By Ting Chen
The International Court of Justice kicked off on Wednesday with the Argentina and Uruguay’s heated dispute over the construction of two pulp mills on the eastern section of the Uruguay River, a resource shared by both countries. The day began with opening statements from the advocates of Argentina and Uruguay. Argentina had filed a case against Uruguay for contaminating the river with its pulp mill projects.Argentina is the first Latin American country to bring a neighboring state to court, and the pulp mill construction is the first World Bank project to become the focus of the case in an ICJ case. World Bank invested more than five hundred million dollars in the pulp mills. The International Financial Cooperation, a private sector of the World Bank, also loaned money to the project. According to a treaty of 1975, the Statute of the Uruguay River, one country has the obligation to consult the other side if a project is to be initiated. However, Uruguay authorized the construction of the pulp mill without the consent of Argentina. Argentina claims that these pulp mills would have a harmful impact on the environment and would damage the river’s ecosystem by dumping toxic wastes into the water. Local people living around the area are concerned about the pollution, deforestation, and increased truck traffic. Protests have been carried out continuously, and border bridges are also blocked. Argentina is calling for the mills to use totally chlorine-free technology instead of elemental chlorine- free technology or to cease the construction completely.Uruguay argued that they have “provided Argentina with relevant, accurate, and adequate information during the planning and construction of the [mills].” Furthermore, Argentina’s roadblocks on the international bridges are harming Uruguay’s economy by affecting the flow of goods transported into Uruguay. Uruguay believes that these mills will provide an infinite amount of economic benefit directly and indirectly. The justices have their personal views about the matter. “Although the delegations of Uruguay received their supported evidence from the ICJ website, their arguments are merely controversial and subjective,” comments Judge Huang. “On the other hand, Argentina’s stand point placed more of focus on the environmental damage that is done through pulp mills.” “The advocates for Argentina are doing a good job vilifying Uruguay’s actions; however, Uruguay has an abundant source of evidence to muddy the waters,” says Judge Su. The participants continued to work to reach a sound final solution.
The International Court of Justice kicked off on Wednesday with the Argentina and Uruguay’s heated dispute over the construction of two pulp mills on the eastern section of the Uruguay River, a resource shared by both countries. The day began with opening statements from the advocates of Argentina and Uruguay. Argentina had filed a case against Uruguay for contaminating the river with its pulp mill projects.Argentina is the first Latin American country to bring a neighboring state to court, and the pulp mill construction is the first World Bank project to become the focus of the case in an ICJ case. World Bank invested more than five hundred million dollars in the pulp mills. The International Financial Cooperation, a private sector of the World Bank, also loaned money to the project. According to a treaty of 1975, the Statute of the Uruguay River, one country has the obligation to consult the other side if a project is to be initiated. However, Uruguay authorized the construction of the pulp mill without the consent of Argentina. Argentina claims that these pulp mills would have a harmful impact on the environment and would damage the river’s ecosystem by dumping toxic wastes into the water. Local people living around the area are concerned about the pollution, deforestation, and increased truck traffic. Protests have been carried out continuously, and border bridges are also blocked. Argentina is calling for the mills to use totally chlorine-free technology instead of elemental chlorine- free technology or to cease the construction completely.Uruguay argued that they have “provided Argentina with relevant, accurate, and adequate information during the planning and construction of the [mills].” Furthermore, Argentina’s roadblocks on the international bridges are harming Uruguay’s economy by affecting the flow of goods transported into Uruguay. Uruguay believes that these mills will provide an infinite amount of economic benefit directly and indirectly. The justices have their personal views about the matter. “Although the delegations of Uruguay received their supported evidence from the ICJ website, their arguments are merely controversial and subjective,” comments Judge Huang. “On the other hand, Argentina’s stand point placed more of focus on the environmental damage that is done through pulp mills.” “The advocates for Argentina are doing a good job vilifying Uruguay’s actions; however, Uruguay has an abundant source of evidence to muddy the waters,” says Judge Su. The participants continued to work to reach a sound final solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment