India’s boycott ‘does not vacate’ IWT jurisdiction, says international water security expert

ISLAMABAD: The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s jurisdiction over the Indus Waters Treaty stands despite India’s refusal to participate in the proceedings, a Washington-based water security expert has said, following two rulings issued last month.

Speaking on Pakistan TV Digital’s South Speaks with Saqib, David Michel, senior fellow for water security at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said the Court found that India cannot unilaterally suspend or terminate the treaty under international law.

“India’s non-participation in the dispute resolution process does not vacate the court’s jurisdiction,” Michel said.

The remarks come after the Court of Arbitration ruled that the Indus Waters Treaty remains fully in force and that India remains bound by its obligations under the agreement. The Court also ordered interim measures concerning the Ratle hydro-electric project.

Michel said the Court issued two rulings. The first addressed India’s decision to hold the treaty in abeyance after the 2025 crisis, finding that the treaty “remains in force.” 

The second concerned interim measures for the Ratle hydro-electric project, ordering India not to pursue construction beyond specified levels pending a decision from a World Bank-appointed neutral expert, expected in July next year.

Michel said the rulings stop short of enforcement.

“The court cannot obligate or force India to implement the treaty, or to rejoin the treaty, and the court cannot impose penalties on India,” he said.

He described the outcome as a legal victory for Pakistan and the treaty’s institutions, though one that depends on cooperation rather than automatic enforcement.

“Ultimately, cooperation and diplomacy depend on cooperation and diplomacy,” he said. “The institutions do not automatically enforce their decisions.”

Michel said India’s position carries a “potential hypocrisy” given its own dependence on China upstream.

“If India holds the cooperative mechanisms for managing shared rivers in abeyance in the case of Pakistan, then by what logic and by what right does India request cooperation from China on other rivers?” he said.

On climate change, Michel said the Indus basin’s exposure to extreme events strengthens the case for cooperation, pointing to recent flooding in Nepal as a warning sign for the wider Himalayan region.

He said the World Bank, the treaty’s original guarantor, has maintained its role in the process but faces the same enforcement limits as the Court.

Michel said the dispute carries implications beyond South Asia.

“If parties to international agreements are able to enter and leave them without valid legal argument or justification, that undermines the rules-based order more broadly,” he said, noting that Bangladesh and Nepal are watching the outcome closely.