Islamabad:
The Arbitration Court constituted in accordance with the 1960 Indian Water Treaty (IWT), ruled on Friday that India’s decision to keep the treaty in suspense did not deprive him of his competence to judge Pakistan’s complaints against his neighbor.
The court issued the “supplementary award” in the procedures instituted by Pakistan against India.
“According to this interpretation of the Treaty, the Court has previously found that once a procedure before an arbitration court begins properly, as in the present case, there must be a solid presumption against the incidental loss of the jurisdiction on the matters that arise before him for the subsequent acts, such as the appointment of a neutral expert. Consequently, the text of the treaty, read in the light of its purpose, Without permission, do not allow acts, do not allow, do not achieve an appointment, no, or not, not the appointment, does not achieve the acts.
The supplementary prize said that “the text … does not provide the” suspension “or” suspension “unilateral of the treaty. Rather, the treaty provides its continuation in force until India and Pakistan ends its continuation.”
“This text definitely indicates an intention of the editors not to allow unilateral action to alter the rights, obligations and procedures established by the treaty, including the procedures for liquidation of treaty disputes. In addition, the object and purpose of the treaty, as expressed in its preamble, includes establishing procedures for the resolution of all questions in the same way that can be in accordance with the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation The interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation “. saying.
The order added: “To that end, the procedures of the treaty, among other things, ask for the establishment of an arbitration court at the request of one of the parties, and provide that said Arbitration Court, after receiving written and oral presentations, is empowered to present an award or prize that” will be final and binding on the parties with respect to that dispute. “
“It is difficult to see how this object and the purpose of the treaty (the resolution of compulsive disputes for the final resolution of the disputes that arise between the parties) could possibly achieve if it were open to any of the parties, acting unilaterally, to suspend a process of establishing ongoing dispute disputes. Said interpretation would fundamentally undermine” the value and effectiveness of the treaty of the treaty of the dispute.
Through an arbitration application on August 19, 2016, Pakistan began arbitration procedures against India, seeking to solve certain problems related to the design or operation of river hydroelectric plants in the Indo, Jhelum and Chenab rivers and their tributaries.
The plants included the Kishenganga hydroelectric plant and the Rat’s hydroelectric plant. After the presentation of the Pakistan arbitration application, India requested the appointment of a neutral expert to solve certain design and operation questions about the two projects.
On October 13, 2022, the World Bank, which had negotiated the IWT 65 years ago, appointed Michel Lino as a neutral expert in accordance with article IX and Annex F to the Treaty. In April 2025, after Pahalgam’s attack, India said he was keeping the IWT in suspense as a punitive measure against Pakistan.
“The Court of Arbitration unanimously finds: a) The position of India that the treaty in” suspense “is maintaining, however, that position can be characterized as a matter of international law, does not deprive the court of arbitration of competence,” said the ruling.
“B) considers that the Arbitration Court has the continuous responsibility to advance in its procedures in a timely, efficient and fair manner without taking into account India’s position on” suspense “, and that it would not be inconsistent with its obligations under the treaty,” he added.
“C) Determine that the previous findings are applied, mutatis mutandis, with respect to any competition that the neutral expert possesses otherwise. D) It reserves for additional consideration and addresses all the problems not decided in this award.”
The Arbitration Court is led by Professor Sean D Murphy and included Professor Wouter Buytaert, Professor Jeffrey P Menar, Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh and Dr. Donald Blackmore. He said that according to IWT, the technical questions could be asked before a neutral expert or an arbitration panel.
Meanwhile, Pakistan welcomed the supplementary prize, pointing out that the court affirmed its competence in the light of recent developments and that the unilateral action of India could not deprive the court or the neutral expert to judge the problems they had before them.
“Pakistan hopes to receive the court prize in the first phase on the merits in due course after the hearing held at the Paz Palacio in The Hague in July 2024,” said an official brochure issued after the ruling on the website of the Court was published.
“The high priority, at this point, is that India and Pakistan find a path back to a significant dialogue, even in the application of the swing of the Indo waters,” he said. He referred to the comments of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif this week that Pakistan was “ready to participate in a significant dialogue with India.”
