Case Analysis: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project and the Law of State Responsibility

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 609-623

  Lefeber, René ^a,b  

^a Ministry of Economic Affairs Netherlands   (Netherlands)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

countermeasures; Gab kovo Nagymaros case; law of state responsibility; law of treaties

Indexed keywords

EID: 84977953544     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156598000430     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. See The Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, not yet published. For an elaborate statement of facts, see J.G. Lammers, The Gabčikovo-Nagymaros case Seen in Particular From the Perspective oj the Law of International Watercourses and the Protection of the Environment, 11 LJIL 287, at 290-297 (1998).
2. See 32 ILM 1247 (1993).
3. M. Fitzmaurice, The Gabčikovo-Nagymaros case: The Law of Treaties, 11 LJIL 321 (1998)
4. J. Klabbers, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof The World Court, State Succession, and the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Case, 11 LJIL 345 (1998).
5. See, e.g. Case Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Counter Memorial of the Republic of Hungary, Vol. I, 201–207 (1994); and
6. Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Reply submitted by the Slovak Republic 85–100 (1995).
7. See also Rainbow Warrior II (New Zealand v. France), Arbitral Award, 82 ILR 499, at 548-551, paras. 73-75 (1990).
8. For doctrine, see G. Arangio-Ruiz, Third Report on State Responsibility, YILC 1991, Vol. II (Part One), at 13-14, paras. 33-35, and 22-25, paras. 69-83;
9. D. Bowett, Treaties and State Respunsibility, in Le droit international au service de la paix, de la justice et du developpement, Melanges M. Virally 137 (1991);
10. W. Riphagen, Fourth Report on the Content, Forms and Degrees of State Responsibility (Part 2 of the Draft Articles), YILC 1983, Vol. II (Part Om:), at 17, para. 93, and remark made in the ILC, YILC 1985, Vol. I, at 8G, para. 5;
11. L.A. Sicilianos, The Relationship Between Reprisals and Denunciation or Suspension of a Treaty, 4 EJIL 341 (1993); and
12. P. Sturma, Law of Treaties Reflected in State Responsibility Rules, 19 Thesaurus Acroasium 563 (1992).
13. See also W. Riphagen, Fourth Report on the Content, Forms and Degrees of State Responsibility (Part 2 of the Draft Articles), YILC 1983, Vol. II (Part One), at 17, para. 92.
14. see also R. Lefeber, Transboundary Environmental Interference and the Origin of State Liability 143 (1996).
15. Commentary to Draft Art. 58 of the 1966 ILC Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties, YILC 1966, Vol. 11 (Part Two), at 256, para. 3. II. See Commentary to Draft Art. 31 of the 1996 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, YILC 1979, Vol. 11 (Part Two), at 124-125, para. 10.
16. See, e.g. Case Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Memorial of the Republic of Hungary, Vol. I, at 58, 61, M, 72, and 267 (1991).
17. See also Commentary to Draft Art. 41 (Art. 6 of Part Two) of the 1996 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, YILC 1993, Vol. II (Part Two), at 57-58, para. 14.
18. The rejection of this argument was already predicted in this Journal by E. Hoenderkamp, The Danube: Damned or Dammed?, The Dispute Between Hungary and Slovakia Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project, 8 LJIL 287, at 294-296 (1995);
19. See Hungarian declaration concerning the termination of the treaty, 32 ILM 1259 (1993), at 1285-1288, para. 5;