Court affirms Indus waters treaty remains binding, rejects unilateral ‘abeyance’

By Mashe Umaru Gwamna

The Court of Arbitration has unanimously ruled that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains fully in force, dealing a major legal blow to India’s attempt to place the agreement in “abeyance” through unilateral action.

This was contained in a statement signed and issued by the representative of the Pakistani Community in Abuja, Rashid Arif Kayani.

The Court’s decision settles a fundamental legal question in the long-running dispute between India and Pakistan, affirming that neither party can unilaterally suspend or terminate the treaty outside the framework established by the agreement and applicable rules of international law.

The ruling means India remains bound by its obligations under the IWT, including provisions governing the use, design and operation of hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, as well as the treaty’s established dispute-settlement mechanisms.

The decision is particularly significant because Pakistan has consistently maintained that the treaty contains no provision permitting either country to unilaterally place it in abeyance.

By unanimously affirming that the IWT remains operative, the Court has substantially validated that position and reinforced the principle that binding international agreements cannot be set aside through unilateral political declarations.

The Court also ordered interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant, restricting specified construction activities pending further consideration of the dispute.

The measures are aimed at preserving the integrity of the arbitration process and ensuring that ongoing developments do not prejudice issues that remain before the Court.

The ruling therefore goes beyond the immediate dispute over the Indus river system. It reinforces the broader international-law principle that disputes over shared natural resources must be addressed through agreed legal and institutional mechanisms rather than unilateral action.

“Pakistan has consistently pursued the dispute through the mechanisms provided under the IWT, including the Permanent Indus Commission, the Neutral Expert process and the Court of Arbitration.

“The latest decision strengthens Pakistan’s argument that disagreements over the treaty do not permit either party to bypass the procedures agreed by both countries”.

The Court’s position also significantly weakens the legal basis for India’s unilateral declaration placing the treaty in abeyance. While states may seek to amend or replace international agreements through mutually agreed processes, one party cannot simply rewrite or suspend treaty obligations on its own.

“The durability of the Indus Waters Treaty makes the ruling particularly important. The agreement has survived wars, prolonged political tensions and periods of limited bilateral engagement between India and Pakistan.

“Its continued operation demonstrates the importance of maintaining rules-based mechanisms for managing shared water resources even when wider diplomatic relations deteriorate”.

The statement maintained that the Indus river system supports agriculture, livelihoods, food security and communities across the region, making compliance with the treaty a matter extending beyond bilateral political relations.

“For Pakistan, the ruling represents a significant legal victory and an affirmation of its longstanding position that the IWT remains a binding international agreement”.

The statement however said, the decision carries implications for transboundary water arrangements worldwide.

“A precedent allowing one state to suspend a shared-water treaty through a unilateral political declaration could create uncertainty for numerous international river agreement”.

The Court’s unanimous finding instead reinforces the principle that treaty obligations remain binding and that disagreements must be resolved through the legal mechanisms contained in the agreements themselves.

The ruling therefore places the emphasis firmly on treaty compliance, peaceful dispute resolution and respect for international law.

“For Pakistan, the outcome is not merely a victory in its dispute with India but an affirmation of the wider principle that international agreements governing shared resources cannot be unilaterally discarded when political circumstances change”.