Validity/Termination

Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (1997, Hungary/Slovakia)

Summary:
Regarding a treaty entered into by Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1977. The treaty
included a Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, to eliminate flooding, and provide
electric power. Czech became convinced Hungary would abandon the project (b/c
Hungarian gov't suspended work due to public protest over environmental
consequences), and came up with its own Variant C. Hungary then terminated the
1977 treaty with Czech. The Court stated that both sides breached their
obligation and that the 1977 Budapest Treaty is still valid.

Notes
• Hungary first denounced the treaty; then Czech stopped complying completely with
original plan, and starts implementing Variant C, their backup plan.
• If one country can show the other breached the agreement, they might be able to
recover damages. Both countries invested a lot of money here.
• ICJ - Is the treaty still valid? If not, when and how was the treaty
invalidated?
○ Hungary's arguments
§ Doctrine of necessity
□ What rule can Hungary invoke about these ecological concerns?
® Doctrine of necessity grounds for breaching the treaty
(now incorporated into Vienna convention)
□ Court says ecological concerns didn’t arise to an imminent
peril, so the breach was not warranted. There were other possibilities in
addressing this concern rather than breach.
§ Impossibility
□ the object of the treaty changed; the opportunity disappeared.
p. 77-78: the joint nature ceased to exist.
□ Court doesn’t accept this
□ Also argued that impossibility can be a temporary condition.
Can't denounce outright, the conditions may change
§ Fundamental change of circumstances:
□ Political change - Czech split up into 2 countries, affects the
feasibility of the project
□ Court says no - the changes have to affect the core of the
project. The changes presented did not change Hungary's ability to construct the
dam
§ Other international law
□ Czech breached
® Equally as bad as Czech, b/c Czech implemented variant C
® Court says that it may be a reason to terminate a treaty,
but Hungary denounced the treaty before Czech implemented variant C
® They also blamed Czech b/c they shouldn’t have
implemented Variant C
□ Environmental law
® Court says there were procedural mechanisms in the treaty
to make changes in the treaty w/o breach
○ Court says these are not broad loopholes to count yourself out of the
treaty. The defenses are very narrow. You cant just opt out of a treaty, the
treaty has provisions on dealing with these types of issues that may obstruct the
carrying out of duties under the treaty.