​[MUSIC] [MUSIC] Hello. The case of the Pulp Mills along the Uruguay River is an emblematic case in the field of environmental protection. This case, brought against Uruguay by Argentina, was taken before the International Court of Justice in 2006. The case concerns the authorization given for the construction and commissioning of two pulp mills. The first plant was called CMB and was proposed by the Spanish company ENCE. Work was halted by the company in November 2006, when Argentina's petition to the International Court of Justice was under consideration. Meanwhile, the second plant proposed by the Finnish company, Botnia, was put into service in November 2007, when the case was being considered by the International Court of Justice. So I would like to present three points about this case. The first point is linked to the violation of procedural obligations of the Statute of the Uruguay River. The second point concerns the violation of substantive obligations of the Statute. And for the third point, I will share some recent developments in the Pulp Mill case. With regard to the first point - the breach of procedural obligations, it is interesting to note that the Court began its analysis of this case by making a distinction between these two obligations. It is in the first paragraphs of this case, the Court asserts that there is a functional link between procedural obligations and substantive obligations. The Court defined the Statute of the river as a comprehensive and innovative regime in which obligations (procedural and substantive) complement each other perfectly. With that said however, the Court also affirmed that this functional link does not prevent each State from being responsible for violating an obligation within a single category. In this case, it can be seen that whilst Uruguay was deemed to be in breach of procedural obligations, however, they did comply with its substantive obligations. Therefore, if we analyse the substantive obligations, I would like to highlight the role that the Court gives to the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay, CARU, and its central role in the implementation of the statutory obligations. CARU is not only an information sharing channel between the two countries, but rather is the joint institutional mechanism which allows the implementation of the primary objective of the Statute of the River Uruguay, which relates to the optimal and rational use of the river. Once the central role of CARU was affirmed, the court examined certain provisions of the Statute. I would like to point to Article 7. In these provisions it reads that the Parties, Argentina and Uruguay, must provide information that is relevant to these two projects to the Commission. CARU will take a decision within a deadline of 30 days as to whether the project can have an adverse effect on navigation, the régime of the river or water quality. If CARU does not make a decision, the Statute of the River Uruguay refers to these obligations as Article 7 detailing that any Party planning an activity on the river must provide information about the essential aspects of the project, including the technical data of the activity in question. Here the International Court of Justice asserts that Uruguay did not keep CARU informed about this project. Indeed, Uruguay and Argentina negotiated the implementation of these two projects outside of the framework of the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay. However, the Statute gave CARU a central role. To recap the three points. Violations of procedural obligations are linked to the central role of CARU, the violation of the obligations to share information within the Commission and the violation of the obligations to notify about the technical data relating to this planned activity. The second point concerns the violation of obligations of a substantive nature. The Court analyses the first article of the Statute which relates to the optimal and rational use of the river's waters. And this optimal and reasonable use of the river must be approved though the joint institutional mechanism, CARU. These provisions were formulated in general terms and this did not enable the Court to reach a conclusion on the violation of these provisions. A very important point in this case is how Article 41 of the Statute on the prevention of pollution was analysed. What is interesting here is the Court's evolutionary interpretation of these provisions. Indeed, the Court examines this article in light of a a practice widely used by States, which is the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment study. The recognition of the customary nature of the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment study is highly significant for the development of international water law and international environmental law. Once the general scope of this obligation was recognised, the Court took a step back by stating that international law, (at least the instruments applicable to Argentina and Uruguay) do not specify the content of the environmental impact assessment study. Therefore, for example, the Court analysed the choice of location of the plant saying that Uruguay did conduct studies to assess the plant's location. Another significant element particularly important to me, is the fact that the Court asserts that there is no general obligation to undertake a onsultation with the local population. So, very briefly, the Court reaches this conclusion by affirming that according to the instruments invoked by Argentina, it can not be concluded that this obligation was breached and the Court also asserts that, in any event, in this case, in any case, Uruguay would undertake these consultations with the concerned populations in Argentina and Uruguay. So we can see here a separation of obligations of a procedural and substantive nature. I repeat that Uruguay was held responsible for a violation of procedural obligations. However, the Court did not conclude that water quality was affected by the pulp mill put into service in 2007, the Botnia plant. Following on from this analysis of the 2010 judgement of the International Court of Justice on the case of the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, I would like to mention some developments in the case which occurred in the years, in the months that followed the judgment, in September 2010, A few months after the Court's decision, the two presidents of Argentina and Uruguay signed an agreement on the exchange of information between the two countries and as a result, a committee of experts from Argentina and Uruguay was established. This allowed the Argentinian experts to visit sites and review any potential impact that the Botnia plant may have on water quality. Another development in the case of the pulp mills occurred in 2013, when the factory decided to increase the quantity of pulp produced annually by the plant, from one million tonnes of pulp produced per year to 1.3 million tonnes of pulp. Once again, Uruguay did not go through CARU but presented Argentina with a fait accompli. ​[MUSIC]
