펄프공장사건(아르헨티나 대 우루과이) 판결의 국제환경법적 함의

This paper is a review of the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the dispute between Argentina and Uruguay concerning two pulp mills authorized to be constructed on the Uruguayan bank of the River Uruguay. Argentina claimed that Uruguay had breached procedural and substantive obligations set out in the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay in authorizing the construction and operation of the pulp mills. In addition, Argentina sought remedy for the breach of those obligations. The major issue in this case of essentially environmental nature is the nature and relationship of procedural and substantive obligations to be implemented by States, where there is a risk of transboundary pollution. To begin with, the Court states that the procedural and substantive obligations in question are intrinsically linked, but that a breach of the former does not automatically entail a breach of the latter. The Court finds that Uruguay has breached its procedural obligations under the 1975 Statute. However, this does not mean that Uruguay is prevented from proceeding to construct the planned mill even after the expiry of the negotiation period. On the other hand, the Court finds that Uruguay has not breached its substantive obligations under the 1975 Statute. As to the remedy sought by Argentina, the Court says that its finding of wrongful conduct by Uruguay in respect of its procedural obligations constitutes a measure of satisfaction for Argentina. Other forms of reparation are denied. The present judgment builds on the judgment in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case of 1997 between Hungary and Slovakia and makes a contribution to the development of international environmental law. It is important to note that the Court has explicitly acknowledged the obligation to undertake an environmental impact assessment as customary international law.