International law does not allow a state to excuse itself from the obligation of a treaty by saying it has put it “in abeyance. It provides just three possible ways for a party to lawfully cease to perform a treaty obligation: suspension on the grounds of a material breach of a treaty (Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties); suspension on the basis of a fundamental change of circumstances (Article 62); and counter-measures under the general law of state responsibility. Neither of the three conditions would apply to India’s choice on the Indus Waters Treaty.

That’s not an interpretation; it’s what occurs when you take the tests as each doctrine states them and apply them. But since none of them fit, the treaty’s own law comes into play by default: pacta sunt servanda, which is contained in Article 26 of the same Convention, which states that when a treaty is in effect, the parties are bound and must carry it out in good faith. The stance taken by Pakistan is neither a diplomatic whim nor a reflection of its policy that the Indus Water Treaty continues to function entirely. It is where the law lands once every alternative has been tested and ruled out.

Article 60: The Breach of the Same Treaty

Article 60 permits a state to suspend a treaty if there is a material breach by the other party. The threshold question is simple: “Has Pakistan breached the Indus Waters Treaty?” It isn’t “has Pakistan been accused of wrongdoing in general,” but whether it breached an obligation it placed upon itself—on data sharing, on the design parameters of run-of-river projects, on the working of the Permanent Indus Commission. It has not.

The accusation that India has made is that of cross-border terrorism, which is not within the four corners of the treaty. Article 60........

© Paradigm Shift