Hungary presented opening arguments this morning, the first of five
days of submissions in the first major environmental case to come to the
World Court.

Opening the case on behalf of Hungary, Ambassador György Szenasi, Agent
of the Republic of Hungary and Head of the International Law Department at
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, summarized the background to the case and
indicated the structure of Hungary’s submissions over the next five days.
He expressed the hope that “the Court would indicate … the principles
and rules according to which the two countries would in future cooperate
on the waters of the Danube”, having described the breaches of law
resulting from Czechoslovakia’s unilateral diversion of the Danube in
October 1992.

Professor Laszlo Valki, Professor of International Law at Eotvos Lorand
University in Budapest, outlined the history of the dispute between
Hungary and Slovakia, including the circumstances of Czechoslovakia’s
unilateral diversion in October 1992. He said ” In October 1992
Czechoslovakia unilaterally diverted the Danube … onto its own
territory. Since that time only 10-20% of the flow has been released into
the natural river bed, whilst 80-90% of the water flow runs” into Slovakia
and the Gabcikovo plant, generating electricity.

Professor Alexandre C. Kiss from Strasbourg University summarized for
the Court the rules of international law which it should apply. Apart from
the 1977 Treaty between Hungary and Czechoslovakia relevant treaties
included the 1976 Boundary Waters Convention, the 1992 Convention on
Biological Diversity signed at the Rio Conference, and the rules of
international law governing the protection of the environment. Professor
Kiss reminded the Court of its Advisory Opinion of July 1996 concerning
the legality of the use of nuclear weapons, where it had held that the
obligation of States not to cause damage to the environment of its
neighbors was now part of the corpus of customary international law.

Professor Gabor Vida, Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
introduced Hungary’s presentations on science. The Court viewed a 20
minute video which explained and graphically illustrated the damage caused
to the Danube by Czechoslovakia’s unilateral diversion. Professor Vida
emphasized “the high quality and great quantity of drinking water
resources in the affected area” and explained that “the disruption of the
natural dynamics of the river … seriously threatens the exceptionally
rich, unique and irreplaceable floodplain system”.

Professor Roland Carbiener, Professor Emeritus of the University of
Strasbourg described for the Court the destructive impacts of similar dams
on other rivers, in particular the great threat to drinking water supplies
and biodiversity. In the context of the very large costs associated with
river restoration on the upper Rhine he noted that impacts may only reveal
themselves over the long term, one or two decades after the unilateral
diversion of October 1992. He called for urgent measures to “reanimate the
Danube pulse for the well-being of future inhabitants in Hungary and
Slovakia”.

Professor James Crawford, Professor of International Law the University
of Cambridge and Hungary’s principal international counsel, concluded the
first day’s arguments by summarizing the differences between Hungary and
Slovakia and addressing the function of the Court. He said that the Court
“…does have to decide whether there were serious scientific concerns on
issues affecting vital resources, and … whether Hungary’s concerns
crossed the appropriate threshold of seriousness”. In the first major
environmental dispute to come to the World Court it had to show that it
could “…deal with a complex dispute in a way which assists the parties
to cooperate as distinct from acting unilaterally”.

SECOND DAY (March 4, 1997)

On the second day of the Oral Pleadings before the International Court
of Justice in the Hague the legal counsel and scientists of the Hungarian
party dealt with the object and purpose of the Original Project of the
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System (GNBS), the risks and damages occurring
in connection with the operation of the barrage system, the expected
benefits from its operation and with the rules of international law
permitting the suspension and abandoning of the construction.

At the beginning of the Presentation, Boldizsár Nagy, Professor of the
Eötvös Loránd University Budapest, demonstrated that the 1977 Treaty had
two objectives, a political and an economic one: the political objective
was to strengthen the ties of friendship between the two countries and
their integration into COMECON whilst the economic objective was the
comprehensive utilization of the resources of the Danube. Prof. Nagy
highlighted that the planned barrage system needed to comply with the
evolving rules of international environmental law, both during its
construction as well as in its operation.

The scientific concerns arising in connection with the Original Project
were presented in detail by Dr. Klaus Kern consulting engineer, Karlsruhe,
and Prof. Howard Wheater, Professor of Hydrology at Imperial College,
London. They characterised the planned peak power mode operation of the
Original Project as unprecedented in Europe, and went on to demonstrate
the expected harm and risks. In his presentation, Prof. Wheater
demonstrated the great threat to the bank filtered wells of Szentendre
Island which supply the drinking water of Budapest, and he also
demonstrated the effects on the capacity of bank filtered wells upstream
of Nagymaros. Later Professor Wheater and Dr. Kern showed the wide scale
harm which would have been caused by the planned diversion of the Danube
at Dunakiliti and the consequent impacts of the deprivation of free
flowing water along a 30 km long section to the surface and ground water
resources of the Szigetköz region and to the unique and diverse flora and
fauna of the only inland delta in Europe.

Katherine Gorove, former visiting Professor of the Eötvös Loránd
University in Budapest enumerated the expected benefits of the barrage
system and demonstrated that both in the field of navigation and flood
protection alternative solutions were and presently are available. She
highlighted the serious threats to the barrage system of high seismic
exposure. As to energy production, Prof. Gorove called the attention of
the Court to the fact that the energy to be produced by the barrage system
would have covered only a fraction of the two countries present needs and
that there were numerous possibilities for its substitution by efficient
energy utilization or import.

Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of International Law at the University
Panthéon-Assis (Paris II), an experienced advocate before the Court,
demonstrated that Hungary acted legally when it suspended and subsequently
abandoned the works first at Nagymaros, then at Dunakiliti. He showed step
by step that all the circumstances were given for the invocation of the
international rules of necessity precluding the charges of wrongfulness.

THIRD DAY (March 5, 1997)

On the third day of the Oral Pleadings in the Case concerning the
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System (GNBS) the Hungarian party finished its
presentation on the 1977-Treaty and continued to present arguments on the
wrongfullness of Variant C.

The first speaker of the day was Prof. James Crawford, (Whewell)
Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge who
demonstrated that the suspension of the Nagymaros and Dunakiliti works
were entirely in accordance with the applicable rules of International
Law, especially those of the state of necessity.

Subsequently Prof. Boldizsár Nagy, Prof. of the Eötvös Loránd
University, Department of International Law, highlighted that Variant C,
both in its physical appearance as well as in the exercise of control over
it was basically different from the Original Project. He enumerated 12
major works, which form a part of it but have never appeared in the Joint
Construction Plan, and demonstrated that the benefits of Variant C are
enjoyed by Slovakia whilst the majority of damages occurring emerge in
Hungary.

In the morning, scientists also played a key role. Prof. Roland
Carbiener, Professor emeritus of the University of Strasbourg highlighted
with international references, that the results of human intervention on
this scale and of this nature reveal themselves only after years and
decades, when damage is irreversible. Dr. Klaus Kern, Consultant Engineer
of the Karlsruhe University extracted fish killings, the reduction of
living habitats, and the substitution of precious flood plain forests by
less varied forests from all of the negative effects of Variant C to flora
and fauna and to biodiversity. Prof Howard Wheater, Prof. of Hydrology at
London Imperial College gave a detailed explanation of why it is
inevitable that sediment, deposited at the bottom of the reservoir and the
hydrological conditions of the old riverbed (poorly provided with water)
lead to a deterioration of ground water quality and to the reduction of
quantity, as is already detectable after results already available. At the
end of his presentation he demonstrated by fact that the remedial
measures, suggested by Slovakia not only could not attain their purpose,
but would prove to be the source of other problems.

The last presentation of the day was given by Mr. Philippe Sands,
Reader in International Law of London University School of Oriental and
African Studies, who, referring to several Slovak sources clearly showed,
that the planning and construction of Variant C can be traced back to
1989. Concluding from this, as he stated, the Slovak argument, that
Czechoslovakia has started to construct Variant C only after the
abandonment of the works by the Hungarian Party in June, 1991, is without
any basis.

FOURTH DAY (March 6, 1997)

The fourth day of the oral presentation differed from the previous
ones. On this day the Hungarian Party has concentrated solely on the legal
arguments, having finished the presentation of its scientific argument the
previous day. First M. Alexandre Kiss, Director of Research, Centre
National de la recxherche Scientific demonstrated the wrongfullness of
Variant C. He highlighted, that its construction is incompatible with the
1977 GNBS Treaty, the bilateral boundary agreements and boundary river
agreements, or the obligations accepted i the field of fishery. There is
no article for excuse under the general rules of international customary
law, because its construction and operation seriously violates the law of
environment, and, and last but ot least the rule of taking precautionary
measures.

Prof. Pierre-Marie Dupuy completed the legal and scientific argument on
the unsustainability of Variant C. He demonstrated that the theory of
approximate application, used by the Slovak party as a defense argument is
unknown in international law, thus inadmissible before the Court.

After the coffee break, the Hungarian Party continued to the answer of
the third question, that of why the notification in May 1992, terminating
the 1977 Treaty, was justified. Professor László Valki, Prof. of the
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest put aside the Slovak argument, which
said, that Hungary violated a number of procedural rules during the
termination of the Treaty. He highlighted, that Hungary had, in due course
notified to Slovakia, that in the case of the continuation of the
construction of Varian C it would have no other choice but to declare the
termination of the Treaty. That was done in writing, explaining the
reasons of termination in detail all in accordance with the rules of
international law.

After the procedural questions Prof. Philippe Sands looked through the
rules in merit for the termination of the Treaty. He showed, that the
Hungarian arguments can even be used in a simultaneous way, amplifying
each other. In the sequence of this he observed the state of necessity,
impossibility and the question of fundamental change of circumstance.
Compiling the facts with the law he clearly showed, that Hungary has
properly invoked the three reasons justifying the termination of the
Treaty.

FIFTH DAY (March 7, 1997)

Philippe Sands the first speaker of the fith and closing day of the
First Round of the Oral Presentation of Hungary, continued on the
presentation of the reasons for the termination of the 1977 Treaty by
Hungary. He explained, that the doctrine of fundamental change of
circumstances can be applied in both political and in ecological
conditions. He strongly emphasized the breaches of Treaty committed by
Czechoslovakia, of which the construction of Variant C itself could have
justified the termination of the Treaty by Hungary. At the end of his
speech he showed, that the two countries are now bound by numerous new
international environmental agreements and customary law rules which are
incompatible with the 1977 Treaty.

Prof. James Crawford demonstrated, that Czechoslovakia by its own act –
i.e. first of all by the construction of Variant C – in essence repudiated
the application of the Treaty, independent of the fact, of whether the
arguments presented by Hungary in 1992 were well founded. He added, that
the dissolution of Czechoslovakia on December 31, 1992. would have
resulted in the termination of the Treaty if ever Hungary had never made a
declaration to that effect. Because under international customary law,
Slovakia is not a successor state for Czechoslovakia.

Prof. Pierre-Marie Dupuy dealt with the questions of compensation,
reparation, and restitution. Having considered, that the Parties do not
expect from the Court a decision going beyond the general rules of
responsibility, the Professor has not quantified Hungary’s claim for
compensation. However he pointed out that according to the rules of
international law, the country suffering damage can claim compensation and
restitution in integrum.

The presentation of Hungary was finished by a short speech from the
Agent of the Hungarian Party, Ambassador György Szénási. In his moderate
but straight forward speech he requested that the Court that it should
take a decision based on ecological and treaty-law reasons under which the
Parties could jointly find a detailed solution.

For additional information please contact Mr. Stuart Oldham Tel:
+31 070-345-0295 fax: + 31
070-3621582