The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

KLE SOCIETY’S LAW COLLEGE BENGALURU

(A Constituent college of KLE Technological University)

TOPIC OF ASSIGNMENT

The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

Submitted by:

Mr. : Nikhil Bhardwaj

SRN : 03FL21BLL117 _
Programme : II LL.B.’B’ Section _
Course : PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
 The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj has completed assignment on

the topic The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm under my guidance and
supervision. I certify that this is an original and bona fide work.

Signature of the Course teacher:

Name of the Course teacher: Mr. ASHWIN MENON V

DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the assignment on The Pulp Mills Case
and Transboundary Harm is my original work and the conclusions drawn
therein are based on the material collected by me.

SIGNATURE:
NAME: Nikhil Bhardwaj
SRN: 03FL21BLL117
 The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

Table of Contents

Sl No. Contents Page no.

1 Background 4

2 Significance of case 4

3 Legal Action 5

4 Environmental Concerns 6

5 Transboundary Harm 8

6 Lessons Learned 8

7 Conclusion 9

8 List of 9
abbreviations
9 Bibliography 10
 The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

The Pulp Mills Case, also known as the Botnia Case, refers to a long-standing dispute
between Argentina and Uruguay over the construction of two pulp mills on the banks of the
Uruguay River. The case has raised questions about the potential for transboundary harm and
the obligations of states to protect the environment and the health of their citizens.

1. Background

In 2003, Uruguay granted permits to two Finnish companies, Botnia and Ence, to build pulp
mills on the Uruguay River, which forms the border between Argentina and Uruguay. The
mills were designed to produce bleached kraft pulp, which is used to make paper products.
Argentina objected to the construction of the mills, arguing that they would cause
environmental harm and affect the health and livelihoods of people living on both sides of the
river.
Argentina raised its concerns with Uruguay and requested that the construction of the mills be
halted until a joint study could be conducted to assess the potential environmental impact.
Uruguay rejected Argentina's request and proceeded with the construction of the mills.

2. Significance of case
> Clearly the most important case on international environmental law decided by any
international court so far. Actually addresses the merits and the substantive law. Not simply a
case about a river treaty – Court’s interpretation and application of the 1975 Statute of the
River Uruguay very much influenced by its perception of general international law. Covers
most of the issues dealt with by ILC in draft articles on prevention of transboundary harm –
notification, co-operation, EIA, prevention and due diligence and reflects the ILC’s view of
the law, notwithstanding the lukewarm reception the ILC’s draft articles on transboundary
harm have so far received from states, although not from Uruguay or Argentina, which relied
heavily on them.

> An important case on international watercourses insofar as it deals with relationship

between equitable use, protection of the environment and sustainable development. Once
again its approach is fully in line the ILC’s work on this subject and with the 1997 UN
Watercourses Convention.

> This is yet another case about VC Article 31(3)(c) and interpretation by reference to
“evolving international law”. The court does indeed read one contemporary concept into the
treaty ,EIA ,and it accepts that measures taken to protect the river’s flora, fauna and
biodiversity must reflect the parties’ international undertakings by virtue of the wording of
Article 41. But
 The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

it rejects Argentina’s argument that other treaties are incorporated into the Statute or that
various articles of the Statute serve as “referral clauses” to other treaties. In this respect the
court is cautious but quite consistent with its earlier precedents.
It is plainly reluctant to allow one treaty to serve as a jurisdictional basis for litigation under
other treaties. To that extent it rejects the idea of forum shopping.

3. Legal Action
> Argentina then took legal action against Uruguay, alleging that the construction of the mills
violated the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay, which requires the two countries to consult
each other before undertaking any projects that could affect the river. Argentina also argued
that the mills would cause environmental harm and affect the health and livelihoods of people
living in the region.

> The case was brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague in 2006.
The court held hearings in the case and in 2010 issued a judgement in favour of Uruguay. The
court found that Uruguay had not violated the Statute of the River Uruguay or any other
international law, and that the mills would not cause significant harm to the environment or
the health of people living in the region.

4. Environmental Concerns
> Despite the court's ruling, environmental concerns about the pulp mills continued to be
raised. Critics argued that the mills would pollute the Uruguay River, which provides
drinking water for millions of people in Argentina and Uruguay, and harm fish populations
and other aquatic life. They also argued that the mills would release harmful chemicals into
the air, affecting the health of people living in the region.

> Uruguay argued that the mills were built with state-of-the-art technology and that strict
environmental regulations would be in place to ensure that they did not harm the environment
or the health of people living in the region. The Finnish companies also argued that the mills
would bring economic benefits to the region, creating jobs and boosting economic growth.

> The Pulp Mills Case refers to a dispute that arose between Argentina and Uruguay in 2003
concerning the construction of two paper pulp mills on the Uruguayan side of the Uruguay
River. The mills were built by Finnish and Spanish companies and were intended to produce
bleached kraft pulp, which would be exported to other countries. Argentina objected to the
construction of the mills, arguing that they would cause significant environmental harm to the
river and to Argentina's citizens who live downstream.

> The dispute eventually made its way to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which
issued a ruling in 2010. The ICJ held that Uruguay had violated its obligations under the
Statute of the River Uruguay, which governs the use of the river by both countries. The Court
found that Uruguay had failed to conduct a full environmental impact assessment before
authorising the construction of the mills, and that it had not adequately consulted with
Argentina during the
 The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

authorization process. The ICJ also held that Uruguay had failed to ensure that the mills
would not cause significant harm to the environment or to Argentina's citizens.

> The Pulp Mills Case is significant because it highlights the challenges that arise when one
country's actions have transboundary effects on another country. This is a common problem
in international environmental law, where pollution, climate change, and other environmental
issues often cross national borders. The Pulp Mills Case is also important because it
underscores the importance of environmental impact assessments and consultation with
affected parties in the authorization of large-scale projects that may have significant
environmental impacts.

> The case also raises important questions about the relationship between trade and
environmental protection. In recent years, there has been a growing recognition that
international trade can have significant environmental impacts, and that trade agreements
need to take into account the environmental consequences of increased trade. The Pulp Mills
Case demonstrates that environmental concerns can sometimes clash with trade interests, and
that finding a balance between these competing interests can be difficult.

> The Pulp Mills Case also sheds light on the role of international courts in resolving disputes
between countries over environmental issues. The ICJ has jurisdiction to hear disputes
between states on a wide range of issues, including environmental disputes. The Court's
ruling in the Pulp Mills Case is binding on both Uruguay and Argentina, and the two
countries are required to comply with its terms. However, the effectiveness of the ICJ's ruling
depends on the willingness of the parties to comply with it, and on the ability of the Court to
enforce its decisions.

> In Conclusion The Pulp Mills Case is an important example of a transboundary

environmental dispute between two countries. The case highlights the importance of
environmental impact assessments and consultation with affected parties in the authorization
of large-scale projects that may have significant environmental impacts. It also raises
important questions about the relationship between trade and environmental protection, and
the role of international courts in resolving environmental disputes between countries.

5. Transboundary Harm
> The Pulp Mills Case has raised broader questions about the potential for transboundary
harm and the obligations of states to protect the environment and the health of their citizens.
Transboundary harm refers to environmental harm that crosses international borders and
affects the interests of neighbouring states.

> The case highlights the challenges of balancing economic development and environmental
protection, particularly in situations where one state's actions could harm the interests of
another state. It also underscores the importance of international law and cooperation in
addressing transboundary environmental issues.
 The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

> The case has led to calls for greater international cooperation and coordination in
addressing transboundary environmental issues. It has also led to discussions about the need
for stronger environmental regulations and standards to prevent transboundary harm and
protect the environment and the health of people living in the region.

6. Lessons Learned

> The Pulp Mills Case provides several lessons for addressing transboundary environmental
issues. First, it highlights the importance of international law and cooperation in addressing
transboundary harm. International law provides a framework for addressing transboundary
environmental issues and resolving disputes between states.

> Second, the case underscores the need for states to balance economic development with
environmental protection and the interests of neighbouring states. This requires careful
planning and consultation to ensure that projects do not harm the environment or the health of
people living in the region.

7. Conclusion
> An excellent judgement that comes to sensible conclusions on all the important legal issues
and the will no doubt stand as the most significant precedent in international environmental
law since Trail Smelter.

> Shows that the court can handle scientific evidence competently and fairly. No basis for
criticising its ability to deal with environmental cases, but it may be a challenge for court to
move to a system where parties’ own experts are subject to cross-examination.

> No doubt there are in theory better ways of handling a dispute of this kind, but that ignores
the particular political context and the problematic relations between a very large and
significant country and a very small and insignificant one trying to restore its economy and
defend its most important foreign investment while maintaining the integrity of its
environmental record. Court has handled the politics very skilfully – both sides can be and
are well pleased.

8. List of abbreviations
- ICJ - International Court of Justice
- UN - United Nations
- ILC - International Law Commission
- EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

9. Bibliography
> Public International Law, by Mahesh Prasad Tandon and Rajesh Tandon, revised by
S. K. Raghuvanshi, Allahabad Law Agency. Reprint: 2019
 The Pulp Mills Case and Transboundary Harm

> Public International Law, M. P. Tandon, Reprint 2014, Allahabad law agency.

> The Sources of International Law, Law Teacher