Gabcikovo- Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)

FACTS:

On September 16, 1977, Hungary and Slovakia entered into a treaty (1977 treaty) concerning among
others is the construction and operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros system of locks in which they
consider as a “joint investment”. However, as a result of the intense criticism in Hungary, the Hungarian
Government stopped its works, and so the Slovakian Government had to look for alternatives. Hungary
ultimately decided to end the Treaty by sending a notice to Slovakia. The latter then began its works on
the damming of the Danube river.

On July 2, 1993, the Governments of the Republic of Hungary and of the Slovakia Republic jointly
notified the Registry of the Court a Special Agreement, for the submission to the Court of certain issues
arising out of differences which had existed between Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic
regarding the implementation and the termination of the 1977 Treaty on the construction and operation
of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System and on the construction and operation of a “provisional
solution”.

In Article 2 of the Special Agreement, the Court was asked to say: (a) Whether the republic of Hungary
was entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon the works on the Nagymaros project and on the part
of the Gabcikovo project for which the Treaty attributed responsibility to the Republic of Hungary.

(b) Whether the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was entitled to proceed to the “provisional solution”
and to put into operation the damming up of the Danube River on Czechslovakia territory and the
resulting consequences for the water and navigation course

(c ) what were the legal effects of the termination of the Treaty by the Republic of Hungary.

Then in June 1995, the Agent of Slovakia requested the Court to visit the site of the Gabcikovo-
Nagymaros dam project on the Danube River for the purpose of obtaining evidence.

After the court rendered its judgment in 1997, Slovakia filed in the Registry of the Court a request for an
additional judgment in the case. Slovakia considered such judgment necessary because of the
unwillingness of Hungary to implement the judgment by the court on September 25, 1997. In its
request, Slovakia stated that the parties had conducted a series of negotiations of the modalities for
executing the said judgment and had already made a draft framework agreement which had been
approved by the Slovak Government. However, Hungary had decided to postpone its approval and had
even disavowed it when the new Hungarian Government had come into office.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Hungary is entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon the works on the Nagymaros
project and on the part of the Gabcikovo project for which it was responsible based on the 1977 treaty
with Slovakia
RULING:

No. The court held that Hungary was not entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon the works on
the Nagymaros project and on the part of the Gabcikovo project for which it was responsible.

The Court didn’t accept Hungary’s argument to the effect that in suspending and subsequently
abandoning the works for which it was still responsible at the Nagymaros project. It did not suspend the
application of the 1977 Treaty itself or then reject that treaty. The conduct of Hungary at that time can
only be interpreted as an expression of its unwillingness to comply with atleast some of the provisions of
the Treaty.

Further, it decided that Hungary and Slovakia must negotiate in good faith in the light of the prevailing
situation and must take all necessary measures to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the said
Treaty. With regard to damages, it ordered Hungary to compensate Slovakia for the damages it
sustained on the account of the suspension and abandonment by Hungary of works for which it was
responsible.

Lastly, it held that Hungary was not justified in ending the Treaty, and that its notice of termination had
no legal effect. On the other hand, Slovakia was also not justified in pursuing its alternative option.
However, although both parties failed to comply with their obligations in the treaty, this reciprocal
wrongful conduct did not bring the treaty to an end nor did it justify its termination. The court further
reiterated that Cooperative administration must be reestablished by the parties.

DOCTRINE: Even if a state of necessity is found to exist, it is not a ground for the termination of a
treaty but may only be invoked to exonerate from its responsibility a State which has failed to
implement a treaty.

Treaties are not ended by the failure of one, both or many parties to comply with their obligations in
the treaty.