Islamabad: Pakistan on Monday called on New Delhi to fully honour its obligations under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) following a Court of Arbitration supplemental ruling that reaffirmed its jurisdiction to hear Islamabad's objections over India's Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects.
The ruling, announced on June 27, upheld the Court's competence in the dispute and reiterated its responsibility to conduct proceedings in a "timely, efficient, and fair manner". The decision comes after India announced following the terror attack in Pahalgam that it would place the IWT "in abeyance" — a move Pakistan has strongly opposed as a violation of the agreement.
A statement issued by Pakistan's foreign office welcomed the ruling, describing it as a "vindication" of the country's position. "The supplemental award confirms that the Indus Waters Treaty remains valid and operational," it said, adding that India had "no right to suspend or alter its obligations unilaterally".
Islamabad has urged New Delhi to immediately resume cooperation under the treaty framework and fulfil its obligations "wholly and faithfully". New Delhi has consistently argued the dispute should be settled through a neutral expert, as provided under the World Bank-brokered treaty, and questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration. India has refused to participate in the current arbitration process, maintaining that it was not binding.
The case centres on Pakistan's objections to design and flow management of India's Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects, which Islamabad claims violate the technical parameters of the treaty. Pakistan initiated arbitration in 2016, seeking international adjudication after bilateral efforts failed.
The IWT, signed in 1960, is widely regarded as a rare example of sustained India-Pakistan cooperation, even surviving several wars. However, the decades-old agreement has come under increasing strain in recent years amid competing infrastructure projects, rising water scarcity, and growing climate challenges in the region.
While the Court's latest decision does not resolve the core dispute, legal experts here say it strengthens the case for continued third-party oversight and signals that unilateral treaty suspensions are unlikely to stand up in international forums.
The ruling, announced on June 27, upheld the Court's competence in the dispute and reiterated its responsibility to conduct proceedings in a "timely, efficient, and fair manner". The decision comes after India announced following the terror attack in Pahalgam that it would place the IWT "in abeyance" — a move Pakistan has strongly opposed as a violation of the agreement.
A statement issued by Pakistan's foreign office welcomed the ruling, describing it as a "vindication" of the country's position. "The supplemental award confirms that the Indus Waters Treaty remains valid and operational," it said, adding that India had "no right to suspend or alter its obligations unilaterally".
Islamabad has urged New Delhi to immediately resume cooperation under the treaty framework and fulfil its obligations "wholly and faithfully". New Delhi has consistently argued the dispute should be settled through a neutral expert, as provided under the World Bank-brokered treaty, and questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration. India has refused to participate in the current arbitration process, maintaining that it was not binding.
The case centres on Pakistan's objections to design and flow management of India's Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects, which Islamabad claims violate the technical parameters of the treaty. Pakistan initiated arbitration in 2016, seeking international adjudication after bilateral efforts failed.
The IWT, signed in 1960, is widely regarded as a rare example of sustained India-Pakistan cooperation, even surviving several wars. However, the decades-old agreement has come under increasing strain in recent years amid competing infrastructure projects, rising water scarcity, and growing climate challenges in the region.
While the Court's latest decision does not resolve the core dispute, legal experts here say it strengthens the case for continued third-party oversight and signals that unilateral treaty suspensions are unlikely to stand up in international forums.
You may also like
Disturbing childhood of Idaho fire shooter Wess Roley revealed: Mother complained against father for threatening to burn house down
Athlete who won 400m race despite penis falling out of his shorts gets modelling offer
Man Utd 'discuss relegated midfielder' as Ruben Amorim eyes £9m transfer bargain
Status Quo's Francis Rossi admits fears over mortality 'Will I last much longer?'
Prince Harry 'wears his heart on his sleeve more than Prince William' for one reason
