India’s recent move to unilaterally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a cornerstone of regional peace and water cooperation in South Asia, represents not just a bilateral breach—it challenges the credibility of international legal norms and multilateral treaties globally. The IWT, brokered by the World Bank and signed in 1960, has withstood wars and political hostility for over six decades. India’s attempt to dismantle it unilaterally is not merely a diplomatic slight—it is an act with severe humanitarian, legal, and geopolitical implications.
The Indus Waters Treaty is a binding and Permanent Legal Instrument(IWT)
The Indus Waters Treaty is a binding and Permanent Legal Instrument(IWT) and was established after nine years of arduous negotiations and is a tripartite agreement between India, Pakistan, and the World Bank. It allocates control of the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan, with limited usage rights for India under strict terms. Article XII of the Treaty makes it unambiguously permanent and prohibits unilateral withdrawal or suspension by any party.
Disputes under the IWT are managed through a multi-tiered resolution mechanism outlined in Article IX, including the Permanent Indus Commission, a Neutral Expert appointed with World Bank assistance, and, if necessary, a Court of Arbitration. India’s unilateral maneuver bypasses this framework, directly violating the Treaty’s core provisions.
India’s action constitutes a clear breach of international law, notably:
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)
Article 26: Pacta sunt servanda — treaties must be honored in good faith.
Article 60: Prohibits suspension or termination of a treaty without lawful justification or mutual agreement.
United Nations Charter
Article 2(3): Mandates peaceful dispute resolution.
Article 2(4): Prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations.
Articles 33 & 36: Encourages peaceful mechanisms for resolving disputes.
UN General Assembly Resolutions
Resolution 2625 (1970): Reaffirms that treaties must be upheld and disputes should not endanger international peace.
Resolutions 63/124 and 68/157: Recognize access to water as a fundamental human right and promote cooperative management of transboundary watercourses.
India’s attempt to weaponize water—a life-sustaining resource—contravenes these instruments and threatens global norms concerning natural resource sharing
India’s attempt to weaponize water—a life-sustaining resource—contravenes these instruments and threatens global norms concerning natural resource sharing.
India’s actions also violate the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, which emphasizes: Equitable and reasonable utilization of shared water resources.The obligation not to cause significant harm to other riparian states.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Project case (1997), clarified that no state may unilaterally suspend a treaty
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Project case (1997), clarified that no state may unilaterally suspend a treaty concerning shared resources without mutual consent or compelling legal justification. India’s move mirrors the kind of unilateralism that the ICJ has warned against.
Despite India’s objections to ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of its Statute, Pakistan can lawfully: Request an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ via the UN General Assembly under Article 96 of the UN Charter. Such an opinion would reinforce Pakistan’s legal position and exert global pressure on India. Approach the UN Security Council under Chapters VI and VII, arguing that India’s actions threaten regional peace and security. Mobilize support in the UN General Assembly to pass a resolution reaffirming the IWT’s sanctity and calling for compliance.
The World Bank is not a neutral bystander—it is a signatory and procedural guarantor of the IWT
In this instance, The World Bank is not a neutral bystander—it is a signatory and procedural guarantor of the IWT. Its obligations include: Facilitating dispute resolution by convening a Neutral Expert or Court of Arbitration. Upholding the treaty’s implementation integrity. Supporting both parties in honoring their obligations under the Treaty.
The World Bank’s failure to intervene in the face of a unilateral suspension would constitute a dereliction of duty and set a dangerous precedent for international treaty enforcement.
The Indus River system is Pakistan’s lifeline, sustaining agriculture, industry, and over 225 million people. Any disruption would: Devastate food and water security.Displace millions of farmers. Destabilize Pakistan’s economy and ecological systems. Exacerbate tensions in a nuclearized region.
Such actions also legitimize the dangerous precedent of “water coercion”—where powerful upstream states use water as a political weapon. This undermines decades of progress in global water law and threatens similar arrangements across the world.
If diplomatic and legal avenues fail, Article 51 of the UN Charter entitles Pakistan to self-defense.
The UN and its member states must not treat this as a bilateral spat but as a test of international treaty law. If diplomatic and legal avenues fail, Article 51 of the UN Charter entitles Pakistan to self-defense. Given that water denial constitutes a threat to survival, such an act could be construed as aggression under international law.
India has repeatedly employed water as a geopolitical lever since in 2001–02 & 2008 it issued Post-conflict threats to revisit the IWT. It also suspended Indus Commission talks post-Uri attack; and accelerated building of disputed hydropower projects.
In 2019, it made public declarations to cut off water following Pulwama-Balakot escalation and in 2023–24, India issued formal notice seeking treaty modification—widely seen as a coercive tactic. Such patterns demonstrate a sustained effort to dilute treaty obligations for strategic leverage, violating not just international law, but also humanitarian ethics.
Pakistan must respond by invoking its rights at the ICJ, the UN Security Council, and the UN General Assembly
India’s attempt to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty is an act of legal defiance and geopolitical recklessness. Pakistan must respond by invoking its rights at the ICJ, the UN Security Council, and the UN General Assembly. The World Bank must fulfill its mandate as guarantor, and the international community must hold India accountable.
This is not merely a test of bilateral resolve—it is a global legal litmus test. If allowed to pass unchallenged, it will mark a dangerous moment in international relations where treaties are reduced to tools of convenience rather than instruments of peace.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
