ISLAMABAD: The unanimous ruling by the Court of Arbitration in The Hague that India cannot unilaterally place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance has significantly strengthened Pakistan’s legal position, but the immediate challenge for Islamabad will be converting the legal victory into actual compliance by India, legal experts say.
The tribunal’s August 31 award found that the 1960 water-sharing treaty remains fully in force and binding on both countries, rejecting the grounds advanced by India for unilaterally suspending or terminating the agreement.
It also ruled that the treaty can be modified or terminated only through a further treaty concluded jointly by Pakistan and India.
Legal experts say the ruling has transformed Pakistan’s position from one of contesting India’s unilateral suspension of the treaty to one backed by a unanimous international arbitral determination.
International law expert Ahmer Bilal Soofi has described the decision as a significant legal development, consistent with his longstanding argument that the Indus Waters Treaty contains no provision allowing either party to unilaterally place it in abeyance.
The decision represents a major legal setback for New Delhi, which announced on April 22, 2025 that it was placing the treaty in “abeyance” following the Pahalgam attack, a false flag operation staged by India to malign Islamabad, whip up domestic political hysteria, and divert attention from internal security and political challenges, and has since maintained that the suspension would remain in force.
Why the ruling matters
According to legal experts, the most important aspect of the award is that it removes the central legal argument India had used to justify its unilateral suspension of the treaty.
The tribunal examined possible grounds including sovereignty, an alleged Pakistani breach of the treaty, terrorism, changed circumstances and armed conflict.
It concluded that none provided a lawful basis for India to suspend or terminate the IWT.
The ruling is particularly significant because Article XII of the treaty provides that its provisions may be modified through a duly ratified treaty between the two governments and remain in force until terminated through another treaty concluded by both sides. The treaty itself contains no provision allowing either party to place it unilaterally in “abeyance”.
The tribunal also rejected the argument that India’s sovereignty by itself permitted it to disregard its treaty obligations. For Pakistan, legal experts say, this establishes an important principle: India may disagree with the treaty or seek its modification, but it cannot simply suspend its obligations through a unilateral declaration.
Terrorism argument rejected as treaty ground
Another important element of the ruling concerns India’s attempt to link the treaty to allegations of terrorism. The tribunal considered India’s arguments but found that even if its allegations were assumed to be true, they would not amount to a material breach of the Indus Waters Treaty because the agreement regulates the use and management of the Indus river system rather than terrorism or the use of force.
The court also rejected arguments based on demographic changes, India’s energy requirements, advances in dam technology and climate change as meeting the stringent legal threshold required for a fundamental change of circumstances.
Legal experts say this portion of the judgment could have significance beyond the immediate India-Pakistan dispute because it reinforces the principle that a state cannot readily use political or security grievances to escape obligations under a treaty dealing with an entirely different subject matter.
Pakistan gains another advantage on Ratle project
The second major element of the Hague proceedings concerns India’s Ratle hydroelectric project on the Chenab River. The Court of Arbitration granted three interim measures sought by Pakistan, with modifications. India has been prohibited from concreting specified portions of the Ratle dam wall and power-intake structure beyond prescribed levels while a World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert considers whether the project’s design complies with the IWT.
India has also been required to report changes to the project’s construction schedule. The restrictions will remain in place until 90 days after the Neutral Expert issues its final decision, which is expected around July 2027.
The measures are significant because they prevent India from potentially creating a fait accompli through construction before the separate technical proceedings are concluded.
What options does Pakistan now have?
Legal experts say Pakistan’s first option is to insist on implementation of the award through the treaty’s own legal and diplomatic framework rather than immediately treating the ruling as the end of the dispute.
Pakistan can formally call upon India to comply with the award and resume the institutional mechanisms established under the IWT. Islamabad can also use the ruling in future proceedings concerning Indian hydroelectric projects on the western rivers.
The treaty assigns the waters of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab primarily to Pakistan while permitting India limited uses of those rivers, including run-of-river hydropower projects subject to specified conditions.
A second option is to use the award as authoritative legal support in the ongoing Neutral Expert process concerning Ratle and Kishenganga.
Pakistan has already been participating in that process, while India has challenged the parallel arbitration mechanism and at various stages declined to participate. Previous proceedings have nevertheless continued despite India’s non-participation.
A third option is international diplomatic pressure. If India continues to refuse to implement the ruling, Pakistan can place the issue before relevant international forums and seek broader diplomatic support for the principle that binding treaty obligations cannot be unilaterally suspended.
The objective, legal experts say, would not necessarily be to seek immediate punitive action but to increase the political and diplomatic cost of continued non-compliance while maintaining Pakistan’s position within international law.
Pakistan can also use the award as a basis for documenting any future Indian actions that Pakistan believes violate the treaty, potentially creating a stronger evidentiary record for additional treaty-based proceedings.
READ ALSO: Pakistan Welcomes Arbitration Court Ruling Rejecting India’s Indus Waters Treaty ‘Abeyance’
Pakistan can argue that India’s non-participation does not invalidate proceedings conducted under the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanism. The Court of Arbitration had already determined in earlier proceedings that India’s decision to put the treaty in abeyance could not deprive it of competence over the dispute.
Pakistan’s Foreign Office has previously maintained that awards issued under the IWT’s arbitration mechanism are final and binding and that India’s refusal to participate cannot by itself invalidate them.
A stronger position for future water disputes
The ruling could also provide Pakistan with a stronger legal platform for future disputes over Indian hydroelectric projects. Rather than merely arguing that individual projects violate the treaty, Islamabad can now point to the tribunal’s broader finding that the treaty itself remains operational and that India remains bound by its substantive and procedural obligations.
This could become particularly important as India develops additional hydropower infrastructure on the western rivers. The ruling therefore has implications beyond the Ratle project. It reinforces the continuing applicability of the treaty’s restrictions on India’s use of the western rivers and its obligations concerning the design and operation of hydroelectric projects.
Diplomacy remains important
Legal experts say the ruling is a diplomatic victory as well. The tribunal itself has effectively preserved the treaty framework within which the two countries are expected to manage water disputes. Pakistan’s government has already indicated that it will study the detailed award and consider how it can assist in creating a pathway for renewed engagement under the treaty.
This creates an opening for Islamabad to combine legal pressure with diplomacy: insist on India’s compliance with the award while keeping the door open for the Permanent Indus Commission and other treaty mechanisms to function. Such an approach would allow Pakistan to maintain its legal position without closing the possibility of negotiated solutions to technical disputes.
For Pakistan, the most immediate concrete gain is the restriction on the Ratle project, while the broader gain is the unanimous determination that the Indus Waters Treaty cannot be unilaterally suspended. The challenge now is to ensure that the legal victory translates into protection of Pakistan’s water rights on the ground.
The treaty has survived wars, diplomatic breakdowns and prolonged periods of hostility since it was signed in 1960. The Hague ruling has reaffirmed its legal continuity. Whether that legal continuity can be translated into renewed cooperation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, however, remains the next major test.
