Counter-Memorial, Uruguay's
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING PULP MILLS ON THE RIVER URUGUAY ARGENTINA V. URUGUAY COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF URUGUAY VOLUME I 20 JULY 2007 VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1 Section I. Observations on Jurisdiction .......................................................... 14 Section II. Summary of Argument.................................................................. 16 Section III. Structure of the Counter-Memorial.............................................. 32 PART I CHAPTER 2. THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE ALLEGED PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS OF THE 1975 STATUTE .................................. 37 Section I. Origins and Scheme of the 1975 Statute......................................... 43 A. History and Development ................................................................ 43 1. The 1961 Boundary Treaty ....................................................... 43 2. The 1971 Joint Declaration....................................................... 44 3. The 1973 Treaty on the River Plate .......................................... 46 B. The Object and Purpose of the Statute ............................................. 47 C. The Scheme of the 1975 Statute....................................................... 50 D. Overview of the Environmental Protection Provisions .................... 54 E. The Procedural Requirements of the Statute .................................... 57 Section II. The Procedural Provisions of the Statute ...................................... 60 A. Article 7 ........................................................................................... 60 1. The First Paragraph of Article 7................................................ 60 (a) What Is “Significant Harm”?........................................... 61 (b) Timing............................................................................. 62 (i) The Statute ............................................................... 64 (ii) The Digest............................................................... 65 (iii) State Practice.......................................................... 66 a) Traspapel........................................................... 66 b) M’Bopicua Port................................................. 69 c) Nueva Palmira Freight Terminal....................... 70 (c) To “Carry Out”................................................................ 72 -i- (d) The Application of Article 7 to Industrial Facilities........ 74 2. The Second Paragraph of Article 7 ........................................... 81 3. The Third Paragraph of Article 7.............................................. 82 B. Articles 8-11..................................................................................... 84 1. Article 8 .................................................................................... 84 2. Articles 9 and 10....................................................................... 85 3. Article 11 .................................................................................. 86 C. Prior Consent Is Not Required ......................................................... 90 1. There Is No Veto Right Under General International Law ....... 92 2. The Statute Does Not Require Prior Consent.......................... 100 3. The Argentine Government’s Memorandum Accompanying the Statute ............................................................................. 103 4. The 1976 Joint Presidential Declaration ................................. 104 5. Argentina’s Practice................................................................ 106 6. The Case of the Garabí Dam................................................... 114 7. Argentina’s Conduct Prior to the Submission of Its Application ........................................................................... 116 8. State Practice in Latin America............................................... 118 D. The Obligation to Consult in Good Faith....................................... 121 1. The Purpose of Consultations ................................................. 121 2. Relevant Timeframes.............................................................. 123 3. Duties During Consultation .................................................... 125 (a) An Obligation of Conduct, Not Result .......................... 127 (b) Status of the Project During Consultations.................... 128 (c) Status of the Work During Dispute Resolution.............. 130 Section III. The Role of CARU .................................................................... 133 Section IV. The Role of the Court ................................................................ 144 Conclusion.................................................................................................... 146 CHAPTER 3. THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS CONCERNING THE ALLEGED PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS.................... 149 Section I. Uruguay Was Not Required to Notify CARU Before It Issued AAPs to ENCE and Botnia........................................................................... 153 -ii- A. Argentina and CARU Were Well Informed About the ENCE Plant Before the 9 October 2003 AAP Was Issued....................... 159 B. Argentina and CARU Were Equally Well Informed About the Botnia Plant Before the 14 February 2005 AAP Was Issued........ 163 Section II. Uruguay Was Not Obligated to Await CARU’s Authorization for the Plants................................................................................................. 169 A. The Parties Agreed to Address the ENCE Plant Outside CARU ... 172 B. The Parties’ Agreement to Address ENCE at the Government- to-Government Level Outside CARU Was Extended to Botnia ... 187 C. The Parties Created GTAN as a Means to Address Both Plants at the Government-to-Government Level ..................................... 191 D. Argentina Seeks to Impose on Uruguay Obligations that Not Only Do Not Exist, But that Argentina Never Accepted for Itself.............................................................................................. 197 E. Uruguay Complied With Its Obligations Concerning the Botnia Port and the Botnia Water Extraction Permit................................ 197 Section III. Uruguay Gave Argentina Sufficient Information to Assess the Probable Impact of the Plants on Navigation, the Regime of the River and the Quality of Its Water ................................................................................ 203 A. Uruguay Gave Argentina Sufficient Information About ENCE..... 206 B. Uruguay Gave Argentina Sufficient Information About Botnia..... 211 Section IV. Uruguay Complied with Its Duties During Consultations and Dispute Resolution ....................................................................................... 227 A. Uruguay Took Only Preparatory Steps During the GTAN Consultative Process..................................................................... 228 B. Uruguay Was Free to Carry Out the Pulp Mill Projects after the Consultations Were Over.............................................................. 233 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 238 PART II CHAPTER 4. THE LAW AND THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ALLEGED SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS OF THE 1975 STATUTE............. 243 Section I. Uruguay’s Compliance with Its Obligations to Prevent Pollution under Article 41 of the 1975 Statute.............................................. 249 A. Article 41 Does Not Ban All Discharges to the River.................... 249 B. CARU Regulations Define the Substantive Performance Standards of the 1975 Statute........................................................ 253 -iii- C. Argentina and Uruguay Have, Through CARU, Agreed Upon the Environmental Standards for the Uruguay River .................... 256 D. Uruguay Has Ensured that the Botnia Plant Complies with the Applicable Pollution Prevention Laws and Regulations............... 262 1. Uruguay Has Required Botnia to Comply with the CARU Water Quality Standards ....................................................... 263 2. The Botnia Plant’s State-of-the-Art Anti-Pollution Systems Ensure Compliance with the CARU Water Quality Standards............................................................................... 263 3. The IFC’s Independent Experts Have Confirmed that the Botnia Plant Will Comply with the CARU Water Quality Standards............................................................................... 264 4. Argentina Does Not Allege that Any CARU Standard Will Be Breached.......................................................................... 265 5. The Botnia Plant Will Not Cause an Exceedance of Uruguay’s Phosphorus Standard........................................... 266 6. Comprehensive Monitoring Will Ensure Compliance with the CARU Standards............................................................. 270 Section II. Uruguay has Ensured that the Botnia Plant Will Not Alter the Ecological Balance of the River Uruguay in Violation of Article 36 of the 1975 Statute.................................................................................................. 271 A. CARU Regulations Implement the Parties’ Obligations Under Article 36 ...................................................................................... 271 B. Uruguay Has Ensured Compliance with Subject E3 of the CARU Digest...............................................................................