Sunday, March 25, 2012

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.)

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...