Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)

Citation.

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

View this case and other resources at:

Citation. 1997 I.C.J. 7, reprinted in 37 I.L.M. 162 (1998)

Brief Fact Summary. Hungary (P) claimed that Czechoslovakia (D) violated the provisions of a treaty when it appropriated the waters of the Danube River to construct a dam.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Watercourse states shall participate in the use, development and protection of an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

A commentator noted in 1962 that, for the purposes of these borrowing statutes, the courts unanimously hold that a cause of action sounding in tort arises in the jurisdiction where the last act necessary to establish liability occurred; i.e., the jurisdiction in which injury was received.

View Full Point of Law

Facts. In 1977, Hungary (P) and Czechoslovakia (D) signed a Treaty for the construction of dams and other projects along the Danube River that bordered both nations. Czechoslovakia (D) began work on damming the river in its territory when Hungary (P) stopped working on the project and negotiation could not resolve the matter which led Hungary (P) to terminate the Treaty. Hungary (P) based its action on the fact that the damming of the river had been agreed to only on the ground of a joint operation and sharing of benefits associated with the project, to which Czechoslovakia (D) had unlawfully unilaterally assumed control of a shared resource.

Issue. Shall watercourse states participate in the use, development and protection of an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner?

Held. Yes. Watercourse states shall participate in the use, development and protection of an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. Hungary (P) was deprived of its rights to an equitable and reasonable share of the natural resources of the Danube by Czechoslovakia (D) and also failed to respect the proportionality that is required by international law. Cooperative administration must be reestablished by the parties of what remains of the project.

Discussion. The Court’s decision was that the joint regime must be restored. In order to achieve most of the Treaty’s objectives, common utilization of shared water resources was necessary. Hence, the defendant was not authorized to proceed without the plaintiff’s consent.

Create New Group

CaseBriefs

Access the world’s largest case brief library
View hundreds of on-demand Professor Prep Courses
Review Course Outlines
See Professor “Takeaways”
Have “Big Picture” Topic Outlines
Utilize Flowcharts
Real - Multiple Choice and Essay Exam Prep
Example “Hypotheticals” with Video Review
Access each Video Slide Deck
On-the-go “Big Picture” Audio Lectures
Easily Create Your Own Customized Library
Use the Free Law Dictionary
Add notes to your cloud-based Notepad
Print any materials for in-class and study group use