TIMES REPORT
THE HAGUE: The Court of Arbitration has unanimously ruled that the Indus Waters Treaty remains fully in force, rejecting India’s decision to place the decades-old water-sharing agreement with Pakistan in “abeyance” and holding that India remains legally bound by its obligations under the treaty.
The ruling came on Monday in the arbitration proceedings initiated by Pakistan under Article IX and Annexure G of the Indus Waters Treaty. The Court also issued an order imposing interim restrictions on construction work at India’s Ratle Hydroelectric Plant (RHEP) on the Chenab River, pending a decision by the Neutral Expert on whether the project’s design complies with the treaty.
The Court’s decisions represent a significant development in the long-running dispute between Pakistan and India over the interpretation and implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty, particularly concerning India’s hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers.
India’s ‘Abeyance’ Decision Rejected
The Court examined India’s April 2025 decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance” following an attack in India-administered Jammu and Kashmir.
India had linked the decision to its demand that Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably” end what New Delhi described as support for cross-border terrorism.
However, the Court found that the term “abeyance” has no technical meaning under the treaty or international law and proceeded on the basis that India was effectively claiming either suspension or termination of the agreement.
The Court concluded that neither suspension nor termination was legally justified.
It noted that the Indus Waters Treaty itself does not provide either Pakistan or India with the unilateral right to suspend or terminate the agreement. Instead, the treaty provides that it will remain in force unless India and Pakistan jointly modify or terminate it through a further treaty.
The Court also examined whether international law provided India with grounds to suspend or terminate the treaty and found that none of the grounds relied upon by India could justify such action.
Sovereignty Cannot Override Treaty Obligations
The Court rejected the argument that India could suspend or terminate the treaty on the basis of sovereignty.
It emphasized the fundamental international-law principle of pacta sunt servanda—that agreements must be respected and performed by the parties.
The Court further examined India’s claims concerning Pakistan’s alleged breaches of the treaty, including Pakistan’s refusal to enter negotiations over proposed modifications, objections raised against Indian projects and the use of treaty dispute-settlement mechanisms.
It found that Pakistan was not required by the treaty to enter negotiations to modify the agreement and that the record showed Pakistan had been willing to discuss possible modifications.
The Court also found no basis for concluding that Pakistan had breached the treaty by objecting to Indian projects or initiating dispute-settlement proceedings. The treaty, it noted, expressly provides mechanisms through which either party can raise objections and pursue dispute resolution.
Terrorism Allegation Not a Basis for Suspension
The Court also considered India’s allegation that Pakistan’s sponsorship of cross-border terrorism had interfered with India’s rights under the treaty.
While stating that the allegation was taken extremely seriously, the Court found that even if the allegation were assumed to be true, it would not constitute a material breach of the Indus Waters Treaty capable of justifying its suspension or termination.
The Court observed that the treaty specifically governs the rights and obligations of Pakistan and India concerning the use of the waters of the Indus river system and does not regulate terrorism or the use of force.
It also found no evidence that the alleged terrorist activity had prevented India from constructing hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, noting that India has continued to build and develop such projects.
Climate Change, Demography Also Examined
The Court considered India’s arguments concerning a possible “fundamental change of circumstances,” including demographic changes, India’s growing demand for clean energy, developments in dam technology, cross-border terrorism and climate change.
However, the Court found that the legal requirements for invoking a fundamental change of circumstances had not been satisfied.
It determined that the changes cited by India were either foreseeable when the treaty was concluded, were not an essential basis on which the two countries entered into the agreement, or had not fundamentally transformed the scope of India’s obligations.
The Court also examined whether armed conflict could justify suspension or termination of the treaty.
It concluded that no international armed conflict currently existed between Pakistan and India for this purpose and observed that, in any event, the Indus Waters Treaty was of a nature that would continue to operate during armed conflict.
The treaty has remained in force through several conflicts between the two countries since its signing in 1960.
Countermeasure Argument Also Rejected
The Court further considered whether India’s decision could be justified as a countermeasure in response to an alleged violation of international law by Pakistan.
It concluded that the requirements for a lawful countermeasure had not been met.
According to the Court, suspending or terminating the treaty would affect India’s obligations concerning fundamental human rights, prevent the resumption of treaty obligations and interfere with the dispute-settlement mechanisms established under the agreement.
The Court therefore concluded that India’s decision to place the treaty in “abeyance” was not permissible under the treaty or applicable international law.
Ratle Dam Construction Restricted
Alongside its ruling on the treaty’s status, the Court issued an Order on Interim Measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant.
Pakistan had requested interim measures to prevent construction work on disputed components of the project while the Neutral Expert considers whether the RHEP design complies with the Indus Waters Treaty.
The Court unanimously granted three of the measures sought by Pakistan, with modifications.
Under the first measure, India has been prohibited from concreting the Ratle dam wall above a specified level pending the Neutral Expert’s decision.
A second measure similarly restricts concreting of the power intake structure above a specified level.
The Court said these restrictions were necessary because the current construction schedule envisages significant concreting work before the Neutral Expert is expected to issue his final decision.
If the project’s design is subsequently found to violate the treaty, modifying or removing reinforced concrete could be extraordinarily difficult and costly, the Court observed.
India Ordered to Report Construction Changes
The third measure requires India to notify the Court, the Neutral Expert and Pakistan of any changes to the Ratle project’s construction schedule.
The Court said transparency about construction activities was essential because the project’s timeline was directly relevant to the interim restrictions and could also be important to the Neutral Expert as he completes his work.
The reporting requirement will remain in place until the Neutral Expert issues his final decision.
The Court declined two other measures requested by Pakistan.
One sought an explicit declaration that India would undertake construction at its own risk if any disputed component was later found to be inconsistent with the treaty. The Court said the “own risk” principle generally applies under international law but found that a separate interim order affirming it was unnecessary.
Pakistan’s other requested measure, requiring India to return to full treaty compliance pending the Court’s decision on the treaty’s status, was also rejected as unnecessary because the Court was issuing its ruling on treaty status simultaneously.
Neutral Expert’s Decision Expected in 2027
The proceedings concerning the specific design of the Ratle and Kishenganga hydroelectric projects remain before the Neutral Expert, an engineer appointed through the World Bank process.
The latest work programme envisages circulation of the Neutral Expert’s final decision to the parties around July 16, 2027.
The interim restrictions imposed on the Ratle project will remain in effect until 90 days after the Neutral Expert delivers his final decision on whether the project design complies with the treaty.
The Court said the measures could be revised or supplemented at any time depending on developments.
Background of the Arbitration
Pakistan initiated the arbitration proceedings in August 2016 under Article IX and Annexure G of the Indus Waters Treaty.
India subsequently sought the appointment of a Neutral Expert under a separate mechanism of the treaty to consider questions concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle projects.
The World Bank paused both processes in December 2016 before lifting the pause in 2022. The Court of Arbitration was subsequently constituted and the Neutral Expert appointed.
In July 2023, the Court rejected India’s objections to its competence and ruled that it had jurisdiction over the dispute.
The Court subsequently issued a series of decisions dealing with general interpretation of the treaty, including awards in August 2025 and May 2026.
India did not participate in the latest phases concerning Pakistan’s application on the treaty’s status and its request for interim measures. The Court nevertheless considered India’s positions to the extent they could be determined from Indian government communications, public statements and conduct outside the proceedings.
Court’s Decision
In its final assessment of the treaty-status question, the Court held that the Indus Waters Treaty has neither been terminated nor suspended and remains fully operative.
India therefore remains bound by its obligations under the agreement, including provisions governing the design and operation of its hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers and the treaty’s dispute-settlement arrangements.
The Court of Arbitration is chaired by Professor Sean D. Murphy of the United States. Its other members are Professor Wouter Buytaert of Belgium, Professor Jeffrey P. Minear of the United States, Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh of Jordan and Dr Donald Blackmore of Australia.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration is acting as the secretariat for the proceedings.
The full award and order will be published on the PCA website after the parties have been given an opportunity to identify confidential material requiring redaction.
Leave a Reply