BRUSSELS/ISLAMABAD, (Unib Rashid) – The latest decision of the Court of Arbitration on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has marked a significant legal development in the longstanding dispute between Pakistan and India over the implementation of the water-sharing agreement, reaffirming that the Treaty remains fully in force.

In a unanimous finding, the Court held that the Indus Waters Treaty cannot be placed in “abeyance” through a unilateral decision by either party and that India remains bound by its obligations under the Treaty and applicable rules of international law.

The decision addresses a fundamental issue concerning the continuing legal status of the IWT. It makes clear that neither Pakistan nor India can unilaterally suspend or terminate the Treaty outside the legal framework agreed by the two countries.

As a result, India remains bound by the Treaty’s provisions, including those governing the design and operation of hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers, as well as the established mechanisms for resolving disputes between the two sides.

The Court has also ordered interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant, restricting specified construction activities pending further consideration of the dispute. The measures are aimed at preserving the effectiveness of the Treaty’s dispute-resolution process and ensuring that developments on the ground do not prejudice the ongoing proceedings.

For Pakistan, the decision represents significant legal support for its longstanding position that the Indus Waters Treaty is a binding international agreement and contains no provision allowing either party to unilaterally place it in abeyance.

Pakistan has consistently maintained that disputes arising under the Treaty should be addressed through the mechanisms provided within the agreement rather than through unilateral actions.

The ruling also underscores the broader principle of treaty compliance under international law. Binding international agreements cannot simply be set aside through unilateral political declarations, particularly where they govern shared natural resources and have direct implications for millions of people.

Pakistan has pursued institutional and legal avenues in addressing its differences with India over the Treaty, including the mechanisms involving the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration.

The decision is also significant from a broader international perspective. Transboundary water agreements govern the use and management of shared river systems in many parts of the world. Any precedent allowing a state to unilaterally suspend such an agreement could have implications well beyond the Pakistan-India dispute.

The Indus Waters Treaty has remained in force through wars, prolonged political tensions and periods of limited bilateral engagement, demonstrating the importance of maintaining rules-based mechanisms for managing shared water resources.

Pakistan maintains that the issue is not whether disagreements can arise under the Treaty, but whether those disagreements are addressed through the legal and institutional procedures agreed upon by both parties.

The latest decision reinforces the distinction between seeking changes through mutually agreed legal processes and attempting to alter treaty obligations unilaterally. While international agreements may be amended through established procedures, their provisions cannot be unilaterally rewritten by one party.

For Pakistan, the outcome is therefore being viewed not only as a significant legal development in the Indus Waters dispute but also as an affirmation of the broader principles of international law, peaceful dispute resolution and respect for binding treaty obligations.

The decision comes amid continued tensions between Pakistan and India over the management of the Indus river system, which is vital to agriculture, livelihoods and food security across the region.

Pakistan has reiterated that water security should remain governed by international law and established treaty mechanisms and should not be used as an instrument of political pressure.