Abdullah Jan
Islamabad: The latest ruling on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) carries a message far beyond the Pakistan-India dispute, as it reinforces the principle that shared water resources cannot be subjected to unilateral political pressure or used to undermine established international agreements, Chairman of the Forum for International Relations Development (FIRD) UK Toaha Qureshi said on Monday.
Qureshi said the unanimous decision of the Court of Arbitration was particularly significant at a time when transboundary water resources were increasingly becoming a source of tension between neighbouring states.
He said the ruling reaffirmed the continuing legal status of the IWT and made clear that one party could not simply declare the treaty in “abeyance” and assume that its obligations had consequently disappeared.
“The significance of this decision goes beyond the immediate dispute. It reinforces the principle that water-sharing arrangements between states cannot be made hostage to political developments or unilateral declarations,” Qureshi said in a statement.
He said the Indus Waters Treaty had been designed precisely to ensure that disagreements over one of the region’s most vital shared resources did not automatically escalate into a broader confrontation.
According to Qureshi, the durability of the treaty over several decades demonstrated the importance of maintaining institutional arrangements even when political relations between the two countries deteriorated.
“The IWT has survived wars, crises and prolonged periods of political hostility. Its resilience demonstrates that agreements governing shared natural resources serve an important stabilising function and should not be weakened whenever bilateral relations become difficult,” he said.
Qureshi said the latest ruling therefore strengthened the argument for keeping water issues within a rules-based framework instead of allowing them to become part of political retaliation.
He warned that treating transboundary rivers as instruments of pressure could have serious humanitarian, economic and regional consequences.
“The Indus river system is directly linked with agriculture, livelihoods and food security for millions of people. Water cannot be treated as an ordinary political commodity or turned into an instrument of coercion,” he said.
He said the legal framework of the IWT provided both countries with avenues for raising objections, examining technical questions and resolving disputes, making unilateral action unnecessary and potentially destabilising.
“The Treaty anticipated disagreements between the parties. That is why it established institutions and procedures through which those disagreements could be addressed. The real test is whether states choose to use those mechanisms or attempt to bypass them,” Qureshi said.
He said the Court’s reaffirmation of the treaty’s continuing validity also carried implications for India’s obligations concerning projects on the Western Rivers.
India, he added, remained bound by the provisions governing the development and operation of hydroelectric projects as well as by the dispute-resolution procedures incorporated into the agreement.
Qureshi also referred to the Court’s interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant, saying such measures were important because construction activity capable of creating irreversible consequences should not be allowed to undermine an ongoing international dispute-resolution process.
He said the issue illustrated why international adjudication required both sides to preserve the situation on the ground while legal questions remained under consideration.
“International dispute settlement loses its effectiveness if irreversible developments are allowed to determine the outcome before the legal process has been completed,” he said.
Qureshi said Pakistan’s decision to pursue the dispute through the mechanisms provided by the treaty had also demonstrated the value of institutional diplomacy.
He noted that Pakistan had continued to engage through the Permanent Indus Commission, the Neutral Expert process and the Court of Arbitration rather than abandoning the treaty framework.
“This approach demonstrates that disputes over shared resources can be managed through law and institutions even when political relations are strained,” he said.
He maintained that the latest ruling should encourage both countries to preserve the IWT framework rather than allow the agreement to become another casualty of broader bilateral tensions.
“The answer to disagreements over water is not the dismantling of the system that manages those disagreements. The answer is to make the existing mechanisms work more effectively,” Qureshi said.
He said the ruling also carried an important message for other countries sharing international rivers, particularly in regions where water scarcity, climate change and population pressures were increasing competition over freshwater resources.
“If unilateral political declarations become an accepted means of suspending water treaties, confidence in international river agreements everywhere could be seriously damaged,” he warned.
Qureshi said the international community had a broader interest in ensuring that treaties governing shared rivers remained insulated from short-term political disputes.
He stressed that water security was increasingly becoming a strategic issue and that the international community needed stronger respect for agreements governing transboundary water systems.
“Shared rivers do not recognise political boundaries, and the consequences of disrupting their management can extend across borders. This is why water-sharing treaties require stability, predictability and respect for international law,” he said.
He said Pakistan should use the ruling to highlight the broader principle of peaceful dispute resolution and responsible management of shared natural resources rather than portraying the outcome solely as a bilateral confrontation.
According to Qureshi, the decision offered an opportunity to reinforce the idea that international law provides states with mechanisms to address disputes without resorting to unilateral measures.
“The wider lesson is that political disagreements should not be allowed to destroy legal frameworks that have successfully managed shared resources for decades,” he said.
Qureshi said the continuation of the IWT was ultimately in the interests of both countries because it provided predictability in the management of the Indus river system and reduced the risk of water disputes becoming catalysts for wider instability.
“The Treaty remains an important stabilising instrument. Its strength lies not merely in its provisions but in the principle that disagreements can be addressed without abandoning the legal framework altogether,” he added.
