Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project brief

Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (ICJ—Hungary/Slovakia; 1997; p. 70)

• Treaty for damning/diversion of the Danube btwn Hungary and Czech.
• Hungary’s reasons for renouncing treaty:
  • Necessity Doctrine—claims new environmental troubles and the fall of the Soviet Bloc.
  • Fundamental Changes.
• Court rejected Hungary’s arguments. Political changes not so closely linked to treaty object as to render it radically altered.
• Can’t invoke impossibility where the impossible is created by the non-perf parties. See Vienna Convention Art. 61, p. 886.
• Fundamental Changes must have been unforeseen when the treaty was promulgated.
• Vienna Convention addresses when it is ok to breach a treaty.
• Czech also didn’t perform b/c it put into place a third plan for the region when Hungry didn’t perform.
• Hungary’s notification of terminating the treaty was not valid in terminating.
• Slovakia was party to the treaty as a successor state of Czech.
• Hungary and Slovakia must negotiate in good faith to achieve treaty objectives.
• Unless agreed on another way, Hungry must compensate Slovakia. Slovakia shall compensate Hungary.
• Res Sic Stantibus (Doctrine of Fundamental Change—Vienna Convention article 6, p. 886).
• How are treaties legally terminated?
  • Some have a clause.
  • Some have objectives, which, once completed, terminate the treaty.
  • Other treaties are renegotiated or mutually abandoned (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, e.g.)