Gabcikovo – Nagymaros Project (Hungary vs.

Slovakia) Judgment of 1997

Facts:-

In 1977, Hungary and Slovakia signed a treaty for the construction and operation of the
Gabcikovo – Nagymaros Barrage system, this treaty was signed for constructing dams and other
projects along the Danube River that was a border between both nations. After the agreement of
1977, the political and environmental position of both countries rapidly changed and in 1989
Hungary abandoned its work at Nagymaros project when scientists on both sides expressed fears
about the environmental consequences of risks because of constricting dams on the river Danube.
Slovakia kept working on the River Danube by its own effort in its territory but when Hungary
stopped working on the project, Slovakia tried to negotiate with Hungary to solve the problem
but none of the parties couldn’t find any solution, so Slovakia decided to proceed by its own
decision and wanted to develop its own solution for the environmental risks. In May 1992
Hungary terminated the treaty of 1977 by its own decision and by October Slovakia had
completed the closure of the river Danube.

Claims of the State parties:-

In its application Hungary based on its action claimed that -

i) The making of dams on the river had been agreed to only on the ground of a joint operation
and sharing of benefits, to which Slovakia had unlawfully unilaterally assumed control of a
shared resource.

ii) Slovakia also violated the provisions of the treaty when it tried to construct dams on the river
Danube in order to control the water flow of the river and through this act Slovakia deprived
Hungary from its right to an equitable share of the river water, according to the treaty of 1977
this was unlawful as because Danube river was a common natural resource for both of the States,
Slovakia cannot forcefully take control over the water flow of the river.
Issue:-
In this case the issue before the Court was, should watercourse states 1 participate in the use,
development and protection of an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable
manner or not ?

Judgment:-

The Court gave its decision in affirmative and held that, Slovakia had no right to put aside
Hungary and Slovakia cannot neglect the decision of Hungary while both of the parties agreed
on the terms of 1977 treaty. The Court also expressed that Hungary was deprived of its rights to
an equitable and reasonable share of the natural resources of the Danube River and both States
failed to respect proportionality of their relationship that is required by International Law as
Hungary did not have the right to suspend and terminate the 1977 treaty, which it did by its own
decision. The ICJ did not declare a victor in this case. Instead, the Court ruled that the parties had
to begin a new process of negotiations to determine how to implement the joint plan and achieve
the original objective of the treaty of 1977. Co-operative administration must be re-established
by the parties of what remains of the Nagymaros project.

Application of International Environmental Law Principals upon the Judgment:-

While giving the judgment of the case, ICJ followed some principals of International
Environmental Law which are the following,

i) Principal of Sustainable Development:

In paragraph 140 of the judgment, ICJ clearly mentioned that, the need of economic development
with the protection of environment is properly expressed in the concept of sustainable
development. The Court identified sustainable development as a concept and the judges
acknowledged that this new standard had substantial contemporary relevance. In the view of this
new standard the Court emphasized the need to reconcile economic development with protection
of environment.

ii) The Precautionary Principal:

1
States which are sharing rivers as their territorial boundaries known as watercourse states.
In this judgment there are references for the requirement of precautionary measures and it was
also clearly suggested by the Court that, environmental risks have to be assessed regularly.

iii) The Principal of Prevention:

ICJ held that Slovakia had no right to put into operation of the Gabcikovo power plant as
because it would cause irreversible character of damage to the environment of Danube River and
necessary preventive measures were required for limiting harm to the environment of the river
side area. According to the Treaty of 1977, the obligations to maintain the quality of the water of
Danube and to protect the nature around it were imposed on both the disputing State parties,
therefore ICJ had to prevent Slovakia from further construction of dams on the river Danube.

References:-

i) Hungarian Peoples Republic, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic: Treaty between the Hungarian
People's Republic and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic concerning the Construction and
Operation of the Gabèíkovo - Nagymaros System of Locks. URL:
http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk/doc/it1977en/treaty.html (21 February 2003)

ii) International Court of Justice: Case concerning the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project

(Hungary/Slovakia). Judgment. 25 September 1997. URL: http://www.icjcij.
org/icjwww/idocket/ihs/ihsjudgement/ihs_ijudgment_970925.html (16 January 2003)

ii) Special Agreement for Submission to the International Court of Justice of the Differences
between the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic concerning the Gabcikovo -
Nagymaros Project, 7 April 1993. URL: http://www.ace.hu/danube_dg/haga/english/e_spec.htm
(30 January 2003)

Submitted by:- Syed Quaiyum Reza Noor

ID:- 12209004
Course Code & Title: Law 346- International Environmental Law
Submitted to:- Ms. Sharowat Shamin