With the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s landmark decision on the Indus Waters Treaty, two questions arise: first, what is the significance of this decision? Second, what implications will it carry?
Pakistan’s position was clear. Under Article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no bilateral agreement can be suspended unilaterally. The arbitration court accepted this position.
Pakistan argued that the water flowing from India into Pakistan is not the exclusive property of India. Under the United Nations Watercourses Convention, it is a shared resource over which the downstream state, namely Pakistan, also holds legitimate rights. The court affirmed this position as well.
The cycle of India’s setbacks that began with the Pahalgam false flag operation has reached another milestone with the arbitration court’s decision.
Pakistan maintained that India is obligated under the Indus Waters Treaty to share information with Pakistan. The court also upheld this position.
Pakistan argued that India cannot construct dams or barriers on waters allocated to Pakistan under the treaty in order to block them. This position has now also been validated. Pakistan’s stance was rooted in the rule of international law, whereas India stood on illegality and obstinacy. The arbitration proceedings resulted in the triumph of law and the defeat of lawlessness.
Pakistan has consistently maintained that access to water is a fundamental human right. Article 10 of the Water Convention clearly articulates this principle. Moreover, Pakistan is an agricultural country whose survival depends on water. If Pakistan is deprived of its rightful share of water, it would not merely constitute an injustice but also pose a grave threat to the lives of millions, amounting to a war crime.
Viewed in this context, the arbitration court’s decision represents a significant success for Pakistan. Militarily, diplomatically, and legally, India has suffered setbacks on every front.
Now, let us turn to the second question: what happens after this decision?
The arbitration court does not possess enforcement powers that would allow it to enforce its ruling through force. Does this, then, mean that the decision carries no significance and is merely a collection of lifeless words? Although the court lacks enforcement authority, its ruling remains highly significant. The reasons are worth examining. India is not the world’s sole superpower. It is one actor in an interconnected world. If it continues to violate the United Nations Charter, its principles, and international law in this manner, while refusing to recognise the arbitration ruling, there will be consequences. India will neither find it easy nor possible to remain insulated from those consequences. Their impact will become increasingly evident over time.
The ruling will continue to contribute to India’s diplomatic setbacks across multiple fronts. Pakistan can approach the United Nations, raise the matter before the Security Council, engage the World Bank, build a strong compensation case over threats to its agricultural sector, and present a compelling human rights case. In this interconnected world, India will face challenges across international forums.
However, the fundamental issue is something else.
Pakistan has already stated that water is a matter of life and death for it and that any attempt to stop water would be treated as an act of war. It should be remembered that when war is imposed upon a country, the United Nations Charter grants that country the right to self-defence. Now that the arbitration court has declared India’s actions unlawful and stated that India has no right to build dams in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty, it means that if Pakistan undertakes retaliatory action, it would be exercising its right. Under the United Nations Charter, this would be regarded as a legitimate exercise of self-defence.
Furthermore, if India constructs any dam in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty following the arbitration ruling, such a structure would, from Pakistan’s perspective, be regarded as a “legitimate military target” under the laws of war. A legitimate military target is one that may be attacked and destroyed during wartime. International law generally prohibits attacks on water reservoirs and dams. However, the situation here would be different. If a dam is constructed in violation of the arbitration ruling, it would become a legitimate target and could be destroyed. Moreover, if the people of Pakistan are deprived of water, a fundamental human right essential for life, it would also constitute a war crime. Consequently, legal avenues for action under the frameworks governing war crimes would remain available.
The cycle of India’s setbacks that began with the Pahalgam false flag operation has reached another milestone with the arbitration court’s decision. The setbacks suffered by Hindutva continue to mount.
The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood