Background on the case can be read here.

The International Court of Justice delivered their opinions on the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay). The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Gil, Justice Kazor, Justice Krone, Justice Potterf, Justice Robson and Justice Utz on Monday evening. The majority of the Court found Uruguay was in violation of its obligations under the end of the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay (Statute). However, the violations do not rise to the level justifying reparations, injunction on the construction or operation of the mills nor do they find substantial evidence of violations of the environmental provisions of the Statute. The Court advises Uruguay to make a good faith effort to bring themselves into the compliance with the provisions of the Statute

Justices Mounts and Tibbs concurred with the majority opinion for the most part, but dissented in the recommendation that Uruguay should, in good faith, suspend the construction of the pulp mills until a more complete and reliable environmental study could be completed. Justices Gibson, Mendoza and Rook dissented from the majority in finding Uruguay was not in violation of its obligations under the Statute. The Justices found that Argentina failed to show the pulp mills would substantially modify or alter the existing waterways and thus Uruguay is not in violation of the Statute. Justice Cargile dissents that Uruguay made a good faith effort to notify Argentina under the Statute and holds that Uruguay is in violation of their duties under the Statute. Further, the opinion calls for construction of the pulp mills to be halted until research and analysis of environmental impact can be completed.