Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case (1997) ICJ
justice held that:
Gabcikovo Nagymaros Dam Construction
Case
In 1977, Hungary and Czechoslovakia signed a
treaty to construct a dam.
In 1989, Hungary abandoned the project, but
Czechoslovakia continued construction work.
In May 1992, Hungary notified Czechoslovakia
that it was terminating the Treaty.
Five months later, Czechoslovakia diverted the
river's waters into a bypass canal which
caused environmental harm.
In January 1993, Slovakia became an
independent Country.
Hungary claimed that Czechoslovakia's
unilateral construction activities constituted a
material breach, and that the Treaty became
impossible to perform, because implementing it
would cause serious environmental harm.
Consequently, it argued that under the Vienna
Convention, an essential object of the Treaty
had been destroyed.
In addition, Hungary invoked the defense of
Necessity to justify its decision to abandon
construction work, and that Necessity is a
recognized defense to State responsibility.
Hungary also argued that it was entitled to
terminate the Treaty, as there had been a
fundamental change of circumstances since
the Treaty was concluded, as the Treaty's
obligations had been changed by the collapse
of communism, and the reduced economic
benefits linked with the project.
In September 1997, the International Court of
Slovakia, as successor to Czechoslovakia,
became a party to the Treaty from January
1993
That impossibility is not a valid ground to
terminate the Treaty, as Hungary's failure to
carry out the construction work compromised
the Treaty's performance, and that Hungary
could not use the Necessity's defense, as it
could not prove that its decision was made in
response to a situation of imminent danger to
the environment.
The Court also held that the collapse of
communism and the reduced economic
benefits, did not radically transform Hungary's
obligations, as the change of circumstance
must be fundamental and unforeseen,
And that Hungary did not act in good faith in
suspending the project as it was not entitled to
abandon it. However, Czechoslovakia was in
material breach when it diverted the river's
waters.
lastly, the ICJ held that Hungary and Slovakia
must negotiate in good faith to ensure the
achievements of the Treaty, and that unless
the Parties otherwise agree, a joint operation
regime must be established following the
Treaty; And that Hungary shall compensate
Slovakia for the damage resulted from its
abandonment of works, while Slovakia shall
pay Hungary for the damage it has sustained.