Heightened Tensions and Treaty Suspension
In the aftermath of the devastating terror attack
in Pahalgam, which resulted in the loss of 26 lives, tensions between India and
Pakistan have escalated significantly. Responding to the attack, India has
taken a firm stance by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 with
Pakistan. New Delhi has declared that this suspension will remain in effect
until Pakistan credibly and irreversibly ceases its support for cross-border
terrorism.
Pakistan's Outrage and Threat of Retaliation
India's decision to suspend the crucial water
treaty has provoked strong condemnation from Islamabad. Pakistan's Prime
Minister Shehbaz Sharif's office issued a statement denouncing the move as an
"act of war." The statement asserted that any attempt to obstruct or
divert Pakistan's water rights under the IWT would be met with a forceful
response across all dimensions of national power.
Islamabad Considers International Legal Action
Despite its strong rhetoric, Pakistan is now
exploring international legal avenues to challenge India's suspension of the
IWT. Pakistan's Minister of State for Law and Justice, Aqeel Malik, indicated
that Islamabad is considering at least three legal options, including
approaching the World Bank (the treaty's facilitator), the Permanent Court of
Arbitration, or the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Pakistan intends to
argue that India's action constitutes a violation of the 1969 Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties. Raising the issue at the United Nations Security
Council is another option under consideration. Malik emphasized that all
appropriate forums are being explored.
The Indus Waters Treaty: A Vital Agreement
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 after nine
years of negotiations, governs the distribution of water from the Indus River
and its tributaries between India and Pakistan. Under the treaty, India has
unrestricted use of the waters of the eastern rivers – the Ravi, Sutlej, and
Beas. Pakistan controls the western rivers – the Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum.
Remarkably, this treaty has endured through three wars fought between the two
nations. However, India's recent suspension reflects a shift in its stance, signaling
a breaking point.
Pakistan's Dependence on Indus Waters
The suspension of the IWT places Pakistan in a
precarious position. Its agricultural sector, which heavily relies on the Indus
waters, contributes significantly to the nation's economy, accounting for 24%
of its GDP and employing 37.4% of the population in 2024. The majority of
Pakistan's population is directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture. Pakistani
farmers have voiced concerns about potential water shortages or even
intentional flooding by India, highlighting their vulnerability.
India's Justification for Suspension
Despite Pakistan's legal intentions, Indian water
resources officials maintain that New Delhi has a strong legal basis to defend
its decision. Kushvinder Vohra, a retired head of India's Central Water
Commission, believes Pakistan's legal options are limited and that India has
solid grounds for its action.
Limitations of the International Court of Justice
Pakistan's plan to approach the International Court
of Justice faces a significant hurdle. India has explicitly excluded disputes
with Commonwealth nations from the ICJ's jurisdiction. Since Pakistan is a
Commonwealth member, it cannot bring a case against India in this court.
Furthermore, India's reservations also exclude ICJ jurisdiction over disputes
related to acts taken in self-defense or for national security, which India is
likely to argue in this situation.
The World Bank's Limited Role
Seeking intervention from the World Bank is also
unlikely to yield the results Pakistan desires. While the World Bank played a
role in facilitating the IWT and can appoint neutral experts and arbitrators,
it lacks the authority to enforce the treaty's provisions or mandate its
continuation.
Legal Experts Highlight Pakistan's Weak Position
Echoing this sentiment, former Pakistani federal
law minister Ahmer Bilal Soofi had previously stated in 2016 that Pakistan
would have limited recourse if India chose to disregard the treaty. He
explained that the treaty's dispute resolution mechanisms are designed for
disagreements within the treaty's framework, not for cases where a party seeks
to revive a suspended treaty. Soofi also pointed out the absence of any
provision within the IWT addressing its duration or suspension, leaving
Pakistan without a clear legal path to compel India to resume the treaty. He
concluded that India's ICJ reservation further eliminates any peaceful
mechanism for Pakistan to enforce the treaty.
No comments:
Post a Comment