János Vargha
Damming the Danube
John Fitzmaurice: Damming the Danube: Gabcikovo and Post-Communist Politics in Europe. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1996. 137 pp.
[...]
The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dam trial began on March 3 1997 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The trial will naturally generate considerable interest in Hungary and Slovakia. The signs are, however, that the decision of the ICJ will also be widely scrutinized outside these two directly affected countries. According to the American lawyer and geologist Gabriel Eckstein, "International Law as it pertains to shared natural resources is being put to the test in the present dispute between Hungary and Slovakia. Both countries have claims upon the transboundary water resources of the region and both contend that the other violated the rightful use of their resources. Notwithstanding the lack of precedent, the dispute offers a prime opportunity for the application of international water law to questions of the use and ownership of transboundary groundwater resources. It also presents an opportunity for the development of international water law and for the application of an integrated approach to the management and protection of shared water resources. Such an approach requires cooperation and effective administration of these finite resources. Consequently, the question remaining is whether international water law will meet the challenge of scientific knowledge and societal needs, or whether it will continue to lag behind the times." (Eckstein, G: Application of International Water Law to Transboundary Groundwater Resources, and the Slovak-Hungarian Dispute Over Gabcikovo-Nagymaros. Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Vol 16, p. 67.)
Similar importance is placed on the trial in The Hague by a document drawn up by nine Slovak, Hungarian and international environmental organizations in order to be presented to the International Court of Justice as an Amicus Curiae aide mémoire. According to the authors, "the significance of the issues now before this court cannot be overstated: the Court has never been faced with a case of this potential to shape multinational environmental rights and duties regarding shared natural resources (i.e. watersheds) and the human impacts of development. [...] As this case presents the first opportunity for the ICJ to clarify a state's obligation to protect the environment during the course of the development, use and allocation of a shared natural resource, the Courts' decision will have far-reaching implications for other regions of the world, in addition to those individuals and groups in the region. The decision will articulate environmental law that will have a permanent effect as well, guiding future developments in the field." (International Court of Justice, Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) NGO Memorial on Legal and Scientific Issues. Prepared by Slovak, Hungarian and International NGOs with Expertise in Environment and Development: Greenpeace, Slovakia; Human Right Advocates, U.S.A.; International Rivers Network, U.S.A.; Natural Heritage Institute, U.S.A.; Reflex Environmental Protection Society, Hungary; Sierra Club Legal Defense Club, U.S.A.; Slovak Rivers Network, Slovakia; SZOPK, Central Danube, Slovakia; WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature, Switzerland).
Some Slovak and Hungarian interest groups endeavour to cancel the case and encourage a deal between the two countries. These efforts contradict the Hungarian Parliament's decision to "confirm that the decision of the ICJ in The Hague concerning the case in front of them should be used to solve the legal dispute between Hungary and Slovakia instigated by the unilateral decision to divert the Danube." (25/1994. (IV.13) OGY decision)
If the case really is of such interest and importance, it is not immaterial which sources are used to gain information about the details of the international legal dispute between Hungary and Slovakia, the origins of the conflict, and its possible solutions. Clearly, only a few people have access to the documents submitted to the ICJ by both parties, and, apart from international lawyers and specialists in the field, most would probably have trouble finding their bearings in the thousands of pages of material. So what other sources are there? Slovakia is publishing propaganda trying to popularize its standpoint; material defending the diversion of the Danube and the completion of the dam according to the original plans can be found in every shape or form, from leaflets to the Internet. Hungary, it seems, is less industrious. Arguments supporting the official Hungarian position, as submitted to the ICJ, are more likely to be found in material published by environmental organizations or distributed on the Internet.
To my knowledge, there is only one readily accessible work presenting and attempting to compare the standpoints of the two parties and that is John Fitzmaurice's 1996 book Damming the Danube.
[...]
János Vargha,
a biologist, is a founding member of the Duna Circle, an environmental organization that received the "alternative Nobel Prize" in 1985.
