ISLAMABAD: Pakistan achieved a major legal and diplomatic triumph on Friday as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague delivered an additional ruling on the longstanding Indus Waters Treaty dispute, decisively rejecting India’s attempt to unilaterally suspend the agreement.
The ruling pertains to a case filed by Pakistan under Article IX and Annexure G of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, challenging India’s construction of water storage projects on the western rivers.
In its unanimous and binding decision, the court declared that India had no legal justification to unilaterally suspend the treaty or disrupt the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
The court noted that unilateral actions taken by one party to the treaty — such as India’s announcement to “immediately suspend” the agreement on April 23, 2025 in the wake of the Pahalgam incident — cannot halt the work of the arbitration court or the appointment of a Neutral Expert.
It emphasised that there is no provision in the treaty allowing for its suspension by one party, and that dispute resolution mechanisms would remain in force regardless of unilateral declarations.
Pakistan welcomes the verdict
Pakistan formally welcomed the ruling, calling it a “landmark legal and diplomatic achievement.” A statement from Pakistan lauded the court’s recognition of Pakistan’s legal position and rejection of India’s attempt to sideline the treaty’s dispute resolution framework.
The court’s verdict affirms Pakistan’s responsible and principled stance on water-related matters and its commitment to international law, justice, and regional peace, the official government press release states.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also weighed in on the development, reiterating Pakistan’s readiness to engage in meaningful dialogue with India on all outstanding issues, including Kashmir, water, trade, and terrorism. “Dialogue remains the only path to peace in the region,” he said in a statement issued on June 24.
PCA asserts jurisdiction
The PCA had sought written submissions from both countries following India’s announcement on April 23. While Pakistan responded in time with its legal position, India failed to submit a formal written reply. However, the court took into account India’s public statements and official pronouncements while formulating its judgment.
The ruling clearly stated that India’s suspension of the treaty is legally baseless and that such unilateral actions have no bearing on the court’s jurisdiction or its ongoing decision-making process.
It affirmed that the Indus Waters Treaty contains no clause permitting unilateral suspension and that arbitration proceedings will continue unless both parties mutually agree to halt them.
Furthermore, the court emphasised that no party can unilaterally prevent the arbitration court or the Neutral Expert from fulfilling their roles.
India’s attempt to block the arbitration was deemed a violation of the treaty’s mandatory dispute resolution clause – PCA ruling
The Pakistani government further stated that it is now awaiting the first-phase merits-based decision of the court, which is expected following the July 2024 hearings held at the Peace Palace in The Hague.
The PCA reiterated its commitment to continue its impartial and effective role in resolving disputes under the treaty.
Origins of the dispute
It is worth noting that Pakistan had originally approached the arbitration court in 2016 in response to India’s construction of water reservoirs on the western rivers, which Pakistan believes violate treaty provisions. While India initially requested the appointment of a Neutral Expert, it later attempted to halt arbitration altogether by claiming a suspension of the treaty — a claim now dismissed.
This latest judgment strengthens Pakistan’s legal footing and sends a strong message that international treaties cannot be bypassed or undermined through unilateral actions. Legal observers say this verdict reinforces the sanctity of multilateral agreements and underscores the role of international courts in upholding water-sharing frameworks critical to regional stability.
