- The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a post-independence treaty signed and implemented in 1960 by India and Pakistan under mediation from the World Bank, has remained an enduring landmark in the sharing of water in the region.
- On April 23, 2025, India informed that the IWT would be kept “in abeyance”, since there were “fundamental changes in circumstances”, read demographic changes, green power paradigm, and Pakistan’s cross-border terror umbilical cord.
- Pakistan has told the PCA that “abeyance” is not a term under international law and that it does not stand to break the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanisms on its own.
- The ongoing dispute, which was brought by Pakistan in 2016, relates to the construction and operation of India’s run-of-river hydroelectric projects (HEPs) like the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant (KHEP) and Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP).
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a post-independence treaty signed and implemented in 1960 by India and Pakistan under mediation from the World Bank, has remained an enduring landmark in the sharing of water in the region. It regulates the use of the Indus River system and grants the rights for development on the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) exclusively to Pakistan and on the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) exclusively to India. The treaty, resilient during decades of political tension, has been suddenly thrust into the spotlight, with the spotlight cast on its stability and the dispute resolution mechanisms built into it. The continuing arbitration taking place by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) as described in the Supplemental Award on the Competence of the Court (PCA Case No. 2023-01) sets into stark relief both the continued salience of the treaty and the difficulties raised by single-handed acts.
The ongoing dispute, which was brought by Pakistan in 2016, relates to the construction and operation of India’s run-of-river hydroelectric projects (HEPs) like the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Plant (KHEP) and Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP). Pakistan has claimed that these projects are not in line with the provisions of the treaty, which deals with how India can use the Western Rivers. Pakistan submitted a Request for Arbitration under Article IX in August 2016, requesting that the matter be resolved by a Court of Arbitration. It ruled on 6 July 2023 to confirm its jurisdiction to decide the case in a jurisdiction award, under the presidency of Professor Sean D. Murphy and established within the framework of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). But parallel proceedings India launched before a Neutral Expert appointed by the World Bank in October 2022 have further muddied the waters, adding to concerns over redundant efforts and conflicting results.
A big turn came on April 23, 2025, when Pakistan was told by India’s Cabinet Committee on Security that the waters of the IWT would be kept “in abeyance” forthwith, since there were “fundamental changes in circumstances” read demographic changes, green power paradigm, and Pakistan’s cross-border terror umbilical cord. This choice, announced in a letter from India’s Ministry of Jal Shakti on April 24, 2025, has generated heated discussion. Pakistan has told the PCA that “abeyance” is not a term under international law and that it does not stand to break the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanisms on its own. The Court was unanimous in the Supplemental Award in confirming this position and its competence to continue despite India’s position.
The reasoning of the Court has its foundation in the textual material of the IWT and customary international law. Article XII(4) of the radioactive waste disposal treaty is unambiguous; it is not for unilateral action but mutual consent to terminate this treaty. The Court, highlighting that such a construction would defeat the object of the treaty in providing a strong framework for payment, could not be accepted. With support from its precedents in the JCAO Council case and the in famous Croatia-Slovenia arbitration, the Court upheld the principle of competence de la competence its power to assess its authority which resulted from consensual limits to this jurisdiction, set up by the parties’ consent when submitting the case at the signing of the treaty. India’s post-2016 measures, including ‘abeyance’ pronouncement, could not be seen as capable of modifying this directive.
Pakistan also argues that India’s “abeyance” policy conceals conduct that deviates from the treaty, such as turning off and on water flow to disrupt downstream irrigation or flood the lower riparian. These charges, along with India’s contention that Pakistan was undermining its “legitimate” interests, demonstrate the profound mistrust. The Court has not considered or examined these claims beyond the issue of its ability to hear them. It also emphasised that its conclusions are equally applicable to the Neutral Expert, thus affirming the credibility of both mechanisms for dispute settlement.
The larger implications of this arbitration are staggering. The IWT has been a rare point of success in India-Pakistan relations, withstanding wars and crises. India’s “abeyance” position as an apparent bid to suspend or renegotiate the treaty is a potentially destabilising development to a regime under strain in light of the effects of climate change and water scarcity, suggesting the need for more rather than less cooperation. Pakistan’s fears of water “weaponisation”, the use of dams to interfere with its agriculture, are a reminder of what is at stake for a country heavily reliant on the Western Rivers. Against this backdrop, India’s imperatives for clean energy, as well as its security imperatives, are valid; however, actions unilaterally taken could undermine the trust required for bilateral ones.
The PCA’s award paves the way ahead by reconfirming the dispute resolution mechanisms in the treaty. It shows that international law values stability and the consensus of the parties over unilateral actions, even at times of political tensions. The question for India, and its neighbour Pakistan, is how to balance the national interests with the treaty obligations. A return to the dialogue, perhaps through the Permanent Indus Commission, is the route to avoid an escalation. The World Bank, in its capacity as a facilitator, might also have to take an assertive stance in harmonising the arbitration and Neutral Expert processes in a way to leads them to a common solution.
With water so much on South Asia’s mind, the IWT is more important than ever. The firm resolve of the PCA to honour its responsibility serves as a reminder to both countries of the importance of cooperation over confrontation in the preservation of this common resource. For now, arbitration carries on a testament to the elastic strength of the treaty, but a warning of how its future depends on the goodwill and trust of the contracting parties to uphold their promises.
Megna Devkar is a Ph.D. Research Scholar at K.C. Law College with research and writing expertise in social, political, and legal issues. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Aayush Pal 
Pranav S 
Nishant Kumar Hota