INTERNATIONAL COURT AT THE HAGUE REJECTS ARGENTINA'S SUIT TO BLOCK CONSTRUCTION OF URUGUAYAN PULP MILLS.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague ruled in July that Uruguay had not violated the terms of a 1975 Argentina-Uruguay agreement on a shared river by beginning construction of two paper mills on the river's shore. Argentina's government, urged on by environmentalists from the Argentine cities along the Rio Uruguay, had asked the ICJ to block further construction on the pulp mills, although groups like Greenpeace criticized the government's decision to use the court as a venue for resolving the conflict.
The World Bank-financed project represents the largest foreign investment in Uruguayan history, with Finland's Metsa-Botnia and Spain's Empresa Nacional de Celulosa de Espana (ENCE) constructing two cellulose factories by the Rio Uruguay (see NotiSur, 2005-09-16 and 2006-02-10). The estimated investment for the two pulp mills is US$1.8 billion and their combined output would be 1.5 million tons of paper pulp annually. Uruguay has also approved work on a third paper mill.
Court: No proof of irreparable environmental damage
On May 4, Argentina presented its petition to the ICJ and on July 13 the court rejected Argentina's claims by an overwhelming margin. The Argentine government alleged there were violations of bilateral agreements regarding joint administration of the border river. It had also requested that the court order a provisional suspension of work on both plants.
The ICJ voted 14 -1 against Argentina's call to halt construction. Its decision said there was, "nothing in the record to demonstrate that the very decision by Uruguay to authorize the construction of the mills poses an imminent threat of irreparable damage to the aquatic environment of the Rio Uruguay or to the economic and social interests of the... inhabitants on the Argentine side..."
The court also stated that, "Argentina has not persuaded it that the work presents irreparable damage to the environment or that the mere suspension of the work, pending final judgment, would be capable of reversing or repairing the economic and social consequences attributed by Argentina to it."
The court's ruling, read by its president, Rosalyn Higgins, went even further. "In respect of the commissioning of the mills, Argentina has not provided evidence at present that suggests that any resulting pollution would be of a character to cause irreparable damage to the river," read the decision. The court added that, "in any event, the threat of any such pollution is not imminent as the mills are not expected to be operational before August 2007 in one case and June 2008 in the other."
However, the judges reminded Uruguay that it "necessarily bears all risks relating to any finding on the merits that the court might later make" and that "the construction of the mills at the current site cannot be deemed to create a fait accompli."
The court made it...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu pruebaCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
