The Permanent Court of Arbitration has rejected the legal foundation of India’s unilateral decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in “abeyance”, confirming that the Treaty remains in force and that India continues to be bound by it. The ruling is significant because it answers a question that India appears to have tried to avoid: can a state simply declare a binding international treaty suspended because political, security or strategic circumstances have changed? The answer, in this case, is no.

India’s use of the word “abeyance” was itself revealing. Where does the Indus Waters Treaty provide such a power? It does not. The Treaty contains mechanisms for its implementation, dispute settlement and modification, but it does not give either country a unilateral right to create a new status in which its obligations conveniently disappear. International law cannot function if states are free to invent legal terminology whenever existing treaty obligations become inconvenient. Sovereignty gives a state authority over its affairs; it does not give that state a licence to disregard commitments it has voluntarily undertaken. The principle of pacta sunt servanda is basic for precisely this reason: agreements must be honoured.

India can seek a new agreement. It can negotiate, object and argue its case. What it cannot legitimately claim is that unilateral political action is a substitute for treaty law.

India can seek a new agreement. It can negotiate, object and argue its case. What it cannot legitimately claim is that unilateral political action is a substitute for treaty law.

India also argued that Pakistan had refused to negotiate changes to the Treaty. Yet the Court found that Pakistan had been........

© Daily Times