Case Analysis: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case: The Law of Treaties

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 321-344

  Fitzmaurice, Malgosia ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Gab kovo Nagymaros case; International Court of Justice; law of treaties

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650241845     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156598000247     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. (JabCikovo-Nagymaros J*roject (tIungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997 (not yet published). The full text of the Judgment is available on the Internet: http://www.ioj-cij.org/idoeket/ihs/ihsjudgement/ihsjudcontenthtml.
2. 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/27 (1969), reproduced in 8 ILM 679 (1969).
3. See, e.g., E. Hoenderkamp, The Danube: Damned or Dammed? The Dispute Between Hungary and Slovakia Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, S LJIL 287 (1995); G.M. iJer-risch, ne Danube Dam Dispute Under International Imw, 46 Austrian Journal of International Law 23! (1994); P.R. Williams, International Environmental Dispute Resolution: The Dispute Between Slovakia and Hungary Concerning Construction of the Gahcikovo and Nagymaros Dams, 19 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 1 (1994); C, Cepolka, The Dispute Over Gabcikovo-Nagymaros System of Locks Is Drawing to a Close, 20 Polish Yearbook of Interna-tional Law 64 (1991); and E. Robert, L'Affaire relative au project Gabcikovo-Nagymaros (Hongarie/Slovaquie). Un nouveau conflit en matiere d'emironment devant la Cour International de Justice?, XLVIl Studia Diplomatics 17 (1994)
4. Berrisch, The Danube: Damned or Dammed? The Dispute Between Hungary and Slovakia Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project note 3, at 233.
5. 1977 Treaty Between the Hungarian People's Republic and the Czechoslovak Socialist Repub-lic Concerning the Construction and Operation of the GabCikovo-Nagymaros System of Locks, signed in Budapest on 16 September 1977 (1977 Treaty), reproduced in 32 ILM 1247 (1993).
6. 1977 Agreement on Mutual Assistance, reproduced in 32ILM 1263 (1993).
7. GabiSIkovo-Nagymaros Project, 1977 Agreement on Mutual Assistance note 1, para. 20.
8. para. 135.
9. M, para. 138.
10. iO. para. 139.
11. n. 32ILM 1263 (1993).
12. Agreement on Mutual Assistance, iO. note 6.
13. ILM 1263 (1993).
14. Hungary informed Czechoslovakia on 24 May 1989 of the suspension. See Declaration of the Government of the Republic of Hungary on the Termination of the Treaty Concluded Between the People's Republic of Hungary and the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia on the Construction and Joined Operation of the Gabeikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System, reproduced in 32ILM 1260-1290 (1993).
15. 1993 Special Agreement Between the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic for Submission to the International Court of Justice of the Differences Between Them Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, reproduced in 32 ILM 1293 (1993).
16. Id., Art. 2(la). See Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, 1993 Special Agreement Between the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic for Submission to the International Court of Justice of the Differences Between Them Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project note 1, para. 2.
17. Id.
18. Id., Art. 2(lb) of the Special Agreement, Id. note 15.
19. See GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project, Art. note 1, para. 46.
20. 1969 Vienna Convention, GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project note 2.
21. See Gabiikovo-Nagymaros Project, note 1, para. 99.
22. W., para. 39.
23. Id., para. 100.
24. M, para. 47.
25. Joint Contractual Plan, signed on 6 May 1976, rcproduccd in 32 ILM 1248 (1993).
26. Gabti'kovo-Nagymaros case, Joint Contractual Plan note 1, para. 48.
27. E.g., K. Widdows, The Unilateral Denunciation of Treaties Containing No Denunciation Clauses, 35 BYIL 83 (1982); J. Garner & V. Jobst, The Unilateral Denunciation oj Treaties by One Party Because of Alleged Non-Performance by Another Party or Parties, 24 AJIL 569 (1935); S.E. Nahlik, The Grounds of Invalidity and Termination of Treaties, 65 AJIL 736 (1971); B. Simma, Termination and Suspension of Treaties: Two Recent Austrian Cases, 21 GYIL 74 (1979); and H. Briggs, Unilateral Denunciation of Treaties: The Vienna Convention and the International Court of Justice, 68 AJIL 51 (1974).
28. See F itzmaurice IF, The Unilateral Denunciation of Treaties Containing No Denunciation Clauses note 29, at 3 8.
29. See Waldock II, 0. See F itzmaurice IF note 2y, at 64
30. Id.
31. Id.,at 67.
32. Id.
33. Official Records of the General Assembly, 22nd Session, 18 October 1967, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.974, at 94-95
34. Lord McNair was of the view that “the normal basis of approach adopted in the United Kingdom and, it is believed, in most States, towards a treaty that it is intended lo be of perpetual duration and incapable of unilateral termination, unless, expressly, or by implication, it contains a right of a unilateral termination or some other provision tor its coming to an end, There Is nothing juridically impossible in the existence of a treaty creating obligations which are incapable of termination except by the agreement of all parties. Some existing British treaties have endured for nearly six centuries, and many for three”. See Lord McNair, The Law of Treaties 493-494 (1961)
35. Art. 56 of the 1969 Vienna Convention, Lord McNair was of the view that “the normal basis of approach adopted in the United Kingdom and, it is believed, in most States, towards a treaty that it is intended lo be of perpetual duration and incapable of unilateral termination, unless, expressly, or by implication, it contains a right of a unilateral termination or some other provision tor its coming to an end, There Is nothing juridically impossible in the existence of a treaty creating obligations which are incapable of termination except by the agreement of all parties. note 2.
36. Nahlik, Vienna Convention note 28, at 747.
37. M, at 752.
38. UabCmovo-Magymaros Project, iupra note 1, para. 92.
39. Nahlik, UabCmovo-Magymaros Project note 28, at 747.
40. Id.
41. Gabeikovo-Nagymaros Project, Id. note I, para. 102.
42. See Diplomatic Conference, Gabeikovo-Nagymaros Project note 3 7.
43. GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project, Diplomatic Conference note 1, para. 103.
44. Id.
45. See Diplomatic Conference, Id. noie 37.
46. Nahllk,Diplomatic Conference note 28, at 748.
47. Id.
48. Fisheries Jurisdiction, Id. note 51.
49. Gabiikovo-Nagymaros Project, Fisheries Jurisdiction note 1, para. 104.
50. M
51. See B. Simma, Reflections on Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and its Background in General MernaUoml Lmv, 20 Osterreichiscnes zeltschrift fur Offentlii;tii;s Recht 18 (1970).
52. 6!. See, e.g., Simma, id., at 83 and S. Rosenne, Breach of Treaty 7 (1955)
53. ILC Reports of the Comttiission to the General Assembly on its 18th Session, 1966 YILC, Vol. II (Fart I'wo), at255.
54. See Diplomatic Conference ILC Reports of the Comttiission to the General Assembly on its 18th Session note 37.
55. See Rosenne, Diplomatic Conference ILC Reports of the Comttiission to the General Assembly on its 18th Session note note 61, at 23; see also the same view expressed by M.M, Gomaa, Suspension or Termination of Treaties on Grounds of Breach i 83 (1996).
56. Gomaa, id., at 184.
57. ILCRcports, jMpranote62, at254.
58. South West Africa eases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; l.iberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 December 1962, 1962 ICJ Rep. 319, at331 and 330.
59. W., at 320.
60. Briggs, W. note 28, at 56.
61. Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v, Pakistan), Judgment of 18 August 1972, 48 1LR331 (1975).
62. Briggs, Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council note 2H, at 60-61.
63. Gabiikovo-Nagymaros Projcct, Briggs note 1, para. 106.
64. M, para. 107.
65. Id., para. 109.
66. M, para. 110.
67. Id., para. 67.
68. para. 7ii 68.
69. also 7ii Section 2,2.
70. 1976 Convention on the Regulation of Water Management Issues of Boundary Waters.
71. See GabSikovo-Nagyamaros Project, Convention on the Regulation of Water Management Issues of Boundary Waters. note 1, para. 71.
72. Admissibility ol Hearings ot fetitioners by the Committee on South Atrica, Jurisdiction, Judgment of 1 June 1956, 1956 ICJ Rep. 46 (Judge Lauterpacht, Separate Opinion).
73. W., at 53-54.
74. W., at 48.
75. Id., at 49. See also Kosenne, W. note 61, at 95-1U1.
76. Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on South Africa, Id. note Si, at 48-49.
77. Rosenne, Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on South Africa note 61, at 100.
78. GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project, Rosenne note 1, para. 76.
79. U, para. 78.
80. id.
81. id., para. 85.
82. W., para. 114.
83. Id.
84. Arf., para. 133.
85. Id.
86. inpra Section 4,3.
87. Gabiilcovo-Nagymaros Project, inpra Section note 1, para. 133.
88. Id., para. 142.
89. id
90. M. para. 138.
91. 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States With Rospcct to I'reaties, IM ILM 14SS (1978).
92. Due to the lack of space, this short essay unfortunately cannot deal with opinions expressed by individual Judges. These comprised two Declarations appended to the Judgment, namely, by the President Schwebel and Judge Rezek, and Dissenting Opinions ot the toilowing Judges: Bedjaoui, Oda, llerczegh, Vereshchetin, Ranjeva, Parra-Aranguren, Vice-President Weera-mantry, Fleishhauer, and Judge ad hoc SkubisMwski. Of the Dissenting (Opinions, those of Judge Fleishhauer and Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski contain interesting alternative views relating to a number of the issues of the Law of Treaties.
93. From the Key-note address by the President of the ICJ, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, entitled “The influence of the International Court of Justice on the work of the International Law Commission and the influence of the Commission on the work of the Court”, delivered at the United Nations Colloquium on Progressive Development and Codification of International Law to Commemorate the Fiftieth Anniversary of the International Law Commission, United Nations, New York, 28 October 1997.