CoA says it's competent to deal with Indian Waters Treaty dispute; MEA terms court illegal

Time of India

2 days ago

The Court of Arbitration (CoA) at The Hague asserted its jurisdiction over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects dispute, despite India's decision to put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. India firmly rejected the CoA's ruling, deeming it "illegal" and a breach of the IWT. India has stated that the treaty will remain suspended until Pakistan ceases cross-border terrorism.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
New Delhi: The Hague-based Court of Arbitration (CoA), examining the design of Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects at Pakistan 's behest, in a 'supplementary award' declared that it was competent to address the dispute under the Indus Waters Treaty IWT ) despite India 's decision to put the agreement in abeyance.India, however, firmly rejected this order, terming the court itself as "illegal" - a position taken much before the Pahalgam attacks. New Delhi had decided to cooperate only with neutral expert, asserting that two simultaneous processes cannot be in play."This latest charade at Pakistan's behest is yet another desperate attempt by it to escape accountability for its role as the global epicentre of terrorism. Pakistan's resort to this fabricated arbitration mechanism is consistent with its decades-long pattern of deception and manipulation of international forums," Ministry of External Affairs said.India has maintained that the constitution of this "so-called arbitral body" is a "serious breach" of IWT. It has not participated in any of the proceedings of the court. Thus, MEA said, any award or decision is "illegal and per se void".India made it clear that the treaty will remain in abeyance until Pakistan "abjures its support for cross-border terrorism ". MEA added India is not bound by any obligations under the treaty. "No Court of Arbitration, much less this illegally constituted arbitral body which has no existence in the eye of law, has the jurisdiction to examine the legality of India's actions in exercise of its rights as a sovereign."CoA, however, said the text of the treaty "does not provide for the unilateral 'abeyance' or 'suspension' of the treaty... Rather, the treaty provides for its continuation in force until terminated by mutual consent by India and Pakistan... Accordingly, the text of the treaty, read in light of its object and purpose, does not allow either." CoA has held that these findings apply similarly with respect to the competence of the neutral expert.