The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague rules Monday that India must uphold the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, which India suspended in April last year due to tensions. The suspension came after India blamed Pakistan for an attack that killed 26 people at a Kashmir tourist destination. Islamabad later denied involvement in this event. The court said the treaty, honored by both countries since 1960 despite three wards, remains fully in force and that India has no justification for ending it. The ruling also requires India to limit construction on hydroelectric plants in Kashmir and includes a specific order to build the dam wall and power intake at the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant above certain levels until 90 days after the World-Bank appointment neutral expert decides by July 2027 whether the projects comply with the treaty. India rejected the verdict, saying the court has no jurisdiction over “sovereign decisions” and that the ruling will have no effect on its project. The treaty ensures water supply to 80% of Pakistani farms.
The ruling is significant because it reaffirms that international water law can limit even powerful states like India, whom had previously suspended the treaty. The Indus Water Treaty has survived three wards and decades of tension solely because it is a neutral, rule-based agreement that the court protected the framework from being weaponized. For the region, the stakes are essential, as the treaty supplies water to roughly 80% of Pakistani’s farmland. ANy erosion of it will risk food and water insecurity and could destabilize the already tense border. India’s rejection of the verdict shows the ruling’s power is limited, where it cannot force compliance. The lasting impact may be less about the specific dam and more about the precedent of whether treaties remain binding when relations collapse. This issue of water security has become a national security for both India and Pakistan, and the court’s authority only matters if both sides respect the decision.
Pakistan will likely push for the ruling as justification and will push for it to be fully implemented, using it to strengthen its position on the damn. Islamabad may use this as proof that international law will continue to protect its water rights. India has already rejected the verdict, so its response will argue against it. They may try to renegotiate treaty terms or push for revision to better suit their interests. The World Bank, who brokered the treaty and appointed the neutral expert, faces the change of needing to appear impartial while continuing to push both sides to compliance and keep the resolution credible. The PCA will need to assert the ruling even though it does not have power to enforce.
This shows an example of state vs non-stake actors, where India and Pakistan are the states with the decision of compliance. The PCA and World Bank are IGOs, created by the states to manage cooperation and resolve conflict. This shows the limits of IGOs, as they have authority but no means to enforce decisions, causing them to rely on reputational costs and self-interest.