Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)
Procedural History:
NATURE OF CASE: Proceeding before the International Court of Justice
Overview:
FACT SUMMARY: Hungary (D) claimed that changed circumstances made enforcement of a treaty with Slovakia (P) impossible.
FACTS: Hungary (D) and Slovakia (P) had agreed in 1977 to build and operate a system of locks along the Danube River comprising a dam, reservoir, hydroelectric power plant, and flood control improvements. This project was never completed and both countries underwent changes in their political and economic systems beginning in 1989. Hungary (D) first suspended and then abandoned its part of the works and later gave notice of termination of the treaty. In 1992, Hungary (D) and Slovakia (P) asked the l.C.J. to decide on the basis of international law whether Hungary (D) was entitled to suspend, and subsequently abandon, its part of the works, on the basis of the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
Issue:
ISSUE: Must a fundamental change of circumstances have been unforeseen and must the existence of the circumstances at the time of the treaty’s conclusion have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound?
Outcome:
HOLDING AND DECISION: [Judge not stated in casebook excerpt.] Yes. A fundamental change of circumstances must have been unforeseen and the existence of the circumstances at the time of the treaty’s conclusion must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound. Where the prevalent political and economic conditions were not so closely linked to the object and purpose of the treaty as to constitute an essential basis of the consent of the parties, there was no fundamental change of circumstances. The plea of fundamental change of circumstances may only be applied in exceptional cases.
Rule:
a fundamental change of circumstances must have been unforeseen and the existence of the circumstances at the time of the treaty’s conclusion must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound.
Analysis:
The Court relied on the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention may be seen as a codification of existing customary law on the subject of termination of a treaty on the basis of change in circumstances. New developments in environmental law were not completely unforeseen.
Procedural History:
NATURE OF CASE: Proceeding before the International Court of Justice
Overview:
FACT SUMMARY: Hungary (D) claimed that changed circumstances made enforcement of a treaty with Slovakia (P) impossible.
FACTS: Hungary (D) and Slovakia (P) had agreed in 1977 to build and operate a system of locks along the Danube River comprising a dam, reservoir, hydroelectric power plant, and flood control improvements. This project was never completed and both countries underwent changes in their political and economic systems beginning in 1989. Hungary (D) first suspended and then abandoned its part of the works and later gave notice of termination of the treaty. In 1992, Hungary (D) and Slovakia (P) asked the l.C.J. to decide on the basis of international law whether Hungary (D) was entitled to suspend, and subsequently abandon, its part of the works, on the basis of the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
Issue:
ISSUE: Must a fundamental change of circumstances have been unforeseen and must the existence of the circumstances at the time of the treaty’s conclusion have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound?
Outcome:
HOLDING AND DECISION: [Judge not stated in casebook excerpt.] Yes. A fundamental change of circumstances must have been unforeseen and the existence of the circumstances at the time of the treaty’s conclusion must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound. Where the prevalent political and economic conditions were not so closely linked to the object and purpose of the treaty as to constitute an essential basis of the consent of the parties, there was no fundamental change of circumstances. The plea of fundamental change of circumstances may only be applied in exceptional cases.
Rule:
a fundamental change of circumstances must have been unforeseen and the existence of the circumstances at the time of the treaty’s conclusion must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound.
Analysis:
The Court relied on the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention may be seen as a codification of existing customary law on the subject of termination of a treaty on the basis of change in circumstances. New developments in environmental law were not completely unforeseen.
No comments:
Post a Comment