Islamabad:
The Court of Arbitration, in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, stated on Friday that India’s decision to hold the Treaty in Abeyance did not deprive it of its competence to judge Pakistan’s complaints of his neighbor.
The court issued a “supplementary award” on the case introduced by Pakistan against India.
“In accordance with this interpretation of the Treaty, the Court has previously stated that once a procedure for an arbitration court has begun correctly, as in the present case,” there must be a strong presumption against the random loss of jurisdiction in relation to the issues placed before it is subsequently in the event of a neutral expert.
“Accordingly, the text of the treaty read in the light of its object and purpose is not to allow any of the parties that will unilaterally, to keep in care or suspend a continuous dispute resolution process,” read the order.
The supplementary price said “the text … does not allow for the unilateral” monkeyian “or” suspension “of the treaty. On the contrary, the treaty contains the continuation that is in force until terminated by mutual consent of India and Pakistan”.
“Such a text definitely indicates an intention from the drafts not to allow for one -sided action to change the rights, obligations and procedures laid down in the Treaty, including the Treaty’s dispute resolution procedures.
“In addition, the purpose and purpose of the treaty, as expressed in its preamble, include establishing procedures for the solution” of all the issues that arise in the following with regard to the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Treaty. “
The order added, “for this purpose, requires the Treaty’s procedures, among other things, the establishment of an arbitration court at the request of one of the parties, and decides that such arbitration court, upon receipt of written and oral submissions, is empowered to give a price or awards that” must be final and bind to the parties with regard to the dispute. “
“It is difficult to see how this object and purpose of the Treaty-mandatory dispute resolution for a final solution of disputes arising between the parties-could be achieved if it was open to one of the parties acting one-sided, to suspend a continuous dispute resolution process. Such an interpretation would fundamentally undermine.” Third-Party Disposal Availing Process.
The award published on the site of the permanent arbitration court was welcomed by Pakistan and said that it confirmed the court or the competence of the neutral expert despite India’s unilateral act.
Through a request for arbitration on August 19, 2016, Pakistan began the arbitration case against India and tried to solve certain problems regarding the design or operation of run-of-river hydroelectric plants on Indus, Jhelum and Chenab Rivers and their side elves.
The plants included the kispetanga hydroelectric plant and the ratle hydroelectric plant. Following the filing of Pakistan’s request for arbitration, India requested the appointment of a neutral expert to solve certain designs and operating questions regarding the two projects.
On October 13, 2022, the World Bank, which had broken IWT 65 years ago, appointed Michel Lino as a neutral expert under Article IX and Appendix F to the treaty. In April 2025, after the Pahagam attack, India said it held IWT in accordance as a punishing measure against Pakistan.
“The Court of Arbitration finds unanimous: a) India’s attitude that it holds the treaty in” conformity, “but this attitude can be characterized as an international law, does not deprive the court of arbitration of competence,” the decision says.
“B) Finding out that the Court of Arbitration has a continued responsibility for promoting its procedure in a timely, effective and fair manner without regard to India’s attitude towards” monkey “and that a failure to do so would be contrary to its obligations under the treaty,” it added.
“C. determines that the above findings apply, mutatis mutandis, with regard to any competence that the neutral expert otherwise possesses. D. reserves for further consideration and directions all questions not decided in this award.”
The Court of Arbitration is led by Prof Sean D Murphy and included Prof Wouter Buytaert, Prof Jeffrey P Minear, Judge Awn Shawkat al-Khasawneh and Dr. Donald Blackmore. It said that according to IWT, technical questions could be placed before a neutral expert or an arbitration panel.
Pakistan meanwhile welcomed the supplementary award and noted that the court confirmed its competence in the light of recent development and that India’s unilateral acts could not deprive the court or the neutral expert to judge the questions in front of them.
“Pakistan looks forward to receiving the court’s award in the first phase of benefits with the time after the hearing held at Peace Palace in The Hague in July 2024,” said an official distribution sent after the decision was published on the court’s website.
“The high priority at this time is that India and Pakistan find a way back to a meaningful dialogue, including about the use of the Indus Waters Treaty,” it said. It referred it to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks this week that Pakistan was “ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with India”.
