Boldizsar Nagy: Divert or Preserve the Danube? Answers in concrete (A Hungarian perspective on the Gabcikovo Nagymaros Dispute) * Introduction On 2 July 1993 the first ever dispute between two former socialist countries have been registered at the International Court of Justice, the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project 1 . The submission based on the Special Agreement of the Parties 2 clearly indicated a new approach to third party dispute settlement. Until the political landslides in 1989-1990, members of the Soviet Bloc consequently refrained from accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice or any other tribunal empowered to pass binding decisions. In this case the parties invited the Court to pass one of its most complex and important judgement before the next millennium. This is so because the dispute touches upon vital elements of the environment and the law relating to it (surface and ground water regimes, preservation of the biodiversity and obligations attached to the flora and fauna in the last inland delta of Europe) on investment and other economic issues (two hydropower plants producing electric energy, infrastructural developments, flood control, navigational improvement) and raises major doctrinal questions of the law of treaties, law of responsibility and liability as well as of state succession. The elements of the Original Project and changes unilaterally introduced by (Czecho)Slovakia 3 in the form of the "Provisional Solution" According to the Treaty concerning the Construction and Operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros System of Locks concluded by the two states on 16 September 1977 4 the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project would have consisted of two hydropower stations operating in an combined mode, the downstream station enabling peak hour production at the upstream station. The elements of the Project. affecting a more than 200 km long section of the Danube would have been: * The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and should not be attributed to any governmental or non-governmental organizations he is associated with . 1The Joint Notification appears at 32 I.L.M. (1993) p. 1294, the Order of the ICJ setting the date for submitting the Memorial at ICJ Report 1993 p. 319 232 I.L.M. (1993) p. 1295 3 Czechoslovakia ceased to exist on 31 December 1992. According to the Special Agreement "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-Nagymaros Project." Whether Slovakia is also successor in respect of the 1977 Treaty is open to debate. This text will usually refer to Slovakia unless a clear differentiation between Czechoslovakia and Slovakia is possible and necessary. 4 Hungary-Czechoslovakia, Budapest, 1109 UNTS 236; also published in 32 ILM 1247 1