Pak IWT stance vindicated by arbitration court
Listen to article
The Court of Arbitration constituted in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, ruled on Friday that India's decision of holding the treaty in abeyance did not deprive it of its competence to adjudicate Pakistan's complaints against its neighbour.
The court issued the "Supplemental Award" on the proceedings instituted by Pakistan against India.
"Consistent with this interpretation of the Treaty, the Court has previously found that once a proceeding before a court of arbitration is properly initiated, as in the present case, "there must be a strong presumption against the incidental loss of jurisdiction over the matters placed before it by subsequent acts, such as the appointment of a neutral expert.
"Accordingly, the text of the Treaty, read in light of its object and purpose, does not to allow either party, acting unilaterally, to hold in abeyance or suspend an ongoing dispute settlement process," the order read.
The Supplemental Award said that "the text ... 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".
"Such text definitively indicates an intent by the drafters not to allow for unilateral action to alter the rights, obligations, and procedures established by the Treaty, including the treaty's dispute settlement procedures.
"Additionally, the object and purpose of the Treaty, as expressed in its Preamble, includes establishing procedures for the resolution "of all such questions as may hereafter arise in regard to the interpretation or application of the provisions agreed upon in the Treaty."
The order added, "To that end, the Treaty's procedures, inter alia, call for the establishment of a court of arbitration at the request of one of the parties, and provide that such court of arbitration, after receiving written and oral submissions, is empowered to render an award or awards that "shall be final and binding upon the Parties with respect to that dispute."
"It is difficult to see how this object and purpose of the Treaty — compulsory dispute resolution for definitive resolution of disputes arising between the Parties — could possibly be achieved if it were open to either Party, acting unilaterally, to suspend an ongoing dispute settlement process. Such an interpretation would fundamentally undermine "the value and efficacy of the Treaty's compulsory third-party dispute settlement process".
The award, made public on the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, was welcomed by Pakistan, saying that it affirmed the court or the neutral expert's competence despite India's unilateral action.
Through a request for arbitration on August 19, 2016, Pakistan initiated the arbitration proceedings against India, seeking to resolve certain issues concerning the design or operation of run-of-river hydro-electric plants on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers and their tributaries.
The plants included the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant and the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant. After the filing of Pakistan's request for arbitration, India requested for the appointment of a neutral expert to resolve certain design and operation questions concerning the two projects.
On October 13, 2022, the World Bank, which had brokered the IWT 65 years ago, appointed Michel Lino as a neutral expert pursuant to Article IX and Annexure F to the Treaty. In April 2025, after the Pahalgam attack, India said it was holding the IWT in abeyance as a punitive measure against Pakistan.
"The Court of Arbitration unanimously finds: A) India's position that it is holding the Treaty in "abeyance", however, that position may be characterized as a matter of international law, does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence," the ruling said.
"B) finds that the Court of Arbitration has a continuing responsibility to advance its proceedings in a timely, efficient, and fair manner without regard to India's position on "abeyance", and that a failure to do so would be inconsistent with its obligations under the Treaty," it added.
"C. DETERMINES that the above findings apply, mutatis mutandis, with respect to any competence that the Neutral Expert otherwise possesses. D. RESERVES for further consideration and directions all issues not decided in this Award."
The Court of Arbitration is led by Prof Sean D Murphy and included Prof Wouter Buytaert, Prof Jeffrey P Minear, Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh and Dr Donald Blackmore. It said that according to IWT, technical questions could be placed before a neutral expert or an arbitral panel.
Pakistan, meanwhile, welcomed the Supplemental Award, noting that the Court affirmed its competence in the light of recent developments and that India's unilateral action could not deprive either the Court or the neutral expert to adjudicate the issues before them.
"Pakistan looks forward to receiving the Court's Award on the First Phase on the Merits in due course following the hearing that was held in Peace Palace in The Hague in July 2024," said an official handout issued after the ruling was published on the court's website.
"The high priority, at this point, is that India and Pakistan find a way back to a meaningful dialogue, including on the application of the Indus Waters Treaty," it said. It referred Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's remarks this week that Pakistan was "ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with India".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Pak IWT stance vindicated by arbitration court
Listen to article The Court of Arbitration constituted in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, ruled on Friday that India's decision of holding the treaty in abeyance did not deprive it of its competence to adjudicate Pakistan's complaints against its neighbour. The court issued the "Supplemental Award" on the proceedings instituted by Pakistan against India. "Consistent with this interpretation of the Treaty, the Court has previously found that once a proceeding before a court of arbitration is properly initiated, as in the present case, "there must be a strong presumption against the incidental loss of jurisdiction over the matters placed before it by subsequent acts, such as the appointment of a neutral expert. "Accordingly, the text of the Treaty, read in light of its object and purpose, does not to allow either party, acting unilaterally, to hold in abeyance or suspend an ongoing dispute settlement process," the order read. The Supplemental Award said that "the text ... 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". "Such text definitively indicates an intent by the drafters not to allow for unilateral action to alter the rights, obligations, and procedures established by the Treaty, including the treaty's dispute settlement procedures. "Additionally, the object and purpose of the Treaty, as expressed in its Preamble, includes establishing procedures for the resolution "of all such questions as may hereafter arise in regard to the interpretation or application of the provisions agreed upon in the Treaty." The order added, "To that end, the Treaty's procedures, inter alia, call for the establishment of a court of arbitration at the request of one of the parties, and provide that such court of arbitration, after receiving written and oral submissions, is empowered to render an award or awards that "shall be final and binding upon the Parties with respect to that dispute." "It is difficult to see how this object and purpose of the Treaty — compulsory dispute resolution for definitive resolution of disputes arising between the Parties — could possibly be achieved if it were open to either Party, acting unilaterally, to suspend an ongoing dispute settlement process. Such an interpretation would fundamentally undermine "the value and efficacy of the Treaty's compulsory third-party dispute settlement process". The award, made public on the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, was welcomed by Pakistan, saying that it affirmed the court or the neutral expert's competence despite India's unilateral action. Through a request for arbitration on August 19, 2016, Pakistan initiated the arbitration proceedings against India, seeking to resolve certain issues concerning the design or operation of run-of-river hydro-electric plants on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers and their tributaries. The plants included the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant and the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant. After the filing of Pakistan's request for arbitration, India requested for the appointment of a neutral expert to resolve certain design and operation questions concerning the two projects. On October 13, 2022, the World Bank, which had brokered the IWT 65 years ago, appointed Michel Lino as a neutral expert pursuant to Article IX and Annexure F to the Treaty. In April 2025, after the Pahalgam attack, India said it was holding the IWT in abeyance as a punitive measure against Pakistan. "The Court of Arbitration unanimously finds: A) India's position that it is holding the Treaty in "abeyance", however, that position may be characterized as a matter of international law, does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence," the ruling said. "B) finds that the Court of Arbitration has a continuing responsibility to advance its proceedings in a timely, efficient, and fair manner without regard to India's position on "abeyance", and that a failure to do so would be inconsistent with its obligations under the Treaty," it added. "C. DETERMINES that the above findings apply, mutatis mutandis, with respect to any competence that the Neutral Expert otherwise possesses. D. RESERVES for further consideration and directions all issues not decided in this Award." The Court of Arbitration is led by Prof Sean D Murphy and included Prof Wouter Buytaert, Prof Jeffrey P Minear, Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh and Dr Donald Blackmore. It said that according to IWT, technical questions could be placed before a neutral expert or an arbitral panel. Pakistan, meanwhile, welcomed the Supplemental Award, noting that the Court affirmed its competence in the light of recent developments and that India's unilateral action could not deprive either the Court or the neutral expert to adjudicate the issues before them. "Pakistan looks forward to receiving the Court's Award on the First Phase on the Merits in due course following the hearing that was held in Peace Palace in The Hague in July 2024," said an official handout issued after the ruling was published on the court's website. "The high priority, at this point, is that India and Pakistan find a way back to a meaningful dialogue, including on the application of the Indus Waters Treaty," it said. It referred Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's remarks this week that Pakistan was "ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with India".
Express Tribune
13 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Lessons for India, Israel and Pakistan
Listen to article Should India draw any lessons from the latest fiasco that an arrogant Israel suffered? Technological superiority can guarantee defence but it can hardly enforce total submission by a nation that prides itself on thousands of years of nationhood – also gelled by a common religious belief. Let us first glance through the Indian conduct post Pahalgam. It unilaterally suspended the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and dared to establish a neo-normal by sending drones and missiles deep inside Pakistan between May 7 and 10. Regardless of who did it and whether the entire episode was somehow multilaterally scripted, the Indian government's narrative evoked both negativity as well as skepticism at home and abroad. Officials mostly hid behind ambiguity, pretending innocence wrapped in a self-righteousness. Not many abroad bought the Indian projection of being a victim of Pakistan-driven terrorism after the May 7 strikes deep inside Pakistan. The consternation caused in Tehran by India's explicit support for Israel – no condemnation at all – its refrain from calling out Israel for its aggression, and its refusal to sign off the SCO statement during the conflict that called out Israel for the violence against Iran has had its impact too. India endured more isolation – if not insult – at the SCO Defence Ministers/Security Advisors huddle at Qingdao, China (June 26) when the joint communiqué made a reference to "militant activities in Balochistan", but made no mention of the April 22 attack in Kashmir. In protest, India refused to endorse the statement, accusing it of disproportionately highlighting Balochistan-related terrorism while downplaying or ignoring attacks affecting India - a stance seen as favouring Pakistan. The toll such self-serving posturing – during the Iran-Israel conflict and at the SCO security officials conference – took became evident in a statement by the Iranian Embassy in New Delhi; it thanked "all honourable people and political parties of India" for standing by Iran. Surprisingly, the only glaring omission from this was the Indian government – no mention of it at all – an expression presumably of the Iranian displeasure over the duplicitous attitude of India, a non-aligned country that touts democratic credentials. More similar setbacks await Indian diplomacy in coming weeks and months unless the Modi cohorts enforce a review of the country's policies. In contrast, the Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghaddam, expressed deep gratitude to the people and government of Pakistan, saying, "The Iranian nation will never forget the brotherly support extended by the Pakistani people and the government." This duplicity is not lost on China or Russia either – both of whom seem to be reconnecting with Iran, stand firm with Pakistan and subtly snubbing India, albeit in a diplomatic offensive. These countries also watch as India now has put Bangladesh on notice for renegotiating the Ganga Waters Treaty (GWT) that had been signed on December 12, 1996. India, according to an NDTV report, has conveyed to Dhaka its desire for a new 10-15 year duration treaty on the pretext that it requires more water to meet its developmental needs – as if there is no such need for the lower riparian Bangladesh. "Before Pahalgam, we were inclined to extend the treaty for another 30 years, but the situation changed drastically afterward," the report quoted a Ministry of External Affairs official as saying. Again a very self-serving approach – premised in the Pahalgam incident – by the upper riparian India, unlike China which as the upper riparian for India always insists on dialogue and warns against actions that may harm the neighbour. As for Israel, it overlooked the fact that Iran was well-prepared for dealing with the Israeli assault because of the perennial state-of-conflict and the shadow wars through proxies between the two states. The carte-blanche for the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza – that Israel got from the US and key NATO allies after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack – apparently obscured the Israeli assessment of the Iranian missile capacity. A unified and unflinching Tehran – the clergy led by the Ayatollah, the IRGC and the Iranian People at large – also surprised the cold-blooded, self-righteous Israeli warmongers. Israel had to eventually swallow the bitter pill i.e. acceptance of a face-saving ceasefire – as "commanded" by the US President. India had apparently taken cue from the Israeli high-handedness vis a vis the helpless Palestinians and the Lebanese when it decided to launch trans-boundary attacks on Pakistan. Both seemed to over-rely on their technological prowess – assuming the adversary would melt away once subjected to kinetic attacks. Both India and Israel simply underestimated the Iranian and the Pakistani national resolve. They also forgot one critical element: technological superiority can inflict damage on the rivals but is no guarantee for defeating the national resolve – more so in the case of Iran which boasts history and culture spanned over thousands of years. Common religious faith of the majority – the Shia school of thought – only further solidified the cultural pride in the face of the Israeli aggression. Armed with nuclear weapons and fully backed by the time-trusted friend China, Pakistan too blunted the Indian belligerence and the diplomatic/communications offensive. Israeli and Indian aggressive posturing has enforced fresh strategic realignment. Finally, the unravelling of a massive Mossad-led espionage network in Tehran and elsewhere in the country must raise alarm in Pakistan too. Such networks are the key to kinetic and cyber invasions which can compromise national security. And hence the need for urgent closer cooperation among the SCO nations to guard against such hazards.
Express Tribune
15 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Arbitration court vindicates Pakistan's IWT stance
The Court of Arbitration constituted in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, ruled on Friday that India's decision of holding the treaty in abeyance did not deprive it of its competence to adjudicate Pakistan's complaints against its neighbour. The court issued the 'Supplemental Award' on the proceedings instituted by Pakistan against India. 'Consistent with this interpretation of the Treaty, the Court has previously found that once a proceeding before a court of arbitration is properly initiated, as in the present case, there must be a strong presumption against the incidental loss of jurisdiction over the matters placed before it by subsequent acts, such as the appointment of a neutral expert. Accordingly, the text of the Treaty, read in light of its object and purpose, does not to allow either party, acting unilaterally, to hold in abeyance or suspend an ongoing dispute settlement process,' the order read. The Supplemental Award said that 'the text… 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'. 'Such text definitively indicates an intent by the drafters not to allow for unilateral action to alter the rights, obligations, and procedures established by the Treaty, including the treaty's dispute settlement procedures. Additionally, the object and purpose of the Treaty, as expressed in its Preamble, includes establishing procedures for the resolution of all such questions as may hereafter arise in regard to the interpretation or application of the provisions agreed upon in the Treaty,' it said. The order added, 'To that end, the Treaty's procedures, inter alia, call for the establishment of a court of arbitration at the request of one of the parties, and provide that such court of arbitration, after receiving written and oral submissions, is empowered to render an award or awards that 'shall be final and binding upon the Parties with respect to that dispute.' 'It is difficult to see how this object and purpose of the Treaty—compulsory dispute resolution for definitive resolution of disputes arising between the Parties—could possibly be achieved if it were open to either Party, acting unilaterally, to suspend an ongoing dispute settlement process. Such an interpretation would fundamentally undermine 'the value and efficacy of the Treaty's compulsory third-party dispute settlement process'. Through a request for arbitration on August 19, 2016, Pakistan initiated the arbitration proceedings against India, seeking to resolve certain issues concerning the design or operation of run-of-river hydro-electric plants on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers and their tributaries. The plants included the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant and the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant. After the filing of Pakistan's request for arbitration, India requested for the appointment of a neutral expert to resolve certain design and operation questions concerning the two projects. On October 13, 2022, the World Bank, which had brokered the IWT 65 years ago, appointed Michel Lino as a neutral expert pursuant to Article IX and Annexure F to the treaty. In April 2025, after the Pahalgam attack, India said it was holding the IWT in abeyance as a punitive measure against Pakistan. "The Court of Arbitration unanimously finds: A) India's position that it is holding the Treaty in 'abeyance', however, that position may be characterized as a matter of international law, does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence," the ruling said. "B) finds that the Court of Arbitration has a continuing responsibility to advance its proceedings in a timely, efficient, and fair manner without regard to India's position on 'abeyance', and that a failure to do so would be inconsistent with its obligations under the Treaty," it added. 'C) DETERMINES that the above findings apply, mutatis mutandis, with respect to any competence that the Neutral Expert otherwise possesses. D) RESERVES for further consideration and directions all issues not decided in this Award.' The Court of Arbitration is led by Prof Sean D Murphy and included Prof Wouter Buytaert, Prof Jeffrey P Minear, Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh and Dr Donald Blackmore. It said that according to IWT, technical questions could be placed before a neutral expert or an arbitral panel. Pakistan, meanwhile, welcomed the Supplemental Award, noting that the Court affirmed its competence in the light of recent developments and that India's unilateral action could not deprive either the Court or the neutral expert to adjudicate the issues before them. 'Pakistan looks forward to receiving the Court's Award on the First Phase on the Merits in due course following the hearing that was held in Peace Palace in The Hague in July 2024,' said an official handout issued after the ruling was published on the court's website. 'The high priority, at this point, is that India and Pakistan find a way back to a meaningful dialogue, including on the application of the Indus Waters Treaty,' it said. It referred Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's remarks this week that Pakistan was 'ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with India'.
