ABSTRACT
The Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project arose from a dispute between Hungary and Slovakia over the construction of a system of locks on the Danube, which for some 140 kilometres forms the common boundary of the States. In the proceedings before the International Court, Hungary had invoked its environmental concerns both as a justification for the suspension and abandonment of the works in 1989 and as a ground for the denunciation of the Treaty in 1992. In the treatment of the Hungarian argument on immediate ecological danger, the Court strictly limited the concept of necessity to the law of State responsibility. Of the three grounds for termination related to Hungary's environmental concerns, the claim of impossibility of performance was probably most far-fetched. The concept of judicial adjustment derives from the private law of contract. The judgment demonstrates that the Convention can operate as a reliable and flexible tool for the resolution of treaty disputes in an increasingly complex international environment.
