The ICJ has said that stopping treaty duties can only happen if strict legal rules are followed.
Following the tragic attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, India took the drastic step of halting the Indus Waters Agreement.
This historic pact, which has endured wars and political shifts for over sixty years, now stands at a crossroads.
Suspending the Indus Waters Agreement
India halted all cooperation under the Indus Waters Treaty, citing national security and unverified claims of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack. Despite lacking solid evidence, it suspended key actions like water data sharing and Permanent Indus Commission meetings.
Though meant to show strength, the move questions India’s commitment to international law and shared resource cooperation.
It risks regional stability and undermines the trust that treaties rely on, with impacts reaching beyond the current dispute.
The 1960 Indus Waters Agreement, brokered by the World Bank, allocates the Indus River system between India and Pakistan. India controls the eastern rivers, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej while Pakistan manages the western ones, Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.
The treaty includes a dispute resolution mechanism and lacks an exit clause, keeping it active unless both nations agree to end it. Despite ongoing tensions, it has remained a rare source of stability in managing shared water resources.
India’s recent move, though not an official end to the Indus Waters Treaty, effectively acts as a suspension. By placing the treaty in a state of ‘abeyance,’ India is postponing its duties without completely withdrawing from the agreement. However, international law doesn’t recognize ‘abeyance’ as a legitimate legal status.
International Law Under Scrutiny: Is Suspension Even Possible?
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states that only suspension or termination are recognized as legal actions. Furthermore, in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stressed that any suspension of treaty obligations must adhere to specific legal standards.
Experts like Anthony Aust argue that ‘abeyance’ is primarily a political term and not something recognized in legal contexts.
International law requires countries to honor their treaty commitments or formally suspend them, instead of leaving them inactive for extended periods. In this context, India’s decision to put the treaty on hold breaches international legal standards.
India may attempt to justify its actions through the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus, which allows for the suspension of treaty obligations if there’s a significant shift in circumstances . However, this doctrine is applied with strict limitations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has clarified that such a change must be unforeseeable, undermine the very foundation of the agreement, and fundamentally alter the obligations moving forward.
While the terrorist attack is undeniably tragic, it doesn’t alter the essential legal, hydrological, or technical framework of the Indus Waters Treaty. The Indus River continues to flow, and the water-sharing agreement remains intact. As such, any attempt to invoke rebus sic stantibus would likely be unsuccessful.
India has not officially accused Pakistan of violating the explicit terms of the Indus Waters Agreement, which is a prerequisite for a valid suspension under Article 60 due to a material breach. The allegations, while serious, relate to terrorism and are not connected to the treaty’s core focus of water distribution. A treaty cannot be suspended over matters that lie outside its defined scope. International law requires that any grievance leading to suspension must align with the treaty’s provisions, ensuring fairness and proportionality, not political frustrations.
India’s actions also breach key principles of international water law. Though neither India nor Pakistan has ratified the UN Watercourses Convention (1997), the principles outlined in it are widely acknowledged. These principles promote equitable water use, prohibit causing harm to others, and stress the duty to cooperate.
By halting discussions and threatening unilateral changes to the river’s flow, India is ignoring these fundamental rules. The principle of equitable utilization ensures that no country should excessively use or deny its neighbor’s fair share of shared water resources.
Impact on Pakistan’s Water, Agriculture, and Economy
India is also obligated by the no-harm rule, which means it must prevent significant harm to Pakistan through any changes in the river’s flow. More importantly, the duty to cooperate requires consistent communication, sharing of vital data, and peaceful approaches to resolving disagreements. By distancing itself from these responsibilities, India damages trust between the two countries and disrupts global expectations on managing shared water resources.
The potential humanitarian impact on Pakistan could be dire. The country’s farming sector depends on the Indus River, with over 90% of crops relying on its water. Key crops like wheat, rice, and cotton, particularly in Punjab and Sindh, rely on irrigation sustained by this water.
Already facing critical water shortages, Pakistan risks worsening its situation even further. Major cities like Lahore and Karachi depend on groundwater from aquifers linked to the Indus, and about a third of the country’s power comes from hydropower plants reliant on its flow.
Even a temporary disruption could lead to widespread food shortages, force large-scale migration, and destabilize the economy, causing long-lasting damage.
Water Wars: A Violation of Human Rights in the Name of Politics
International law universally recognizes access to water as a fundamental human right. The UN General Assembly Resolution 64/292 highlights that water is vital for sustaining life, promoting health, and preserving dignity. When a nation cuts off water supplies in peaceful times, it breaches treaties and threatens essential human rights.
Such actions can have far-reaching consequences, jeopardizing the basic needs and well-being of individuals and potentially endangering their very survival.
Pakistan has several legal avenues it can pursue in response to India’s actions. One option is invoking Article IX of the Indus Waters Agreement, allowing for arbitration to resolve the dispute.
Another option is taking the case to the ICJ or UN Security Council, arguing that India’s actions threaten regional or international peace.
While these routes come with challenges related to jurisdiction and politics, they remain significant.
By exploring these legal avenues, Pakistan would emphasize the importance of resolving treaty disputes through the rule of law. For India, the impact goes beyond legal ramifications and extends to its international reputation. As a proponent of international law, India could lose credibility if it selectively enforces its treaty commitments.
If India chooses to use river water as a bargaining chip, it could lose more than it gains. Allies may begin to question its reliability, and its influence in the region could weaken.
This move isn’t just about appearances—it could prompt China, with upstream control over the Brahmaputra, to act similarly. Breaking international cooperation rules may seem tactical now, but it’s a risky move that could harm India’s security and standing later.
What This Means for Global Water Agreements
This issue carries far-reaching consequences beyond South Asia. Many view the Indus Waters Treaty as a symbol of what diplomacy can achieve over conflict.
But if one party chooses to walk away without a sound legal basis, it sends a troubling message to the rest of the world. Similar agreements elsewhere, over rivers like the Nile, Jordan, or Mekong, could come under strain.
Undermining the principle that treaties must be kept cracks the entire framework of global cooperation.
Water is the basic need of life. It helps grow food, runs homes, and brings peace between countries. But using it to play politics or apply pressure can lead to serious problems—not just for India and Pakistan, but for the whole world. If others start thinking water deals don’t matter, many regions could face fights over rivers instead of working together.
Encourage India to stick to the treaty and rejoin the Permanent Indus Commission. Global organizations like the World Bank and the UN must take a more active role in advancing talks and ensuring progress.
In addition to legal actions, there should be diplomatic pressure to reinforce how important it is to honor international agreements. For future water-sharing deals, there must be stronger rules and independent monitoring to ensure no country can easily back out without facing real consequences.
The Future of Water Cooperation in Crisis Times
Halting the Indus Waters Agreement is not just a regional issue; it questions whether the rule of law can withstand political anger. It asks if treaties can survive conflict and if nations can cooperate during crises. The rivers should flow with not just water, but with justice, responsibility, and hope for lasting peace.
