1 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Apr. 20, 2010). The basic documents, decisions, pleadings, transcripts, press releases, and other materials for this case and others are available on the Court’s Web site, http://www.icj-cij.org.

2 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), Provisional Measures (Int’l Ct. Justice July 13, 2006) [hereinafter July Order].

3 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), Provisional Measures, para. 8 (Int’l Ct. Justice Jan. 23, 2007). For more discussion of the blockades and related Mercosur arbitration, see Payne, Cymie R., Pulp Milk on the River Uruguay, 14 Asil Insights (2010)Google Scholar.

4 July Order, supra note 2, para. 48; Egan, Louise, Argentina, Uruguay Split over Planned Pulp Mills, Wash. Post, Aug. 14, 2005, at A16 Google Scholar.

5 Egan, supra note 4.

6 In Judge Skotnikov’s view, the 1975 Statute required Uruguay either to abandon the project or to refer it to the Court, but Uruguay did not have the legal option of proceeding with construction. Decl., Slotnikov, J. (“The provisions of Articles 7 to 12 of the 1975 Statute are clearly intended to prevent unilateral action which is not in conformity with the substantive provisions of the Statute.”). See also Diss. Op., Vinuesa, J. ad hoc, paras 7–9. But see Lac Lanoux Arbitration (Fr. v. Spain), 24 ILR 101, paras. 5, 11, 16 (1957) (arbitral tribunal interpreting a bilateral river treaty to require France to notify and consult with Spain with regard to proposed use of the river in French territory, but without either the treaty or general international law requiring Spain’s consent).

7 Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 ICJ REP. 7, paras. 140, 193 (Sept. 25) (citing Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ Rep. 226, paras. 29, 186 (July 8)).

8 See Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, Art. 5, May 21, 1997, 36 ILM 700 (1997).

9 As the dissent also noted (para. 15), other innovative approaches would be available to the Court under Article 50. The tribunal in the Guyana/Suriname arbitration (UN Law of the Sea Annex VII Arb. Trib. Sept. 17, 2007), at http://www.pca-cpa.org (reported by Stephen Fietta at 102 AJIL 119 (2008)), appointed an expert with specific instructions and gave the parties an opportunity to comment on the expert’s report, and the tribunal in the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway (Belg./Neth.) arbitration (May 24, 2005), at http://www.pca-cpa.org, took a hybrid approach, advising the parties to establish a post-award committee of experts.

10 See the dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Vinuesa (at paragraph 65): “all of the consultations . . . took place after environmental authorizations had been granted, and therefore all are meaningless.”

11 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Art. 2(6), Dec. 25, 1991, 1989 UNTS 309, 30 ILM 800 (1991); Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, June 25, 1998, 2161 UNTS 447, 38 ILM 517 (1999). Both Conventions are available at http://www.unece.org/env/.

12 July Order, supra note 2, para. 80.

13 Passage Through the Great Belt (Fin. v. Den.), Provisional Measures, 1991 ICJ Rep. 12, para. 19 (July 29); cf. MOX Plant (Ir. v. UK), Itlos Case No. 10, Provisional Measures, paras. 74, 81, 89 (Dec. 3, 2001), 41 ILM 405 (2002) (rejecting Ireland’s request for provisional measures regarding operation of a MOX processing plant and shipping of radioactive materials in the Irish Sea, but prescribing alternative measures to preserve the parties’ rights pending establishment of an arbitral tribunal).

14 Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 370–436, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001).