The longstanding water-sharing tensions between India and Pakistan have resurfaced as New Delhi firmly rejects the authority of the Court of Arbitration over disputes concerning the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. India’s foreign ministry articulated its position, disavowing the tribunal’s recent decisions and its very legitimacy, asserting that the Court of Arbitration has “no existence in the eye of law” and labeling it as “illegally constituted.”
This adamant stance arose following a Supplemental Award on Competence issued by the tribunal in June. The court, established to mediate conflicts arising from the Indus River system’s usage, declared that India’s suspension of the treaty did not nullify its jurisdiction, emphasizing that ongoing proceedings must adhere to timeliness, efficiency, and fairness. However, India’s Ministry of External Affairs disagreed, stating that the tribunal’s decisions are “illegal and per se void.” The ministry’s full statement can be found here.
The roots of this dispute date back to Pakistan’s initiation of arbitration in 2016, followed by India’s suspension of the treaty in April as a measure against alleged cross-border terrorism. This action by India came after a militant attack in Kashmir, which prompted New Delhi to demand that Pakistan denounce terrorism decisively.
The tribunal was invoked under Article IX and Annexure G of the treaty, embodying the long-standing mechanism for resolving such disputes. In August, the tribunal reaffirmed the binding nature of its rulings concerning the application of the treaty’s technical rules on hydroelectric projects along the western rivers. Nevertheless, India maintains its protest, arguing procedural flaws in the tribunal’s creation and insisting on its sovereign rights.
Analysts have expressed concerns about this deadlock potentially unraveling a pact long considered a cooperative model, with significant consequences for water security in South Asia and the credibility of third-party dispute resolution. The contention highlights the tensions between legal jurisdiction and political sovereignty in international conflicts.
As both India and Pakistan diverge on the path forward, the issue remains a complex interplay of legal, political, and regional dynamics. The continuing lack of consensus mirrors the challenge for international adjudicative bodies to enforce rulings in the absence of political will.