On May 4, 2006, Argentina brought a complaint before the ICJ against Uruguay. Argentina alleged that Uruguay had breached obligations to provide notice to and consult with the Administrative Commission for the River Uruguay (CARU) before authorizing the construction of paper mills on the banks of the river. CARU is the body charged with regulating and coordinating bilateral issues affecting the river, including pollution prevention, and has an equal number of experts from Uruguay and Argentina. The reporting obligations and the duties of CARU are embodied in the Statute of the River Uruguay, a 1975 treaty between the two parties that has the goals of utilizing, conserving, and preventing pollution of the River Uruguay.
As a basis for the ICJ's jurisdiction, Argentina cited Article 60 of the 1975 treaty, which allows submission to the ICJ if the parties fail to settle the dispute through negotiations. Discussions between the presidents of the two countries and among members of a technical group had failed to resolve the issue in 2006.
1. The court found that Uruguay violated its procedural duties to provide notice and seek agreement with Argentina before launching on the project, and then it argued that it was disproportionate to dismantle the pulp mills as a remedy for its violation. Did Uruguay then benefit from proceeding with construction without seeking consent? How might Argentina have prevented this from happening?
2. Was Argentina able to show that Uruguay's new mills were polluting in violation of the treaty? What would have happened if Argentina had been able to prove that?
3. The court imposed a duty to cooperate in monitoring ongoing pollution. Did such a duty not already exist? What do you think will happen as a result of this future monitoring?