ISLAMABAD: The Court of Arbitration in The Hague has unanimously ruled that India cannot unilaterally place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in “abeyance”, declaring that the landmark water-sharing agreement remains fully in force and that New Delhi continues to be bound by its obligations under the treaty and international law.

In a separate but significant order, the Court also restricted India from proceeding beyond specified levels with key construction works at the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP) until after a Neutral Expert decides whether its design complies with the treaty.

The Government of Pakistan welcomed the unanimous findings, saying the ruling vindicated Islamabad’s position that India could not unilaterally suspend or terminate the treaty.

In a statement, the government said it would carefully examine the detailed Award and Decision once published and consider how they could help provide a pathway back to engagement between the two countries under the treaty while respecting their binding legal obligations.

The Court examined India’s April 2025 decision to hold the IWT “in abeyance” and concluded that none of the grounds invoked by New Delhi could legally justify either suspension or termination. It ruled that India’s decision was “not permissible under the Treaty or other applicable rules of international law” and that the treaty therefore remained fully operational.

Significantly, the Court found that the term “abeyance” does not appear in the Indus Waters Treaty and has no technical meaning under international treaty law. The treaty itself provides no mechanism through which either India or Pakistan can unilaterally suspend or terminate it. Instead, it can be modified or terminated only through another treaty agreed by both countries.

The Court also rejected India’s argument based on sovereignty, holding that sovereignty does not give a state the right to disregard its treaty commitments. It cited the fundamental international-law principle of pact asuntservanda — agreements must be kept — and held that states remain bound by treaties they have entered into.

Another significant finding concerned the possibility of armed conflict between Pakistan and India. The Court concluded that no international armed conflict currently existed between the two countries, but went further to state that even in such circumstances, the Indus Waters Treaty was of a type that would remain operational. It noted that the treaty had continued to remain in force through multiple armed conflicts between Pakistan and India since 1960.

The Court separately examined India’s references to demographic changes, growing clean-energy requirements, advances in dam technology, alleged cross-border terrorism and climate change as circumstances potentially justifying suspension or termination. It concluded that the stringent legal requirements for invoking a “fundamental change of circumstances” had not been met.

On India’s allegations concerning terrorism, the Court said it took them “extremely seriously”, but found that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they would not constitute a material breach of the Indus Waters Treaty by Pakistan. It observed that the treaty deals with the rights and obligations of the two countries regarding the waters of the Indus River System and does not govern terrorism or the use of force.

The proceedings also carry significance because India chose not to participate in this phase of the arbitration. The Court invited New Delhi to indicate whether it intended to participate, but received no response. India subsequently made neither written nor oral submissions. The Court nevertheless took account of India’s positions through official communications, correspondence and public statements by Indian officials.

In its separate order concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant on the Chenab River, the Court granted three of the interim measures sought by Pakistan, subject to modifications, while declining two others.

The Court prohibited India from concreting the Ratle dam wall and its power-intake structure above specified levels pending the Neutral Expert’s decision on whether the project’s design complies with the treaty. The restrictions will remain applicable until 90 days after the Neutral Expert delivers his final decision, currently expected around July 16, 2027.

Explaining the need for the restrictions, the Court noted that the latest construction schedule envisaged significant concreting work before the Neutral Expert’s ruling. If parts of the design were subsequently found non-compliant with the treaty, modifying them — potentially involving the destruction and removal of reinforced concrete — could be “extraordinarily difficult and costly.”

India has additionally been ordered to notify Pakistan, the Court and the Neutral Expert of any changes to the Ratle construction schedule. The Court said transparency over developments “on the ground” was essential to protect the interests and legal processes at stake.

Pakistan had initiated the arbitration proceedings in August 2016 under Article IX and Annexure G of the Indus Waters Treaty. The dispute concerns the interpretation and application of the treaty as well as the design of India’s Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers. A parallel Neutral Expert process concerning the two projects remains underway, with the final decision currently envisaged for around July 16, 2027.

The detailed Award on the status of the treaty and the Order on Interim Measures are expected to be published after a process to redact confidential material. Pakistan said it would study the decisions in detail to determine how they could assist in restoring engagement between the two countries under the Indus Waters Treaty and ensuring compliance with the binding obligations of both sides.—NUZHAT NAZAR