Danube Dam Case
Facts: Facts: A treaty treaty betwee between n the Hungari Hungarian an People’ People’ss Republ Republic ic and the Czechos Czechoslov lovak ak Sociali Socialist st Republic regarding the Construction and peration o! "abciko#$agy%aros Syste% o! &ocks was concluded on Septe%ber '() '*++, -t was concluded !or the !acilitation o! the construction o! da%s on .anube River, -t was !or the broad utilization o! the natural resources o! the .anube between /ratislava and /udapest) representing two hundred o! the River’s total 0)1'( kilo%eters, kilo%eters, 2here was intense criticis% o! the construction at $agyra%os was due to the endanger%ent o! the environ%ent and uncertainty o! econo%ic sustainability, 2he growing opposition endangered political pressures upon the Hungarian "overn%ent, A!ter the initiation o! two protocols) concerned with the ti%ing o! construction) Hungary suspended works at $agyra%os on 3uly 0' '*1* pending !urther environ%ental studies, -n response) Czechoslovakia carried out unilateral %easures, Hungary then clai%ed the right to ter%inate the treaty and the dispute was sub%itted to the -C3, Hungary also clai%ed that it was entitle to ter%inate the treaty on the grounds that Czechoslovakia violated the Articles o! the 2reaty by carrying out unilateral %easures, Slovakia beca%e successor to Czechoslovakia to the treaty in '*++, n %ay '**0) Hungary %oved to ter%inate the treaty !or Czechoslovakia’s re!usal to suspend works during the process o! %ediation, Since there was no clause !or ter%ination in the treaty) Hungary presented 4 argu%ents !or its action: 5'6 state o! necessity) 506 supervening i%possibility o! per!or%ance) 576 !unda%ental change o! circu%stances) 586 %aterial breach) and 546 e%ergence o! new nor%s in -nternational &aw, Slovakia contested all argu%ents, -SS9: ;hether the ter%ination o! the 2reaty by Hungary is valid< H&.: $o, 5'6 2he -C3 easily dis%isse dis%issed d the !irst clai% by Hungary by si%ply stating stating that necessity necessity is not a valid ground !or ter%ination as even i! a state o! necessity is established) as soon as it ceases to e=ist) the treaty obligations auto%atically revive, 506 2he doctrine o! i%possibility i%possibility o! per!or%ance per!or%ance is encapsulated encapsulated in Art, (' o! the >ienna >ienna Convention on the &aw o! 2reaties) which re?uires the @per%anent disappearance or destruction o! an obect indispensable !or the e=ecution o! the treatyB, -n this case) the legal regi%e governing the proect did not cease to e=ist, 576 -n !unda%ental !unda%ental change o! circu%stance circu%stances) s) the Court held that although political political changes and di%inished di%inished econo%ic sustainabilit sustainability y and viability were relevant relevant to the conclusion conclusion o! the treaty) they were not so closely linked with the obect and purpose o! the '*++ 2reaty so as to constitute an essential basis o! te consent o! the Parties, $ew develop%ents in the e!!icacy o! environ%ental knowledge were not un!oreseen by the treaty and cannot be said to represent a !unda%ental change, 586 aterial aterial breach only occurred upon the diversion diversion o! .anube and Hungary’s Hungary’s purported purported ter%ination was pre%ature and thus invalid, (5) Hungary clai%ed that pursuant to new develop%ents in international law) the obligation not to cause inury and da%age to another state has beco%e an obligation erga o%nes, Slovakia countered that there has been no intervening develop%ents in international
environ%ental law that would give rise to us cogens that would supervene their treaty, 2he Court avoided consideration o! these propositions,
