Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)

International Court of Justice
1997 I.C.J. 7


Facts

Hungary (defendant) and Czechoslovakia (plaintiff) agreed in a 1977 treaty to build and operate together two dams on the Danube River at Gabcikovo, Czechoslovakia and Nagymaros, Hungary. Additionally, the treaty required the countries to consider developing international environmental standards as the implementation of the project progressed. During construction, Hungary requested that the project move more slowly, but later asked that the project be sped up. Thereafter, in 1992, Hungary completely abandoned construction of the Nagymaros dam, seeking to terminate the treaty. Czechoslovakia, soon to be Slovakia, did not accept Hungary’s attempt to terminate the treaty, instead revising the plans and continuing the Gabcikovo site construction. This new plan, dubbed Variant C, rerouted a large portion of the river away from the border between the two nations. Hungary and Slovakia agreed to bring the dispute relating to the dam project before the International Court of Justice. Hungary argued that a state of ecological necessity required Hungary to abandon the dam project because of the significant threats to marine life the project posed. Hungary also contended that Variant C significantly cut off water supply to Hungary’s capital city and further threatened aquatic life in the river.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.