ARTICLE VIII
International Environmental Law (IEL) is concerned with the
attempt to control pollution and the depletion of natural
resources within a framework of sustainable development. It
is a branch of public international law - a body of law created
by states for states to govern problems that arise between
states.
IEL covers topics such as population, biodiversity, climate
change, ozone depletion, toxic and hazardous substances, air,
land, sea and transboundary water pollution, conservation of
marine resources, desertification, and nuclear damage.
International Environmental Commitments
Environmental commitment is any agreed-upon commitments
to avoid, minimize or compensate for a social, economic or
environmental impact.
As a principle of international treaty law, multilateral
environmental agreements, like any treaty, bind only those
States that have agreed to be bound by it. However,
multilateral environmental agreements can affect non-Parties,
for example by prohibiting or restricting trade by Parties with
non-Parties.
ARTICLE II
Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation,
and amity with all nations.
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign
policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount
consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest, and the right to self-
determination.
ARTICLE VII
Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all
the Members of the Senate.
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,
final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations
as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment
shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
Introduction
Mr. Maurice F. Strong, Secretary-General of the
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
(right), shows United Nations Secretary-General U Thant a
design for the official Conference poster. To the left is Mr.
Keith Johnson (Jamaica), Chairman of the Preparatory
Committee for the Conference.The Stockholm and Rio
Declarations are outputs of the first and second global
environmental conferences, respectively, namely the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm,
June 5-16, 1972, and the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro,
June 3-14, 1992. Other policy or legal instruments that
emerged from these conferences, such as the Action Plan for
the Human Environment at Stockholm and Agenda 21 at Rio,
are intimately linked to the two declarations, conceptually as
well as politically. However, the declarations, in their own
right, represent signal achievements. Adopted twenty years
apart, they undeniably represent major milestones in the
evolution of international environmental law, bracketing what
has been called the “modern era” of international
environmental law (Sand, pp. 33-35).
Stockholm represented a first taking stock of the
global human impact on the environment, an attempt at
forging a basic common outlook on how to address the
challenge of preserving and enhancing the human
environment. As a result, the Stockholm Declaration espouses
mostly broad environmental policy goals and objectives
rather than detailed normative positions. However, following
Stockholm, global awareness of environmental issues
increased dramatically, as did international environmental
law-making proper. At the same time, the focus of
international environmental activism progressively expanded
beyond transboundary and global commons issues to media-
specific and cross-sectoral regulation and the synthesizing of
economic and development considerations in environmental
decision-making. By the time of the Rio Conference,
therefore, the task for the international community became
one of systematizing and restating existing normative
expectations regarding the environment, as well as of boldly
positing the legal and political underpinnings of sustainable
development. In this vein, UNCED was expected to craft an
“Earth Charter”, a solemn declaration on legal rights and
obligations bearing on environment and development, in the
mold of the United Nations General Assembly’s 1982 World
Charter for Nature (General Assembly resolution 37/7).
Although the compromise text that emerged at Rio was not
the lofty document originally envisaged, the Rio Declaration,
which reaffirms and builds upon the Stockholm Declaration,
has nevertheless proved to be a major environmental legal
landmark.
Stockholm Declaration
Principle 21 States have, in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations and the principles of international law, the
sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to
their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to
ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do
not cause damage to the environment of other States or of
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
Rio Declaration
PRINCIPLE 2 States have, in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations and the principles of international law, the
sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to
their own environmental and developmental policies, and the
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction
or control do not cause damage to the environment of other
States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
Intergenerational Equity:
It signifies the rights and interests of the present and future
generation regarding the renewable and non renewable
resources of earth. Many contemporary international
instruments deals with the use of the resources available and
to make them available for future generation. Peoples have
recognized the value and importance of the resources
available and what may happened in future if the resources
will not be available. The concept of sustainable development
has been introduced which refers the use of resources should
be done in such a manner that those resources shall also be
available to meet the future needs. United Nation General
Assembly has defined sustainable development as the
development which meets the needs of the present without
compromising with the availability of resources to meet the
needs of the future generation.
Sustainable development provides not only man made wealth
but it also provides wealth made by nature. It also concern
about the quality of life of the human beings, man-made
wealth continues improvement of quality of life but it must be
supported by the natural wealth. Sustainable development
was introduced for the first time by the United Nations with a
view to accomplish three aspects of development, those are,
environmental protection, economic development and social
development, this is affirmed by the United Nation
Development Program. United Nation concentrating on
managing and protecting the natural resources for the
development of social and economical aspects, this is much
required to accomplish the goals of the concept of sustainable
development. One of the primary object of the concept of
intergenerational equity is the development of resources by
one generation enhance the opportunity of economic
sustainability for the future generation.
Intergenerational equity contains inter-temporal implications
in respect of the utilization of the resources, it tends to a fair
utilization of resources by human generations in past, present
and future, it tries to construct a balance of consumption of
resources by existing societies and the future generations.
Inter-temporal aspects tries to make a balance between the
distribution of resources and recycling of resources to a good
extend, which is a very concerning issue due to the growing
degradation of environment and depletion of resources. This
concept has been supported by the domestic laws, The
decision of the Supreme court of Philippines in the case of
Minors Oposa v Secretary of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, was that each generation has the
responsibility for future generations to preserve natural
resources for full enjoyment of the natural ecology. The
concept of intergenerational equity promotes socio-economic
development and it makes a bridge between social and
economic development with environmental protection.
The development of sustainable development as a customary
international law is also has been described by the Vice
President of ICJ, in Gabeikovo-Nagvmaros Project, they
claimed that sustainable development is not a concept, it is
far ahead of that, as it has become the modern customary
international law.
3rd principal of Rio declaration mentioned about the concept
of intergenerational equity, it was stated that development
must be done in such a manner, as it equably meet the
environmental and developmental needs of the present as
well as the future generation. The main object of this
principal is that to make sure the rights of the future
generation upon the non-renewable resources, which might
be abused by the present generation. 15th Principal of the Rio
declaration has been documented as the most significant part
as to sustainable development; it states that as per the
capabilities of the states, precautionary steps should be taken
by the states to ensure the protection of the environment.
Any stride which may cause environmental degradation
should be neglected. In other words it can be said that the
legislation and the appropriate government is empowered to
prevent and attack the reasons of environmental degradation.
In the 16th Principal of the Rio declaration it is stated that the
National Powers should emphasis the promotion of the
internationalization of environmental cost and the use of
fiscal instrument, in principal, the polluter should be
responsible for the restoration of such pollution and the
polluter may be compelled to compensate for that
environmental degradation.
Intra-Generational Equity:
Intra-generational equity is different from intergenerational
equity. it deals with the equality among the same generations
as far as the utilization of resources are concern. It includes
fair utilization of global resources among the human beings of
the present generation. The concept of intra-generational
equity provides rights and duties to every person of a single
generation to use and take care of the renewable and non
renewable resources moderately among the members of the
generation. In a developing country like India the rule of intra-
generational equity is applicable to certain extend, as in this
kind of developing countries more resources are required for
development of the country and to ensure economic stability.
Industrialization is the key for the development of these
countries which requires more and more renewable and non
renewable resources, in that that the legislature must enact
strict environmental laws in relation to the implementation of
the rules specified in the doctrine of intra-generational equity,
and it must be firmly interpreted by the judiciary system of
the nation. The administration of every country must be very
conscious regarding the implementation of the rules framed
by the legislature in relation to the protection of environment
and the laws related to the execution of the rules in respect of
the intra-generational equity. The resources which are not
preserved for the future generation and are available for the
current generation must be equally distributed among all the
members of the present generation. To a certain extend it
becomes very difficult regulate those resources among all the
members of the generation due to national territories,
international provinces, condition of the international society
and many more, but it may be done impliedly, globalization
can make things better and easier for proper implementation
of the doctrine.
Intergenerational equity and intra-generational equity both
requires sustainability. Proper distribution of renewable and
non-renewable resources is the key of the concept of
sustainable development. Where intergenerational equity
tries to distribute among present and future generation; intra-
generational equity deals with the distribution of resources
between the members of the same generation. Due to the
lack of proper execution of the doctrine of sustainable
development, the present environment of the entire earth is
in question, the rule of intergenerational equity and intra-
generational equity must be followed to save the world from
the present situation, global warming is one of the main
reasons for degradation of the environment, it not only harms
the environment of earth but also injures surviving ability of
the living creature
Sustainable Development
Is the development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. It is built on three
equally important pillars:
1. Social development - like access to medical care,
suitable housing, food and sanitation.
2. Environmental protection - like we all need clean air,
clean water, and land to live on that also is
productive enough to provide good quality food for
all
3. Economic development - like enabling people to
support themselves with a good standard of living.
Thus the goals of economic and social development
must be defined in terms of sustainability in all countries -
developed or developing, market-oriented or centrally
planned. Interpretations will vary, but must share certain
general features and must flow from a consensus on the basic
concept of sustainable development and on a broad strategic
framework for achieving it.
Obligation Not To Cause Transboundary Harm
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/7/4/36/pdf
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
1127rioprinciples.pdf
Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities
PRINCIPLE 7 States shall co-operate in a spirit of global
partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and
integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different
contributions to global environmental degradation, States
have common but differentiated responsibilities. The
developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they
bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development
in view of the pressures their societies place on the global
environment and of the technologies and financial resources
they command.
PRINCIPLE 15 In order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation.
PRINCIPLE 16 National authorities should endeavour to
promote the internalization of environmental costs and the
use of economic instruments, taking into account the
approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost
of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and
without distorting international trade and investment.
Basic Principles on the Right to the Environment
1. Sovereignty Over Natural Resources and the Obligation
Not to Cause Harm
Since the 1970s, state sovereignty over natural
resources is always read with the obligation not to cause
harm. Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, which is the
cornerstone of International Environmental Law, reflects
these principles:
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations and the principles of international
law, the sovereign right to exploit their own
resources pursuant to their own environmental
policies, and the responsibility to ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction or control do not
cause damage to the environment of other States or
of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
The sovereign right over natural resources includes
the right of the states to be free from external interference.
The exercise of state sovereignty, however, has its limits.
Principle 21 provides that the state has the responsibility not
to cause harm beyond the limits of its national jurisdiction.
The No-Harm Principle recognizes that a state’s activities may
be transboundary in nature and is also meant to balance the
sovereign principle of states and require them to take
responsibility for their actions which cause harm outside their
own territory.
2. Principle of Prevention
The Principle of Prevention aims to stop
environmental damage even before it occurs or when it is
critical and potential damage may already be irreversible.
The Principle of Prevention should be differentiated
from the Obligation Not to Cause Harm. The Obligation Not to
Cause Harm deals with the effects of a state’s activities
outside its own territory without regard to activities that
cause environmental harm within the state. The Principle of
Prevention encompasses environmental harm within a state’s
own territory.
In applying this principle, action should be taken at
an early stage to reduce pollution rather than wait for the
irreversible effects to occur. For instance, the discharge of
toxic substances in amounts which exceed the capacity that
the environment can handle must be halted in order to
ensure that no irreversible damage is inflicted. This is done to
prevent irreversible harm for it is better to stop the pollution
rather than commence efforts to clean the contaminated
areas later in the day.
One of the methods by which this principle is carried
out is through the issuance of permits or authorizations that
set out the conditions of administrative controls and criminal
penalties. Another application of this principle is the conduct
of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). In the
Philippines, the governing law in the conduct of an EIA is PD
No. 1586 entitled “Establishing An Environmental Impact
Statement System, Including Other Environmental
Management Related Measures and for Other Purposes.”153
The Principle of Prevention is based on the idea that
it is better to prevent than employ measures, after harm has
occurred, in order to restore the environment. This principle
has been expanded by a relatively new principle – the
Precautionary Principle.
3. Precautionary Principle
Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, commonly known
as the Precautionary Principle states:
In order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall be widely applied by
States according to their capabilities. Where there
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of
full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
This principle advocates that the potential harm
should be addressed even with minimal predictability at
hand. The Precautionary Principle requires a high degree of
prudence on the part of the stakeholders. Decision makers
are not only mandated to account for scientific uncertainty
but can also take positive action, e.g., restrict a product or
activity even when there is scientific uncertainty.
Under Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, the Precautionary Principle is adopted
as a rule of evidence. The Supreme Court’s adoption of the
Precautionary Principle in the newly promulgated Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases affords plaintiffs a better
chance of proving their cases where the risks of
environmental harm are not easy to prove.
4. Sustainable Development
Sustainable Development is the process of
developing land, cities, businesses, communities, and so forth
that “meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
The concept of Sustainable Development carries two key
concepts. First, is the existence of needs with particular focus
to the needs of the poor. Second, is that the environment has
limitations in meeting the needs of present and future
generations.
The Principle of Sustainable Development addresses
the need to reconcile issues of development and
environmental protection. It recognizes that development
requires economic exploitation to satisfy the needs of the
growing population while at the same time protecting the
environment for future generations. The concept of
sustainable development seeks to achieve exploitation of
resources while leaving the environment intact for the use of
future generations. Non-renewable resources must be used
as efficiently as possible. According to this principle, there
must be optimal management of natural resources.
The Principle of Sustainable Development is
embodied in the Philippine Agenda 21 which was formulated
as a response to the country’s commitments in the 1992 Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
5. Intergenerational Equity
The concept of Intergenerational Equity supports the
Principle of Sustainable Development with respect to holding
the natural resources in trust for future
generations.Nevertheless, this principle does not stop there.
Inter-generational Equity is defined as “each generation’s
responsibility to leave an inheritance of wealth no less than
what they themselves have inherited.”
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, the
Supreme Court had the occasion to discuss the concept of
Intergenerational Responsibility. The case was instituted by
minors along with their parents alleging that then Secretary
of Natural Resources Fulgencio Factoran acted with grave
abuse of discretion in issuing Timber License Agreements
(TLAs) to cover more areas. Respondents alleged that the
minors, who invoked the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology, had no valid cause of action. On the issue of
petitioner’s standing, the Honorable Court held that the
minors were entitled to sue on the basis of Inter-generational
Responsibility. The Supreme Court through Justice Davide
explained:
This case, however, has a special and novel element.
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their
generation as well as generations yet unborn. We
find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation and for
the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their
personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such
a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the
“rhythm and harmony of nature.” Nature means the
created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and
harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the
judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conservation of the country’s forest,
mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore
areas and other natural resources to the end that
their exploration, development and utilization be
equitably accessible to the present as well as future
generations. Needless to say, every generation has a
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm
and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced
and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minors’ assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the
protection of that right for the generations to come.
CASES:
Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada)
Citation. Arbitral Trib., 3 U.N. Rep. Int’l Arb. Awards 1905
(1941)
Brief Fact Summary. The United States (P) sought damages
from Canada by suing them to court and also prayed for an
injunction for air pollution in the state of Washington, by the
Trail Smelter, a Canadian corporation which is domiciled in
Canada (D).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The duty to protect other states
against harmful acts by individuals from within its jurisdiction
at all times is the responsibility of a state.
Facts:
The Tail Smelter located in British Columbia since
1906, was owned and operated by a Canadian corporation.
The resultant effect of from the sulfur dioxide from Trail
Smelter resulted in the damage of the state of Washington
between 1925 and 1937. This led to the United States (P) suit
against the Canada (D) with an injunction against further air
pollution by Trail Smelter.
Issue:
WON it is the responsibility of the State to protect to
protect other states against harmful acts by individuals from
within its jurisdiction at all times?
Held:
Yes. It is the responsibility of the State to protect
other states against harmful act by individuals from within its
jurisdiction at all times. No state has the right to use or permit
the use of the territory in a manner as to cause injury by
fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or
persons therein as stipulated under the United States (P) laws
and the principles of international law.
By looking at the facts contained in this case, the
arbitration held that Canada (D) is responsible in international
law for the conduct of the Trail Smelter Company. Hence, the
onus lies on the Canadian government (D) to see to it that
Trail Smelter’s conduct should be in line with the obligations
of Canada (D) as it has been confirmed by International law.
The Trail Smelter Company will therefore be required from
causing any damage through fumes as long as the present
conditions of air pollution exist in Washington. So, in
pursuant of the Article III of the convention existing between
the two nations, the indemnity for damages should be
determined by both governments. Finally, a regime or
measure of control shall be applied to the operations of the
smelter since it is probable in the opinion of the tribunal that
damage may occur in the future from the operations of the
smelter unless they are curtailed.
Discussion:
Responsibility for pollution of the sea or the
existence of a duty to desist from polluting the sea has never
been laid at the feet of any country by any international
tribunal. Although regulation of pollution is just commencing,
it must ensure that there is equilibrium against freedom of
the seas guaranteed under general and long established rules
of international law.
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)
Citation. 1997 I.C.J. 7, reprinted in 37 I.L.M. 162 (1998)
Brief Fact Summary. Hungary (P) claimed that Czechoslovakia
(D) violated the provisions of a treaty when it appropriated
the waters of the Danube River to construct a dam.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Watercourse states shall participate
in the use, development and protection of an international
watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner.
Facts:
In 1977, Hungary (P) and Czechoslovakia (D) signed a
Treaty for the construction of dams and other projects along
the Danube River that bordered both nations. Czechoslovakia
(D) began work on damming the river in its territory when
Hungary (P) stopped working on the project and negotiation
could not resolve the matter which led Hungary (P) to
terminate the Treaty. Hungary (P) based its action on the fact
that the damming of the river had been agreed to only on the
ground of a joint operation and sharing of benefits associated
with the project, to which Czechoslovakia (D) had unlawfully
unilaterally assumed control of a shared resource.
Issue:
Shall watercourse states participate in the use,
development and protection of an international watercourse
in an equitable and reasonable manner?
Held:
Yes. Watercourse states shall participate in the use,
development and protection of an international watercourse
in an equitable and reasonable manner. Hungary (P) was
deprived of its rights to an equitable and reasonable share of
the natural resources of the Danube by Czechoslovakia (D)
and also failed to respect the proportionality that is required
by international law. Cooperative administration must be
reestablished by the parties of what remains of the project.
Discussion:
The Court’s decision was that the joint regime must
be restored. In order to achieve most of the Treaty’s
objectives, common utilization of shared water resources was
necessary. Hence, the defendant was not authorized to
proceed without the plaintiff’s consent.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay)
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 4 May 2006, Argentina filed an Application
instituting proceedings against Uruguay concerning alleged
breaches by Uruguay of obligations incumbent upon it under
the Statute of the River Uruguay, a treaty signed by the two
States on 26 February 1975 (hereinafter “the 1975 Statute”)
for the purpose of establishing the joint machinery necessary
for the optimum and rational utilization of that part of the
river which constitutes their joint boundary. In its Application,
Argentina charged Uruguay with having unilaterally
authorized the construction of two pulp mills on the River
Uruguay without complying with the obligatory prior
notification and consultation procedures under the 1975
Statute. Argentina claimed that those mills posed a threat to
the river and its environment and were likely to impair the
quality of the river’s waters and to cause significant
transboundary damage to Argentina. As basis for the Court’s
jurisdiction, Argentina invoked the first paragraph of Article
60 of the 1975 Statute, which provides that any dispute
concerning the interpretation or application of that Statute
which cannot be settled by direct negotiations may be
submitted by either party to the Court.
Argentina’s Application was accompanied by a
request for the indication of provisional measures, whereby
Argentina asked that Uruguay be ordered to suspend the
authorizations for construction of the mills and all building
works pending a final decision by the Court ; to co-operate
with Argentina with a view to protecting and conserving the
aquatic environment of the River Uruguay ; and to refrain
from taking any further unilateral action with respect to the
construction of the two mills incompatible with the 1975
Statute, and from any other action which might aggravate the
dispute or render its settlement more difficult. Public hearings
on the request for the indication of provisional measures
were held on 8 and 9 June 2006. By an Order of 13 July 2006,
the Court found that the circumstances, as they then
presented themselves to it, were not such as to require the
exercise of its power under Article 41 of the Statute to
indicate provisional measures.
On 29 November 2006, Uruguay in turn submitted a
request for the indication of provisional measures on the
grounds that, from 20 November 2006, organized groups of
Argentine citizens had blockaded a “vital international bridge”
over the River Uruguay, that that action was causing it
considerable economic prejudice and that Argentina had
made no effort to end the blockade. At the end of its request,
Uruguay asked the Court to order Argentina to take “all
reasonable and appropriate steps . . . to prevent or end the
interruption of transit between Uruguay and Argentina,
including the blockading of bridges or roads between the two
States” ; to abstain “from any measure that might aggravate,
extend or make more difficult the settlement of this dispute” ;
and to abstain “from any other measure which might
prejudice the rights of Uruguay in dispute before the Court”.
Public hearings on the request for the indication of
provisional measures were held on 18 and 19 December
2006. By an Order of 23 January 2007, the Court found that
the circumstances, as they then presented themselves to it,
were not such as to require the exercise of its power under
Article 41 of the Statute.
proposed projects on the river. The Court concluded that, by
not informing CARU of the planned works before the issuing
of the initial environmental authorizations for each of the
mills and for the port terminal adjacent to the Orion (Botnia)
mill, and by failing to notify the plans to Argentina through
CARU, Uruguay had violated the 1975 Statute.
With respect to Argentina’s contention that the
industrial activities authorized by Uruguay had had, or would
have, an adverse impact on the quality of the waters of the
river and the area affected by it, and had caused significant
damage to the quality of the waters of the river and
significant transboundary damage to Argentina (the
substantive violations), the Court found, based on a detailed
examination of the Parties’ arguments, that there was “no
conclusive evidence in the record to show that Uruguay has
not acted with the requisite degree of due diligence or that
the discharges of effluent from the Orion (Botnia) mill have
had deleterious effects or caused harm to living resources or
to the quality of the water or the ecological balance of the
river since it started its operations in November 2007”.
Consequently, the Court concluded that Uruguay had
not breached substantive obligations under the Statute. In
addition to this finding, however, the Court emphasized that,
under the 1975 Statute, “[t]he Parties have a legal obligation .
. . to continue their co-operation through CARU and to enable
it to devise the necessary means to promote the equitable
utilization of the river, while protecting its environment”

Argentina filed its Memorial and Uruguay its

Counter-Memorial within the time-limits fixed by the Order of
13 July 2006. By an Order of 14 September 2007, the Court
authorized the submission of a Reply by Argentina and a
Rejoinder by Uruguay. Those pleadings were filed within the
prescribed time-limits.

Following public hearings held between 14

September 2009 and 2 October 2009, the Court delivered its
Judgment on 20 April 2010. With respect to Argentina’s
argument that projects had been authorized by Uruguay in
violation of the mechanism for prior notification and
consultation laid down by Articles 7 to 13 of the 1975 Statute
(the procedural violations), the Court noted that Uruguay had
not informed the Administrative Commission of the River
Uruguay of the projects as prescribed in the Statute. The
Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay —
commonly referred to by its Spanish acronym “CARU” — is a
body established under the Statute for the purpose of
monitoring the river, including assessing the impact of