Latest news with #Treaty
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Business
- Scoop
REVEALED: IKEA Consent Shows Why We Can't Have Nice Things
'IKEA's consent conditions show the absurd demands that councils are able to make that slow development, drive up cost, and make New Zealand a less attractive place to do business,' says ACT Leader David Seymour. ACT has obtained a copy of the 2023 resource consent for IKEA's Sylvia Park development. IKEA's consent requirements include: Inviting representatives of seven different mana whenua groups 'to undertake cultural monitoring, karakia and other such cultural ceremonies on the site' at the pre-start meeting, commencement of earthworks and immediately prior to completion of bulk earthworks across the site, with 10 days' notice before each of those events. Consulting with mana whenua on design aspects including erosion and sediment control measures, stormwater treatment, planting, the 'Culvert-edge walkway', and fencing. Mana whenua must be afforded the opportunity to provide Cultural Monitoring as deemed required by the respective mana whenua representatives. Mana whenua must be afforded access to the site at their discretion. 'What message do conditions like these send to other businesses looking to invest in New Zealand?" says Seymour. 'This is especially relevant for supermarkets, where we urgently need more competition. Companies like Aldi or Coles will think twice about entering the market if they realise they'll face this cultural rigmarole at hundreds of separate sites, each with potentially different requirements. 'We should be rolling out the welcome mat for anyone wanting to bring much-needed competition to New Zealand. Instead, we're forcing them to navigate demands based on metaphysical concepts not required anywhere else in the world. The result is Kiwis see higher prices at the checkout, less jobs, and lower incomes. 'That's why Cabinet has agreed there will be no general Treaty principles clause in the new resource management system. We will continue to uphold Treaty settlements, but we cannot continue to have planners bogging down everyone's consents by demanding this sort of absurdity."
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Politics
- 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'.
United News of India
9 hours ago
- Politics
- United News of India
India trashes 'supplemental award' by Court of Arbitration on Kishenganga, Ratle power projects
New Delhi, June 27 (UNI) India Today castigated the illegal Court of Arbitration and trashed its so-called supplemental award concerning Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir. ''The illegal Court of Arbitration, purportedly constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, albeit in brazen violation of it, has issued what it characterizes as a supplemental award on its competence concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,'' the External Affairs Ministry said. It said India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration and India's position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty. Therefore, any proceedings before this forum and any award or decision taken by it are also illegal and per se void. The Ministry said that following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, India has in exercise of its rights as a sovereign nation under international law, placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism. Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its 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. India, therefore, categorically rejects this so-called supplemental award as it has rejected all prior pronouncements of this body,' ,'' the Ministry said in a strongly worded statement... The statement said the latest charade at Pakistan's behest is yet another desperate attempt by it to escape accountability for its role as the global epicenter of terrorism. Pakistan's resort to this fabricated arbitration mechanism is consistent with its decades-long pattern of deception and manipulation of international forums, it added. The Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project (KHEP) dispute between India and Pakistan was addressed by a Court of Arbitration constituted under the Indus Waters Treaty. The Court ruled on the project's impact on the Kishenganga/Neelum River and Pakistan's downstream hydroelectric project. India was permitted to divert water for the KHEP. The latest ruling by the Court of Arbitration in the Kishanganga dispute is that it has the jurisdiction to consider the dispute between India and Pakistan regarding the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects. Pakistan raised concerns about the design and water usage of the Kishanganga (330 MW) and Ratle (850 MW) hydroelectric projects claiming they violated the Indus Waters Treaty. India, however, maintains that the dispute should be handled by a neutral expert appointed by the World Bank as stipulated in the Indus Water Treaty. India also argues that the Arbitration Court's involvement is a violation of the Treaty's dispute resolution mechanism. UNI RB GNK 20250
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
Pakistan welcomes Indus Waters arbitration ruling, urges dialogue with India
Pakistan on Friday welcomed the Supplemental Award issued by the Court of Arbitration in the Indus Waters matter, affirming the Court's jurisdiction and rejecting India's stance that sought to exclude the Court's competence in favour of a Neutral Expert. In a statement issued by the Foreign Office, Pakistan said the ruling, made public by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, confirmed that unilateral actions by India could not strip either the Court of Arbitration or the Neutral Expert of jurisdiction in proceedings pertaining to the Indus Waters Treaty. 'The Court has affirmed its competence in the light of recent developments,' the statement noted, adding that Pakistan looks forward to the upcoming ruling on the first phase of the case, relating to the merits of the dispute, following hearings held at the Peace Palace in The Hague in July 2024. India says it will never restore Indus water treaty with Pakistan Calling for renewed engagement with New Delhi, Pakistan emphasized the need to return to 'a meaningful dialogue' on all outstanding issues, including the implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty. Reiterating Islamabad's position, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in widely circulated remarks made on June 24, 2025, said Pakistan was 'ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with India on all outstanding issues, including Jammu & Kashmir, water, trade and terrorism.' The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 and brokered by the World Bank, governs the distribution and use of the Indus River and its tributaries between India and Pakistan. The recent legal proceedings stemmed from disputes over hydroelectric projects constructed by India on rivers allocated to Pakistan under the Treaty.
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Indus Waters Treaty: India rejects ‘illegal' arbitration court's authority, calls it ‘charade' at Pak behest
India on Friday rejected the authority of an arbitration court 'illegally' formed under the Indus Waters Treaty after the body issued a 'supplemental award' on its competence to hear cases on the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu & Kashmir. The Indian government has consistently opposed the proceedings of The Hague-based Court of Arbitration ever since its constitution by the World Bank in October 2022. In a statement Friday, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) termed the move as the 'latest charade at Pakistan's behest' and said that this is an attempt by Islamabad to escape accountability for its role as the global epicentre of terrorism. 'India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India's position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and consequently any proceedings before this forum and any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void,' said an MEA statement. The Court of Arbitration had said Thursday that India's position of holding the treaty in abeyance 'does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence'. India is constructing the Kishenganga project on the Kishenganga river, a tributary of the Jhelum, and the Ratle project on the Chenab river. In 2015, Pakistan objected to their design features and moved the World Bank to seek a settlement through a neutral expert. But it withdrew its request a year later and asked for adjudication through a Court of Arbitration instead. India, for its part, sought a neutral expert to rule on the differences. On October 13, 2022, the World Bank appointed Michal Lino as the neutral expert. The same day, it also appointed a Court of Arbitration. India has opposed the court since then, saying it could not be 'compelled to recognise illegal and parallel proceedings not envisaged by the Treaty'. India has continued participating in the 'Treaty-consistent Neutral Expert proceedings'. The MEA statement on Friday said: 'Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, India has in exercise of its rights as a sovereign nation under international law, placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism. Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its 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.' The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, after nine years of negotiations between India and Pakistan. Then Indian Prime Minister Pt Jawaharlal Nehru and then Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan signed the treaty in Karachi. The treaty has 12 Articles and 8 Annexures (from A to H). As per the provisions of the treaty, all the water of 'Eastern Rivers'— Sutlej, Beas and Ravi—shall be available for the 'unrestricted use' of India. However, Pakistan shall receive water from 'Western Rivers'—Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. In January 2023, India had issued a notice to Pakistan seeking the 'modification' of the Treaty. This was the first such notice in the more than six decades of the Treaty's existence. India upped the ante in September 2024, by issuing Islamabad another formal notice, this time seeking the 'review and modification' of the IWT. The word 'review', according to experts, effectively signals New Delhi's intent to revoke, and renegotiate the Treaty which will turn 65 this year. India decided to keep in abeyance the IWT on April 23 Pahalgam terror attack, in which militants killed at least 26 people and injured another 10.
