The aftermath of the 22^nd April 2025 Pahalgam attacks, a significant event that led to a week of intense fighting, culminated on May 10. In a move that carries unprecedented geopolitical and legal implications, India unilaterally suspended the Indus Waters Treaty (“IWT”) within 48 hours after the attacks. The IWT, a symbol of cooperative water management since 1960, is now being disregarded by New Delhi. The unfounded claims of Pakistani involvement in these tragic events serve as the basis for the suspension.

Pakistan’s response must be a meticulously planned legal strategy, rooted in established principles of international jurisprudence, to defend its rights and uphold the sanctity of international treaties.

This represents not just a breach of international law but also a violation of existing bilateral accords and an unsettling escalation of tensions in a region already burdened by historical complexities. Pakistan’s response must be a meticulously planned legal strategy, rooted in established principles of international jurisprudence, to defend its rights and uphold the sanctity of international treaties.

A remarkable feat of international diplomacy mediated through the World Bank, the IWT carves out in exquisite detail the rights and obligations India and Pakistan have in using the waters of the Indus River System and its tributaries. There is no provision in this accord for the product of necessity in managing a shared and vital resource, for unilateral suspension on grounds of political or security considerations, irrespective of the gravity of provocation.

In addition, India willfully disregards the carefully woven system of dispute resolution mechanisms that are already a part of the IWT itself. A clear and sequential procedure for settling differences is provided under the treaty. There are consultations within the Permanent Indus Commission for any divergence of an initial technical nature, dispute is to be referred to a neutral expert in case of divergence of a more substantial character, and finally, the constitution of a Court of Arbitration in the event of a dispute. Instead of these established avenues, India has unilaterally suspended the treaty; in fact, India has demonstrated a brazen disregard for the very set of channels created to provide an equitable and peaceful means of managing these vital water resources. This commercial expediency, which is to serve only the expediency of the self, draws upon the treaty’s letter and spirit.

Invocation of the most direct and pertinent is the invocation of the dispute resolution mechanism within the IWT itself by approaching the International Court of Arbitration (ICA).

Pakistan has a diverse range of legal remedies available to it on the international stage. Invocation of the most direct and pertinent is the invocation of the dispute resolution mechanism within the IWT itself by approaching the International Court of Arbitration (ICA). Pakistan would have the concurrent option of seeking broader legal redress in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the event of a fundamental breach of international law, which exceeds the scope of the Treaty.

Under the IWT, the Court of Arbitration is explicitly designated to resolve disputes that the aforementioned stage of proceedings cannot. Since India has unilaterally suspended the IWT, Pakistan is fully entitled to initiate this process, as it constitutes a clear violation of India’s treaty obligations.

The typical steps involved include:

• Formal Notification of Intent to Refer the Dispute to the Court of Arbitration: Pakistan has to formally notify India of its intention to refer the dispute to a Court of Arbitration. In this regard, the notification must contain clear grounds of the dispute, which should unequivocally claim that the unilateral suspension by India is a breach of the treaty.
• On the Arbitral Tribunal’s constitution: The treaty carefully lays down the procedure of the appointment. Each party nominates two arbitrators, and a neutral chairman is typically selected by mutual agreement of the parties or, in their absence, by the designated neutral authority (a practice commonly involving the appointment by a designated neutral authority, such as the World Bank). It is imperative that Pakistan strategically nominates individuals with outstanding credentials in international water law and a deep understanding of treaty interpretation for its robust and persuasive representation.

To substantiate Pakistan’s claims, there will be a need for testimony by expert hydrologists, agricultural economists, and international law scholars.

Pakistan’s legal team will present all the evidence and the arguments. This provision will discuss the treaty in detail, narrate the history of its implementation in the past few decades all in detail, provide irrefutable evidence of India going ahead unilaterally when the Interim Water Commission was working on the issue in the past many years, and provide a detailed analysis of the disastrous negative consequences of this suspension to Pakistan on its vital water resources as a lifeline and a farming economy that employs 65 to 70 percent of its population. Thus, legal arguments must meticulously demonstrate how India has breached the International Water Treaty (IWT) and how it has deliberately evaded the scheduled treaty dispute resolution framework. To substantiate Pakistan’s claims, there will be a need for testimony by expert hydrologists, agricultural economists, and international law scholars.

If Pakistan achieves a favourable outcome, India must immediately and unconditionally revoke the suspension of the treaty and reaffirm its commitment to fulfilling all obligations under the IWT.

There will be a thorough examination of evidence, and both parties will go to the Court of Arbitration to listen to their arguments and issue a legally binding Award. If Pakistan achieves a favourable outcome, India must immediately and unconditionally revoke the suspension of the treaty and reaffirm its commitment to fulfilling all obligations under the IWT. Moreover, the award may contain clauses regarding reparations for any damages or losses Pakistan suffered due to the arbitrary halt. This outcome could have a significant impact on the future of water treaties and international relations.

International Court of Justice Recourse: Although the IWT contains a specific mechanism for dispute resolution on the one hand, Pakistan can still consider seeking recourse from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the grounds of broader international law violations resulting from India’s actions. The ICJ, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has jurisdiction over disputes between States concerning the interpretation or application of international treaties, international law, or some other international legal questions.

The following arguments could be the basis of Pakistan’s case before the ICJ:

• Pakistan can forcefully argue that the unilateral withdrawal by India is a material breach of the treaty and violates fundamental principles of the IWT.
• India has violated the Obligation to Negotiate in good faith: India deliberately and repeatedly avoided the IWT’s established dispute resolution mechanisms; this conduct can be presented as a direct violation of good faith negotiation, which is a basis for peaceful international relations and the implementation of the treaty. This suggests that India is not willing to operate within the established legal framework for dispute resolution.
• Pakistan can cogently present the case that India’s irresponsible and unilateral ostentatiousness based on fabricated suspicions and callous disregard of a long-standing international arrangement significantly escalates regional tensions that show a real threat to global peace and security, violating the Charter of the United Nations. It is also the mandate of the ICJ to address issues that may threaten international stability.

To successfully argue the labyrinthine legal terrain of the ICJ, Pakistan must currently present the correct picture: this issue has nothing to do with a straightforward interpretation of the IWT, but rather with a blatant flouting of more general rules of international law. This requires a diligently designed legal strategy built on ground truth, bolstered by unimpeachable evidence, and a persuasive storyline that will captivate the global legal community and the broader public.

The Enduring Tragedy of Kashmir and India’s Pattern of Blame: A clear, reflexive, and predictable strategy on the part of India is to attribute any untoward incident in Kashmir to Pakistan, thereby deflecting international attention from India’s own deplorable human rights record and the Kashmiri people’s universal right to self-determination, as enshrined in several UN resolutions. These egregious violations constitute blatant breaches of international humanitarian law that have persisted for decades amidst the prolonged brutal occupation of Kashmir. In this self-serving narrative, India seeks to convince us that these are no longer realities, that India has conveniently forgotten these issues. Still, international human rights organisations meticulously document them.

India’s act to link the Pehalgam attacks to the IWT is an apparent attempt to exploit the moment of grief and attempt to put unwarranted pressure on Pakistan with a faint hope that Pakistan would give in to petty Indian designs.

India’s act to link the Pehalgam attacks to the IWT is an apparent attempt to exploit the moment of grief and attempt to put unwarranted pressure on Pakistan with a faint hope that Pakistan would give in to petty Indian designs. This is not only unbecoming behaviour for a responsible state but also an extreme form of belittlement in the intelligence of the international community. This fits into a disturbing pattern of implementing aggressive steps against the neighbour based on uncorroborated allegations and manufactured crises. India has always been on record as sponsoring and promoting terrorism in Pakistan for decades, which is a widely known fact amongst international observers that has further vitiated the credibility of the recent allegations.

A Resolute Call for International Accountability:The international community must unequivocally condemn India’s unilateral suspension of the IWT. This act goes to the very heart of the rules-based global order and sets a dangerous precedent for all treaty obligations worldwide. Neutral international bodies, including the World Bank, which was instrumental in brokering the treaty, must become active and ensure that the dispute is resolved according to the treaty’s clauses and principles of international law.

The global community must stand with Pakistan in this crucial endeavor, unwaveringly, and realize that the observance of international agreements is what binds a peaceful and predictable international system.

Pakistan’s attempt to bring the issue to the ICA and, in the future, the ICJ is not simply about legal recourse to protect its vital water rights, it is a principled stand to respect the sanctity of international law, secure the stability of the region in the face of an adversary’s unilateral aggression, and make the forceful aggressor answer to injustice. The global community must stand with Pakistan in this crucial endeavor, unwaveringly, and realize that the observance of international agreements is what binds a peaceful and predictable international system. Only when that is violated can one slide back into chaos, unilateralism, and conflict.

India will have to abandon its posture of entitlement, its age-old habit of scapegoating others, and seriously engage in dialogue in a spirit of responsible dialogue and respect for its treaty commitments. It is a key factor in achieving lasting regional peace and stability.

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.