Law vs Unilateralism: The Indus Waters Treaty in Peril

Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) signed in 1960 with World Bank as its facilitating party has been mentioned as an act of rare success of functional treaty between Pakistan and India. Even wars, political enmity, and drastic changes of dynamics in the region did not affect it since over sixty years as it ensures clear distribution of river-waters: Pakistan has been given the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab and India gets Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. For Pakistan, this is not a hypothetical framework of diplomacy, it is the basis of its agriculture economy where almost 80 per cent of the farmlands rely on the western rivers.

Such stability was seriously tested in April 2025 when India unilaterally declared the treaty to be in abeyance after the so-called terrorist attack in Indian Illegally Occupied Kashmir. The latter term of abeyance possesses no operation under the law touching treaties and flatly contravenes the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The VCLT only allows suspension to occur mutually, or upon evidence of material breach which is a requirement that India has not fulfilled. Since the inception of the IWT, Pakistan has been in compliance with the same.

The unilateral suspension of India in the built-in dispute resolution process and the fact that it does not intend to participate in the same is a deviation of the provisions of international law. Such moves do not only hurt bilateral relations, but also weaken the validity of treaties in the world on different levels. When this happens the integrity of international law starts to crumble because every major state may do the same with binding agreements and suffer no repercussions.

In contrast, the reaction by Pakistan has been anchored completely on legal means. Under Article 9 of the IWT, Pakistan turned towards the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Although India boycotted the proceedings, the Court did keep New Delhi informed as the proceedings took place.

In August 2025, the PCA produced a landmark decision in favour of Pakistan where it was ruled that India has a clear obligation to permit the free flow of western rivers to run and not to change the flows due to its hydroelectric schemes at the cost of Pakistan carrying much water as downstream beneficiary. More importantly, the Court rejected the argument presented by India that its decision to suspend the treaty altered the jurisdiction of the tribunal and also the validity of the treaty.

The Pakistan government which accepted the decision of the court in a welcome move, characterized it as “a thumping re-affirmation of the rights of Pakistan as the legally lower riparian state.” It emphasized that it was binding as far as the award is concerned and that India should, as far as it is bound, comply fully with the obligations of the treaty in letter and in spirit. The same was reaffirmed as the statement highlighted that Pakistan is committed to the Indus Waters Treaty as a commitment to regional peace, and as a precedent of resolving disputes by employing peaceful legal processes.

This decision is of importance in several aspects. To Pakistan, it preserves an existential asset and justifies its patient, rules-based policy. To the international community, it proves the principle that legal systems serve as the right place of settling matters even in cases that are politically delicate.

This shows, how smaller states can protect their interests against international power politics through perseverance, clarity of law, and use of international institutions. The win also serves as a lesson that when one follows the rule of the law and does not pay off with tit for tat, things can have a concrete result.

But now the game turns into the real deal of enforcement and not legal win. India is not that compliant. Failure to respect the award, Pakistan might be forced to root it to international court, or appeal to the United Nations. These would ensure that the conflict remains within the letter of international law where Pakistan stands in an advantageous ruling.

The agriculture, food security, and livelihoods of the rural population of Pakistan can be devastated without continuous supply of the western rivers. IWT is not just another piece of paper it is a promise which ensures that millions of Pakistanis may get access to the water they rely on. There is even the threat that the collapse of it will not only damage Pakistan but destabilize the larger region taking away one of the few long-term agreements achieved between two nuclear-armed neighbours.

The question posed by recent Indian actions is a disturbing one in the sense that should one of the longest lived treaties of modern times be able to be put in abeyance at any time by one side, what should the rest of the world think of its international agreements? This is the reason why the position of Pakistan is especially important outside the South Asian region. It is wrong to argue that maintaining the IWT is only about upholding water rights, it is also about upholding the integrity of international law against the insidious influence of unilateralism.

At least, the law is presently in favor of Pakistan. The award of the PCA is binding and the treaty survives. The question that will remain to be seen is whether this results in enduring compliance due to continued diplomatic pressure as well as the desire of the international community to demand compliance with the rules based order. International law must mean something, and that means some respect must be paid to it even when it is most inconvenient to the violators.

The IWT  has survived over 60 years since it maintained the reference to mutual survival and not a zero-sum game. To save it today would mean something like renewing that allegiance, not only by India, not only by Pakistan, but by all who are concerned that law should come ahead of unilateral desire.