The Hague Court Rejects India’s Suspension of Indus Waters Treaty

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague has issued a supplemental award reaffirming its jurisdiction over the dispute between India and Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The tribunal concluded that India’s unilateral attempt to suspend its participation in the treaty does not affect the ongoing arbitration proceedings.

This ruling delivers a significant blow to New Delhi’s legal stance, as it had claimed that the treaty was “in abeyance” and the court had no authority to proceed.

Treaty Cannot Be Unilaterally Suspended

The Court emphasized that under Article XII(4) of the Indus Waters Treaty, the agreement remains legally binding on both parties unless mutually modified or terminated. It categorically rejected the idea that one country can withdraw or suspend its obligations under the treaty unilaterally.

Legal experts say the ruling is a reaffirmation of the core principle of international law — pacta sunt servanda, or "agreements must be kept."

Neutral Expert and Tribunal Both Remain Valid

The PCA also clarified that both dispute resolution pathways under the treaty—the Neutral Expert and the Court of Arbitration—can proceed independently. India had argued that Pakistan’s use of both mechanisms simultaneously violated the treaty.

However, the tribunal ruled that once arbitration is initiated, its authority is established and cannot be overridden by such objections.

Pakistan Welcomes the Decision

Pakistan’s Foreign Office welcomed the supplemental award, calling it a legal victory that strengthens the framework of the 1960 treaty. Islamabad confirmed that the hearings on the merits of the case—relating to India’s construction of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydropower projects—were held in July 2024 and a decision is expected in due course.

India Rejects the Ruling

In contrast, India’s Ministry of External Affairs rejected the court’s decision, calling the tribunal “illegally constituted.” It maintained that the treaty remains in abeyance and insisted that it does not recognize the PCA’s jurisdiction in this matter.

India has consistently argued that Pakistan’s simultaneous recourse to both the Court and the Neutral Expert process created a procedural conflict under the treaty.

A Broader Implication for Water Diplomacy

This decision has wider implications beyond the India–Pakistan water dispute. It reaffirms the binding nature of international treaties and the authority of arbitration forums. Analysts view it as a victory for multilateralism and legal diplomacy in South Asia, particularly in a time of strained bilateral relations.