Netherland(National Times)- The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on Monday ordered India to uphold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan and suspend work on a hydro project in occupied Kashmir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Water and the IWT remain a contentious issue between India and Pakistan, following New Delhi\u2019s unilateral abeyance of the accord in April last year \u2014 a move that was followed by a brief military conflict between the two sides in May 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following India\u2019s move, Pakistan termed any attempt to suspend its water share an \u201cact of war\u201d, noting the IWT had no provision for unilateral suspension. It later argued that Delhi\u2019s action was a violation of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In its order, the PCA backed Pakistan\u2019s stance, declaring that the IWT between the two countries remained fully in force, as India had no justification for ending or suspending the agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Hague-based court issued an award on the status of the IWT \u201cin respect of India\u2019s decision on abeyance\u201d and an order on Pakistan\u2019s application dated March 4 regarding \u201cinterim measures\u201d concerning the Ratle hydro-electric plant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a press release detailing its ruling, the PCA said it \u201cexamined the potential grounds upon which India could suspend or terminate the treaty, including the grounds cited by India in its public statements\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn a unanimous decision, the court found that none of these grounds could justify suspension or termination of the treaty.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It declared that the IWT \u201cremains fully in force, and India must observe its obligations under the treaty, including those relating to the design and operation of its hydro-electric projects on the Western Rivers\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The IWT allocates the eastern rivers \u2014 Ravi, Beas and Sutlej \u2014 to India, while the western rivers \u2014 Indus, Jhelum and Chenab \u2014 are largely allocated to Pakistan. The 1960 water-sharing agreement has also established mechanisms for data-sharing and dispute resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the proceedings, Pakistan requested the court to address the \u201cdesign of certain components of the run-of-river hydro-electric projects that India is permitted by the IWT to construct on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers and their tributaries (\u201cwestern rivers\u201d), before those rivers flow into Pakistan\u201d, the PCA statement said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The proceedings in the interim measures\u2019 application concerned India\u2019s Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant (KHEP) and the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court noted that the Kishenganga and Ratle plants were \u201calso the subject of proceedings\u201d before a World Bank-appointed neutral expert, who is expected to issue a final decision in July 2027 on whether they were in line with the IWT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In its order, the PCA unanimously decided to \u201cimpose measures prohibiting India from concreting the RHEP dam wall and power intake structure above certain levels until 90 days after the neutral expert\u2019s final decision\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court also imposed a reporting measure related to the RHEP Construction Schedule until shortly after the neutral expert\u2019s final decision. It declined to grant two other measures requested by Pakistan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The PCA noted that the IWT \u201cdoes not provide for one party to terminate or suspend the operation of the treaty, or for \u2018abeyance\u2019\u201d. The IWT provides that it will remain in force unless modified or terminated by India and Pakistan acting together through adoption of a further treaty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court of Arbitration was chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy of the United States. The other members were Professor Wouter Buytaert of Belgium, Professor Jeffrey P. Minear of the United States, Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh of Jordan, and Dr Donald Blackmore of Australia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pakistan welcomes findings
Islamabad \u201ctook note\u201d of the press release and welcomed the PCA\u2019s finding that India \u201cremains bound by and must observe its obligations under\u201d the IWT, the information ministry said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It also welcomed the finding regarding the Ratle plant, as well as the measures ordered by the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The government \u201cwill now be giving careful consideration to the detail of the award and decision, pending their publication, and how these may best assist in finding a pathway back to the parties\u2019 engagement under the treaty\u201d, the statement added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
India, which is officially a member of the intergovernmental court, said it did not recognise the court and \u201ccategorically\u201d rejected the verdict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis so-called Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India\u2019s sovereign decisions,\u201d India\u2019s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While India did not participate by making written or oral submissions in response to Pakistan\u2019s application, the PCA sought to consider India\u2019s positions on the matters \u201cto the extent they could be discerned from India\u2019s statements and conduct outside of these proceedings (including Indian government communications to Pakistan and to the neutral expert, and public statements made by Indian officials)\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
India has no grounds to suspend IWT
The PCA examined possible grounds for India\u2019s action outside the treaty \u2014 ie under customary international law rules \u2014 but found that \u201cthere is no rule allowing a state to unilaterally terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty based on its \u2018sovereignty\u2019\u201d, as argued by India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court considered several potential arguments based on India\u2019s statements, but found that they did not justify New Delhi\u2019s actions to suspend the IWT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It identified three of the \u201cfew, highly restricted grounds\u201d upon which a state could unilaterally terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty: material breach of the pact by a party, fundamental change of circumstances, and effect of armed conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On India\u2019s claim that Pakistan had violated the IWT\u2019s \u201ccooperative spirit\u201d by failing to enter into negotiations to modify the treaty, the court found that \u201cno provision of the treaty obliged Pakistan to enter into such\u201d discussions and therefore, this cannot be a material breach of the IWT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In fact, after examining the correspondence between the two governments, the court said it \u201cfound that Pakistan had been willing to discuss with India the issue of treaty modifications\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On India\u2019s allegations of cross-border terrorism, which New Delhi had cited while unilaterally suspending the IWT last year, the PCA observed that the treaty \u201cdoes not address terrorism or the use of force and expressly indicates that it governs only\u201d the rights and obligations regarding the Indus waters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court said it \u201cdid not find evidence that the alleged terrorism had impeded India\u2019s ability to construct its HEPs on the western rivers and instead noted that India has built and is building many such HEPs, including in recent years\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cEven if India\u2019s allegation was assumed to be true, they would not establish a material breach of the treaty by Pakistan,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regarding possible fundamental change of circumstances, the court considered India\u2019s arguments of \u201c(1) demographic changes; (2) the need for clean energy in India; (3) changes in dam infrastructure technology; (4) escalating cross-border terrorist attacks; and (5) the effects of climate change\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, in each instance, the court found that the \u201cnecessary conditions for invoking a \u2018fundamental change of circumstances\u2019 under the law of treaties had not been met\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court pointed out that the IWT \u201cwas of a type that would remain operational\u201d even during an armed conflict, adding that such a conflict did not exist at present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, the PCA also considered whether India\u2019s conduct could be justified \u201cas a \u2018countermeasure\u2019 against an antecedent violation of international law by Pakistan\u201d, but found that the requirements for a lawful countermeasure had not been met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court ruled that a \u201ctermination or suspension of the operation of the treaty would affect India\u2019s obligations to protect fundamental human rights, would not permit the resumption of India\u2019s obligations under the treaty, and would preclude the operation of dispute settlement provisions under the treaty\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Timeline of proceedings
Pakistan had initiated the arbitration proceedings regarding the western rivers in August 2016, the PCA press release recalled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, in December that year, the World Bank decided to \u201cpause\u201d the process of appointing the chairman of the Court of Arbitration and the neutral expert. This pause was lifted in 2022, following which a neutral expert was appointed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After India unilaterally held the IWT in abeyance in April 2025, the PCA considered its effect on the court\u2019s competence in a \u201cSupplemental Award on Competence\u201d issued on June 27 that year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court held that \u201cIndia\u2019s decision on the \u2018abeyance\u2019 of the treaty cannot limit the competence of the Court over this dispute\u201d. \u201cHowever, the court did not go further in determining whether the Indus Waters Treaty remained in force,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On March 4, Pakistan filed an application before the court to \u201cdetermine the present status of the Treaty in light of India\u2019s decision on \u2018abeyance\u2019\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The PCA noted that India was invited to indicate whether it would participate in the proceedings but received \u201cno response\u201d. The court then directed Pakistan to \u201cfile a written memorial further detailing its application and held a hearing at the Peace Palace in The Hague\u201d from April 26 to 28.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Netherland(National Times)- The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on Monday ordered India to uphold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan and suspend work on a hydro project in occupied Kashmir. Water and the IWT remain a contentious issue between India and Pakistan, following New Delhi\u2019s unilateral abeyance of the accord in April last year […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":132268,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-latest_news","entry"],"yoast_head":"\n