PULP MILLS (JUDGMENT) 40 mill (see sketch-map No. 1 on p. 33), and is used by other economic operators as well, to be a facility “associated” with the mill. 46. The dispute submitted to the Court concerns the interpretation and application of the 1975 Statute, namely, on the one hand whether Uruguay complied with its procedural obligations under the 1975 Statute in issuing authorizations for the construction of the CMB (ENCE) mill as well as for the construction and the commissioning of the Orion (Botnia) mill and its adjacent port ; and on the other hand whether Uruguay has complied with its substantive obligations under the 1975 Statute since the commissioning of the Orion (Botnia) mill in November 2007. * * 47. Having thus related the circumstances surrounding the dispute between the Parties, the Court will consider the basis and scope of its jurisdiction, including questions relating to the law applicable to the present dispute (see paragraphs 48 to 66). It will then examine Argentina’s allegations of breaches by Uruguay of procedural obligations (see paragraphs 67 to 158) and substantive obligations (see paragraphs 159 to 266) laid down in the 1975 Statute. Lastly, the Court will respond to the claims presented by the Parties in their final submissions (see paragraphs 267 to 280). * * II. SCOPE OF THE COURT’S JURISDICTION 48. The Parties are in agreement that the Court’s jurisdiction is based on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and Article 60, paragraph 1, of the 1975 Statute. The latter reads : “Any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaty 1 and the Statute which cannot be settled by direct negotiations may be submitted by either party to the International Court of Justice.” The Parties differ as to whether all the claims advanced by Argentina fall within the ambit of the compromissory clause. 49. Uruguay acknowledges that the Court’s jurisdiction under the compromissory clause extends to claims concerning any pollution or type of harm caused to the River Uruguay, or to organisms living there, in violation of the 1975 Statute. Uruguay also acknowledges that claims concerning the alleged impact of the operation of the pulp mill on the 1 The Montevideo Treaty of 7 April 1961, concerning the boundary constituted by the River Uruguay (UNTS, Vol. 635, No. 9074, p. 98 ; footnote added). 30