According to the Court of Arbitration, New Delhi’s decision to put the Indus Treaty on hold has no bearing on its ability to hear cases and render decisions.
Islamabad appreciates the “supplemental award,” while India rejects it since it reveals Pakistan’s objections to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects.ISLAMABAD The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has decided that India’s actions have no influence on its competence to adjudicate the matter, which is a significant victory for Pakistan in its dispute over the “one-sided” suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
Whether or not India’s recent decision was characterized as a suspension of the treaty, the court determined that its jurisdiction cannot be impacted by a party’s unilateral decision made after arbitral proceedings have begun.
The court also concluded that, despite India’s stance on “abeyance,” it still has an obligation to move proceedings along in a prompt, effective, and equitable manner. Additionally, it said that the Neutral Expert, who was chosen in a different procedure, is equally covered by similar conclusions.
Islamabad celebrated the ruling, while New Delhi “rejected it.” It is a significant legal victory for Pakistan. The decision’s main takeaway is that India cannot unilaterally halt or ignore the treaty.
The court’s decision was solidly grounded in the text of the treaty, particularly Article XII(4), which states that the pact remains in effect until both parties formally agree to terminate it. This makes it impossible for one party to withdraw or halt the pact. This is in line with international law, specifically the pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be upheld) premise.
The decision also highlights how crucial the treaty’s integrated dispute settlement mechanism is. According to the court, the very goal of the treaty would be compromised if one nation were permitted to arbitrate disputes arbitrarily. This illustrates the idea that treaties ought to be read in a way that provides their clauses actual significance and force.
Importantly, the court dismissed India’s argument that it could just stop the arbitration and withdraw from the proceedings. Additionally, it has reiterated its own power to determine its jurisdiction, emphasizing that once the process has begun, it cannot be stopped by one side withdrawing.
Supplemental award
In a case brought by Pakistan, the Hague-based Court of Arbitration issued a “Supplemental Award on the Competence of the Court” on Friday.Pakistan had asked the court to interpret and apply IWT to specific design elements of the run-of-river hydroelectric projects (Kishenganga and Ratle) that India was allowed to build on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab tributaries by the treaty before those rivers flow into Pakistan.
Regardless of whether India’s recent decision was classified as a suspension of the treaty under international law or not, the court’s unanimous ruling determined that its jurisdiction cannot be impacted by a party’s unilateral decision made after the arbitral proceedings began.
The current arbitral procedures were started by Pakistan in 2016. India then asked the World Bank to designate an impartial expert (a highly skilled engineer) to answer some design and operation concerns that were nearly the same as some of the questions Pakistan had raised in its arbitration case.
