Recent observations by the United Nations on India’s actions following the April 22 Pahalgam incident reinforce long-standing concerns about the erosion of international legal norms in South Asia. While the rapporteurs do not function as judicial bodies, their assessments carry authoritative weight in interpreting states’ obligations under international law and human-rights conventions. Their findings place overdue scrutiny on India’s cross-border use of force and its unilateral approach to the Indus Waters Treaty.
The rapporteurs have raised serious questions about the legality of India’s military strikes inside Pakistan in May, noting the absence of a credible legal basis under the UN Charter. International law permits self-defence only under narrowly defined conditions of necessity, proportionality and immediacy, and requires transparency through notification to the UN Security Council. In this case, the experts found no clear evidence that these thresholds were met, while underscoring the risks posed to civilian lives and regional stability by such actions. These concerns highlight Pakistan’s position that unilateral military force across an international border cannot be justified through vague or unsubstantiated security claims.
Equally significant are the experts’ observations on India’s declaration that it has placed the Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance”. The 1960 treaty, brokered by the World Bank, is among the most durable water-sharing agreements in the world precisely because it removes water cooperation from political and security disputes. Its provisions do not recognise any unilateral right of suspension. Instead, the treaty establishes binding procedures, including bilateral engagement, neutral expert review and arbitration, to address disagreements. India’s attempt to bypass these mechanisms introduces legal uncertainty and directly contradicts the treaty’s settled framework.
The human consequences of such unilateralism are neither abstract nor speculative. The Indus basin sustains Pakistan’s agriculture, food security and rural livelihoods. Interruptions in hydrological data-sharing, unannounced variations in river flows or uncertainty over treaty compliance threaten farmers, communities and economic stability. The emphasis on the human-rights dimensions of water insecurity reflects the reality that access to predictable water flows is inseparable from rights to food, health and development.
Pakistan’s response has remained firmly anchored in law. Islamabad has pursued diplomatic engagement, invoked the treaty’s dispute-resolution mechanisms and reiterated that any differences must be addressed strictly within the framework jointly agreed by both parties. Recent arbitration-related developments have reaffirmed that the Indus Waters Treaty remains legally binding and operational, leaving no room for unilateral reinterpretation or suspension.
India’s effort to link treaty obligations to unrelated political or security disputes sets a troubling precedent. If binding international agreements can be set aside at will, confidence in treaties as instruments of stability is gravely undermined. For Pakistan, defending the integrity of the Indus Waters Treaty remains a matter of upholding the rule of law in international relations. *