Experiential Learning Assignment

Public International Law

Topic: Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (ICJ

2010)

Name: Shivam Mishra

Roll: 8157
Class: III LL.B.
Section : B + C
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (ICJ 2010)

Background and Facts

In 2003–2005, Uruguay authorised two pulp‐and‐paper mills on the banks of the River Uruguay,
that shared a boundary with Argentina. The first was by Spanish company ENCE and the second
by Finnish company Botnia 1. Under the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay (a bilateral treaty for
Administrative and managing river use), Uruguay was obliged to notify and consult with
Argentina before proceeding with projects that might affect the river2. Argentina complained that
Uruguay failed to follow these procedures and mills breached substantive treaty obligations.
Argentina filed suit at the ICJ on 4 May 2006, invoking Article 60(1) of the 1975 Statute
(conferring ICJ jurisdiction) and alleging that the “authorization, construction and future
commissioning of two pulp mills” violated the Statute’s substantive and procedural obligations3.
Uruguay defended its sovereign right to develop and argued it had effectively informed
Argentina (albeit belatedly)4. Intense public protests ensued; the ICJ denied Argentina’s 2006
request for provisional measures and likewise denied Uruguay’s 2007 request (Argentina’s
bridge blockades)5.

Legal Issues

1.​ Jurisdiction – Whether the ICJ had authority to hear the dispute under Article 60 of the
Statute.
2.​ Procedural Duties – Did Uruguay breach its duty to inform, notify, and consult
Argentina via CARU before authorising the mills?
3.​ Substantive Duties – Did Uruguay fail its duty to prevent pollution and protect the
biodiversity of the river?
4.​ Burden of Proof – Should Uruguay bear the burden to prove no harm (precautionary
principle) or should Argentina prove actual harm?

1
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Judgment) ICJ Rep 2010.
2
Statute of the River Uruguay (Argentina–Uruguay) 26 February 1975, 1295 UNTS 339.
3
ibid art 60.
4
Cymie R Payne, ‘Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay)’ (2011) 105 AJIL 94
5
Pieter HF Bekker, ‘Double Interim Relief Denial in Argentina–Uruguay Pulp Mill Dispute’ (2007) 11(2)
ASIL Insights.
 5.​ Role of EIA – Was an environmental impact assessment required under international law,
and was Uruguay’s EIA adequate?

ICJ Judgment

On 20 April 2010, the ICJ delivered judgment.

Procedural obligations: The Court unanimously found that Uruguay did breach the Statute’s
notification/consultation requirements. Uruguay had issued environmental authorizations before
properly informing Argentina or CARU, and only belatedly notified via its President to CARU
after authorization.6 The Court held that Uruguay “disregarded the whole of the co-operation
mechanisms”.7 In remedy, the Court deemed its formal finding of breach to be sufficient
satisfaction, awarding no further relief.

Substantive obligations: By contrast, the Court rejected all of Argentina’s substantive claims.
It held that Argentina had not proved any violation of the Statute’s environmental provisions.8
On the key claim under Art. 41 (preventing pollution), the Court found the Botnia mill’s effluent
“not in excess of the maximum concentrations set in the Statute”, and noted there was “no
conclusive evidence” that Uruguay had failed to exercise due diligence or that the mill’s
discharges had harmed the river.¹¹ For the other duties, the Court likewise found Argentina’s
evidence insufficient.

In assessing these issues, the Court held that equitable and reasonable use requires balancing
economic uses against “the obligation to protect the river from any damage to the environment”.9
It emphasised that under Articles 7–12, any development “could not be considered equitable and
reasonable” if it ignored the other State’s interests and environmental protection.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA): The Court made a landmark pronouncement that,
where there is risk of a significant transboundary impact, an EIA has “gained so much
acceptance among States that it may now be considered a requirement under general

6
ibid [104]–[107].
7
ibid [158].
8
ibid [265].
9
ibid [177].
international law”.10 It found that Uruguay had carried out EIAs for the Botnia plant, and
emphasised that Article 41 implied an obligation of EIA. However, it did not conclude there is a
general obligation in law to consult affected populations; Uruguay did consult NGOs and local
actors, but consultation per se was not deemed a binding requirement.11

In sum, the judgment held Uruguay responsible only for procedural lapses. The Court declared
those breaches and found no breach of substantive environmental obligations. Argentina’s
requests for cessation of the mills, dismantling, or compensation were dismissed.12

Legal Principles

The Pulp Mills judgment reaffirmed several foundational principles of international

environmental law. First, the Court underscored the duty of cooperation and good faith in
managing shared natural resources, requiring prior notification and consultation between riparian
states.13 Second, it restated the no-harm rule, a customary norm obliging states to ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction do not cause significant transboundary environmental
damage.14 Third, the Court recognised the principle of sustainable development, interpreting
“optimum and rational utilisation” of the river to require balancing economic development with
environmental protection.15 Importantly, the Court elevated environmental impact assessment
(EIA) to the status of a general obligation under international law where there is a risk of
significant transboundary harm.16 Finally, the judgment clarified that while the precautionary
approach may guide interpretation, it does not alter the traditional rule on the burden of proof in
international adjudication.17

Impact on International Environmental

The Pulp Mills judgment is widely seen as a milestone in international environmental law. The
Court’s recognition of EIA as an emerging customary obligation in transboundary contexts is
10
ibid [204].
11
ibid [219].
12
ibid [282].
13
ibid [144]–[148].
14
ibid [193].
15
ibid [177].
16
ibid [204].
17
ibid [164].
a major development18. By affirming that Article 41 embodies a due diligence duty of
prevention, the Court strengthened the normative status of the “no significant harm” and
“precautionary” principles. It also elaborated the concept of sustainable development in shared
watercourses: interpreting “optimum and rational utilization” as requiring an equitable
balancing of economic use and environmental protection19. The Court explicitly linked equitable
and reasonable utilization to sustainable development, noting that their requirements correspond.
It also confirms that bilateral treaties like the 1975 Statute create binding procedural duties. A
commentator note that the decision “serves notice that countries planning projects that may affect
shared natural resources will be held to a high standard of due diligence”20

18
Payne (n 4).
19
Pulp Mills (n 1) [177].
20
Chapman, ‘ICJ ruling on environmental protection – Pulp Mills’ (Herbert Smith Freehills, 7 May 2010).