The Parties disagree on the extent to which the populations likely to be affected by the construction of the Orion (Botnia) mill, particularly on the Argentine side of the river, were consulted in the course of the environmental impact assessment. While both Parties agree that consultation of the affected populations should form part of an environmental impact assessment, Argentina asserts that international law imposes specific obligations on States in this regard. In support of this argument, Argentina points to Articles 2.6 and 3.8 of the Espoo Convention, Article 13 of the 2001 International Law Commission draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, and Principles 7 and 8 of the UNEP Goals and Principles. Uruguay considers that the provisions invoked by Argentina cannot serve as a legal basis for an obligation to consult the affected populations and adds that in any event the affected populations had indeed been consulted.

The Court is of the view that no legal obligation to consult the affected populations arises for the Parties from the instruments invoked by Argentina.

The Court has not ruled on the participation in environmental impact assessments of interested parties when this is not related to the protection of the rights of indigenous communities. In the case of projects that may affect indigenous and tribal territories, the Court has indicated that the community should be allowed to take part in the environmental impact assessment process through consultation. The right to participate in matters that could affect the environment is dealt with, in general, in the section on procedural obligations below (paras 226 to 232)......

QUESTIONS:-

1. How would you characterize EIA from the point of view usefulness in terms of protection of transboundary watercourses?

2. Do we need EIA if we have the precautionary principle?

3. Identify the core elements of EIA.