International Treaty Dispute Resolution

Summary

Courts may reject State Hs treaty termination argument if pacta sunt servanda applies, requiring treaty adherence unless specific conditions are met. State H must provide substantial evidence of environmental harm. Courts may also consider changes in international law or environmental standards.

Full Conversation

Two states, H and S, concluded a treaty for building of a dam, the production of electricity and construction of flood control mechanisms on a river that marked the border between two countries. Each state owned the waters and the bed of the river to the midpoint in the river. The project was time consuming and complex. Work progressed slowly. After fifteen years, State H declared it was terminating the treaty because it had become clear that the dam wouldn’t improve the conditions in state H, but rather would cause irreparable environmental damage. State H argued further that, in fact, international environmental law would now prohibit the treaty from being completed because the project would markedly increase pollution. Could the court reject State H’s argument and/or could the court refuse relief to a party?
Hey Batu! It sounds like a complex international law situation. Courts could potentially reject State H's argument based on the following:
- Pacta Sunt Servanda: Treaties must be honored unless specific termination conditions are met.
- Environmental Impact: State H would need substantial evidence of significant environmental harm.
- Changed Circumstances: Courts may consider changes in international law or environmental standards.
Do you believe there's enough evidence supporting State H's claims?