Page 108 [108]
106 ATTILA PANOVICS
adopting common rules, the practical implementation of those rules is no less
problematic.
For this reason, it is crucial to have independent and impartial courts that can
ultimately decide when the rules are broken. However, the International Court of
Justice in The Hague can only act in a given case if the states concerned have
accepted its jurisdiction (e.g., by a declaration of submission or by concluding a
special agreement"). In the absence of such a declaration (ex officio), no case can
be brought before the IC] or any other dispute settlement forum at the international
level (Lamm 2005). However, even if there is a legal proceeding, the mere fact
that a judgment is delivered is no guarantee that the courts decision will actually
resolve the dispute. An example of this is the 1997 judgment of the International
Court of Justice in the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Dam Case, which has yet to be
enforced by the parties concerned (Slovakia and Hungary)...
In 1977, Hungary and Czechoslovakia concluded an agreement on the construction
of dam structures along the Danube river, consisting of an upper dam (Gab¢ikovo) and
a lower dam (Nagymaros). The agreement aimed to improve navigation, flood protection
and regional development, in addition to the production of electricity. According to
the technical design, the river would have been dammed at Dunakiliti, creating a
reservoir above it. From it, the service water canal would have branched out, with the
Gabéikovo dam on it. The Nagymaros water step would have been built as an energy
and hydraulic unit. By regulating the water flow, the hydropower plant would have
been able to adapt flexibly to energy demands (a process called ,,peaking”).
The controversy was triggered in 1978 by a People’s Inspection Commission inquiry
into the shortcomings of the plans. In 1983, the agreement was amended and the
completion date was postponed to 1990 for Gab£ikovo and 1994 for Nagymaros. In
the meantime, Czechoslovakia had completed the bulk of the work on their part. From
1984 onwards, the public became involved (e.g. via the Danube Group), and in 1989
the Hungarian government first suspended and then stopped the works at Nagymaros.
In 1991, the Czechoslovak authorities announced the continuation of the project under
the ‚temporary solution’, also known as , Variant C’, which involved both the unilateral
diversion of the river into a service canal and the creation of a smaller reservoir on
Czechoslovak territory.
As a result of the failed negotiations between the two countries, Hungary declared
the unilateral termination of the 1977 treaty, while Czechoslovakia started to divert
part of the river on its own territory (at Cunovo) by building a new dam. The dispute
was submitted to the International Court of Justice in the Hague, which issued a
controversial decision on 25 September 1997 (Hungary had no right to suspend and
later completely stop the works on the Nagymaros project and the part of the Gab¢ikovo
project that fell on it, while Czechoslovakia had the right to continue implementing
the „temporary solution” but had no right to put it into operation). The parties were
told to negotiate in good faith and take all necessary measures to ensure that the
objectives of the 1977 Treaty were achieved and a joint operating system established.
Substantive negotiations between experts from the two countries only started in 2005.
14
This is what happened, for example, in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dam Case, when the Republic
of Hungary and Slovakia concluded a special agreement in 1993 to refer the dispute between
them to the International Court of Justice.