In a significant escalation of diplomatic tensions, Pakistan is preparing to launch a multi-pronged legal offensive in response to India’s recent decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. The move follows a devastating terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam region, where 26 people, including a foreign national, were killed in what Indian authorities have described as a Pakistan-backed act of religiously motivated terrorism.
The decision by New Delhi marks a sharp departure from decades of adherence to the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, which had withstood the strains of three wars and several military stand-offs between the two neighbours. India has now linked the continuation of the treaty to Pakistan’s verifiable cessation of cross-border terrorism, with officials stating that the treaty will remain suspended until “Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for terrorism.”
Pakistan’s Legal and Diplomatic Counteroffensive
Facing an impending water crisis and growing domestic pressure, Pakistan’s government has unveiled a four-point strategy aimed at challenging India’s decision on international legal and diplomatic fronts.
Speaking to Reuters, Aqeel Malik, Pakistan’s Minister of State for Law and Justice, confirmed that Islamabad is actively exploring three legal options, alongside a fourth diplomatic initiative:
-
Raising the matter with the World Bank – the original broker and designated facilitator of the Indus Waters Treaty.
-
Approaching the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague.
-
Filing a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of international treaty law under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
-
Escalating the issue to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in an effort to garner global attention and pressure.
“We are close to finalising our legal strategy. The decision on which forums to approach will be made shortly, and could involve parallel action on multiple fronts,” Malik said.
Understanding the Treaty and Its Strategic Importance
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank, governs the allocation and management of the waters of six rivers flowing through the region. Under the treaty:
-
India has control over the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej.
-
Pakistan retains access to the western rivers – Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum, despite their origins in India.
As the upper riparian state, India holds strategic leverage over the entire river system, although the treaty limited its utilization rights on the western rivers to non-consumptive uses such as irrigation, hydroelectricity, and transport.
The treaty, considered one of the most successful examples of water-sharing diplomacy, has long been seen as a stabilizing force in an otherwise volatile bilateral relationship.
Why Legal Options May Be Futile for Pakistan
Despite Pakistan’s determination to seek legal recourse, international legal constraints significantly limit its options:
1. International Court of Justice (ICJ)
India has explicitly excluded disputes with Commonwealth nations from ICJ jurisdiction. In a declaration submitted to the Court on September 27, 2019, India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar, laid out 13 exceptions to India’s acceptance of the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute.
Notably:
-
Clause 2 of India’s declaration bars ICJ jurisdiction in disputes with any current or former Commonwealth member, which includes Pakistan.
-
Clause 5 exempts the ICJ from jurisdiction over disputes related to armed conflicts, national security, or actions in self-defence, which India could invoke given the terror attack that preceded the treaty’s suspension.
This renders Pakistan ineligible to pursue the matter before the ICJ unless India consents to adjudication on a case-by-case basis, which is highly unlikely under the current circumstances.
2. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)
Like the ICJ, the PCA operates based on mutual consent of the disputing parties. Without India’s agreement to arbitrate under PCA rules or a prior clause within the treaty mandating binding arbitration for such issues, Pakistan’s case would not be admissible.
3. Role of the World Bank
While the World Bank facilitated the original Indus Waters Treaty and acts as a neutral third party to appoint experts or arbitration chairs, it holds no binding authority to enforce treaty compliance. The Bank has repeatedly clarified that its role is limited to that of a mediator and technical adviser, not a guarantor of the treaty’s provisions.
In the current scenario, the World Bank’s capacity would be limited to encouraging bilateral dialogue, not compelling any specific action or interpretation of the treaty.
Domestic Fallout and Global Repercussions
The immediate trigger for India’s suspension of the treaty was the Pahalgam massacre, where terrorists affiliated with The Resistance Front (TRF) — a known front for the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba — executed civilians after demanding they prove their religious identity. The killings drew international condemnation and widespread protests across Jammu and Kashmir, with demonstrators accusing Pakistan of sponsoring extremist violence.
India’s diplomatic establishment described the incident as a “cowardly attack on humanity” and justified its retaliatory measures as part of a broader national security strategy. By linking water cooperation to peace and counter-terrorism, India has elevated the IWT from a technical agreement to a political instrument of foreign policy.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s appeal to international legal forums over the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty is unlikely to yield tangible outcomes given jurisdictional limitations and the discretionary nature of international adjudication. While Islamabad seeks legal redress, New Delhi is leveraging its upper-riparian position to pressure Pakistan into dismantling terror infrastructure.
The development signals a potential paradigm shift in South Asia’s water diplomacy, where strategic patience may now give way to conditional engagement—contingent on peace, accountability, and regional stability.