The Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled that the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan will remain in full force, rejecting India’s attempt to hold off the decades-old agreement amid deteriorating bilateral ties.
The Hague-based court has stated that India cannot unilaterally terminate the IWT and is obliged to comply with it, including provisions on hydroelectric projects and allowances on the Western Rivers.
The verdict, handed down on August 31, serves as a major legal precedent on one of South Asia’s many delicate issues. Looking back at its historical trajectory, the Indus Waters Treaty, mediated by the World Bank in 1960, has remained intact through major wars, several military crises and constant border hostility between the two nuclear-capable states.
The issue flared up in April 2025, after India unilaterally suspended the pact following a horrific attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. While New Delhi placed the blame on Pakistan, Islamabad firmly denied the accusations.
As a result, Pakistan approached the Court of Arbitration, arguing that India was not legally permitted to suspend the IWT. The court assessed the nature of the conflict, focusing on arguments over sovereignty and changing circumstances, alongside issues of terrorism and climate change, before concluding that unilateral suspension was not justified under the treaty or international law.
Apart from the main ruling, the court also placed restrictions on certain construction activities at the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant. These restrictions will remain in place until a neutral expert designated by the World Bank evaluates whether the project aligns with the ambit of the treaty. The expert’s findings are expected in July 2027.
Islamabad welcomed the decision as a validation of international law and legal obligations. Ishaq Dar, the sitting Foreign Minister, described the ruling as a failure of India’s attempt to suspend the agreement and stated that the treaty remains fully binding on both neighbours.
India rejected the ruling and questioned the court’s legitimacy. Its Ministry of External Affairs labelled the arbitration body illegal and asserted that the matter rests on India’s sovereign decisions. New Delhi further stated that its position remains unchanged.
Also Read: What Bishkek Revealed About the SCO
The conflicting reactions underscore a broader challenge in international relations: the gap between legal rulings and political action. This highlights the limitations of international institutions, which can interpret agreements and establish legal obligations, but whose ability to enforce them ultimately rests with the states involved.
For Pakistan, the ruling carries significant strategic weight. The country depends heavily on the Indus rivers for its agriculture and food security, a sector critical to its economic stability. Any change to the technical management or flow of the water poses a direct threat to the nation’s security.
