Background of the case: TheGabkovoNagymaros Damsis a large barrage project on the riverDanube. Danube is the second largest river in Europe. It was initiated by the Budapest Treaty of 16 September 1977 between theCzechoslovak Socialist Republicand thePeople's Republic of Hungary. The project aimed at preventing catastrophic floods, improving river navigability and producing clean electricity. Only a part of the project has been finished inSlovakia, under the nameGabkovo Dam, becauseHungary first suspended then tried to terminate the project due to environmental and economic concerns. Slovakia proceeded with an alternative solution, called "Variant C", which involved diverting the Danube, theborder river. These caused a still unresolved international dispute between Slovakia and Hungary. The joint HungarianCzechoslovak project was agreed upon on 16 September 1977 in the "Budapest Treaty". The treaty envisioned a cross-border barrage system between the towns ofGabkovo, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (now Slovak Republic) andNagymaros, People's Republic of Hungary Contd.. The plan was to divert part of the river into an artificial canal atDunakiliti(a village in Hungary) to the hydroelectric power plant near Gabkovo (eight turbines, 720MW). The canal would return the water into a deepened original riverbed and at Nagymaros a smaller dam and power-plant (158 MW) would be constructed. The plant in Gabkovo was to be a peak-power plant and the dam in Nagymaros, about 100km downstream, was to limit fluctuations of the water level. Because most of the construction was planned to occur in Slovak territory, the Hungarian government was obligated to participate in some construction in Slovakia, to ensure equal investment by both sides. Electricity produced was to be shared equally between the two countries. An important provision of the treaty was its Article 15.1, which stated: "the Contracting Parties shall ensure, by the means specified in the joint contractual plan, that the quality of the water in the Danube is not impaired as a result of the construction and operation of the System of Locks" Contd However, due to economic hardship, Hungary pressed for temporary abandonment of the barrage project in 1981. In October 1983 in Prague, the two parties came to an agreement on slowing down work on the project and postponing the inauguration of the power plants Simultaneously, Hungarian experts expressed their doubts about the project because they believed it might have detrimental effects on the environment. In early 1984, the Danube Circle was founded, a movement which acted on a semi-legal basis. It accumulated, summarized and intensified the criticism, in particular, of the Hungarian power plant near Nagymaros and gained the growing support of the public. Growing waves of protest finally led the Hungarian government to suspend work at Nagymaros in 1989. Because bilateral negotiations did not lead to a solution between the two states, Czechoslovakia decided to implement a new arrangement which redirected the Danube into a new canal towards Gabckovo ("Variant C") even ahead of Dunakiliti on Czechoslovakian territory near Cunovo. Contd.. The work on this variant started in 1991. This in turn resulted in the fact that Hungary terminated the treaty of 1977 in May 1992. That same year in October, Slovakia started river diversion according to Variant C, thereby extracting 90 per cent of the water from the old riverbed. As a consequence, the water level dropped two metres below its all-time low precipitating a massive international conflict. Main Legal Issues: The ICJ was asked to rule on several issues brought forth: Whether the Republic of Hungary was entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon, in 1989, the works on the Nagymaros Project and on the part of the Gabcikovo Project for which the Treaty attributed responsibility to the Republic of Hungary" Whether the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was entitled to proceed, in November 1991, to the 'provisional solution' and to put into operation from October 1992 this system What are the legal effects of the notification, on 19 May 1992, of the termination of the Treaty by the Republic of Hungary For the first time in the history of the ICJ, there was a sight visit done to assess current circumstances of the projects in the affected areas of a case. ICJ Ruling: Contd: Suspension and abandonment by Hungary, in 1989: In 1990, the new government of Hungary announced that the project was a mistake and that it could not be "obliged to fulfil a practically impossible task, namely to construct a barrage system on its own territory that would cause irreparable environmental damage. The Court did not accept Hungarys actions to abandon work at the designated locations by the 1977 Treaty as lawful. It views these actions as an unwillingness to comply with the binding responsibilities attributed to it in the 1977 Treaty and as actions that undermine and render impossible the fulfilment of the "single and indivisible" project agreed on. The Court ruled that Hungary did not meet the requirements needed to claim a state of necessity. It points out that at the time of claiming state necessity these circumstances were not present; these actions were ruled unlawful, and thus Hungary incurred State Responsibility. Contd.. Czechoslovakias implementation of the provisional solution or variant C: The Court has determined that Hungary was unlawful in abandoning its responsibilities. These actions made it impossible for Czechoslovakia to fulfil its duties according to the 1977 Treaty; it follows that Czechoslovakia was allowed to proceed with its solution, applying the principle of approximate application. It is noted that Czechoslovakia was the victim of an international wrongful act. Although this warrants its claims to mitigate damages, it does not justify the damming of the Danube, which The Court deems as an international wrongful act on the grounds of unilateral control of a shared resource. Otherwise put, Czechoslovakia was entitled to mitigate damages, but in 1992 was unlawful in proceeding with variant C. Contd Termination of the Treaty by the Republic of Hungary: With regards to the arguments presented by Hungary as grounds for termination of the 1977 Treaty, The Court ruled the following: even if a state necessity was to exist, it is not grounds for termination of a treaty in this case; there was no impossibility of performance as the treaty provided the necessary tools for renegotiation and readjustment to address Hungarys concerns. The political circumstances were not closely linked to the signing of the Treaty and are therefore not considered a fundamental change in circumstances. The Court found that with the above conclusions, it follows that Hungarys notice of termination did not have legal effect and the 1977 Treaty is still valid. The Court stated that unless the parties can further negotiate, Hungary is to pay reparations for the damages incurred to Czechoslovakia and Slovakia due to its abandonment of the System of Locks.