MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

Argentina, Uruguay differ at ICJ over paper mills' impact

The legal representatives of Argentina and Uruguay presented opposing arguments before the International Court of Justice here on Thursday regarding the potential environmental impact of two pulp mills now under construction on the Uruguayan side of the river that forms the countries' shared border.

The Argentine attorneys emphasized the potential deterioration of the ecosystem and socio-economic prospects along the Uruguay River, while the Uruguayans said there was no immediate or irreparable negative impact in the offing and, in any case, no legal basis for stopping the project.

The ICJ on Thursday held its first hearing on the matter to deal with the Argentine petition that the court suspend the construction projects as a precautionary measure as long as the judicial process continues.

During the Argentines' presentation, foreign ministry legal adviser Susana Ruiz Cerutti criticized the unilateral nature of Montevideo's decision to authorize the plants, which she called a violation of the obligation for prior consultation established in the 1975 Uruguay River Statute, the bilateral treaty governing the management of the waterway.

"At this time, when we are appearing before the Court, the construction of the two huge factories continues with the aim of turning them into faits accomplis," Cerruti said.

Romina Picolotti, the president of the Argentine Center for Human Rights and the Environment, said that the plants - one being built by the Spanish firm Ence and the other by Finland's Botnia - will damage the "water quality," emit noxious waste and have a negative impact on the social-economic development of Argentina's riverbank region by discouraging scheduled investment in the tourism sector.

"The construction causes damage and ... would aggravate the situation," said French jurist Alain Pellet, one of the international legal experts making up the Argentine team, adding, "only the precautionary measures can avoid the irreparable." The possibility of serious, imminent and irreversible damage is one of the main criteria that the 15 ICJ judges must evaluate when they decide whether or not to order the preventive suspension of the two projects.

The Uruguayan legal team attempted, in its presentation, to attack the Argentine arguments.

Ambassador Hector Gros Espiell, who heads the Uruguayan delegation, said that the construction of the plants does not represent "any current - or imminent - threat to cause damage of an irreversible nature" to the environment. He said that the firms operating the factories will be obligated to fulfill environmental requirements equivalent to those established in the European Union.

Gros Espiell tried to turn the Argentine argument around by concluding that, in fact, the forced suspension of the construction would constitute "an act of extreme seriousness," leaving up in the air foreign investments in Uruguay valued at $1.8 billion, the largest outside investment the country has ever received.

"It would affect in a serious and unjustified way, in a catastrophic manner, Uruguay's right to establish modern industries that are necessary for its development," he added.

He denied that Uruguay had violated the 1975 statute regarding the consultation process and reiterated Montevideo's offer to set up a "joint supervision" mechanism with Argentina to monitor the alleged detrimental effects of the factories.

Justice Luigi Condorelli, a member of the Uruguayan delegation, said that there is no "legal basis" for the precautionary measure demanded by Argentina, given that the statue only provides for such an action if a region's water quality would be altered, something that could not occur before the factories begin operating, which is expected only in 2007 and 2008.

The first session, which is being held in the large ICJ chamber at The Hague, will end on Friday with counterarguments by both parties, but the judges' decision on the precautionary measures will not be handed down until after a period of deliberations that some sources say could take "weeks."