¡Descarga PRACTICA INTERNACIONAL y más Ejercicios en PDF de Derecho Privado Internacional solo en Docsity!
INTERNATIONAL COURT O F JUSTICE
REPORTS O F JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING
THE GABCIKOVO-NAGYMAROS PROJECT
(HUNGARYISLOVAKIA)
JUDCMENT OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1997
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS C:ONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE RELATIVE AU PROJET
GA.BCIKOVO-NAGYMAROS
(HONGRIEISLOVAQUIE)
ARRÊT DU 25 SEPTEMBRE 1997
Official citation :
GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project (HungarylSlovakia),
Judgment, 1. C.J. Reports 1997, p. 7
Mode officiel de citation:
Projet GabCikovo-Nagymaros (HongrielSlovaquie),
arrêt, C. I. J. Recueil 1997, p. 7
ISSN 0074-
ISBN 92-1-070757-
Sales number
No de vente: 692
1997 25 September General List No. 92
INTERNATIONAL C O U R T O F JUSTICE
YEAR 1997
25 September 1997
CASE CONCERNING
THE GABC~KOVO-NAGYMAROSPROJECT
(HUNGARYISLOVAKIA)
Treaty of 16 September 1977 concerning the construction and operation of the GabCikovo-Nugymaros Systenz of Locks - "Related instruments". Suspension and abandonment by Hungary, in 1989, oj'works on the Project
- Applicability of the Vienna Convention of 1969 on the Law of Treaties - Law of treaties and law of State responsibility - Stute of necessity as a ground jor precluding the wrongfulness of an act - "Essential interest" of the State committing the act - Environment - "Grave und imminent peril" - Act having to constitute the "only means" of saj&guarding the interest threatened - State having "contributed to the occurrence of the state of necessity". Czechoslovakia:~proceeding, in November 1991, to "Variant C " andputting into operation, from October 1992, this Variant - Arguments drawn from a proposed principle of approximate application - Respect for the limits of the Treaty - Right to an equitahle and reasonable share of rhe resources of an international wutercourse - Commission of a wrongful act andprior conduct of a prepararory character - Obligation to mitigate damages - Principle con- cerning only the calculation of damages - Countermeasures - Response to an internationally wrongful act - Proportionality - Assumption of unilateral control of a shared resource. Notification by Hungary, on 19 May 1992, of the fermination of the 1977 Treaty and reluted instruments - Legal efjrects - Matter falling within the law of treaties - Articles 60 to 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Trearies
- Customury law - lmpossihility of performance - Permanent disappearance or destruction of an "object" indispensable for execution - Impossibility of prr- formance resulting from the hreach, by the party invoking il, of an obligation under the Treaty - Fundamental change of circumstances - Essential basis of the consent of the parties - Extent of obligations still to be performed - Sta- bility of treaty relations - Material breach of the Treaty - Date on which the breach occurred and date of notijïcation of termination - Victim of a breach having itselfcommitted a prior breach of the Treaty - Emergence of new norms of environmental law - Sustainable development - Treaty provisions permit-
8 GABC~KOVO-NAGYMAROSPROJECT (JUDGMENT)
ting the parties, by mutual consent, to take account of those norms - Repudia- tion of the Treaty - Reciprocal non-compliance - Integrity of the rule pacta sunt servanda - Treaty remaining in force until terminated by mutual consent.
Legal consequences of the Judgment of the Court - Dissolution of Czecho- slovakia - Article 12 of the Vienna Convention of 1978 on Succession of States
in respect of' Treaties - Customary laiv - Succession of States without effect
on a treaty creating rights and obligations "attaching" to the territory - Irregular state of uffairs as a result of failure of both Parties to comply with
their treaty obligations - Ex injuria jus non oritur - Objectives of the Treaty
- Obligations overtaken by events - Positions adopted by the parties after conclusion of the Treaty - Good faith negotiations - Effects of the Project on the environment - Agreed solution to be found by the Parties - Joint régime
- Reparation for arts committed by both Parties - Co-operation in the use of shared water resources - Damages - Succession in respect of rights and obli- gations relating to the Project - Intersecting ivrongs - Settlement of accounts for the construction of the works.
JUDGMENT
Present: President SCHWEBEL; Vice-President WEERAMANTRY; Judges ODA, BEDIAOUI,GUILLAUME,RANJEVA,HERCZEGH,SHI, FLEISCHHAUER, KOROMA,VERESHCHETIN,PARRA-ARANGUREN,KOOIJMANS,REZEK; Judge ad hoc SKUBISZEWSKI; Registrar VALENCIA-OSPINA.
In the case concerning the GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project, between the Republic of Hungary, represented by
H.E. Mr. Gyorgy Szénasi, Ambassador, Head of the International Law
Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Agent and Counsel;
H.E. Mr. Dénes Tomaj, Ambassador of the Republic of Hungary to the
Netherlands, as Co-Agent ; Mr. James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor at the University Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) and Director of the Institut des hautes études internationales of Paris, Mr. Alexandre Kiss, Director of Research, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (retd.), Mr. Laszlo Valki, Professor of International Law, Eotvos Lorand Univer- sity, Budapest,
Institute of Political Studies, Paris, Member of the International Law Commission, Mr. Walter D. Sohier, Member of the Bar of the State of New York and of the District of Columbia, Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister, Member of the Bar of England and Wales, Mr. Samuel S. Wordsworth, avocat à la cour d'appel de Paris, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
as Counsel and Advocates; Mr. Igor Mucha, Professor of Hydrogeology and Former Head of the Groundwater Department at the Faculty of Natural Sciences of Comenius University in Bratislava, Mr. Karra Venkateswara Rao, Director of Water Resources Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, City University, London,
Mr. Jens Christian Refsgaard, Head of Research and Development, Danish Hydraulic Institute, as Counsel and Experts; Dr. Cecilia KandraCova, Director of Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ludëk Krajhanzl, Attorney at Law, Vyroubal Krajhanzl Skacel and Partners, Prague, Mr. Miroslav LiSka, Head of the Division for Public Relations and Exper- tise, Water Resources Development State Enterprise, Bratislava,
Dr. Peter VrSansky, Minister-Counsellor, Chargé d'affaires a.i., of the Embassy of the Slovak Republic, The Hague, as Counsellors ; Miss Anouche Beaudouin, allocataire de recherche at the University of Paris X-Nanterre, Ms Cheryl Dunn, Frere Cholmeley, Paris,
Ms Nikoleta GI!ndova, attaché, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Drahoslav Stefanek, attaché, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Legal Assistants,
composed as above, after deliberation, delivers the following Judgment ;
1. By a letter dated 2 July 1993, filed in the Registry of the Court on the same day, the Ambassador of the Republic of Hungary (hereinafter called "Hungary") to the Netherlands and the Chargé d'affaires ad interim of the Slo- vak Republic (hereinafter called "Slovakia") to the Netherlands jointly notified to the Court a Special Agreement in English that had been signed at Brussels
o n 7 April 1993 and had entered into force on 28 June 1993, on the date of the
exchange of instruments of ratification.
- The text of the Special Agreement reads as follows:
GABcIKOVO-NAGYMAROS PROJECT (JUDGMENT)
"The Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Rcpublic, Considering that differences have arisen between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Republic of Hungary regarding the implementa- tion and the termination of the Treaty on the Construction and Operation of the Gabtikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System signed in Budapest on 16 September 1977 and related instruments (hereinafter referred to as 'the Treaty'), and on the construction and operation of the 'provisional solu- tion';
Beuring in nlind that the Slovak Republic is one of the two successor States of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the sole successor State in respect of rights and obligations relating to the GabCikovo-Nagy- maros Project ;
Recognizing that the Parties concerned have been unable to settle these differences by negotiations;
Huving in rnind that both the Czechoslovak and Hungarian delegations expressed their commitment to submit the differences connected with the GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project in al1 its aspects to binding international arbitration or to the International Court of Justice;
Desiring that these differences should be settled by the International Court of Justice;
Reculling their commitment to apply, pending the Judgment of the International Court of Justice, such a temporary water management régime of the Danube as shall be agreed between the Parties;
Desiring further to define the issues to be submitted to the International Court of Justice.
Have agreed as follows : Article I The Parties submit the questions contained in Article 2 to the Interna- tional Court of Justice pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court.
Article 2 (1) The Court is requested to decide on the basis of the Treaty and rules and principles of general international law. as well as such other treaties as the Court may find applicable,
( a ) whether the Republic of Hungary was entitled to suspend and subse- quently abandon, in 1989, the works on the Nagymaros Project and on the part of the GabCikovo Project for which the Treaty attributed responsibility to the Republic of Hungary: ( b ) whether the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was entitled to pro- ceed, in November 1991, to the 'provisional solution' and to put into operation from October 1992 this system, described in the Report of the Working Group of Independent Experts of the Commission of the European Communities, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic dated 23 November 1992 (damming up of the Danube at river kilometre 185 1.7 on Czechoslovak territory and resulting consequences on water and navigation coufse);
(2) The instruments of ratification shall be exchanged as soon as pos- sible in Brussels. (3) The present Special Agreement shall enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification. Thereafter it will be notified jointly to the Registrar of the Court. In witness whereof the undersigned being duly authorized thereto, have signed the present Special Agreement and have affixed thereto their seals."
3. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute and Article 42 of the
Rules of Court, copies of the notification and of the Special Agreement were transmitted by the Registrar to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Members of the United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the Court.
- Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of Slovak nationality, Slovakia exercised its right under Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute to choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the case: it chose Mr. Krzysztof Jan Skubi- szewski.
5. By an Order dated 14 July 1993, the Court fixed 2 May 1994 as the time-
limit for the filing by each of the Parties of a Memorial and 5 December 1994
for the filing by each of the Parties of a Counter-Memorial. having regard to
the provisions of Article 3, paragraph 2 ( a ) and (b), of the Special Agreement.
Those pleadings were duly filed within the prescribed time-limits.
6. By an Order dated 20 December 1994, the President of the Court,
having heard the Agents of the Parties, fixed 20 June 1995 as the time-limit
for the filing of the Replies, having regard to the provisions of Article 3, para-
graph 2 ( c ) , of the Special Agreement. The Replies were duly filed within the
time-limit thus prescribed and, as the Court had not asked for the submission of additional pleadings, the case was then ready for hearing.
- By letters dated 27 January 1997, the Agent of Slovakia, referring to the
provisions of Article 56, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, expressed his Gov-
ernment's wish to produce two new documents; by a letter dated 10 February 1997, the Agent of Hungary declared that his Government objected to their production. On 26 February 1997, after having duly ascertained the views of
the two Parties, the Court decided, in accordance with Article 56, paragraph 2,
of the Rules of Court, to authorize the production of those documents under certain conditions of which the Parties were advised. Within the time-limit fixed by the Court to that end, Hungary submitted comments on one of those docu-
ments under paragraph 3 of that same Article. The Court authorized Slovakia
to comment in turn upon those observations, as it had expressed a wish to d o so; its comments were received within the time-limit prescribed for that pur- pose.
- Moreover, each of the Parties asked to be allowed to show a video cas- sette in the course of the oral proceedings. The Court agreed to those requests, provided that the cassettes in question were exchanged in advance between the Parties, through the intermediary of the Registry. That exchange was effected accordingly.
9. In accordance with Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court. the
Court decided, after having ascertained the views of the Parties. that copies of the pleadings and documents annexed would be made available to the public as from the opening of the oral proceedings.
- By a letter dated 16 June 1995, the Agent of Slovakia invited the Court
14 GAB~IKOVO-NAGYMAROSPROJECT (JUDGMENT)
to visit the locality to which the case relates and there to exercise its functions
with regard to the obtaining of evidence, in accordance with Article 66 of the
Rules of Court. For his part, the Agent of Hungary indicated, by a letter dated 28 June 1995, that, if the Court should decide that a visit of that kind would be useful, his Government would be pleased to co-operate in organizing it. By a letter dated 14 November 1995, the Agents of the Parties jointly notified to the Court the text of a Protocol of Agreement, concluded in Budapest and New York the same day, with a view to proposing to the Court the arrangements
that might be made for such a visit in situ; and, by a letter dated 3 February
1997, they jointly notified to it the text of Agreed Minutes drawn up in Buda- pest and New York the same day, which supplemented the Protocol of Agree- ment of 14 November 1995. By an Order dated 5 February 1997, the Court decided t o accept the invitation to exercise its functions with regard to the obtaining of evidence at a place to which the case relates and, to that end, to adopt the arrangements proposed by the Parties. The Court visited the area
from 1 to 4 April 1997; it visited a number of locations along the Danube and
took note of the technical explanations given by the representatives who had been designated for the purpose by the Parties.
I l. The Court held a first round of ten public hearings from 3 to 7 March
and from 24 to 27 March 1997, and a second round of four public hearings on
10, 1 1, 14 and 15 April 1997, after having made the visit in situ referred to in
the previous paragraph. During those hearings, the Court heard the oral argu- ments and replies of:
For Hungary: H. E. Mr. Szénasi,
Professor Valki, Professor Kiss, Professor Vida, Professor Carbiener, Professor Crawford, Professor Nagy, Dr. Kern, Professor Wheater, Ms Gorove. Professor Dupuy, Professor Sands.
For Slovakia: H. E. Dr. Tomka,
Dr. Mikulka, Mr. Wordsworth, Professor McCaffrey, Professor Mucha, Professor Pellet, Mr. Refsgaard, Sir Arthur Watts.
- The Parties replied orally and in writing to various questions put by Members of the Court. Referring to the provisions of Article 72 of the Rules of Court, each of the Parties submitted to the Court its comments upon the replies given by the other Party to some of those questions.
16 GABCIKOVO-NAGYMAROS PROJECT (JUDGMENT)
On behaif of Slovakia,
in the Memorial, the Counter-Memorial and the Reply (mutatis mutandis iden- tical texts) :
"On the basis of the evidence and legal arguments presented in the Slo- vak Memorial, Counter-Memorial and in this Reply, and reserving the right to supplement or amend its claims in the light of further written pleadings, the Slovak Republic Requests fhe Court to udjudge and declare:
1. That the Treaty between Czechoslovakia and Hungary of 16 September
1977 concerning the construction and operation of the Gabtikovol Nagymaros System of Locks, and related instruments, and to which the Slovak Republic is the acknowledged successor, is a treaty in force and has been so from the date of its conclusion; and that the notification of termination by the Republic of Hungary on 19 May 1992 was without legal effect.
- That the Republic of Hungary was not entitled to suspend and subse- quently abandon the works on the Nagymaros Project and on that part of the Gabtikovo Project for which the 1977 Treaty attributed respon- sibility to the Republic of Hungary.
3. That the act of proceeding with and putting into operation Variant C,
the 'provisional solution', was lawful.
- That the Republic of Hungary must therefore cease forthwith al1 con- duct which impedes the full and bona fide implementation of the 1977 Treaty and must take al1 necessary steps to fulfil its own obligations under the Treaty without further delay in order to restore compliance with the Treaty.
5. That, in consequence of its breaches of the 1977 Treaty, the Republic of
Hungary is liable to pay, and the Slovak Republic is entitled to receive, full compensation for the loss and damage caused to the Slovak Repub- lic by those breaches, plus interest and loss of profits, in the amounts to be determined by the Court in a subsequent phase of the proceedings in this case."
14. In the oral proceedings. the following submissions were presented by the
Parties
On behaif of Huagury,
at the hearing of 1 1 April 1997:
The submissions read at the hearing were mutatis mutandis identical to those presented by Hungary during the written proceedings.
On behalf of' Slovakia,
at the hearing of 15 April 1997 :
"On the basis of the evidence and legal arguments presented in its writ- ten and oral pleadings, the Slovak Republic, Requests the Court to adjudge and declare:
- That the Treaty, as defined in the first paragraph of the Preamble to the Compromis between the Parties, dated 7 April 1993, concerning the construction and operation of the GabtikovolNagymaros System of Locks and related instruments, concluded between Hungary and
Czechoslovakia and with regard to which the Slovak Republic is the
successor State, has never ceased to be in force and so remains, and
that the notification of 19 May 1992 of purported termination of the
Treaty by the Republic of Hungary was without legal effect;
2. That the Republic of Hungary was not entitled to suspend and subse-
quently abandon the works on the Nagymaros Project and on that part
of the Gabeikovo Project for which the 1977 Treaty attributes respon-
sibility to the Republic of Hungary;
3. That the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was entitled, in Novem-
ber 1991, to proceed with the 'provisional solution' and to put this sys-
tem into operation from October 1992; and that the Slovak Republic
was, and remains, entitled to continue the operation of this system;
4. That the Republic of Hungary shall therefore cease forthwith al1 con-
duct which impedes the bona fide implementation of the 1977 Treaty
and shall take al1 necessary steps to fulfil its own obligations under the
Treaty without further delay in order to restore compliance with the
Treaty, subject to any amendments which may be agreed between the
Parties ;
5. That the Republic of Hungary shall give appropriate guarantees that it
will not impede the performance of the Treaty, and the continued
operation of the system;
6. That, in consequence of its breaches of the 1977 Treaty, the Republic of
Hungary shall, in addition to immediately resuming performance of its
Treaty obligations, pay to the Slovak Republic full compensation for
the loss and damage, including loss of profits, caused by those breaches
together with interest thereon;
7. That the Parties shall immediately begin negotiations with a view, in
particular, to adopting a new timetable and appropriate measures for
the implementation of the Treaty by both Parties, and to fixing the
amount of compensation due by the Republic of Hungary to the Slo-
vak Republic; and that. if the Parties are unable to reach an agreement
within six months, either one of them may request the Court to render
an additional Judgment to determine the modalities for executing its
Judgment."
15. T h e present case arose o u t of the signature, o n 16 September 1977,
by the Hungarian People's Republic a n d the Czechoslovak People's
Republic, of a treaty "concerning the construction a n d operation of t h e
GabEikovo-Nagymaros System o f Locks" (hereinafter called the "
Treatv"). T h e names of the two contractine States have varied over the
yearst hereinafter they will be referred touas Hungary a n d Czechoslo-
vakia. T h e 1977 Treaty entered into force o n 30 J u n e 1978.
It provides for the construction a n d operation of a System o f Locks by
the parties a s a "joint investment". According t o its Preamble, the bar-
rage system w a s designed t o attain
"the broad utilization of the natural resources of the Bratislava-
Budapest section of the D a n u b e river f o r the development o f water
20 GABCIKOVO-NAGYMAROSPROJECT (JUDGMENT)
Only by international CO-operationcould action be taken to alleviate
these problems. Water management projects along the Danube have fre-
quently sought to combine navigational improvements and flood protec-
tion with the production of electricity through hydroelectric power plants.
The potential of the Danube for the production of hydroelectric power
has been extensively exploited by some riparian States. The history of
attempts to harness the potential of the particular stretch of the river at
issue in these proceedings extends over a 25-year period culminating in
the signature of the 1977 Treaty.
18. Article 1, paragraph 1, of the 1977 Treaty describes the principal
works to be constructed in pursuance of the Project. It provided for the
building of two series of locks, one at Gabëikovo (in Czechoslovak ter-
ritory) and the other at Nagymaros (in Hungarian territory), to consti-
tute "a single and indivisible operational system of works" (see sketch-
map No. 2, p. 21 below). The Court will subsequently have occasion to
revert in more detail to those works, which were to comprise, inter alia, a
reservoir upstream of Dunakiliti, in Hungarian and Czechoslovak terri-
tory; a dam at Dunakiliti, in Hungarian territory; a bypass canal, in
Czechoslovak territory, on which was to be constructed the Gabcikovo
System of Locks (together with a hydroelectric power plant with an
installed capacity of 720 megawatts (MW)); the deepening of the bed of
the Danube downstream of the place at which the bypass canal was to
rejoin the old bed of the river; a reinforcement of flood-control works
along the Danube upstream of Nagymaros; the Nagymaros System of
Locks, in Hungarian territory (with a hydroelectric power plant of a
capacity of 158 MW); and the deepening of the bed of the Danube down-
Stream.
Article 1, paragraph 4, of the Treaty further provided that the techni-
cal specifications concerning the system would be included in the "Joint
Contractual Plan" which was to be drawn up in accordance with the
Agreement signed by the two Governments for this purpose on 6 May
1976; Article 4, paragraph 1, for its part, specified that "the joint invest-
ment [would] be carried out in conformity with the joint contractual
plan".
According to Article 3, paragraph 1 :
"Operations connected with the realization of the joint investment
and with the performance of tasks relating to the operation of the
System of Locks shall be directed and supervised by the Govern-
ments of the Contracting Parties through... (... 'government
delegates')."
Those delegates had, inter alia, "to ensure that construction of the Sys-
tem of Locks is... carried out in accordance with the approved joint
contractual plan and the project work schedule". When the works were
brought into operation, they were moreover "To establish the operating
and operational procedures of the System of Locks and ensure compli-
ance therewith."
Article 4, paragraph 4, stipulated that:
"Operations relating to the joint investment [should] be organized
by the Contracting Parties in such a way that the power generation
plants [would] be put into service during the period 1986-1990."
Article 5 provided that the cost of the joint investment would be borne
by the contracting parties in equal measure. It specified the work to be
carried out by each one of them. Article 8 further stipulated that the
Dunakiliti dam, the bypass canal and the two series of locks at Gab-
Cikovo and Nagymaros would be "jointly owned" by the contracting
parties "in equal measure". Ownership of the other works was to be
vested in the State on whose territory they were constructed.
The parties were likewise to participate in equal measure in the use of
the system put in place, and more particularly in the use of the base-load
and peak-load power generated at ,the hydroelectric power plants
(Art. 9).
According to Article 10, the works were to be managed by the State on
whose territory they were located, "in accordance with the jointly-agreed
operating and operational procedures", while Article 12 stipulated that
the operation, maintenance (repair) and reconstruction costs of jointly
- owned works of the System of Locks were also to be borne jointly by the
contracting parties in equal measure.
According to Article 14,
"The discharge specified in the water balance of the approved
joint contractual plan shall be ensured in the bed of the Danube
[between Dunakiliti and Sap] unless natural conditions or other cir-
cumstances temporarily require a greater or smaller discharge."
Paragraph 3 of that Article was worded as follows:
"In the event that the withdrawal of water in the Hungarian-
Czechoslovak section of the Danube exceeds the quantities of water
specified in the water balance of the approved joint contractual plan
and the excess withdrawal results in a decrease in the output of
electric power, the share of electric power of the Contracting Party
benefiting from the excess withdrawal shall be correspondingly
reduced."
Article 15 specified that the contracting parties
"shall ensure, by the means specified in the joint contractual plan,
that the quality of the water in the Danube is not impaired as a
result of the construction and operation of the System of Locks".
Article 16 set forth the obligations of the contracting parties concern-
ing the maintenance of the bed of the Danube.
Article 18, paragraph 1, provided as follows :
"The Contracting Parties, in conformity with the obligations pre-
viously assumed by them, and in particular with article 3 of the Con-
vention concerning the regime of navigation on the Danube, signed
at Belgrade on 18 August 1948, shall ensure uninterrupted and safe
navigation on the international fairway both during the construction
and during the operation of the System of Locks."
It was stipulated in Article 19 that:
"The Contracting Parties shall, through the means specified in the
joint contractual plan, ensure compliance with the obligations for
the protection of nature arising in connection with the construction
and operation of the System of Locks."
Article 20 provided for the contracting parties to take appropriate
measures, within the framework of their national investments, for the
protection of fishing interests in conformity with the Convention con-
cerning Fishing in the Waters of the Danube, signed at Bucharest on
29 January 1958.
According to Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Treaty, the contracting
parties had, in connection with the construction and operation of the
System of Locks, agreed on minor revision to the course of the State
frontier between them as follows:
"(d) In the Dunakiliti-HruSov head-water area, the State frontier
shall run from boundary point 161.V.O.A. to boundary stone
No. 1.5. in a straight line in such a way that the territories
affected, to the extent of about 10-10 hectares shall be offset
between the two States."
It was further provided, in paragraph 2, that the revision of the State
frontier and the exchange of territories so provided for should be effected
"by the Contracting Parties on the basis of a separate treaty". No such
treaty was concluded.
Finally a dispute settlement provision was contained in Article 27,
worded as follows:
"1. The settlement of disputes in matters relating to the realiza-
tion and operation of the System of Locks shall be a function of the
government delegates.
2. If the government delegates are unable to reach agreement on
the matters in dispute, they shall refer them to the Governments of
the Contracting Parties for decision."
19. The Joint Contractual Plan, referred to in the previous paragraph,
set forth, on a large number of points, both the objectives of the system
