Czeclroslovak and internatioilal 11011-
govei-11merrta arga~risatioilwas the Iackofa cornprehe~rsive EIAand the

inadequacy of i1rorinationavailable fordec ision-maki~ig."~ It was ~ISO
said that peak power mode aridthe Nagyrnasosbarrage wese IikeIy to
cause the foI1owi1ig p~+obIems:

*
har~n to bartk-filtered wells, including t11ose whicli provide
Budapest witliitçwater supply;Z18

* riçkto karst waters;ZIYa~rd

" Irarrnto dora arrdfau~tadong the banksof the rives.220

=14 As Io Theexiensive piitests agaiihe projec111botliFOIIII~~(summarised in
FIR,Annexes, vol 3,annes 90).a11SIovakia cxi sa? is that "[il1 ma),hetheat
Pruject sr~ddcnlybecarne unpopular; but Ihis did not man th11had bcco~nc
u~rsusrainabIefroman enviionmenia1standpo~nt-':SC-M, para 4.42. Pxagraphs
'
1.ZOO-1.140below. denioristialeits urrsr~slainability
215 HAS, OperafionalGroup, 30April 1983 ; AS PosirionPaycr. 20 December 1983.
HC-M. Annexes. i.013, annex 363 HAS Opiniorr,28 lune 19x5,HC-h4. vol 3,

aIiIrcx39. See also EcoIogialINFORTReport,May 1989- KM. Arncxcs: voI 5
(part Il, annex6.
I6 B Hock.G,llBS WaieiQ~laliv,VITUKI MarcIr 1985:su~n~nariscin HR: hnexes,

voI3:arrnex IO.
I7 H AS OperaiionaIGroup,30 Apr11383. Sceah Pei-czcK efal, 17 Fcbruav 1985.
RothsummarisedinHR,Annexes, vol3, aiiIrexIO.

'lx HAS. 1981: Bercz~k-Tbth,November 1981: HAS Operational Group, 30 April
1983: K P~I-czelet ol, 17 February 198and the Opinionof the EIAS on his
Propwal. Zg'Ju~re1935. The Iatteno~cd Ihai someof Thepxiicipan~sacceptcd
P~I-czeIvie\\-of Iratobank fiIIrrrIion.SeeaIso B HoVI-I'UKIMach 1985;L

BA~-duczyS, Mikol ics,VIZITERV: 1987; Sfaierrrenpreynred by fiheDcrimbe
Circie,4 Seplember1988; K htrer: Stiidiiniowufersedin~ezrfndkydrobioiogy
of ilreDon~~be.VITUKI, 1988; HAS ad hoc cornmittee, Seplember1388;
EcoIogicnI SccIion of CzechosIo~~Academy of Sciences.14 November 1988.
HC-M, hnexes. vu13, anner: 43; L So1nIy6dyIl'lrlerq~inlivissire.7crrricei-rrriig
Gii'H.5,1989: FI-CM. Annexes, uoI 4 {part 21, anIrcx 13; R4FORTEcoIogiq

Pi-elir3rinReput-!March 1989, I-iMhnexes, wI 5 (par7 I), anIrex 3. These
repoflare summarisedin HR,Annexes.voI3.anIrex IO.
219 K PeerczeIel al. 17 February 1983: A LOI-bcrer,VITUKI, 1987; ,A I~rberer,

VITUKI, 1988; K PerczeIG Lihik, Apri1889;al1s<~rnmarisci~iHR. hnexes,
~013:aI111cIO.
220
HAS: 30 ApriI 1983; GNBS Water Qualit): VITUKI. Marclr 1985: S~aleirrenI
Prcyn~-cdbytheDamrbe Cir-cl4:Scpternber1988,ItepurfunGAIRSH'aferQualiv
Reseurch. YITUKI, Mar-ch 1983.: HAS nd hoc Commi~tee,September1988: G
Vida 1989:al1sumarised inHR, An~rexes:voI 3annex ID.1.89. By 1989 it Iiadbecorne cleas tl~atdaiIy fluctuarionsof flow a11d
water IeveIs i11tlre Nagy~rrarosReservoir-arrddownsti~am wouId cause
seriousdistusbance to aquatic aiid sipa1-ianIiabitatsa factor rrotanalysed

pre- 1977,"' and tvouId thseaten Budapest'swatersrrppIies.

lii M)ay-OC* 1989

1.90. Furrherstudies were conrpIetedbetrvee~r tire initiaI suspension of
co~~st~.rrctioori Nagy~nar-os iriMay 1989 and Ocrobes 1989, wl-rerrthe

Hungasiangovernmentanthorised~-rego iati01-r~vitlrCzechoslovakiawith
a view to its aba~idonrnen .2?' These confirme4 Thar serious coricerris
renrained nnans~uered,and some recorn~neridedthat Nagymaros rot be

completed.?~3Concerns inc1udedthe foI1owing:

* tfreneedfor studies on the impacrof peakoper-atio11a Iode
on tireerrvir~nrnent;'?~

* coI1nafatio11;~~3

* çedi~nerrtatiori;~~~

* inrpactoribarik-filteredw~IIs;"~

* poççibIedamage to kalsrwaters;228

HC-M. paras1.150-1.15; Scien?t$c Evni~iai1-IC-M v,l2. clra4.4.
Seed~scr~ss~oinrHC-M,paras2.27 -2.45.

WWF, Po.riiron (in Gel-man)Augusl 1989- cxcerpts translateand reprinied111
HC-MThi~icxcs, WI 4 (pari11 ,nnex4.

Ihid Seenlso HAS Reportl.23Ju~ie1989.HM:Anncxes.val 5(pal?1)a,nnex7.
Re711rtr-ufrbc Szeged 8ioIogrca/ CeilirAugust 1989: Reti~nrkofrke Bujcsy-
Zsilinsrb Associuli~n20 Scpternber 1989; botli su~nmarisedi11h Annexes,

vol 3,anrieIO.
HAS Reporr, 23 June 1989, I-IM,Arrnexcs,vol5 (pal ?).anncx7:Min~slry of
Envirorrnie~Pr-otectioand RegionaI DeveIopnientAgenda aiidGriaruirreesfor
iheyreverriioof deicriordoiiof~vfflequalr? of lire DanubJuly I959; Smged

BiologicaI CenrreAugust 1983; Rentnrkqf the Bajccv-Zsiilinsziy Associn20on,
Sepleiiibe.1-198Opinion Cancerning the nrafei-{al"Assessiirof lkeversiuns
iis~edin puin! V,Res 320j/19S PVil. 20.of the Nztngminri Govet-n~neili",
fiSepternber 1989: VITUKI November 1983;al1 surnrnar~seIdn HRI An~rexes,
WI3,annex IO.

HAS Repon, 23 June 1989: HM, Etrineses. 1'015 (pan 11,annex 7: Szeged
BioIogicaICenlre.At~gris1983;1-IarRepo~t.Sepre~nber1989:HM: wl fi(pan 1),
anirex 8; OpinionConcerning!Ire~lrafet-iaI"Assessnreirioj f/~eversiors iistrd in
point 1'Iles3205/1989 (VIL20.) ofrtre HirngnrinnGuvei-ni?~",j September

1989;surnnrarisedinHR,nii~iesewI 3,anncx IO.
Ministry of EnvironirrentaI Pmrection and WaIer Management. Jr11y 1989,
sumnrari~edin I-iK,Aii~rexes.vol 3, anIrcx II) *
eutropIrication and orl~eri~npacrson warer q~aIit~;~'~
* deci~r~atior rf flora and fau~ia;~~~

* doubtfrrl seisrnic stabiliv of cer-iairr~tructures;~3~and

*
impacton Iandscape in a historicai partof the Dan~be.~j?

($1 Upsircam: Dunakiliti and Gab&%avo

191. Studies liefore the fa11of1989 relating to the upstrearn sector

suffei-edfro~nthe sarne Iirnitatio11s as affected strrdies of Nagy~nar-os.'~~
But t1ieyhighIighted a nurnberof concerns reIated ro the impou~idmenr ar ,
DunakiIiti with its correspo~~ding large reservoir and the significantly

decreased water disclrarge i~rtotlie Darr~rbe.~~~ Concer~rsirrcluded:

* jack of tire riecessaIy studies up~trearn~~~(as weiI as of an
ELAfor the entire Pr~ject);"~

Srorc.iirc.of lieGeneral Coiiiiirirfecor? ~iiicrobio~o~,1989: M iiiiry of
Environmental Protection and Water manage men^Agendn and GirarunieesJoi- ihe
yrev~?ifionof fheDereriorufiunofWaferQ~iuliv q(f11eDuiiube,July 1989; Har-di
Report, September 1989,HM, rwl 5 (part 1):annex 8; a11summarised in HK.
An~reses,voI3, aiinex IO.

HASReport,23 lune 1'98', M, Annexes, vol5(part 1),airnex7.
HAS Report. 23 June 1989: HM, Annexe?: \TO5I (pal71), annex7; I3Goschy,

15August 1789:CentralGmlogicaI ORce experimnrntIaec,3-7 JuIy1389 (st-iat~ng
thatit isrot possibic tiissessu~iniiibiguousIytlic scis~nicactivily of tlic rcgio~i
owing ro Iack of adequate research);a11summarised in HR, Annexes vol 3:
annex IO.

HAS. 23 Ju~re198'3;HM,iurrieses.voI5 (pal? 1).alrnes7.
Seeahove. paragraph 1.87

~SSIIFStl~dicsexaini~redtire possibilify of lire Daiiube secciuing 1noi.e\vater. Scc
cg.: WWF, Lbsing. 1986 esccrpts rcprinted in HC-M. PrIrncscsvoI 4 (part1):
annex 7; Rej~or!ofthelefoiinsz;mrniissznn: 28 ApiI1382. SonieccinçIudedihat
cvc~r rvith500 1ri31s,IIrm ikor11dbe iicgaIivc effects o~i fioodpIaiii forcsts;

B Kereszresi,G Sepiember 1982. 01hers concluded rhar ihe decrease in the
grou~rdwafe~ta-blcouldaltei-tlie p~adr~ct~frngricuItrrres~g~r~ficyi.thattlie
planned50-200 m'/sdischarge \vasinadequale toensure qualit?of proundr~ater:
see M ErdéIyi:I983. Othcrs insisied that the pIanned mitigaiion masures wuuId
iiot ivo~-kr,eqr~ithat 600 m3/sbe discliar-gediiilo tlic rivat-Dr~nakiIiti:K
Pei-czeelal:17 Feb1-uav1985:Opiirioi~of the HASonIrisproposal,28June 1385;

Slovak En~ironmentand Landscape Protecrors Associa~ion,BratisIava, September
1988; a11are summarised inHR: Annexes vd 3:annex 10
J Wsing WWF, August 1386.HGM, Annexes,voI 4 (part1).pp333-348:WWF,

f'usiilonAugusr 1989,HC-M, Annexes ,oI4(pan 1)pp 349-351.
HAS: Suniiiro~yofrjie Reporoirfhe Agriciillurnuiid Eii~iro~iiricilrpc~crosf
G!\;BS.October 1381 Repoi?ofthe PoI~nsz@Conii~zrss~o FiA,S, 28 April 1982; * ilegative impacts on surface wacer quality and
eutrophi~ation;~~~

* sedimentation and deposition of toxic materials in the

reservoir;238

* dangersto drinkingwater reser~es;~~~

* negativeeffects oii groundwater;74u

HAS, Operational Group, 30 April 1987: HAS, Opinion, 28 Iune 198.5,I-IC-M,
Annexes, vol 3, annex 39Opinion conccrning Pcrczcl's Proposal, HAS, 28 June
1985; HASReport, 23Julie 1989,HM.Annexes, vol1:annex7:al1 srrmmai.iscin

HR, Annexes,vol 3, annex 10. See alsFIAS Poriiion Papei-20 Ilecember1983,
in HM: Annexes,il015 (pal71).nlrIier:2.
237
fi Bartalis,VITUKI. 1878; A Berczik. J Thth. Renrarkscoricernirig GhlBS.
November 1981: B Hock, VITUKI: I983; JTbtli. 1983; K PerczeIei al. 17
Fcbi-uary1385;0 Hock,GIVRS Water Quulr# Reseawh, VITUKI, March 1985;3
Németh,F Skobrak, 1985; P Be~redck 1986; 2sT DsiliaIIy~1987;T Kiss-Keve,
1487;B Hock ,ITUKI, 1987;K Zolier, VITUKI, 18811;lovakEnwronnicnt and

Landscape Prolectio~Associaion: Bratislava, Sepremb1988;A Bothar, Ociober
1988;L So~rrIyody.1989:HC-M, voI 4{part 2)anriex13; Sf&teirtePi-eprd by
~heDanube Circie, 4 September 1988: INFUKTIhIogia, PreltlinttnReport.
- MarcIr 1989. HM: Curnexes.vol 3 (part I), arinesHAS Repon,-23 Jrrne 1989.

HM, Annexes, voI4, anne&7; Ministryof Environmenia1Piareclion and Wates
Ma~iagemc~iJti,1171989a1su~nmririscdiiiHR.Anriexesval 3, annex IO.
23X V 1-1-UKI,3March1984;GniA.5 iVafrrQualiw ResenrcirB Hock!VITUKI, Mairh

1983; SIovakEirvi1-o111nantd LarrdscaProtectionAssociatior~.Seprcmli1988;
Ecological Section, CzechosIo~akAcadem:: of Sciences, 14November 1958'
HC-M, Airnexes, vuI 3, annex 43; 1,Soniiy6dy, 1989, HC-M, Aniicxcs, vol4
(pal?2). ai.~~rcx13; INFORTIEcoIogiaPreiiiirinriry RepnrMarch 1989, HM,

Annexes, voI 5 (pari 1):anne5; M Lisicky,JuIy 1989;al1summarised inHR'
An~rexes,vu13.arrnexIO
139 WWF. PosiiionAugusI 1389,in 1-IC-M,Annexes,vol 4 (pan 1): p349-354 Sce

aIso A Bcrczik: J Tbtli, Rcmarkson GNBS. Noveinbei 1981; HAS Operational
Group: JO Api-iI 1383; Peczcl eal: 17 February 1985; al1 sumtnariscd HR,
Annexes:vol 3,annexIO.
240
E VrirrhkVITUKI, 1978;O 1-laszprVITUKI, 1979; I Daubner,1981;A Berczik:
I Tbth: November 1981 ; J HolEik, 1982; Coizferencon Ecological Questions
reiaied[OGXBS, 6 Septeinber 1982;M Erdélyi1, 983: HAS Opcrational Group,30
April 1983;K Perczeletal, 17February 1983; ResearchInstitutof1-IASon Soil

Sciencesand Agi-ochemicsSiinrmaiyof the ll'orkr sufconipletedinIhefild of
pedologv wirhinthe@anzeworkof theagreeiizenrontheco-optratiotbchveen the
Hztngarian and Slovak Acudenries, 1986; Research lnstilutof HAS on Soil
Sciences and Agrochemics, Report on the lfforh done Jor IfIZITERY, 1986;

Rcsearch instituof HASon Soil Sciencesand Agrochemics,Repoi-ion the Cl'orks
done for VIZITERV: 1987; Research Institute of HAS on Soi1 Sciences and
Agrochcmics,TlteExpectableEflectsofGArBSon Soils(Suninzayofworh donein
cooperaiion behveen ifungarirrn anSlovakAcademies), 13 May 1987; Slovak

~nvironrnentand Landscape Protectors, Bratislava: September1988; Ministryof
Environmental Protection and Water Management: July 1989; INFORT/Ecologia, * Iikely ecoiogical impactson river floiaand fauna and 011the

werlands~'~'

* inc~nsistericy iti the response of the designers Io the

presence of seismic tisks, and IackofconsuItation on rl~is
issue.245

Pre/ttiirnuqiReprf, Mairh I%B7 HM Annexe<, voI 5 (part 1).annex 5,
iNFORTIEcoIogia hferrniRei~ori,May 19117H. M. Annexes.VOI 5 (pi111),annex
5,WWF.Posiiion. Arlgusr 1989,HC-M. Annexes. voI4 (pail I), pp349-334: al1

sumrnarisedin IIK,Anneses, vu13. aiinehIO.
241 1 Dûübner, 1981: IHoItik, 1982.V 1-rUK1'GiVBS$Vater Quuliw Rescnrclr:Mach

I985; Rescarrh Insriruicof HASon Soi1Sciencesand Agrochernics,Reporr oiiille
workc done for l/IZIT.%*I-1986; J Czifi-a, 1987;Siaic3iimiA-epnrcd hy fihe
Danube Circle,4 September 1988;Ecological St.c:ion.CzechwIovak Acadeiny of
Sciences: 14 Novernber 1988, HC-h4, Annexes: vol 3, annex 43; P GuIy&,

VITUKI,Hydnbiologicca ondztionsoffhe sectiorof rheDanube in the impact
ayea of GiIrBS1989; INFORTIEcologia, InteriinReportMay 1989, I.iMAnnexes,
vol 5 (part I), annex 6; WWF, Position, August 1989, 1-lC,-MAnnexes, vol 4
(part I), pp 349-354;al1sumrnariscdin HR,Annexes,vol3: annex 10.

242 A Berczik, J Tdth, Novembci 1981. Other papers analysed whether structures of
production could be altereto compensate for changes in iiatural conditions. See,

e.g., Reporr ofrjteP01ins:ky Cotnn?ission.28 Apiil 1982; Conjerence held on
ecological questions rtlatedIO the G.W, September 1982; HAS Operational
Group, 30 April 1983; K Perczelel al' 17 Fçbruary 1985;Rescarch Institutc of
HASon Soil Scicnccsand Agrochernics, Suniniary otheivorh sa far completedin

thefield ofgeosciencesivithinthefranteivorkotlie agretmenl on !lie CO-operation
behveen tlreHringai-iaandSlovak Acadeniies,1986;ResearchInstituteof HASon
Soil Sciences and Agrocliemics,Report on the ivorksdone forI'IZITERIf, 1986;
Slovak Environment and Landscape ProtectionAssociation, BratislavaSeptember

1988;al1summaristd in HR:Annexes,vol 3, annex 10.
243 A Berczik, I Tbth, Novernber191; I-iAS,30April 1983; Idetterfrom Keresztesito
the Conferenceheld onecologicalquestions rçlated to theGNBS,September 1982;

Halupa 1985;Halupa. August 1986;Halupa Novcmber 1986; al1summarised in
HR,Annexes,vol 3, aniiex10.
244
1 HoIfik. 1982; L Halupa. Novernber 1986; Research Institutc of HAS on Soil
Sciences and Agrochemics,Repur~ un ii~eivarkrdonefor lTIZITER V, 1987; HAS
Research Insriruton Soil SciencesandAgrochernics,13May 1987; l'iewpoinfof
the 10ir~cnrheexperlleal;oJilicCzerkosiovuk AcirderriyoJSciencecoiirniiirsioried

by the Czcchosiovnk ~Minisrryof Foi-esfiand M'aier ~~dai~agernelri. Februar).
1988; Gy ViraIIyay, 12 June 1989; al1 summarised in HR. Annexes,y013.
annex IO.

245 Priarta 1990, IittIe \vaknown aboul the nature and exlent of the Quatenrq
deposiis in GabCikovo;sce Dzuppa cf ri]1994: HR: Anncses, voI 3, annex 8.See

also IIAS. Repori' 23 June-1989, HM, wI 5 fya111): anIrex 7;E DuIPcska,F
Hunyadi, IOJuIy 1983,bo~hsummai-ised in HR.Annexes.vol3.annesIO. 1.92. It istherefore cIear tl~arby the second IraIfof 1989, tl-ie~-ecse
serious gr-orr~~dfoçr concern as totlie e~ii~+onnre~ic toInsequences of tire

OI-igi~~a Plrojectin particrrIarabout tlrerhreatsto rvaterresorri-cesarrdto
rvetlandecolugy. A subçrantia1response was caIIedfor.246 Hnngarydid
nof act urrreaso~-rabIiyrrçeeking to ensure tliat fur-tl-resrtudies be carricd

out, and tlratno irretrievabIesfepsbe takerii11tlie meanti~~~e.

19 The rhisd sub-questio~ridentifiedarthe beginningof this Sectio~r

is tv11ethcrthe stnte of wurk in 1989 preclud readssessmenrof the
Pr~jject Th'e~s~ateof work caIrbe expressed in monetaryterms (actuaI
investmentco~npared to total pIannedexpendifure) and irrphysicaIterms

(dcgree of readi~~ess).To fi114a coInrnorrderrorni~~ata rIIcurrency is
'veIy diffrcuit because of the aiTificialexchange rates as betrveenCSK
and HUF and witlr tl-reIrard c~rrencies.~~8 TIre ratio of work done

co~npared to totaI works envisaged i~r the JCP may be a better solution,
but mostof tire work plrasescan be expressed irrnorretaryte1.m~ onIy.249

24G Non-gol~eln~rrentaoIrganisaihave rcvicrucdllreIegalof1-Iungarianaciions in
relationIo tlie iisks posed to FIungay in 1989 md 1992 a~rdfouiid 10ebe
junified. See, e g.. AIGO~t4criroj t-egal 5ndScienf~pcIssues. prepzreby

SIovak. Huiigariai aiid Inie~irationaINGOs ruitli Expcizisc i~rEnv~ronrnentand
Develop~nent(May 1495);a copy of ttrisdocr~irienbeenput on fiIe 1viIhe
Conn.

38 These difficuIties art: adrniriSM, Annex 13. After noting the different
cr;ch;uigraieusedfor commercialpriyInciiIs.Iouiistesrhaiige rates,etc.,it applies
the -'uffIc~al excharare-rulri\vasi~rusefoi-statisiical purposes. As reflected
by rhe difkrence he~iveeexchange m1csin 1988 (USS I=CSK 3 32) and 1992
(US$ I=CSK 29 30). rhe orficial cscliange rates befo1-ethe transftuiaiation
markct cconoIny in ir~ayreflected reaI purchnsi~igpo. Irerc \vasno bank in

Europe: incIudi~rgCzçcIrusIovak~a.rr~hichiwuld havUSB 1dfor CSK 5-32 i~r
1788.The HIIF lost 37% of its vnIuc agarntheUS$ beIrveen 1988 and 1991
(USS I=I-iUF50 42 in 1988,HIlF 78.98i~r1992).but IIreCSK Ioappr-oxima1elp
82%. 11tlie sainc pcriod tire excirange rofeCSK ta HUF as betivccii
CzccliwIouak~aand Hr~irgiiryshifiein fni-ozof CSK (fro~nappros 2.2 ro 3
HUFICSK). If the trvo cii~~enciesare co~npared1988 ~IrroughtheUS$ an
cxcha~rp rate of CSK I=kIUF 9.47 resiilts: in sliaip coIrtrast Io rire

CSK I=HUF2.22 officiaieschange rate of tfrnryeai-:as dclminebj-iniersrate
ay-cerneiit.Market- forces Iisor~glit coiiveisIrates closer by 1992
(CSK I=MUF2.67 byconversion IIriorigSS).
249 Nu srngIe tvalI rhe Nagymai.ohydropower plaiihad beenerecred.hur itkvas

30%readybwauseprcpa~atory ivorkconsr~ined30%of th%budget.1.94. Aç set forth here, the total i~~vestmerttcosts e~~visaged for
Hu~rgaiyuride~we~r t drasticincreaseuver ti~ne.

1 35. IIItern~sof actual invest~ne~itiricurr.ed,the foIIowingfigrirescan
bc derived f1-011the protocofs of the Joint Opcsatio~ral Group:

250 Brochure ofrheNaiional Water Auttro1-IV, abilikovo-Na~rirrrsoarrage Systenr,

Budapest .973.p 25.
251 Rep0i.iof th :~o~i~~~Iaf'lacar ~iihor-as itiveslors~rbniriie10~he fl'niinirnl

PlafiizingOBce, 23 Febiuaq 1986.
252 NationaIOfficeof theAccountant.REPOI 'n !Ireciosrnofffie naiionai inueslmeni
B6s(Gabtikovo)-!'rla~n?aroBsrirmgeSysrem.Budapest1 ,992.

'j3 NationaI PlanningOffice: Ecojion~calculalionconceining ihc 36s(Gabtikovo)-
it'rigv~rarBarrage Sysrerri.Budapest,October 1989. A copy of IIriI-epo1hm
beenput on file4th rheCoun.

254 Tm1 cos[incurrentpricesforthe rtaIbudgct,inc~rporatingmes and inrereston
Ioans. Czecl-ro-
Year, Hungary: Hui-lgay Czecho-
accurnuIarcd sIovakia sIovakia
r~aIuc cxpendirurcs expendiruresin
i~JCP pi-ices JCP prices
(1975) (1975)
miIIion HUF niilIioKCS

ToiaI cxpccted ac~ual Expected tobe: ac1ua1
IOhc: approx. cxpendirures 11.521 miIIion expendirures
22.889 miIlion miIIionHUF CSK'~~ 1nr1IroKCS
HUF

1987 4,253.6 10,553.1 6,975.5 9.334.I

- 1988 7,885.7 16,325.9 , 5,227.2 11.157.7

1989 I1,200.1 23.52 I.4 : 9.573.1 13.157.7

1990 I1,873.9256 ~5,665.9~~' 10,364.8 14.357.7

(witfiAustria11
Ioan:ca .
40,066)

1.96. By the erid of 1989 the parties had spent rougIiIy the same

arnount of nloiley (Hungary HUF 23.5 tlionsand ri~iIlion,CzecI-rosIovakia
CSK 13.1 ti~ousarid niIIioii) if texchange rate between HUFand CSK
iscalcnlated at 2.2 HUFICSK. Tfre Nagy-rraros barrage wwas o~-rIyata

preparatory stage: tlie coffer dani secu~.i~rgtIie site of the futr11-e
co~rst~.uctiorias o~-rljus1 being built. At Gabeikovo rnuc11 of the earth
work reIated to the reservoir and tlre power cana1 was ready, rougli

structures of ille Ilydropower statiorwer-ernorr~~tedbut esserrtia1eIernents
of tlie barrage syçtem were çtiIIrnissing. None of the turbineshad been
rnounted, letaime tested; riorie of the sIiipIockç were ready, and TIiere
was aowatcr- in the Ireadrace canal.

1.97. TIius nrost of tire coristructioattlre beginning of 1989 was sti1
reversibIe. Da~risa~rd dykes buiItinconriectionwitb tlieBarrage Systern

255 CaIculateon Iheadjusleprici~iof tlieJoi~rlContractual Plaii.
ZS6 Thisincorporatesrhe ofkwrk do~rcby tireAusIriani~rvcstor.

237 The figu~r does not incorporatheIoan rcccivcd frmn Ausrria- ATS2,881
1nilIio1(rappHUF 14.400miIIion]. corrldhave been re~novedand used for exa~npleto repIeiliçIrthe ~nissing
sedi~nerrtinthe degradedDarru be bed. Someeierne~rts of the investrne~~t
tvould have bee~rusefuI as they wese (flood protection Ievees, sluices,

etc.}or could Iiavebeen rlsed forother purposes or in some çig~rificantly
modifiecl way. Theconstrucrionof the Nagy~narosBarragc in pa~ricrIrar
had hardIybeguri.

1.98. At tliis tirne Hungary caIIed for a suspension irrcozrstruction,
wishing to examine concerns relatedto Nagyrnaroç. But it continu4
coristruction on tireGabCikavosectio~i,as reflected i11the fact that it
spent more than 7 tlrorrsa~rdmillion HUF iri current values in 1989,

wI~icIerxpressedin the 1975prices waç approxi~natelyas muclras a11tIie
i~~veçtme~ dtne in tlie firsr Iyears of the Project (1978- 1987). Everr
by the end of 1990, Hungaryhad spe~rt 4 1,900 miIIion HUF as against
Czeclroslovakia'ç 69,000 niiIli01HüF, adjusted to 1990prices.

1.99. Thus by mid-1989, tlre preIimina1y stage of constructiori at
Nagyrna1.o~ Ieft riatura1and culturaI values of the affectecii-egiorfulIy
intactor, at Ieast, readiIy retrievabIe. Eventhe 1no1-aedvancedstage of
co~~structionon ?fie Gabcikovo sector rvould have alIowed for a

subçtantia1 i-eviewand niodifrcatioriof plans. Contsa~yto the SIovak
contention, tlie substantia1invatment made up to that point had rrot led
to a teclrrricalor financial point ofno return in terrnsof the Osigi~laI
Project.258 IiiIegaItems tI.risis corifir~r~edy the wiIli~igrresof cou1-t~

aridarithoritiesta haItconsttuctiorievenat a farIater-stage of con~pIetiorr
w1iere the evidence i~~dicates a Iikelihood of serious enviro~tinental
Irarrn.239

(4) SUBSEQUENTSTUDIES CONFIRM CONCERNS

ABOUT THE URIGlNALPRUJECT (1989-1994)

(a) The oveuall pusition

1.100. SIovakia r-epeatedIy argues thar Hrr~~garyfailed Io pi-oduce
scientifrc eviderrce shorving that rile Original Project was
u11sustairiabIe.~~~The facts disprove tIris claim. Betweai 1969 and
1992, fieId investigationsas weI1as analyçis of the avaiIabIe data were

cari-iedout More ment srudies cornmisçionedby Hungarycorifinn

SC-M, para7 132.
Zj9 SeeHR: vol2. Appc11d1.cfora reviewsuch cascs.
1 250 E.g. SC-M; para701

261 1 Wiig 1 Banczero\sshi and A Baczik {edsAi~notofeRefer-enrefo1h.e36s
fCiib~ikovu)-A1ngy~~Bc~ris BarrageSJSIEI Irvjec~FIAS:Budapest1991earliei-findir1~s.762TIieseIiavebeen deaItwith in ea1.i1er pleadings,arid
i1-tirScienfjfjcEvulutl!ior?f;urrlrermateriai iscontained inthe Scicntgfic
Rcburralin volurne2of this RepIy.

1.1O1. It can be noted that tlrose wlio cIaim that nonew or corivi~icing
argume~~tw s e1.epsoducedare usuaIIycIosely açsociatedwith the Project
irnpIernentaiton."6' Neitl-rerr+eçpecrdCzechosIovak or SIovakacademic

bodies, rror-tire i~ite~.natiosIcientific bodies Iraveever suggested that
tfie co~~cer~iwsese without fou~idatio~o rr did not nierit a substantive
~+esponse.~~ B~ycontrast Siovakiagoes so far as to attribute bad faitto

Hnngaryfor raisingthesesarnecon~erns.~~~

1.102. Hungary Iras prod~~ced 'Wear and convi~rci~rge "viderice of the
foIIowirrgesseritia1concerns:

" As ro Nagymaros:The Barrage worrIdIravethreatened the reIiabIe
drinki~rg water suppIy of Budapest, dirniriishing the output of the

bank-filtered welIç and affecting the quaIiQ of the extracted
r~ater.~~~It would have thoi.oughIychanged a unique Iandscape,
decreasi~ig itç touristic value; dr-ownd Ronian and otfier
archaeoIogica1sites and about two doze~rislands; caused river

rnorphuIogica1pmble~rrs,and drasricaIIy affected tl-reflor-aand
fau~raof theriparian zonesextending to 300-350 Iunon both sides
of the river and its tributaries. By contrast, claimed benefirs of
1iavigatio1a-nd flood protection couId I-ravebee~rachieved in other

and Iesscostly way~.~~~

* As Co Galrëikovo: The HruSov-Duriak1 iiti 1.eservori faced a
significant dangerof eutropliication,with quaIitative deterioration
of wate~.secllarge into tlre subsorface waters, in the Iorig ruIr
putting at riçka hugedrinki~rgwater reserve inthe deeper Iayersof

the aquifer-u~ider~itnjr Ostrov and the Szigerkoz. The Original
Project wouId Irave Iiad devastating impacts or1 floodpIain
ecosyste~ns, with consequent severe effectsoirbiodiversity of flora
alid fauna. Yearly agricuItrrra1a~rdforest~y Iosses wouId Ira~e

262 SecScieni@ Ewfitafron. IIC-MvoI2, and A~rriexe.ol4 (par11annexes6.7:
Sc~enlijReburful,HR.voI2

2G3 Sec, e., Y IxikvencPosii~onoj theCreclioslovirX-Pnr25Ju~ic 1989 (HM.
Annexes.\roi ri~rii1671mliicliismereunn~bstant~aIedassertion.
264 See, eg, Emlogicaf Scc1101oi f the CzechosIovBakioIog~caISocieta1 the

C.zechosIovakcadçrnyof Sc~c~icH:C-M,Annexes, voj3. annes 43.
265 SccSM~pans3.f5-336,3.10-3.41.3.33~3..i6,SC-M,paras5.05-.i.62.
266 ForIfreIocatiif tfroseive>etHC-M, vu1 5:Plutes3.5and3 9

257 SeebeIow,parograph s103-1.112. amounted to severaI huridred miIIion HUF o1-the Hungai-iarrside
a101-re;associated witir Iack of rratural sub-irrigatio~i and soi1

qualiiy deter-iosation. Certain structures incIuding dykes were
exposed ro Iargei-seisrnic risk tlran Iiad bee-rrtakerr irrtoaccoi~rt
tlie designof rhe Projec~-~~~

fi)Nagymaro.~ (includingpeakpower.apeuafiour)

1.103. Thseeareas wouId havebeen affecte& ( 1)the impounded Danube
reaclr frorn about rk1-111823269 to the Nagymaros barrage at r-km 1595

(Nagyrnaros Resesvoii-); (2) the taiIwater section downsfream of ,
Nagymaros wirli the mu Danrrbe branclies around Szenrendre IsIa~id;alid
(3) tlie area furtliei- dow~rstrea~~~.he SIovak Me~noi-iaIarrd Cou~rter-

Mernoria1deny most of the consequences of peak operation, and are
IargeIy silent as to the orlier impacts. III pa~Ticrrlar,errviron~irentaI
impacts o,f the Iarge fluctuatio11sin water Ieveis a~rflow veIocities are
ignused.

1.I04. TIre rvater Ievel fliictuatioIr irrtlie ~&rnaioç I-readwatei-section

wouId Iiave been r~nrnatclledin Iarge European ri~ers.~'O-DaiIy water
IeveIfluctuatiolis kvouldIiave reached up to 4.5 rnat rkni 181 I.27i By
contrasr flow wouId have beeri stagnant in tlie tailrace ca1ra1arrd even
reversed irtlie Iorver pa~of tlie OId Danube and tlre Moso~riDarrube at

sorne point irrthe day.z72

1.105, Slovakia is urraware that the Nagyrnaws power slatiorr worrId
have operated in peaking rn0de,2~3 with daily discllarge fluctuations

from 1,000 m3/s to more thail 2,000 rn31s.At Budapest the IweI xvuuld
have vasied up lo IWO nrelres on a duily basis. The variation in flow

268 Secbelorv,pal-agagia.113-1.140.
269
This incIudethereach of the main riverfiuni ahout rkm1823to 1811 rvfr~clr
ivouId bcaffectedby backwatei.anddaily wIer IeveIflucruationsand flow reversa1
caused by yeakopci-atitGabEiko~o.
270 NeitIiei-the barragesrstem;a1the UpperDanube nat~heRhine areoperatedat
s11n11ai.cakopcraIionmodcs; scc HC-M, para1.1.Further deIaiIsare provided
intheScjcnfiJcRebiri~al,HR.wI 2:cha4.2.

271 MucIr Inorethan Ihe I m claimed by SM, par2.54. See ScienrfitSyal~la~~oii,
HC-M. vd 2, Fig25.
272
SeeScieniificEwiriaii~n: HC-M, 2, chaps 3.1.2and 3.3.2.
273 SM, para 2.35.Cf SC-M:para7.72.velocities in the Nagyrnaros Reservoir wouId hairebeeri betwee1- r .3 to

1.5 ~n/s.~~~

1.106. The Or-igina1Prqjcct threatened seriorrs i~npacts to Budapest's
water suppIies. The well-fields to tlrc 11orfh of Budapeçt provide

approxi~nateIyttuo-thisds of tl-ratsr~ppIy. BotIi qrraIity and qaantiîy
wouId Iiave been affe~ted.?~~

1.107. Bank-fiIteredweI 1supsu+eam of NagynraroswouIci have aIso been

affected, butpri111ariIiyn terrns of quaIity.276

(iii)irny~c, or)aquaric and ripuriun habilarsand river jrruryhology

1.108. In the Nagyrnar-osRcsei~oii-,daiIy fluctuat ioilsof flow arrdwater
IeveIswould have Ied to permanent disturbance of aquatic and siparian
habitats. Si~-rI-rieffects wouIdhave been observeddownstreanibecauçe

of peakoperati~n.~"

1.109. SIovakiastaresthat, witlr peak operariun "the fioi-aOII tl-reDanube
river banks the~nseIveswouId be affected".z78 In fact bank vegetatiorr

wouIdhavetlisappeured as ar-esrr1of rapid daiIyivater IeveIfluctuations
on a 120 krn Iorrgriver reach, affecting someof the most vaIuabIeI-reaI:
natua1 forests sta~-rds.~~~Adverse effects OII aquatic fauna are

co1npIete1y ignored by SIo~akia.~~~

1.11O. Peakoperation wouId have put at risk the stabilifyof river banks,

dykes and tirebed itçelf. The r-eaclrwouId I.ravesuffered fro~nerosion.
Near Nagyrnaros aird aIong the ba~rksof $lie Danube fine sedirne~rts

274 HGM, voI 4 {part1)nniiex6 aip 401.
275 This rcouIdresuIrinpart fiamfurther dredginexpected in conjunciion iuithe
OriginaI Project, undcwliiclIolv-florIeveIsrvc1.ciodrop by 0.60-1.20ni io

inci-rasethhead oftheporvci-pIarrt.Fu~rhhed degradariocould aIso havebeen
expeclcd due toerosion. The proccsscs are expIarninrhe HC-M: paras 1.Il 2-
-121 andScicni~fiEvaiuojioii. HGM. vo2:cIrap3.6.
276 Thcsc ivor11have been affectedby siIlirtio~r1-csuItingfrom peak opcraThe~r.
issuesaresummariscdi~rScrenfficEvnlziutioHC-M.voI2, chap 36.5.1.

277 SR Scie~flQîIrvaluurioHC-M, voI2, chag 4.4.2:Scieni$cRebrilfalHR.voI 2:
chaps3 and 5.
278 SC-M, para4.26,citingtheHurrgar-ian1385ImpactAssessment.

279 Si~noti1995:HR, Annexes, voI 3, amre5.

See Scientfi Evaluojion, HC-M.wI 2, chap 4.4.1.a3d 4.4.1.4foinsurnIrrayof
tlimain effects. I
\vorrIdhave accunrrrIated.781Theseeffect s,in jurIr,wouId have affecred
tire water- supplies of the rea~lr."~ Take11 togethel- theçe irnpacts
corrtradict Slovakia's assei-tion rhar "no serious environinenta1 sisks

e11sued''.~~~

1.111. SIovakiaeri~pliasisesand re-einpkasises the supposed beriefitsof

the Barrage systern for ~ravigatiorron tlre Darir1be.'8~ SIovakia is,
Irowever, co~rspicrrousIy siIentabout be~refits to be reaIistically expected
frornirnprovedna~igatiort.~~~ -Thewaterway is under-utiliseci at pi-esent,

and rhere is IittIe prospect of cl-ra~rge."~ As the Harris-DeIft Study
dc1nonstrates,'8~ tlieseare tiaditiona1methodsfui.resolvii~g 1~avigationa1

difficulties irtheNagyrna1.0~ Reach.

1.1 12. The clair tnat tIre section bemeen Bratislava and Budapest is

"the Danrrbe's 011Iy major senrairrirrg navigationa1 bottIerreck"2Sx iç
w~+ong.There are a ~ru~rrbeo rf restl-ictio~rsi1-rnavigability a1o1rgthe
fairway W~i~ie-Mai~r-Danube.?~S ~i~niIar-lyit is ~nisIeadi~-rtgu suggest

thar rlre Project wouId "render the Danube navigabIeday alrd nighr for
330 days pw yearinstead of just 120 days per ~ear''.~~~In general the

SeeScrenr$c Evai~toiionHC-M, voI2:chap 2.3.2.

282 Seeabove. paragraplr1.I06-1.107 and acco~nparryingnoIes.
283
SC-M. para4.26, ci~ingthe Hr~ngarian 198.5EIA. TIrerc r~ould havehecn otIrcr
cffecIs asweII, rvh~chtra\rbeen describedi~rHungarfs Mernoriai and remain
unrefuled by Slovakia. such as tfrosc Io Iandscape aiid tourism (HM: paras
5.92-3.96) and riîkstu {lisignificant a-chacoIogicasitesreiiiai~a~rd ai-tefacts.
datirrg hactu theNeolirhiçPeriod(%CE 3.500-2.500)(HM,paras 5.97-5.98). TIre
seisniic riskarc addressedbeIorv, pal-agraplrs 1 134-1.137, aarc discussed in

greaterdetaiI inthe Scierrii$?rRebit~rHR, voI 2;chap8 and inrhe Scrcidijic
Evaiuarion, HC-M. SUI2, chap 6.

Z85 SIortakia does sr~ggcstthathe Barrage Systc~n ~'ould have aiiorvcfor a 100%
increascof shipIrafficontheriver. See,cg.: SM.paras 2.82-2.83. TharcIain\ras
i.cfuIedin HC-h4paras 1.178-1.189.

28t There $vasa 70-73% decIinebetween 1985-6and 1992-3: HC-M,para 1.185 By
cornparison,the Mr111ccarries amuch 1x1-gelI-wffic (app~2.3-2.9 ti~nemore,
dependin ogyean so~npared)on a much sinallei-rvaIerwanowhere excccdin the
gc~icrrparametersvf theDaiiubeIiefore1992.

207 Thc Harris-DeIR Srud) (1994) svhichcnnclridedIlrat 11avigaiioproblenis in the
1-eacIror~idbcsolvedby traditiona~iicthodhasbeenput OIIfile wi~rheCourt.

2s8 SM,paraI.20 53 1

Danube waç navigabIe throrrghont theyear."I It\vas sirnply tlrat ce~?ai~r

\~esseIsz9z on certain days'ghcouI nnotpass ceifairi sections. TIre onIy
period when the Danube was 1107 1ravigab1eat aII was rvllen bath
GabCikovo shiplockswereoutofacrion for five ~eeks.~~~

(cl GahEikovoandDuvrakilii r

1.113. Ili the uystrearn sector of rhe Project, impacts and risk are
differe~rtin detaiI thanfor Nagyrnaros,but are Iikewise substa~rtia1.Z95

(0 Su~face wam hydralogv

1.114. III 1978 the Original Project envisaged a rnere 50 1n31sec

discharge into the main riverbed drrring eigllt ~nonths a year, 18.9 III'IS
seepagedurirrg the wiriter rnorithfrom rrnder the weir and aIIowed for an
i~~cr-eas ef up tu 200 m31s"in casc of necessity in growth seaso~r'~.~~~

The Hurigariarr side braricl-reswere to receive between 17and 34 rn31s,
depending on the season and stateof col~natation. 111 accor.dance with al1
i~~depeztderitassessments - and an undiscIosed CSFR assessrnentas

we!It9' - this was stiII grossIy inadequa~e.~~~ But a11the efforts by
Hu~rgary to an~end the Joint Contractua1 PIan irr [Iris regard failed,
coritrary to Slovak assertions Shat 350 m31sfor the main riverbed a~rd

f,300m3/s weekIyfiuslririgsIrad been incorporated into the pIan~.?~~

Excep1incaseof ice.During 1992-1993IIrer\vasno1a sin@ ~cytlay aKom;Sroni:
Co~nrnissiodruDairr~be~niiirarHydz-alogiquedu Dorrirti1995.p 88.
292 SIavakiaofîers nosIatisIics indicnti~igtire petof vessels actuaIIoaded to

lravca ddraughtdeepertha2.5 m.
29r In the period 1976-1985 tlie1wcre ?n average 84 days annually limiringthe
navigationof vesseIswith1no1-tctran2.0 m draughton tht: Vienna-BratI-each.
SC-M. para 8.43irnpliesa dcsperanaviga11ons~iuatira1Na~maros on 17June
1993 - hur thegaug rcading on that da! mas78cni above the iiavigationa1Iorv-

florrIerte(whichis a reading of -IOcm) agrcedby thc Dnnr~bcCo~n~nissioirs:ec
Scieniijic Reb~rii+R.vol2,chap 3.3.
294 KC-M, para3.93.
295
Sec SctenfijiEraI~~oi~oHn:C-M,vol2, chaps 2-5;Scieniijic IlebuiIIK,voI 2,
cliaps3-6.
296 l4C-M.Annexes,wl 3:aliIrcx35 ntp91.

297 SM. para2.69;SC-M,para4.33.

298 sec' 'rechnjcal Description and Ecoriomic Asscss~nc~itof rlrc Tc~nporary
Conmencementof Opera1ions at the GabEikouo Hydroelec~ricPoiver Plair&June
1991;HR:hiirexes, wI 3. annex77. SeeaIsoScieni~ficEi-alunfioHC-M.vol 2:
cliap 3.2.a~iparngraph2.34,belorv

239 SM. paras 2.69,5.41SC-M,para4.33.1.115. Slovakia repeatedIy refers ta the siiiking riverbed arid the
low<ririggrou~rdwatertabIe. which couId on1y be coun~erbalanced by the

impoundment in rhe feservoir and by Iow weirs irrthe main riverbed."O
Far from the OriginaI Prqject being needed, ir seeIns IikeIy that these
processes were genemrt.d by a11dirrthe expectation of the Project.301 At
certain reaches of the riveraggradatio~~coriti~rued even with navigaciona1

d~edging.~~~

1.1 16. Evide~~ce of tIre negative effects of dredging a~rd otfrei-

intervention nleasures affecri~ig the grou~rdwater tabIe cornes from a
recent study published by J. Cifsa, cIie fo1.1-11deirrecofrthe GabCiko'o
For-estResearch Station, which describes the psocessas foIIows:

"After1975 in the region beIow BratisIava, wiIIows and poplars
Iiave dr-id out, irritialiy onls~ioradically,but in rlle foIlowing

threc years entire tree popularionç died ..The process is due to
tlre warerIeve! decrease, that in turn is ille resuIt of
uncoordinated .measures. Thcçe consisred prirnar-ily of tlie
dredging of the Danube, rIre bIockirrg of the branches of the

Danube,a constructio~rof a Irydraulicscreen below BratisIava to
stop the poIIution of the groundwater, a corrstrrrctionof a
bIocki~rg>vaIIto protect a new housing development fsom rhe

high groundwanr, and the deveIopnre11t of a series of sites for
watersuy-ipIy. Due to these uncoordi~iared measures,
groundwater IeveI decreased by approximateIy 2.5 rnetres. Itis
true that thisdecrease varied in certain çpecific instanceç, i.e.,

were considerably greater."303

1.I 17. TIre OrigirraI Project, anyway. entaikd much more serious risks
th311it was said io cure. The 50-200 rn31sec pIanned discharge would

have Ied to a drastic drop irr~ufidce~~~and ground~ater~~~ IeveIs. In the
lasr few kilomerl-es, the river wouId have f lwed backwardsin times of
peük oper-atio1-r. ide branches wouId have been cut off from the main
river. Water leveI fluctuations vital to a riverine wetIand would Irave

--

30u E g,SM.para2.86.
301 See HC-M, par85J-67I.68.

302 HC-M. paras1.61-1.68;Scret~lijEvd~toiion: HC-M. voI1,chap 2.2.2; HGM,
Annexes.vol4 (partIlannex6; ScienliJReburral,HR.wI 2. clia3.1.
'O3
J CifraThe Collape ofilzeEcologicB aIlnnccoffk ForesrAssociaiionoJfl~e
FioodpIuinbeloiu Brufi.~iavVEAB EcvIogicirISlr~dieVeszp1-éiii,1987pp
215-225.
304 SrieniGc EvaIuaiiorIIC-M.vol 2,chap 3.2.2and Scie~dijicRebu~nl,HRvoI 2,
Fig 7la.

'O5 HGM, Annexes, vol5:Plule3.1j.o111y occurred over abour 12 days per year, and orrIyro a Iimiredextenr;
large floods coverirrgthe whoIe active floodpIain were to be expected

onIy once in every 10-25 years.306 AI1this worrld have Iedto Iossof the
natural values to be found in tite Szigetk6z,Jo7 even if rnitigario~~
rneasures - such as the artificialsuppIy of water inio tirside branches -

rnigl-rsIowdown thepr~cess.~~~

1.118. SIovakia accepts that since Da~rube water is rich in i-ruti-ierits
"tlrei-eis aIways a potentiai for-'entrophi~ation"',~~~especiaIIy silice
water veIocity irr sonle parts of the reservoir rvould be greatIy

red~ced.~'~ This was precisely the Hungarian concern." l
Eutroplrica~ioncan have devastati~~g effects. The cost of reinedyi~rg
eurrophicatiori iriFrance was estirnated at FF 1000- 1270 miIlion, quite

aparf fronr damages for Iost tourism in the range of FF 300-470
1ni1Iion."'"

1.119. The reductiori of discharge in 'the rnai~r riverbed risked
eutroplricatiorrof stagnant rvaterbodies irithe branch systern.3'3 Tn pre-
Project conditions tire Inai11riverbed was [Iresource of recharge intothe

aquife~;'and rhe inferiorquality of tirewater in the side biarichesdid 11ot
significant1yaffect deep subsurface waters. W irh the en~ptyingof the
mai11 r-iverbed,the significanceoftlreçidebranches in~reases.~ I4

1.120. As to gron~~dwatefrlows, leversthronghout the extensive aquifer

of the Szigetkoz arid adjacent areas were deter~ni~ied by Danube water

306
For furtirdeiailssee Tnbh 2.2 ai~2.3 inScierrf$cEva!uaiian, HL-M, uoI2. at
pp 29 12.
jo7 Sec below,paragraphs1.125-1.130.

30X See beIow: paragraplrs 1.141-1.144.
SC-M. pan 7.33 ;eealsopara7.34.

310 SC-M.para 7.34.
II The Becli1eIRepoit rsdairned (SC-M, para7.38 o pred~ctIrnpr&enienrinrrraIer
qualits. buitaIso c~ruisagedthe poren1fordeterio~alio(seeHC-M, para 1.95;
HC-M: Aiineses.WI 4 (pari1) at37).On thepossibiIilof massive increasein

cIrIor-oplrpaonceniratio~11IIre1-eservsee Scient~jEvoizirziion:HC-M: vo2,
Ftg3.6.
Agcncc de I'EauLoire-Bi-ctagnUnesrraiégiede Lire conrrIéirit.opliisnlIune
1992, UrlCans.

I SmScienlijicKeb~iffal. R,rd 2:Fig 7.i.

314 -See detaiinScicnigicRebutfolHR, ~ol2,chap 4.3.IeveIs. Higlr water-tabIe conditions occurred iririte srimrneas a resuItof
the seasonal pattern of Danube f lws, arid tlruscoincided wit1ithe period

of n~aximum vegetatiori dernarrd for xvater. TIris provided the
errvironmenta1 condirions to suppoif the wetland vegetatioir of the
Szigetkoz aird, w11eregroundwates IeveIs mse into thefine soi1over tlie
aIIuviaI aqrrfer, natural sub-irrigation was pipvided to suppo1-r

agiicuitura1crops.

1.12 1. Sin~ulation resuIts of the irnpact of the OsigiiraI Pr-ojectwere
r-epo1-iei~rthe Hrrngarian Corrnter-Me~rroi-ia1.3IAS radical change i~rthe

regioira1flow patterns was demansti.ated. I~rstead of occurring fsom the
Danube channe], recharge rnairily occurred from tlie reservoirand from
tlre floodpIain side-arrn syste~n. Average groundwater. IeveIs were
predicted to iricrease near the reservoir, but to decrease in the ripasian

wetlarids by in excess of 3 m. However, groundwater variabiliv wouId
aIso be reduced, Ieadiirgto Iarger decreases in peak grorr~rdwaterIeveIs.
Ari arpa of 300 km' was show to suffer-grou~idwater decrease on the

Hungarian tersito1-y:sub-irrigationxvouIdhave been reduced or be totaIIy
Iostover-an area of 167 km'.jlG

1.i22. Changes couId aIso be expecfed in ille quaIityof groundwater.
RecIrai-gefrom the Danube main cha~rrielwas SpicaIjy of high clre~nical

quaIiiy. The cllange i~rrecharge sources tliat wonId Iraveoccurred with
the Original Projecl would Iravecarried an important riskof waterqualiiy
degradation. Fine sedi~~~eri tsould have been deposited i~rthe reservoir.

The sediment Iayei- couId have been expectd 10 decay. Organic
decornpositio~i coI-rsurnesoxygen and can Iead to cheirricaIIy reducing
co~rditioris, a11d hence the 1-11obiIisa1ionof iron, manganese and
arnmonium. Such effecrs were predicted for the reservois arid Irave

alseady been observed tooccur inthe çide-arm system.j17 Inrernatio~ial
experiertce of Austrian and Germari resei~oiis Irasshown that serious
groundwater problenrs Inay be generated by i.eservoi1s.318

jlj Ibid.ScreidrJicEv~Iua~ionHC-M. voI 2. chaps 3.3-3.5 and HC-M, voI 5,
P~u~s3 10-3.12,3iii. 3..6

I6 Sce for funherdetailScieiifiRcbriiral,HR, va12, ~4.4.1.
317 ScieniifiEvdicafiotiHC-M, voI 2, chap 3.5.2. Sr~chcrccis can be quite
dangerous.Forexanrplc,1Muclia notes rhat the high niCUSIICIof the %iln>

Oslrovhi~scausedirrethr~noglobinemjain bibies. HCvoI 4(pz172)annex II,
p438.
31F ScientfiEvairrnfiojHC-M. wl 2. chap3, pp96-97s;ee alsoHM, Appendix3,
pp 394-395. 57

1.123. TIre potentia1 foi these proble~ns as a sesuIt of the DunakiIiti-

HruSovReservoir ha5 been underiirted by Hungarian?I9 SIo~ak~~~ a~-rd
internatior~al~~s'cientists. These processesare Ii keIy to develop over a
periodof years,and the poIIuredwater wiII pwyiagatethrough tlieaquifer

over a ti~rre-çcaleofde cade^.^^^ Propagation rimes have bee~iestirnated
for-tlieaquifer using isotopic t~acers.~~~ The Scient& Reburraland tlie
discussion of tlre 1111-eatsosedby VariantC address in detaiI the SIovak

assertions that Hungary ovefitates the potential of tlieaquifer a~rdthe
risks posed by tlie Psoject to the aq~ifer.'~~ Nonethelesç, aItIiougIr
preserrtly only used to a Iirnitedextenr, it isa Iorrg-termreserveof grear

sig1iificance.3z5

fiv }olinaralion

1.124. The i11te1-reIatiorislripbetween surface water a~rdgroundwaar
are fu~rdarnental to the deterniination of tlie impacts of the Project with
respect to grou~idwatei- recharge, groundwater qr1aIi9, a~rd the

effectivenessof remedialrneasureç.These issues Irave been discussed i~r
detaiIin the Scien~?ficEvaiuari~n,~~~ and are deait witli be10w in the
discussionof impacts of Variant C and in tfie Scienrific Rebur1a1.~~~

Hungaryhad feared tlrat sigr~ificansediment deposition wouId take pIace
in the Dunakiliti-HruSov sesewoir. Because of the Iarge decrease i~i

319 Seee.g., HM,Annexes. wI 5 (part 1annex IOpp 317-318.
320
Scc, cg.. thsIudieofM LichvBr,Z Zckeuva and1Lehocky, 1990,surnrnariscdby
SIovak Unionof Na1r11ar~rdLandscape ProrecrurUM, Annexes. voI5 (parfII),
arrnex17,pp 634-536:1Mucha. E PauIikova,1991,inHM, Annexes,vol 5 (part1),
nnnex 11.p321.
Sec7cg., Hydro-QuébecReport, HM, uoI 5 (part I), a~inea9, referring to the

possibilityof '-totalcoImataiion of the reservoir" (as3~*elIas Io remedial
mcasures. See aIso BechteIReport,HC-M, vol 4 (part I), anne1, p31, which
coriespo~rdtoSM, vol 3:mnex 27.p 2IO.
322 Itisquitemrong ruinipIy thatbecauscdegradation is expecredto be a Iong-term
prticess or because Hu~rgaiy'srisk assessrnentIacertaintythe threat is no7

serious. See SC-M: para 7.51. See coniru ScieitiffReburrai. HR, vu1 2,
drap 4.4.1.
jZ3 ScierrigrEv~I~~aiioH~r--M,vu12, chn3.4.1.1.
324
Se, bcIow,pragraphs 2.59-2.53. The rhreëts andrisksaredescriinmorede1311
in theScieibglicEYUIIIUIHOC~-,M.vu12:chaps 3.4-35.
325 As recogniscdin thc SIovakPHAREAppIicaiionH:C-M,Anncses, voI3, mnex 48.

326 HC-M: voI 2,chap 3.4.
327 See belou,, parag1apIrs~2.44-2.80,and funherScienifi Rebuila&HR, voI 2,
.
chap 4.5for a rcbutjal of the SIovak contentionswhiclr i~icInteaiia,that
coImatalionhad been studicd carefuIIy bthepmies and rhar fIusIring of fine
sedirnentissufficie10 giiara~rtccgood infi11rcondirivns.water suppIied to rhe nrain riverbed, reservoir ~IIfiltration wouid be the
rnost irnpo~fantsource of rechargeto the regionaIaquifer. TIiis seclrarge

wuuId be restricted by the colmatatio~i p~ocesseç.~~"urtIier, fre
i~apIeme~-rtatiw olf a side-bra~rclisupply systeni $vas envisaged as a

1nirigatio1m1 easureto srrbstitutefor the Iost rechargecapacifyof the rnaiii
cIianne1downstream of DunakiIiti. Recerit research results, howeves,
indicate that tlie 1.ecIrargof the aquifer via side-branches is not just a

question of surface coI~~~aration b,t rather cornpIex process depe~rding
or1 tsansrnissivity of subsurface Iayers and the gradient of the
urou~idwatertableto the 111aic 1ra~rrieI.~*~

1.125. TIie word "biodiveisity" does 11otappeariri the Slovakpleadings.

Slovakia presents the issue of flora, fauna, biodiversiry a~id nature
proiectio~lin tlrespirit of the 19605,rr~rco~nforiablayddingtliat values of
the affected region shouId be protected, but tizating borfi~it~ii0çtro;

and tireSzigetkGzas "prirnarilyagricuitural in nature."330 The fact tliat
rhese are amongtlie few renrainingi~rtactfloodplairrsin Europe andforrn
the Iast major inrand deIta in Europe, the remnafit of an ancierit irriier

deItaof the Danubeof three n.riIIionyearçago,goes u~ire~nar-ked .33

1.126. Befure 1992, a certain drop of grorr~idwaterIexleIscouId be
obçer~ed.~~~ However it oriIy r-esuIted in slight changes of pIanr

co~nrnuniites. Several serious droughts during this tirnéare eqrralIy
responsible for the sIigI~tdryilig in the Iast IO years. But rroessenria1
changes inçpeciescornpositio~r appeared befoi-eautuinn 1992.333

325
Scc Scicriiific RebaHR,Ivol 2,chap4.5.
329 Ibid.
330
SC-M. para7.86siates that tlie HungariarrMc~norinIis ta1ki1rg-'nonwhene"
refei~rntu 6:000lia and 23'900 Iraof floodplain nffecred by rheOriginal Yroject
"i~rIlrc Gnbtikovo sccto(HM, para5.20, referrinto Equipe Cousteau Final.
Repofl. HM. Annexes,r~l 5 (part 1annex 16.p 29). The charge8srnvaIid.TIrc
figr~resrcIaic to thc prc:Pi-uj~ctarrdto the whuIe GahEikovosecior from
Bra~isIav(1867 rh) Io Sap(1BI 1rhn). Thc Hiu3ov reseWoir i~seIfannihiIated
approx 5.00 0aof flodplain.

33I Sc, HM, para 5.20;HM, Annexes:voI 5 (part II), annex SeealsoM Dynesisr~s
and C NiIsso~i,I994Fr-ag~~~cnio!nnd FioiuRegtllaiiwnunRiverSysfenisinthrr
~i'orilzernTIzofdlhe M'ai-ld266 Science753. For theexperienceivith other
major European 1-I\T.scc '"Some Major Dam Disputes-': see HK, voI 2:

Appendix 5.
332 ScimfijicReliirrlol.HRvol2. Piaie4.3.

333 HR. Annexes. WI 3, anIr5. 1.127. ResuIts of the six yearsof the bota11icaIrnonitoririgsyste~rrbefore
1992 shorved that aIthough the biota and vegetation of the Szigetkoz

untierwent ce~-tain çubsrantia1areas carryi~igthe natnral
wetland vegetation were still pr-eselved and tlre e~rtire regiorr had
n~airitai~~eits wetIa~id ~Iraracter.~~T~his rr~~iquaerea had pr-eseired its

originaI biocoenosespossessing 1,008 species of vascular plants, 1OYo of
whiclrare protected including Red Listed and endemic species. 80 plant
co1n1nu1-iitie asre ideritified, cIearIy exceedi~~gthe riurnbei-for si~nilar

floodpIains at WaIIsee or in the Vienna Basi~iin Arrsrria and in rhe
viciriity of Baja irr Hurigary. Duri~rgthe study of wiIIow woods arrd
riparian sofi~rood foreçrç, iraIso became apparenr that the degsee of
degradation of for-estsand ~neadows was rnuclr Iower-oIr the wet

fIoodpIainof rhe Szigetkozthan elsewhere in the Danube~a1Iey.~~T ~his
corrtrasts with the Slovak depiction of ari ecoIogy irr irreversible
decIi~~e.~~?

1.128. The SIovak aIIegation that as an "historica1 factV3" "regu1ar
water fluctuatioi~s[in the Hurrgariaribrarrcltsyste~n]sirnpIydid not occur
dire totlre regio~r'sisolatiorifromtlie niain ri~er"~~"is i~rcorrect fortlre

reasons described in the Scien~iJicRebur~ul.Indced, Czechosbvak ia
acknowIedged thar, inaddition to "the deveIopmentof the effected Zirny
0st1.0~ urider.grou~rdwarer suppIy,.especiaIIy 'from a water qrraIity

viewpoirit", the disturbarrceof the dy~iarnicsof the ecosysterns of tlre
region and flie endangering of the fIoodpIain forests, terrestria1 and
aquatic farr~raarrd flora lirikedto it presenrai unresolved probIe~ris.~~~

Later-researcl~hasconfirmecl this view.

1.129. The OriginaI Projectwould have dcstroyed about 4,500 ha of the
floodplai~ s vegetatioripotential cornpIeteIyand about 3,500 lia partiaIIy

(Plare 5.3).Most importantly,the cornplctewiIIow-poplarfarest (zone I),

334 E-g.,~Iierehad been a sIightdropof gmu~rdrvatcrIcvcPhle 4.3.
j3$ See Ploie j2 shorving potential floodpIain vegetation as of 1992.See also IIR:

Annexes,voI 3,annex5
336 Seedetails inScienrGRebrifioHR. YUI2. chapfi I.
337 See,e.g.SM, parasI.57I-.72;SC-M:paras7.22-7.7 391-7.83.7.99-7.104.

338 SC-M, para7.IOO.

339 SC-M,pra 7.99.
340 Position of IIre CzechosIovak GovernrnenfaI DeIegati11: JuIy*1991; HM:
Ariiexes, 4: aIinc52. TIiis Position Pap\vasIn response10a docu1ne111
rvIiicIi Iiad been liardcd otorCzecho~lo~akiaon 3 January 199i by tire
Hr~ngariairPlciiipotent~ary.THungarian documenl had identifieclareas of

conceinreferencinga 39 item bibliograpof srudiescarriedout prioto 1989;
HM, Annexes,vu1 4. annex41, KG. IiisremarkabIethat SIovakia neilanncxcd
nordiscusse his Posirion Papin11psIcad111gs.with an averagewidth of 3 km in the Szigetkozactive floodplai~r, wouId

practically disappear -ver-an ar-ea of apgroximately 6,500 lia, together
witli ifs associated pondweed-~na~+s Iirbitats. Wet forzsfsand meadows
{zoneII) were onIyexpected to survive wirh rednced viraIity ira patclr

naar the DunakiIifi-HrugovReservoir. The potential wiIIow-poplarzone
would be replaced by dry forests and grasslands (zone IV) on
approxirnately 1,000Iraand by a rnosaic of d~yand damp (mesoplrilic)
foreçts and meadowç (zones IV and III)on appruximately2,000 ha. Two

major patches of tlris rnosaicwould deveIop i~tfiegrotected fioodplain
outside the dykes on an axa of aIn.rost5,000 ha. The character of rlre
entire vegetationinsidethe dykes wouIdchangedue to the Iackof reguIar

floods, i.e.,never more wiII there.be aIIuvial vegetation, but rather it
would Irarre becorne a mixture of cornmon floodpIairi species a~rd
addiriona1IowIand~pecies.3~~

1.130. Anticipated impacts of the Project on the aquatic fauna can best
be studied Iookirrgat river-reaclrés,wkiclruriderweritsirniIaralteratiorrs
in flow regime. Austrian strrdiesof benthic invertebrates dernonstrate
cIearIy the impactsof channelisation, impoundmentsand peak operation

on the ecoIogica1 quaIity of ,river secrions with respect to fanna1
composition, tlre details of which are described in tfii: Scienrifrc
Reb~ifui.~*~

1.131. Here agairithe SIova picrure of decIi~re~~d~oeç rrotrefiect the
data. AgricuIturaI output rose dramaticaIIy between the I960s and

1980s, parlIy due to nroder-riproductiori recIinoIogies.No decrease in
timber producti~ity3~~ wwas experierrcedin the decades before the
implerne~itationof VariarrtC.345

341
Se,Scw~glicRebuifal,HR,y01 2, chap 5, for moredeladiscussionsfeffecrs
of tfrcPrtljccton flora and fau~ra.
342 Scitri~fRebttrfd, HRvol2. chap5.See also, NesenrannanMoog, 1995;HR:
Annexes.wI 3, a1rnc.x4.

343 SM, paras I.57-1.5 8h.e i~npressiIeveIof reccnl Slovak ~esearclrinto the
Projecl's i~npact''(SC-M: paranote2129)in areaof soilsand agricultureis
represenrenda 7-pagerypewrirtendocument (SGM,'~nnex231,only2 pagesof
mhichdeaI rvith irrigationand tiresoi1rnoistrireregimeafter thc starfof Varianr C.
No1 a single refereisgiventasuppoflingstudiesor nrapsidentifying affected
areas.

344 AsinfemdbySC-M,paras7.92, 7.894.8.33.
j4j SeeSckn~ifiRebIuriaHR, voI2, chap 6.2.1 132. Short-term impacts oftlie OriginaI Pr-ujectwouldhave involved a

Ioss of naturaI sub-irrigation oves Iarge areas of the SzigetkG~.~~"or
agriculture a loss of productiility a~idsusceytibiIiiy ta drbught would
have Irad severe cansequences for the IocaI ecoriomy, wllich were

estimated at HUF 90-100 million each year.j4' IIItlre 1o11gterm, soi1
stsrrctura1change and modification of tlie soi1 nutrient status were
expected?as described i~rthe Scie~rfificEval~ufion. ~~ m~ore r-ecent

analysis of detailed agricultural and soils data349 allows iurtlier
defillitionof rhe soi!water effects. In PIm 6.2, the data 011 tireaverage
depth of groundwater. irthe gipwirig seaso~i,base# on an agi-icuIturaI

~rrorritorinprogramme behvee~i1980a~rd1992,is combined wirh soiIç
infosrnatiorrto identify the conditions of narurai sub-irrigation before

damco~~stsoctioriA . n examinationof the studies fiIed witlitIreCourt by
Slovakia3j'J demonsrratetlrat the SIovakScientists were weI1 aware of the
potential for serious long-term adverse effects to soils and agricultrri+aI

productivitydue to implerneritationof the OriginaIPr~ject.~~'

1.133. As to forestry, the decreasein the groundwater table, the Iackof
i~iurrdations,and the changes in rhe soi1 structure wouId have cauçed

long-term damage, eçti~nated at about HUF 140 miIIion eacliyear based
un IoweraverageyieIds.352

346 Qt~arltifiedScieriigEvrriuoizon, C-M,vol2, chnp3.4

347 Scien~ij;Ev~i~rrrfin:C-M.voI 2: chap5.2.2. Irrigat~muId have assis~edbu1
rvur~iIiavccntaileinveslment anoperatingcmis; innrryevenI ihere woulhave
been furiher deieriomtioof tiresoi1 conditions after fervyears; Scienii$c
Ev~luaiion.HC-M, voI2,chap fi.-6. ciejiriRebitrral,H,voI2,Fhap 6.1.

348 Screirr$cEvaltrarjon,HC-M,voI 2, cha5..G. TheScreirrifReburrnl.HR. vol 2,
chap 6.1.3 conlains a rebunalof the Slovak assertions reIatiIO suils and
ngricuI1ureitheconlexi of the Origi~ralProjcct.
349
E MoInir; G PaIkovits and K Kajkai,Evalztafionof IIIFeficlof the Dmi~ibe
k~)froelcci:-Barrage Sys/e~on soi! properiies and AgricrzliProdizc?ionNI
rheSzigeflrizegion.Br~dnpcst1995.A copy of this siuIinsbccndepositedwith
IlrcCourt.

350 HR.Arnerics.vo13,annex'i.
I SecScien@îc RehizricNIR,vol2,chap S.1.2

352 .?~i~,zrificAebr*HR.lvol 2, chap 6.2.2. Foa discussioof forcstry issues. see
.Tcimiifc Relrztl1-IR ,oI2, clrap 6.2 anSrienf~JcEt'alirario, C-M. voI 2.
~113~5.3.1.134. SIovakiachooses tointerpreta Iackof defaiIedgeoIogicaldata as
"alleged ig~roi-&ce of the regiori's seisnzic c~nditions''.~~~Adequate
geoIogica1information is essential to the assessrneritof seisrnic hazard;

the i~isufficiencyof the information avaiIabiewas evide~iced by theneed
for the DANREGpr~ject.~~~

1.13 5. The seismicdesigrrparaineters,wliich were set i~r1965,required
sevision tobririgtliem into Iinewirhniodernconceptsof ,ri&and design;

fui-tl~erino~et,Iie seismic perforinance of the embankments and their
fori~~dationwsere feIttobe q~estiunabie."~~AIfhoughthe Iocationof the
barrage was chaiiged in response to the prese~rce of a farrIt rrear

GabEikovo, rnoving the barrage by 700 m would only protect the
structure from differentiaI displaceme~itacross tlie fauit;tlre effects of
groundshakingwould notbe diminished over sucIra srnalIdistaIrce.

1.136. TIre capability of the region tuproduce strong rnotioriIrasbee~r

appr-eciated forsonre rime; itis not a "rnyth", nor virasit"invented by
Hungary".X7 AIthough Slovakia suggests tliatexiçtirrgembarikments
are safe up to 7.5ro 8.0 fhis is Iess than necessary. A

preIiminary appraisa1,of hazard suggests rhat Iiqtrefactionand faiIure
within tlie forindationsofthe embankmentscould occur-urrder- the 'iwo~t
case cen na rio‘'.^ M^oreover; the i~idependentstudies seferred to have
~iotproperly researched Iiquefacfio~rri~k's.~~~

1.137. Slovakia daims that a seis~nic~ietworkis iripIace, a~rdtliar no
starion liasregisteredan earthquake of any ~aIue.~~IIf a riètwork were i11
place, it couIdnot IiaveEaiIedtu detect the earihquakes observed atGyGr

SeeScici~fiEvahiafionHC-M, vol 2chap8; I-IC-paras1.I57- 1.171.

SC-M,para 7.105.
See Du~pp er ri!, 199HR,Annexes,vol3,annex 8.

HC-M,para 1.162.
SC-M, paras7.153-7.114: See cg.,Lokvena cndSzBniG1986,quoted in the
ScienfrjicReb~ilHR..vol2, cha8.

SC-M,para7. I12.
SeeScient$c EvaIuufruu, GM, va12,chap6.

The HQI Report: refeltudin SM, para2.6citesaIiquefacriassessrnentsing
tlic Sed-ldrisapproach:itmadeno aitemptto re-appraiserheriskapplying
accelcratioappropriattoamaximumcredibleevent. Asoutlinedintheijc~enfijic
Ev-niua~ioi.C-M, vol 2,chap 6, iiquefactioncm be demonslratedin such an
ei'ent.
SC-M'para 7.113. in 1990 and 1 993.367 Slovakia Inay Irave confused the iristallatioii of
su-o~rgn~otion recorders with 'aseismic network, which neither fuIfiIçthe

furrctio~i~io-atisfies thé~reedfor a ~~etwork.~~~

1.138. Ina large reservoir- onIy necessaIy foi-peak eriergy production-
a solid ice covei- 1vou1dfor111i~rrnost winrers, incr.easing the riskof ice
jarns witli a subseqrie~rtriseof wates IeveIs possibiy overropping dykes -
eveIr ataverage dischasges. The safe release of broken ice is one of tlie

rnostdifficrIttasks in ~.ese~;voisperafion.36d

1.139. TIre GabEikovo sector d id 11opose navigationai probIen~swith a
single exceptiorint i-k~n1814, wIlicIicouId ~ro~retheIessbe ~-regotiated.~~~
The removal of navigatioo nastacles was arid stiII is possibIe bymeans

of traditional rivereg~lation.~~~

1.140. SIovakiaregrers Hungary 's faiIur-eto rnerrtio1-r"the errorrnous

' benefit provided by the Project in terms of finding a long term solution to
tire Danube's tendency tosevere fl~oding''.~~~ h fact ,ose benefits had
aIready been achieveb dy traditiorral ~nea~rs.~~~After rhe 1965 flood the

Partiesagreed toraisethe design IeveI and flood safety to the leverof the
IO0years fiood. As a resuIt there were no difficurties with subsequent
Roods, incIuding char in 1991 which was Iarger than the 1965 flood
depicted in theSIovak Mern~riaI.~~~

SeeF;g8 5 in Scieilt~Jc Rebzzi1F1102. chap 8.

ScienrifîRebirtlcHR. vol2.chap 8.4.
SeeScieniijic Evulun?iHC-M,voI 2,chap2.3.3.

HC-M.Anneses. 1014 (pan 1 annex 8,p440.
Delft Hydraulics, FR HarriY,ITUKI, Dunube Lnvironiiien~and n'avigation
Prqjecr FeastbllSt~rdyR.ajk- BudupesiS~reic Bir S~ay-ip[v ~tioulh. Final

Rcpori,October 1994:p8-2.
SGM, para7 120.

A de1aiIeanalysi1soperedin HC-M.Annexes,voI 4 (partI)annc x.
SM, pal-1.33aliiIIus17. corresponding rorI~e1iatusa1 flow of 1300 rn'1s''.3~8 Moreover rhey
wouId have had Iorig-ter~ndetr-irneriteffect~."~ Tlie crrrciaI point is
t11atno artificial discharge segi1-ceuIdcreateI~abitatco~idirio~~ thsat are

Spica! of a fiee-flowingriver. Dr Jaggi380co~nmerrts:

"A full realisatioriof ThissysteIn [a ser-iesof submerged weirs]
wou1d resrrlt ia series of Iakes,tirrougirwlrichtlre waRr wouId
flow o111yvery sIowIy. Tlie Da~rubewouId cornpIetety Iose its

chasacterof a rlrnriingwaces,a charactesfor xvhiclian i~itensive
fightis on between Vicnnaand Hainb~rg."~~'

1.144. To conclude, the design of the Original Project had inherent
flaws in irs undesIyi11gassumprionç. To mitigate g~+ouridwateIrevel
r-eductions itis necessary to i-eprodirce IrigIwater IeveIs in the main

riverbed. But weirs resuIt in serious Iong-terrnadverseconsequenceçand
witliouta Iliglidischargeintothe Dariube have very lirnitedeffect. If the
'OrigilialPsojectIiadbeen nrodified to alIow for a IiigIwarer- IeveIin tlre

main rivesbed, it niight have been ecoIogicaIIyacceptabIe. But tIiar
wouId have i~rlpactedon die eco~io~nicç of arr ali-eady eco~romicaIIy
dubiousproject.js2

SECTION D. THECONDUCTOF THE PARTIES38L

1.145. Accordi~rg to SIovakia, Hungary was determined to abandon the

Project as earIy as May 1 but at Iatestwlienthe Hardi Report waç
psoduced i11Septe~r- be1989:385 ther-eafierit ~regotiateiribad faitIlwith
no intentionof returningto the Original-Projectin any

378 SM. para 5.41.These types orueirsdo notre-establiwter Ievels.buIocaIIy

protectci-05s-sections.ScienifficRebullai.Hvol 2.drap7.1.3 :p Fig 7.1.
379 Su~ninarisd in ScicniiR~b~itn/,HR. voI2.chaps7.4-7.5;Srient$îc Ei-ah~~iio~~:
I-IC-M.vu12:chaps2.5.4.6.1; seaIsoI-iC-h4:paras 3.101-3.122
380
Nthoscviervar-efully endorsed hy Slovakia; SC-MI5.03.
HR.&rncxçs, 1'03.anIrex3. Detailof thHainburgconfiicare con~ain ndHR:
vol2. Appendix5.

382 See &IR , nnexes.vol3.annex92,seeaIs Noorgaard.HR.vol2. AppentI~~.
383 As IofIreperiodbeforc 1989,Hu~rgaryIras ~rotlii~rgto add to the discussio~r ii~

HC-M, chap 2. As tlemoristratcthereearlieico~riroversies liavc ooIy iiridirccl
re1ek~an tethe presentdispure.
383 SC-M, paras3.03-5.T 0lisis sig~iifrcadiffcrciit fHM,para 3.74.

3F3 SC-M: paiz5.29. ,
38t SC-M.para 5.01. 1.146. In fact, substaritiev idence suppoxf irig Hungarian concerris was
availabje by May 1989, wiren construction of Nagyrnasos was

suspe~~ded.~~~ Thereafier Hu~rgary sough t by negotirttions and
investigario~~tso 1eac11a sound concIusiori in agseenient \vit1competent
CzechosIovak bodies about the Pr-oject and necessary rnitigation

1rreasu1-esI.acted thi+ougIrouit~rgood faitli,and o11Iyrnoved to terminate
the Treaîy in ApriI 1992, faced witl~ rhe conti~~uedrefusa1 of
CzcchosIovakiato suspend i~npIe~nerrtatioo nf Variant C.

1.147. The history of the irrtergovcsnrnenta1~regotiationsin the period

1989-1992 Ilasalieady been told i11earlierpl~adings.~" 01~e tireCourt
cornes to tlie concIusion that Hnngary was acfing in good fait11irr an
attemjit to resolve ge~tuircoricernsabout the Pruje~t,~~~ that history lias

a somewlratIirnitedrelevance totlredispute. The eçse11tia1 issues are the
factual, scientific and IegaI queçtions canvasscd elsewhere irrtliis
volume. Volume4 of tl~isRepIy is a fuld-out chr~~ioiogyof the dispite
fro~n 1988 thsough Febrnary 1994, wIiiclr rnay assist the Cou13 irr

following the detailsof the negotiatio~isarrdother deveIopments.

1.148. For rlreçereasoris, itis noc pi-oposed to go over this grou1-~d iii
furtl~erdetaiI irrtfris vaIurne. Appendix 5 responds i~detaiI to tIiose
aspects of the SIovakCounrer-Mernorial deali~~g w itlrtire history of tlie

dispute which reqr~ire a r.esponse.340The co~~clusions of that Appendix
may be su~rrrnarisedas foIlows:
*
the Huiigar-iandecision to suspeiid construction was based on a
well-founded concerIr for the envir~n~neritalrisks of the Psoject
and corisistent ..with the principles of good governance

(HR, voIume2, Apperidix 5, paragraplis 3,5 arid27);
* at aII timeç Hunga~y demonsrrated a ge~-rui~rw e iItingness to

~regotiate in good faith to acliieve .a rnutually acceptable .
agreement, if fiecessary by an appropriate arne~rd~neno tf tlie1977
Ti-eaty and settIernent of financial Iosses (HR, volume 2,
Appendix6, paragraphs 7,23-26,35);

387 Seeabouc.paragraphs187-1.89.

- 38s Se,HM:paras3.109-3.186: SM: paras4-01-4.103HC-I\I,pai-as2.26-2.88;SC-M,
paras5-01-5.112.
389 See HC-M: para 2.119 where itisargued that Huiigary-sFCII~~IWOIII~ be
inexpIicabIe~fiwas actingin bad fatth. Bad faiIh is any erfen1101to be

presu~ned,and hascerla~not beenp1-ovedin ttriscase:by refertotheMaclai
letlerorothenvise.seeHC-M.para2.118-2.128.
390 Sa HR, i.o2, Appendix5. * irt coritrast, Czechoslovakia became iricreasingly inflexibk,
insisringupon the co11itnuedconstrrrctioriofthePraject according
to the originaI plans, whiIe offeri~ig Iittle more than a brief

investigatiori of unspecified "ecuIogicaI guarantees" (HR,
voIurne2, Appe~idix 5,paragraphs 28-30,35, 38).
*
Hungaryactively souglit third-par9 assisrance in the resolurion of
the dispute, accepting the reasoriabie terms of EC invo1vemerrt
wlriclr'Czeclroslovakia disnrissed as unacceptable "psecoriditions"
contrary to its fir~ii interttio~to irnpIeme~rtVariant C (HR,
volu~r-re, Appendix 6,paragraphs 34,455 1).

SECTION E. SUMMARYOF CONCLUSIONS IN THIS
CHAPTER

1.149. By way of surnrnary tfiis Cliapter Iras dr-awn the foIlowiirg
concIusions wirich are relevant to the IegaIissues addressedirChapter 3

of this Regly: ,

(1) As envisaged by the 1977 Tseaty the OrigirraI Prqject had hwo
fundamental objectives which defined its character: a poIirica1
. objective (paragraphs .1.03-1.05) and an economic objective
(pai-agraphs1.07-1.1 1).

In giving effecrro thesc two objectives the 1977 Treaty provided
foi-a flexible, framework approach to beimpremented throrrgh a

subordinate iristrument, the Joint Contractual Plan (paragraphs
1.14-1.I7), and itwas to be applied in the context of a çeries of
reIated internatiorral agreements (pa~+agraphs1.18-1.2 1). III
particulaï- tliere was ~io intention tu exclude appIicabIe
international erivisonmentaI rionirs as they evolved (paragraphs

1-34-1.41j,includirrgthe obligatio~ito cooperate in the Project's
evolution (paragsaphs 1.42- I.44), to eIrçrrre sustainable
deveIoprnent through the i~rtegration of envirorrrne~-rtaIami
developrnental objectives (paragraphs 1.45-1.50), and to be
infarmed by a preventive and precautionary approadi to
erivironmenta1protection (paragrapl-rs1.51-1.58).

(3) TIie 1977Treaiy did not vest irCzechoslovakia any pippr-ietary

rights i11the waters of tlre Danube (paragraplis 1.28-1.291,and it
did not establis11any fom of "objective wgirne" (paragraphs

(4) No adequate EIAor its equivaIent was carriedout in respcct of the
Origi~iaIProject before or aftertbe 1977 Treaty, by either paq
(garagraphs 1.54-134).(5) By 1989 studies i~rdicand rhat the OriginaI Projectposed major
environmental risks downstrea~n alid rrpstream (paragr-aphs
1.85-1.92).

(6) The state of the Osigi~raIProject in 1989 did not precIude a
r-eassess~nentfthe 1977 Treaty (paragraphs 193- 19).

(7) Researchcan-iedourafter 1984 confinrred thattlreOrigi~ialProjecf

e~rtailedmajor risks aridthat significaritenviso~r~nentaIamage
was Iikely to arise' upstream and downstrea~rr (pasagraphs
1.100-1.140); sucIr danrage couid riof have been prewnted or
se~nediedby ariyof the "rnitigation rneasures"tIratwere proposed
(paragraphs 1.141-I.144).

(8) In tIris context, Hungaiy's conduct i~isuspendirrg construction,
slrowing a wiIIi~rg~resto negoliate in good fairh to reach a
mutuaIIy acceptaHe agreement was, i~rthe cir-curnsta~rces,

reasorrabIeandjust ified(paragraphs 1.1451.148). -

69

I

CHAPTER2

VARIANT C
I I

2.01. The second major aspect of the dispute presented ro tlre Cour-t

reIates to "tlieprovisional soIutiori[otherwise Variant CI". The ternr
"Variant C" wiII be used througIiorrt tliis Chapter: ifhas the same
nieaning as earlier ferrns such as "the provisionalsolution", or "the
provisional technical solution".

Tliepartiesare in sharpdisagreementasto most issues relatingto
2.02.
Variant C: when it was thought of, when it was planned aiid initially
implemented, what itsimpacts were and are, wliether it canbe seen as
rnerely part of the Original Project or a new and different project, and
whether aiidhow its impactscanbest be mitigated, inthe shortas wellas

the longer term. This Chapterreviews these issrres in theIightof earlies
pleadingsand of the scienrific and Iiistor-icaImateria!nowavaitable. The
conclusions of this Chapter provideabasisfor deterrnining the IegaIityof
Variant C, as required by ArticIe2( 1)(b)of the SpeciaIAgreement. This
crucial isstrwiII be discussed inChapter 3.I

2.03. ThisChapter accordingIydiscusses the fo1Iowingissues:

(1) Earlier intimations of a "provisional technical solution" identical
insubstanceto Variant C (both before and after 1977)(Section A,
ThePrehistoryof Variant C, paragraphs 2.04-2.17);

(2) The timing of the various decisions actuallytaken with respect to
Variant C (Section B, The Timing and Impleinentation of
Variant C (1989-1992),paragraphs2.18-2.43);

(3) Theactual and tlireatenedimpacts ofVariant C, and iiipai.ricuIar
wherher those impacts are properIy described as "sribstantial"
(Section C, The Impactsof VariarrtC,pa~agraph s.44-2.81);

(4) Whether Variant C is in fact either "basically identica1"to the
OriginaI Project or "provisio~ral" i~r diaracter {Section D,
Variant C and theOriginal Prvject,paragraphs2.82-2.93);

(5) The rnitigatioof damage arisingfrom Variant C,and in parricular
the issue of cornplianceby the partieswith Article 4 ofthe Special

Agreement (Section E, Mitigation of Damage and the 1995

I Seebelow,paragraph3.41-3.68. Agreement (The Issue of a Te~~tpor-ary Water Management
Regi~rre),paiagraphs 2.94-2.105).

Paragraph2.106 summarisesrheconclusions r.eaclredi~rthiChapter.

SECTIONA. THEPREHISTORYOF VARIANT C

2.04. Slovakia clairns that Variant C is nothing morethan tlie logical
and Iegitimate consequence of Huilgarian conduct after 1989, and tliat

the initialdecision to pi-oceed with Variant C was only reluctatitly atid
gradually taken in tlie second half of 1991 .2 This view does not
corr-eçpo~ideitlrer with the facts of this dispute or with the political

history of the regioii. This Section review that Iiistoiyas a backgrouiid
to corisideringtlreacrrraldisputewhich ai-ose in 1989.

(1)THE POST WORLDWAR 1 SETTLEMENT

OS For tire berter parl of this century, CzechosIovakia has soughr
greater access to the right bank of the Danube. This yolicy, based on a
claimed historicalright: to a greaternational territory,"ad its origins in
the creatian of the Czechaslovak State in 1918. . It was first

acknowledged on the international levelby an agreement concluded in
1918 behveen the Goveriimeiit of the French Republic and the Czech
National Co~ncil,~and in rnilitaryand diplornaticcorrespondence of tlie

period.5

2.06. The cornplexnegoriarions on the disposition of terrirory afthe
end of World Wai- 1 resulted in a lirnitedterritorial concession in the

region ofBratislava, confirnied by Article 27 of the 1920 Ptace Trea~y.~
AriicIe 27 referred to "a point" oir tlre;-ightba~rka,nd if was a mere

SM,para4.73.
ImpliciilechoedinSM, paras16-17.

Accord entre le gouvernemende laRtpublique françaiseet lConseilNational
Tchéco-Slovaque concernantleStatut delaNation Tchéco-Slovaqueen France,
Paris28September1918;HR,Anncxes,vol 3, annex25.
E.g.: Le Général Franchedt'EspereCommandant en Chef desArmees Alliées
d'orient au GénéralHcniys, Commandant de 1'AimCe Françaised'orient

(Salonique13décember1918);HR,Annexes,vol 3,:annex26.
Art 27:"The froniiersof Wungar)[.with~,zechoslov&ialsbefixedas follow...
Ihe principûIchûnnelof navigarofthe Danubeupstreani:thencewestivardsta
pointtobe chaçeti otthe groundabout I kiIomeire~tutf Antonienhof(eassof
Kittsee),ihis poinr beingcornmon to the thrce fron~iAiisrriI-Iiingaryand

Czecho-sIovaki..?HM, Annexes,vu13:annex 1.bridge-head. NonetIreIessthe conseque~-rc e as thatthe ~ariube'became
simuItaneousIy a successive and a contiguous watercorrrse betwcen
CzecIiosIovakiaand Hungary.'

2.07. Another resuIt of CzecI-rosIovakendeavouss was an unuçuaI

provisioriof the 1920PeaceTreaiy:Article 290:
"Au cas où l'État tclréco-slovaque,1'Étatserbe-croate-slovène

ou Ia Rourna~riee~rtr-epr-e~ldmien a.rès autorisalion ou sur
rnaridat de la Co~rr~nission intemationaIe des travaux
d'aménagement, d'am~lioratiorr,de barrage ou autres sur Urie
section du réseaufluvial fonrrantfrontière,ces Étatsjouiraient

sur Iarive opposée,ainsi que sur Ia partiedu lit siruéehors de
Ieur territoire, dtoutes Ies facilités nécessaires pouprrocder
aux études, àI'exécutioreità l'entretiende ces travaux."

2.08. Ar?icIe 290 derogated f~+om rIreprincipIe of equaIity as between
CO-ripariariStates. It irnpIied the possibiliv of unilaterai uses of tlre

Danube at Hungary's expeIrse,albeit only with the authorisation of an
internatio1ia1co~~rrnissioriIwas a manifesta1ionof the gener-alapproadi
of tlrepost-WorId War 1peacetreaties, iriwhidi Inanyconcessionswere
extracted fro~rrtliedefeatedCentra1Powers.

\
(2) THE POST WORLD WAR II SETTLEMENT

2.09. Co~rtiriuitycan be observed between early CzecIrosIovakeffo~?s
to cansoIidate arid expaandits co1rtroover this sector of the Danube and
thoçe i1elleaftermath of the Secorid WorId War. In a note of 3 1 May
1945 addressed to tlre A~riericanchargéd'affaira in Prague, Acting
Miriiçter of Foreign Affairs Clernentis asser?ed a br-oadclai111for a

Geth11oIogica1Io,iistoricaI, geographical, economic, trarrspoit a11dotIier

mot ives".a

-2.10. Tliese arnbitiorrçwere speltorrtin thecourse of deIibesationsfor
a Ireacetreaty witli Hurrgary i111946.In comnlents on a drafi of the

treaty, CzechosIovakia argued for-its bridge-Iread othe riglrrbank to be
extend4 geographicaIIyto aIIow for the e~tIar-ge~~~o ef~tte Ira~+bouart
Bratislava arid foi-tlre possibIe deveIopment of a hydroelectric power

' See Pia~ela.
Lerterof V Cfernentis,ActingMi~irorForeignAffairstoiliAmerican Chargé
inCzeclrosIovaki(a134f;lIUSFu~R- els DiplornaticPapers.plarit u~rderexclusi\le CzechosIovak~ontipI.~ In kt, the borders were
adjusted in tire Peace Treaty in 1947.1° TIris incorposated in

Czeclioslovakia a sectio~rof the siglrt side ofrlie Da~rube,11 hi in
lengtlr,yreviousIypari ofHungary.' l

2.11. But thiç territoriaarrangement,intended for-tlre greater secur-iiy

of tlreciîy of BratisIava,did not i111pIayrryacreplanceby the pai-ties to
the 1947 Peace Treafy of a rigIrof unilatei-a1CzechosIovak action, not
everrto the exte~itstipulated in ArticIe290 of rlrePeace Treaty of 1920.
No equivaIent to A~ticIe290 was incIuded irithe 1947 Trzaiy, and the

riormal posirion as behveen sipai-ianStates,under-whichprqjectç by one
sig~rificantlyaffecri~igtlieflow of the river requise the consent of the
othes, was expressly I-ecog~iisedin the series of biIateratreatiesbeiween

Hungary and CzechosIwakia aftei 1947 - Irrost notabIy, for present
pusposes,inArticIe3(Ia) of the BoundaryWaters Agreementof 1476.i2

(3) UNILATEML CZECHOSLOVAKASPIRATIONS

2.12. TIreclear IegaI position notwithçtandirrg,uniIateraICzechoslovak

aspirations Iived on. In 1952, at tlre first past-war i~iter~overnmeniai
negotiations between the Parties concerning tlre development of tlre
comnro~rsti-etchof cIieDanube, the Czeclioslovakdelegation annorinced
itç interition tu achieve unilateral control uver hydroelectric potentia1

through tlie co~rstructionof a çystem of barrages from BrarisIava to
Chl'aba.'

2.13. TIiepIan was elabo~xtedinconsidesable detaiI: a weir was tobe

co~rstructedat rk~n 1864.5 in Czechosiovakterr'ritoiy, with a diversion
channel on the Ieft bank stsetclririgfa Palkovi#vo, with two upstsearn
barrages at $amorin and GabEikovo alid two %wnstrearn at Korn6rno
&idChI'aba.WIiiIestressing the need foi-understanding and friendship
betweenthe twocouritries and the need towntribute to tliesrIccessof the

socialist sysfern,tlie CzechosIovakPa19 noneth~less madecIear that its

Propositions et obsrrvaIions du Gouvernement Tchtco-slovaquc cancernant le
TraitedelaPaixavec IaHongrie,p 85. Latè~edpan!de BratislavAnnexe no2,
p Iig; HR,Anntxes, vol3, annex28. See also British ForeignOff~ce'sNoons
Propositionet ~bse~ations du Gouve~sieirrc~rtchéco-sIovaqueconcerirani Ie
Traitde laPaixaveclaHongrie,p25; 1-IR, nnexes,voI3annex 29.

I-iM,Annexesvol 3.anncx2.
I I SecPIme IB.
IZ
HM,Annexes, vu1 3,anIrex19.
13 HR, Annexes,voI3, annex30. plans for- tlie border sectiorrof the Danube wouId be carried out if
necessary witIioutconsultatioli withthe Hu~rgaI-iaPnafly.I4

2.14. In the course of [Ire protl-actednegotiations to develop tire
GabCikovo-Nagy~naros Barrage System, the tireat of unilatera! acrion
was periodicalIy 1-epeated to Iiolster the Czechoslovak ~iegoriating
position. In 1955,the Czedroslovak Party threate~reduriiIatera1actionto

defeat a Hungarian proposa1 that the border be adjusted alorig tI~e
diversion cariaiI5 Later that year,afier consulting Soviet engineers, it
pr-ese~ireca detailed pr+oposal to divert tlre Danube at Cilistov, rrear

Samori~io , ffering in exchange vague guarantces of sufficientdischarge
to tlre rnai1channe1of tlre Danube and ari mispecified portion of tfie
electricitgenerated. I6 Similar threats were 11radein 1958.17
+

(4)THREATS OFUNILATERAL DIVERSION AFTERTHECONCLUSION

OF THE 1977 TREATY

2.15. Evenafier 1977, the CzechosIovak Pa15 1~1iedupon the thi-eatof
miiIatera1action as a tooli~rthe ~~egotiatio~ovser tlie imp1ementation of
the Ti-eaty. For example, wlre~italks on the division of consisuction

responsibifiies fourrderecin Iate1982, the Czechoslavak PIenipotentiary
stressed that, fai1ingsatisfactory agreement, it*as prepared to proceed
uniIater-aiIywith the construction of a power pIant at Ha~riuIiakovo on

SIovak territory.' IIIea1.1~1983the CzecIrosIovak Partyrevealed thar it
had co~rr~nisçiorietechnical plarrsforrwo passible urifateml alternatives
from anengineering iristituleIg

2.I6. The same patternrecurred in 1989. Almost as soon as diffrcuIies

aroçe with the Project; i1the Iightof ccunornic and poIitica1cIianges in
the region and of new inforrnatio~~abour rlie environrne~italrisksof the
Project, Czecl~osIovakiarlireateneduni Iaterai action.20

I4
HR,Annexes,wl3, ai~rci30.
I5 HR,An~rexes.voI3?ennex31
I6
HR,Annexes, vu13,xriiex 32.
I7 HR,Annexes,voI3, annex36.
l8
Rcpoil of P Havason the Govc~nrrrentPIeniporenliaries'NegoIiatiu~rs,27-29
October and2-3 Novembçr 1982; HM?Annexes, wI 4, anIreIm. Thisisnoiu
recognisedby SIovakia:SC-M.pa4.15.
'' Memorandumfro~nMi.PéterHavas,HringarianGoveriririel Ienipotentiaryt.o Mr
JbzsefMarjai,Hungal-ianDeput? PrinieMinistcr; HM.Annexes4,annex161.

20 HM,voI4, aIIIrex21:22. 23:23. an27;SM, voI4, annexes 75 and 13HC-M.
Annexes,vol3.anncxes45,47,and80 74

(5)CONCLUSION

2.17. Peshaps the most cornpelling evide~rce of the coritinuity of

CzechosIovak ambitions tu gain urriIater-a1corit~of1tlris sectoiof the
Danube istlrat tlie option uItimateIy reaIiasd"Variant C" incosparates
a11rIre essential e1~1nentsof the pIari set fortIr r~riilatei-aIIyat the first
intergovernrnental riegotiationsirr 1952.- In Variant C SIovakia seized

e;ucIusiveCOII~I Dver river management by the diversion of the Danube
i~rtoa Ieft-sidebypasscanal, aIIoying for the unilateral expIoitatio~rof
hydroeIectric potenlia1i~iptioriiy over a11otlrer poteritia1usand values.

SECTION B. THETIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
VARIANTC (1989-1992)

2-18. TIietwo partiesare in cIear disagreement about the tirnetable for
the im~rletne~rtatioidesign, planning and construction) of Variant C in
the period after 1869. SIovakia r-epeatedIyassertç tkat tlre p1ar111rnd
corrstructionof Variant C took onIy 15 months, Le., frorn the "approva1

of initial financing and p1an1ri11"Ir25 JrrIy199121 10 24 October 1942
wirh rhe "darnrning of the Dan~be".~Vo~istrrict ion itsef supposedIy
only took eleveri ~no~trhsfrom November 1991.23 According to
SIovakiaa ,s Iateas Jrrne1391 even "the initialapprovalof firia~ici~arrd

logistical ~rlarinihad [rotyet been gi~en".~~ Approval appare~itlycame
onIy with the CzechosIovak Gover~r~nerir's Resolurion 484 of 25 JuIy
199 1, which purported to approve "going alread wit11tlre 'i~ivestnrent

and suppIy preparation' for putting the Gabcikovo sectio~rinto operarion
utider the provisional soIutio~i".~Even then SIovakia clai~nsResoIutioii
484 did not co~rstitrrta decisiori to i111p1emenVt ariant C: "what was
approved was onIy initia1fi~ianci~rga~rdpIannirrg for-Variant 'C': 110

constructio~rwork hadbeen aurhori~ed".'~

2.19. Slovakia rhus asserts tliar the construction of Variant C was
decided ata rathei-Iate stagof the dispute, inresponse to "intransigent?'
Hungarian behaviour. WIrefier or iiot it is yossibie thalruch a Iasge-

2i SC-M. pam 5.67.Seealsogar6.05.

*? SC-M,para6.1%.
SC-M, para5.79.SeebeIolu,paragraphs.1-230:2.37-2.I
2"
SC-M.para 5.IO.note16.
25 SC-M, para5.80note 132.

26 SC-M:paia 5.80.SeealsoSC-M paras3.82and6.03("Illhe decisitoimplemenr
Variant'C'had notyetbeen taken:andtheIirnitacdsthathrrdbeen Iakervere
obviousIrevei.sible").scaIe operation (said rocost more than CSK 2.5 biIIionZ7 ) couId Iiave
beeri planned and executed irisuc11 a SIIUIt?irne, SIovakia'sdaims are

inconrpatibIewitiitlree~idence.~~

2.20. As has been seert,Varia~it C was carisistent witfi Iong-sta~iding
Czechoslovak designs on the potential offered by the Danrrbe,incIuding

tlre possibiiity of uniIateraI actio~i.~~SIovakia now confir~ns - witlr a
degreeof awkward~ress - tlrat"ir is conceivable that tlie possibiIity of
uniIarera1cornpIetionof tlre Pi-oject was mentioned" during theOctober

and Noveniber 1982 negotiations bernieen the ~1eni~otenitiries." In
fact tlie "alternative soIutiorr"Irad beerr rrndei-corisidei-atiofor a Iorrg
time. Frorn tire eviderrcea picture emerges of the reaI tirne-frarne in

whiclidesign, pIanningand co~istructionand decisions were undertaken,
a~rdirnpIe~nerrtatio ~ssui-ed.

.
(1)THE TIMETABLEFUR IMPLEMENTATIONT : HEEVIDENCE

2.21. Althuugh it is difficultto identify the precisedate when detaiIed
p1arr1irrrga11dcorrçtructio~rcorn~rrericedt,liere aremany i~~dicationo sf a
much ,earIier date than JuIy 1991, the date reIied on by Slovakia.

A~noagstotlrer-iridicatio~isare the foIIowi~ig:
As earIy as August 1989 CzechosIovakia bega~rto pIan for-

VariantC, preparing design work when it first threatened
uniIatera1steps "that wiII ensure the operation of the GabEikovo
Barrage" in Augrrst 1989.31 011 ISepte~nber1989 J ObIoiinski

(Deputy Director of the Water Consei~ancy Project Enterprise,
BrariçIava,the COI-~ipan espo~isibIefor construction) confirrned
tlrat tlre "tecIrnicaI aIternive" iç "at tlre pIa~iningarrd deçig~i

~tage''.3~

'' SM, para3.37T.hisisequivalen10appi-uxirnatelyUS576.3miIIion.

78 HC-M,para 2.96.
29 I4M,par-a344. Seeabove.par-agraphs.04-217

30 SC-M,para 4-15(eiiiylrasisadded). Hungaiy liasiievei-claii~t\vas.'e~ititIed
to take r111iIateacIio~is starti~rg1989 bccause CzccIrosIovakihad been
pIanningIO adopt variant -Cal1along,even asearIy as1982'-(butsee SC-M,
para4.17)orthat"the decisiotu proceedwith varian-C- hadbeen takenalrnost
lenyearsearIief(in 1982)(buseeSC-M, para6-05].

j1 HM: para3.88 H;M, Annexes,YO I.amer: 21: SM,para 7.07.
Rudé PrGvo. Braiislava,1 September 1989. as cited in British Broadcasting

CorporationSummary of World Broadcasts, EETW009. i4112 1September1989:
HC-M,Annexes,vol 3, annex 79. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION OFVARIANTC:

ACHRONOLOGY

AR. Annexes,voI 3.annex 72.
HM,para 3.88, HM. Annexe>,\VI 4.annen 21.
HM, Annexes, vol4. aniicx 22. FIM. paras 3.12aiid 9.07HM: Aririexesv014.
HM.para3.88: IIM.Anilexes. roI 4annex 23. annes168.
HC-hl. para 2.96HC-M. Anncscs.vol 3. annes 79. HC-M: para 2.96HC-M. Airiiexevol3. ariirex89.
HM.pans 330-3.91H ;M.Annexes. voI 4.aanel25. HC-M. para 2.96, HC-iMAnnexes. vol 3. anne...70

HC-M. para 2.93; HM,Annrxçs.vol 4anne': 25. HK, Annexes. WI 3.annes 81.
HM.para 3-96. HC-M: para2.100.
HM, para3.97. HM: p'ara5-13?SC-M annex 43.
HM.paras3.98-3.99: HC-M.para2.13: HC-M. HK,Annexes. *oI3. annex.77.

Annexes. vol 3. airiicx41. HM.Annexes. kola. annex 165.
EIR,Annexes, i.03.annex t0 HM.(aras 3.134-3.137.
HC-itl, par2-95.HC-M, Annr~es, vol 3, annez83 HM. AnsiexesvoI 4airxie16.5.
HR.para2 22 , HR.Annexes, voI3. annex61. IIM.pgra3.138; HM. Plnnexes. uoI4. irnn54.
SC-M:para5.80n ,oie 132;SM: Annev 92.
HC-M. pal" 2.96HC-M. Annexes,vol3.nnnex 93.
HK. Annexes' voI3. arine62. HK. Annexes. vol3. annex79.
HM. paras 3.123-3.124HL-M: 2.99 ;M. Anriexes: HM.para9.07.
vol4, annex163. HM, paras 3.140and Y.07,HiM.Anncxcs:voI 4.
HC-M, Annescs. vo3. annex 50;HK. A11nexes. arinex-57.

vol3, annex 70. HM.para 3.139H ,iM.Annexes.vol 4. annexes 55
HK.Anncses. vnI3. axinexes6667:and 68. and 56.
HR. Anncues.vo13: anlie?70:IK-M. palai-2n-96; HM. para3.141:HM. Annexes, vol4. annex 38.
HC-M. Anncses: voI3. anire.;87. SC-M. para 3.97.

HM. para 3.122;HiM.Aiincses.vol4: iinirex43. HR. A'nirexesvol3: annex 40.
HK. Prnnexes ,ol3.anncx 71. IdM,paia 3.150 : M.Anneles. vol4, anirex 73. * 011 30October 1989Czec!~osIo\~akioautIined itsapproach:

"in the eve11t rhe Hungaria~r RepubIic faiIs to meet its

obIigations .the CzechosIovak Pa* wiII be co~rrpeI led - in
order to avoid i~~curriiigfurther darnages - to implement a
provisio~iaitech1iica1solutionexcIusiveIyon the territoryof the

CzecIrosIovak Socialist RepubIic ..based on diverring ihe
amount ofnJu&f- OIE /he river. Danube Io~he Gabtikovo
barrages agreed upn in ihe original Ti'eafyand chep~ojecr

yrovided rhereby
*
On 13Novembcr 1989it uiasreporteclthat "théposition for a riew
riglit bank dam foi-a netv ~iavigationchanne1bega11 o be marked
0ut".3~

2.22. lt is true that in Decernber 1989CzecI~osIovakiais said to Irave
L'sioyyed design work o~i the provisiona1soIution on SIovakte~~ito~y''.~~
But the effects of tlie çroppageare far fro~ncIeas,since in January 1990,

it waç reported that the u~riIate~+caoInstruction of tlie pIarit waS beirig
takenforgra~rtedi~rCzechosIovakia,and that tfiesupp1ernenraryplan had
been pr-epared and preparatory works corn~nenced on a structure

appal~~itlyidentical in al1 respecrs to Variant C.36 In 1990, researcl~
work started on tlie effecrs of the constrrrctiqrrof Variagr C (and waç
coinyleredinJuIy 199 1)"witliin the fsameworkof rneasrri-es accepted by

tlie Minist~yof Forestry and Wate~.Managernentof SI~vakia".~' A~td
there are or11ei-~rdicationsof significantactivily iii1990:
*
On 20 August 1990 SIovak Prime Mirlister Meeiar stated rhar
CzechosIovakia wilI try to erisure tinreIy con.rpIetion of the

construction 011 the baçisof a "substitute s0lution".3~

33 fiàvdn, 31 OcIobel- 1989; HR, Anneses,annex 39 (emphaîis added). See aIso
IIC-M. Annexes,vol 3, arrnrx47.
34
Bi-tish Broad~astingCorporarion. SummatyoWorld Biaadcasls.EEMO 1OS Al1,
30 Nove~nber 1389. 1-eferringto Prag1730 GMT, 13 Noueriibcr 1989:HC-M.
Aii~rcses.voI3alrnex83 The reportiseniitIed f'Beginningof CzcchosIoWork
011NctvSIrippi~rCIritnneIonDanubeneaiGabcrkovo-'-
35
SMI para 707 (emphasisaddeci)See aIso CTK: 15 Deceiiibei-198asreporiedIn
British Broadcristigorpoixtio~r:SurniiiofWorId Broadcasls.EEIW0109 AII,
4 Ja~ruary1990HC-M, PtIrnexesvol3.annex84.
j6 See Inlervierr,with VikrorVo).tek:fonncr crnpIoyec of HYDROS-1-Av,Svei

Suciaiiz~~i/iz2.Januai-y19pp 16-18:HR:Arne~es.voI3, anneh61.
37 HR,Annexes,voI3,annev84
38
"A Substitr~SoIutio~~OIGabtik~~o'.~Yravci'a21 Augrist 1390;HR: Annexes:
voI 3, annc62 * 011 5 Septernber-1990 "tlre var.ious aIier~rativesbei~lgstudied
[incIrrdingVariant CI were preserrted to Hungary", albeit 011Iy in

outline.39
*
On 29 December 1990 the Slovak Goverilment was said to have
"accept[ed] the patentiaI alter~raitves of utilisatiorr of tlre
GabCikovoHydroelcctric Puwer PIant"; it underiook to orgairise

assessrnent and prcpare project documentation for VariaritC "in
such a way that sumrnaryproceedirigsIeadiitgto an earlier start of
constructio~r work migfrt beco~ne possibIe7';arrd required tlie
Finance Minister to "raise funds foi the preparation of a prqject

documentation to make possibIe the stariing of work on and the
subsequeritreaIisatiorrof op1iori'C"7.30

AIso in Decembe~.tlle Miniçtsy of Forestry and Water Management of
the SIovak RepubIicexpsessedin 1990"the need for a 163.4 million KEs

I~ighersubsidy from the Fedei-albudget" (Le.,sorne 7% of tlreaIIeged
totalcost of Vaiia~rtC).41 TIle SIovak Govern~nentdeternrined at tllis
time that "the reaIisationof Variant 'C' makes the Iimitedopcration of
tlreGabcikovop1a1ip tossibIe inoriIy2 yeass(with the deveIop~nentaIong

the state boundary on tireCzecIiosiovakside)". TIris~rrea~b ltytlie end of
1992,as ~Ifact o~curred.~~

2.23. On i7Jarrrrary 1491, it is reported that.theSIovak Government
had "approved fwher progress iri the corrstruction" of the aIternarive

sol~tiorr.~~ Tlrereafier.events rnoved swiftIy rowardç the reported
cornmence~nerio tf coristructioni~ApriI 1991 :
*
On 5 February 199 1 tlreHeadof the SlovakCornmitteeof EcoIqgy
and Environment curnpIaincd about the. "propositiori for the
acceptance of Option 'C' as thebest solutiorr"and that "ineasur-es
are bei~rg taken tu '~r~aku~rdsavaiIabIe forthe eIaboration of the

plan docurnentationand foi-the r-ealisatioof work itemsreIated 10

39 HM,para3.123. This hasbeeconfirmecibyBIovakiaSC-M.para5.68.

40 See Minislry of Forestv and Water Ma~~agc~nerrotf the SIovakRepubl~c,
Information Documenrfor thc Cabi~ietMeeti~rgof the Goveisiilreniof the SIovak
RepubIic.29 Deccinbc1990;HR,Annexes: vol3.annex68.
41 Hi? :nnexes,vol 3,anIrex66.

42 Inlemational Law Analysis of fhe PossibiIity of I~npIc~ne~rri~trirge Gabtikovo
Hydropoer PIanr as a Czechoslovak NaiionaI InvcsI: 9 Ocruber 1990;HR,
Annexes,voI3, anncx64.
43 British BroadcastingCoiyoratio~r,Su~rrrnaryof World Bro, E10989BM, 6

February 1991, referring to Prague home sen~1500gmi, 6 Febn~a~ 1991:
HC-M: Annexes wl3: anIiex87 (e~nyIiasisadded).Tlie repufi isentitIcd "SIouak
Gavernrnentapprovesco~npIetio~orf Gnbcikovo-Nagymar-os.'. tllis option",on the grourrds rliat no adequate corrsidei-arionIiad
been given to theenvirorr1nenta1

* On 14 Febr-uary 1491 Hungarian autlrorities learned that the

SIovak Gove~.nnrent had already approved the plans for
Variant C.45

* On 27 MarcIr 1991 the Chairmaiiof the E~ivir-o~rme~a ial NaturaI
BrptectioriComn~iiieeof the SIovakNationaI CounciI noRd that
"the reaIisatio~iof variant 'C' sIlaIIcommence on 2 ApriI 1991,

and ifwiIIdo so witl~outt11eapproved pla~~riiridgocumenrationand
corrtra~y to the opinions of tlre majoI-iryof the members of the
speciaIistcornmirieesaridtlieir Ieade~ç".~~

* Uri 29 Masch 199 1 Hungariariauthoi-itiesdiscoveredthat the State
Water Management Corrstrrrction Company of Bratislava Irad

subrnitted a plan to the Environ~nentCornmittee of tIre SIovak
ParIiarnerror1 the "Putting into ope~atiorrof the GabCikovoPlant
as a provisionaisoIntiorion the asritory of CSFR" reqnesti~rgtlre
Committeeta approve thepIa11.~~

* On 2 April 1991 HungaI-ianRadio reported that "in SIovakiatire

co~isr~.r~crioofnthe so-called 'versio~C' [of tlie GabCikovo]power
station Irasbegun...";48thiswas corrfirmed i~rPra~da.~~

* Orr 9 ApriI 1991 the Br-atisIava Water Engineering Company
applied foi a Iicense for the "construction of tlie water-
conservation projecf ...ccording tu the ternporary solut ion

aIter~iative(the 'C'), the comrnerrce~rierio tf ?lieoperation of die
Gabeikovo Hydroelectric Powes Station in the tesritoiy of the
[CzecIrarid Siovak Federal Rep~bIic]''.~"

d4 HR. Annexes,vol3,anncx 70.
45 HM,para 3.122.
46
kiiei- dated 2March 1991 from Mik~ilnHutia,Clraiririarthe Environnienta1
aiidNatu~alProtect~onCornmitieIoFranIiSekMikloSko,Pi-cside~tf the Slorvak
NaIionaICou~rçil;HR,An~rcxevol3. annex 72
47 HM, para3.122.

4S Budapesr Home Semice. 1600 pi, 2 A~I-I1991. citedin British Br-oadcasting
Corpur-ation,Surnmaiyof WorId Broadcas~s,EE110,4212,4April 1991; HC-M,
Annexes,voI3,annex89.
49 Pz-nvdn2 ApriI 199Vit isa r\-eII-krnecretthatasoftoday.Le.2nd ApriI.the

sta~c-orvnedHydrostai,Bratislava company is intending tu sIart the co~istmcrio~r
activitiesrelatetheso-caIIedVarian'C''.HR: Annexes.voI3, anncr:74.
50 LctIer-of Robert IYendI.Leaderof the DeparfrCounty EnvironrncntaOfice,
Bwtisla~aRegion,StateWaterConservancy md Water Protection Department,30
October1991;I-IR,Annexes,voI3: zrrn81.2.24. EacIt oT these acts of in~pIementationoccurred fiefore 25 JuIy
199 1, when SIovakia daims iniiial approva1of financing and IogisticaI

pIa~iriiitof VariarrtC was given. Any such approvaI had the effect of
rubber-sta~npi~rg a detaiIed process of irnplementation which was weli
under way. When ResoIutiorr484 was adopted, tlredecision tu go afiead
with Variant C had aIseady been made, at Ieastso fara5 the SIovak

authorities were concerned.

2.25. These and rhe otlier developments identified irirlie Hrr~rgariarr
Memoria15 I and Countes-MemoriaISZ show that the plan~ii~igand

construction of Variant C \vas by no meansaresponse to the ApriI 1991
ResoIutiunof the HungarianParliament. On the contrary, the decision to
i~nplernentYariant C, based on detaiIed planning, pre-dakd both that

ResoIutio~r a~-rtlrenegotiatiorisI-reIirApril and JuIy 1 99 1.

2.26. SIovakia seeks to argue that Hungary's termination of the 1977
Treary ca~rno~be co~isidered as one of the conçequences of tlre

construcfionof VariantC, since "Variant C only begari to affect theflow
of the Danube frvernonths afterHungary's termination ~iotice".~VT~iis
irnpIiesthat thecoristructio~rofa rrew 1Oki1orneti-e Iong bypass ca~raiarid-
uther large-scia nlçtailations at CunovoM signified nothing until [lie

diversiori was actuaIIy accornp1ished. EverytIri~rgcouId Iiave been
stopped,tlre wIioIecoristrrrctioricou Id have been abandoned if Hurigary
~.etur~redto tlie OriginaI Project. But the diversion of the river was
merely thefif?~/step. CzechosIovakiabad Iongbeen deterrninedto carry

out the imprenientation of Variant C, Ieaving the ecoIogica1
corisequenceç tober-esoIvec -ior riotr+eçoIved- aftertlieevent.

2.27. Responding to Hungary's compIaint that it was not informed
aborrr the construction pians and teciirricaldetailsof Variant C, SIovakia

asserfs tliat psoperirifor~aatiorhad aIrvays beeri pr~vided.~~ The orrIy
evidence relied on is a sentence fro~n aIrAide Meiiroire of a ~neetirrgof
Hurigarianand SIovakscientists an 1.3- 14 February 1991, according to

wlrich -

51 HM. pnias3.122-3.124.

52 HC-M,paras2.93-2.97.
53 SC-M,tirleofSection1.chap VI011p 143and pams6.05-6.05.

54 SeebeIow,paraçraph2.85.
55 SC-M,paias5.68,6.07-6.14.As far astheIastdaybcfore the diversofthe river
isconcerned ,ccording10SIovakia"rlic dctawci-ebrow~rIotjicwliolworld -
butnotto Hungaly";SC-M: para6.IO. "at the end of tIiemeeting the deiegation [of rfze SIovak
Acade~rry of Sciences] i~~formedtlre de1egation [of rhe

Hu~igarianAcademy of Sciences] of the tcch11ica1 detaiIs and
ecoIogica1 aspects of C variant, upprovtld #y ~Ihe SIovak
Goverumenr arrdon the ecoIogicaIIyvaIued D var-iant7'.56

But tlie "tech1rica1details" of VarianC preseritedat this rrreerinwere

whoIIyi1rsufficient.5~A~rdSiovakia ornits to mention that the meetirig
toak pIace five rno~rtlisbcfore tlie 25 JuIy1941 governmental decision
which, on its view, marked tlie decision art the planrri~rgand
irnpIe~nentarionof Variant C. By corrtrast, the Aide Memoire of I4

February 1941r-efers to tlre ~lespectivdecisioriinfhe pusr 1en.w. By its
oivn accouritSIovak conafirmstheear1ysta~f tu Variant C.

(2) PREPARATURYWOM, STUDIEB, AND FMANCE

2.28. Preparatory workand strrdies had tlrus bee~rappsoved and Iriore

or Iessco~npletedby December 1990,mreIIbefore the JuIy 149 I decisiori
purporii~~gto appsove initial frnancingand IogisticaIplanning. It is wt
aImgethei-cIear what SIovakia rneans by "fina~icing"arid "IogisticaI
ptanrring"in referring to ResoIutiun484 of Jury 1991. What is cIear is

tl~atthe costs of these sfudies arid relateci activities rnushave been
provided for at Ieast inpart out of the 1990 Projecl a114that
decisio~rson financingand logistical p1anni1rgwese taken far earIier tlrari
Jury 149 I.

2.28. The exterttofpieparatorywork aridstudies co~rrpIeteby tireend
of 1990is confirrned by SIovakdocumeritsdating fronr Decembw 1990.
TIreseslrowthat detailed plarisweredrawn up in theautu~nnof 1990 a~rd
approved by tlie SIovak Government in Decernber 1990 a~rdJanuary

1991,and that a decision waç taken toproceed witlr Variant C aInongst
the various options710IatertlianJanuaiy 1491 TheyaIsoco~ifirrntlrat
in DeceInber 1990tire SIovak Ministry of Firiance was açked toensrire
the avaiIability of suffrcient financiKsources for further-work on the

i-ealisationof VariantC." By that date alsu, SIovakia's IegaIstrategy
Iladbeen worked out.61 By Jarrua~y1991IlleGovernmentof the SIovak

56 HM, Annexes,voI4: anne43(ciiiplraadded).
57 Se, HC-M.paras2.98-2.10forafuIIaccount.
58
HR,An~rcsesG.O3,aiines66.
59 Sccabove.paingx-aps.22-2.23kIR.A~incxev.oI3,anrrcx68 and87.

Seeahove.piiragrali.22IIR,Anncses.vol3anncs 68.
Sc,beloru. aragraps.31-2-32,1IR:Ai~rcxvol 3:airIi68. 1
!
82 1
i
RepubI ic had "consented [Io] tlre preparatio~~of ihe te~nyorarysoIution of

GabCikovo on Ihc Czecho-S/clvcrkrerrifo~y, noi j-equir.ircooperalion uf
Hungarian yide".62 1

2.30. To surnmarise,byDecernbei- 1990 01-at.the IatestJanuaiy 1991f
\ tlie p1a1-rfor Variant C alseady envisageci in August 1989 were cornplete
and had beeriapproved, and reIevant financial decisio~lsIiad beerr taken.

Apai?froin a brief(and apparently Iirnited) i~rrerregnum i~earIy 1990 tlie
record frorn Arrgust 1988 to November 1992 is one of unfliriciiirrg
progsess ivith Vasiant C, based upo1-radvice relating to its lega1 and

ecorrornicaspects.

(5) LEGAL ANALYSIS IN PREPARATION'FORVARIANTC

2.31. A IegaI a~lalysis prepared for the SIovak Gover~~rnenr in

Decembes 1990 provides a I-eveali~rggIi~npse;irito tlieorigins of the
st~+ategy whiclr would, i~rsubstance, be relied upon to jtrstify VariantC.
Under the rubric of the "Realisatiori of tlreGabfikovo Hydroelectric
Forver PIaritas a Natio~ral I~rvest~nentProject", this document extoIIed

tlre virtues of Variant C, arnong {hem the posiibiIiiy of the
retenti011 of Varia~tt C structures, even if Hungary shouId çubçeque~rtIy
agree tothe cornpIetion of the Original Project: :

"Varia~rt 'C' .makes it possible for the SIoyakpannes to car*ry

out its obIigations contained in the Treary ar ariy tirne, in tlie
everit fial the causes for suspension of i~npIementation of the
Treaty sI~ouIdcease to operate (ria~~relyif tlrere wouId be an
indication of i~rteresto~rthe paitof the Reiublic of Hungary in

the corrstruction of thc GNBS according to the origi~~al
~I~IIs)."~~ I
1
A11otherbenefit is tlre fact chat Variant C rendérs GabEikovo"a pudy

natioriaI investrnent", one opesaating for the soIe berrefit of

61 Standpoint of the CSFR on thefinishingof the Co&nionGabtikouo-Nagrnaras
Project, 13 ApriI 1992; HR: PIIincxcs:3:annex88 {emphasis added);see aIso
18 Jsruary 1991. rcpoifi~rgtliat "'ce'riai~i
SIovaknelwspaperi~'urod>ra Ubrodu7
groups of expert.in cunju~ict~o~rvillBratisIavq Hydroconsultsubmitted a
proposalfor the furtiiecoialiucfioof IIrc GabEiliovo-Nagyrnarso~r plmt.
The afternativei.option 'C'lt~hicistirecreatmnbf tireresemoirbya daln 011
CSFR rerritory"and that "[ilhe Governmenthaaccepred1h1sproposar(emphasis
added);HR. hrncxcs, vol3:annex 59. II
63
HR, Aiincxes,vol3, rrnne64. Czechoslo~akia.~~ Bur the docun~entsti-essedthar Variant C s11ouId be

"presented"throughout as pro~isioria1."~

2.32. Public statements 171adeby Siovak officiais soori afier rl~is

document was circuIated suggest tl-ratit I-radan irnnlediate influence011
policy. On 18 Ja~rrrary 1991 the Ministei- of For-estryand Water
Mariagerne~rs tti-essedits themes ina press conferp~rcecaIIed to anriouIrce
Mr Oberlrauser, aIr acknorvledged
gove~.~i~ner at,p1.ovaof Variant C."S
clrampion of Variant C, stressed tliat "wirarvehave hese is aprovisionai
situatio~~ and the Czech and SIovak side wiI1 confinue lerohald
negoliarions witli tlre RepnbIic of Hurigary iri accordarrce witl~ tlie

originaI agreement"." He added tliat in the eve~~tf rI~eimpIernentation
of Varian? C, "rve xvouId lodgeno cIairnagairrstour Hu~~garian partners''.

(4)FEPARATORY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF VARIANT C

I
2.33. The economic aspects of Varia~riC werP also considered. A
document psepared foi-the SIovak Govern~~~enitn June 199 1 explairied
the project's fiaancial viabiIitand subsequeritdecisiorrstaken in reIarion

tu the voIurne of water to be a1Iowed into the main ri~erbed.~~ InitiaIIy
the arraIyçisidentfied Iosses in respectof forestry, agricuIture, ariwater
managemer~t (011tIie SIovak side) butexcluded any assess~nentof ge~rernl

environrne~italdarnage or Iosses on the Hungarian ide.^^

2.34. The econo~nicevaluation considered the fina~~cialconsequences
of warer florvsto the main riverbeclat t11efoIIoivi~rgIeveIs:

KR, Annexes.voI 3,anner64.
HK. Annexes,vol3,arrnex64,refe~rirtoAi172 ofihe Vienna Canveniioon the
1,arofTreaties. For anaIysis of tfrisaspect of lirescebeIoitl,paragraphs
2.90-1 9and 3.G4,3.65.

Undcr tire supervisiof the MinisliofForesir). andWater Management,six
speciaiistco~ninitteesco~rsidered?heproaiiematvesfor uniIateactionfrom
theperspectivesof i~rtcriratlrr,product~an,envIIannrent.\mer management.
hydiotechnola ondyeconomics. III the c~rd, oiily tCOIIC~USIQIof the
co~nrniilcesof inte~iratio~raIeconomics favourin~headoptionof VaciantC
iverepresenreinthe "synlhesissubmitied by IIrcMi~ristv. Tlrc disi-egai-dof the
findingsof other speciaIistcom~nittecswas crbyit11eHeadofthe Cornniiriee
ofEcologyand Environment \\.ho dccritheMiiiista'--a~t~iuef technocracg".

See HR,h~rexes: vol3,a1rne.x70.
FIR'Annexes,vol3, annex 59 (e~nphasisaddcd).

HR,hrnexes,vol3. annex 77.
Ibid. I
- 50 rn31sal 1year-round; !

- 350 1n"lsa11yeai.r-orr~Id; I
- ;50m31swirh water erosio~i rnitigition: dams in the oId

siverbed; i

- 600 m'k ourside rhe vegetafion period an; 1300m31sin the

vegctaf ion period; i

Although the Tcchiiical Descriptio~~ and @o~io~riic Arialysis had
r-eco~nrne~rdedtlrat "tlie oId r-iverbedshouId be çupplied wit1.ral Iead
,600 m'k warer. flow (dnring tliegmwing seaion, this vaIue Ieaps tu

13001n31s)",70 the econornic evaIuation noted thataf this lever,of flow
"tlreprofitabil ofittre ii~vestnierrtswouId fa11back tu a modesate
average 1e~eI".~I The evaIuation States that"this version must be dealt
with asa Iimit to pr~fitability".~~

2.35. At a flow of 50 m315the investme~~t iç'describeclas "especially
cost-efficient",whiIe a flow .of 350 m5/smeans that the investrnent is
"stiII cost-efficie1it",7~ ~~rurning the cost of. the whoIe project "in
approxi~nateIy7-8 years" (a~rdr-eturni~rg tire-cost of corripletio~rof
Varia~lt C irr 4-5years). WitIi the actual flow of water into the oId

riverbecl having averaged 353 rn31s in 1993, 1217 1n3/5 i111994, and,
180 111~15in rhe first rnonths of 1495,74 the cost of Var-iarit C would, if
these figures are accurate, be 1.ecoveredwitlii fi.fouryears, and rhe foral
costs (ig~~oring environmenta1 costs and darnages) to bot11

Czechoslovakia a~rd SIovakia wouId be 1.ecovered in Iessthan 7 years.

2-36. A çubseqrre~~ i11terna1SIovrtk Gover~~meotdocurne~~t recorded the
deter-~r-ri~~attun reIy o~i Joint Conif.actua1PIan discharge Ievels, no
doubt for-firra~icialreasorrs. It set ouas parameters for Variant C, inrer

alicr: I
"- the Czech and SIovak Federal RepubIic dia11 i~~sistor1Ille

vaIidis of tlie [1977]11iternationaI~~reernknt ...

70
HR,Arrncxes,vol3.annex77,p376(ernphasisàdded)
'' Ibidp 352.

72 Ibidp383. i
73 Ibidy382. !
74 !-IRAnneses,voI3:a~rnex1. I
f - waki- flow i~rtothe Danube bed haç to be secused in

accordarice with the amourit determined in the watei-divisio~i
iuIings approved try tI~e project iricluded iri the joint
agreement ."75

(5)OTHERINDICATIONSOFTHEREALTIMETABLE

2.37. In its Counter-Mernoria1 Slovakia persists iri its daim that
constiuctjo11of Variant C did not begin u~rriNovenlber 199I,'h and that
the decision "to -putthe Gabfikovo part [of the Project] i111oope~xtion

and to cornpIete its construction OIIthe ter-ritorof [CzechosIovakiaj"
was not made before 12 Decernber 1991." This implies that onIy four
nio~itl~sweie needed f~+onarpprwaI oflogistical pIa~rriingon 25 JuIy

1991 to tlie commencement of construction,aIrextraosdinariIy short ti~ne
for sucIr a Project. As aIready noted, rhere is evide~rcethat SIovak
construction cornpa~rieswe1.eactive on what was to becorne Variant C
tlrrorrgf-ror990.78

2.38. IIIany event, constructioriof Variant C was weII under way far
earIierthan Novenrber 1991. For exampIe, as earlyas January 1990 it
was publicly reported tliat "prepasatorywurks have cornnre~iced";~~ that

corisrructionof "the Ieft dam i~rthe affuerit canal" was sta~?ed iirJuIy
1981 arid tliat o~3 JuIy 1991 "o~rgoiiig work \vas dis~trgredat tire
HruSov-DunakiIitii-eservoir".sl

2.39. TIie easIy start to impleme~~tation of Variant C is evide~rtalso
fson.rthe gsant of operatirrg Iicenses.Relevant watei- Iaws per~riitsIlad
been gra~~ted or were to be granted by iIOJuIy 1991 82 (Le.,before initial
ylarming was supposed tahave been autlroi-ised). Aurhosiçarionfor the

use of constructioriu~ritsbuiiffor phase one of VariaritC was gra~~tedin

Govcr~ime~rtof tire SIovak Republic,Documcnt no 1111932. Information
Document,Jaiiuaiy 199HR.Anneses, vol3.anIrex84.

SC-M,para 5 79;seeaIso SC-:pa:ra5 73.604.and 1105.
SC-M,para3 911S,M.hrncx 102p 287

Easf-Wcst Ce~rtre.SIovaki3%e Gubtikovo Ii'ureIborkF.Januq 1993. p 6:
HC-M. Annexes, voI3, anIrex93;Poirlei.Eurnp27 Sepre~nbci1980. HC-M.
CurnexesYO I,annex86.
Seeabove,paragaph 2 22:HK,Annexes,val3. ailIre1.

HR. h~~rexcsvol3.annex84
HR:Anncxcs, vol3.arrnex84(eniphasisdded)

TechnicaIDcscripIionanEcononiicAssessrnenif theTe~n~ioryomrneiicenient
of OpcraIioriatthe Gabtiko~oI-iydroeIectricPIant. Junc 1991: Annexes,
vol3:alrnex77.2.40. TIreearIy start is aiso confimed by acfivities of local residents.
On 20 February 1991 the residents of viIIagei and towns of the iitni

Ostrov petitioned tlteSIovak Governrnenr tu stop the cu~rslru~~iunuf the
GabCikovo-Nagyrnaroç p1a1rt a~rd the fina~icing of pIan~rii-rgand
preparatory works af Variant Ca4 A furthar petitioraf 28 JuIy 1991

fm~n tlie inhabitantsofiitnjr Ostsov caIIedor1the SIovakGovernment to
"[sftop the direction of tlre Dariube from the, HruSov branch irrto the
affluent caitai"and "al1 work pertaiiiirgtothetrknsitianal option".85
1

2.41. As to firiarrcing,key fi1lancia1decisioni had been taken by Iate
199C).86 In tesms of rnoney actuaIIy expend~d by CzecIrosIovakiain
1990 a~td 1991, the evide~rce shows that rota1 annual experiditures

incr.eased in 1491, as cornpareci to 1990, i? relation bot11 to water
management arid energy costs, pai?icu!arly i? corr~truction.~~ Such
experiditrrresare difficuIr to reconcile wirh a :November 1932 start to

coristruction. The 1990figures were thenrselvei subsrantia1.

!
(6)SLOVAKIA'SNEED TU SHOW THAT GOVE~MENTAL APPROYAL
FOR VARIANTCONLY CAME ON i5 JULY 1991

I
2.42. In the face of rhis clear evidence ~10vakiapersiçts in its dain1
rhat thedecision to implementVariant C was lakerronIyon 25 3uIy 1991

(and eveIr thendecisions related onIy to "the apIjrova1of initia1financing
I
!

83 HR: Annexes,vol 3,anirex84.
g4 Pe~itiorf thcMembersof the Association of ZiiFj.OstrovTor~nsand VilIages
at the Meeting of Grand MayorsarMayursin Dunisze~-dalic, 0 Febtria.991;

HR, Annexes,annex 71.Sce aIso Lellei fronrtlie Lcoflowns and ViIIagesin
rhe Siin?OS~~C,~and 0th IocalQI-garrisntionsthe Conrnrittec Chaimenof
assofied bodies18 JuIy 1991, compleining rhatihe SIovak Governrnent "lias
prouided funds for prepmtov wurk in coii~rectiowith oplion C, 1.c.. the
co~npIetio~oif the poisferplant-';HR,Annexes;vol3:annex 78.
85
Petition by theinhabitants of iitnj Ostrov in conrviththe raIIyon 28 IuIy
1981J HR, Annexes,uoI3, anne x9.See aIsu the WecIar-ationbythe Association
of the townsandviIIagesof the ~irn3,~srrov concerning the constraction of Ihe
Gabtikovo HydroeIectricPotier PIanr, 18 Februar1992; HX, Annexes,voI3,
anirex85.

See above,paragrap2h.22;HR,Annexes, vol3, annci 68. '
S7 Revierv of Budgcrary Expenditureforrhe Constrbction and Operationof the
Gabtikovo Plant u~idcrthe TemporarySolution,~u&sr 1991;HR.hincxes:y013,
I
annex 84(Ariachment). -
i and pIarrnirig"88)and that constructiorroriIybegari in November 199 1.g9
GiYe1lits IegaIargument i~tlriscase, SIovakia is bound to takethis Iine,
fol- a number of reasons. Fii-51,any suggestion that the decisi011to

irnpIe~nerrtVaria~it C had been taken before JuIy 1991, or- tliat rI~e
riafional authorities without forma1 apprava1 had promoted the
coristructio~iof Variant C before tliose dates, .ruould,undennine the .
argrrmentthat Czeclioslovakia Iladnegotiated with Hurigary iigood faith

rrpto tliat rime?O Second: SIovakia's appi-oach supports itçcIain~t11ar
Hungary's decisioir tu terininate tlre 1977Treaty "occusred Iong before
eveii the yl~nning of Variant 'C'''?' And rhird, SIovakia's approacli
provides~rruch-neededsupport forits attack orr Hrr~~gary's clai111tl~at

continued construction of Variant C was tlie nrairireason foiterminaling
the 1977 Treaty.9-O tlie extent that pIanning or co~~structioncan be
sl.rowito bavecornmenced at anytimc beforeJury 199 1,SIovakia's Iegai

srrategy collapses.

(7)CONCLUSION

2.43. The evidence shows that SIovakia begari pIanriing Variant C as
earIy as August 1989, tIrat decisions on design, plarrni~rgand firrarice

' were taken in Iate1990, a~rdtliat Iicenseçwere granted and construction
waç in fact under way by cariy 1381 orsIiortIytIre~+eafte~V'.ariant Cwas
being irnprernentedwhilst ~~egotiations were king undertaken frorn Iate
1990 unti1JuIy 139 1. By the time Czeclroslovakia adopted ResoIutiori

484 o~i25 JuIy 1991, pianriirigarrdconstruction of Variant C had Iong
bee11afuit accoa3yli. And ivhen Hurrgaiytern-rirratedtlre 1977 Treaty in
May 1992the firsplraseof Variant C was approaching cornpIetion.

88 SC-M, para5.67.
89 SC-M,paras 5.79,3.83.

SC-M. pra 5.76(atthenieetingof15July 191 CzecIrosIovakia..remainedopro
enleiagaininro negoliationsovcrillconiple~ionof the GM Project and anv
aIlernativevariants to do so" (empliasisintheoriginal)).
91 SC-M. para10.137(emphasisadded).

HM: pal-3.165, SC-M, para5.I12(Hungay'runiIa1eralacts wcre .'unrcI...to
rhedecisions anactionof Czechoslovakiaato Val-ia~r'tC-during tjiis period up
to Hu~isa~y'spr~rporterminatioofrhe 1977Trcaly"). SECTIONC. THE IMPACTSOF VARIANTC

I
(I) MTRODUCTION .

2.44. This Section provides fu~?her infor~natio~r 011 the i~rrpacrs of
Variant C, includir-tgits sig~~ifica~adverse effeçts on the en~ironrnent

and tlreimpacts onflood contro1 and navigation, and sesponds to those
sectiorrsof the SIovak Counter-MemoriaI wliich address those impacts
(ChaptersVII and VIII). It dsaws 011the additional data and corrcIusio~rs 1
*
of tlie Scienlif;Rebulrai and tç ann~xes.9~

2.45. For the purposes of thisSectio~rthe cr-iticaIissue foithe Court is
wlrether Var-ia~rCt Irasoccasioried or isIikeIy tooccasion adverse effects

on Hungarian territory, and if so wfietlier-these'effectçare significantor
ser-iousin nature. For SIovakia the impacts of Wai-iaritC are eirher non-
existent or toIerabIe, at aIiy rare Ieçs than' t se ri ou^"?^ Hungay

considers that Variant C has aIready occasionai "serious consequences"
tu Hungaiy, itç te~.I-ito.nd environ~nent.

2-46. However, the pai-tiesagree oIr orie keyisnre: if Variant C hus

caused or- is IikeIy to cause significant adverse effects on Hurrgariari
territory itis unIawfuI and its oyeratiorr slrouldbe I1aIted.9~ Hungary
wiII retunr tothisquestion in Chaptes 3.

(2) SLOVAKIA'SAPPROACHTU THE IMPACTS OF VARIANT Cg6

2.47. Beyond denying the significant adverse effecrs of Variant C,
SIovakia aIso denies that any of its impacts are Inore sever-e tliari tlrose
the Or-igirra1Projecr wouId have produced.y7 ji'hisisriot true in factP8

8 .
93 SecScienlijiRebutfol,FIR,vol 2HK.Annexes, vo1;3nrrncxcsI, 25 aii6.

" SC-M: para9.69.
95 See HM, paras7.45-7.5 6C;-M. paras5.29-6.4; SM, paras7.84-7.8 S5;-M,
paras1127-11.44.

96 Ongeneral issued scientificcredibiiirabovc,introtir~cti,aragraph1s4-17,
and see aIsScicriiiReLiurraH, RvoI2, chap 2.,
1
97 SC-M.para8.05.
38 As poiiired out iHM. paras3.108-5.ID?:WC-M. 'ara3.O. In soInc rcsyccts
Variant C 1scar~singmore dariiageIo Ilungay thin the Or~gi~l roject rvor11d
probabIy have causedi in some 1-especlsiiscaGsiligIcss. SC-M. para8.01,
professedifticully understanding Thisralliersi~nytepointbut everr if it we1-e,itcannot he reIevant.99 SIovakia Iias no "vested
r-ighr"to cause substanria1harm to Hungaiy.Io0

2.48. In additiori, SIovakia cIaims that "i~rsofaas severeenvirorimerrtal
damage to t11eSzigetkoz Iias been suffered by Hu~igary" it is not the
"iiievitable" result of the darn~nirig of t11eDanube but ratlierdue to

Hunga~y's "wilful intransigence" and the "direct resu Itof a deliberate
arrd caIcuIated rcfusal to irnpkment the watei- recharge which is
riecessary to the regio~i'o.'oi The need to rnake the argument suggeçts

t11at"severe e~rviro~rmentaI damage" is i~rtrtrth beingcaused. But it is
necessaIy to Ineet rlie argumerrt i11itç own terris; this wiII be done in
Section E, be1ow.In7

2.49. III its Me~norial, Hr~rigaryreferl-edto the 19 co~iditions imposai
on Variarrt C by the SIovak Cornrnission for tlie Enviroir~ne~tt:tliese
co~~ditionswere violated in tlre impIementatiort of Variant C, which was
accordi~rgly unIawfuL undei- SIovak Iaw.103 This is relevant under

internatiorral law, çi~iceit helpto slrow Iackof due diligence. Hrr~rgary
Iiasnever suggested tlrat tlr19 Coiiditions were adequate; they cerfainly
did not arnount tu "adequate pr~rzqrrisites for the irnpIementatio~i of

Variant 'C'". IO4 TIrey wese no substitute for proper notification,
corisultatio~iand environmerrta1 irnpact assessrnent in accordance with
international Iaw. And according to tliose directry resporisible for tltei~'

irnple~~ientaitonIU5 tire operating cornpaIry was i11 breach of those
corrditiortsar the tirne of the diversion and for a substantia1 tirne
thereafter.IO6

See HM,para5.109.
Cf above.paragrapl1.28.

SC-M' paras8O?, 8.IO.
Seebelo~v~paixgmphs2.74-2I05.

See HM. paras5.135-5.136HC-M; para 6.124; andforllre 13Conditionssee HM,
A~rnexessol 4, annex 16ip 404-407.
SC-M,para 8-45.

See Communiqué of the SIovak Minis~vof Ihe E~ruironritonrhe4 December
1992 SessionoftheSlovakGouemnient,4 December1992;HC-M, Annexes, wI 3,
annex 57.SIouakiadc~rithis(SC-M,pan 8.501,despitethefactthat Iheopcrati~rg
Company<vas fincdu~rder1ocaIIaforthe brcaclr; HMpara5.130.

The conditionwere Ialerchangeto conformwith VarianC. ratherthanVarianC
mnforirr~ngivi~hthe conditions. Tfrey xuereaccrrrdingIy useIess in reof
environmenIa1prorecrionbut usefi11as evidence ofdisregardeven of SIovrtk
environmenla1requiremcnts:see HC-M.para6.124. (3)SIGNIFICANT ADVERSEENVIRONMENI'AL EFFECTS
OF VAIUANTC

2.50. Tlic uiilateirl diveision of the Danubepccarioned by Variant C
Iias Ilad significant adverse effects,lowhich SIbva kiaIrasbeen uliabIe to
deny OIItlrebasisof indepe~rdent scientifrcadvice. Since tlrcfilingOF the

Counrer-Me~noriaIs, fu1.ther informatio~i I~asbécorneavaiIable 011 these
adverse effects: tliisisanaIysed in theappended Scien!ific Rebzrrrd,and
outIiriedhere.

2.51. It I-11usbe emphasised that tlie fuIIbffects of the unilaterai

diversiorr vilil1onIy u~rfoldoves rime; iri the ~iiturzof tliings there are
uncertainfies about inter~zlations bemeeri ' the varioris affecte4
cornporients (surface water, graundwater; soiIs,,etc.).I0Vut it içquite
cIear that the u11iIatera1divenio~r of the Daiiube Iras caused and is

causing sig~r iicantdaniage to Hungary. The vafious eIenre11tof damage
wiI1 Irebriefly 1-eferredto. I

ra) River.morphofugy

2.52. The nroipIroIogicaI i~irpactsof variant 'c below DurrakiIitiare
similas to tlrase anticipated by the OrigiriaI Prqject. TIiese include
erosio~r and tiansportat ion of Iarge quantities of sedirnent; coverage of

the 'coverçized" r-iverbed with woody vegetatiori outside tlre wetted
perirneter; gradua1 degradation of the riverbed due ta rete~itio~of coarse
sediment iri the Cu~lovoReservoir, and si~tatio'n!ear thebankç;alid Iess
f~+equeriatnd sl~orterirru~rdationof tlreside-arntç acco~npanied by Iower

concentratio11 of suspsnded Ioad.Io9 SOI-IIof; thse conseqrrences are
aI~ady bei~igobserved. Il0
!
2.53. SIovakia says Iittleaborrt tlre morphological inlpacts of Variant
C, and wllar it dues say is wrong. The thisd weii- tobe irrstalleat the

cunovo cornpIex wiII not prevent sedi~nentation ofaImoçt al 1 bedIoad at
the rrpstrea~nerid of tlie Curiavo Rese~~oi~; '' and tlie assertion that
calrnatation of the side branclres or main river bed preverrting a
groundwater recharge worrld nof occur is u~isuppor-îed by tlre

IO7 HM, paras5.106-5.134;HC-M. paras3.153.63. j

HC-M. pans3.16-3.17.
lm ScieniGc Rebdiol, HK, i.02, ctap 3.1.3 H;C-h;l, paras3.18-3.2Scienfqc
Evairiafion.HC-M:voI2,chap2.4.

ScieldgJRebutin6 HK, 2. drap3.1.3andMoIn$r. 1995,HR. Annexes. vol 3:
aniie2
I'I SM, paras5 29.5.355tic~irrJRebrriru,R, vol2,:hap 3.1.3. 91

ev idence.Il7 It is inaccurate to characterise Dr Jaggi's arîicIe as
supporiing the view that as a I-esuItof Variant C tlre Danube can norv
deveIop"rnoi-e~~atusaIIy" 1' DrJaggi opposes theconstructiorrof weirs

in tlre 111a1ianne1,I l4 a~rdtlie discharge regirnein the mai11Danube at
Cunovo si~rcetliediversion does notcor~.espo~i ditI1hisY iews. Hurigary
notes bof1 tbat "SIovakia is in fuIIagreernerrtwitlthe vieivsexpsessedin

Dr. Jaeggi's pape^-"" ^nd that this agreement is not refiected irithe
dischargeregi~r~eu çndel-SIovak coritrol.

fi)SU~~U C%~?1W'''

(0 HydrtrIagy

2.54. SIovakia Iras 11ot11intgu say about tlris issue. The facts are

incontrovertible,arid the actuaI releases of watei-fi-omeunovo into the
1rrai11iverbed are markedlydiffer-entESOI hIe stipulated discIra~+gefor
the OrigiriaI froject. In 1943 the average discharg weas 353 m'ls,

incIrrdi~rfloods; in 1994the average dischargehad faIIe11 to 217 1n3/s,
incIudingan 8-day flood reIease; and in the firstlrree months of 1985
tlie average discharges Irad faIfe11 even further tu 1 77-n-r31Il. FIow
velocitieswere ctrri~rhaIf in the mai11r-iverbedand by even more i~rthe

Iowerpart.lIgAs a resuIt tlrere was an imrnediatedrop in surface water
IeveIçarida subsequent drop of groundwater Ievelsassociated with bank
failur-es al1 aIong the chanrtel. WIiiIe pIanning Variant C it was
acknowIedgedtliatecoIogicaIIy the Danube riverbed needed a rnirrirnu~n

diçdiarge of 600 m3/s i~rcr-easedio 1,300 rnqç drrririg thegrowing
season. Il3

{ii) W@erQuu!i~~~~

2.55. The cornplex issuesassocirttedwith water quaIitykve1.e negIected
in the suppoi-ti~rstudies foi-the Or-igi~ial sojectand have not yet bee~r

IIZ SC-M.paras 7.41-44.8.26:ScieiiriRebr<iral,R,vol 2,chnps 3.1arrd4.5.
II"SC-M. paras7.80.8.03.

II4 SciEnf!JccbilriaHR, vol2. cIr3-13 SeeaIsochap7 of IIScrei~i&Rebirriai
Dr. laggi scitcrhiscririque of tco~rslr-uctnfrtreiin a Ic~ttuHuiigaiy:
HR. Annexes,voI3. anIrex3.
Il5 SC-M,para8-03 -

Ilu SeeHC-M,paras3.24-3.35.
'I
HR: Annexes .ol3:axrncx1.
I ScierrlijicReburHR.,vu12.clrap4.2.2.
'I HR: Anncxcs v:l3.aline77.

IZ0 Scierr~$cEvuluaitotHC-M.voI7, cliap3.3. -FuIIy explored in reIatio~rto Variant Ttis ;ievertheIessevide~rtthat

the historica1 tre11dsin Danube water qualie whiclr sliow dranratic
incseasesi~rnutiients witIiconsequential i~rcreasesin algalbiornassand
changes in plrytoplankro~ipoprrIationç are IikeIy to be exacerbated by

Variant C.12' Variant C is ah IikeIy to koritribute to iricreased
degradatio11,rvith aIready poar bacterioIogica1 hualis and incseaçeç irr
corrcentratio~o if hea~yrnetalsintlie sedirnent wllich a11.eady exceed Iimit

vaIues i~rcertain pIaceç. Adverse ~vaterquaIity clranges in the Mosorri
Danube Ied to fish rnortalitiesin 1393 .123

2.56. The SIovakCounter-Me~noriaI'sreIiarrceoIr an ECquolatiorrtlrat
tire Danube water is "weIl-suited for river bankinfiItratiori" cannot
detract fro~nthe potentia1adverse effects of tra~+iariC t on bank-fiIter-ed

water ~nppIies.~" Slovakiafails ro provide any snppo~?irigevidence to '
sliow that eutrophicatiorr has been extensively studid - a serious
conces11sirrce, according to tlre OECD's eutrophicatio~rclassificariori
scherne for Iakesalid rivers, the Danube River at present faIIs irithe

woist catego~y.'~"f mentionsIiypotl-resised coirnteractingeffects of the
reservoir withouf providing arry decaiIed suppor-tirrganalyçis.126 It
wrorrglyaccuses Hungary of taking the ECoçGurds out of co~rtext.'~~

But tireEC WorkingGroup Report of 23 Novernber 1992corxluded that
tlte-

"net impactof tlie r-erervoiron the surface &ter quality iii the
downsrrearn Danube is expecred to -be negatii~efor the firsr

coupIe of years and ri~icer-taiinn the Iong ter.;?."
I
Itaddedthat - I

"the s~nalIerveIocities and much çmaLIerd-pths in the Danube
downstream ... iII resuIt irr significantly different (generaIIy

rregativelyf water quaIiv conditions witli respect to seIf-
pu~+ification o,xygen conditions,eutrophicatibn,etc."

IZi Sciez~~iJc chtrra1.HR,voI 2. dra4.3.

i72 Scier~iificRelmiruHR,voI2,cIrap4.3. Seea1ro~lo~~I.5,showingeurropliication
in the OId Danube,summer 1994. I
lZ3 Ibid. I
l
IZ4 SC~~III$C Evdlmriorr,HC-M. vol 2, chap3.5.
IZ5 Sci~niijiXebtrtrol.HR.vol2, chap 4.3.

126 SC-M, paras7.34-7.3 S5lvakiadoes not referto an) domestic invesrigatioIIIIQ
the euiroph~cationprobIems, burreIieson a1985 Hurfgariandocr~meirwhich iaIks
abour rheaIIegcd aeratio~rimpact of the turbinesI17 km downstrea~rrof rhe
rescrvoir)as counteractrthe culrop~ricationporentral.ofthe reservoir.

Il7 SC-M,para7.36 refemng io HM. para 5.44. I In the floodplain and associaid areas on both sides tlie operat ion of
VariantC-

"wi11resu1tin a continuation of the inmediate riegative impacts
expei-ienceddur-ingrhepast weeks".

In the longer term -

"the chatige indynamics with muchsrnallei. fluctuations inay in
addition influence tlie groundwater quality iii a negative
direction".128

2.57. Iiia single pai-agraph the Slovak Counter-Mernorial inakes thtee
serious error-sof understanding, referring to nronitoring as thoiigliitcan
providea solution ro problerns,usirigslioi?-termobservatio~iroargue rhat
Io~ig-termeffects will wt occur, and arguing that taking the main par7 of

the flow tlri-or1gt1e bypass canal wouIdyr-eventeutruphication. Il9

2.58. SIovakia içwrong fo suggesr that the pi-obIernsofeutrophication
in the side-arms produced a deteriotarion in grpundwater qrrality: the

prirnary recharge source for tfieStigetküz aqrrifer.was good qualis warer
from the main Danube channel. Following the diversioil this has been
replaced by poorei quality water.I3O

2.59. The Scientific Rebutta) summarises the like!y serious adverse

effects of Variant C oii groundwater flow and quality, both in the
Szigetkoz ai-ea and downst~earii.'~2 TIik re~rrainsa central issiie.
.SIovakia frequeritIy relies on unsubçtantiated asseitioris, provides
misleadi~igdata and misr-epi-esenrs grou~rdwaterpr~cesses.'~~

2.60. In seIrttionto iltecharacrer and furiction ofthe watef resorrrces,
Hr~iigarynever stated that the water reserve of tlre Stigerkoz is nsed for-
supplying Budapes~.'~~ HringaryonIy ~nai~rtained that ifs rapacity was

equivalent to tliat required by thecapitalcity.TIie Szigetkozgrorrrrdwarer
is(orbefore Variant C was) a baiik-filtered water resource, since it could

HM, Anncxes,vol5 (parII)annex14, p460.

SC-M, para7.37.
SC-M. para7.39;Scierir@cEvaluariorHC-M, vol2, chap3.4-3.5.

HC-M. palas3.35-3 50.
See ScieririR~hrffd, HR, voI2.chap4.4.

ForexainplcçseeScieiirijicAehitr,R,vol2,chap 4.4.
A proposirioticharacicrias"scienlificaIIyuntenableSC-M, para 7.45 i

94 1
I

be îappedby ~isingbankfilti+atiok rnethods in laddition to coriveiltioilal
wells. '35 I

2.61. As to the iisks to giouirdivater ~lovakja preseiirr the fact thar

degradarioiiisexpected to bea Iong-te1.m proces'sas an argtrriierttthat the
tlireat is iioserions, criticises Hungary for bck of certainv in its risk
assessment, and asserts that "tirer-eis no evidence rhar flie Pr-ojectwiII

have adverse impacts on gsoundwater qrraIity,eithei immediateiy or i11
rhe frrfrrr.e".*3These cIairrrsare u~rsupporred the available evidence
oi-by leading Slovak scie11fists.137
I

(4 Coltnatation I

2.62. Tlie complex inter-relationships behveensurface water and

groiiiidwaterare fulldamental to any understaildiiig of the impacts of
Variant lt was expected tliatsignificaiitsedimentdepositionwould
cake place in the Dunakiliti-HruSov Reservoir,,and tl-iahas now been

obsersed for Variant C (çee voiurne 2, Plate 4.1).'3Vrorn groundwater
sirnuIation studies it appear-sIikeIythat co~rna~atior irocesses wiII now
restrictgi-oirndwater rechargefrom rese~voir infiltrari~n.'~~

2.63. SIovakia States thatco11riatatior"had beén given carefr11strrdy by
the Treary parties and by i~rdependentexperr~."~~ ~o stirdy has been
subrnined by Siovakia irr connection wirh the charlged Iiydroiogicai

condiriorisof the cunovo reservoir, wI-ricIis different frointtie Original
Pi-oject'sreservoir,insize, sliapeand water movement. Slovakia implies
that the flushingof fine sedirnentsin tlie side branches is sufficientto
guaranteegood infiltrationconditions.l42This 'view is unsupportedby

receiltHungarian studies,143 and the data presentedby Slovakiaare
limitedin scope bothby locationandtime.144Slovakia clsiintliat the

135 Co~rn SC-M.para7.24.

136 SC-M,para 7.29.
137 Sctet?i@cRebtiirui,HRvol2, chap4.4,notc57.

138 Scienrtfk Emluarion,KC-M, uoI 2, chapç 3.43.5:Scienrifih'ebr~!/HI:R, vu12,
chap 4.5.
139 Molnsr,1995; HR, Annexes, vu13,annex 2.

ScieiîiifRebrittal,I-IR,vol 2, cha4.5.See alsoScieiirifEvaluatio?~,HC-M,
vol2,chap3.4. 1
1
l41 'SC-M, para7.41. I
142 SC-M,paras7.42,7.43. 1
143 !
Scieiti$cRahiazral,R,vol 2, chap7.3.2.
144 SC-M, pan 7.32,note61. I

! construction of weiss ivouIdflot Iead to coIrnatati01-r'~is not suppo~fed
by observed sedirnerrtation(sce-vo1111r2 r, Plarc 3.16) or by experiefrce

upstr.eaminArrstria.

(e) Wertund Ecologyand Vegefafior?

I
2.64. SIovakia'sacceptance of the obligatio~rto conserve biodiversity
(it is aParty tu tlie 1992 Biodiversiv Convention) is perlraps Iess than
fully r-eflectedin the Cou~iter-McrnoriaI , hich devotes two pagestu tIte

impactsof Variant C ori the naturd e~~vironrnerj (tflora, fau~ra:ecoIogy).
Moreover,these 2 pagcsare devoted exclr~siveIy to i7~h.I~~ NO rlewdata
or monitoring resuItsare provided to srrppo~laffirmatinriof Y ariant C's
;'succeçsfuIi~nplerne~rta~io~ arr,110 scientificevidence or argu~neiitsis

adduced. The Counter-Me1r-roi.ias 1imply asserts that "tIre [SIovak]
floodplairiand bsanchsystefnof the river iç~reserveda~rdres~ored",'~~ a
cIairnwhich is suppo~ted onIy by a ~~urnbeo rfplio~ogsaphs.'~~ However
greerr tlre forest appeais to Ire,tlreçepl~otograplrs do rot provide any

proof of a IreaItIrywetlandvegetatiorrcommuniiy.

2.65. TIiis Iack of interest is parficuIarIyserious in face of ~rrounting
evidence that Variant C Iras occasioncd "sei-iouçdamage or tlireatto

biodive~sity" withi~rtlre meani~rgof Article 22 of tlie Biodiversity
Convelentiorr,l49incIudi~rgin respect of fi~h.'~~AIIuviaIbiotopeç of the
Szigetkoz have Iost tlre specific clraracter of floodpIain tersitories15'
The Ioss of coii~rectionbetwee~i riremairi clrarirreland varions water

bodies, thedecrease iri surface water-and groundwater IeveIçand the Iack
of iriuridationswiIl togerher have drastic effects on tlre frr~rctioniand
psoductivity of the aIIuviaIwetIand ecosyçtern, and tlre fii-stsig11çof a
ser-iousdecIine i~rbiodiversityare now eviderrt.I52

a
2.56. The detailed effects are ciescribed irrtlre Sciwrific Rebuital,
Fig2tr.5.1 of whiclrslrowsthe effecrs of Variant C i~-rIeducing Ieafarea

SC-M, para7.44.
SC-M. pai?is8.35-39. SC-M, para8 35,fiiiItoirspond to 1-IMAppendix 1,
rvliichdetailedbo1arricauiolqica1 i~rrpasfVarianiC.

SC-M,para 77.7(ernphasii~or~ginal).
SM.i1Ir1s6A-D; SC-M.i1lr1CM-6 andCM- 18.

HC-M.paras 3.52-3.65.
SeeScienfiJiRebuiiaiIIR,va12, drap 6.3.

HC-M, par-a3.57-3. 7creiiltEvnlualion.HC-M,vol 2, cliap4.
Screnii/ic Rebi~HR,lvol2.drap 5.2.vaIues in the Szigetkoz by between 20% and 28%.'53 Amon@ otlrer-
documented effects: the sliootIreightsof the cornmon reed (Ph~ugjrrites

ausirdis) was onaverage 10-25% Iorveior1sites in the Szigctkfiz ûftes
the diverçion;I54the average Ieaf area and sI16otheighr of taII plantain
(Planrugoalrissirrrn)decseasedby up to two-thitds, pointing to Ille IikeIy

uItirnatedestruction of rhe highIy diverse flood meadows; Is5 the mean
Ieaf size of the yebw water- IiIy(Nuphor lurea)was 50% arid 75% less
than tharof control pIanrs iii1993and 1994,i~ldicatingexti~rctiorr within

tiireeyearç.156Plate 5.2 ilIustrates the original.state as surveyed irtlie
Szigetkoz betwee~r 1980 and 1992. Plareii 5 1a a1145. Ib sl~ow tlre
colo~risation of Irabirats and the irlvasion: of weeds since rIie
impleme~itatiomof VasianrC. PIm 5.4 iIiustraks the expected effecrs

of Variant C oricIranges in spatiaI cover witli wetland vegeration (4500
hecrares of Iota1Ioss and 3500 hectares of-partiaI loss), sirnilar to that
expectedfor the 01.igi1ral Project (see Plule 5.3) 157

Q3Soifs undagriculture, flsheriei and,fores~ry

(i)Soils and ugric~lf~w i

2.67. Slovakiadoes 11otdeny Hunga~y'sclairn'ofsiglrificantda~riageto

soi1 and agi.iculture.158 Rathe~; it sugests ilrat sorne of Hungary's
measusernentswere Ïio Io~rgervaIid after ~n~usr 1493" (foIIowing a11
iricrease in the recliasge to the side-arrns and ilicreased flow into tfie
Mosoni Da~iube),'~~that short-ter~n changes are "uncertain" and

unsupporied by sta'tistic(in the case of drop~i~r crop yieId~),I~~rthat
Hungary'sr-esponseofgsowi~lg"deeperrootirig.crops" is not correct,161
arrdtlratin SIovakia "rhere has been ~iodecressk in rhe qualiiy of soi1or

groundwater to date".16"ach of tliese points is dealt with in tIre
HrrngariariCounnr-Me11ror-iai'6 3nd inthe ScienrjficRehulral.IG4

I
153 HR,A~rnexes vu1 3,annex 5. I
54 HR,Annexes, vol3,arrnc5:Fig 2.
1
Is5 HR,Annexcs, voI3, annex5, Fig3.
HR. A~i~rexev,oI 3,annc5, Fig1.

157 Plares5.1-5.are found inthe ScienrljicRebutHR,.vol 2chap3.
I58 SC-M, paras8.27-8.30. u

159 SC-M.para8.27

160 SC-M,para8.28.
161 SC-M. pnia8.29. I
1
i6î1 SC-M. para 8.30.
163 HC-M.~wi?is3.66-3.7I:ScicnlificE~ulrrafior?,HC-M.~roI2.~hap.5.2.3
Ifi4 Sm ScC,,~~$I<ebur;&HR. r.oI 2chap6.1. !
I2.68. Tire observed impacts of Variant C Irwe borne out Hurigary's
corrcerns about short-terrn impacts on soi1 and agricultrrre, alrhough it
r-elnairistoo ea1-lyfoi Iong-term effects to be seadiIy discernibIe.'65

RecentanaIysis providesa furrherbasis for u~~de~standin cliesignificant
effects of groundwater changes on soiic~ndjtions.'f'~Plule 52 shows
tlie average coi~ditionof sub-iriigatioi~in tlie growing season (1980-

1992).Tlie corresponditig coiiditioiisafter implementationof Variaiit C
are shown in Plate 6.4 itithe Scienrz$cRebuttal.They show a dramatic
and significant reduction in the area receiving natural sub-irrigation
supply - iiicluding a 78.3% toss in agi-icultui-alareas in the Middle

Szigetkoz. Further evidence is provided iiiFigure 6.1, which shows
observed soi1 moisture profiles and associated groundwater levels at a
representat ive Iocation iiitlie Szigetkoz before a~rdafier ~hecornpletion

of Variant C. The figure corifirrnsthe significant Iws in soi1rnoisrrrre.

2.69. Four 1993 repofisinSIovakfro~rr tlie In-igarionFarmingResearch
InstitutefVUZH), Brarislava, Iiavebeen deposited by SIovakia wirh the
Court. TIreyn~irrar Htingarian concerns and ciemo~istraterhat as iate as

1993 resear-cIr into the issues of coricerI1 was i~~cornpleteand
ameliorationrneasuresnotyet defiiied.167 Transiaieclextractsfromthese
reports clearly demonstrate tliepotential for seiious long-term effects of

Variant C, including "a wide raiige of changes in tlie properties aiid
traiisportcharacteristicsof farmland soil".la According to one of the
Slovak Reports:

"The ecological effects of the operatioii of tlie Danube Barrage
Systern will probably affect exteiisive agricultural areas in the
iitni Oçti-ovregion ..will bring about a Icrsti~gcliange iiitlie

depth of gi-oundwaterI -eveIsin the areas affected, wliich will be
reflected inthe modification of fa1.1111asnodi1characterisiicsarid
systerns (especially wirh regard to the water-regirne and rhe

tempesature~ysrern)."'~~

Similar concerns are expresse4 i11 reIation to the adeqiracy or-
compIetenessof scientificresearrh ontlrispoi~~t.

16s Scie,ii@cRebiiftnlHR, vol 2,chap 6.1.1;Sciei~rifEvalirnrioii, HC-Mvol 2,
chap 3.4.3.
166 E Molnir, G Palkovits and K Rajkai,Evalrrarionoftire cffect of rlie DaituLe

H~drrre1ccri.B-ar-rugeSJSIPOIISoi1Propel.~ic~and Agi?cultrtrPI-od~içriii
iftSujie~kLiRrgioir,Budüpea,1995.
I67 Scietrifi Rehrid, H-1 2,chap 6.1.1.

Ifia 5 Rehak cf .r,C-Mpara 5.27,noie48. HR, Annexes.voI 3,arincx7,pan3.
169 HK. Annexes, vol3,:tnnex7.pan2(cmphasisadded).2.70. Slovakia also claims that decliiling groundwatei- levels pre-dated
Variant C and tiad led to a lossof capillasy supply itilarge pal-tsof Zitng,
Ostrov and Szigetko~.'~~ These daims jûre exaggerated arrd

rnisIeading. I7I Slovakia's accusatiorl tliatHtingiry has failed to produce
evidence of Iosç of capiIlaq effect is fuIIy adbressed by the evidence
pi-ovidedin the Scirntific Evuluulion. 172

(ii F)isheries I

2.1. SIovakia's claims as to fish Irnbitats iollowing Variant C are
addressed ab~ve.'~"~n support of itscontention, SIovakia annexes a
çtudy by Kiika174 whicli does not appear ro diçtinguisliclearly between

the Original Pi-oject and Variant C, isbased on 1liiilited data aiidinakes
niimerous conti-ad ictorystate~nents.~~~
,' 1

2.72. Detailed evidence derçribing the signifikant effect of Variant C
oti fislierieshas beeii provided inthe Huiigariaii Memorial and Counter-
Memorial. 17Vhe claim that fish habitats cani be mainraiaed 01.everr

i~nproved is urisrrpported by the evidence, incliiding rorisiderable fish
rnortaIities( 15 tons in the OId Danube bebveen; i-km 1842-1802)and by
scientific st~dies.'~~Si~iiiIarcorrcIusioriç appIy :to Slovakia's clain~ that

condirionsfor. fis11prior totfiedamming were not goGd. 178 The Scienrjfic
Rcbutial refr~tesotliei-SIovak c~aims, includiqg rliose concernirig tire
1rattrra1deveIoprrierit of the river banks EoIIowing irnplerneritation of

Variant C, arid iripanicular that changes would not occur itifish types in
the reservoir, tliatbetter spawning gi-ouiidswolld be created, and that
coi~ditionsin the tailrace canal are adequate.179 i

SC-M,paras 7.92,7.93. 1
ScieiatiJRchurroi,HR,vol2, chap 6.1. 3.eaIsochip4.4.1.

SC-M.paras7.j3.7.9 Sc,eriiifEvoluariorr,HC-M!vol 2. ciinp3.4.3
See above. paragraphs2.65-2.66.
1
SC-M, At~ncx25.
SC-M. Annex25. For example,ar orle piniit indicatcrhat -'[rgreatchanges
ir,iocciir irhc spcciesofichihyofaunaof thereseryoir"but latesiatesrfrat'-the

reservoir11il1bçcorne yracticaIIyan isoIated er~sysrernwith içhrhyocenoses
depending on their oii-ns-epiad{~ctio~r". SeSC~CM$C REISIIIICHIR,, vu12,
rhap 5.3.1. 1
I
HM, para5.126-5.129:HC-M,paras 3.78-3.81;ScienpficEvaluariori,HC-M,vol 2,
chap5.4.4. I
SC-M, paras8.35-8.36; HC-M, paras 3.79,3.81; icicfiri jvalilatioiHC-M,

vol2,chap 5.4;Nesernnn and Moop,1995,HR,~tin'itei, val 3,annex4.
SC-M,p"ar8 a.36;Scicntij5Rebutral,HR, vol 2, chap16.3.2,citing G Guti,1993.
1
SC-M,para 7.104;ScieiitijRebur~aiH, R,vol2, chap6.3.2.
12.73. Slavakia "r-ecognizesrhe crrrrcnt ui~favourablesituarion in rhe
Hungarian side arms for the fioodpIain forests". Igu0this is no .
evidence rharcorrditiorrscould be restoied by iricr-easeirirecharge to the
~ide-arrns,'~' tliaf riutr-ieirt inptrt inro tlie floodplain Iiad been

'drarnaticaIly" reduced pr-iorro rhe dainrning,'8' or thar tlie dyirrgback
of trees piedates Varianr C by at Ieastteriyeais.lg3

2.74. Eachof tliesecIaims is contiadicted by the detailed evidence put

forward by Hriiigary *R4 TIie drap iirgrorridwarer Ievels lias prodriced
calamitous effects ori tlie aiinrra1incremenf irithe Iang-terrngrowth.of
forest,as evidenced in tliScienfijicRehurfal, wlricirsnminarisesthe new

data.IT sh5is tratisIares irito signifimnr ecoiiornic Iosses. Therewas no
decrease in fimberprodr~ct&ity iirrhe decades before tlie implernerrtation
of VariarifC, since mosr of flie Szigefkoz experienced çnb-ii-rigdtionby
capillary riseand waç subjecr to i-egulari-ritrridarions.

(4) FLOODCONTROL

2.75. Phase I of Variant C does not rneet eveii the mutually agreed
safety çfaridardsof rhe Oi-igiiiaIProjeci, par~icnlariy for the 1 00-year
floodor the 1000-year flood.Ig6 Follotving the clasrireof the Danube the

Cunovo weircorrldiiotsafeIyhandie the flood discharge for wliich ir\vas
designed: the hoderate flood in Noveniber 1992 (of whiclr oniy
2120 rri31shad tabe released ar cunovo) caused corisider;ibledainage in

trie downsrrearnchannel, on tIre ftoodplain, iiirhe side-arms aridat the
structure iseIf.Ig7 The realdanger ro Hringaryof rrricontroliedflooding
isaccornpanied by risks reIatedto ice releaseiss

SC-M. para 8.1. *

SC-M. para8.31.
Cf SC-M.para8.32.

CI SC-M,para8.33.
HC-M.paras3.72'-3.75;HC-M, Scieiitific Evablaiioii, chaps4.5.5.3.4,5.3.6.

Scieuii$c licbt/i~oI,HR, vol 2. clm,spF& 5.2; 2 Somogyi, etal, 1995HR,
Annexes,va1 3.annex5.
Scieiirij5cRelmrtrHR, voI2, chap 3.2.2; Sciciir$Evuliiario~HC-M, voI2,
Tai~lc2.5and 2.8.

Scicnrt3cRehitrraHR. voI2,chap3.2.2.2.76. Slovakiaclaimsthat tliestructures already provideadequare flood

co~itrolup to 12,715 rn3/s.18"[ie cornpleted Structures of Phase 1 of
Variant C only havean 83% discharge capacit$for the 100-and 1000-
year design floods and would be unable tom discharge the 100-year

In fact, the Szigetkoz area had reached a 100-year flood
protection levelby 1977.There was no need to build Variant C for flood
control since the three villages between the powercanal and the Danube

could havebeen protectedby reinforcing the "antiquated dykes". III fact,
the constructionand operation of tlie Cunovo'Reservoirincreases the
hazard of ice floods.lgl

I
(5)NAVIGATION '

2.77. Slovakia describes Hungary's contention that Variant C has Iiad
an adverseeffect on navigationas 'Ln~nçense".l?2 It invokesthe support

of vaiious shippiiiginterestsfor the changes intyoduced by Variant C,Iy3
notes the nurnberof days Gabcikovo was inoperable iii1993 (avoiding
the fact tliat in 1994 it blocked the entire Danube for 36 days), and
compares ittn tlie previorisstate, which itdescribes without anyevidence

as "seveii ford sections (sliallows)...[and] the dangerously narrow
Bagomer section", and then asserts tliat indeed GabCikovocan enable
ships to pass difficult sectioiis downstream: of the canal, without

mentioning that those dificult sections are caused by the increased
bedload tliatresultsfromthe GabEikovobarrage/itself.194

2.78. In fact, only two, not seven, areas of!the Danube reach now

bypassed with the canal posed difficulties, one iiear Dunakiliti which
resulted frornProject construction and the otliermentioiiedby Slovakia,
at Bagoiner.'g5 Difficultiesposed by conditions!atNagymaros are not at

I
Iz9 SC-M,paras8.07, 8.54. !
190 Thisis calculated subjectingVarCatothc samcs:afetylevessadoptcd forthe

OriginalPrqjcct:th100-yearoodçhouldleave a 1.5m freeboaid,use5% ofthe
turbincand loccapaciiatGabtikovoa/nd75% ofthe availabledischargecapaciv
attunovo. The 1:000-yearflood should lcave a m.5freeboarduse50% of the
turbinecapacilyand 100%of the lock capaciat GabEikovoand 75-90% of the
availablccapacitateunovo. Given these restraint?,VariC:tPhase1 failsto
satisfythe safetyiequiremenisfor flood rclcase. See Scientific~vHC-M,ion~
vol2, chap2.4.4aiidTabl2.5 ;cieiîriReburral,HR,vol 2, chap3.2.2.

Ig1 Ibid. SeealsoHC-M,Annexes,vol4 (partl), anneq.
19* SC-M,para8.43.
I
193 SC-M,para8.41. 1
Ig4 SC-M,para 8.42;sccLaczay,HC-M,Annexcs, vol4 (prt l), annex8,p 440.

195 See Laczay,HC-M,Annexes,vol4 (partl), anne8, 440.a11renledied w ith the operatioriof VariarrrC. By co~~trastt,irerrunrerous

difficulties caused by gates breakirigarrddiips sinkirrgIg6have resulted
in VariaritC adverseIy affecri~~g navigation. Indeed, it closed the river
co~npIeteIyro al1 navigation, for the first time in peacetirne history.

SIovakia has not dernoristmted a tecl-rnicaor eco~-ro~nic'~ ~~ieedfor the
bypass cana1 as a navigation route. In addition, Hungary has been
deprived of its ripariariright198

(6)SEISMICLTY ANDGEULOGY

2.79. SIovakia c1ai1-11r ~kat \la~+iant C was suppo~ïd by "a
cornprehe~isiveeva111ation of rlie region's geological and seisn~icrisks",

including new studies and research "frorn 1991" (Le.,afterVariant C was
already beirig i~npIernerrted ).Y SIovakia clai~ns tkat tlie eventuaI
Iocation of the weir was "based on the IaRst geoIogica1research", and

cites a "cornpreherrsi~estudy dated October.1994"{tlieMaIrel'st~rdy).~~~
Sinw the weir was cornpIeted in Iate 1992 (and geological work bega~i
1-11uceharIier) it is difficuta understand how its location couId have
bee~ibasedon tliiç"Iatest" reçearch.

2.80. Hungaryhaspreviousiyexplairredits coIrcerIisabout seis~aicarid
geoIogica1 risk and psovided extensive evidence to support those
concern~.~~~ Fu~fherindepe~rderitevidence confii-11ii1i glievaIidiv of

tliose concerns is provided in rhe Scie~rfficRebu~raJ.~~T ~hatevidence
provideslittle cornfort. It concludes, i~rrelatiorrto the SIovakCouriter-
MernoriaI'sdiscussion of the issue geneesaIIy,tIiat there has been "no

systematic study of risk" wlricftlias rteitherbee1-trIro~+ougIiItudied rior.
fuIIytakenintoaccuunt.203Itsconclusions in regard tothe MaheI' Report
are damning:thar the Report ignores thecurrent regionaltectonic setting;

preserrtsa mode1for- tlredevelop~rieriot f tlie Danube basin based on 1.e-

See HC-M,para3 sC1-3-33
Se, discussion in HC-M. paras 3.87-3nn,tingthe lnck of SIovak referetues

economic,busmess01-trafic daia.
Further rebr~tlfotheiSlovakasscizio~cal1befou~rdi~rtiScierrrifRebutrni,
>IR.vol2,chap 3.3.
199
SC-M, paw 8.44.For an cxpInrrationof rhei1v~aIyfthatasseition,see aboue,
paragraphs1.134-1.1 S3ce;rijcReti1111iR. vol2:cIrnp3.3.
SC-M. paras8.44, 7 IO7The Maher siudyis no1appended bur sumrnarised in
SC-M,An~rex 25.

HM, paras5.99-5.1 HC-;M para1s.157-1.1S 70eri~fi EiuluariarHC-M.
voI2,clrap6.
207
Scient& XebrrtloIIR.\TO2Ichirps8.1-8.2workedseisn~icsections; fai1s 10 discuss earthquake epicentres, source
zones or ~nechaniçrns; arrdgeneraIIy "doeç rrotlconstitutean anaIysiç of

seisrnicI~azard".~~~
1 '

(7)CONCLUSION i
!
2.61. For rlrese reasons, supplernentirig ihose given in eai-lier

Hungarian pIeadings, it is quite cIear rliat 'the implementatio~iand
operation of Pliaçe 1 of Variant C has caused jnd wiIIcause sig~~ificar-rt
adverse effects on Hungary arid on the etivi~+onme~o rt the affected
region. TIre exterit of the Iong-ternr adverie impacts cali oniy be

detertnined over tii~ie,but tliatthere wiIl be !such impacts iç beyorid
dorrbt. Arrd this has beenwideIyi-ecognised.

SECTION D. VARIANT C AM3THEORIGINALPROJlsCT

2.82. SIovakia'sfegaIjustificatiori for variani C restson the argurnerit
tliaritis an "approxirnateappIication" of the OriginaI Project and that it

is "basicaIIy iderrticato the Gabçikovo çectiortof theTreatyP~oject".~~5
Ir aIso continues tu daim tlrat Variant C fep~.eserrts"a provisional
solutiori Ieavi~rge~rtirelyopen the possibiIiiyof a fuII return to tlie 1977

Tr-ea~.''~~~ TIme are esser-rtiallyfactuaI claims. Isit true, in fact, that
the two projects (tlie Original Project artd Variant C) are "basicalIy
identicaI"? Is it true, in fact,that Variant C as how esrabIisIredis,and is
iriterrdedtobe, ternporaryor.pruvisionaI?~7 I

2.83. Hurrgarydenies that the "appr-oxirnate~pplication"ar.grrmenthas

a basis in internationa1 law.'" lt hasnever acknowledged, in~pIicitIyor.

204 S=IEII!ifReburrd,HR,voI2. chap 8.3.

205 SGM, paraI 1.07. .
zo6 SC-M: para 1.20(emphasisi~roriginaIf. EIservhereSlovakiahiisvariuuslycIaimed
thatVxia~~t C is"an approxirnateiiirpIcine~rtatioanly onepar( of tlie GM
Projecr"(SC-M. para 8.M), or that "exoci(consisred ofputtingin10operation

the Gabr'ikovo partwithoiitNagyniaros and ~~itl!ouIpeak operation" (SC-M,
para10.28),01-tIiailis"jus1ihe reducedversion of the GabCikovoector of tlie
frearyProject'(SC-M: para 10.59).othatIIreOriginalPrrijectanVaria11C are
"inierchangeab1e'(-SC-M. para 10.(eniplrasesaddcd).
See beIow,paragraphs2.90-2.93.3.64-3.65. 1otheiwise, tfrat Var-ia~rC "sirnply sepresents a pai-iiaIappIicatio11of tire
agreed Tseay terms" as cIairned by SIoi~akia.~~~ Brit even if

"approxirnate app1ication" ilad arry basis in internationa1 law, it is
obvious tllat Variant C is a substant iaIIy differe~rt pl-uject fi-o~ntlrar
envisaged by the 1977T~-eaty.~'O Tliese differences relateto Variant C's
design and construction, toits oper-atio11r,o cont1.oves irs operarion and

ta itsiffects.

2.84. SIovakia seeks to ernphasise the sirniIaritieç berween the design
a11d constructio~r of Variant CZsl and the OriginaI Project, and to

rnirrirnise tlre diffe~+enceç.Tt suggests that the onIy Go tecIrriica1
differenies (described as "minor") are "the r-educedçize ofthe reservoi~;
and the clianged Iocatio~rof thedarnn~ingof the Danube".'"

2.85. III fact, the differerrces of design and construction are

signifrcant2Ij and wcre knoivn tobot11sides asear-Iyas 1983.214 TIiese
differe~rcesi~~clude:

(a) IIIrelatiori 10Plrase of Variant C:

a bypass of rhe main riverbed witlr ari addirional IO
kilometres betwee~irkrn 1842 and 1852;215

* a dec~eused flood releasing capaciry of tlieGabeikovo
power pIant because of the srr~aIIer nrrrnber of
tui-bi~ies;'~~

* a nelv connecting dam cuffirig across tlre ffoodpIai~r

appmxi1r-ra1eIy1.5 kn~fsom tI-~SIovak-Hungarian bordes
connecting the right batik of the reservoir with rl~enew
right-side reservoir

SC-M. para10.80.
See HM.paras 1.16-1.17.3.135,5.109.7.04SeeaIsoHM. Annexes.vol2.,*?op5.
conipaingiheuppersecIorof flicOriginaIP~qiaiidVariantC.

RciiiarkabIy.tlie beneffloodprotecrionisnot mentionedin the long pai.agmpli
enIistingsimiIaribçlrveentireOr-1g1ProjectandVarinntC (SC-M: para1.20).
SC-M, para11.07.

HM. para 3.44HM. Annexes,vol4'annex 161

According to the OriginaI Projcct "o~ily-'rkin1842-1811 rvouId Irave been
bypassed.
Sis ofthc yla~rnedturbineare operationa1therefore theaggregated capaciv

(6x300rn3/sis1,000m'lssnialIerIhanthat cf IIreOi.iginalProjecl.
SC-h4,para8.52. 104

* a r?ew 10.5 ~III10111dykelI8 at t1ie:right side of that

downsti-eain section of the i-eservoir which is now
furictioning as the proIongation *f the headwater
carraI;"9

* a reservoir at Cunovo wlricliis 30% SII~U~ tha~ ille

HruSov-I3u11akilitireservoirworrldhave bee11;*~~
* to tlreIeft of the Irew dam a U~HJ hypass weir ruhich

dive~?s a fraction of tlie flow back i~rto the "old
riverbed";'2]

* at the right end of the new con~~ectingda111 a new
"inundatiort xveir [whicli] dive1-tfIoOd waters" with a .

spiIIway joi~~i~rthe by-passed rnai~rcl-rannelsightat the
border;'2'

* theneru"i~rtake intothe MoçoniDanuee";22band

* "V~IY srrbstantiatrrodificarioof the hidroe~ectricpower
production frein a peak toa cot~tinuorrbasis".12"

(b) IIIrelation toPhaseIIof Variant C: b

* a new "auxiliary navigatio~rIock";225

* another new weir wi~h Ihree buyii eriabling, iniedia,
the discllargeûfbedl~ad;~~~and I

2.85. By any standascl tlrese are substa~rtiadifferences. Associated
with differences in cost, rlrey make it wlrolly inappropriate €0
characterise Variant C as "basically ide~rticaltoltheOrigi~~alProject.
I

21X SM, para5.29 çpeakof a 10.k~nlong dykeSM, Ab~iex37of an II kmlong one
(p3501.

219 SC-M. 111C~M- 12.
220 SC-M.para 8.04.

221 SC-M. pan 8.52.
?*? SC-M. para8.52andillrCM-I5A.

223 SC-M, illuCM- 12.
224 SM, para5.36(emphasisaddcd).

275 SM, para3.35. !
226 Ibrd.
!
lZf Ibid. I2.87. TIrere are aIso sigiiifrcant oper-rrriardiffesences. WIiereas rhe
Original Project provided foi joint operation by Hungary and

CzecIiosIovakia,~?Warian~C is urider tlie exclusive co1rt1.1f SIovakia.
It is "a purely national irivesr~i~ent".~~~Day-10-day rnanagernent,
including decisions ielatiiig to water flows, navigatiorr,flood conrrol

preveiition measures, aiid voluine of electricity generation, rest with
Siovakia. All tlie electricity geiierated by Variant C has been
appropriated by Sl~vakia.~~*

2.88. Perliaps tnost significaiitly, ttdifferences betweeil the Original
Project and Variaiit C inay be seeii in the latter'seffects,iiparticulai-ori
tlre waters of the Danube (jnclrrdiiig its qualityand flow) and on

Hungariarr ter~+itoryT.hese significant adverse effects have already heen
anaIysed.'3'

2.89. Variarrt C is tliusrnarkedIy differe~rt from the Original Project.

Under i~lternario~~a1lawitis properIy clraracrerisedas a "rnajorchange to
a11acti~ity",~'~ and as such shonld Iiave been treatedas a new pr-ojecr,
subject to clearoh1 igafions uiider general iritenlafional Iaw, inclndinfIre
conduct of an enviioiitnental impact assessment a~rd its proper

notificationto Huiigary.

(2) VARIANTC IS A PERMANENT PROBLEM,
NOT A TEMPORARYSOLUTlON

2.90. Tlie parties disagiee as to wl~ether Variant C is iiiteiided tbe a
pr-oviçional or permanent structure. SIovakia rnaiiitninçthat Variaiit C
"liad always been regarde4 by Czecl~oslovakia fo be a reversible

rnea~ure","~ and inits pleadings itmaintains the çame positiori for ilself:

228 HC-M, paras 3.03-3.describein derail the differeiice in disrnbutiotiof controI
rights as envisageby the1977 Treaty and relaleagreemciitsand asthey are
exercisecxdusivelyby SlovakiainconnectionwithVariantC.
22(i
[nternational Law Analysis of the Possibility of ImplcrnentheGabtikovo
Hydropower Plant as a Czechoslovak National Invebtment; HR, Annexes, vol 3:
annex64. Sec above,paragraph2.31.
230 According to Dorninik Kocingcr this amountedto 4.5million kWh from the
cornmencemcnt of the operatioii till Decembci 1994;HR? Annexes, vol3,

annex 151.
13' See ahove, paragrsphs 2.44-2.1, and see furtliçr HM, paras5.1I1-5.112,
5.119-5.129HC-M,paras 3.25-3.76.
'j2
Sec 1991Espoo Convention,An 1(v).Variant C lias a "pi-avisional or teinporary !characterW.234 Hungary

tielieves that VariantC.is ii-itendeas a perinaneiit stru~tui.e."~ This is
so eveii if certainelements of Va1,isrrCt are in an nnfinished state. The
bypass weir has never yet reached its Irydrauliclcapaciiy (saidto be 14GO

rn'/s),and there areerosiorrprobIe1-11 isrlie bo~lder sections doi~nstrea~n
of the ~eir.~~~ The flood gates have never receive tde foitified
spilIway which was designed "as a resrrItof the Lorldon Meeting to alIow

daiIy use'-and whic11 was "scheduIed fo be cornpleted by January 1
1993".237 But these are unpIa~rried deficiencies, not indications of
provisionality.

2.91. Tlie reasons uilderlying the Slovak position inay be found intlie
legal advice it received as early as December 1990 to the effect that the
construction of Variant C would not violate ititernational law if

Czechoslovakia would "pi-esent" it as a provisional alter1iative.~38

"According to generalinternational law, tlie Paiziesmust refrain
frorn al1 negotiations during the period bf sçtrspeiisioiwhicll
could prevent the re~~ewed irnp1e1-~ientation of the Treaiy
(Arficle 72 of the Vieri~raConvention on the Law of Tr-eaties).

As a consequence, the CzecI~and SIovak Federal Republic nlust
psesertf Varianr 'C' to the Hü~rgai-ian partner as a provisiona1
solution.'+z39

Any srrggestion that Variant C waç pei-~nanent , ouId, according to tfiis
advice, be incorisistent witltIieidea of îemporaqi suspei~sion of certain
parts of tlie 977 Treat~.~~O
1

234 Seee.g.,SC-M, para5.63.
235 HC-M,paras3. I15-3.122.

736 SC-M.para 8.53.
13' EC Working Group. Daia Repot-I,13 NriveniberI1)92?HM: Anriexes,voI fi
(pan II), nnne14.p 427:rcfci-ri10the Lu~rdùnMeering prodrlcinthe Agircd
Minrrtcsin whiçh riiva5guaran1et.Ilratire whoIeof rhcoriginaflow of the

DanubeirauId be re~urnedthrouglr thCunovo srrpcruresintthr riiaicharrnc1
(HM.Annexes,voI3? annex31.p 341).
238 III ?nriexesvvo3,annex 64. Sceabove,paragl-apl2.31-2.32.

239 InternationaLniv Analpis of tliePossibility of :lmplementingthe GabEikovo
HydropowerPlant as a CzechoslovakNational Investment. October 1990HR,
Annexes, vol3, annex64 (emphasis added). The 'word*'present!'in the Czech
original is "prezentovar-'.teme "negotiations" thepenultimate sentencis
presurnablya transcriptionerror for "acts": whithe;word inArt 72 of the
ViennaConvention.

240 Letter ofM Calfa toJ Antall23 January1992;HM. Annexes, vhl4' annex73: at
133-134. 1 2.92. VariantC:Iras thrisbeen "preserited" as "provisiona1" for i-easons

of IegaIstratea. AII~ it is cIear-tliattlie characterisatiori of Varianr C-as
"provisionia sIpsesentafiatiaIrather thaisubsta~rti~e. AI1the evidence
suppor~s tire concIusion that Variant C is i~ite~rdedtu be a permanent
, structure, iii particulai-in relatiori 10 its Phase 2; wl-rich is iiow
substai~tiallycotnplete. This point was made by Engineer J Obloiiiisky,

who was theii aild istil(May 1995)a senior officialof the Bratislava-
based state cornpatiyresponsible forVariant C. Ina 1989 interview witli
Pravdahe was asked:
/'
"[QI What is the use of a provisional alternative? Doesn't it
ineaii, as we have stressed inany times before, tlie substantial

, incsease in tircos& incurred by the construction of the Barrage
Systcm?

[A] We can oniy spenk uboura puoviriona/ alreruufive inphase
one. We wiiI firsr buiM the Ieading dam meritioned above and
co~~struct italorrgan additional sectio~ron the Ieft-hand side of
tlre river, where the Danrrbe functions as tlrejoint fronrier

betrveerr the 2 counfries. We wi1I rl~enIink the river- on our
territory totireai-igiiiadam on the right-hand side. The Iiirking
of tlieold Danube bed,to be performed via water tIiatwill be
obtained frornthe reservoir in accordance with tlie provisionsof

the 1977 agreement in terms of quantity, willbe done via adain,
tliereforeno costs will be incurred by the construction of a new
dam ... If tlie Huiigariail side decides not to finish the
coiiscructioi~of units 011 its own territory we will, during the
next phase, use clack-valves to make tlieregulation of water

IeveIpossibie in die reservoir up to the planiied height. The
pi-ovisivnui ~Iiernarive coulit ifi rhrs wny na lonp be
considel-edp~ovi~iorial."~ I~

2.93. This eiitirely accurate accorrnrof tI~ep1a1-rf~or Variant C was

give~ias earIy as 2 November 1989- inoretlra~ia year and a half before
initial pla~ini~~or Variant C is saidby SIovakia tu have begrin.?" It
seems tfiaEngi~reer ObIoiinsky had ritlcannypredictive powers. And lie
certainlydid not thitikthatPliase2 was "provisionaI".

Id'
HR. Annexes,vol3, annetil(ctnphasisadded).
'4' AccordingloSC-M,para 5.67.Sccabovep :aragrri2.42. SECTIONE. MITIGATIONOF DAMAGE AND THE 1995
AGREEMENT (THE ISSUE OF A TEMPORARY
WATER MANAGE-MENT REGIME)

2.94. AIibough SIovakia asserts thatVariaiitC has carised IirtIe ono
darnage, ithas so far made no great at-te~npfosribstanriarethat cIai11-r.
The emphasis in irs argurnerrthas ratl~cbeeri tliat Hut?guiisto bIame
for rhedarnagecaused by VarianrC: "itis Huii@i*ythat IiacatrsedIrasm

to itself by r-efusitogpermit the reclrar-geofthe brandi sysrem oIr its
side of rhe Da1tube."~~3

(1)A'TTEMPTS TO MITIGATEDAMAGEOF VARIANT C

2.95. Prior to Variant C,tlie Danube inthe s;igetkfiz regioii i-eceived
an average discharge of about 2000 m31s,with Loiisiderablefluctuations

in discharge and frequeiitflooding. Uiider variantC, Hungary received
aiiaverage dischargeof 353 m"s iii1993,21 7 m3/siii1994,and 177 rn3/s
for the first rhreeiiioiitlisof 1995,with infreqnentflooand very IittIe
fluc~uation.~~"~ungary has constantly souglrt foirriproverhis sitnariorr,
but measures takenby Hu~rgary in isoIationcan have only avey Iimited

irnpa~r;'~~ essentiaIIy what is needed is a 1Ggher discharge and aIr
adequafe dischargeregime.

2.96. Hungary has repeatedly sougl~t io agree, fiist witIi
CzechosIovakia and strbsequentlywitli SIovakia,ori rheserequirements.

Therecord ofthesearfemptsis i11urninatiirg: :
* Under the Londoii Agreement of 28~ctob'er 1992, Czechoslovakia

agreed to "maintain the whole* traditional quantity of water"
discliaigediiitthe Danubechannel witli "wtioledefinedas "*not
lessthan 95%".246 At 110stage diditcomply with the Agreement.

* Inthe context of tliEC's mediation, iwas agreed at the trilater,l
meeting of 27 November 1992tliat "pending thejudgement by tlie
InternationalCourt of Justice,atemporary regirneof management
of theDanubewater aloiig ille liofethe ond AdreednMinr~fes

of 28 October 1992 arrd based upon the report of tireWorking

243 SC-M,para11.42. I
244 HR,Annexes,vol3,annex1. I
245 E.g.,pumpingfrotheriver; see HC-para3.113.1'

746 SeeHM, 3.191;HC-M.2.78-2.83. FortheLondon Agreemensee QM, Annexes,
vol3,annex31,p341. I

i , Group" wotiId be app1ied.zd7 No sudl regi~rre was establislied
-beforetliedissolutionof Czecl~osIovakia.

* III rregotiatingthe SpeciaI Agree~~re~rS t,Iovakia insistedori the

excIusion of aIryappIication to the Court foi-interi~nrneastrresof
prorecrioii. Hunga~y was onIy preparedro agreeon coriditiontliar
SIovakia comirriiieditself to agreeon arid irnpIerne~-rtte~nporary
water managementregime, if riecessarywith the assistaiice of the

EC. Ar-ricle4(1) of the SpeciaIAgreement so pi-~vides.~~SBut
SIsvakiaconti~~ually refusedtu agi-eeon or i~-11pIerneantternporary
water rnaiiagernentregimeu11de1 A.rticle4.249
\
* On 25 Atrgust 1993, SIovakia agreed to estabIish a Group of

Moiiitoring and watel- ~arrage~nent Expe~ts, again wif hin fhe
framework of EC good offices. The Gwup was ro make
recoinmendatioi~son a Temporary Water Managemenr Regirne.
Hungary accepted the recominendations when tliey were made;

Slovakia, aftersomeequivocation, rejected them.250
*
Ina Note Verbale of 8 June 1994, Slovakiadeclared a willingiiess
to increase tlie discharge of the Mosoni Danube intake
structure.251 On 24 August 1994Slovakiaundertookto doublethe
disciiarge into tliMosoni~anube frorn 20 to40 m31s.2s2 NOsuch

iiici+easoccurred, although after early September 1994 average
discharges increased tothe 20-33 m3/srange.

2:97. None of these failures was attributableto Hungaiy. But their

consequence- and in pal-ticular the failure of Slovakiato comply witli
Article 4(1) of the Special Agreement - was that in Spriiig 1995 the
Szigetkozapproaclieda tliirdgrowing season since the diversion witliout

any effecriveguaranteeof additional ~ater.*~~

HM, A~rncxcsvoI4.annex 105.p236.
See HM, 2.09-2.12; HC-M. 2.107-2.109.Fur tirSpccial Agreementsec HM,
Annexes,vol3, annex32.

SeeHM, 3.187-3.223HC-M, pain2.109.
SeeHM. pal-3.22;HC-M, para2.107-2.117.3.221.

HC-M, Annexes,voI3.alriie70.Sce alsHC-M,para2.1 15.
HC-M, Aiinexcs,uo3,annex73. See alsHC-M. para2.115.

The only oprionavailabTO Hr~ngiarwithouiSlovak acrio\vasro putnpwaier
From the mainchanneltothc s~dcbranches. Thiwas an expensrveand strrcily
short-terrnexpedient.HC-M, para3.113.2.98. Against this backgroiiild, foi Slavakia; to blarne Huiigaiy for

causing the damage2j4 is remarkable - a classic case of "blaming the
victim". . It isal1tlie more remarkable for the fact tliatas early as 1991
Slovakia's advisors had recommended significantly iilcreased flows

simplyto maintaiila substantialpairofthe existing floraand fau~~a.~~~

2.99. lnstead of praviding inoi-ewaier,$lovak/aharcontinr~allycalled
for the bui ldiilgof a series of iinderwater weirs, bliich in irs view wwould

"salve" the probIe111.Dui-irigthe EC negofiafions on a Temporary Watei-
Marragement Regirne, SIovakia projiosed the c~risrrucrion of no fewer-
than 9 weii-s iiithe OId Da~~ube to sustain wafer IeveIs,witli a cresr IeveI

approxirnately 4.5rnetrcs above the ri~trbed.~~~: The EC Expefl Gi-oup
recommended the buiIdirig of rwo weirs, co&ined wifh an average
discharge of 800 m3k,and tlireeyeariy floods of.more rhan 3500 m'/s, a

reconrrnendation accepteci by Hnnga~y.~~~ More recently, Slovakia

!

'54 SC-M, para II 42.
25j See HR. Amcries, vol 3,anncx 77.

256 I Mi~cha,Repoi.on Teirryoi-aH'liredbnagement Reginie - IndependentScennria
(BrarisIava,Novcmber 1993).Duriiig the EC negotiaiions in 1993 a scenarifor
eight weirs was introduced, with a cresl heighcaj4.2 ni:EC Working Croup,
Report on Temporary ,idanagentent Reginie. Bratislava,1 December 1993,

Scenario3; HM, Annexes: vol5 (part II), annex 1;Their environmental cffects
wcre described in the Scientific Evalirurion, HC-M,chaps22.5, 4.6.The 8 or
9 ivcirspresented durinthe EC negotiationswere similar to the iveirs studied by
Hungary in 1977,see above, paragraph 1.142. Theylaie aIso similto the weirs
implemented atthc abandoned channels othe Upper Mine (HC-M,Annexes,vol 4
(pan 2), annex141,butdifferent fromthose1m high bottom sills contcmplated but

not,adoptedin 1989(ScientijiRebuttoiWR, vol 2:chip7.12).
257 According io tlie headings of the Rcpon, desccibing differeni appioaches
(çcenarios). any recornrnendationof the Workin~rpu~ on the ternporary water
management regime was to bebased on collectingdata,andidentilling impaon-

* discharges,water levelsandflowvelocities
* erosionlsediiiicntation, 1
* surfaceivaterquality
* groundivaterregime I

* grounditmateruality I
* fioraandfauna
* agriculturand forestry
* eIectricityproduction. I

EC Wol-ki~lgGroup, Reyorr on Tenrpoiaiy IVmr Ado'cinclgenrReginte, I
December1993: HM, Annexes.vol 5(Part II)annex 19,pp750-75 1.
1
1PI-oposed the co~rstructiorrof a singIc rveirat rk~n 1843 in order to
"1-estore"tlreside branchesof tl-reSzige~koz.?~~

2.101). Huilgaw's positiori on these weirs has beerl co~isistent. By
tIie~-rrseIvtsey may have a iirnited slrort-tesmberieficial effeciftliey

are cornbi~~ed with i~icreasesin discI~ar+ge.~~In the Ionger ni-in, and
especiaIIy without an elaborated discharge r-egime providirig for
fluctuations in vo1u1-rieasnd for periodic floodirrgs~tliey wiII Irave a
Iiar~~rfueIffectfarf~-om providi~iga Ioiig-terrnsolurion, in the lo~rg-terfn

tlreywiIIbe a fu~rhel-ariof the probl~ni.~~~

(3)THE 1995AGREEMENT CONC ERNINGCERTAIN TEMPORARY
TECHNICALMEASURES AND DISCHARGES

2.101. On 19 ApriI 1495, SIovakia and Hrr~rga~yconcIuded an

Agree~ne~~cto~~cerni~rg Cerfai11Tempor-ary Technical Measirres and
Discharges inthe Danubearid Mosoni Bsanclrof tlre Danube."I Urider
the Agree~rrenr,Slovakia is 10 provide a sIightIy increased discharge
(a11nua1average of 400 m3/s) into the Danube and 43 1n3/si~ttothe
Moso~~D i anube, w11iIeHungary is to corrstruca weii at rk~rr1843. The

Agieerneritis temporary arid provisional, arrdis cof~cludedon a witlrout
p~+ejudic easis (A~-iicI6). Iris subjectto termiriarionfor breaclro~iorie
rnonth'ç notice (ArticIe 5) and te~~rninaas 14 days after the Cour-t's
judgerneat in the preseritcase(ArticIe6). A~ticIe7 pwvides:

"On the terini~ratioof this Agreementand urilessit isorherwise
agr-eedor decided, HurrgaryshaII atitsown expense removethe

~eir...''~b~

2.102. Tire 1995 Agreement onIy cove1.scertain tech1rica1masures
riecessitatedby theever worseriirigstateof the Szigetkoz. It provides the
technicai rrieansof marginaIIyincseasirrg water IeveIsi~rtlie Szigetkoz,

iricIudi11rl~e~nairrI-iverbed.TIis tenrporarytecIr1iicaIneasure does rrot
amor~ritto a temporary wate1-manage~neritregime withi~itlre meaningof
Article 4 of tlre SpeciaI Agreement. IfonIy reIatesto one aspect of the
co111p1ex water manageme~rtissues whicli were discussed by the EC

Worki~igGroup. TechnicalIy it is diffesent frorntlie 1993DeceInber-EC

758 SC-M. jlIusCicl-andparas8.06-8.13.

Seee.g., HM,A~rnexes,oI4, rurncx132fastatenieor theHungariaposition.
260 For substantiatio~siee SciEvaltiolton, HC-roI 2, clra2.54 6:Scienf$c
Rebu~iu%HR, vol2. çhap7

HR, Annexes.vol3.anncx24.
762 HR. Aiincxes,vo3, anIr24. IIZ

I
+ proposai, sirtce it wilonly lead to a 100 rn31saverage inciease ofvolume
in the main channel beIow rkm 1845 (?Ire re& of tIie i~rcrease being

suppl&d to the side branches) without any j sig~rificanr water IeveI
i~rcsease downstream of the Dunakiliti weii. It entai15 o111ythe
coristr-uctio1rf orle ternporary undenvater weis ar a location diffese~~t

frorn the srrggested siteof the two weirs inthe 1.993p~oposaI.~~~'

2.103. IIIHrr~rga~y's~iew,2~~ the 1995Agreement in110 way constitrrtes

a tefnporaw water 1-~~anagernen rtgirne for the purposes of ArticIe 4, and
its title suggests as much. Itis simpIy a temporary n~itigation measure of
apartiaI character, concIuded i~ithe Iropethat it inay provide some short-
l
terin reliefto the affected area.

2.104. Urifo~?uriateIy,everi the short-tern~ impakt of the weir is IikeIy to
be Iimited,as tireScieni@ Rebutfa! diows in s61r-rdetai!:see esgeciaIIy

its 7.4, which suggcsts that under compaiable çcena~.iostliere wiIl
be a ~rraxi~nurnirici-easof tl-regrourrdwater table of Iessthan 0.6 rn,and
that the area influenced by rises of 0.5 rnor: more wiI1 be Iess tlrari

400 ha.265 Another srudy evaIuated ritepoter-~tialorlg-:-te~.c11anges in
the productivity of for-eststarrds in t11eactive flgiodp1ain.'6fi A 100 m3/s
recharge in the Hungarian side branches andl a weir i11the Danube

channe1 atrkn~1843 wouid appear tor.eçrrIi11o1r1~a 5% irnprovernent to
fo~+est pr-oductivity, co~r~pared w itf-r tire significantiy decreased
pi-oductiviiy after i~npIernentation of Variant C.267 ln generaI tfrese

dernonstrate tl~atIlle Dariube ~riai~c rba1r1ie1coiitinrres to act as a drain
eveIi with discharges of 300 m3/s into the main riverbed and 1#O rn'l~
irltotheçidebraricheç.
!

2.105. TIie advice giverr tu the SIovak ~overnhent by itsOWII advisers
- is u~rarnbiguousoIr tliis point: they recornrnendéd"rhat rlie oldriverbed
shouId be suppIied witlrLX Ieasl600 zn31swater fIow" and that during the
I
I

263 Tire1995 Agr~~iiicntpr~~~i.is 400ïn3hcc year~yaverage dirchsiginihr nidin

channel wilh no provision for flo~heEC Worhing GroupReport reco~n~neiidcd
800 iii3/sec arrd 1-3 floods ycnrIy if IiydroIogicaI conditions permitred (1-IM,
Arriieses,vol 5 (Par?II),an19,p 816).
264 As cxpi-cssediritiredcclaintiotliGoverirmenrof 19April 1995.IIK.Annexes,
uoI3, anIrex iU4.SIol~akia-sposit~o~rwas diffcrcnt; HR; Annexes. vu13:

annex 106.
?1j5 Seesc~enn$icReb~tt~oI,R, vo2,chap 7.3.4.
7fi6
Z Sonicig).eialIAss~ss~~te oiloiig-ler.changes in rhc pi-odriciivoJfoi.esl
stands ti~he S~tgefkoz ~hai con Iie expecfcd~ii;-lcr.d@fffeicwieiregimes.
Budapest. 1995HR.Annexes,wt 3.nnnex6.
267 I
SeeSclcrlrijRcliiirrHR., vu12,PIaie5.4.growing seasorr "tlris vaIue Ieaps to 1300 rn3k".'" AAtthiç IeveI "a
szibsranriaIpa1.toftheplant cover (flora)aridAtIre iIdIife (fau~ia)can be
maintained at the preseIrtIeveIof existe~ice''.~Inother words eveh tIris
IeveI of water flow, sig~rifica~~tybove the arnount pruliosed for the
OriginaI Prqjecr or so far accepted by Slovakia, wouId Iead to

environ1nenta1damage.

SECTION F. SUMMARYOFCONCLUSIONS IN THIS
CHAPTER

(1) Varianr C is consistent witlr Iong-standing CzechoçIovak

aspii-atio~~tso rr1iiIateaction on the right bank of the Da~iube
Rives (paragraphs 2.05-2.11 1.TIresewere ~rra~fiisted in the 1950s
(paragraphs 2.12-2.1 4) and çubseqwntly, ewn after the 1977
Treaty Iiadbeen concluded (paragraph 2,.5).

(2) Imple~nentation of Variant C bega~r far earIier rhan SIovakia
c~ai~rrs.TIierecord from August 1989tu Novernber 1992 is one of
progress with Variant C, with plans having bee~rapproved and

relevant financial decisiorrs take? at the Iatesby Janrra~y 1991
(parag~~rph ç .18-2.30,2.38-2.42). IrnpIenrentatiowas basedon a
IegaI sti-ategy of a "presentationa17'clraracter andan econonric
strategy of rninimisirig disclrasges to the Danube fparagraphs
2.3 1-2.37).

(3) Variarrt C I-rasa11~adyIiad significant adver-seeffects on the
enviro~imentand or1eco~~orrria cctivitieç in thregion, and these
efiects wiiIcontinue and irrcrease(pa~+ag~.aph2.44-2.74). There

are sig~~ificarituestions about cIairned be~~efitfor flood contra1
(paragi-aplrs2.75-2.75) and navigafion (paragraplr2.77-2.781, aiid
serious concer~ii as to tlie underesti~nation of seisrnic i-isk
(par-agraplrs2.79-2.80).

(4) Variant C is rnarkedly differ-eritfrorn rhe OrfginaIProjecr: as a
~rlatterof facr it is ~ieitherarr "approxirnate application" of the
Original PI-ojcct(paragsaphç 2.83-2.891, noi- is it "provisio1ia1"

(pasagraphç 2.40-2.93).

258 TechnicaI Description arrdEcononiicAssessrnentof the TciiipornryConimc~rceme~rr
of OpcrationsnttlieGabEikovo HydroeIecti-ic Power Plant. JuneI9CiI; HK,
Annexes.vd 3,annes77.p 376(crnplrasisadded).Huiigaiy liasdonc itsbestro niitigatdamage caused by Variant C;
the mai11reasorr for its Iin~itedsuccess i$ the repeated fai1ure of
SIovakia to conlpIy wirlr sncce&ive cqmrnit~nerits to increase
discha~+ge o the Danube (pasagraplr 2.86.). The 1935 Agreement

orr Cei-îain Temporary Technicaf Measn~ks i~rvolvesonly IIinor
incmses i~idischarge: it wiII Iravonly ajver yirnited impact and
does not constitute cornpIiance with AjticIe 4 of the SpeciaI
Agreement (pasagi-aplis2.102-2.103).
1 CHAPTER 3

ARTICLE2 OFTHE SPECTALAGREEMENT:
THE QUESTIONS FOR THECOURT

3.01. This CI~apterdealswirhtire quesrions theCourt isasked to decide

by A~?icie2 of tlre Special Agreement. The three questio~rsiderrtifri11
A~ricleSI 1)will fiisbedeaIt withas fullows:

Section A: The Suspensiori and CanceIIation of Works (paragraphs
3.03-3.40)

Section B: The IIIegaIitofVariant C (paragrapIis 3.1-3.68)

Section C: The Termination ofthe 1977Tr'eaty (paragraphs 3.6'9-3.58)

3.02. Hunga~y wiII then trrrri to tlie I-enraining issues identifi11l
ArticIe 2f1) of tire SpeciaI Agreement,by whicli tlieCourt isasked to
deternri~re"tliIegaI consequences, incIuding the i-iglitsa~rdobIigations

for the Parties" of its concIusio~-rson the first tbree questiorrs.
SpecificaIIy, the focus Irere is on IegaI coIlsequences in twms of
restitutiori, r-eparatioand co~rrperiçation Section D, paragi-aphs
3.159-3.178).

SECTION A. THESUSPENSION AND
CANCELLATIONOF WORKB

3.M. The first questiofor the Cour? is wlretl~erHungary was entitIed

to suspend and subsequently abandori work on €IreNagymaros Project
and orrtIiepa1.tofthe Gabtikovo Projecl for which the Ti-eatyattributed
responsibilitytuHurtgaly (SpeciaI Agree~rrerr, rticIe 2I)(a)). Hungary
reIiedon necessiv as a circumstance preciudirlgthe wrongfuIness of its

suspension and abnndorirneriof works at Nagy~nar-osin May 1989, ifs
srrsperiçioat DunakiIiti JuIy 1989 and atGabCikovo ir; 1991 .I Tire
Treaîy itselwas-not abandoned, or even for1naI1ysuspended, atany time
priorto itsferminatior~.~

3.04. In the Iigfiof CzechosIovak arguments at the time and SIovak

arguments inits pleadi~lgs,tliis safoui-disti~~citssues:

For an linaIyofsthe factual s~tuaseeHM, paras9.01-9.42HC-M. paras
5.25-5.3 F8r.SIoyakia's responses see SM, par8.28-8.57SC-M. paras
10.02-10.31.
SeeNoieofMinisrerMM; HC-M. Annexesvol3,annex54. ( 1) Didthe 1977Treaty precIudeHu1rgai-y frGrninvokingneceççity?

(2) Was jointnsceitaiiiinentof the factpie jequisite?

(3) Did Huirga~yrneet the applicable IegaI s~quiremeirtsfor i~ivoking
necessity? I

(4) Did Hungary act reasonably i~rco~itinui~r~ its suspension untir
te1.1ni1iaiof theTreaty in 1992? !
!

SUMMARYOF HUNGARY-s ARGUME NN S^ SPENSION
I
3.05. Hrrngarywas entitIed 10 invoke1recessit5;or ilinitialsuspension
of works arid forits subsequent actions. The prima~yjustificatioriwas

Hu~rga~y-w s ell-foundedand genui~recoItcerIrsasto the threats posed by
the Projectto tlreerivir-o~i~neitr,id especiaIIy water res~urcesTIrese
concerxs were cornpounded by CzechosIovakiP'sbreadies of the 1977
Treaty; its refusa1rocooperate i~ithe pcrfor~nanceof an EIA, arid its

iirçisterrceor1praceeding rvith the impIementibn of GabEikauo with 'or
without Hunga~y. Take~rtogether, these circ,urnstaricesi-esultedin a
continui~rgstate of necesçiiy, eve~ituallyjrrstifying termination of tlre
i977 Trea~y.~ I
1

3.06. Slovakia c1ai1rrsru take "a very differént view" of tire factors
which jusrified suspe~rsioriarid Iater abando~rmentof tirew~rks,~ and
rejects Hurrgary'sessential arguments. As to;tIre factsitargues that
Huilgary did r~otact in good faith; rhat i$ concerns were eitlrer
unjustifiedor exaggerated, and tI.ratariy rernai~rprobIemscouId Irave

been mitigated by such measur-es as "underwater weirç". These factuaI
argurrierrthave already been dealt with iriear-lierChapters.6 But
Slovakia slro relier on a nunibof iegalarguinklit s, reviewed heie.

f1) DID THE 1977TREATY PRECLUDEHUNGARY'SRIGHT TU INVOKE

THE LAW OF STATE RESPONSIB LITY? ,

3.07. Slovakia argues tira? the tlierr~~aConvention on the Law of
Treaties aIo11eprovides a basis for suspe~rdingthe perfonrrance of a
treaty.7 TIrus Hrr~~garyca~rriotinvoke any "~i~+cumstancep srecluding

Seeabove,pngrapIrsI.IOO-1.14.
NecessitasirrelattolcmrinatiwiIl be dealiwin paragraphs.14-3.118.

Scc SC-M, par10.07. .
Bceabuve,parügraph1.59-1.14seeaIsoHR,rrul2Appendix6.
SceSM, pri8.1O;SC-M. pan 10.01.norI. I 3.11' Slovakia argues tliat "[illiTizaty contàiiied the rnechaniçinsfor
ongoing provision of ecological guaranlee~"' an~d that those
mechai~ismsmustbe utilised:I7 tlie 1977Treas had "its own provisions

to ensure tliattlierare no ecologicalcatastrophes."'8

3.12. Tliisisnot so. The general provisionsof the Treaîy dealing with
eiivironmeiitalprotection had to be ayplietd o be ineai~iiigful,and tliey

did not envisage tlie level of eiivironmentalliarrn and risksthat tnl-ned
out to be involved. The Treary also established a rneclianism for
decisiotr-maki~rgb ,ut in the absence ofdecisiohs under the meclianisms

they did not assist.19 In fact the one significant Czechoslovak
"concIusion" that rnight have begrrn to aiIeviaréHungary'sco1rce1-1 isa
çubçtant iaIIy iricreased discharge regiine with periodic (weekIy)

inundarions - wasnevercomrnnnicared to H~ngary.'~
I
3.13. SIovakiastresses rhat the Treary had its"own dispure r-esolution

pr~visions",~~impIyirigthat tlie iaw of state reçponsibility corrIdpIay no
r-oIe. It is true that ArficIe27 provided for negotiarions betweerrthe
parties. But itciidnot provide any rliirdpaQ procedure for settIementof
disputes.72 Hu~rgary~iegotiated in good fairh!fhroughonr.'UIovakia

seeIrrs to argue tlraton the one hand there wa? no dury to negoriate in
'good faith pursuant to Article 27 ofrlie Trea~y,'~ and on the other hand
that Hungary was Ii~nitedexclusively to the terms of Article 27.25 Here,

as elsewhere,the Treaty's provisionsdo not exclude the application of
ieneral international la^.'^ I
I
I

SC-M, para10.07 (emphasisadded).

SC-M, para10.07. I
SC-M, para10.39. 1

Seeabove,paragraph 1.80.
See above, paragrap1.77.Czechoslovakiainsiste*Mm Iare1989ontvardson tlre

constructionof Nagy~narosatidoffered anIy ünspecified "'ecoIogrcag1uarantees'i.n
iiscparateagreementtobe negoriared;seeHR,val 2, Appendis 5.
SC-M.para 10.39.
I
Seediscussio~i~HM,pra 4.13.
SeeHC-M. paras 2.118-2.128. I

SeeSC-M. para2.23. I
SC-M, para11)39. I

This is~pccif~caltrecognised in An 2 of rhe kpecia1 ~~reernenr;see HM,
püra2.05. l3.14. Hungary is rot precludef dro~n invokilig the Iarv of state
~+eçpo~b riiiry eirl~erunder generaI i~-Ite~.natioIIw 01.urider tlie 1977
Treaiy .

(2)WAB JOINT ASCERTAINMENTOF THE FACTSJUSTIFYING

SUSPENS OFIOW ORKSNECESSARYPRIORTU SUSPENSION?

3.15. SIovakia asserts that "a State I-ras Iro dus to set aside its
entirIenientto reIy anthe priiicipIeof paactaçu~rtservanda; to ~iegotiate

fortheabandonrnerro tfa treaty i~which ithas na daehuçeinvestrnent,
irior de^to accommodace apparent ccono~nic a~idpolitical needs of the
otller pa~-ty".~Hungary fuIIy agrees. Brrrtlie proposition is irselevain
tlie present case. Hu~iga~ycien~onstsated clear jus1ifications for its

actions, which are not appropriateIy described as "apparent econo~~~ic
a11dpoIiticaI 1ieeds".2s The essentiaI issue is wlietlier, as SIovakia
suggestç, "tliere caribe ~iosuspension of Treaty performance witirout
jointobjective ascer-tairr~rreiffactç tIiat requise sucan action."'g

3.16. The prohiein here ivas that the activities in question - tlie
coristructiorof the Nagy11ia1.0B~arrage, the cIosur of theDanube- weiz
continuing activitieswhiclr wouId ihen?selves cause the apprehended
Irar-1-a~,-wliich - i~Hungary's view - gave rise to a state of~recessily.

Any cIaim of necessiiy irivolvesa riskto tlre invoki~igpa1q if it cannot
subçta~itiate tliclain~I. f there is a dispute, the parties are under aIr
obIigatio~rto €17to ~+esoIveitby al1 avaiIabIemeans.xo But the doctrine
of necessity is rot çuspended inthe meantirne, pending some pwsibIy

diIatory and iricorrclusive procedureof '(joint objectiveascertainment of

3.17. Four factors inthe present case Ied to Hungary's invocatioii of
rieceçsip:$I'SI,no proper EIA or its equivalerit Iradeverbeen carried out

011 tlre Origi~iaIP~oject;~~second, Czechoslovakia was i1-rbi-eaclof
Treaiy provisio~rs;~~IJIN.~ , berter understandingof the risks entaiIed by

'7 SC-M,~~~Io.II.
28 Sce,e.g.Scic~iiiEvalua~iori,HC-M, v2 and Scieirlijc Reliurra1.02.

29 SC-M.para IO .1;seeaIsSC-M, para 10.07.
30 As Hungar).soughttodo; Teeabove, paragraplrs 1.30-1.313..42-1S.eeaIso

HR, vol2,Appendix6, para7.23-26,34-36,45-51.
31 See above. priragraphs 1.64-seealsoHR, vol 2, Appendi5,paras7,23-26,
34,35,45- 1.
32
See beIow,paragraphs 31-3.73.the Oi-igina1 Pi-oject was rapidIy develppi~~giri conjunction witl~ tlre

den~ocratic ~rvoIution i11tlie regio~r:~~and fou~rh, increasi~rg arrd
increasi~lgly airailable evidence of env iron~nentaIdarnage, particuIarIy in
reIation to water-~+esourcesd , rowed a real risk of significant i~-reversibIe

I-rarrn.34
1
3.18. Irithe absence of an EIAor itseqniva1enr oIrtlre OrigirralProject,

Czeciioslovakia's sejectiwi of Hungary'ç concei-11s was
~rnsubçtantia~ed.~~ lt is significant that SIovakia's primary i-esy-io~rs eo
this argument is to preserrt as ari EIAequivaIent,a series of studies wlrich

ithaç so far refused to ~nakeavaiIabIe to Hu1igaryI3~ ~1sewherein the
worId, EIA is apublicproceduse.
!

3.19. SIovakia dellies the basis and validity of Hungary's 1983
assessrne~rt,~~a~rdclairns that Hungary never iiifor~nedCzeclrosIovakia
of its gror~nds for action.38 Hungary did Iiave a i-easonable basis for its

concerns in 1489,3 ar3idit did inforrn Czechoslovakia of this,atdie IeveI
of the Goverriment PIenip~tentiaries~~ and tl~rorrghinter-clranges between
the two Academies of Scien~es.~I Czeclroslovakia can have Iiad Iro

dorrbt as to Hurigary's reasons; frum May to JuIy 1989 it ertgaged in the
creation of a cornmittee TO examine tiieerrvir-o~rrnerrtali~ks.~? TIiis is
itseIfa good j~rdicatioritlrat thesignificance of ;Hrrngary'scorrcerns was

This allowed free drscuss~on of thc issucs aad! aacess io previousIy secret
docurnenrs:see,e.g.HR, Anncxes, vol3,arrnex55. !

Seeaborre,paragraphs1 35-1.Y2,1.100-1.140. j
SC-M. para10.48 ff. !

Seeabove,paragraphs 1.66-1.73. I
SC-M.chap IV, and paras 7.05ff. 1
I
SC-M,para 5.17.
I
Sce nboxre,aragraplis 1.85-1.92. I
Hungary handed over snmmariesof itscoIrcerirs,wIiicIrci~ednumernus docurncnts
on screraIoccasions.inc1ndi11giil~ezalin.June j1989, Nuvernbcr 1990, nr~d
DeceInber 1930. See Hungarian Acaderny of ~cicndes.Repor-on Eliv~rmuncriioI,
Ecoiogica l.uter Qrculiyorid SeisiiziA.rpccrsfof iile N~~gy~trarBsurrrigc

Coiisirircfioor iisCar~cellaiior,3 Jure 1989, HM. Annexes, vol 5 (part ),
anIrex7;LeTterfrom Mr G K SArnsondH ~,ungariaii~ovenirne~i~alPlenipo~enlrary,
IO hlr D Kocinger. CzecIroslovakGovemmenral PIeniporeiitiary, 15 November
1990, HM, Airnexes. uo4, annex 38;Surnmary of Expeii Opi~rio~rtsaking:a roIe
jusrifyi~rg the froverii~neniadecisions (V.13.1989-X.31.1989) concemrng
suspe11sio13fworksand parria1ahandonnienrofthc GabEikovo-NagyrnamsBarrage

Syslern.DeceInber 1990,HR, Annexes,vol 2,annc x7.
SECc ,g.,HM, pain 3.92: HM,Annexes,vol 4,aniici h3.
I
HM, paras3.78-3.85. I
Iaccepted, as iee1-11ta have bec11 the case, at the IeveI of heads of
governn~ent if notIower dow~r,at tlie ti111e.~~

3.20. SIavakia iiisists that ~&c~ros~ovakiaivas ready to participate in
joirit strrdies, yrovided lhat cumn-ucrionco~lrnued.~~ Bur five years
after CzecIrosIovakia appIied for PHARE fu~ids to cary out a

cornp~+eIieriçiveassess~nent invoIving the upstreanl sector, few, if aily,
r-esulrsupycar lo be availabl~. None have yet been provided. By
contraçt, Gabeikovu \vas tocommenceoperation of ifs fiist unit in 1990

arid ils Iast r~riirr1992; Nagyrnai-oswas to cornInerlce operation of its
first mit i111992and its Iast uniti~i1993.45 SIovakiaos concept of a
''jai11srudy"or EIS isobviousIy atodds with intesnatiana1pra~tice:~~ its

rnaxirn was operate first, repair Iater.

(3) DID HUNGARYMEET THE REQUIREMENTS
FORINVUKINGNECESSITY?

3.21 . Hri~rga~y aiid CzecIrosIovakia agi-= 011 tlre IegaI staridai-d for
invocation of necessity, that cantained in Article 33 of the ILC's Draft
Arricles or1 the Law of State ResponsibiI ity." Hungaiy nreets tlre
substanrivecriteria for a pIeaof necessily in relation to its suspension of

co~rst~~rctio~at Nagyrnaros, Dri~rakiIiti,and GabCikovo. Hu~rgaiy Iras
strictiy grounded ifs pIeas orr enclr of the conditio~is set out in
ArricIe33 .48 In particuIar, ithasmet the thiee essentiaIpre-conditions:

(1) tlre danger ~rrusbe sl~ownto be imminent and to rlrreaten an essenria1
interest,whiclr corrId rlot be averted by 0th ~rrea~~s;"(2) tire act ~rrrrst
not seriously impair a major interestofCzecho~lovakia;~~ and (3) it must
be of aIr exceptiona1 chamter." EacIi of these rlireeconditions waç

satisfid.

8ee HR, voI2. Appendix 6,pans 8-12. SeeaIso rlrterinsofCzechosIovakia's
PHARE appIica1ioin October1991.both ofwhich vindicateHungarianconcerns
and indicarthat they had not been properiy sthy~Czechoslovak~abeforerhat
ri~ncHC-M. Anncxcs,voI 3,anncx48.
SC-M, para10.24

Bce HM, Annexes, voI3,annex30.
Secaboue,paragraphs 1.64-1.84.

HM,paras 10.06-IO.16SC-M. paras 10.3810.44.

See HM, para 10.08. SIovakiadues nor atiempr io dernonsrratthe alIeged
"uriginaIiry"of ihedefinirion:SCpara 10.45.
HM,paras 10.17-10.31.

HM.para5 10.35-10.40.
HM,paras 10.32-10.34.3.22. TI-reILC incIrrdedas "arresse11tia1irrterekt"of a State a situation

tv11e1-eactions were takeri "to ensrrre the suiviva1 of the fauna or
vegetarionof certain areas on land and sea,to maintain the nonrra1use of
those areasor, more generally, to ensure the ecoIogicaI balance of the

wgi~n".~? SIovakiaargrreç that these cornmen& "bot11assumed a grave
and imminent danger [ta the environment] and wese 11otal a11acidressed
to the circurnstances of tiris ~ase".~ Of cQurse the ILC $vas not

coniirzenri~rgori the preserit case, but its co6ments are nonetlieless
appIicabIe. Arid irscriteria are mer Irere.

3.23. VitaI inkrests of Hungary affected byihe 1977 Treaty include:

sumiilal of €Irefauria arid florof the Stigetkoi ~~giorrs ;uiviva1 ofo~re of
Thefew rernaini~lgEuropean wetlands; survivaIof the Iast European
i111a1iddeIta; ~r~airrte~rarofetlie regio's ecoIo&caI balance; a11dtlrreats

ta the water reserves of Hungary and to the qukIiry and quantity of the
water suppiy of ~uda~est.'~~ If tliesedangers ire reaI, t1re1caIr be 110
doubt that they are "grave". Moreover, ifthe Barrage System had been
put irrtooperatiorr,they wouIdhave beerr"irn~ni~ient".
1

3.24. SIovakia argues that "[tlhe IegaI-and factuaI situation in May
1992 couId rior serrospectiveIy vaIidate a suspe~rsion of wo1.k at

Nagy~narosirrreliarrce orr~iecessiiy i~May 1989, Iiorariabar$orirnent of
Workat Nagyrnaros in reIiance on necessity iniOctober I989."55 This
misunderstands the Hungarian position.
l

3.25. Conrinuatiofi of constructiori at Nagy~riaros, Du~iakiIiti and
Gabeikovo wouId have irnrnirrentIy threaterieg essential interests of
Hur~gary.~~ With respect ro each, a çtate of lnecessiryexiçted at the
relevant tirnes. The law of necessiiy does not reiuire that a State takeal1

the steps Ieadilrg up to the i~rr~~ernerrtatioonf 'thesituarioriwhich wiII
produce tire seriouç Irar~n. This wouId l-iefutire, as weII as a waste of
resources. Each item of work isrrotto be treated irrisoIatio~r.Ireworks

that were susp.endes3at various poirits in time were works beirig
performed soIeIy for the purpose of conskucting the Gabcikovo-
l

52 HM. para1O.IO: SC-M. para10.39.borlr cirinRepor-of IIIIi~rei-i~urikir:
Coinriiissiorrrfiew0i.ofifillirrr.-secsessio~,49, para14.

53 SC-M. para 10.39.

These are described inparagraphs 1.100-1.140'above, and inHM, paras
5.30-5.1H 0C5-M. paras 1.56-1.156.For an elati'oratcxpIanalionas tuthe ,
impacts,seeScierr?ifEvaluaiiunHC-M,voI2, chais 2-5and ScierrijRebrlrml,
MR, vol2,chaps3-6. I
S5 SC-M. para 10.15. 1

The reservoiwas"schedu1e dobe filIedinOciober1089.Gabtikouowassche<IuIed
to beginoperatioofils firsrunir1990and NagymaroswasschedirIed for 1992.
1
1
! ~&y~r-raros Barrage System. Once serious doubts as to tfie
environmental impacts and r-iskiof the Barrage Systembecame clear, it
was IawfuI forHungary immediatelyto suspendcorrstructiorrand to seek
to resolv the difficultics. The ~recessityjustified ~iegotiaiton and

i11vesitgarion with a view 10 derern~iningwliether-tfie Barrage Syste1-11
çhould be built, or whethes in the light of any agreed ~nodifications
conçrsuctioncouId prciceed." In tliis Iiglrt,tlre questiori is rrotwherher

Hungary.rvouldface the dangers on the ~iextday of works 011a particuIar
sector of the Project. If is whetlier ar that ti~rleHungary Ilad reason to
beIieve tlrat serious, il-reve~sibledamage~ouId occur for that sector of

the Proj'ectif itweretu be put i~rtooper-atio~r.

(a) Magymaros

3.25. As of May 1989 a nuniber ofsfudies had raisedco~rcer~ra sbout
peak power operation and a barrage and ~+eservoiart Nagy~naros. These
Irave beeri surnrnarised i~rCllaprer l.58 In pariicuIar Hungary has

dernonstrated that increascd tred sedirne~rt deposirio~r wouId Iiave
occuired witft impIe~rre!rtation of the Original Prajectp and dthatthis
presented a serious and substarrtiated risk of yieId reciucrionand water

quaIity deterioration in the major weII fields providi~rg water- to
- BudaPestPo

3.27. Slovakia fi~ids a contradiction betrueen this daim and "the

acknowledgement ...tM damage 'couId Iiave occu~.red"'or "that no
detaiIed investigations ta quanti@the risksIiad been made" or "tliat the
resuIts wouId show up iritire Iorrg~ernr".~l Theçe comnlents show a
faiIui-to appreciate basic çcientific issues. CornpIexprobIernsof this

kind wiII always be subject to IeveIsof nnceriainty: this is the nature of
riçkassessnrent. Hungary Ilasdemonstrated the substantia1IikeIiIroodof
damageP2 A rtatio's water-supplyaffecrs miIIionsof people, incIuding

ktuse generations.

57 SeeHM,paras9.18-9.29.

5S See rbouc,prmgrapli1.87-1.92.ConfiaSC-M. para 1017 SIouakiucontends tirnt
the EcoIogia Reports lackcrcdibilitySC-M, para 10.17.But Hungary has
demonstraterhar rheconcerns raised Tliosrepoi-tsare weII-foundandal rhc
ti~nxnrrioltreS~I~~FraiscdsinriIconcernsSee HR, Annexes,voi3,annex 10.
53
Slovakiacontends [lia[ 'SJryprobicms associateciwith dredging werein rhe past";
SC-M. para10.48. FürtherdredgiiiwouIdhave been necessarywith the Original
Project, wliich wouId Irrive rcsultcd in bed sedimeni depositiScieiriific
Erulrru?iui, C-M.val2, chap 2.3.
6o
Scierri$EvnlunriorHC-M.voI2, cliap 3.6.3.1and 3.6.3.2.
SC-M. para10.49.
62
ScierilijicEvalriaHC-M, vol 2, cha3.sector, ariddur-ing rhe sunlrnerof 1989evidenwd its i~rteritiotoproceed

with tlieupstreainsectionof tlrePsojectas quickIy as possiMe.

3.3 1. Htrrigarianscieiitific studies p~paredin the corrtext of this case
confirtn rhat its caiicerns of tlie significant dangers aridrisks posed by

Nagymaros were weII f0rinded.~0 Tliey were concerns that a reasonable
govertirnent cotrld and diould I-raveIiad, and they \ver-eacted on in a
responsible way. Accor-dirrgIy the relevarit grorr~rdsfor a daim of

neceççity are rnet wirh respect to Hurigary'ssuspension and abandonment
ofworksai Nagymasos.

3.32. Hungary was due to ctose the Danube in October 1989. The

closure at Dunakiliti would have filled the Duiiakiliti-HruSovResenioii,
and produced, immediatelyor within a longerbut finite term, the dangers
and risks which concei-ned Huiigaryin that sector. Of particular concern

was the iminediatethreat to the ecology and economy of the Szigetkoz;
in the longertei-mtliere was the threatto tlielargestpotable groundwater
reserve in Central Europe aiid specifically Hungary's waterreser~es.~~

The damage and risk was iaised by studies at the time, aiid liave been
substantiated in subsequentwork, as well as through the brief experieiice
of Variant C:72 AS of July 1989, Hungary had no clioice but to inform

Czecliostovakiatliatthe Danubeclosure would not occur in O~tober.~~

3.33. Rather thati coui~teringHungary's evidenceas to the damagitig
effectsof the closure witli evidence of its own, Slovakia argues tliarthe

suspension was "a measure designed to bring pressure upon
Czechosiovakia toaccede to Hungary'sdemands over Nagyrnar~s".~~ It
addsthai "the imminent pei-il at Drinrikiliti seems to have been

SC~P~I~ $~aluuli~rHC-M, vol2.
71 SC-M, para7.64 denies iherisksOFilnpoundment, bu1offers rio evidence . to
seis~nicity [I"was a risk[Hungary] did iiotrcaily beIieve to exisr"; SC-M.
para 10.54. Buisee above, pal-agraph51.134-1.137ani~iFunhcrdetaiI, Scien~i/ic
Rebüricrl,HR,vol2,çhap8.1 for anaccouiilorhisVerynsk.

Sec abouç,paragraphç 1.85-1-921.1101.140.2.50-2.81.

SC-M, para 10.23 cnricisesHM, para 9.31 for srating tliat the suspensiosrt
Dunaki11twas ofa "minorcliarncteiT1i1isa misreading:[lie piissagcrcfcrihc
amount ofconstnictioicoinpIctcby Hungary oii Durr,?kiIiti,whiwas virrualIy
finished~ioto1IreIrcccssrberng "minor". The dcfcrrof cIosurewas of course
tiearly a deferrnI,iiçlosure,iihad110il-rcvçrsibIeefkcrs. This does no1inakeir
"rninor",giventhe subs~antiailnvestmcntsboihparties.

74 SC-M,pari10.24.discovered subsequent to 1989".75 As dembnstrated iiiChapter 1,
serious concerns aiid questions Iiad been raised before July 1989,

specifically relatedto the serious consequences th'oDfunakiliti-I-IruEov
Re~ervoir.~~ If Hungary had closed the Danube iii October 1989,
Slovakia caniiot deny that those -negative ,processes would have
c0mrnenced.7~Tlieywere iinininent,and tlieyliadto be avoided.

(c)GabCikovo ,'

3.34. PuttingGabCikovo iiitofulolperation &Id have carnpIered the
upstream section of the Original Pr-ojecf. This urorrldhave resuired in
destsuctioriof tfiealluvia1floodpiain of tlte,Szigkrk6d2itnyOstr-ov.Low

groundwaterIeveIs coupled with Iackof periodii irirrndarionswrr Id have
resuIted in the disappea~~inceof flora and fauna unique to Centra1
Europe. AgricuItur~,foresrry and fisheries iridustiiesand rhe long-term
sail-SII-ucturewould also have been at risk, as worrld the aquifer, the

Iargest potable groundwater- resewe in Central Europe.7g

3.35. Once it had become cIear rhat no çerihus alternatives were on
offer fr0n.rCzeclioslovakia to addressrhese srrbstanriaredconcerns (on

the contraiy, that uniIateral action wouId be taken to impose many of
tllern on Hungary and tlreregion), the situation of tiecessity which
justified deferra1 at Dunakiliti jrrstified suspension and ultimately
aba~idonmentof work on the upstrearn secforas a ~IioIe.~~

3-16. ' Hungary tui-ad over the works at~ab~:ikovoto Czechoçlovakia
at the end of 1991. It is now clear tliat by thattime Czechoslovakia was
firmly cornmittedto the unilateral implementationof Variant C. Prior to

that time, ithad also become apparent tliat Czechostovakia wsts planning
to use Hungaiy'ç work on GabCikovoin its implement?tion of Variant C.
To the extent Hungary continued its construction upstream, Hungary
would haveundermiliedits resolve jointly and comprehensivelyto study

the Project and inodifythe Treaty as requiredto makethe Project viable.
1
3.37. Slovakia's prirnary line of argument istliat "the preparatioii for
Variant 'C', always provisional, did not preclude an agreed solution.

75 SC-M,para 10.52.

76 Seeabove, paragraph1.91, andsee funher HR, Annexes, vol 3,annex10 for
summariesof srudiesproducetothisstage.
77 The evidenceisrcviewedi~ScierriijEvlilunrioHC-M v.l 2. chap 3;Scientm
I
RelrurinHR,vol 2,chap4.
See above, paragraph1.120-1.133.and seefunher i~cieIir$c Evoltrariorr,HC-M.
vol2,chaps 2-5 ;clEnt#cReburrafHR, vol2,chap3-5.

8ee HM, paras9.40-9.42. I
!Czeclioslovakia =ras e~itireIy wiIIiri.to I~ave al1 aspects, incIuding
Variant 'C'studied scientifi~aIly".~~

3.38. On the contrary, Czechoslova kia bIocked real riegotiations and
refused to suspend construction wIiiIestudies took piace. It took steyisto
operate GabEiko\loon its owIras earIy as theautuln11 of 1989, and by the
autr11n1o1f 1990, its Iawyers were advising the Government on Iiow to

pl-oceed "IegaIIy" witlr Variant C, inrer ditr, by "prese~~tirig"it as
."pso~~isi~naI".~~

3.39. Hu~rga~y faced a state of neceçs'ity 54th respect to continucd
coristruction at Gabcikovo. Hal Czechoslovakia agreedto carry out a
comprehensive assessrnent iu lieuof u11iIatesaconstructiorr of VariantC,
perliaps tlre necessity corrId have been a~oided.~~ The dangers were

irn~nineriti~rtlraifHungaiy assisted i1the constructio~rof theGabt ikovo
sector witliouf ariEIA, no guarantees wouId have been in place to e1rwI.e
agairis?damage ta the wetland, let alorie to drirrki~~gwafer reserves.
Hungary souglrt by every rneans possible to rregotiate with

CzechosIovakia. In flre meantirne, it was a Irasonable and justifiecl
response to fhe situation notto continue witlrthe con~~ru~tion.

3.40. Far frorn impairing Czeclioslovakia's esseritial intereçtsHungary

corisisrentIy notified CzechosIovakia of its concerns - concerns eqrraIIy
expressed by responsibIe autlioritiesinCzecho~Iovakia.~~ As of 1989,
the state of works on the Origirial Project by CzechosIuvakia did 1101
pl-eclude suspension of construction to aIIow a re-examination of its

envir-orinren~a1 It cannot be said tlrata deIay in the putting
into oyei-atiorrof a barrage syste~n impaired any -esse~itiaI interest.
AdditionaI expenses irrcur.rewere not sucli ari interesand couid - as iri
rI~epast - Irave been conipensated for witliin the frarnework of the

Trea~.~~

SC-M,panl0.27.
81
Scc above,paragraphs1.1482.31.
61 Various soIurioncould have been cnvisagedfor Gabl.iko\.o, but Hungawas
excIudedfioni arryco~isideraof these.
S3
Sce, e.g.,EcologicaICo~niniof theCzecIroslovaAcrrdemyofSciences;HC-M.
Annexes,voI 3,alrnc43.
84 Se above,paragnylrs 1.93-1-99.

As Hungary cIearIconIernplaied;scHM, para9.18. Slovakia rreats the Hard3
Reportas sliowiirharcompensarionwrrexcIuded(SC-M, para5.301 but that was
a pureIy yrivarc documenr addressing qurIe drfferent issues; seevol,2, SECTION B. THE ILLEGALITYOF VARIANTC
1
3.4 1. One of the Coii1-i'~piincipa1Qsks is to:consider the IegaIiy of

the co~idrrctof the Czech and SIovakFederaI iepublic i11pIa~rriinand
in~pIe~ne~ i1tgVariant C {A~?icIe2j 1)(b)of tlre!specia1Agree~r-rerrt).n
Hungary'ç vieritthe irnpIe11tentatioof ~ariaIrtfc was iIIegaIr11-rdtre

1977Tseary, otlrer applicable treaties and ge~~&-a il ternationai Ia~.~6
Itscontinued,oper-ationby SIovak saalso iIIegaI.87

I
SUMMARY OF HUNGARY'SARGYMEN~SUN VARIANT C
I

3.42. Variant C vioIatesappIicabIeIiorrnsof iniernatio1iaIaw of bot11a
subsfa~rtiveand procediira1character. Tliis iIIe'galiSariçes wliether or
not the 1977 Tr-eaîyrernained iiiforce after May 1992. SIovakia's
argument for the IegaIityof Variant C is psernisl solely oIr its being an

"approximate appIicationWof riie 1977 Treat~.~~ ,This asgurnerrt is
witltoutfoundationin facrand is unsupporad bylanyauthoriry.sg
I
3.43. Variant C $vasnot an "approximate" (or wen "i~rapproximate")

application of tlie 1977 Treaty. The design, co~jst~.uctioo,peration and
effects of Variant C ~rtakeit a significarrtlydifferenr project even frorn
the GabCikoYosysternof Iocks as originaIIy pi+ovided -for in tlre 1977

Tseaîy,and ajorrio~ifrom theOriginal Projectis a whole. Ir is properly
clraracterised as aII~W project,orle wlrich was ;no1arid Iiasnever bee~r
approved byHu~igary.~"~~ pIarini~ig cornrneli-d as earIy as Nove~nber
1989,fina1icia1approva1 was gra~rtedin Iare 1990,and work Iradbegun

with express or tacit approva1of the Gover~rrnefibt y earIy199 1,s eTaclr
witliout Hrrngasian participation. ~zechos~ovakia and then SIovakia
neverriotificdHungary of tlre fuIIdetails about Variant C iriaccordance
with applicabIe internationa1r~orrns.~~ CzecbpsIovakia and SIovakia

vioIated their obligatiorrsto consuit and cooperate witli Hu1igary.93

Appendix6,paras 21-22. Hunga1ise1fcxpl-csconternplaicd thar compensation
aiidanadjusImcnt Imses wouIdbencccssnryAs laieas15May 1392,rh~swasa
reason for,oficrtor~nainta~iheTI-cati~ifoice:'scHC-M, paras 2.72But
VanantCsuperve~ied.
86 HM,paras 7.01-7.7H7C-M,paras 6.62-6.118. '
87
See HC-M,pxzs 6.I 19-138;and see below, paragrs.161-3.165.
s8 SecSM. paras7.1-7.33; SC-MparasI1.54Il .79:idseebelow,paragraph353.

89 HC-M, paras5.82-6.104.
Secabove,paragraphs2.83-2.89.

Secabove,paragrapls.21-2.23,2.37-2-41.
92 Seeabove.paragrriph2.27.
I
93 See above,pararagrh.27HC-M. para6.65. !Variarrt C I~as never been subjected to an environmental impact
assessn1ent.9~ TIre unilateral diversion of the Danube rr11de1V . ariantC

violatecl a specific conrmitment made at tlie tirneg5and consfitutes a
co~~tinuing gross appropria?io11of a diared nafr1ia1resnrirce in vioIation
of weII-estabrished substantive norrns applicable to internatioria1
watescourses.9h Vai-iaritC was a11d remai~rs incorripatibIe wirlr tlre

diversion plan~red in the Origi~iaIProjecl urider the CO-sponsorshipand
joint co~rtroof the two paiaitie,~ithe frarnervorkof a 'Ijoi~t anagement
pi-oje~t".~~

3.44. Variant C vioIates both the 1977 Treaty itçelf,and a panoply of
appIicabIe rules *of gerrer-al i1itei.nationIaw. These iricIude, in
par-ticülai, tlie ruIe ~+equirthegpsevent~QIIof tra~isborrnda~ydamage,98

the generaI obiigation to cooperate~~l~e obIigation not tu cause da11rage
to tl-reeYi~onnienr beyor~do~re'sborder-arid the obIigation to respect the
principIe of non-dis~rirniriatB iotrit.th~~heart of tire Iawof non-

navigationai uses of i1rte1~nationa1atercourses istlie i-uIerequisi~~gIlle
i-easo~rableand equitabIe use of transbourida~y 1iarura1re~ources.~~'
Slwakia's implerneritatio~~ of Varia~~r C cor~stitutesa cIear-vioIation of
tlris rule.

(1)ILLEGALITY OF VARTANT C UNDER TREATYANDGENERAL
INTERNATIONAL LAW

3.45. SIovakia seeks to evade the general lega1 pri~rcipfesgover11i11g

equitabIe use of international watercourseç by excIusive ~fesence to the
1977Treaty. Ttasserfs tlrat:

"u11Iesstlie Iaw reIati1towatercourses represe~~ts a peremptory
noml wifl~ which the 1977 Treaty is iricon~pafibIe, the prirrciple
of pacta srrrrtservanda seqnireçthe riglrts and ob1igatiorof the

partiesto be tesfedby iefererrce to the 1977 Treaty."IO?

See ahoue. piiragra2.33.2.49.
Fora discussio~iof LondAsreement seeHC-M, pans 2.78-2.83;HM, Annexcs,
vol3, annex31.

HM, paras7.44-7.123: HC-Mparas6.03-6.61.
HM. piiras4.10-4.17.06-7.16HC-M, para 5.1.

HM, paras6.56-6.69
HM, paras7.06-7.15ahove, pragraphs1-42-.44.

HM. par-a7.44-7.56!AC-hl., an0.29-6.41.
HC-M. paras6.18-6.61.

SC-M,para 11.21.3.45. There is 110 IegaI basis for this assefiion. Ofle of the most
cIassica1 ruIes of internationa1 Iatv (Ieaving :açide aIry ieference to

perenrpto~y rüIes) is that tlrere is no lrierardry arnong tire different
sources cf i~iternational Iaw.I03 Asone coinn~eiitatoi- Iias noted:
1
"Traité et coutume sonr des sources indépeiida~rtes etplacées sur
le rnèineI-a11g UT]frailé peut abroger une coutume, une coutume
peut abroger au rnodi frerune règle conve~rt~birrrcIIe.~~

3.47. A treary may deiogate fron~ a cuçtomaiy rule, but equaIIy a new
custoinary ruIe developed after tire entry ititofpi-ceof a treaty must, iri
the first place, be take~r into account iri the. i~rterpsetationof treaty

provisions dealirlg with the same subject matte!-.IO5 I;Isome cases tlris
~-r-rayesuIt in tlrecustomary rule substa~~tiallykodifying the content of
Ille conve~~tionaI1~rr1e. I
I

3.48. In the preseiit case, most of rIie appli~abie rules appeaird in
iriternationa1 Iarvlorig bcfore the 1977 Treaîy :was adopted. SIovakia
seems tu slrare this view.Io6 But Hvngaryirisis{s equally on theis fui-ther

deveIopment afte1-I977. This is particuIarIy thecase for the prirrciple of
eqrritabIe useof transborrndary natural r-esourcesiandthe obIigation not to
cause damage tu trie environmentbeyund une's borders.IO' These and

otIrer ~.uIes, such as the gerieral principIe jof cooperatio~i, the
obIigatiorr of prior notification and consuItat io1-r,:1°and rhe obIigation to
respect the pri~-rcip!of permaneiit sovereigniy over naturai resour~es,~~~

already existed in 1977. But they have de<eioped and matured in
subsequent pracrice, arrd this evolution rnust Ge taken into account in
interpreti~rgand sppIying the t~.eatyobligations !?id down in ArticIes 15,
19and 20 of the 1977Treaty. 1

3.49. Accou~ir musr also be taken of nexi deveiopnieiirs iii the
interiiationa1 Iaw of the e~-rvii-orirnentuchas the;precautionary approach,
I

Io3 Sec Tori~rsrnncO Srhachter,"E~rra~rgldreary andCusiorn" i~Y Dinsiein andM

Tabory (eds)Essay.~IIIIrariuofShalrtniRosctiir(11989). 17:S Sur"Sourccs du
droit in~ematinnal:la coutume", .Itrrisckrsse{le ldroir irrrerriariuiial.fasc 13
(1989):E Rouswnas, "Engagc~rre~rrpsaralIèIeser c~ntndicioires(1987i 1, 206
Recrwitriescoi<>-154-165.
'O4
P Reuier,hiii-oduciiaudr&i des ira<iéPUF,I%S, p 117(para 205).
IO5 HC-M, paras6.04-6.17.
IU6 SC-M.para 9.51.

IU7 HM,pxas 7.4-7.5H 6C-M,paras6.29-6.4 1. I

IOC:Above.paragraphs 1.42- 1-44. I
IO9 See HM,paras 7.57-7.65HC-M, para6.18. I
I
I Io HM,paras7.57-7.68.7.83-7.87. !
I
I
I i
invention - "appr-oximateappIicatio11". Its insisfence on tire point I19
in~pIiesa 1-ecog~~itio trat itsconducr does ,nef:bear exanri11atio1 rnder

the ge~~eraIlaw. I
i
3.54. In the present case, ilrere is no indicati811tlrat tlre 1977 Treaty
sought to exclude generaI iriternationa1 Iavi 1u1es reIating to tlie

environnrent;or to freezethern as tI~eystood in j1977. There is no basis
for-irnplying fi0111 the Treaiy any right of uniIater-a1diversion, çtiII Iess
ariy permanent "appropriatio~r"to one parry lof riglrts over çpecific

arnou~rts of Niater in contradiction to flre pri~icipIes of &quirable
utiliçatiorr urrder the generaI Iaw. I" If confiicts arase between the
design of tIie Or-igirralPlan and obIigatiorrs inr~lation to e~~viion~ncntal
protection undei. rlie Treaty and -under ge~/eral iiikriiatioiral laru,

adjustment rnight be required. But FI+OIIIIate 1989 onwards,
Czeclioslovakia steadfastly refused Huiigary's broposa~sto rnodify the
Treaty and began 10 irnplernerititsown uni~areralsolution.
I
!
3.55. Afier May 1492,when the Treaty waS tei~ninated,IlleobIigatioris
bearirig o~t Czechosluvakia and tlle~rSIovakig were to be found in
customaly internationa1law7 as weII as in appIicab1e treaty obIigarions

such as tlre 1976 Boundary Waters Coriventio~rI~Iand €Ire 1992
Biodiveisity Convention. Iz2 Tlre Iaiier ~onveitio~~ e,'c~~~'essoyerrides .
earlier treary obIigations "where the exer-cise of rliose riglits and
obiigafions wouId cause serious damage or- thrcat to bioIogica1

diversi@". 123 Ar the IeveI of specific iinpie~Ierrtaiton in Nwernber
1992,Variant C a150vioIated the London Agr-e~rne~rn t,egoliatedwithirr
the frameworkof mediationbythe EC. lZ4
I

' SM. parirs7.20-7.24.7.41 ; SC-parasIO .00. 11-77.
IZa
Scç übove, pnragraplrs 1.28-1.29A Jo~iioriwhen rhe wlilcraIIocn1ion was
cnnIa~nednot inIfrcTrcntybu[ in a suboid~n;r~ienst,mrne~iJu~ntConrracrunl
Pla~i.011ihereIarionbetwcenthetwo seeabove, paragrapl1.14-1.17.1.29.

II1 See above,paragraphs1.18-1.21. !

Iz3 See HC-M. paras4.23. i
Iz4 See HC-M,paras2.78-2.83;HM,A~i~rexes vu13,ann+ 3 1 (2)SLOVAKIA'SDISTORTION OFHWGARY'S POSITION WITH

REGARn TO PROHIBITIONOF TRANSFRONTIER DAMAGE

3.56. 01reof the basic norrns of i~rteniationaIIaw is tlrafSraterilusi-

"eiisure that activities rvitlri~it11eirjuiisdicorocontsoldo not
cause darnage to tlie environmentof othe1-srate~."'~~

"isnot a serious dep1oyment of tliIegaIconsideratio~rsreIevarir
for the deter~nination of tlre issues before the Cou~z. In
particular, it sr~ggcststhe exisrencof a11absoIute prohibition of
aII damage; it ignoi-estlie existenceof tlie 1977 Treatyand tfre

tsut cl~aracteiofVariant "C" as a Ii~nitedi~~iplernentt rof tliat
Treaty ...IZ6

3.57. This entii-eIy mischaracterises tliearguments and caIIs for the

foIIowingcomrnerrts:

(a) The principle tliaStates s1rould"e~isuserhat activities within rheis
jurisdiction or coritr.do ~iotcause da~riageto the environmerit of
otherstates"is OIE ofthe most deepIy mokd principIesof public

intei-1ratio1iaI~w."~ Tt was recognised as a principIe-of
i~iternatio~iaIaw, for example,as long ago as 1927 by the Germa13
StaatsgerichstIrof.I28 The prirrcipre has been afirrned, for
exarrrpIe,by the Internatio~iaILaw Commissiorr in its wosk on thc

Law of No~r-iiavigational Uses of I~rternationalWaterc~ui-ses,~~~
and inthe text of tlre Biodiversity Converrtio~r.~~~

(b) The principIe imposes a primary obIigatio~r of due diligence, as
reflected in Article7 of the ILC's Drafi ~rticIes (1994).'3' III
Hurigaiy's view, Variant C was constructed witliour due

diligence - irr a hasty rvay, witl-rout prior notificatior~ of
appropriate informa~ion,~~' wirl~out prior e~-rvirorrmenraIimpact

IZ5 HM,para 7.45.

IZ6 SC-M. para 1.28.
12' HM, para,7.45-7.56; HC-Mparas6.34-641.

Iz8 Donaii~~c~sirzklase(19311,AziirzcDige~.of PiiGlBzrcninfioi~hwn CUSU,
CaseNo 85.
IZY HC-M.paras6.35-5.4 1;Seeahoue, paragrap1-54.

130 HC-M. para4.25.
I3I HC-M. paras0.34-6 1.4eealsoHM, paras7.45-7.36.

IJ2 HM, paras7.57-7.6 A5.ro tlie exrorrhe informatio~rotifito Hr~ngary,ce
above,pragraphs2.21-2.22.2.27. 1

assessrnent taking due consideratiorr of tirerisks created UII both
sides of the bar-der,I3' and w itlrorrt abquate arraIysis of tire
dangers of fioods or geoIogica1~isks.'~~ $ good i~rdicationof the

Iack of due diIigeircc is the fact that Variant C was conrrary to
~Czechoslovakia's own envir.orinrerrtalIiws as aiuylied ro rhe
Project. I35 !
I
(c) By cIaimilig that international Iaw per'nritsIirnited (Le., non-
sigriificant or iiorr-sei-iorrs)enviruiirnei~tadarnage,l36 SIovakia

argues that Variant C dues 11otviolate the relevant standard. But
as Hrrngaryhas arnpIy dernonstsated, the envirori~neritaldarnage

tllready occasioned by Variant C exceeds bya considerabIemargin
the thresI~oIdof "serious" or "significknt" damage.137 This
damage is not in ariy serise "rnarginaIV :or Iirnited in scope; it
affects the ecoIogicaIbalance of an e~rtire!regionq , uitespart from

the Iong-rem1but rea1 aiid,sigriificantthr$atpr-esentad to regio~ral
drinki~rgwater reserves.'38 Such i~npaetsgo welI beyondthe
- i-esidual or unavoidabie darnage whicti ~f?iglit e consistent with

PrincipIe 21 of the StockI~oIm UecIaratioir and Principle 2 of the
RioDeclaratio~i.~~~

i

13' SIovakia evokes "tirevasr number of technicai sludies commissioned by
Czechoslovakibeforerhe introductiof Variant CÏ!(SC-M, para1.37)Nor one
referencisprouidcdIOrhese"tcch~ricalsrudieSee~Scieiiri- vaiuarioHC-M.
vol 2chap7. 1
134
HC-M. paras6.133-5-5 S8iejrfIfEwlicariori,HC-Mvol 2,chap 6.
135 HC-M. para6.124; HM, Annexer,vol4, aiiiex 16SL aboCvepragraPh 2.49

135 SC-M,parn 11.38. 1
i37 Se,Scierzi#c EvnlrrariHC-M. voI2, chaps4-5; ~cierir~RelruiiaHR, vol 2,
chaps5 and6;HR, Annexes, vnI3,aIiIrexes2.5.

'38 HM, paras5.106-5.137.SciciitiEvtifuario~.G!,: voI2, clraps 2-.n surface
and groundwaier,secchap 3. I

See PM Dupuy, "LinlitemaitrieIIes dpollulionsjoKrées",in GeselIschaftfür
Uniwel~rechdSoc~étéfranqaise pour le droi~ dei l'environne~n Cealoque
Saar.h.ückeriY82(E Sclrinidi Vhg,1984),27-42.i
! (3) SLOVAKIA'SMISCONCEPTIONOFTHEPRINCIPLE OF EQUITABLE
USE OF TRANSBOUNDARYNATURAL RESOURCES'"~

3.58. TI-repsincipie of equitabIe use of tra~rsboundary natural resources
iscentrai to tliisdispute.141 Remai-kably, SIovakia accuses Hurrgary of
"ignor[i~rg] the unity of tlieI~w''.'~~Hungary fuIIy accept s .tirclose

selationship betrueer~tlris principIe and other appIicabIe 1.u1esl~~ - Irence
ifs rejectiorrof tlie view rhat the 1977 Ti-eaiy coristitutes some kind of
."errviron~nerital code", a code yer~~~ittirigunilatera! and Iong-Rrm

da~-r-rageothe environment!

3.59. SIovakia argues that the obligation ~iotto cause damage to other

watercourse states isbased on tlre concept of "due diIige11ce"a~rdrhat
?Irisailows one watercourse stale to cseare some harm for an~ther:'~~"irr
the co~~text of international watercouises tlre issrre of damage doeç wt

exist in-isoIatio~i".~~~It is11'uethat within the co~~text of a particuIar
agseed use, some damages a11d risk srlay be incurred by each side in
i-etuni for tlre ovesaII h~nefits of the Pr-oject. But as recognised by

ArticIe 5j2) of tlreILCDrafi Articleson the Law of Nori-Navigabie Uses
of Irrtei~raitonal Watescourses, Id6 a11equitabIe use of a shared naiural
rrçource has to be ~regotiated and accepted by al1concer~ied States. No

."equitabIe" soIutiori can bedecided uniIateraIIyby orie State. It is not for
SIovakia ta determi~re wlretlier tlre significant damage carrsed by tlre
operatiori of Variant C wi1I be~refit Hungaiy in same other way -

aId~ougIr there isrroiridicatiorof wlrat that may be.

011 the pnnc~pleof equi1abIe utiIisatiIngeneral see J Lipper, "EquitabIe
UtiIizntio~r", An Garreison,R Hnytib n~d C OI~ristcad Icds)TlieLarv of
InrerrinriorralD?-tiiBasiiis(Dobbs Ferry,Oceana, 1967).15; J BarberisLos
3rcu)-JUiiarul-alcoiripartidcrrrie~ra<fosy eI dereclirtrilacioirai (Madrid,
1979).

HM. para7.69 ff; HC-M.para6.20ff
142 SC-M. yaIa 11.24 EIsewhere. e.g. witli IcispeciuIisargument,Ir1s,SIouakia

which does50;sec abo~c,paragraphs1.351.42.
Id3 InpariicuIar, rherule of preVerrf lransboundardamage. ~hegenerrilobIigaiion
tocooperate, iheobliptioriiot 10causcdamagc the envrronmeni beyond one's
border, arrdtprinç~pIof non-discrimi~~arir;C-M,para 6.18.

Id4 SC-M, para 11.26.
145 SC-M.para 11.35.

IS6 "Watercoursc SlatesshaII participare in tlie use, deveIopment and profantion
iiiiernational watercoursein a11equitabIea~rdrcasonablemanner.Such parricipariun
iiicludes borh the ngIOuriIise the uratercoursç and thetoucooperare iihe

l?rotectionand de~eloprnenrthereof, as provi1thc pi-csentarticles."Repof?
rhc Iii!er.jio~laivaCujirinr.r.orrireIY0i.ofifs4511 1essiur2.Moj- 2.2Jlzly
1994 (UN Doc A/49/1 a11218.3.60. To recoriciie its unilateraact with the {:ririciplof equitabie use
of transbou~~dary 1iatura1 resorirces, ~1ovakia creates tlie fiction of
Variant C as a11"appr-oximateapplicarion" of tlie Or-iginaI Projecr. TIiis

is an unsustainable argu111e11tT . Iie elements oc rlie OrigirraI Prqjcchad
beeri negotiated by the Pa~ties on the issrrn-~ption -of a "oint
uiidertaking".ld7 Variant C is wliolly disiiii$uisliable. Fii.sr, it ?vas

uniIateraIIy dccided on and impIe~rierited,witllbut adequate 1101fication
and corisuItation. Second, the1.eare substa~rtiai structuraland teclrriical
diffesences between. the two psojects. Variant C carinot psopesiy be
cliaracterised as a 'Loft versio~r"of the Origin~I PI-0je~t.I~~ TWd, the

operation of Variant C Iiascreand and co~itiirpes to creaa a situation
wirich is unbaIanced and discrirni11atoi-y in 1 .seffect: wlrereas the
resesiloir Inay srrpple~nentgroundrvater 1.eseIv:s IIIsumeareason ?lie
SIovak side, on the Hungarian çide tlre amouni of water discharge i~rto

the niain Daiiube aiid its side-arins, whicii isof vital iiiipoitaii~for the
entire Szigetküz region, has sadicaIly decreased.1

3.61. Vasiaiir C uiiilateially imposes sipiiificknt damage on Huiigaiy
rvitlroutany benefit whatsoever. TIris is cleis fsom Slovakia's own

interna1 Iegal analysis, wlriclr states tliat "Vaiiarit 'C' aIIows for tlie
opei-arion of tlie Gabrikuvo Hy<lropoiiler ~la!it as a purely iiational
investment, Le., a// incorne frorn the operation ïsto go to tireCSFR",IJ9
It isdifficult tosee Irow tlre resuIt ~~iight be +scr-ibed as an equitabIe

r~tiIisatioof ari internaliana1 watercourse. 1
I
3.62. Coiitiaiy fo Slovakia's positioii, th{ idea of "tsaiisbouiidaiy
rratrrraresources", whicli fo1~1n[sIre fiamework in wliicli tlre principleof

equitabIe 'use arises, is rot incon~patibIe rvith ilre Iaw applicable to tlre
per~nanent sovereignty oves ~iatur-al eso or ri-ce s.; recogritsed by tlre
Pei-inarient Court inthe &se concerniq ~he71erri~or-itJllurisdicrionof
~heInler.>?aIior?C alomvrission of rhe River Oder, tlre esseIrceof the
"co~~imunity of i~itereçt iri a navigable river" arnoirg tlre different

watercorrrse States Irasas its essenlia1 ferttu1.e"t!le perfect equaIiof a11
I-iparia1-I This desives fro~n tlie fàct tlrat each and every
riparia11State presellles alid maintains its sovereig~ityove1:thepart of the
corrr1-1ro1irver which flow on its territozy; tlii~iortioii(asweII as tl-re

dependent aquifer and grorrndwater) co~istitites its national riatural
I

14' HM, para10.73. !
i
14' HM. para5.106-5.140.andseefunherabove, paragra1,hs.82-2.89.
149 HR, Annexes,rwI3, annex54(ernphasisadded).
1
150 SC-M,paras11.48-11.53.
' Tm z-lirirhlilr-isdiciJrlrehirelsrarioiCrirzizrri~*1o[lie River Oder PCIJ
SerA No23 (1929)ai27.See HC-M,para6.23 ff.resource, over whicli it exercise"ÏnaIienabIe"and "permanent" rights as
they are defi~redby UN GeneraI Asse~rrbIyResolution 1803.'5? In

pa~.ricuIar,Hungary did rot, by entering into the 1977 Treaty, grant tu
Czechoslovakia some sort of "perrna~rerrtpprop~.iation"ovar the waters
of tlieDanube.15"

3.63. At the sanie ti17ie;rIie physicaf urrity of the international river
requirestlrat eacli riparian stateexercise ils sovereignty over its partof
tfteshared 1iarura1resource insuclia way so as ~ioto prejudicetheequaI
rightç of other watercorri-seStates.1s4 This iswhy there canrrotbe "any

prefere1itia1priviIegeofany one riparian State in reIariontothe others",
as the PermanentCouri err~~hasised.~~~ Thereis no basisfor-SIovakia'ç
asserfiori that Hungary seeks tu clairn "p~tferential rights" over the

sharedresource of tlie Da1iube.156Hungary recogr-risethat resource as
shai-edand subject to the pri~rcipieof quitable utilisation, witlaII tlre
consequeIrces tl~at flow therefrom. This coricIusion is reached

notwithstanding the fact that Hurigary is pariicuIarIy depende111on the
renewable water ~+eçource osf the Danube.l57

(4)THE ILLEGALITY OF VARIANT C IXAGGRAVATED
BY ITSPERMANENTCHARACTER

3.64. The iIIegaIifyof Variant C is reinforced by tlie fact that Phase II
(at Ieast) is intended bySlovakiaas a permanent structure. Itis truetliat
SIovakiacontinues ro "present" VariantC as "apsovisioiiaIrnea~ure",'~~

just as Variant C "Irad always been regardeclby CzecI~osIovakiatu be a
reverçibIernea~ure".'~~ But evenas initiaIIy conceived, tfiedecision to
i~npie~nenr Variant C was taken i~itlre contexr tharit was expected tu

bsing unilateral fittancial returns over a period of IOyearç or.more.160

IS2 HC-M, paras7.13-7.16.
53 Seeabove,paragraphs 1.21.ZY.

lfi4Sc, S SchrrreI)eIhird Repol-ut1rire Nr-zrovIgn!io;laJUse5I~ircfnnrio~~rrl
Wrrre~-cocci.eu,AICN,41348.I1Deceinber1981,para40ff.
155 HC-M. paras6.23-6.28seeaIsoHM, paras7.59-7.82

156 SC-M,parall.51.
HM, para7.85.

15g SM.para4.82
59 SC-M .para4.17.

160 scc HR,Annexes . I 3.annex77. And with coriti~rl~edsubstantia1 SIovak irrvestnients, Va~+iari t as it is
Irowconstrrrcted isplai111yi~rtepdedas a perma~~eris ttrrrcture'61

3.65. IftIisconcIrrsiun is accepnd, it undermines (a) SIovakia's cfai~n
tl~atrlie Czech and SIovak FederaI RepubIic wqs negoriating and acfing
ingood fait11i~rthe implen~entatiori of tire 19?7 Treaty tlrr-ougliouthe

periad 1989-1992, aiid (b) the co~nrnirirreitrfo stop construction arrd
operation in the evenr that tlie project wese sIi8w11to cause significanr
environnre11ta1 darnage. .!

(5)IRRELEVANCE OF SLOYAKIA'SARGUMENTONCUUNTER-
I
MEASURES
i
3.66. The &vo parties agree thaf Variant C ta~~rrotbe regarded as a
'couiiter--rneasure". But they do so for differenj reasolis. Acqr-dirrg to

SIavakia, "the corrstiuction of Variant 'C' entaiIs no 'breacli of
interirational Iaw'and SIovakia Irasrroneed to 6recIude wrongfulness by
reIiance on countenneasures".162 Hungary rnajrrtains, on the conrrary,

tl~ar tlie i~nplementation of Var-ia~itC violates treary obIigations and
custornary ruIes of interrratioiial Iaw: since Hu13ga1yIrad committed ~io .
wrungfuIacr prior 10 tlieCzechosIovak decisi& to operateVariant C,
this decisi011can110t bejustifiai asa counter4ntasure. lb3

!
3.67. Eueii if Variant C were ro lie seen as, a cou~~tei-rneasure, its
conscquences are w1ioIIy out of proportio~i toi arry Hungarian acts to
wIiicIrCzeclroslovakia re~ponded.'~~ I
!

3.58. For thcse reasons, Varia~rtC was unIawful in its irnplemenrarion
and remains unIawEu1iri its execution. It was d111awfrruInder the 1977

Treaty, was certainIy Irotautlrorised by tlratTre&, a~rdwas and remai~rs
urrIawfu1 under applicable treaty ruIes, and under ge11eraIinternatio1ra1
Iawrules relaririg to the equitabIe useof inte~.~iatio~-raItercourses.
#

161 See above, parngrûplrs.31. 2.90-2.93also seeHC-M. paras 3.1 15-3.122. It
shouIdbe noled thatthe disiincrion beiweenrhe pIa~ined2 "phaofsVariant C
Iiadbeen concevcdas cariy as 1989.
1
Ib2 SC-M,para11.54. I
Ifi3 HM, paras7.90-7.98. 1
!
164 HM,paras7.110-7.113. II
I
I

I SECTIOPC. THE TERMINATIONOF THE 1977 TREATY

3.59. IIIMay 1992,Hn~~gary notified CzecIrosIovakiaof its terrnirratiorr
of [lie 1977Treaty, selyi~igon a nurnberof Iegagrounds.Ib5 These are

exa~ni~redirrSub-section 1,beIow, respo~~dingto AriicIe2(I)(cl of [Ire
SpecialAgreement. However tl-rereare Iwo further agreements reIating
to the termination of [I1977 Treaty which are conve~rientIydeaIt with
{lese.TIieyare on the one hand that CzecIrosIovakia'sirnpIernentafirfo

Variant C amounfedto a repudiatio~iof the 1977 Treaty(Sub-section 21,
andon the other Ira~rdt,liattheTreaîy musirranyeve~ithave Iapsedwith
theextirictionof one of ifspartiesat tfieend of 1992(Sub-section3).

BUMMARYOF HUNGARY'SARGUMENTS ON TERMINATION

3.70. Wurigary'si-eIia~rceon fundamenfa1clla~rgeof circumstances,

necessis, i~rrpossibiiityand supenierrirrgcustorn as IawfuI gounds for
te~.mi~~atiw~eire claborateiri itDeclaration and its ~ernoi.iai and are
al1'describeci beIow. EquaIIy Iawfu1a~ld perhapç moçt important is
Hungary'sreIiance on Czeclioçlovakia'smaterial breaciresof tlie Tseaiy
as a grorrrrd for termination. CzecIroçIovakia's insistence on

i~nprementingand operatirig VariantC \vasevidericediriCIiaprer2 and
Apperidix 6. But eVen if Hu~igarywere found nof tu Iiave iawfuIIy
ferminated the Treatyi~iMay 1492, flre Treaîywas stiII terminated. If
was ter~ni~iateeither by CzechosIovakia'srepudiation in October-1992
os by the disappeara~rceof CzechosIovakia or131 December 1992, in

circurnsta~rcei~rwlrichno new State succeede as a Party tothe 1977
Tseary.

(I1 JUSTIFICATIONSFORTERMINATION

(0) Marerialbueach of the Treatiesof 1976 and 19 77,in parficular
rhvough theconsrrucrion qf Ymianl C

3.71. The most il~~poriantreadi reliecionwas the contirruearidactive
insistenceby Czecl~osIovakiaon desigriirig,inrpIementingand operatir~g

Va~iantC. The question wliethe~V. ariant C violated t1977 Treatyhas
already beerraddressed.166 So far, Slovakia's sole argument furtlie
consistency of VariarrtC wit1i the Treaty is its a~.gunrentbased on
"approximateapplication". TtdoesIrorargue that VariaritC was liferally

ltj5For fuII analyssee HM, chaper 10; for SIamka's responsesee SGM,
paras10.32-10.111.
Ib6 See abol,e,paiagra3.4-3.68. I
corisistentwilh the Treaty, and it does not clairnlanyright i~rdependeno if
the Treaty 10 engage in a daiiiagii~g unilkeral diversion of the

Danube.167 Nor, appareritly,dues it contest !!ratif Variant C: was a
breach of'the Treaîy, it was a materic(I brenclj tvitlrinthe meani~~g of
AriicIeGO of the Vienna Co11 ve~ition, whjcli reflects custon~a~y

intn- rationa alaw . Nothing cw1d Iiave be$n more material tlian
VariaritC. II
I
3.72. Huirgaryalso nlied, as subridiary but sril1significaiitgrounds foi.

termination,oriotlrerbreachesof the 1977 Treaîy. The uriderIyirigbases
for thc breachesof Ar-ticIe15(water qualiv) aiid Article 19 (protection
of tlie envimnnieiit)of tlte 1977Treaiy are suiiiinarisedin Chaptei 1
as isdie relationship of rlieseTreaiy proviçio!is to tire correspondi~ig

Joint Cor~tractual Plan psovisio~~s. Trie breaclies incIuded
Czechosiovakia's failure to carry orrt jointIy'with Hurigary a proper
environmental impact asseççrnerrtfoi-the upçti-earnsectw. Thar €1 A
I
couId - and iithe circumstances shou Id - have, Ied to an adjust~nentof
the pIairsfor-the construction of rhe Barrage SyStem toeIrsurethar water
quaIiiy would not be i~npairedand to protecr !lie envirrtnme~it. TIrese
breaches were of a continuing diar-acter;they wouId have continued

(urrIessremedied) to the poirrtof irnpIementariono1f the BarrageSyste~n.
i
3.73. Slovakiaresponds witl~?Ireargument thar Huiigay was in breaclr
of the 1977 Tieary, not Czeçhoslovakia.IH ken if Hungaiy were in

breaclr - quod nonIn - This wouId not precIrrde it fiom relyiiig o~i
CzechosIovakia'çrnaterial breaches 10 jrrstiSr terrnination.I7 Hrrngaty
acted coasisteritly with ArticIes 15, 19 1and 20 tIirough its

ack~iowledgernent in 1989 tlrat numerou: problems remailied
unres01ved.I~~ Hufigary had sought a cornpr-ehensive review of the
Original Projec1.1 Cz3ecIrosIovakia7s faiIure tÙ cooyerate in resoIvii-rg
I

IG7 SeeSM.para7.21;SC-M,p 11.01-11.79. i
16* !
See above,prtragrrrp1.12-1.17.1.33-1.41.
Ib9 SC-M.parasI0.96- T0.97.

HM, para9.18-9.42. I I
I7l UirderArr 60 ofrhe Vienna Convenrio~r,aSate may ternii~iatefor bieach even
thougtrit ifseIfin breaof thetrcat011some o~he;ground. Iisa necessatyand
sufficientbasis for rerrninofia biIaterrrItrefprbreach lhatire orher pany

hascornmirtecl matcria1breacofrherreaty.Sec HM,paras10.86-10.90.
17= For concems raiscd prior ro and through 1989, see ihove, paragraphs 1.87-1.92;
HR, Annexes,vol3,annex IO. !

173 No srudieswere carrieouiwhich couid serve ath{ equivalcntof an EIS or EIA
forrheOriginaIProjccrsee above, paragraphs.541,.84and seehrther Scieizrr$c
EvnlwaiiozHr,, vu[2,chap7.5,with referenceIoe&~ierpleadings.Thcrewas no[
Ithe nun-rerousenvironrne~ltalconcerns was a key cornponenr of its
breacheç. OveraII itr-ernainedsteadfast in irs insisterrce 011 construction
of GabCikovowith or rvithoutHungarianparticipation. k74

fi) Fundumen ral Change of Circumsrances

3.74. In additio~r, Hnnga~y kvas justified i~r 1992 in invoking
fundarnerita1change oof ir-cu~-rrstancaesa basis for termiriatirrgtlie 1977
Treaiy. Numerous changes Ilad occui.i-ed,changes w11icIrhad specific

effects in terrns of tlre viabilify of tlre Original Project and whicli
cumuIariveiyconstitrrteda fundame~itaIchange of cir-curnçtances within

the rnca~ri~rgof ArticleG2 of the Viema Co~tveritionand of gerieraI
inter1rationaIIaw. i75

{iJTheayplicable IegaI srandard

3.75. SIovakia and Hungary are in agreement that Article 42 of the
VierinaCo~rventionin substa~rcereflects tfreruie of generali11ternariona1

Iaw by whiclr a paIty can termiriate a treaty because of fundamenta1
change of circumstarices. 176 Most of the co~rcIrtsions whidr Hungary has
drawnf~-orn tlie Court's jurisprudence, State practia cned doctrine as to

fundanrental cfrarige of cii-curnstariceç seem tu be accepred by
SIovakia.177

eveIi aIi urreriiprçarryout an EIA for Varianr C; sec HR, Annexes, vol 3,
annex 70.

I74 See conrrrSC-M ,para IO.IO.
175 See furtherHM,paras 10.59-10.85.

* ihatrheexiste~rof tfrçircumstnncesrlrouIdIravcconsrituredaIiessenlhasrs

oftlie coIrseIUTihe parriesIObc bouiid (SC-M. makes no inc~rtionof ~his
requIrementinArticIc521;
' ihat perfor~nanccha5to be "so~nelliessent~aIIydifferentfroin roriginaIly
undertaken"(SC-M. para 0.52: HM,para 10.68);

+ tlrarchangein rheIaw cal1consiiiuie a vaIid grouiid fur invoking a chang of
circumsta~icesiinder AriicIe62 (SC-M, para 10.53, HM,para 10.70I4)1;

* rllirclevan"'elementsof llTreaIy are robeascertaincd nojust€romi~siexl
bu1fromIIreIiistorofnegoiiarions" {SC-M.para10.67;HM,para IQ70(2)).
In SIv~akiahas ~iotdispr~lthe hIIo~vingpropositions:

"the circums~ancesin qucstIon do not Irave Iobc the moiive or expressed
raiionaIefor rhe rrcaty{Hpara 10.70(2));

* changes which "imperiI rheexistenorvitaldeveIoprnenrof o~reof rprimes"
can constiir~tefundame~rialcliaiigecircumsrances"(HM, para 10.67,ciling
Fi.rlit.AtiYsdictioCases ICJ Rcp 1973,p3,491; (3 ) whelheu a Siaie ntaj7 irwokeJzind~mew~a cIhange qf c ircujrl.rlancr?s
if it.7uwn COI?~ZKI. although no1 ihe subsfanrial cause ofrhe
change incircurrw~~nce. ~orirlr-iburILIII~ change. I82 Hungar y s
positioriis tl~ar Ai-ticf62(2)(b) oirly disqrraIifiesa State from

invoki~~ga ft11rda1-11enca1ange wlrere il can be çaid that the sole or
esserrtia1cause of tire clrange ithe wrongfu1 act of rhat State.'s3
The pur-pose of A~?icle 62(2)(b) is to psevent a State FI-o~ relyirrg
on itç ow~i wro~rgfulact as a justificaf ion for ter~ninafiorr. TIrat

purpose has IIO appIicatioriwhere the substantial cause of the
funda~nental change of circumstances isa cumuIative series of
clra~iges,whiclr were, considered together, outside tlre controi of
the State inifoki~igthe clra~~ges. By co~rtrast,SIovakia treats each

camponent of the clrange of circurnstances as having to meet tire
criteriaof fundamentai clrange as awIroIe.Ig4 There is rro warrant
for.this atornistic approach either i11tI~etext of Article GZor i~r
gener-alinternational Iaw. IIIthe psese~ltcase,the reIeva~-rtllanges

were esserrtiaIIy oufsideof Hu~rgary'sco~iti-01a,nd were not due to
farrIon its paif.

{ii) The nyplicarion offut?dmreniui change of circurrtdtrnces inChe
pr.e,rencase

3.77. In the period 1989-1992, there weie draiiiatic cliaiigesiiiCentral
and Eastern Europe gerreraIIy and ~IIHurigary and CzecIroçIovakia
çpecifically. TIlese cha~iges wese whoIIy u~ifoi-eseen in 1977. TIiey
significant Iy irnpaacteon the 1977Treaty and the OriginaI Project, and

they were cumulative upon earlier- changes in the conditions for the
Piqject (cg., rhe failure of Soviet aid) wIiick had already reiidered it
marginaI. To su~nnrasise,ieievaritchanged circurnstances included:

* PoliticaI chariges, inclnding tlrefaof con~rnur isrn;rhe dissoIution
of the Walsarv Pact; tlie I~oIdingof tlre firstfree elections ;II45

years; the adverirof public parficipaf ion i~ithe poIitica1 decision-
making prpceçs, subjecti~rg that process to public sciutiny; /
iircrease iri goverfiinenta1 .accounrabiIity to its peopIe, and the
cornmencernerit of privateiy owrred and uncerisored Irewspapess
arrd I-adiostatiorts.

* Economic dianges, incItidirrgrlie transition fro~ra non-market fo a
marketeconoIny; ttre dismlutiori of COMECON; tlte e~rdof srate

srrbsidies to faiIiirg indusrsies, the e11d of guaranteed frr II

-

IaZ SC-M. para 10.73.
HM,para 10.80.
ls4 SC-M.pan 10.61. 144 I
1

ernploymenf, and changes to amarket-ecoriomy approaclr i-eqriirirrg
cost-be~iefitanalyses. !

* Clranges i~r environrneritai knowledge; and law, furthering
understanding of the relatioris betweeiid&veIoprnentprojects and

their environmenral effects; increase irr; ge~reral environmental
aivasmess, and rhe adoptio~r of procedures for assessing
environn~ental impacts. i
I
3.78. Hurigary has never suggested that anyi one element of rhese

changed circumsrances would besu fficie~rto eorrstitutea fundamental
change of circurnstances in reIation toche 1477 Treary.ISs These.
circurnsta~~ceswere intricately Iinked with une another. The polirical
system subsumed the ecorro1-nitsysteni; i~rtrrr~r,the ecorrornic01-ieritation

deteimined the environmenta1 priorities of the région.Ig6 The politicaI,
econornic, and envi~.onmentaIcircu~rrstarrces of tliepre-1977 period taken
together were "an essential basisof theconsent of tliepartiesto be bourrd

bj the treaty". Indeed, although it is not IegaIIy ;iecessary that the
devant changes be specified as significanr intfie ti-eaty-thiswas in fact
the case with rlre 1977Treaîy. i
!
3.79. The Tseaty envisaged an ecanonric qbj~c'tive:"rnutuaI interest in

rhe bi-oad utilisa1ionof the rraturali-esourcesof the Bratislava-Budapest
section of the Danube River" to attain the bene,filsof "deve1opment of
wale; resourceç, energy, transport,'agriculture and orher secro~s of tlre
rrationa1 ecoIrorny of the Co~rtractirrg Parties.: Tt also specified a

srrulegic or yolilicaj objecrive: strengthening "fmerna 1 seIations" and
zig~rificarrtljlcontributirrg to "tlre wcialist inkgration of the. States
members" ofCOMECON. Ig7
1
3.80. For the 1977 Treaty tu serve (1) as an econornically beneficial

"joint i~ivestme~rt' "X arid (2) as a veIiicIe fo? "sociaIist integration"
fI~wugh COMECON, the Tr-eaîywas desig~red arrd expressed to be(3) "a
single arrd i~idivisibk operatiorra1 syçte~n" to produce peak power.
tfiipugIrpower plarrts and reservoirs Iocated upstream and downstream

on the Danube,Is9 and (4) a framework treaty,caIIing fol-adjustnreiit and

IS5 SIouakia cont~nmIly ~rnpIrcsthilHugary 1srcl;ing011 each co~npo~ienin .
isolalion.See SC-M,paras 10.61,10.73. 1

Ig6 5ee HR.uoI2, Appendix3.
Ig7 Both objecrivesare expressed i~irePrearnbleIo;the 1977 Treaty Sec HM,
para s.04-4.0810.73-10.H 74;M.paras1.12-1.19.:

i88 AI? I(I)alrprearnbuIarpara1.See discussionor thsubsranliveelementof the
fundlrnicntalchanofcircurnsranc~isn HM, paras10!710.77.
Ig9 Art l(l). I

!revision i11 tlié Iight of "reseasch, expIoratio11 and pIanning
ope1ntions".I90 In additio11,it was (5) a treaty açsumed to be corrsisterit

with environraenta1 p~+otection.'~l

3.81. By May 1992, tlre changes i11tlie political, eco~ro~r~icand
erivirprrmenral contexr in w1iich rlleserreaq goals a11dparamelers cuuI3

be viewed had1-adicalIy trarisfor~rredthe extent a~rdirnpacrof Hnngarian
obligations stiIIto be peifor~rredunder the Treaty, i-e.the building of
Nagymaros, downsrrearn, and the closure of the Da~rube River at
Durraki Iiri,upstrearn.

(a) An ecofianricc~i/byem==cialjoinr invesrrnenr

3.82. The GNBS was to be a joint inxlestmentwhich was econornicaIIy

bendicial tlrrough [Ire deveIopment of flood co1rt1-01~-~rechanisrns,
trarrspo~t,energy, agriculture, forestry,and otlrersectors. .It couidunly
be viewed as ccorrornicaIIy beneficial in the context of the economic,
political arrdenvironmenta1 conditioris prevaiIing in thepre-1977period.

3.83. Tlre ecoriomic indices attlre tirne dinor distinguish betwee~rr-eaI
price changes arrd inflario~~ary price clrarrges in dderrnining tIre
ecoriomic virtbilityof a pi-oject. As a result,eveIr very bad economic

investrnents could Iook fawurable. Even appIying the "D irrdex" systern
trsedat the tirne tu determine the viabiIiiof inveçt~nents,the Project was
rrot viable; it could onIy be juçrified because it wa~ expecrd to have
various indirect deveIopinent or politicaI benefits.Ig2 Indices applied iri

s~cialist eco~ro~riiesgenesally favot~red Iarge prajects and cornpIetioii
earIier ratherthan later.IY3 Env ironmental costs wer-e~rorfactored into
rhe econo~nicequation ataI1.

3.84. The poIiticaI and econo~nic context psior to concIusio~r of tlie
Treary inçulated theCOMECON countries frurn the enesgysl~ock of the
early 1970s. Co~-rsequentIy,tlierewas Iess concern withirrCOMECON
for the reIations between energy use and ecowrnic developme~~t.

COMECON countries co~rtinued to ernphasise the develogment of

'30 ArtS(3) .).(5)

Ans 5(5)(a)(55(5)(b)13),15, 19.
IV2 SUE~ benefitoTk~ icfcrrcd rnsecondarybe~refirs,e normallno1included;Ia

cos[benefitanaIysisbecaudevelopnie~ritune placeusuaIIyiakeresources away
fmm ar~orlieerxceduring periodof h~ghunempby~ne~ of~labour, capi1;il.and
orlreresources.SeeNorgaard RcporHR, '102, Appendix4.
193 See HR,vol 2, Appcndi4.e11ei.g~-intensivesectors and to use enesgy inefkcieritiy througIrout tlieii.
econo~niesuntiI weI 1irrtothe I980~.~~" 1
I
I
3.85. As of 1992, there had trot just bee~i "[a]dverse eco~~o~nic
circu~~~stances" or niere "financing difficultie$" as Slovakia seeks to
qualib There &as a wholesaie coIIaQse of the political and
eco~rornic system which Iladoperated tliroughout tlre region over 4

decades. In this context, tlie Project was Ian econoniic dinosans.
Irnproved ~lavigation was of 1naigi11a1sig~iifica~icto either corrntry's
eco~rorny.196 Fui~Iier irnproveme~rts in flood GOII~I n01chanis~risliad

been made unnecessaiy by i~~vestmentsspecificnlly targeted at flood
~ontrol.~~~ By contrasr, rosses wouId be sbIfesed in the areas of
agi-icultu~-e,for-estry, and fisIiei.iesand tlrere wouIti be Iorig-terrn
de gradation^ro tlre soi1 stru~rrri-e.~~~The despuction of the ~vetIarrds

rvould cause substantia1, though .eco~-ro~nicaIlju :nqrra~~ftiiablelosses.
Because of clie poIiticaI changes, tfrerewere nI In~rge~ the faclo~~ of
sociaIist integration osstrates toadd to tlle econo~nic equatiori of the
"joint iiivestment". Tlie "joint invesrnieiit" i~id becoine an economic

disaster, dipiomaticaIIy describecl by the ; Europeari Bank for-
Reconstructio~~ and DeveIopnreirt as beinig ]"of dubiouç econo~nic
vaIueV.'Y9
I
3.86. For Hnngary and CzechosIovakis, Fe dissolution of tlie

COMECON ended theireconornic security. Botji counrsies were seeking
to becorne fuIIy-fledged market ecorromies, havingI becorne menlbei-s of
the EBRD i11May 1990a~rdsigrring Associatip~r Agreements witl~tire
European Cornmunities iiiDecember 1491 which corn~nitted thel-IIto
I
deveIoping their iratio1ra1 envirori~nentaI protection standards a~id
supporting eiiviroilineritallysusrainsble deve~o$ii~e~it.Neithes couiitiy
had access ta large suppIies of subsidised energy. Both iueie being
fo~ced to foIIow the sreps other cou~itries Iiaditake11 in fre 1970s and
1980s, which invoIved a move to smaI1er projeets arrd iricreasedene1-gy

efficiency.zoo These ecanarnic changes rendereg tlie ecu~roi-i-cbjective
of the 1977 Treaty unobrainabIe.
i
!
!

See I-Ivol 2, Aypendi4. -

195 SC-M, para10.62.

Ig7 SeeHC-M.paras 1.172-1.,i77 aLaczay,HC-M, AGrexes,v014(part1),niine9;
seealsoScienrifEvnlziaiio~HC-M. vol2,chap2. \
IB8 Se: ScimjifiRebir~~alR. vol 2, ch3. I

Ig9 HR, An~rexes,ol3. anncx92
Sec HR,uoI 2,Apperrdi4.
I 147
I
L
(6) SucitllisII~egraiion

3.87. SociaIist integration was ofle of the pri~naryobjecrives of the
1977Treaiy arrdaIso tlie basis of t11eT~-eaty.~OlIthad NO intei-Ii~rked
cornpo~~erit sne poIiticaIand orreeconomic.

I
3.88. PoliticaIIy, rhere was sig~rifican~Soviet invoIverne~~t in the
Project, i~rcludingpro~nisedIoa~rs.~~'The Soviet U~rionwas involved in
the Project's p1ar-i11ga~rdimplementatior~for over 25 yeass (fsorn 1954

to 1980): tl-re detaiIs of tftis i11vo1vementare set out iri earIier
pIeadings203and are surn~nar-içeid nvoIurne2, Appe~ldix 3, of this Reply.
The SovietUni011wislredto seduce the dernandfor Soviet0i1suppIiedfo

Eastern Europe at $41 beIowmarket rates u11dercliebrrrteri~rg syskrn of
tlreCOMECON. It also had a straregic interest in impi-ovirrravigatio~r
and communicatioristhr.ougha sysfernof darns extendi~~g from Austria
I
(the westenr fr.onriesof the sociaIist bIoc)to the Soviet Uriion,a11dtlre
GNBSwas p1a11rre do bean integra1pa~? of thatsy~tem.~~~

3.89, As tire 111ostpowerfu1count~y>vitIrinCOMECON, the Soviet

- U~iion ensured that its interes<s were served by COMECON .
program1-1ies.20Vts Irrstitute, Hydkoprojekt, was responsible for CO-
ordi~ratio~~Ir behaIf of COMECON i~irerms of pIanning the Danube's

utiIisatiun. ln-1971 COMECO aNopted a Cornplex Prog~+arrirn for the
Fui-iher Deeperiing and lmprovernerit of Coogeration and the
DeveIopmenfof SociaI aiid Economic Integratio~rof COMECON which
promoted "the co~rstructionand operatio11of joint ventures for the

J production of eIectric e~rergy"and "the increase of the proportion of
hydroeIectricener-gyin the baiance of fuels and energy."206 The 1977
Treaty was specificaIIysaid to be "an i1rtegrapar3 of tliecomprehensive

programme for the deveropmentof sociaIist ecorronricintegsation of the
COMECON coun ries".207 CzecI-~oslovaika and Hunga:ary i-equested

201 See above.paragraphs.a-1.06for tliepartargurncnton ~hipoint.

SccHR, uoI2, Appendix3. Seri15HM, paras4.06-4.08.
HM, paras3.16-3.43.

204 Sc,HM, paras4.06-4.08 alid HC-M, para 1.on straregicpurposofthe 1977
Trenl.
- TheI977Treaty~uasaiypicalCOMECON~rea~y.ForexampIe.iispaymeii~and

barteprovisionwere typicaloCOMECON rieaiies.Seabove,parngraphs1-05,
106.SeeaIsoHR, vol 2, Appendix3.CorzrrSC-M. pax-2.07.
?O6 HM, para3.27, cilingTCornplexProgrammeof COMECON,6August 1971

207 HM, Annexes, vol4. annex7:sec aIsod~scussionabove.parngraplrs1.03:1.06.The
1ioIit1cl ecisioTo proceed w~tlrthc Projecf was taken just weeks afler
COMECON'Scomplexprugram~nedwasadopted. I
Soviet Ioaris totalling 300 miIIiori ~ubIes.~~ : EventuaIIy, the Soviet
Ufrioi~agreed to give Hu~rgai-y substa~rtiaIaid ib the foi-1nof eqiriprnent
arrd specialistservices totalli~rgappsoximately 100 111i1iiorrrbIes.209

3.90. By 1992, COMECON &id rlie Waisiw Paçt had bot11beeii
disrolved. Soviet tloops liad lefi ~zechosloiakia iiiMay 1991 aiid

Hurigary'inJunc 1941 . None of the formerco~nmnnisrcouritries, other
than Czechoslovakia,expressed ariy strategic orjeconomic i~rterestirrthe
Trea~.~IVIre prornised Soviet Ioarrs never! materialiç ed2 B1oth
I
Hrrngaiy and CzechosIovakia were rnovirrg toIfrec-market econo~-~-ries,
subject 79 the full pressure of internationa1e11er-amarkets and ivere

bei~~g forced to use eirergy rnore efficie~iriy.~~~ TIie econo~nic
inefficia~cy of a projecffoi one coiintry could nu Iongerbe offset by
strategic or"sociaIist iritegration"benefits.

3.91. The claiin tira*tlie.iefereiiceto COMEiUN in the preanible is n
"stylistic formaIity''a? lI3 rl~arthe 1977 ~redty involveci a "norina1"
industrial project2 c1i4iiofbeaççepted. Nor i{ it tiue tliafCOMECON

invoIve~rreri wtas rnererynotional. To quote a &port onone of riie earIy
~regutiatingsessiorrçreIariirgtu the Project: i

Minules olihc Meeting ofthe ~uii~a~an-~iechosIov~kC -OS~11~1tntils the
Prcparalion for ReaIisaIionof the Gabtikvvo-Nagy~naros Barrage Sysicm. 16
Jn~rr~ar1975;HR.Annexes, vo13,a~riiex45. 1
1
For the Agree~nenrhetween the Sovict U~rio~arnd 1Hungary.see HM, Anncxcs,
vol 3, nnnex23. Sec also HMpan 4.05. 1
For exarnplç,the Sovier Unrochanged to worid~narketpricing for 1ailin 1990;

HM, para 10.74. On stra~cgic ard eco~ro~nic1changes scc aIso HC-M.
paras 1.178-1.189. I
SC-M, para 10.69arguesthat "rhc unavailabiIity i~arecent yeaofCOMECON
based lonns"do not conïiitutc a "clranged circu~nstahBu1 Hungary o~rlygave

iha~as onecomponent OFthc Iai-gercha~igesin ewnobic circurnstanccswlilook
pIace inthc rcgion, and whicli irnpac~eduponthc Trcaiy'sobjectiand basisof
"sociaIisr inte~rat~oSC-M, para 10.70 argues thalhe SovietIoan wouId Iinve
served IittIpurpose un111cvnstru~iionnt Nrrgy~nabs occumed.Ku1 it was stilI
relevantintçrins of cliaIO aTreaty w111cprovidcd for Nagymaros.
1
Sce HR, voI 2. Ap~iendix4; seeaIso HC-M. pal-a1.140-1.203.SIoVak1saircsses
rhat"Li1caiinotbe saitliata Sratemaydaim hindarieninlchangeof cIrcurnstiinces
whencvcr ir niiscaIcuIales ils Iong-terni cncrey reqirelnOFrf~ndsa[tcrnafive
cncrgysources elsewhere" (SC-M.para 10.72).~u~r&i~ isin coniplcie agrcclnenr:

it hns na d11such daim. I
SC-M. para2.06.

SC-M. pns 2.06-2.07 "TIrejoi111 productionof power plairtsisan outstandingexampIe
of ecoriorniccoopesation among sociaIist countries. It içproof

t1rat the cooperatiori irnpIemented within the framewoi-k of
COMECON is efficient, because afier rhe suspensio~~of
fruitIesçnegotiatiorrsconducted for many years berneen tiretwo

countries on tlrisissue, tlre 1-eIevatnresoIutions of COMECON
psovided a basis forconti~~iungthe riegotiatio~rs and for arriving
at a rnutuaIunderstandi1rg.""5

3.92. A "single and indivisibIe operatioria1 system" was rlre primary
SIovakia
mechanism for realisi~rg.the goaIs of the 1977 Tiea~.~'~
accepts this.=17 The Nagymaros Bai-rage ivas esse11tia1to the Origi~~aI
Project, poIiticaIIy and econo111ica1Iy. Nagyrnaros furrlrered"socialisr
integratio~~"a,IIowirrgfor-berter ~ravigationfrom the western border of

tire sociaIist broc ea~twards.~'"~ tIIowed fa- peak powr psoduction,
both at GabSikovoand at Nagymaros itself. OnIy witllNagy~r~ai-o cor11d
inrpr-ovednavigationbe factored irrtotlieeconoir~iccalculations.

3.83. As of 1992, the single and indivisible operatioria1çclren~ehad
diçsoIvecI.CzechusIovakia was iippIernentingVariantC and had.insisted
on diveI?irig tlre Danube and operating GabFi kovo uniIater.aIIy,in a

mannes wlloily outside the scope of the 1977 Treaty.'IP Hungary iiad
suspe~rdedconstructionof tbe barrage atNagynra1-oa ss a result of serious
corrcerns aborrtenvironmental impact, coIrcerriswlrich have been fuIIy

substantiated by Iater- Peak power product io~rwas impossibIe;
i~nprvvednavigationcouId no Iorrgerbe considered an econornic beiiefit,
aridcouId i~aIlyevenrbe achieved in othei. way~.'~'

y5 Iiilonnation Docr~mcntor thePolit~caICo~ninitIeeof Ihc Hungarinn SociaIist
Workers Party oir tlGovcnrrnc~itCornmirtee Negoraiion, Prague, 6Octobcr
1958; HR.A~i~rexes,ol3,annex37.
*(6 HM. paras4.09- 0..

217 SC-M. pras 2.17-2.1S.
?18 There wereno major naviga1io1raIi~npcdi~ninthe arerchofthe Danube wlriclr

is now bypassed by Vananr C's head a~rd tail[-accanajs. See HC-M.
paras3.89-3.90alrdLaczay,HC-M.Annexes, voI 4(part 1).axii8.x
?19 Slovak~aîindsit"significa~rt[IraiHr~ngarydocs nut ~nçIudethe implemenrftio~o

Varranl C as a fundame~rtaIIycira~rged circurnslance". Thignores HM,
paris IR74(2), 10.77:HL-M.paras5.47.5.48.Seeübovc,paragraph2s.83-2.89on
rlrcdiffcrenbcelseenVariantC alrdtlieOngi~raIProjcct.
IZ0 3ee Scieiii$Evc~luariari,C-M.vol2:Scicriiific RduirHR.,vol2.

2?1 Sce above.paragraphs1.11-1.112,1.139.could be co~rr~Ieted.~~~ At thai stage, "technica1 fixes" coulci be
i~rçtiruted. Monitoring was pippoçed to "obtain objective informatio~ras
to how the barrage system wiII i~iflnencethe adjoini~rge~rvirori~r~e~ar~t,rd

onc can obtain data for perfor~ning any Ilecessary 1iieasur.es in the
Wliat tlioserneasures rnightbe it steadfastIyrefusedto say.

3.97. AItlrough €Irisrepresents the inai11tlrrustof the Slovak a~.gument
(as of tlre CzecIrosIovak positiorr at tlie tirne), SIovakia introduces a

subsidiary theme; it assei?s tlrat riod di fi catiniras possible in key
respects. Iri partictrIar it statethatCzechoslovakia Irad decided on a
significant rnodificatio~i to tlre discharge regi~ne, invoIving a normal
discharge of 350 rn"s wirh periodic (weekly) i~rrr~rdationosfat Ieast 1300

m-lis.232

3.98. The essenlia1 difficulty Iiereiç that there is no evidence in die
record tfiat tlris importanoffer was ever comirrunicafedto Hu~rga~y. 011

tlie contsaly,the public position of Czeclroslovakia was always one of
adheienceto tire water disclrargregime contained not irthe 1977 Treaiy
itself but irthe Joint Contractual Plarr, perliapçwitli the possibilityof
minor ~nodificatio~rs. Of pa~ricular significance is the idea of reguIar

i~rn~rdationçof rIie flood plain, whiclt are essentia1 ro niaintaining the
wetIarid ecoIo~.~~~ And rlie public positiorrof CzecirosIovakia at tlre
tirnefinds an echo in the preserirposition of Slovakia, which refused the
EC reco~nnre~idations for an interi~n water ~rrarrage~rre~rietgime, alid

favoussa static syste~nof "çIow-flow" water management in the side-arm
systern, one witlr ver)' Ii~niteddischarges whiclrdo nothi~rgtu reflecrrlle
dynamics of the river.234

{el A rreag consis?ej~~wirhenvironmert folpwreclion

3.99. Cliapter 1aIready describcd the riatui-of tlre 1977 Treaty arid tlie
15, 19 and 20 to i~ite~.~~atioinlvii-oiiinental
reiation of its Articles
I~W.'~~ In the pse-1977period, coIrcepts suc11 as rvetIa11dconserrration,
bio-diver-sis, envir.o~~mentaIIysustainable developrnerrt, e~rvii-oii~nental
impact açsess~rrents, PubIic participa?io~r i~r e~rvii-ori1rrerrta1ecisio~i-

230
See HR, uoI 2, Appendi5,paras36-43.
231 HR, An~rexesv,oI 3annex77.

232 See SM, paas 2.69-2.70.
?33 SFF ScienliJRel~uira, R, voI 2.cha5.

See ScieririfRelrlrifaHR, rroI2. clraps7.2-7.7See also above, paragraphs
2.94-2.105.
235 See above, paragraph1I2-158:see aIsodiscussioniHC-M. paras4.20-4.24. I
making and cosy-beriefita~ralyseswith e~iviro?rne~itac Iosts factored in
were not conrmoa-pIace. They were virtualIyjrrorr-existent in Hungary

alrd C~echosIovakia .'o r~xample, irithe governme~ltaldirective on
tlrestandards to be used for enesgy pi-ojects, il bas smted that "costs for
nsing Iand ..do trotquaIiS,as expenses frorn a jieopIe-seconornypoi~itof
view".2T7 TI1is i111pIietliat there would be no~seconornc ialcuIationsof

a pi-oject'sexpected irnpact i11terrr~of Iand dkgradation. The Original
Project was "an engineering visiorr of lroxj the Danube could be
transfos~nedinto a 'civiIizedenvironn~ent"'.~~1 ~

I
3.100. In the 1%Os, rratio~ralrid internationa1g~rviipn~nerita plrotection
standards (incIuding €1A a~rdEIS requii-emenis) were becornirigmuch
inüie 5tir~gc:t.rt,arii~uIair nIyeIatiorrto grohdivater prorecrion. To

take onIy oIre example, the UN Econo~rric~4InInission to Europe, in
ivhich Hungary and Czeclroslovakia participa&, adopted a series of
~rreasures designed to enhance gipundwate; protection.239 TIris

culrninated witlr tlie adoption by the UNECE of tlrI Charter on
Groundwater Management i11 AprqiI 1989, shortly before Ho~iga~ yç
suipension of coiistsiictioiiaf Nagyrnaros in the coiitext of grouiidwater
c011cernç.24U
I
1 -
3.10 1. The Charter indudes nulnerous prdvisions I which support
Hungaiyos apprvaclr to groundwater nianage~nerit and protection.
Section II recognises grou~idwateras "a naturar resource witlreconomic

arid ecologicaI vaIue" and caIls for strategiei l to preserve its quaIiiy
whic11s1rouIdai~nat "sustainable use".241 It ?r~pportstlre use of "best
avaiIabie tech~~oIogics"",speciaI protective Irieasuresto aquifers", a~rda
rrrarragementapproach whiclz errcornpasses"a6uifers in their enlir-ery"

and cornbars"lowei-ing of the groundwater ableI.^^^ Impact assessrnent
should be adoyttd for-"a11projects in any econorr~ic sector expected to
affect aqiiifers adverself', with particular attedtion beinggiveii "io the
I
I
I
236 The phiIosopliywas '*{o]ncea socialisrsociety is cstablislredaver rhe whoIeof uur
pIaner,ecoIogrcacnsesrviIccase."See HR. vol2, Appendrx3.
I
237 Joint Decree 311974(VIII.16of the NotionaI PIa~rnjirgOffice andMinislcrof
FinanceonInvesrmenls,HR,Aniiexes. voI 3, annex9. Forfurtherdiscussio~see
Norgaard. HR, vu12,Append~x 4. i
23S !
Norgaard, WR,y01 2. Appcndix4. I
239 See, e.g.Decisio~ron I~rTernaTio~raIoperation oh SharedWaler Resources, 2
ApriI 1992. ECUDEUD (XXXVIII); Decision on!Cooperationin the FieId of
Transbou~idaryWaters,25ApnI 1986.ECUDECIB(~-1):Decision on PrincipIcsof
Cooperationin ~IrcFieIdof Transhaundary Waters, 10Apr1487,ECEIDECII(42).

741 Ibid, SeciiolI(1). I
I
242 Ibid,Seciron$III(1i and (Y1I(jand X(4). Iirriportant yole gro~indwareiplays in rhe ecolagical ~~srern".'~~ TO that
end, impacrassessinents are ro be undertaken "at ariearly srageof projecr

planriing" and "shotiId coriririue durin gtle con.s~uut.liorhases-...of a
projecr, iiiordei to keep under review u~y adverse impacts ori
groundwater-resources before, dtrring and after Iitrrnan inteivent

Where aquifers are "uriiqne, eridangered or already impaired,
grotrridwaterprotection srraregies shouId carq derisive tveigli~..."~~~
1

3.102. '1-IiesedeveIoprnenrs were sripplernented by groiving snpporî for
deraiIed environmenta1 impacr assessinent requirements, as evidenced by
the EC's 1985 ~irective,'~~ [lie 1987 UNEF Goals and Pi-incipIesof
Environrneiiral Iinpact Aççe~srnent,~~~and the WorId Barik 1989

Opeihaitoiial Directiveon ErivironrnentaI~ssessriienr.~~~

3.103. By the end of the 1980s, it was ciear tliat the standardsof 1977

for-the protectionof the eiivironrnent, of water quaiity andof biodiversity
were iiiadeq~ate.'~9 Evericonstrued progressively (asHuiigary contends
tfrey shou1d beZ5O), Articles 15 and 19 of the 1977 Treafy were tao
general and urgeritly needed srrpplementarion. Viewed as a/ex syecialis,

uninodified by Iater deveioprrients (as Czechoslovakia in effecrviewed
rfiern andas Slovakia ii&v expressly argues251 ), rhey orily sliowed inore
clearly the iiiadequacy ofthe Treaty irseIf. Nor was itenough to propose

rrrispecified 'knviroiimeiiral gnaranteeç" to be corltained in a separate
instrument, whiIe ar the same time proceeding by al1rneans to give effecr
fo a Project which tlrrearened rhe very damage rhose guaranrees were t

strpposed to preveiit, and wliiclidid so nor incidentally btrr as a very
coriditionof itç iriterided~~er-atiori.'~'

3.104. The srandards in qirestiori were not externa1 imposirions so fai.as

tlieparties tothe 1977 Treaty were concerneci. I~ier nlia, as a restritof
their participation inUNIECE, CzechosIovakia and Hungary were in the

243 21 April1989,ECEIDECE(44), Section XIV(1).
244
IbidSection lX(ernphasis added).
245 Ibid,Sec~ianXVII.
7_45
CounciIDireciive (ernphazicldeS5/3371EE 01L 175,s JuIy1985,40.
247 UNEPIGUI4125 (1987)seenlsoUN ceneraiAsscmblyrcs421184 (1987).
'48
OperarianaDlrrecrive4.0Annex A, Environmenr Aassesstncni(1889).
249 Sc, generiy,EU W iisonLIiologicd Div~rri(1988);AGordie. TheAhrareofrlw
5rvi:1i.oii(3deedn.1993).357-368.

Srcabove. paragrilp1.34,1.58.
25I SeeSC-M. para .39.

'52 SeeHM, para3.100 154

I
process of adoptii~g legislation for enjiroiimental protection,
environmental impact assessment, public participation inenvirontnental

decision-making, and were signing or rati@iQg international treaties
relating to the enviroiiment, such as the C?nvention on Biological
Diversity.253 Governments were increasingly accountable to their

people forthe effects of major industrial projec(s,especially those in tlie
public sector with the potential to affect the haturai reçources of the
couiitryand tliewelfare ofthe people. I
I
I
3.105. Tlie Treaty, unmodified,required Hungary to incui-sei-iousrisks
ro the quantity and quality of its capital's wate; iupplyaiid to its inajor
drinking water reserve, and to destroy a major wetland area, aii areaof

Eiiropean~ignificance.~~~Yet Czechoslovakia!efused repeatedlyto re-
examine the Project as such, or ta couritenancealiy arnendmentto the
1977 Treaty itself.
I

3.106. It is sigiiificanthat Slovakiadoes not challengerlienotion tliat if
these riskr were real they could be consilered to arnoiint to a
fundamental change.255 As demonstrated iiiChapter 2, they were and
arereal.

3.107. Tlie law takes into account theîe rignificant changes. Ar a
distinguishedjurist and forinerPresidentof theCourt liaswritten:
I
"the enormous sums spent upon furtjier scieiltific and
technological research imply that the scene pf scientific 'fact'is -

liable to change importantly and even suddenly ..We need,
therefore, a law of the e'nvironmentthat can chatige with the
changer in tlie scientific world; otherwise itwill quickly and
most damaginglybe enforcingoutniodedscience."256
I

3.108. Tagether with the einergence of iticrebsed understanding and
norms of enviroiimental beliaviour,the internationalcommunity has also
recognised the relationship betweeii enviroqmental protection and

respect for fundamental human rights.257 Hungary liasnot claimed that
!

?53
UN Conference on Environment and ~evelo~ineXt,Convention on (Biological
Diversity (Ride Janeiro,5 Junc 1992),(Arts3, 8;9, 10 and 14), 31ILM 81 8
(1992).SECdibcussionInHC-M,paras 1.23-4.24. ;
254 Seeaboue,prragraphs 1.106-1.107, 1.121,.127-1.1$0.

755 SC-M,para 10.78only rtsscnsthathcsc claims"arc binplnotobjectivelyverified
by any ofthe responsiblbodies.This is of courselnthe casc,and wasnot the
casethen. See above,paragraplis1.85-1.92,1.100-1.J40.

256 Sir Robert lennings, Forewoid ro P Sandr~ ,ilrici~br of li~rririoriaii~l
Gii~ii-oiiii~Laiv(1995),xiv. 1
757 HM,paras 10.38,10.76.
I such a selarionshipwould "rejectaII deveIoprnerrt"or-i-equire"pastoraI
idyIIisrn",or tlrathe rigl~?O Iifeiç "si~rrpIya reworking of the 'right tu
environmenr'", as SIovakia sugg~sts.'~~ TIre relations1i 1p behueen

hurnan rights arrdthe erivironnre~-rt as irivoked 10 express Hungary's
con~~nitn~e~~ttotaking intoaccount tlie viervsof its citizens thr-ougiitlleir
pa~ricipationin decision-making andto ensure that the rights of -future
ge~~csationsto a healthy eriviro~r~nentwere fuIIy respected. TIiat

approacli is orle \vlricIr lias beeri endorsed by the i1rrernariona1
coinmrrnity, ~nost1-ecentlyat UNCED.259 Hungaiy notes SIovakia's
cornmitment "10 preserveand pass on its environmeritalpatri~rio~r o the
next generation":'6bwhere the parties disagi-eeis or1 tireirnpactof the

Original Pr-oject(arid i~~atn 1rruft7ndisVai-ia~rCt ) ori tliat patri~noriy.
AII~it carr~iotbe tlre case that i11ternationaIaw requires the parties to
wait untiIthedamageisseriousor-irreversibIe.

3.109. SIovakia asse~fs a contradiction in Hungarian arguments,

clai~nirigthat Hunga~yca111ioo tn one Ira~idco~rtendtIrat these was a
fu1rdamenta1 change of ciscumstances and on the other hand reIy as a
grourrd for tei~niiiatiorior1tlie planning of VariantCZ6] But rlie two
grounds are cumulative, and indeed cornpIernerita~y;by Apr- i 1392 the

irnrnirrerrceof Var-ia11t {vas itself a powerfir1Ilew circu~~~stanc~ eiot
conte~iiplaredby theTreaty.

3.110. SIovakia aIso asks wiry Hurigary i~ritiaIIyoffered tu inipIerne~rt
the upstream sector of the OriginaI Project fwirhout Nagy~naros)if it

ge~ruinelysegardecfNagymarosas an integral part of the Trea~.~~~The
sirnpIeanswer is thatthe co~rductof CzecIiosIovakiaaffected tlie exte~rt
to which the effects of the changed circrrn~stances wouId
"1.adicaII..ransform the extent of obIigations" stilI to be performed by
Hur~gary.~~ Mmover tlre conrinuationof the upstream sector insoprre

fomr, while it would have beerra 1riajo1c.hange to tlie OI-igi~raP Ir-oject,
was a possibIe option for consideration in the circun~stancesof 1989,
Itavi~rgregard tu the wurk aIready done upstreanr. But Czccl-~osIovakia
did rio?respond 70 Hurigary's and at na stage ccounrenanced tlie

25K SC-M,paras 10.113. 10.116.
259 Rio DecInratio~PI-i~ici3. AIso Pnnc~pIeIO (an accessto infornralion rirrd
pariic1p;ilIrlec~sion-makinandaccesstoremedies).

?6v SC-M,para 10.116.
SC-M:para10.82.

,"' SC-M,.par;10.75.
263 para 10.61.

2h"~, pxas 3.103. !
156 !
1
I
abandorIrnent of Nagy~naros.'~"~ insisted on tlie Oi-ÏginaI Prqject
substantiaIIy r~~i~iodified,and psoceeded uni1atera11~ to adopt tlrat

option - Varia~rtC - whidi poçed tlre greatest i-isksa11dcosts both for
Hungary and for the environment.
I
3.1I 1. If CzecIiosIo\7akia Iiad agreed to lrlodifyjthe 1977 Treaty to take

into account the many changes affecting the pa(ties7tlren rhe curnuiarive
impact of the cllanges 111ig11 ntof I~avebee11"fu!~da~~~eiitaI"O . ne of the
IegaI effects of uebus sic sranribus is that ifmayicali foi the sevision of a

ti.eaS so tiiat the ti-eav r-eIationshican be presé~ved. To the extent that
the other pal-ty1.efuses to negoriate with a view; to sucli a revisio~r,tlrerr
the party claiming rebus sic srunribusmay be $ntitIed to terminate the

treaty. Iftlre pa~zydoes negotiare, but fai1s tu 1;eacliariagree~nerit,tire11
both parties are bound to settIe their dispute in accordance witl~
irrterriatioria1 Iaw, tlrrongh, for exarnple, r-efer-krrceto arr inteniacional
tribunal, which can deférrnine the validify ofIthe cIainI of rebus sic

siuntibus. If the otlier party ig~io~+eo sr sejecfs tlie offer to refei- the
dispute toan internationa1 authority, the State invoking the doctrine wiII
havea rigiit tu ter~ni~rtlie trcaty.266 I
I
i
3. II2. III the present case, CzechosIovakia ~Iegotiand initia!Iy (May-
JuIy 1989),but as time passed, itbecarne incre!asir1~1s~ingIe-minded i~r
the irnplementatiorr of Variarrt C.267 ~b1i~ai-y requested that

Czechoslovakia çubrnit rhe dispute to an irnpartkl tribuna1 severaI tiriles,
but CzechwIovakia refused, preferrirrg to contiriue impIernentatio~r of
Variant C.x8 Czecl~oslovak cia~isuct gave @u~r~ary ~rociroice but to

terminate the Treaty on the gror~nds, inrer alia,uf fundarnentaIIy changed
circu~astances. And This iscIear from the actuaI'history of ille dispure; at
the very Iast, Hungary was prepared to mairrtairrjtlie Treaiy in force, witlr

al1the coIrsequencesr1iatentaiIed, provided onIy that work on Varianr C
would be suspendecl pending neg~tiations.~~~ !
I
I -
!

I
265 HM, paras3.99-3.100:SC-M. para5.15. I
Un ~helegalrequirementsfur funda~ne~iracIlra~rgcHM,!paras 10.59-10.85.
267 See flihistoryofthc irnpIementatiof VarianC: paragraphs2.18-2.43above.
I
See HR.rrul2, Appendix6, para49,and sccfurthcHC-M, paras2.84-2.87.

z64 SCC Norcof MinistcrMadI,May 1992. HC-M, v013,'anne 54; discussein HC-M,
para2.72.. I

I i
157

(iii) Co~zclifsion

3.113. Foi- these reasons, a11the conditions forreliance orr fu11dame11ta1

change of circrr~nsta~rwsexisted at tlie timof the Hungasiaii DecIaration
of May 1992. .

(c)Sfa& ofnecessily

3.114. Hungary reIied on the ground of necessiv in itssuspension of

corrstructio~iof works at Nagy~aaros, Duilakiliti and eve~rtuaIIy
GabEikovo, and aIso as one if its justificationsfor termination of the
1977 Treaty. The IegaI recjuii.ernents for ~recessity Irave beerr
su~r-r~narisedI~+ead~.~~C ~zecIrosIovak actions resuIted in a coiitinued

stateof necessiiy justifying Mungarian suspension of works irritiaIIy at
Nagyrnai-os and Du~iakiIiti,and Iater atGabeikovo. As Czechoslovakia
continued with its implerne~rtatioa of Varia111 C, a temporary state of
~recessiryeve~itrraIIybecame per1-~ianentj,usTiQing ternrinarion of Ihe

1977 Treaty.

. 3.115. No state is rr~~der1-robIigatio~rto expose ils presenland friture
citizensto significantriskof healtlr arid envirori~nerrtalda~nage whidi

couId fundamentally under~ni~ieits v-itaI inte~sts.~~] This is the
esserrtiaI pointof tlre irivocation of riecessity as a jnstificati61rfor
terrni~ratioof the I377Treaîy.

3.115. The scientific studies prioi- to 1989 wl-rerr Hurigary first

suçpended constsnction of works at Nagymaros, and those performed
during the suspension of coristinctio~i(1989 to 1992) were sufficie~rtIy
cIear to Ieada "weII governed State" to the concIusion thatitcould not

expose tlie IieaItlra~rdIiveiilroof its present and future popuIatiori to
major sisks, the creation of which were directly related to the
implemeiltation of the Original Project . Studies attached to the
Hr~~rgarian Merno1-ialand Counter-Mernoria1 have cvidenced rhe high

degi-eeof p~obability of tire Iong-terrn deterioratioof water quaIis and
water quantity in tlie concerned r.egi~ns.~~~ Srudieç have aIso
derno~rstratedtire serious irnpacts011tlre rverIa~rdof tlie Szigerkoz, orje

270 Se HM. paras10.06-10.6,niidfurtirerabove, pnragras.2-3.26

27i See HM, para 10.09.
272 See Liehe,1994,in HM, Apye~rdix3, 388 ff: 3cicrrr$c EvdtrarHC-M. vol 2,

chap 3.5ongioundwaterquaIity94 ff.of tlrefew rernainingwetland alpas i11Errropearid a valuable inIanddelta
region.27"

!
3.1 17. HungaryweIIunderstands the strict Ii~niof interiiational,Iaw in
ailowing pIeas of ne~essity.2~~ NonetIieIeSs, urider the speciai
circurnsrances of rhis case, irwas iiecessaiy !or Hungary Iosuspend
construction of xwrks atNagymaros, DunakiIitia~rdGabCikovoinitiaiIy

and Iatei- to teiminate the 1977 Triraty. CzeclioçlovakiaIlad 1-einairied
inflexible i~raddsessing Hu~~gai-iac ritrcenrs,had refus4 to iregotiatea
solutio~r,and had refused to allow third partip to exa~nirlefuIIy the
conceins u~I resscoiistructionco~rtiriuedat fuIIPace.

3.11 8. Slovakia responds by nsguiiig,as to riieiaw, tliai neîerrity is no*
avaiIabIe i~rr-elatiorrto treaty obligations, and;as IO the facts, tIrat110
situation of ~recessityarose. Tliese argu~nentsihave aIready been fuIIy

dealt ~ith.''~ 1

(4 Impossibilify rtfperfar1p~ance

3.119. Hungary's position is that it couId rroi "be obIiged to fuifi1a
practicaIIyirnpossibie task, 1rarne1yto coristnrcta barrage system on irs
awIi territo tryt wouId cause irreparailIe enviranmental darnage~".2~~
By May 1992, the object esseritiaI tuthe Trea,ty- an eenironmenraIIy

acceptabIe barrage system - had permanentIyIdi~a~~eared,2~ ~nd the
Treaty Iiad thus beco~ne impossible to perform. The permanent
disappearance of the object was not caused by aiy breachof trearyoIrthe
partof Hungary.

3.120. Hrrngaryinterpretsthe Vienna ~onventi811'sArticle 61 defiriition
of irnpossibiliv - "disappearance or desiruction of arr object
indispensabIe for the execrrtion of the treaty" ' as riot cortfined to the
disappeai-arrceof"a physicalobj~ct."~~g SIovakiadisagsees,argui~~g that
1
!

273
See surn~naryof IikeIyeffecrs ofOriginalProjedt iHC-M. paras 1.50-1.156.
Furmorederai 1eddescripr~o,eeHC-M,Scieirriji~v~lrrrrrioi.o2,clra4.4.
274 HM,para 10.06. !

275 Un rhe reIaIio~isbetwee~inecessityand thlawof:treatIsee above, paragmplrs
3.07-3.14.011rheappIicaiiorioftdoctrineof necI$sirrorhefactof theprcseiit
casesee abouc,paragrriphs3.21-3.40.
776 Declararionvf Terminalion, Part III, par162ai 1892; HM, Annexes,voI 4,
annex 82.See descriptioof impossibiIityas ir appfiethiscase in HM, paras
10.41-10.58.

277 Seediscussion aboveinparagraphs1.85-I-92.1.1001.140.2.44-2.81.
278 HM,paras 10.49-10.50. I
I
Ithe Vierl~raCo~~ve~~tio wnas intended tobe Iimited to disappeararice of "a
pIiysicaIobject.""g 'SIovakia ~nisi~rteipietstlris provision.

3.12 1. Eai-Iiei atte~nptsai codifying the Iaw of treaties Irad qiecificaIIy
i-equir-edthat a pa~ty's performance wiror~ldbeco~rre i~rp rossibIe eitlrer
because of "tlie co~r-ipletand ptrmancnt disappearance ordestir~ction of

tlrepIlysicaIsr~bject- natterof the rightsand obiigatio~isco~ltained in the
ti-eary"or becarrseof the "disappear-arice of a IegaI stateof affai~swhich
was the raisori d'érreof tl-roser-ightsand obIiga;rtions."280 The ILC
eventuaIIy deIeted tlle WOI-d "physical", on the basis that irnpossibility

couId be invoked when it sesrrIted fro1-1"tlie Iota1 and perfnaner~t
disappearai~ce or destrrrctioriof the ~ubjt.d-~rrnrre ~- rhe I-igl?raid
oMigurions co~~tairledin tlie treaty".2S1 TIIC delction of the word

"physical" was rroted wirh appsova!and it \vas specificaIIy obser~ed
"thar rhe impoççibiIity Inay beeither pliysical or jrrridicaI".282

3.122. Slovakia argues tliat tlie i~rrpossibiIityargument is reaIIy one of

(i) fundarne11taIchange of ciscumstances, (iifforce majeure or irecessity,
os (iii) eir~r.~~~.TIre firçttwo g~uundsare deait with eIsewhere in this
Chapter,'gJ and were relied orr as paraIIeI grounds justifying the

termination of the Tseaiy. Tmlrossibiiityof performance and funda1rrenta1
clrarigeof circu~rtsta~~ce sre distinct gsounds for termi~ratior. Plie same
factual situation couId give rise to an -overIap of Ille tnro grounds, as
ack~~owledgedby the ILC.2S3 SirniIarIy, there are factual situations

whese cases of ternyoraty i~-~~possibilitcyouId be ~egardedas force
nrajerrre, excusing non-perforn~ance of a treaty. But if te~npor-a~y
i~r-rpossibiliweseto become permane~rt,the Tr-eaiy i~iquestiori ~r~usb t e

abIe to be terrninated by a pal5 whose conduct is not Illecause of the
i~r-rpossibilit,rrtlre sense already e~plained."~

SC-M, para 10.87.

See WaldockReport II, Art 21(2)(a) andcommeniary to.4rt21(2)(h), ILC YI>k
1953/2,78-9.
ILC Yhk 195312 ,f206 Ic~nyhasiadded),drafart43(1).

Srarcmcn of PoriugaIILC Ybk 196612.37. WaIdockspecificaIIobserved thatrIre
wvrdingcouIdappIy to"tirdisappemncc botli of thephys~casubjecr-nialtearnd
ofsuchmeiaphysica1ele~neirtssaIcgaIreginie"ILC Ybk196311,248
SC-M.paras 10.83-10.90.

Sce above,paiagraphs3.I14-3118.3.74-3.113
ILC Ybk,19662,256, para 1.

Seeabove.paragi-apli .75 3.123. As toerrar, Slovaki notes t11atthis would irivaIidate the treaty?

ratlietharralIow for terrninatioi~.~~' Ifthe COUI~I ,owever, were to hoId
~Iiatrileappropriate rubric in situations where ?lie avaiIabi1ity of new
scientific krrowledge or understanding renders ia pruject rr~rsafe,the11
Huiiga~y slrould be equaIIy erititIedto relo yn error.288 Hungary Iiada

-reasonable belief in May 1989 that pr-oceeding $th the Project wirhout
furiher scienrific k~iowIedgewouId e~igenderseribus risks. Its beIief was
reinforced as changes i11rlie poIitica1syçrern okuried whidi perrnitted

iiee discussion of the issrres and a re-exanri~ra;iorrof the assu~nptiorrs
underlying the Project. That new and incseasirigscie~rtific awarenessof
earlier, as well as more recent, stirdies highIig1iring rke da~~gel-sof
proceedi~~g with the Project quaIifiesas grounds forreIying on ersor.
I

3.124. Gaps irr scientific krrowledge and undtrStIndingof the OriginaI
Project in 1977 Ied r11e pariies IO irifer tfiat [Ire Project was
e~ivi~+on~nerrtaI syu~~dwhen it was no[, and thus fom~ed an essenlia1

basis of their consent to be bound. Hungaiyds ~iotnegligent in bei~rg
unaware of tlie errorat that ti~rre;it rnaybe nofed that CzechosIovakia
was also uriaware of thedangers. 1

I
{e}ConJicr wirhsubsequenf obligationsIu~der. gen~ral
ivrrernutiorra lm 1

i
3.125. Article 42 of tlie Vie~r~iaConvention 'does not preclude the
appIication of grounds of treaty terrnina~ion'irot iiicIuded iir the
Convent ion but recognised u~ider crrstomary I~<V.Z~~ One of tlie Inos[
cIaçsica1 rules of inte1qriationa1I.aw iç tlrat - aside fi.0111 perernpfory
I
iiorms - tl-rerisno Irierarcliyarnong the differentsources of inteniationa1
Iarv. The Convention irself affirnrs -i~iits pr-ea1nbtliat "the rules of
custoIrraIy irrteriiationaI Iaw wi1I continue toi govern questions noc
r-egulatedby the provisioris of the present Conveiti~n."~~~

3.126. The ILC fiad earlier rejected a provision:deaIing wirl~ the effect
on a trertiy of emergence of a Iie\v ruIe of cyçtornary I~W.~~' This

lg7 SC-M. para 10.85.

188 See HM, para 10.53.Before an errorrs discove4 and whiic rhc partics are
irnple~nenlinga Irealyi~igood faith, it wouId he aiiificial thenolronnof
"invaIiditand 10ignorcrhe IegaIerfectsof perroi~na~rceE.ven invalid10beas
~nvokeda,ndthiscouldnot bedoncbeforc lheparticsfrrrdnotice of [Ireerror.
289 Far discussion, reN Koiitou, TheTeixrif~afifrrid&vision o/Twaties irrihe
Ligkrof~VciCvrrsrorrrlirrci~icifilaiv(ClarendonPress,Oxford. 1994).

240 ViennaConventionon the Law of Treii~iprcarnhuIaiparaSprovision ge1rera1Iyreceived FavourabIecomnients fi-orngovernrnent.
OnIy two, abjected ta the piirrcipIe, GreeceZg2 and the United
Kingd0rn.'9~ Tire general view was that rIis provisioiiflow4 naturaIIy

fronl the cliaracter of cuçtorn as an airtonornous source of Iaw: new
custom, in part itseIf conve1rtioriain origi~r,cou Id modifyc011ventiona1
rights, ter1-ninate tl-re~n,or repIace them witli other rigIits and

obIigati~ns."~ In view of tlrediffererrcesof opinion, itwa~ decided to
Ieave[Ire matter to be dete~~mineu dnder-generaI inter~raitonal

3.127. Tirus the ILC decided not to incIude a sub-ar-ticleon triepoirit,

not becanse çupei~e~~i~c rustoni c0111d noi modifYa psior incornpatibre
treaty, but because thiç was a rnarter falling outsida the scope of the

Conventiorr .296 State practice offers a ~~rrmbeo l-f exa~npIesof treaty
termiriationor revisiorron account of incompatibility with suiiervening
custom.'9' 011 some occaçioris the treaty aras expressIy abrogated,

revised,or repIacedbya new treaty;on orhers itwas bsoughf to ariend or
modi fi& by subsequerrtpractice of [Ire parties.mg Tlie possibilily of
terrninatiuri or revision or1 tl~isgrourid is aIso supported in the

jurisp~.udence.~~~

3.128. Aç indicated i~r Cliapter I,3UQ custo~nary inrernatio~iaI Iaw
reIating tu tire environme~rtlias developed ex~ensivcIysilice the 1970s.

In par?icuIar,majoi-deveiop~neritsIraveoccurred irithe Iaw goveniing
environmerrta1 impact assessrrlentç, the protectioii of freshwatei-
resources, and tiie co~rservationof bioIogicaI diversity, notabIy irithe

years 1990-1992. To the extent that tfie 1977 Tseaty excluded tirese
developments - tl~atisto say, tothe extent tlratit1~0 s /ex speciu~is3~' -
tlre Cor117should IroIdth& the reievarit des of iriter~iational law have

Greece.(i9662)0 GAOR 6th Cornmittee84511nitg,38,para41

ILC Ybk 1966111,345
Counlriesi~rfiivouinclr~deUS (ihid. 361Israel(ihid3001,Tiirkey(ibid341).
YngosIavia(ibid351 ).

See cg., WaIdock,ILC Ybk1966111236, pan 3andthe UScomnieIrt,rbid,358
Kuntou. 139.

8ee Konrou, 145.SeenlsoP Reurer,I~~rruducfia~dr-ciirderruiié(PUF, 19851,
117.para 205.

Xee,examples in Kontou73-107,e.g.. the Extrad~rio~riegitheEasr I~rdiand
thcRegimeof TheRivcrNiger.
Sec FislieriesJUZ-i~dicCrise(UK v.Iccland(Fii-iPi~ase)IU Rep 1974, p 3,
ki BreragneArOmzriorr(1985),90 RGDIP 7 13.

Above, parngaphs 1.34-1.58. Sce aIso HM, paras 5.65-5.82; HC-M, paras
4.20-4.39On thrpointSIovakiaappears[Oagree,SC-M, paras9.51-9.66 ,9.

As SIovakrasuses~h,SC-M, para 1.39. ~nilaferaI1y.~~~ Afies Hungaryterrairiatecl,CzecIrosIovakiaconzpletedits
implemeirtationof VariantC, effectiveIy repudiati~rgthe 1977Treaiy.

3.132. These are i~rdicatio~ts that a iegaI anaIysis similar to tl~arof
Hungary\vascurreriton the CzechosIovakside: it was adv ised to present
Variant C as a "temporaiy" soIution, on tire basis, apparentIy, tllar

' anyttiirig else, -LcouIdpi-eve~itrhe renewed irnplementatiori of the
T~-eaty".~~* But internationaI Iawdoes rrotr-equii-e verbal repudiatio~rof
a treaty; itis nrfficieiit tlrat the Stafe co~rcernedacts in-such a way as

, persiste~~tlyto contradict the Tseaiy. A~rdthat was certainly tlie case
witltVariant C, riotw ithstandingtlierepeated i~~vocatioo nf such IabeIsas
"temporaiy" and "provisio~ial".~~~

(3) ISSUES OF STATESUCCESSION

3.133. The parties are in straiglrtfornrarddisagree~nerrton the issues of
treaty successio~i irrtlre psesent case. TIrese issues onIy ar-ise OII tlre
assurnptiort that tlre 1977 Treaîy srrrvivedas a biIaterairseaty in force

betweerrHungaq and Czeclios~ovakiauntir 31 Decernber 1992. This is
not the case, for the reasons given in the pseceding sectio~r. TIie
argurne~ratbout slrccessionis thus srrbsidiaryand alter~rative.

3.134. On the assurnption, hokve~; fhat the 1977 Treaîy survivd
terrni~iatiorby one partyarrdeffective and da~naging repudiation by the
oîher, Hungaryderiies that it surviveclthedissohtion of Czechoslovakia,

orre of itç mro parties. According to Hungary, tl~a 1977 Pr-eaiy was
neifhera boundarytreaty nor a "IocaIized"treaty in the reIevantsense (a
treatyconçidered objectivefy as attaching to teiritory).There is no rule
of internationa1 Iaw whiclr provides fui-autornaticsuccession 10 bilaferal

ti-eatieson the disappearance of a pa1-t~.WIren succession to biIatera1
treaties occurs, this iby corisenrof the parties. SucIrconsent rnaytake
the form, for example, of novation, or a dedaration of successiori
accepred tacitIy or-expressly by theotlrerpaq, or an excllange of letters

conti~iui~~pgarticuIar-treaties inforce. W liatever teclmique is adopred,
the esseritia1reqriirernerrtis r11ecorrsenor acquieçce~~ce of borh pa17ies.
Hurigary haç nevei-accepted that the 1977 Treaty Ilas been in force

beiwee11itseIf and SIovakia,and in particular-Ilas never accepted any

307 See Note of MinisrerMidI, IS Ma1992;HC-M. Annexes ,oI3.anIrex54.

308 See HR, Annexes,voI3, annex64.Theopinion refers10Art~cIe72of rheVien~ra
Co~ivcntionwhrch uses thercrm"actstendi~rto obsirucr rhe resumpiionof tire
oper?tionofthe rreary"VariantC was cenainIy such an acr. See also above,
pnragraph2s.31-2.32.2.91. e

309 On the qrrestmnwhetherVariantC 1srn truth"ternporary"or "provisio~ral"see
further above, paragras.90-2.933.54-3.65."condiriona1"or "hypothetical" succession by SIovak~a totlratTreaty. In
the case of biIater-altreaties, rhIaw of scatesuccessionexists'in order to
I
faciIitatecontinued fr-iendIyreIatiorisbetween the parties, not to foist on
thenr a tseatywIric1-w1as a source of continui~igdisputeartddisco~cl.~'~

3.135. SIovakia expresses "asto~i rsl~rnentand p~rplexity"at the "tosay

the Ieast,unexpected" state çnccessianarg~rnenl,.~ ' Accordingto it tIre
1977 Ti-eatyis, if riot a boundary treaty_3I2 at:least a IocaIised treaty
considered as anacliing to teirit~ry.~'~ ~lfernalivel~, it relieron a rule
of i~iternatio~iaIIaw(which would.correspo~rd toi~rtic~e34 of the V ie~rria

Conile~rtion on Srrccession of States in reçpectiof Treaties of 197g3 I41
imposi~ig ort a new State aiidorbes States aiikethe biratesaitreaties of a
p~edecessor.~ I
j
3.136. It is as welI to deal first with the issue of "astonishment and

perplexity". In fact the disagreemeiit about 'srrccessionhad aIseady
ernerged in dip101-~ratc ixcha~igesIremen t1r6parties, arid was rveII
known to Aii earlie~ draft of the SpeciaI Agreement
incoiporated SIovakobservations under wliich ~9kia would II& been
expressIy recognised "as the succeçsor to the Governme~rtof tireCSFR",
I
i~irespect to tlie 1977 T~-eaty.~~~ Hungary waç not prepared to accept
tliis positioii, and tlforinula evenrually adoptkd iiiparagrapiir and 2
of the Preanible expisssly disrii~guishesberweektlie 1977 Tresty itself
and "riglrts arrdobligatio~isrelating ro tii...rojkct". As explairtedin irç

MemoriaI, Hurtgary accepts that there are i-ights(andobligations relating
to the Project, for exampIe,corrtinui~igpropei-tyIriglrtsas a consequeIice
of A~?icIe8 of ?Ire 1977 T~-eaty.~I~ TIie 1a:nguageof the SpeciaI
Agreement reflects this positio~i, but provides IIQ support for tlie SIovak

thesis of ipsojure co~~tirruitoyf the 1977 ~reat$as such. The referaice
I

31i SC-M,pra 1.34.
!
I2 SC-M. paras 2.38-2.44.
l3 SC-M.paras2.35-2.38,2.45-2.56, 3.25-3.39.
I
314 Furlexrs~e(I978),72A11L971. 0
315 SC-M,paras 3.05-3.24.3.40-3.I.
I
3'6 Se, HM, paras 10.108. 10.118-10.119Thc Slouakjnoic of 15Decembc~- 1993
arracheca I~srof rreaiies, w11lraofisuggestions fruni rcIevanr min~srncs:see
below,paragraph3.156.Includcd i~rthe I1stire 1977Trcnrywiththe annorrttio~r
'Thc Mi~iistior Agricultureproposio leavc1uncHanged." Wliatthe posit~onof
othcr Slouak mrnisirics Inay hbceii wasnul s(a!ed.SeeHR, Annexes, vol3,
annex 96. 1
See HR, Annexes,v013, a~rrr94. 1

318 Sec~~,~aras5.05-5.~6.10.108-10.109,II.12.

i 165

to "asto~irslrrnent and perpIexity7'in SIovakia's Corr~~ter-Mernoriai1s
anotherexa~npleof its te~ldencyto argue by eepitliet - or, in tIiiscontext,
epithets.

{a}The 1977 Treag isnul u bntindary Ir-euq, or-a rr-eatyuelafing fu

theregime of0 bnzrndwy

3.137. Turiringto the substa~~ceS , Iovakia i~ifersthat tl1977 TI-eaiyis
autonraticaIIysucceeded to as a boundary treaty: "t1ieesselitiaIboundary

characterof ArticIe22, even if not of tlreTreaiy as a whole, is clea~".Ig
TIre reason is that Article 22, by pi-ovidirrgthat die boundaq wouId
remain urrdiariged, "impiicitIy but rteceçsariIy refersed back to tlre
relevant treaties, and this co~isrituresone of the possible ways of

deIi~nitinga bourida~.y".~~~

3.138. HrrrigaryIraçtraced tlie histoiy of tlre 1977Treaty, showirrgtlrat
the \vas a deIiberate decisiori to separate the Pi-oject from rhe

i1rternationa1bourrda~y.~~' Under Article 2Z(l )(a) of rlre Treary, the
internatio~ra!bounda~y "shaI1semain uncha~~ged". The very rnirror
borr~~dary adjustmerrt i-equisedonce the Or-igiriaIPr.oject had been
impIementedwas 10 be thesrrbjecrof a separate treaTy. TIrisrreaty \vas

nevercor~cluded.~~~

3.139. SIovakia srrggests tliareven a treaty wIric11inrylicillconfirrns a
bou~idaryis auto~naticalIysucceeded to under the interiratio1ra1 Iaw 1.Ie

rzIatingto boundary ti-eaties.323 On tiis argrr~r~errtth1995 Hungarian-
SIovakTreaiy on Good-neigl~boui-ly ReIations alid FrielidIyCoopei-atio~i
is appasently a boundary treaty, since it contains a provision affirming
"the invioIabiIiiy of tlieircoInmon state border and eacb uther's

territoriain te gril^".^^^

3.140. A~ricie 11 of the 1978 V ienna Convention on State Succession
witli r-espec10Treaties provides lhat:

u
IY SC-M. para2.44.

320 SC-M, para2.40.
321 ~~,paras4.39. IO.IIO.-
312
1977~rcnt~, Ari 22(2HM, paras7.30-7.1.
lr7' SC-M. para 2.40,cit~ng Ter-~-iluitispure (LitrsaAr-ab jarrrahii-iydCIitld}
ICJ Rey 1994,p3.

324 Trea~ behveen rhc RepubIic of Hu~rgaryand thc SIovak RepuhIic on Good-
neighbourlyRcIat~onsandFriendlCo-op~ratio~i,Paris, 19March 199Art 3(1);
HR,A~rnexesv,ol 3,annex23.fi) The 197 7 TreaS iqJusflot"cunsideuedas ~rraching Co leu~itouy"

3.143. SIovakia's pi-iilcipa1a~+grrnlenftor successio~iis that tlre 1977
Treaty created a "territorial reginre;of the ki11denvisaged by A1TicIe12
of the 1978 Vie111raCo~rvention, and rllat it was accordingIy
auto~naitcaIIy succeeded to by SIo~akia.~'~A~-licIe 12(1) provides in

partas foIIows:
"A succeçsionof Statesdoes rrotas suc11affect

(a) obligations r-eIating to the use of ariy tei-ritoiy, or- to

rest~*ictiorspon itsuse, estabIisIredby a treacyfor.tlre benefir
of any tersito~yof a for-eig~Srtate and consider-eeds attaching to
thetersitoriesinquestio~r;

(b) riglrtsestabIishedby a freaty forthebenefrtof any territory
and relating to the use, or to upoir the use, of aIry
teirito~yof a foseiçn State as attaclri~rto the

territoriein questio11."

3.144. TIre1.eissome authority i~rternaitonaI Iaw for tlre
category of"territor-iaI11-eaty" having a pennanerrt

or- se~ni-per~nanenfchasacter. major rnuItiIarera1
sett!emcnts, the u~rdei-I~rg tseated as the
basis for tlre per~nanent
tlre AaIand IsIands,"28

river or cariaI,ortlre
~~sterns.~'~ These
navigation, the

tlre1977 Trea~.~~~

3.145. The prese11tcase concerns irivestrncntscheme of
interestto tI~etwa pa1.lies.33'Here is tlraof do~ni~rarr atrrd
in con~rnollIaw systems.
çe~.vierittenements iiRomairIawo or
IIIfacr the1.eiç IiitIauthoriq for tersitoriaI@mes on a

327 SC-M. pras 2.35-2.382.45-2.55,

LNOl Spec SuppNo 3 (1920).
329 Cf SouthWesiAfrlca(S!atiis) 1950.p 128ai 53(Lord McRair)

330 See HM, paras4.41-4.47.
FoIIoivingthe d~ssolutofCmIroslouacia it cr.identIycearobeof interesIO
and A~iiicxvol4, annexI17.
~IrcCZCCRIIcpubIisetHM, paraIO108 168 1
I
I
me~-eIybilateral ba~is.~~? But irraIry event, inte,rnatiorral.IawIlasa1ways
distjnguished betweeirthe grant of a territorial right or segirne011tlre orle

hand, and treaty provisio~is FOI-co~rtirrrringc'ooper.ation between the
pai-ties in a nraner of cornmon interest, orr th; other ha~rd.~~~For- a
Matera1 servitnde or territorial rcgime to be creited, a number of special

features have to be shown: as a ~ninirnum, a ciear i~rte~rtionto create a
territoria1right independent of tIretr-eaty,a cleairand specific content to
the right, and a cIear nexus between the right aiid aarritory. TI-rerehas
thuç alrvays been a sti-urig presu~irption agai~isi the crearion ofa "real

right" or segirneof a bilateral ~haractei-.~~~ ~jid that presu~i~prionIras
been gowerfuIIy en forced irr modern inter.natioiiaI Iaw in the context of
the exploitation of narriiaf i~soiikes and of1 iiieasures affecting the

environrne~rt.~~~ 1
I
3.146. Irithe pirseiit case, tire question of a bil&-al "territorial regirne"
si~iipIydoes rot arise, and t11isfor ar Ieast tlrree rpsons.

i
3.147. Fksl audfoi-w~vs~, tfrei-eisno indicatipn whatever in t11e1977
Treatyor. in itslravclux of an intenliori to create an objective 1+egirne."6

The Tseaty psovidid for a cornpIex intirrstsia~prIject, to be jointIy
executed and to remai11thro-gliout urider joint1controi, irr respect of .a
shared nariira1resource. It irnposed obIigations qf acontinuing chaiacter,
and e~rvisaged continued modification and, acijuçtmerrt of those
I
obligations irithe Iiglrtof changing circrr~rrstat~~s. There is si~nply ~io
fou~idatiort for theview t11at by the 1977Treaty Hungary a1ie11ated rightç
ovei the watel- of tlie Darrube, orfoi thar n~attefthe errviro~irnent of the

Szigetkoz, by agi-eeing to eriter-iritthe Projec~.~?~TI-rer~is no evidence
tllateither Party regar-dedthe Treaty as a "1.e~i1rk"irrthe relevant serise,
I

332 As rhe ILC 1tse1tnorcd, -'rlieevidence does .suigcstthal rrhiscategoshould
emhrace a Ycrywide range of so-caIIed ierritoriril irea~ies": ILC Ylik197412(1),
46 (435). I

333 Thrs disiinction goes back as fai as VattcI, LeID;-acles Gem (1758) Bk II,
chap 13 (5203).
334 Cf iVoi.~hllarr~Cons1 Fislwries Arliirrlr{1910),11 RIAA 167, 183.
335 I
Cf Vie~rnaConvention, Ari13:"Norlringi~i[IrepresenConvenlion shnIIaffect rhe
principlcs oFi1iTernariolawaffiming thc pernialre?r souereigof everypeople
and ellerySlatc over ils 1rarun1weaIrh and rcsor~rce;."See D PoO'ConneII's
comment on "economic scrvirudes" (of which rhe1977Trcnry,o~rrhe SIo~a~~iew,
~uId be one). "s~ncerhcir 1-arionaIeis alavvanabIe ccono~nice~r~ironmentit
is xre.doubtfuI Indecd rf renI I-ighrsare eyer inrendcbercreated..; "A Rc-

co~rsideraiionoflhe Docrriire of Inrerna~ionaI~erJ~rudes" (1952). 30 Can 3ur
Rev 807 at 81R !
336 Seeabove,parigraphs 1.23-I.25.

337 Seeabove,pa~-agrrrylis.28-1.29. !
Ione "co~rsidered as anaching to territory". It is true tlrat it ugecied
territo1-y- ta a much greater extent tirari tlre Parties anticipated at the
tirne. But al1 bilaterd treaties are territoria1in some seIrse, a~rd a11

tseatieç providing foi the cor~strrrctiorof i~ldustrialprqjectsr tvlletheron
Iand or wateL irrrplicate particufar tenito~y. If that was süfficient to
constitute a "regiri-re",the pr-esunrptioof astatefs conrinuing sovereignty
ovei its 11atrrrai-esoui-ceswonld be reversal, if not destroyed. As Sir .

Robe17Jenni~lgs has sernarked, "al1treaties IkeIy tu corne i~ltoquestion
affecr terriroiy;and ta thii~k of those directIy co~~cer~red witli soi1 a~rd
wates as being in a different category is rnei-eIro exiiibit a~iaiveIireraI
IIi~idtdness".~~~

3.148. Tlie sarne co~icIusion foIIows from ArticIe 12 of the Vienna
Corrve~rtioriof 1978. AsticIr 12onIy applies to regi~nes"co~~sidei-edas
attaching to territoiy". ~lovakia offers rro hi~ias to the rnealiing of This

ph~+asef ,ocusing instead on the fact that the 1977Treaiy related to the
territoryof tlretwo States parties.-f39But Article 12 ~IearIy imposes the
additiona1 sequirerne~rtthat tlie r-egirneiriquesrion must be "cu~~side~+ed
as atiaclrirrg to territoy". In the ILCos words, "the mus1 in short be

sometlii~ig i~ithe nature of a territorial regi~ne''.~~~TIlat distirrct and
additional requiremerrt is~totInet i~rtliecase of tlie1977 Treaty, for the
reasoris given in the previous paragraph .

3.149. The second r-easo~rwky tlre 1977 Treaty did ~iotco~rstitute or

createa territoria1or dispositive regirne is that, properIy u~ideistood, no
treaty as such does so. It is rather the execuriorrof a treaty, in
ciscurnstances wIrere itcanes to be recognised by tlie pa~ries and by
othe~.States as having some dispositive eflect, which creaks a regirne.

This was the concIusiori the ILC came to iriils work 011 tlre law of
treaties;an earIier proposa1to deal witfi "dispositive" treatiesby rvayof
an exception to tlie pacfu teriiis ruIe was dropped,on the basis tllat
treatieças suc11never ci-eaterights or duties forother States except on the

basis of corrserrt:"the objective regirne resulted rather from the cxecutio1.r
of the treaty a~rd the graftirig upon rIie treaty of a11 i~rter~iationaI
c~stom".3~I Similai-ly, the ILC iri its work on çtate succession with
respect to tseaties deaIt with territorial treaties i~ra rregative way,

emphasising rhat it isthe execurionof the treaty iriaccordance with its

RY Jcnnings."The Commonwealth and Srate Succession" in RRWilson (ed),
tirerirarionul uCorirjm-aizvc LaofilrCurrrrnorirvealDuke UniversiryPress,
Durham, 1968).27 at31.
339 SC-M.paras3.37-3.38.

341 IliCYLr k97412(1),45($30) InproposrngAri 12of ~he1978 Convenrion,theILC
adop~ed iresanieapproach.ibid,47($36).tei-mswhich may, in certain circumstances, haye a dispositive eIemen t.
As tlr1LC iroted~IIifsCorn~neritary: 1

"tlreie iiiustbe anacliineiitbothof the obligition and flieright ro
a parîicuIarrersiroryas such 1-atlitlianto tIiburde~redState as
such or to the beneficiarjr Stateas sucIl. inadding tlre wor-ds

'and consideied as attaching to territoj', tlie Corniiiissiorr
intended flotonIy to under1i11teliis poinbu! aIso to i~rdicatethe
reIeva11wof the dispwitive element, tlre ~stabIisIrrneirtof tl-re
regilneih~oughthe esrecutionofrheruea~~."?~'
i
This isrvlryA~?icIe12doeçriotatrributedisposiii\leeffect tothe treatyas

such;a successionof statesdoes not affect cerra/nobIigatioiisconsidered
as aitadiirig to territo~y,but ~reitlr-oes it giqe arry new or additionai
effect totreatyprovisions.
i
3.150.Foi-the pi-eseiitpurposes, tlie point is y:ite sirnply fliatflie'-joiiit
investn~enr"which rI~eparries 01-iginaIlyinteridecito ci-eater~rrdertIie

1977 Treaty vliasnever irnpIernented;the ~reàty ws Irever executed.
I~rstead,a disti~~crand r~niIater-aslclre~newas jmgIernented under soIe
SIovakcontra1and on what itfiasaIwayç proc~a~~ire tdbe a "te~iiporary"
a~-rdprovisiorralba~is.~~~Arrd yet tl-risis said t6 constitute an intangibIe
"regime"! I
I

3.151. Thiudly, even if the 1977 Treaty could :be interpseted aç 1iavi11g
been i~rtended to estabIiçk ari "objective" regil+, tlris wouId be strictIy
Iimited to the character and parameters of the Pryjectas mvisugcd by the
Tre~lyilseif: The manifestdifferences beiweeri the OriginaI Project and
Variant C Irave aIready beeir ernpI~asised.~* If the 1977 Treaty
constituted a bilateral "regime", therewas iio dom for any appianiiiiare

apgIicationofthat "regime" by one Party acting bni1atera11~.

(C) T~CI~ isnoruic ofg~neta! continuiiy in ihecase?fsuccession
tu bilaieral irearies i

3.152. FinaIIy, SIovakia relies on ArricIe:34(1) of the Vierlna
Conventiori of 1978 as estabIisIiing a ge~ier-aliule of succession ro
treaties irrthe case of disrnembei~ne~ro tr ~eparation.~~~TIie poi~rtIras
I

343 1
Butseeahove, paragraph2.90-2.93. !
Seeabove,paragraphs2.82-2.93.
345 SC-M,paras 3.05-3.243.40-3 1.5aIieady been deaIt witl~ in Hungary's Me~noriaI,~~~a11dorrIy a few
additio~ralcomrnei~tsare riecessaiy her-e.

3.153. ~here'has been a substantia1 pi-actice of assuri11gconti~lnity to
treaties by agree~ueritbetweerr succesçor States ancithird Srates. But this
practice has been consensua1 in itç kasis arid jiiits implernerrtatior-t Iri

particular, successor states in Eastern Europe Iiaveriot beerrabIe to as se^?
an unconditioria1righl tosircceed to treaties as against orhe1-States.

3.154. For- exampIe, the practice of rhe Conncil of Europe does not

suppo~r a genera1 1-nIe of succession ta treaties, even major multilateral
treaties. Afier considerat ion by its Cornrriitteeof LegaI Advisers>" tlie
ConnciI has requised successor States to accedeto its vai-ious

conventions. TIre Czeclr Ambassador to the Courici! of Europe has
co~n~-~re~lttheat:

?La règlede la successio~rauto~natique incorporéedans l'article
34, paragraph 1de la Convention de Vienne de 1978ne peut pas

etre é.valuée, compte te~rue de la pratique drr Conseil de
I'Europe, en tant qu'expression du droit international coutumier.
Celte pratique prouve par contre, que surrout en ce qui coIrcerne

les traitésau nombre restreintde Parties, ceIIes-ci considèrent la
disparition d'une autre Partie et Ies prétentions de ses
successeurs comme Urie réalité, qui cllange ffo~lda~rrentalemenr

les circonstances de l'application de ces traités,et qui active, par
corrséquent, la clause rebus sic stnntibus du droit des traités.
Les au tres Etats-Part ies doive11tréexarni~rerIa situatio~~,ce qui

rend iinpossibIe une succession

3.155. This is significant practice by one of the IWO ~nost i~np~riant
orgariisatio~rsfor tlrer-egi~ri.~~~A similar practice has been adoptedby

347 See CounciI of Europe. Comr~rit~eeof Mi~risfers,"Mcinora~idu~no~rCoii~rcilof
Eurcrpe Pract~cewith regard to Siate Buc~essio~ri~rihe Marier of Treaties",
Sliasbourg,1.January 1994;HM, Annexes. ~014,annex 178.As the Memorandum
poinrs out, tIie pi-acticcof the Coof Ministcrsin requ~rinaccession.evcnin
sirnpIilicd lorm, ~nvolvesa cIear rejectionfie"auromaiic succession" rheory:

Ihid.paras4.IO.
348 i MaIenovsky",La Successionau Co~rseide t'Europe7'irG Burdeau and B Stem
(eds),Dissoiii~ioii,Corriir~iilrSuccessioreriEtcroppde 1I'Esi(Mo~itclrrcstie~i.
Paris.1994).134 at141.

3'9 SC-M, para3.51 Ireais thCounciI of Europepractice as based011Art 34(2)(bof
thc Vicnna Cunvenrion; 1.e.it assertthat for CounciI of Europe rreaties "ihe
iippIication of rhe treinrespect of the successor Srnte woribe iiico~npzttibIe
with ilrobjecta13dpurpose of rhe trcaryor wouid radicaIIychangihecondilivns I
172 1

!
rlie otlrer such organisation, tlreEuwpea11 Communities. Despiteclaims
by bot11the Czeclr Reprrblic and SIovakia to sr~cceed to CzechosIovakia's

association agreemerir with the EC,3m tlrejEC r-equii-cdthar new
agreements be concIuded. IIIfact the neur agreemerits are substantialIy
iderrtica!to the Czechoslovak agreeInerrt they repIa~e.~~I

I
3.156. Even ruhen two States by exchange of Aores"co~-rfi~.~ in"force
treaties to which one of those States cIairns to have succeeded, tl~ereis

usuaIIy a Iarge Irreasüre of seIectivity,and the f-esrr~tarr in no way be
said tu be produced "auto~~iaticaIIy" or-by oope~tionof a 1-uIerequi,~ing
successio~~ to a11treaties irrespective of tlre wisl~esof the parties - sucIr a
I
rule as SIovakia irivokes irr the present case. This is impIied by
Slovakia's own piacfice ivitliHuiigaiy. ~rtachkd to itsAIo'oi ewbair of
15 Dece~nber- 1993 isa Iist of CzechosIovak trekties, with çtatemerrts of

position by SIovak 11i~rstries. Some are 76 be "resci~rded"; some
rnaiiitained in force, whetlier or iiot "invariabIy7'; some are to be
nrairrtairied"te~nporarily" in force; some al-eto be amended. One is said

to be"aIready invaIid". The ca~rdogr of the document is refreshing, arid
it r~flects the reaiilyof dozeris of negotiations whicli have occurred witl~
successot siates since 1989, the overall eff<ct of which has been

srrbstarrtially toalter pre-existing treaty patierqs. AI1of tl~iscaIIs for
negot iation on.a case-by-case basi~.~~~That isiwhat SIovakia proposed
I

foi iir operaiion". Burrhisno indiirtioii in~ouiicil of Europe docurncnlsof xiy
rel~anceon Art 34(21(b),and ihe wiIlingnesof ih~ Cou~rcilof EuropeIO alIow
accession io ihe treatiInquestron slrows tlierenosincompi1b11ily What the
CciuncilofEuropc hzs rcjected is automaiic succession, thc ruIeon wlricliSIovakra
rcl~cs I
350
EC-CzechosIovak Agreenrerrt of 16 December I9Y 1. This Agrce~ne~rthad nor
e~rteredinto foice arthe dofthe succession. i
3S1 See e.g.EC-SIouak RepubIic, Europe Agreement~russe~s4,Octobcr 1993:UJEC
No L 35911 (J3.12.94). Prea~nbr~lrara 3 recogn~stthe~rccessilyro concIude a
new agreement foIIowing rhe dissolr~~ionof Czechoïlo~akiri. Pro8embodies
an rigrcejaelrt tu succession with respec10 ccrtain sr~bsidiaryarrangements

co~rcerningtransit anland lranspoif infrnstnicture. The,EC's approach has been
said ta involve"rzne véritable novationdans les accords Iiani ces pays aIac
Com~nunnutéeuropéenne afin d'extraire de nouieaux rapprochemenls et de
norIveaux parte~rariats": G CIariana, "La Sirccessiodans les Communautés
Europécnncs"in Burdeau aiidStern, 127ar133. !

352 A goodexa~npleis the Exchange ofNoresbctwecn' Sweden and Slolrenraof 29
Aprill3 May 1993 (HR, A~rriexes,vol 3annex 951.;19 biIateral ireaw~rh thc
SFRY a1-c Iisted iirthe 1992 Swedish Trealy List: Regi~icj- uileiSverigges
iirfcr~i~fiu~ievel-eriskoirunelserd3iiDecc~uf?e1992 (StockhoI~n,1993)(HR.
A~i~iexes,ol 3, annex93 at pp 446-4471 The WU,-id Tmn~ Izzdrrr(1974) Iisls a
furthcr 8 SwedisIi-YugosIavbilaterd irearies. O;~ir-eof tliese 27 ireaires arc
çonlinucd bythe Exclrangeof Notes:Hcgislel(1993(jibid,ntp 448). Many orher

Instancesof disconlinuity could he giveForexarnb~c.Tanzarria's treaIy pmctice
afieriis union with Zanzibar was inconsisten: with iheaulornatIc co~rtmie:iIy
I 173

and Hungary a~ce~ted.353 Far fro1-11 the nier?u fixe with Iirnited
alrernatives r-equiredby ArricIe 34, State practice with bilateral rreaties

IrascIearlyproceeded orran à !acarie basis.

3.157. TIlere is an eIe~rrentof paradox in tire SIovak argument that

Ar?icie34(I) of the 1978 Vierr~iaConventio1.r IIOW reflects ge~re~+aI
international law. At tlretime it\vasconcIuded, Iroautltorityon tlre Iaw
of state succesçion regasdedthe 1978 Convention as anything but ail

exer-cise i11 "progressive develop111ent".35~The Badi~rterCo~ri~irsrsion
Iiaçadopted a simiIar-carrtiousapproachto it.355 Arrd yet itiç saidthat a

Converitiorrwhiclidid not codify i~rtei~ratio~iIa aIwarrlretime, which has
rrot errtered i11toforce, whidi is rvideIy regarded as an unsuccessfuI
exescise in internatioriaI Iaw-makingand which does rot coirespo~rdto

subsequent practice Irasso~rrelrowproduced a IrewruIe of international
Iaw. Plie co~rditio~lIsaid down by the Cour? in the Nor-thSuu Con~irrej~ral

Shelf cases3" for Iaw-rnaki~rgby mu11 iIaaral treaty Iravecer?ai~rlynor
been rnet i11the case of Article 34 of the 1978ViennaConvention.

see EE Scalo~rand ST Mal~ti,Tair~arriaTi-eutPraciice(OUP, London, 1973)56,
68. SimiIarIy Singapoie's practice aflcr ils separaion from MaIaysia: ILCYLrk

197012.102, 118;ILC Y'bk137 11212).111,145.
353 See HR, Anncxcs, vol 3,annex 96. SC-M. prtns 3.40-3.47 argues thai these
negoriario~isocciior1rlic basiof a"presumprion of succession". Wlietlicr 1101

[Irisis truit1sno1Ihe mie e~ru~iciarei~Ar1 34,which reqrzil-succession unless
botlr partics agree,or unless rhe 1iarrow1yfonnuIafçd cxccprion iArf 34(2)(b)
npplies. Accordi~rgroArt 34, a su~essor State hnsa irglrl tsuçcccd. cxccptin
cases covered byArt 34(2)Ib).As far ais known, rrealysuccessjon negoriatio~rsin
rcce~rtycars have nor proceede011tlie basis of c~rforccablcrights, but on the basis
of mutun1ngreerneiit Tlicpracticc01the IMF and EBRD isaIso i~rçoiisistciurith

the idenofa ~iglrto succeed, as distinfrom n case-by-caseairaIysiofthe nier~ts
of an applicaiio~isee PR Williains, "Starc Succession and ~he Interiratio~raI
Fi~rancialInst~lutrons: PoIirical Cri~vriProtection of Oursrandiny F~nanciaI
Obligatioiis"(1994), 43ICLQ 776.

35d ~his \vasrrue both wiiliin tlie ILC (e-g.,R Ago, ILC 197211,75) and outsrde ir
(e.g., DP O'ConneIl, "Rcfleçtions orhe S~areSuccession Coiiveiirio~(19791.39
ZniiflI~725).O'Co~i~re lwns pl-obaby rhc co1llernporaryaulhonr~~iosfavourabIe
to 11-ccontInuily,@ he advocated o~ilya flexibleyresuinplionof succcssiand
c~iticised~he 1978 Co~rueiilio~rfoiTsrigidiry; ibid. If thcre 1sa presumption of

îuccession to rreatiiis rcbuttcd rnthe presecasc,see HM,pan 1O.120.
355 SC-M,para 3.48 is criticaIof HM,para IO.14 forcilrng an vpinioofthe Badiii~er
Commissio~ico~rcersied \vitIlion-trcntmarten. Bur the passage ci~ed referred

generaIIyto"rhe few iveII-csrab11slprrnciplcs uî 1ntcrnaliona1Iaw applicabIe tu
StaIesuccession"and rhisreilccrsthe BatlinterCommission'scsislrrenr approacli.
336 ICJRep 1969,p6. (4)CONCLUSION I
!
3.155. For these reasons Slovakia did not auto~naticalIy succeed to the
1977 Ti-eaiy ail independence. Nor did it acquite rights ovei.the natural
resources or. enviro~rrnent of Hungary uridgr the Imv relatillg tû

"territorial seginres". TIie casis to be decided $1 the basis tRatrhe 1977
Treaty, even if it nray have beeri iforce bcfose 31 December I492, iç 110
longer iriforce. I

1

SECTION D: REMITUTION,REPA'RATION AND
COMPENSATION
!
3.159. On the basis of its ansvers to tlie tlir-eéquestions idelitifiein

A~ticIe2( 1) of the SpeciaI Ag~e~r~ent,tlre cour( is asked by ArticIe 32)
"to determine the IegaI consequences, incfudirig the rig11ts and
obIigations for the Pasfies". Both parties ~iow appear to agree tliat it is
nor for tlre Court at this srage to qua~rti% @y separatio~r due, or

co~nlieiisatio~rpayable, by eitliei- j>arty to rlre otlle~; rtordea1 witli
specific questio~rs of "rnodalitiesfor executirig Yitjudg~nent"; tlreçe are
i-eserved for a possibIe Iater phase of tlre Cise iriaccordance \vit11
Artide 5(2) of the SpeciaI I
i
I
3-160. AccordingIy, the foIIowing points need ;to be addressecl in tliis
Section: (1 1rhe IegaI grou~id foi SIovakia's i~rternational responçibility;
(2) the .extent of SIovakia's responçibiIity irithe appIicatioriof weII
esrabIisl~ediuIes on reparation; (3) the need fol tlreCorrrt to adapt the

classical criteria and means of vaIuation i~r,rireçpecial contexr of
ertvironmenta1 damage (4) tlie issues of an acc@rrnt i~rrespect of work
done and (5) of propel-tyrights arisinginrespect pf the Project.

I
(1)BABISFOR SLOVAKIA'S INTERNATIONALRESPONSIBILITY
I

3.151. Exarni~iirigthe IegaI conçequezicesof t11kconduct of the-parties,
SIovakia points ro tlre fact tlrat "[tlhe widely divergent views- of clle
Parties as to the IegaI corisequenceç of rIieir onduct stem Fmitl tlieir
totaIIy differentanalyses of eve~rtsand, in part-ular, tlreir opinions on

wheihel- SIovakia is a successor State irrrelationto the 1977 T1-eaty''.3~8
TIie prima~y season fo~.tlre divergencehas riotlriirgtdo witlr tlre laof
state succession; itis si~nply tlratHungary regards tlie 1977 Treaty as

357 SC-M, para12-25.Thar position seeIIO conlriidrctjthe SIovakMemori,Ihrch
produced unreal~s~iccsti~nataboiiaIlegedda~nagcs;SM. paras9.34-9.47For
crilicis~nof lhesefigu,eeHC-M.paras 7.17-7. :24.
!
338 SC-M, para 12.01.
iIravi~~gbeen terrninated wlrereas SIovakia CwIirch =!asnot ari origiria1
Party to chatTI-eaty)does not. IfisSlovukia which Iiasto reIyon the iaw

of sratesuccessiorr i1order to becornea pa~ryto the Treaty. Mor-eoverit
Ilas to do 50 in I-eIationto a Tr-eav rvhich, accordirrg to botIroriginal
pa~?ies,wrasv iotated,arid according to one origii~aIpaizy 11~3 errninated
as weII as repudiared, before Siovakia even came irrtu existence as a

State. Itstask i~rrl~isrespect is IIO leççdiffrcult for-the fact that it has
nevcs- for a ~nornent- si~rce1Janunry 1993acted i~iaccordance ivith
the Tseaty.

3.I62. Tliei-eis tIrusno grciund forquaIifyingas "acsobatic" Hn~~ga~y's
argrirne~rts with regal-d to the respo~rsibIiity of SIovakia for
CzechosIovakia's WI-o11gfu a1~ts.3~~ TI-roseissues asise in a cIear and
obviorrsway as soon as ifisco1rc1udectlratthe Treaty \vas r roinforce on
1June or 1Deceinber 1992,no Iessthariif tlredatefor the disappeai-ance

of the Treaty is decided to f~avebeen 1 Januav 1993. Again, Slovakia
substitutesepitlretfor argumerrt.

3.163. Hu~igaryhas aIready explained the basis on w1iicIrSIovakia is
i~-rtesna~ionaIrIyspo11sibIefor its breaclies of tlie Iaw, as weII as for

CzeclrosIovakia'siIIicit co~iductprior.to its disappeara~rceas a sovei-eign
State.360 Frorn I January 1993 onwar-ds, Slovakiaeffcctively eridorsed
Vaiia~~C t , now excIusiveiy Iocaredon its Rrrito~y. By its own action it
~naintaineda~rdaggravated the w~prrgful acts pseviously attributable to

CzechosIovakia. Tlrere is 110"acrobatie" eIerneritiirecaIIingtlre welI-
estabIislred pr.incip1e tI.ratther-e is in genei-a1 110 successio~r to
inter-nationalresporrsibiIity. The keyexception is where a successor
State, by its own coirduct, has acted in suc11a way as to assurae the

breaches of tlie Iaw co~rrmirtcdIiy its pr-edece~sor.3~~The fact that
SIovakia was Iievel-a prt12yto the 1977 Tieaty does rrot prejudice the
IegaI character of a situation in wi1ich tvr011gfu1acts, previousIy
committed i~rvioIationof the 1977 Tr-cary byCzechosIovakia,havebeen
adapkd and aggravated l-iySIovakia. When SIovakia became an

independeirtScate o1-r 1 January 1993, it sl~ouId have taken immediate
sreps to restore tlieDaI-rubeto itsorigi~ialcouIse and to rnitigate the
damage created by tireilIegaIdiversionof the river. Of course, itdid nat.

3.164. In fact, SIovakia Ira~.denedthe positiorr earIier adopted by

Czeclroslovakia,in pai?icuIar-by pe~sistentlyrefusi~rgto accept aridappIy
die tenlparaiy wates ~iranageme~irtegi~nepsoposed by the EC expert

359 SC-M,para 12.01.
HM, para8.11-8.21.

HM, para 1I.06-1.07.Gr0up.3~"This behaviour aggravates ~lovakia'kresponsibiIify and it is
within thejurisdictiorrof the Court to consides id353 Moreover SIovakia
is irnplementingthe second phasc of Variant C 110niake iteffectively a

permanent structure, further co~~solidatingthe daniage aridrisks creakd
to the Hungarianenvirorimena t~rdpapuIation.36f Thecurrentsituation
is thus chasacterised by tliecontinuity of rhe iIIic,itco~rductwiginati~igin

CzechosIovakia's br-eachof the applicable Iaw(which includes general
internatio~iaIIaivas weIIas tirepertinent treaties) and furîiiercarried into
effect by SIovakia. TIiere can be no doubt as io the I-espo~-rsibiIitf
Slovakia,and of its obligati tonniake reparatiob for the overaIIdanrage
caused taHungary by the operationof Variant C.:

3.155. In terms of repa~~itio~rt,lris case is bQrIia cIassicaI case of
internatiorra1resporisiba indiatye? case of rpljarationfoi tiançfrontier
damage caused ro the Iiurnan environmen!. TIris entaiIs two

co~nplen~e~itary sets of coIrsequences: -firsi,appIicatiorr of weII
eçtabIisIred international ruies of ~+epar-atiorsre;cond, adaptation of tlre
classical criteria aiid ineans of valuarioii of ;daiiiage fo îlie special
situation of environmenta1damage. a
!
I
(2) APPLLCATIONOF WELL-ESTABLISHEDRULESOF REPARATIONIN

THE FRAMEWORK OF STATE RESPONIIBILITY

3.I66. TIiis case, i~rolvirrgpredorninantIy issu& of State responsibiIity
foi-wro~rgful acts, ren~ainsone in wlrich the relevant rules of public .
international Iaw gover~iing the forms and coiifent of the irrterrraifonal
I
respo~rsibIiityof states ~nustbe appIied.TIiisIneins in particuIas thatthe
Court should: I

* $r.~isordei-the serritioii of the wrongful acr constituted by
the operatiorr of Variant C. It wouId rnake 110sense to
aIIocate reparation for actua! damageif t$e soui-ce'ofçucli
darrrageweie focoiitjiiueta beactive;3G5

* second, order the 1.esror.atioo1f tlie situation psevaiIi~rg
before tlie wrongdoing, accordi ng to the i-esiirurk in
iiltepwr~ r~le.~~~ III paarticular,thefull restor-atio~rf the

flow of watei in tlieDaiiube7smain cours! is of pnirii~ount

367
HM, para3.204-3.223HC-M, para2.107-2.117;se#R. wl 2,Appendrx 6.
363 HM, para2.03. !
364 I
HC-M, paras3.153.122:sccabove, paragraphs2.90-2.93,3.54-3.65.
365 HM. para8.37-8.38. 1
366 HM, para8.39-8.42. 1
I
i
I irnporta~icefor the su1.vivaIand restor-aiton of the Szigetkoz

region togedrerwitlt ifsaquifcr. Hungarystresses again tliat
neithei the interirn soltirion p~oposedby the EC {which it
\vas ready to accept on a strictly teniporary basis) rior the

water-discllarge set orrtin the Temporary Agl-eenlerrt of 19
ApriI 1995 provideaIrybasisorguida~rcefora finai solutioii
- reso1vi11tghe dispr~te;;~~ a~rd

* ihird, ordei i-eparationfor those detri~nenta~effects which

cannot be rernedied by the application of the restiiutio in
inregrurrtiule.

3.167. TIie appropriate repasation shouId cover çatisfaction foi rnoraI

darnage (inc1udinyIoss of amniitv) affecting Hungarian nationaIs witll
regard to the urrcertainly of their future co~iditio~~o sf Irealth and
!irrelihciod,for tlienisetveç and future gerresatians. This is without

psejndice to tlie satisfaction owd by Slovakia to Hungary as to
Slovakia vioIatiorrsof obIigatio~rswhich did or do not producernaterial
da mage. 76"

3.168. State respo11sibiIity for an internationa1wrong firrtfier i-equirea
guam~rtee of rrorr-repetitio~if the iIIiciact, a rrecessarycondition for the

defi~ritiveseriIen~sntof thedispute.3t9

3.109. In appIying the above-~neritiorted cIassica1categorisatioriof IegaI
consequences attached to SIovakia's inter~iatio~laI resporrsibiliiy, if is

suggested that the Court shouId take due consideration of the pariicuIar-
riatureof darnageand riçksaffecting the enviro~i~-~-re wrrti,ch, to datthe
Cauizhas not p1.eviousIy beenasked ta as ses^.^^^

367 Se, above.paragraphs2.101-2.105.

36s HM, para8.49-8.50.
G Arangio Ruiz. Second Rcpo~t oiiSrare Responsibiliiy, UN Doc AfCN.4/425
IluIy 1989)paras 185-188.

370 Cri~eriawere reccntiy adopledby rheUN Compensation Cornnrission:see (I992)
3 1ILM 1051.Underihc~ rrr~lcsp,ayiiie~ifinaybe avaiIableford~rectcnviwn~nen~al
da~nage.deplelionOSnalr1ra1rcsources, incIudImsec,or expenscsrcsuIting frain
prevenriof of en\,~runrncn!aI darnage, reasonabIe measures to resfore {lie
eriviro~i~ne~td reasonabIe rnoniloring and assessIneIi1.Other useful preccden1s
i~rcIudenilesand pracriceunder ~nlcrnat~onalcivil IirtbiIilymnven~iuris reInting

irrieraiirooit poilurio~r,traIisport.wIheeAntarctiand generaI e~ivironmcntal
dlimiigc.Sec P Saiids. Pr-i~icIpofI~IIC~~IQIIO Ei:Ufi.~l.o~~~ke~il(1995).
552-678,and rcfercnces.Accosdingly, to the extent rhe Court decides at tl-ris stage to consider
heads of damage in reIatiori ro [Irisdispure, ir sl-rould incIude the
traditiona1 heads of damage a~-rdin additio~~I-readsI-elatingtodanmg for

envirorrrnerital Ioss arrd depIetio~rof natu~.alresousces. With regard to
the latter it shouId takeas its starti~~gpoi~-rtthe Ireads of darnage recenrIy
set by the UN Cornperrsario~rCo~n~nission,w11icI1 draws upon appIicabIe

i11rernarionaIprecedents.

(4) ACCOUNT IN RESPECTOF WORK DUNE

3.173. Hungaryhas alrvays ~-r-raiiitai~-at tlre 1e1- nin na ifothe 1977

Treaty wor11drequii-e a11account of work done according to its tei-ins,
.%vitIr vietv to settIing that account as between the parties. SIovakia
seerns ta have difficuIties in assessi~rg the IegaI ground 011 wlricli

Hu~rga~yrnay have coaside1-edthis kind of "compensation", not in the
sense ofactuaI reparation foi-darnage created by aIry wrorigful act, brrtas
a consequence of clle segime of the 1977 Trea~.~'~ But tire position
taken by Hrrrigaiyis Iogicai arid cor~siçtent:~~~ ~iothaving been a party or

a successor to thisTreaty, SIovakia Iias Iroriglrt tosrrc1-rn account, eve1-r
orr tlre baçiof tlre ruieset out in AriicIe 70(bo )f the Vienna Co~rvention
of the Law of Pr-eaties. TIrat provision is sestricted to"IegaI situations of

tIie parries created thsough the executiorr of the treaty prior to its
terinination" a~id SIovakia *as never a Partyro the 1977Treaty.

3.1 74. Horveve~;Hungary Iias afsobeen prepared to accept, -as refiebted

in preambular paragraph 2 of tlre SpeciaI Agree~lrent, tl~atSIovakia is
"tl-resoIe successor State in respect of rigl~ts2nd obligatio~is relating to
the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Pr-~ject".~~~IIItliar respect, Hunga~yis ready

tu consider arr accourrt for tuork properIydone by both parties, excIuding
of course any work done to give effect to, or i~-rcorpo~ted irt,Varia~rtC,

dërlidesjriridiqii.leurr DaIi(BruyIanr. BruxeIles1490).145: CoIloque de Ia
Société Française poule D~oitdç I'EnvironncnicntLe do~nrlrageécologiqrten
droNirireriie.cwrirnr~~~uuri-corj~pui(Eco~io~nicri1,992);R PisiIIo-Mazzesclri,
"Forrns of I~rteriiarioIcsponsibiI~iforEnv~ronmeniaH I arm". iÇ Franc~oni
and T Scovazz~(eds), I~IICJ-iiuriuriResporisihilifor B~virurririeirlurtv
(GnIram and TrolnianlMaflinus Nijhoff1991). 15: A de RauIi~r,"L'épopée
judicrairede I'AmoroCadiz" (199311).Joursicrlde Droit brrer7iarl.rrc

37s Sec HM, para 1109. The Ienn "co~npe~rsnrio~r"shouId bc I-cseived for
rndemnifrcarionsaid hya stareiioroiia responsib~litybsutas arcsuIloa dr~ty
to compensale damage 1101c~catcdby wrongful arts; foinsrance,inthecase of
daniagedue 10the [enninatioofa trearon thegroundof necessiry.

376 HM, para 1I.IO.
377 HM, Annexcs, voI3,anncx 32.which was conceiveci, iinplemented and opera& iiibipacliof tire 1977
Treaty, of otIrei-applicabletreaties,and of geriei-AiIiiternationaIIa~.3~8

I
(5) PROPERTYRIGHTS

3.175. Slovakia coiisiders that tlie Couii wi11Ilrave"to determine the

respective ownersl-irp riglitsof the PaI-tiesin irsloileraIIconsider-atirfo
i-eiiiedies,taking iiitoaccourirthe actual investrniiirof tlie Paitiiisuch
propei-ties,the seIative perfor~nanceby the Pafiies in respect of such
propei-ties, the seIarive performa~~ceby the l~arties of theis treary

obIigatio~rs,and any riglitsof set-off or couriteI-~1airn."fl9In Hu~iga~y's
view, the deterrni~raiton of poperfy sig\ts (as distirrct from
compeii~ation~ da1-nages01.ai1accourit)does no!need aiiy considerarion
otlrer tl-rairupo~rthe basis provided by A~ricIe8 of tlre 1977 Ti-eaty,
con~paied IO the actuaI situation created afterlthe teunination of the
I
Treaty. Propex-ty rigIitsof the CzecIiosIovakState wiII Iravepassed to the
Slovak RepubIic, by operariorr of the ruIes df state succession with
respect to statepr-opei-ly,eflected in the secoiid'pseanrbu~aprar-agraphof
the SpeciaIAgreeme1ir.3~~
i
3.170. TtfoIIowsthat the onIy property issuesai'etl-rosewhich arise with
I
respect ta tlie DuriakiIitidam, the bypass cana1and the GabEikovoserieç
oflocks. They wese siibjectin psinciple to a re!!iinof joint ownership
unties A~ricIe8(1) of [IreTreaîy. Hungaiy's existing propeiry i+igIits i11
those i~rstalfationcannot have been affected by ikeii-iilicit rras partof
Vai-iarrtC. TIieissue of damages for the use of illesejoi11t1owried units

is no doubt subsume4 in rhe generaI c1ai1-1 f1r-darnages and an account,
which haçaIreadybee11 discussed. I
I
I
(6)CONCLUSION 1

3.177. Tliis disciissioii is iiot iiitendedto proIide ail exhaustive accoiint
of tl-reover-a1~~rnedialcontext. Many.of the :envisonnre~itaI damages
carrsed by the continued imp1emenrarionof V~I-iairt C wiII ai-iseo111y
progsessively. 'Themost effective procedure wbuId no doubt be for the

trvo pa1-iiesperiodicaIiy to revierv the state of!the eiiviroiirne~~itn the
concerned segioir witli a view to adopting and impIementi~igrlie best
rernediaI procedures. Tliis wuuId, 1roweve1-,requise a IeveI of

;
1

378 HM, para II.m.
379 SC-M, paraI2.IS.

380 HM, paralI.12-11.16.cooperation bervireenthe hwo~tates witlra vietvYO rlre protectioof the
environmelitthat isun for?uriately,far frornexistingat pses.jk'

SECTION E, SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS IN THTS

CHAPTER

3.178. Hn~rga~yrewrves its riglrtiridue course ro psesent furthel-
informationabout the deveIop~nerrotf tliesitrrationand the assess~nentof
damage totheenvii-orrrne~c~atused byVariantC.

3.179. Bywayof sum~na~y tbisClraptersliowstlrat:

1) Hungary was justified insuspendingaridsr~tsequent Iyaba~~doi~11g
rvoskun the Nagymaros Project and oii that part of the GabEikovo
Pi-ojectfor wlricIrwas ~.esponçibIe,ecause thiswas necessaryto
preverit impairment of aIr esse~rtial interest. Hu11ga1yis rio1
pl-ecfudedfronr invoking the doctrine of necessis either under

customary Iaw or rrr~de he 1977 Treaty (paragsaphs 3.07-3.14);
joirrt ascei-iainmentof rI~efactsjustifying the suspensiorrof woiks
was flot a necessaiy pre-conditio~r pi-ior-to çuch susperision
(paragraphs 3.153-20); ,and Hungary fuIfiI1ed the appIicabIe

requ irements for invoking necessily i~r relatiori to a11 tlri-ee
eIementsof the Project(par-agrapit3.2 1-3.38).

The irnpIen~entationof Variairt C was rr111awfuu Iiider-tlr1977
Treaiy, vther appIicabIe treaties, and generaI intemational law,
whether w not fie 1977 Treaty remained in force after May 1942
(parag~nphs 3.42-3.55). It is also unlawful because it caused (arrd
continues to cause} sig~rificanrdamage to the environ~~~eno tf

Hungary (paragraphs 3.55-3.57) a~rd violates the p~+i~rcipIoef
equitxbIeuse of transbaundaiy rratrrralresources(par-agraph3.58-
3.63). Ifs iIIegaIiS is aggravated by its permanent characrer
(pamgraapjis3.54-3.55 I)c.nnot bejustified as a counter-measrire
(pa~+agsaph 3.55-3.G7).

(3) The 1977 Treaiy is~ioIorigerin force. Irwas IawfuIIyterminated
by Hungary,and in any eve~rt was repudiated by Czechoslovakia,

at tire Iatesr by Octuber1992. ItwouId rot inariyevent have
survived thedissoIutioriof oneParty,Czechoslovakia,at tlieend of
1992.

(a) Hirngary was justified i~iieinlinaling the 1477 Treaty, in
pariicular, or1grou~rdsof ~rrarerialbreach occasion4 by the

j81 Noiwirhstmding rhe 1995MirigalionAgreement. wlrionIyIiinited aalrd

islikclyIirionIy averyIimi~eeffecseeabove,paragraphsIO 2.105. impIe~ne~rtatioonf Variant C (prag;aphs 3.71 -3.731,as we1I
as of fundamenta1change of cir+cui~startcew s hich rendered

tlte Or-igiiiai Pioject7s objectives triatrainable (pas~gsapiis
3.74-3.I13). 111additiorr, a number of other grounds for
ferminarion were availabIe: necesSiiy occasioried by the
impIernentation of Variant C (par.agrapIrs 3.114-3.118);
impossibi1ity of perfnr~riance'byause iits object had

pern~anentIydisappeared (paragsapifs 3.119-3.124); coriflict
with subsequent obIigations under &rieraI i~~ter~ratio~ ral
(pai-agi-apis .125-3.128).
i
(b) The 1977 Treaty was re~rudaied tiirouglr Czeclioslovakia's
irnpIernentationof VariantC (paragryphs3.129-1 .132).

(c) SIovakia did nof automaticaIIy sucieed to the 1977 Tr-eaîy
uiidestlieIawof stafesuc~ssion (pa;agraphs 3.133-3.158).

(4) SIovakia bear-si~rterriaitorraIresponsibilie forits bseaches of the
Iaw {contimredope~+atioo ~fr VariarrCl ?nd for CzechosIovakia's
i11icit coriduct before Decen~ber 1992 (by I-~tai~~tairiirair grd
aggravating tlrose ~vro~~gfrarclts) (paragraphs 3.161-3.165). Itis
subject ta the geiieraIobIigatio~rsof repafatiorr(paragraphs3.1 GS-

3.1091, havingregard aIso to thespecial féatu~+e present i~rrespect
of e11vi1-onmentd alnra'ge(par-agraplrs3.1I0-3.172).
I
(5) There çhould be ari account iri respect of work jiroperly and
IawfrrIIydo~reurider tfie Treaîy, but taking into account any
unIawfuI appropriation of eIernerits of 'tireProjecf (paragraphs
3.173-3.174). Detern~inationof prope& rigl~tsdeperrdzon the
1977Treaty itseIf(paragraphç 3.175-3-176).
!
i
IOn the basis of the evidence alid IegaI a~gu~nentpr-ese~rted irithe
Mernorial,Coufiter-Mernorial,and tlris RepIy,the RepubIicof Hungary

Fir.sr,that the RepubIic of Hnngary was enritIed to suspend atid
subsequerltIyabandon the works on the Nagymaros Project arid 011tlie

part of rlre Gabeikovo PI-uject for- wlrich the Treaîy attributed
responsibiliiyto the RepubIicof Hunga~y;

Second, thar rI~eCzech and SIovak FederaI Republic \vasrrotentitIed to
proceed to[lie"provisionaIsolririon"(damn~ing up ofrlreDanube at river
kiIo1net1.e1851.7 011 Czecl~osIovak territoiyalid resuIting consequences

on water and navigation course):

Thid, tliatby its DecIar-atio~rof 19 May 1992, Hunga~y vaIidIy
teiminated the Tseaty on clie Co11st1-uctioiai11d Operation of fI~e
GabEikovo-NagymarosBarrageSyste~nof 16Seprember 1477;

RegtresririheCour? lo adjudga enddecitrrt..fui?her

thatthe IegaIconsequencesof these findings and of tlreevide~rceand the
argumentspresented tothe Courrare as foIIows:

(1) that the Treaty of 16 Septe~nber 1977 Iras 11eveibeen ii~force
ber%veetnhe RepubIicof Hrr11gara yridtlreSlovak RepubIic;

(2) that tlre SIovak Republic l-iearreçpo~rsibilityto the RepubIic of
Hungary for n~aintainingin operation the "provisional solution"
referred toabove;

(3) that the SIovak RepubIic is inte1.11ationaII i-esponsible fol-the
da~rrage aiidIoss srrfferedby trie RepubIic of Hunga~yalid by its

nationals as aresrrlof tlie "provisio~inl solr~tioii";
(4) tlratthe SIovak RepubIicis urrdei-an obIigationro maker-epai-atiori
iiirespect of such damage and Ioss, theamountof suc11reparation,

if it ca~rriotbe agreedby the Parties within sixrnorltfrsof thedate
of theJudgen~antof tlieCourt, to be determilied by [theCourt;(a) ru return the wateis of tlie Da~irrbeio their course a1o1rgthe
international fsontier between the RkpubIicof Huriga1.yand

the SiovakRepublic,fhat istu sayth+inairi11avigabIe channel
as defined tr yppIicabIetreaties; 1
I
(b) to 1.esto1-he Da~tubeto the siruati611 itwas irr prior-tothe
puttingjnfo effect of theproviçionaI{o~utiun;and

(c) toprovideappropriate gunsanteesadiiist tlie~+epetitiorif tlie
damage arrdIoss srrfferedby the ReirrbIicof Hungasyand by
its riatio~iaIs. ILISTSOF ANNEXES 187

VOLUME 2

A,'SCIENTIFICREBUTTAL Page

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER2 THESCIENTIFICCREDIBILITYOFTHESLOV AK
CASE

2.1 Int~pductiori
2.2 Lackofscientificevidence

2.3 FaiIuretoproduce relevarçtudiesordata

2.4 tack of scicntific u~~derstanding
2.5 Distortioand III~SI-epresentatio~~

2.6 E~roneous data
2.7 ConcIusio~i

CHAPTER 3 RIVERMORPHOLOGY,FLOOD PROTECTION, ' 13
NAVIGATION

3.1 River rnorplioiogy
3.2 FIood Protecion

3.3 Navigation

CHAPTER 4. SURFACE AND GROWDWATER HYDRO1,OGY 29
4.1 I~it~'otiuctio~r 29

4.2 Surfacewater iydrology 29

4.3 Surface waterquaiity , 32
4.4 Gr+or~ndwater 36

4.5 CoI~natation 44

CHAPTER 5 WETLANDECOLOGY AND VEGETATION 47

5.1 TIreimpact oftheOriginal Pr-oject 47
5.2 Tlieimpactof~àriarit C 52 CHAPTER5 SOILS, AGRTCULTURE,.FURES~RY AND FISHERY 57
6.I SoiIs alrdagricultr~re I 57
I
6.2 Forest~y lI .. , . ‘. ; .63
6.3 Fishery 55

CHAPTER 7 ECOLOGICAL EVA LUATIONOF REMEDIAL 75
MEASURES . 1
7.1 Technical Clarificatiorof "Underwater Weiis" 75
I
7.2 River mo~.phoIoa arid FIuviaIIiabipts 80
7.3 Surfaceand grorr~~dwatehrydrolo& 8 1

7.4 WetIand EcoIogy a11dVegetation 1
7.5 Aquatic hahitatslfishe~y

7.5 Forestry

7.7 SuiIsand agriculture
I
I
CHAPTER 8 SEISMOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE
ENGINEERING i
8.I Surnrnaryof Hrrngaria~position - i 95

8.2 Pr-esentatioofnew data o~rgeology, tectonicsand 98
seismicity
8.3 Critiqueof the MaheP r-epo~? 1 IO2

8.4 Rebutta1 of SIovak asserîio~rs 103
I
B. APPENDICES I
1
Appendir; 1 I~rdexof Certain Wordsand Phrases in the Wungarian III
aiid Slovak Mernorialsand ~ouiiter{~ernorials

Appe~rdix2 Some Misrepresenratio~rsin theSIoYak Courrter- II5

Mernoria1 ' I

Appe-ndix3 COMECON and the "ldeoIogica1~kutra~i~" of the 125
Projcct !
I.

Appendix5 Some Major Da~n Disputes
I
i
Appendix6 TIreHistory of theDispute: 1989-1992 189

VOLUME 2: LISTOF COLOUR PLATES

Facigg
Page

PIate 3,la The Degradatio~r of theAba~~dorredMai11Darrube Bed

PIate3.1 b The BackwaterEffectof tlre TailracCanai

PIate 4.1 SiItatio~oftlreCurrovo Reçe~~voir

Plate 4.2 ChangrsinGroundwater Leverin 1893.

ScaIe 1:485,000

Piate 4.3\ Decrease inGroundwater Levelsbetween 1960 and
1990.ScaIe 1:485,000

PIate 5.la .New Vegetation Cover on the Abandoned Riverbed

PIafe5.1b Bank ofa SIovakSide-armIndicate the Lackof -FIoods

PIafe 5.2 VegetatioriPote~itiaofthe Szigerkoz (Pre-dam
Conditions}.ScaIe I:100,000

PIate 5.3 ExpectedVegetationPoGntiaIof the Szigetkiiz
(OriginalProject)ScaIe 1:100,000

PIate 5.4 Expected Vegetatiorr Pote~rtiof €IrSzigetkoz. Variant
C. ScaIe i:100,000

PIafe 6.1 Speciesof the Stigerkoz FIoodpIain Fo~~srs(Pre-dam
Co~iditions).Scaie :100,000

Plate 6.2 Forest Productionand AgricuIturaIMoisture Supplyin
the Szigetkoz.(Pre-dam Situation). ScaIe1100,000

Plate 5.3 Expected Forest Production ItlieSzigetkoz(Origina1
Project).ScaIe 1:i00,000

PIate 6.4 ExpectedForest Productionand AgriculturalMoisture
SuppIyirrthe Szigetkoz(Variant C). ScaIe 1:100,000

PIate 5.5 Benthic Eutrophicationin theDanube, 1994 i

VOLUME2: LIST OP COL~UR PLATESI

Faci~ig
Page

PIate7.1 SrriveyofRirei-bedMoi.pirology 1 \ 62

I
PIate 7.2 Effectof Side-armRechargeon ~ro~jndwater(Original 86
Projecl)ScaIe 1:175,000

Groundwater Deci-easedespireside-!iqinRecliargeaiid 86
"Underwater Weirs" (Original Project).ScaIe1:175,000
1
PIate 7.4 EfFectof Side-aiin Rechargeon ~m<ndiuatei- (Variarit 88
C).Scaie 1:175,000
j

PIate 7.5 Passage i~raSIovakCi.oss-dyke: no gIss for Fish 90

PIate8.1 EarthqrrakeEpiceirtresaird~qten~ia11 ) ctiveTectonic 95
Lines superimposed or1theDepth M?p of the Pse-
Ter?iaryBasei-~rent
4 i
Plate 8.2 Cornparisonof CrecliosIovakiaiiandl~un~arian 98
Tectonic-SrructrrralGeoIogicMaps I

i
PIate 8.3 The Riba-Hurbanovo Lirre I 98
I
I
! -

191

VOLUME 2: LISTOFFIGURES

Page

Leaf aseaof treesin the Szigetkoz before arrd afiethe 54
imple~nentatiofofVariaritC

Figure 6.1 Obse~yed soi1 ~noisture profiIes and associated 54
graundwater IeveIsat a r.epsesentative Iocatio(WeIl

No. 2530) intfreSzigetkoz,199 1-1994

Figure 6.2 64

Figure6.3 Catch of co~n~rzerciala~rdrecreatiunal fisIzeryin the 67
CzechoslovakDariubebetween 196 1 and 1979

Figure 6.4 Total catch of fishe~y irithe uppei-stretc11 of tlre 67
Hungasian Darrube (between Rajkaand Korniro~rr)fsom

1968 to 1987

Figure 7.1 Water leversaIong the Danube witlrdifferentweir and 79
i-echargescertarios

Figure7.2 Iiesults of engi~reerirlg geopl-rysical sorrrli~lgs 84
+ (penetratian tests)

Figure7.3 Additional field survey rrthe Szigetküz to investigate 85
the rreai--surfacegroundwater IeveIsand qualis

Figure 8.1 Deep seisrnic Iineirthe Szigetk6.z 39

Figure 8.2 Appar-errtdepth (tirne) section, iridicating the possibIe89
existence ofthe Danube tectonicmIre

Figure 8.3 Locationof the ParinonianBasiri 100

Figum 8.4 101

Figure 8.5 106 i
VOLUME3: ANNEXESI
I

Measurerne~rtsof Water Flow at BrpsIava (Devin) and
Rajka, and Discharge LeveIs into the Mosorri Danube,
1
Jariuary 1492to May 1995
Annex 2. P Moliiii; The Donirbe afrer the UiIieI'sion;AnAnuai
GeologicalSurvey, MAFIReport, Apqil1995

Annex 3. ~eier frornMailin Iaggito the Wlinist ofForeign Affairs
oftlieRepubIicof Hu~~garyi,ncIudingAppendices, April 5,
1495 I
1 .
Annex 4 H Nesernann a11d O Moog,, Quanrificarion of rhe
errvironn~enfnl~IJFQCIS qf the G/N Projeci.
'Forecnsrof rheeflccrson be~rrhicinlei-iebrarebascd on
an anulysisoftheAu.rrrianDumbe, Vienna, Apsi1 1995

A~inex 5. T Siin& and M Szab6, I~~~CICqIf'the G/N Prujec~ an
Yegei~Iionin theSzigerkoz 3udapea, ~arîh 1995
Annex6. . Z Somogyi, Ass&sw~eni ofihe iong-iernrchanga in ihe

producfiviv t?fof~esslrands inCheSzIgelk fhzf can be
expecled under dt#ere~rrwu~w reginresBudapest, Mar-cIr
1995 1
Four SIovakCase Studies SubiniRed Ito the International

Court of Justice on the Topic of ~ti1s and Soi1 Water,
Bratislava,1993 1
Annex 8. Dzuppa et aL, Geoyhysicai ResuIfi:ofrhe infernatiu~rul
DAlVREG Projecl, Gseelzo?, April 1904

Ailriex9. List of Epice~rtresof the HistoricaIEarthquakeç in [Ire
Regiori of the GabEikovo-Nagyrnaros Barrage Systen~,
wrnpiled byZ Szeidovitzsral., Apsi1995

Suinrnaiy Review of Ceirain ~tiidi4s Raising Coilîerns
ReIatedto theOsigiiiaPr-oject1977- 1:989
I VOLUME3: ANNEXES

CORRESPONDENCERETWELN THE PARTIES,

TI-iICJ,ANDTHE UN
Page
Annex 1i. Letter fro~nGyiji-gySzéilisi, Agent of rhe RepubIic of 173

Hungary befor~ tlre I~~ternationaICourt of Justice to
Edrrai-doVaIericia-Ospifia,Registrar of the Internatiorial
Court of Justice, 6 Septembei- 1994 [This docun~eirt
replacesHC-M, Ari~rexes,oI3,ariirex24.1

A~inex 12 Lemi- fram Gy6i.gy Szenssi, Agent of the Republic of 176
Hunga~ before the Internatiorial Court of Justice ro
Eduai-doVaIe~~cia-Osf piia, Registrar of the International

Courtof Justice,1Decernbei-1994
Annex 13. Letter fron~GyGrgy Szénasi,Age~rtof the RepubIic of 177

Hrrngarybefore the I~~terilationalCourt of Justice to Peter
Tomka, Agent of the SIovak RepubIic before tlie
Internatio~rI ou1'ofJustice, December 1994

Annex 14. Letter from Gy61-gySzé~tisi, Agent of the ReprrbIic of 178
Hungary before the TnRrnationaI Court of Justice to
Eduar-doVaIerrcia-Ospifia,Registrar of the Inteinational
Coui-of Justice1 Decem ber 1994

Annex 15. Lettei- freiGy61-gy Széniçi, Agent of the RepubIic of 179
Hungary befoi-e the Irrtei~raito11a1COUI?of Justice to

Eduasdo Valencia-Ospifia, Registrarof the Interr~atiorral
Cori1of Justice,1December 1994
Leiier~ITI Eduardo Valencia-Ospifia, Regiçrrar of rIie
Annex 16. 180
11rteriratioCouit of:Justice tu Gyorgy Szénisi, Agenof
the RepubIicof Hu~rga~y before the I1-rteri-raaourt of
Justice6 December 1994

Annex 17. Order of the Iriter~iatialourt of Justice establidri20 182
June 1995 as the fiIing date for-Replies in the Case
Concerning the GabCikoGo-Nagymaros Project, 20
Decenrber 1994

Anilex 18. Leifer frornGy6ig Szé~-rAsAi,gerit of tlre RepubIic of 184
Hungaly befose the InternatiorraI Couri of Justice to

Eduardo Valencia-Ospiria, Registi-ai-of the I~rternatiorral
Court ofJustice, 2Jaiiua~y1995 VOLUME 3: ANNEXES
DIPLUMATC IORKESPONDENG CO~, EKNMEN-I-
RESC~LUTICIN S,INUTE OF INIERGOVEKNMENTAL

MEETINGS P,UBLICs-TATEMENTS,ANDINTEKNAL
DOCUM ENIS

Page

Accorderitre IeGouvernement tIe IRépubiiqueFra~rçaise 223
et Ie ConseiI National Tchéco-SIovaqueconcernant Ie
Statut de la Natiori Tchéco-SIovaqr~e en France, 28
Septernbei1918

Airriex26. Le GénéralFranchet d'Esperey, Comma~idanten Chef des
Ar-mées AIliéesd'Orieritau GénéralHenrys, Comma~-rdarrt
I'Ar~néFerançaised'Orient13 Deceinber 198

AIIII~27. M CIemerrceau, P~+éside~drt Conseil,Ministre de la
Guerre au GénéralFranche? d'Esperey, Cornmarrda~lten
Chefdes ArméesAIIiéesd'Orierit,19Decemlrer 1918

Annex 28. Propositions et Obseniations du Gouver~iement
Tchécoslovaque concernant le Traitéde Ia Paix avec Ia

Hongrie (with A~inex2: La têtede pont de BratisIava},
1946

BritisIr Foreign Office: Notes on Propositions er'
Obse~varionii da Gouver~learenr Tchécos~or~uque
concerrwnfle Traitéde /a Paixnvec la Hongrie, 5 AprII
194G

Anilex 3 to Closing PI-otocoI of the Hungarian-
Czecl~osIovakNegotiatio~rsConcen-ringrheUtiIisatiori of
the Hydro-power of theDa11ube aIongthe Reach froin tlle
Morrth of tIie Morva to Visegrad, Budapest, 18 JuIy-2

Augusus1t952
Repoi-î of 1rnl.eHomith, Hungarian Ainbassador to

CzechosIovakia,~+egasdi~armeeting witli RudoIf S~rechaj,
Chai~~man of the Bodyof Represe~rtativei1Slovakia,29
July 1955

Me~r~orandurn on the Hungaria~l-Czeclioslovak
riegotiatio~rs co~rcernirigthuiIisatiori of tlie upper
Danube,27-28 September 1955 VOLUME3:ANNEXES I

Page
I
Annex 33. Work Program of tlre CornmitteeestahIished for eIectrica241
cncsgy exclia~ige between countries participati~~g in
COMECON and on The Drafr of [lieCornprehensive
UtiIisariorr of the Danube, wirh akached Mi~rutes,

Moscow,8-9 May 1956 1
Annex 34. LetrerfsonrV SiroS;, Prirne Ministe6f the Czechoslovak
RepubIic,to Jhos Kadar, Prime ~inister ofthe RepabIic
I
of Huiigaiy, II Decenrber 1957 !
Annex35. Proposalio the Coniniiiiee of €conoin!cs on tlie proyosals

to be made on behaIf of tlre ~ringarian party during
Hungarian-CzechosIovak governm{~it negoriario~is
concerning the joint hydroeIectric jutilisatiorof the
Danube, February 1958
i
Annex36. Repoiz arr the liydroelectsic utilisaii of~the joint
Hungarian-CzecliorlD ovaaubiese~tioii5JuIy 1958

Annex 37. Information Document for the ~olitich Cornmittee oftlre
HurigariarrSociaIisr WorkersPa19 &n the goverliment

co~nrnitteenegotiation,Prague5-7Oc-ber 1958
I
Annex 38. Letret:frontAntaIApr6,First Deputy ~rjirneMinisteof the
Hungarian Goveniment, to Cornrade ;Müri~rich,24 JUI-le
1959 !

Anrrex 39. Mirtutes of the co~~suitationof th& Ieaders of the
Hungarian-CzecliosIavak Expert Com*ittee deaIing witlr
the utiIisationof tDariube,22-23Janira~y 1950
I
Ari~rex40. Drafi Lcttehm A~itaApsO, Firsr~eiuty Pri~rreMinisrer
of tIie HungarianGover-~rrnet0 the CzechoçIovakDepuy
1
PrirneM inister30 ApriI1960
Annex 41. Letter fro171Irni-e Degen, ExecutivePirector of Water

Management, to AritalAp16, IIeputy: Clrairrnan of the
Hu~~gar-ianevoIrrtiorraryWorker-Peasant Government, 2
May 1960 !
I
I VOLUME 3: ANNEXES
D~PLOMAT C~CRRESPOWDENG CE,VERNMENT
RESOL.U-1-IO NSI,UTESOF INTERGOYERNMENTAL

MEE I'INGS,PUBLICSTATEMENT SND INTERNAL
DOCUMEM S ?

Page

Arrnéx42. Hurrgariari-CzecI~osIovna eg-iorinstconcerning 268
tlie hydroelectric power plansystetn on the Danube,
Moscow, 16November 1963

Annex43. Memorandumon the discussioii betweeriHungariariand 271
Czechoslovak experts concerning the identificatiand

mappiiig of seismic zones oiltheterritory othe joint
Danube barrage system,Bratislava,23-November 1965
Annex44. Joint decree 311974(VIII.16.) oftheNational Planiiing 273
Office and r11eMinister of Finance on Inveçtrnenr16

-Atrgust1974
Annex 45. Minutes of the Meetingof the Hurigarian-Czechoslovak-277
Sovier Consultations in the preparatioii for realisarion of
flie GabCikoi~o-Nagy~nar-Barrage Systent,16 Janrrary

1975
Ari~~e46. Letter from A Koççygin, Soviet Prime Minister, to 279

Lubomir StrougalCzechoslovak PriiiieMiniste23 March
1978

Aiinex47. Miiiutes of the consultation regardjntie GabEikovo- 280
NagymarosBarrage Systemconducted with Sovietexperts,
Budapest,7-22 February1980

Ailnex48. Report onthe meeting ofthePresidents of the Hungarian- 283
Czeclioslovak Cornr-~liffecfor Ecotiotiiic and TechtiicaI-
ScienrificCo-operatiori, Prague,30 Sepremb981I

Annex49. Journal of GeographicaI TrarrsactiPaper byJ Tbrh On 285
rheErruirovrnrct3ny~acisand JorrreEcologiccrlP~ob/ena
ro be e'uyecredinrelation ro rhe Gub2ikor~r)-A~fi~1~?u~os
Bn~~ngeSys;renr,983

Ahnex50. RudéPrivo, Auaria's uv~iïaiemfsolution: Thedangersof 286
the Huinburg hydroelec& prlmc ro rhe territo~y ofthe

Czechoslov SockiaIistRepublic,2Noveinber 984
Aniiex5 . Nove Slovo,The Search for theWoler Not Yet Los!, 18 288

February1988 VOLUME 3:ANNEXES

DIPLOMAT CIORKSPONDENCE,/GO~~EKNMENT
=SOLUTIONS, MINUTEO SF TNIEKGOVEKNMENTAL
MEETING PS,BLIC s-I-A,I-EI~ INIEER~N~ II.s,/AND

DOCUMEN'I-s i

Page
Annex 52. Lettei-Rom DI.Vladimir Sclienk, Czkchoslovak Acadeiny 292
of Scieilcesto Dr Grachov, Academy of Sciences of the
I
Soviet Uiiion,25 May 1988 i
A~rrrex53. Meiiiorandilinprepaied in accordanckiitpoiilt7/Aofrhe
G2nd Joint OperatioriaI Group 01; the i~~teniiediary

co~rsuItafion1teIdiBratislava5-7 De$e~-nbe1988
I
1989 I
Aide Memoire on the discr~ssiobetlerr LiszI8 Marorhy,
Hurigar-iarr Minisrer of -Environinent and Water
Management and Vladimir Maigetiii,:1Slovak M iiiisteof

Forestiy,Water Management aiid ~ogd Procesçing, 19-21
January 1989 !
Annex 55. Staternent of the HuligaiialiAcabeiiiy of Sciences

coiiceriiiithe Standpoint of the ~inisti~ Environment
Protection andWater Manageinei~t,8~Ircli 1989
An~rex56. Aide Mernoireon the irieeting oftoffice of tlie Couiicil

of M iniçrerAdvisorj,Board, 3 May 1489
AIIII~57. BI-iefoithe negotiatiorir conduçted b$ the Fissideiit of the
Cor~rrciofMinisters,Pragireand ~ienha, 7Jr~ne1989

'Annex 58. Repo1-rfor rlie Council of Ministers on tIie contintred
negofiaiionswirh Ladizfav Adaniec,lime Minisrerof the
CzechosIovakGoverriment, 24 JrrI1989
l
Pravda, Srdenient ofthe GovernrilenlofIhe Czechoslovak
Socialist Republic on the joint ~onslructicinof the
Gabc'ikovo-Na~maros Hydrueleci 1rlant, 31 October
1989 i

Annex60. Ptavda, Iiiterview with Ing dozef Obloiinsky:
Czechoslovnks ro Conrinue ~eliveiiesfor Gabc'ikovo
Hydroe/t.cri.icPowek-Plrrn,~overn bki-1989

I
i 4
!
u
I VOLUME 3: ANNEXES
DIPLOMATICCUKRESPO~~DENCE G,OVERNMENT

RESOLUTIONS, MmlUTES OFINI'ERGOVERNMENI~AI,
MErrrNGs, PUi31,IC5-I'A-~'EMEN TND, 1~1-ERNAL
DOCUMS N1-s

Page

Annex 61. Svet Socialismu, 111terview rvitfr Viktor Yopek:
DUPIUS~UP vUSsusB~-~~IIos~uP2 L~.a,uary 1980

Annex63. ResoIution No. 44 of Ille E~ivir-01r1rrent1dnWatrrraI
Proiection Cornmittee of tire SIovak NatiorralCounciI, 24
October 1990

Ari~re64. Interiratio11a1 Law A~raIysis of the Possibility of
I~npIementingtlie Gabeikovo Hydr-opower Plarit as a
CzechosIovakNational Iriveçt~~~e2ntOctober 1990

A~lnex65. Opiriio~rof the intertiatio~la!Law Corn~rrissionfor the
Study of AIter*iia ite Soiutio~rs foi the GabEikovo-

NagyrnarosBarrageSysteni, Prague,29 Novernber 1490
Annex 66. Report coricernirthe sofutiorrof pr.obIerelatedto the

GabC ikovo-Nagy ~nams BarragcSysteni,Deccrnber 1990
Summaryof Expert Opinionstaki~iga roleijustifying rhe
Annex 67.
GovernmentaI decisions (V.13.1989-X.31.1989)
conceirrirrgsuspensio~rofwosks and partialabandonment
of the Gabeikovo-NagyrnarosBarrage Systern, Decernber
1990

A11nex68. 111for.matiDocu~rlenrfor the Cabinet Meeting of rire
Govern~nent of tlie SIovak Regublic, Bratislava, 29

Decernber1990

Annex69. Naradna Obroda, A~lnuaf darrlagesamounl fo Ka 3.j

BilIion, 1Januaiy 1391
A~rrie70. Position of the SIovak EcoIogicaI and Environ~nerrtal

Co~nrnitteewitli respectto the rnethod of serecting arr
optiori for the expIoitatio~iof the GabCikovo Barrage
Syste1rr,5February 1991 - VOLUME 3: ANNEXES

DIPLCIMAT CICRRESPONDENC GEO,YERNMENT
RESUI,U-~IUNS M,li\iUTESOFIW'EKGOVEKNMENTAL
MEErl NGS, PU RLICSTATE~~ENTS,AND1NTERNAL
DOCUMEWTS

Page
Arinex 82. Lettes fsomJanCarnogussky, Prinre MirrisRof tIrSIovak 402

RepubIic, to Fere1-r~Mid, Hurigaria~rMi~~isterWirlrour
Po~~foIio,4 Novernbes 1991

Annex 83. ResoIution No. 794 of the Czech and SIovak FederaI
Republic, 12 Decernber.991

Annex 84 IIIformatiorr Docurne~~No. 239 for çnbinissio~i at tlie
v
meeting of the SIovak RegubIic National Asscmbly:
BratislavaJarruary1992

Deciar-atioby the Associatioof thecowns viIIagesof
the iitrij Ostrov corrcerning ihe coristructiorof tlie
GabEikovo Hydroelectric Power Plant,81February 1992

Natio1-ra1Accou~rtirrOffice, Repo~r on tlre decision-
making process for tire Gabfikovo-Nagyrnaips Barrage
System,March 1992

Informarion Document for the Slovak Repubric:essential
interstatnegotiatio~rand discussiorrof thegojlerl-rrnents
of tlreSlovak and Czech anciSIovak FecieraI RepubIic

during199i, 9 Aprii1992
An~rex88. Staridpoi~tf the Czec11arrd SIovak Federal Republic oIr

tire Fi~~isIiiogf tlie Co111rnon Gabçikovo-Nagyrnaros
PI-oject,13ApriI1992

Annex89. Letter frun GéizaJeszertszky, Hurrgar-ia11Mirristerof
ForeignAffairs,foFranz Andriessen,Vice President ofthe
EuropeariCornrnissio~r,17 April992

Anriex 90. Eurochain EcologicalCiviI Irritiatian,Overvieiv of tlre
Demanstrations and ofI-rer Moverne~~ts agairrst tlre
Continuafion of ConstructiorrWork w ih respect to the

GabEikovo HydrocIectricPowerPlant,May 1992
Aariex 91. Letrerfmm the WorId Bank to John Ho~iteIez,CIiai~~m~r

Frie~rdof theEa~rhI~~ternariona,8 May 1492 1

VOLUME 3: ,ANNI~XES
DIPLOMATICCORRESPONDENCE!, GOY ERNMEWT
1
RESOI,UTIONS, hdINUTESOF TNTERIOVERNMENTAI,
MEETMGSP ,UBLIC STATEMENT AS,D INTERNAL
DUCLIMENI3

! Page
i
Annex92. Lerter fioiii{lieEusopean Bank fo!Recoiisri-uctioiiaird 444
DeveIopirteiittoReflex Ertviroir~nerrt?Irptectior~bciely,
1
19May 1992 I

Aiiiiex94. Dlsit ÇpeciaI Agreement for kubiiiissioii to tlie 449
IntnnatioriaI Coui? of Justice of tire!Differei- cesbetweerr
the SIovak RepubIic and the R$pubIic of Hungav

concernin$ the GabEikovo-NagymarosPr1ject, I993
Annex95. Noie Ywbale from the ~inistr~ of (oreign Affairs ofthe 453

Kingrioniof Sweden tothe Ministry for ForeignAffairs of
tlreRepubIicof SIovenia,3 May 19931
Annex96. Nore Verbale aiid attaclied ~va1uaGoiiof tlie Positioiis 456

adopted by the Reçpecrive Slovak Ministries on LegaI
Srrccession i11 Respect of Agi-eeir-r{irConcIuded with
Hungary, 15 Novernber 1993, and cover Ietter of 15
December 1993 [TIis docu~nerrtre;laces HM, Airriexes,
voI 4, annex 128.1 I
I
Annex97. Letter from PabIo Benavi'des, ~irictor Generai of the 459
Eusopean Commission, to &nos Ma4onyi, State Secretaiy,

of the Miniçt~yof Foreign Affairslof the RepubIic of
Hu~rgary ,2 Deceinber 1943 I

Ariiien98. EiiviroGuide Slovakia,Miiiisrryof rije Enviiaiiinenrof the 471
SfovakRepublic,1994 ;

Aiirrex99. A'oie V~'ei.baeromthe Ministry for Foreign Afhirs of the 475
RepubIicof SIovenia to the Ministj;uf Foreign Affairçof
the Republicof Hungary,5January 1994
!
i i

i 203
i

VOLUME3:ANNEXES

DIPLCIMATICCOKRESPON DENCE, GOV ERNMENT
REsoLurrows M, INUTEO SF IE~~EKGUVERN~~ENTAL
MEETINGSP,UBLICSTAI-EMEWTS AND INTERNAI,

DOCUMENTS 1

Page

Aiinex 100. 17foieVerbale fr.011he Ministry of ForeignAffairs of tlre 477
Ki~rgdom of Swcden to the Mirristerof Foreign Affairs of
the CzechRepubric, 1June 1994

Annex 1 O 1. Roliricke Noviny, "Interview witlrIrig Dorni~rikKocinger, 450
SIovak Government Corn~nissiorrer forrhe Coristsuction
and Operation of the GabCikovoHydroeIectric PIanf", 29

Deccm ber 994

' Annex 102. Sti-ategiActior PIan for the Danube River Basin, 1995- 482

2005
A~t~rex103. Minutesof tlie negotiatiorrsbetween SIovakand Hurigariari 484

teciirrica1experts in relattonthewatei-suppIy tothe side
b~+a~icsbstem 011 tfrerigIrtside of rhe Danube, Bratislava,
18Jarruaiy1945

Arr~~e1x04. Nole Verbaie fiorn the Ministry of Foreign Affair-of the 485
RepubIic of Hungary to tire E~nbassy of tireSIovak
Republic,19ApriI 1995

Annex 105, Governme~~t ResoIution 2 O9II 995. (IV.2 1.) of tlie 487
RepubIic of Hrr~rgaryconcerning the irnpIementatioriof
. Par.Iiarnenta~ Resolutiori 3 1/1995 (111.24) and the -

modificatiorr of Governme~ifResoIutior~ 203011995 (11.8)
or1 the subject of ternpor-arywater InaI-ragernerof tlre
Szigetkoz,2 1ApriI 1495

Alinex 106. Noie Verbale fmm the Ministj, of For-eigAffairs of the 488
SIovak Repubric to the En~bassy of the RepubIic of
Hrr~lgary3, May I995. VOLUME 4: CHRONOL~GY OF
SIGNIFICANT €VENTS, 1988-1994

CIrro~ioiogof Sig1ifica11tEvents 1988

Chrcinoiogyof SignificanrEvents199 1

CIirorioIo@of Sig!rificantEvents January- June 1992
ChronoIogyof SignificantEventçJrrIy 1Decernber-1982

Cl~ronorogyof Sig~lificarrtEvents 1993

ChronoIogyof Significant EventçJa~iua~y- February1994
I

~kadén<aiNyornda. Budapest

Printed in Hungary f ..
em:

Mmfibiinmagnd

R