The border between Argentina and Uruguay along the Uruguay River is determined by the Treaty of Montevideo of April 7, 1961. By Article 7 of the agreement ""regime for the use of The 1975 Charter signed by the two countries on February 26, 1975 in accordance with the standard "the river shall be established by the parties" established the Administrative Commission of the Uruguay River (CARU), a manual mechanism for the proper administration and protection of the Uruguay River, and an agreement to share the water of the Uruguay River. A reform like visitation was instituted and carried out. 

On May 4, 2006, Argentina filed a case against Uruguay at the International Court of Justice for violation of Uruguay's obligations under the Uruguay River Charter. As a basis for the Court's jurisdiction, Argentina filed the case on the basis that any dispute over the interpretation or nature of the 1975 Convention that could not be resolved through direct negotiations could be brought before the International Court of Justice by one of the parties. Argentina argued that the wall posed a threat to the river and its environment, damaging the river's water quality and potentially causing significant pest damage to Argentina.

 And that Uruguay has breached its procedural obligation as set out in the 1975 Convention to know and consult with Argentina before authorizing and constructing the mill. According to the decision on July 13, 2006, the court said that the International Court of Justice is required to exercise its authority according to the 1975 Charter and that the two countries can act in relation to the problem according to Article 41 of the 1975 Charter to take temporary measures. But due to the fact that Uruguay could face an economic disadvantage by blocking the bridge, the case was re-filed in November 2006 before the international arbitration. Announcing the decision again on January 23, 2007, the international arbitration said that it should act according to Article 41 and that it is not necessary to seek the assistance of the court. 

However, because the problem was not over, as argued and requested by Uruguay, following the practices of environmentalists, analyzing the previously adopted international environmental and other conventions, and taking into account the operational and basic needs of the 1975 Convention, 2009- After the hearing from 09-14 to 10-02-2009, the International Court of Arbitration gave a very serious verdict on 20-04-2010. Argentina argued that the industrial activity would not adversely affect the water quality of the river, and that the water quality had not been significantly damaged, even though Uruguay had authorized the project in violation of the mechanism for prior information and consultation contained in Articles 7 to 13 of the 1975 Constitution.

 It was determined that there was a significant violation of the Act.