| |
International Court of Justice
Press Release 2006/22
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay
(Argentina v. Uruguay)
Conclusion of the public hearings on provisional measures
THE HAGUE, 9 June 2006. The public hearings on the request
for the indication of provisional measures submitted to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) by Argentina in the case
concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay)
concluded today.
Argentina submitted its request for the indication of provisional
measures on 4 May 2006 immediately after seising the Court of
a dispute between itself and Uruguay concerning alleged breaches
by Uruguay of its obligations under the Statute of the River
Uruguay, a treaty signed by the two States on 26 February 1975
(see press release No. 2006/17).
Two rounds of public hearings were held on Thursday 8 and
Friday 9 June 2006 at the Peace Palace, The Hague, seat of the
Court. In them Argentina reiterated its request for the indication
of provisional measures, arguing inter alia that the mills posed
a serious threat to the ecosystem of the River Uruguay. Uruguay
asked the Court to reject Argentina’s request, contending that
the conditions required for the indication of provisional measures
had not been satisfied.
The Court’s decision will be delivered in the coming weeks.
It will be read at a public sitting on a date which will be
announced in a forthcoming press release.
International Court of Justice
Press Release 2006/17
Argentina
institutes proceedings against Uruguay and requests
the Court to indicate provisional measures
Article published by the Ottawa Citizen
written by
Mr. Jorge E. Taiana,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship
of the Argentine Republic
Monday, May 15, 2006
“We won't repeat past mistakes”
On May 9 the Argentine Republic was elected by the UN General
Assembly as one of 47 member states to join the Human Rights
Council, the newly created United Nations body that will replace
the Commission on Human Rights established in 1947.
I would like to extend my congratulations to the government
of Canada for also being elected to the council and at the same
time express my gratitude for its support and that of all the
states which, bearing in mind Argentina's tragic history of
systematic and gross violations of human rights, valued our
present record and commitments of today.
This election entails a profound responsibility toward all persons,
organizations and governments that expect this body to guarantee
a major enforcement of human rights around the world. This new
body will be permanent and a direct subsidiary of the General
Assembly, which will enable it to analyse human-rights violations
in depth in any country. The council's work shall be guided
by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity,
non-selectivity and constructive international dialogue and
it shall report in time to all bodies and agencies that, like
the Security Council, may prevent or stop gross and systematic
violations.
In the past, Argentine society suffered the politicization and
selectivity of the UN Commission on Human Rights, which privileged
the bipolar balance of power existing at that time instead of
the defence of fundamental and permanent human rights, such
as the right to life.
Despite thousands of reports received at the commission during
the last military dictatorship (1976-1983), the government of
my country was never condemned, and the indifference of the
majority of UN member states forced the creation of a special
working group to publicly expose the gross and systematic violations
that were taking place in Argentina.
We have learned from our own history, and since the return to
democracy we have assumed a position based on principles in
the defence and promotion of human rights. We have ratified
the great majority of the regional and universal treaties on
human rights and, among very few countries in the world, we
have granted constitutional hierarchy to these human-rights
instruments.
Since the beginning of the debate on the reform of the UN system,
President Nestor Kirchner's government has strongly supported
the strengthening of human rights within the UN in order to
place this issue at the same level as other relevant issues,
such as the development and maintenance of peace and international
security.
We must highlight and reinforce the true importance of the contribution
made throughout several decades by the commission, developing
standards and treaties for international human-rights law.
At this first stage of the council, we must ensure that procedures
do not displace substantial issues. We must obtain prompt approval
of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons
from Forced Disappearances, as well as the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Thirty years after the military coup that disrupted the institutions
and the fundamental rights of the people of my country, Argentina
today commits itself to making a sound contribution so that
the UN Human Rights Council may meet the demands of the 21st
century regarding this essential issue for the survival of nations.
Argentina looks forward to working closely with Canada in this
new Human Rights Council that offers the international community
the opportunity to guarantee an efficient and effective international
protection system, always bearing in mind that respecting the
principle of negotiation must not imply the negotiation of principles.
Jorge E. Taiana is the Minister of Foreign Relations, International
Trade and Worship of Argentina.
Cellulose Plants
The Argentine Republic and Uruguay are currently engaged in
a dispute regarding the “Celulosas de M’Bopicuá” and
“Orión” projects for the construction of two industrial
cellulose production plants by the ENCE and Botnia, Spanish
and Finnish companies respectively, on the left bank of the
Uruguay River, a resource shared by both countries. These undertakings
are expected to produce a total of 1.5 million tons of cellulose
a year that will become one of the world’s most important industrial
complexes in this field.
The dispute arose when Uruguay unilaterally authorized the construction
of two plants and a port terminal intended for the exclusive
use by one of the companies. Uruguay failed to comply with the
mechanism of previous consultation and information regulated
in a bilateral treaty between both countries, the 1975 “Statute
of the Uruguay River”. This mechanism is firmly rooted in the
general international Law related to environmental protection,
as one of the necessary elements to comply with the principle
that a State must guarantee that the activities carried out
within its jurisdiction or under its control do not harm other
state’s environment. The mechanism as well as its framework
principle are directly or indirectly reflected in multiple international
instruments in whose drafting Uruguay has actively participated,
particularly, in the 1972 Declaration on the Human Environment,
the 1992 Declaration on Environment and Development, and in
bilateral instruments as the 1971 Argentine-Uruguayan Declaration
on Water Resources.
Inconsistently with these clear regulations Uruguay ignored
repeated requests by Argentina to supply information on these
undertakings, first at the Uruguay River Management Commission
(CARU), the bi-national Commission responsible for the implementation
of the Statute, and subsequently at governmental level in view
of the de facto paralysis of the Commission.
In an attempt to find a negotiated resolution for the dispute
concerning the application and interpretation of the Statute,
Argentina contributed to the establishment of a High Level Technical
Group (GTAN). Unfortunately during the direct negotiations,
Uruguay continued to ignore Argentina’s repeated demands to
provide complete and detailed information and to suspend the
construction of the plants until an objective and reliable determination
of the cumulative trans-boundary impact of those undertakings
on the ecosystem of the Uruguay River could be made. Particularly,
Uruguay has refused to provide specific information on the reasons
that led to locate both planned plants on a shared resource
as the Uruguay River, as well as their geographical proximity
since they are located just six kilometers away from each other.
In this regard, after twelve meetings held between August 3rd
2005 and January 30th 2006, GTAN could not reach an agreement.
The Argentine Delegation to the Group, among other conclusions,
notified the Foreign Ministry that in view of the contaminating
production process used by the projected plants; the geographical
magnitude and concentration of the projects, their vicinity
to urban centers and agricultural and livestock production zones;
the characteristics of the receiving body of water; the fragile
aquatic ecosystem which has a degree of quality which can and
must be preserved and the use of water for consumption, recreation
and fishing, it has concluded that the proposals for the Orion
and M’Bopicuá plants will not facilitate the preservation
of the environment in the Uruguay River’s ecosystem to the world’s
highest state-of-the-art standards as agreed in the first High-Level
Technical Group meeting. The full report of the Argentine Delegation
is available at http://www.mrecic.gov.ar (Foreign Affairs Environment).
While negotiations were taking place within the
GTAN and in view of the refusal of the Uruguayan Government to
suspend the construction of the projected plants, Argentina expressed
its concern to the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the
Bilbao Vizcaya Bank and the ING Group, entities which were planned
to participate in the potential financing of the projected plants
about them financing projects whose environmental impact have
not been fully determined. At the end of December 2005, the International
Finance Corporation (IFC), the international entity in charge
of financing the projects, submitted a preliminary report on the
cumulative impact of the projected plants. The full report is
available at http://www.ifc.org (Top 10 Downloads Uruguay Pulp
Mills Cumulative Impact Study). In January 2006, Argentina objected
to this preliminary report providing details of its partial and
incomplete nature. Argentina has pointed out that among the most
serious deficiencies, the preliminary report shows no consistency
with the operational policies of the Corporation, particularly
the Policy on Environmental Assessment, and stated its concern
at the fact that the preliminary report should fail to consider
that there is a dispute between the Government of the Argentine
Republic and the Government of the Republic of Uruguay in connection
with the matter under review and that this dispute is especially
relevant, as far as the IFC is concerned, to the operational policies
of the corporation and the so-called Equator Principles which
are binding on the banks which would lead the financing of the
projected works. The principles can be consulted at Equator Principles
Statement of Principles http://www.equator-principles.com.
The ICF set up an independent experts panel to
assess which of all the issues raised by the Argentine Government,
Entre Rios Province, the NGOs and some specialists, would have
to be dealt appropriately and in depth. On April 11, 2006 ICF
distributed the panel’s report available at http://www.ifc.org
(Top 10 Downloads Uruguay Pulp Mills Expert Panel’s report on
CIS) that acknowledges the relevance of Argentina’s concern. It
specifically shows that there are deficiencies in the information
regarding different aspects of the projected plants; more precisely
the deficiencies that the Argentine Government has repeatedly
requested that should be addressed, first to the Administration
Commission of the Uruguay River and then in the framework of the
High-Level Technical Group established by both countries’ Presidents.
As the Argentine Government has repeatedly stated, until such
questions have been objectively and reliably analyzed, it cannot
be affirmed that the projects are sustainable or that the plants
will not cause environmental damage, nor can decisions to finance
the projects be adopted. Argentina has repeatedly asked Uruguay
for this analysis and has requested a suspension of the projects
until completion of said analysis but, unfortunately, these requests
have not been answered. More significant still, is the fact that
the report departs from the concept that the environmental impact
produced by the projected plants could be evaluated without taking
into account the effects on the communities surrounding the Uruguay
River. It specifically admits that the consequences of the projected
plants in relation to tourism and biodiversity in the region should
be assessed more carefully.
After failure of the instance of direct negotiations within GTAN
and according to the provisions on dispute settlement set forth
in Article 60 of the Statute of the Uruguay River, Argentina is
entitled to resort to the International Court of Justice. Uruguay
was informed of this fact by Diplomatic Note dated 14.12.05. The
two Chambers of the Argentine Congress stated that they could
support the Government Executive if it chooses to make use of
this alternative.
Argentina has always been prepared to explore different channels
for dialogue with Uruguay about this issue that have unfortunately
failed due to Uruguay’s refusal to accept Argentina’s requests
to provide complete and detailed information on the planned plants
and to suspend the projects until the cumulative trans-boundary
impact on the associated ecosystem of the Uruguay River could
be objectively and reliably assessed. The most recent evidence
of these efforts was the meeting held in Santiago, Chile by the
Presidents of both countries on March 11, 2006. On that occasion
they promoted initiatives to facilitate dialogue between the parties.
Among those initiatives it is worth mentioning the request made
to the companies responsible for the projects, that was endorsed
by the President of Uruguay to suspend works for ninety days in
order to allow the postponed cumulative trans-boundary impact
study of the projected plants to be carried out. This proposal
was frustrated by the Uruguay’s silence when faced with the refusal
of one of the companies (Botnia) to suspend the works during the
requested period.
The failure of these multiple dialogue efforts and the ongoing
construction of the projected plants required Argentina to exercise
its rights before the International Court of Justice that is the
competent international body. Notice was given by Argentina to
the entities that intended to finance the projected plants, inviting
them to suspend any decision on them until the appeal was dealt
with by the Court. The ING Group leader of the bank syndicate
financing the project, accepted this invitation and informed that
it will no longer participate in the project.
Uruguay has refused to attempt a bilateral solution to the dispute
and seeks to resort to MERCOSUR and the OAS, raising the issue
of the roadblocks as a way to conceal the environmental problem.
In this regard, Argentina maintains that those mechanisms are
not applicable to this dispute. As its legal basis is noncompliance
by Uruguay with the Statute of the Uruguay River, the specific
procedure for dispute resolution provided for in such instrument
must be applied. This criterion is consistent with the strictly
bilateral nature of the dispute - pointed out by the Secretary
General of the OAS upon the steps taken by Uruguay-, as well as
with its environmental, non-commercial nature which rules out
any resort to a body within MERCOSUR.
|
|
