Arbitration Court Vindicates Pakistan’s Indus Waters Treaty Stance

Dismisses India’s ‘Abeyance’ Claim; Affirms Treaty’s Legal Continuity and Court’s Jurisdiction

ISLAMABAD, June 28: In a significant development for regional water diplomacy, the Court of Arbitration constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 has ruled that India’s claim of holding the Treaty “in abeyance” holds no legal weight and cannot override the compulsory dispute resolution mechanisms agreed upon by both countries.

The Court’s “Supplemental Award,” released Friday, affirmed its continuing jurisdiction over Pakistan’s complaints against India regarding the design and operation of hydroelectric projects on the western rivers. The decision upholds Pakistan’s legal stance that disputes under the Treaty cannot be stalled or nullified by unilateral action.

“The Treaty’s text does not provide for the unilateral abeyance or suspension of its provisions,” the Court ruled. “Rather, it remains in force until terminated by mutual consent.” The judgment underscores that once a proceeding is lawfully initiated—as was the case when Pakistan approached the Court in August 2016—its jurisdiction cannot be revoked by subsequent acts such as India’s later push for neutral expert intervention.

The arbitration was triggered by Pakistan’s objections to India’s Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, which Islamabad argued violated the Treaty’s technical provisions. In response, India called for the appointment of a neutral expert and, following the Pahalgam attack in April 2025, declared that it was holding the Treaty in abeyance as a punitive measure.

However, the Court found this move inconsistent with international treaty law. “Compulsory dispute settlement is central to the Treaty’s object and purpose,” it noted, warning that allowing one party to unilaterally suspend proceedings would fundamentally undermine the Treaty’s efficacy.

The panel—composed of international legal and technical experts led by Professor Sean D. Murphy—also ruled that the ongoing arbitration must proceed “in a timely, efficient, and fair manner,” regardless of India’s withdrawal or objections. It further clarified that its findings apply equally to the competence of the neutral expert appointed by the World Bank in 2022.

The Court’s reaffirmation of jurisdiction is seen as a major diplomatic and legal win for Pakistan, which has consistently argued for a rules-based approach to managing transboundary water disputes. The decision also strengthens the procedural integrity of the IWT, considered one of the world’s most resilient water-sharing agreements.

In response to the ruling, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed the Court’s clarity on the Treaty’s continued validity. An official statement noted that “India’s unilateral actions cannot deprive the Court or the Neutral Expert of their competence under the Treaty.” It reiterated Pakistan’s hope for a return to meaningful engagement with India, especially on the Treaty’s application.

Pakistan now awaits the Court’s final decision on the First Phase on the Merits, following hearings held at the Peace Palace in The Hague in July 2024.