Constituting Interests and Identities in a Two-Level Game: Understanding the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dam Conflict¹

Abstract

This paper uses the conflict between Hungary and Slovakia over the Gabcikovo‐Nagymaros Dam to examine two foreign policy issues. The first is how states determine their interests and how perception of gains and losses arise and change. The second is the reality that international norms are rarely clear and often conflict, making answering questions of whether states have “internalized” or are abiding by norms problematic. This case is a good vehicle for addressing these questions as the dam dispute began during the communist period and has continued through the political and economic transitions to European Union membership. It also was the focus of a groundbreaking International Court of Justice case on the application of ecological necessity to treaty obligations. Fleshing out the model of a two‐level game with insights from other theoretical perspectives, this article argues the key to this stalemate is the interrelated process through which state identity and understandings of vital interests change, creating frames in each state around different international norms.

Anatomy of a deadlock: a systemic analysis of why the Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros dam dispute is still unresolved

“…As one commentator sarcastically put 'at first the court's entire approach to the case is more notable for what it did not decide than what it did' (Deets, 2009). These critical observations are not surprising as the Court not only maintained the legal force of the 1977 agreement, but it also legitimised the status quo that emerged as a result of the mutual non-performance of that agreement.…”

“…In Hungary, the project was more and more perceived as the ultimate symbol of the arrogance, incompetence and mismanagement of the country by the ruling communist regime. In the final years of the 1980s, it triggered a mass protest movement unseen in the Soviet bloc since the 'Prague spring' of 1968 (Deets, 2009). Since the mid1980s, the environmental and political motifs have become more and more intertwined, with the environment serving as a powerful vehicle in the quest for overall democratic transition (Szirmai, 1993).…”

“…In general legal terms, the Court shied away from a vigorous application of the fundamental principles of the international watercourses law, such as the no-harm rule and the reasonable and equitable utilisation principle, to the actual situation. Therefore, by way of recognising the divergent claims of the parties, the Court has contributed considerably to the complete ossification of the diametrically opposed positions of the two countries (Deets, 2009). This, coupled with the somewhat naïve call of the Court to 'go back and negotiate in good faith' in a way exacerbated rather than helped to solve the underlying conflict.…”

“…As one commentator put it, the powerful political framing of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros project on either side of the Danube holds the key to the entire puzzle (Deets, 2009). At the outset, the public perception of the project was dominated by the hegemonic socialist development paradigm of heavy industrialisation in both countries, with very little attention paid to the environmental consequences of the construction and operation of large dams (Fürst, 2003).…”

“…Once it came out, the judgement quickly became one of the most studied and referenced rulings of the Court ever. For years it was at the centre of academic interest of scholars of international law, political science (Deets, 2009) and environmental policy. International lawyers hailed the seminal conclusions of the judgement on the law of the treaties (Reichert-Facilides, 1998), state succession (Klabbers, 1998), state liability (Lefeber, 1998), the law of international watercourses (Lammers, 1998;Thompson, 1999), the legal recognition of the principle of sustainable development (Fuyane & Madai, 2001), etc.…”