Re: MERVAL Indice Merval
Publicado: Mar Abr 20, 2010 1:32 pm
Botnia:
4. The claims made by the Parties in their final submissions
The Court considers that “its finding of wrongful conduct by Uruguay in respect of its procedural obligations per se constitutes a measure of satisfaction for Argentina” (para. 269). It is the Court’s view that ordering the dismantling of the Orion (Botnia) mill would not constitute an appropriate remedy for the breach of procedural obligations, since Uruguay was not barred from proceeding with the construction and operation of the mill after the expiration of the period for negotiation and since it breached no substantive obligation under the 1975 Statute (para. 275). The Court is likewise unable, for the same reasons, to uphold Argentina’s claim in respect of compensation for alleged injuries suffered in various economic sectors, specifically tourism and agriculture. Furthermore, the Court fails to see any special circumstances in the present case requiring the ordering of adequate guarantees that Uruguay will refrain in future from preventing the 1975 Statute from being applied (paras. 277-278). The Court further finds that Uruguay’s request for confirmation of its right “to continue operating the Botnia plant in conformity with the provisions of the 1975 Statute” “is without any practical significance, since Argentina’s claims in relation to breaches by Uruguay of its substantive obligations and to the dismantling of the Orion (Botnia) mill have been rejected” (para. 280). Lastly, the Court points out that “the 1975 Statute places the Parties under a duty to co-operate with each other, on the terms therein set out, to ensure
- 7 - the achievement of its object and purpose”, this obligation to co-operate encompassing ongoing monitoring of an industrial facility, such as the Orion (Botnia) mill (para. 281).
Mini- libre traducciòn: Hubo violaciòn del Tratado, pero la remoción de la planta no es remedio adecuado. La planta queda; la deberán controlar en el futuro ambos comoel cumpliient del tratado. No hay ningùn tipo de compensaciòn para Argentina.-
¿Como lo manejará el gobierno? Los asambleístas no pueden estar conformes y lo interpretarán así: Si, Si, Si,pero marche preso.-
4. The claims made by the Parties in their final submissions
The Court considers that “its finding of wrongful conduct by Uruguay in respect of its procedural obligations per se constitutes a measure of satisfaction for Argentina” (para. 269). It is the Court’s view that ordering the dismantling of the Orion (Botnia) mill would not constitute an appropriate remedy for the breach of procedural obligations, since Uruguay was not barred from proceeding with the construction and operation of the mill after the expiration of the period for negotiation and since it breached no substantive obligation under the 1975 Statute (para. 275). The Court is likewise unable, for the same reasons, to uphold Argentina’s claim in respect of compensation for alleged injuries suffered in various economic sectors, specifically tourism and agriculture. Furthermore, the Court fails to see any special circumstances in the present case requiring the ordering of adequate guarantees that Uruguay will refrain in future from preventing the 1975 Statute from being applied (paras. 277-278). The Court further finds that Uruguay’s request for confirmation of its right “to continue operating the Botnia plant in conformity with the provisions of the 1975 Statute” “is without any practical significance, since Argentina’s claims in relation to breaches by Uruguay of its substantive obligations and to the dismantling of the Orion (Botnia) mill have been rejected” (para. 280). Lastly, the Court points out that “the 1975 Statute places the Parties under a duty to co-operate with each other, on the terms therein set out, to ensure
- 7 - the achievement of its object and purpose”, this obligation to co-operate encompassing ongoing monitoring of an industrial facility, such as the Orion (Botnia) mill (para. 281).
Mini- libre traducciòn: Hubo violaciòn del Tratado, pero la remoción de la planta no es remedio adecuado. La planta queda; la deberán controlar en el futuro ambos comoel cumpliient del tratado. No hay ningùn tipo de compensaciòn para Argentina.-
¿Como lo manejará el gobierno? Los asambleístas no pueden estar conformes y lo interpretarán así: Si, Si, Si,pero marche preso.-
