Islamabad:
The Court of Arbitration formed in accordance with the Water Treaty in the Industry (IWT) of 1960, judged on Friday that India’s decision to hold the counter -suspected treaty had not deprived it of its jurisdiction to judge the complaints of Pakistan against its neighbor.
The court awarded the “additional price” on the procedure instituted by Pakistan against India.
“In accordance with this interpretation of the treaty, the Court previously concluded that once a procedure before an arbitration was properly initiated, as in this case,” there must be a strong presumption against the accidental loss of competence on the issues filed before it by subsequent acts, such as the appointment of a neutral expert.
“Consequently, the text of the treaty, read in the light of its object and its objective, did not allow one or the other of the parties, acting unilaterally, to suspend or suspend a process of settlement of the disputes in progress,” indicates the order.
The additional price said that “the text … does not provide for the” suspension “or the unilateral” suspension “of the treaty. On the contrary, the treaty provides for its pursuit in force until the mutual consent of India and Pakistan”.
“Such a text definitively indicates the intention of the editors not to allow unilateral measures to modify the rights, obligations and procedures established by the Treaty, including the procedures for paying disputes of the Treaty.
“In addition, the object and the objective of the treaty, as they are expressed in its preamble, include the establishment of resolution procedures” of all questions which may arise below concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions agreed in the Treaty. “”
The ordinance added: “To this end, the procedures of the treaty, among others, call for the creation of an arbitration court at the request of one of the parties, and provide that this court of arbitration, after having received written and oral bids, is authorized to make a sentence or rewards which” will be final and binding on the parties with regard to this dispute “.
“It is difficult to see how this object and this objective of the treaty – compulsory resolution of disputes for a final resolution of disputes arising from the parties – could possibly be carried out if it was open to one or the other of the parties, acting unilaterally, to suspend a process of payment in progress.
The sentence, made public on the website of the Permanent Arbitration Court, was welcomed by Pakistan, saying that it had affirmed the court or the competence of the neutral expert despite the unilateral action of India.
Thanks to a request for arbitration on August 19, 2016, Pakistan initiated the arbitration procedure against India, seeking to solve certain problems concerning the design or exploitation of hydroelectric plants as standard of people on industrial rivers, Jhelum and Chenab and their tributaries.
The plants included the Kishenganga hydroelectric plant and the ratle hydroelectric plant. After filing the Pakistan arbitration request, India asked for the appointment of a neutral expert to resolve certain design and exploitation issues concerning the two projects.
On October 13, 2022, the World Bank, which had negotiated the TWT 65 years ago, appointed Michel Lino as a neutral expert in accordance with Article IX and Annex F to the Treaty. In April 2025, after Pahalgam’s attack, India said it held the TBI in suspense as a punitive measure against Pakistan.
“The court of arbitration finds unanimously: a) The position of India according to which it holds the” suspension “treaty, however, that the position may be characterized as a question of international law, does not deprive the court of competence arbitration,” said the decision.
“B) concludes that the Court of Arbitration has the responsibility continues to advance its procedure in a timely, effective and equitable manner without regard to the position of India on” absence “, and that a non-compliance with this would be incompatible with its obligations under the treaty,” he added.
“C. determines that the above results apply, mutatis mutandis, with regard to any skill that the neutral expert has otherwise. D. reserves for consideration and additional instructions all questions not decided in this price.”
The refereeing court is led by Professor Sean D Murphy and included Professor Wouter Buytaert, Professor Jeffrey P Minear, Judge Awn Shawkat al-Khasawneh and Dr Donald Blackmore. He said that according to the IWT, technical questions could be asked before a neutral expert or an arbitral panel.
Pakistan, on the other hand, welcomed the additional sentence, noting that the Court confirmed its competence in the light of recent developments and that the unilateral action of India could not deprive neither the court nor the neutral expert to judge the questions which are seized to them.
“Pakistan is anxious to receive the court of the court on the first phase on the merits in due course following the hearing held at the Palais de la Paix in The Hague in July 2024,” said an official document published after the publication of the decision on the Tribunal’s website.
“The high priority, at this stage, is that India and Pakistan find a means of returning to a significant dialogue, including the application of the Industry Water Treaty,” he said. He refer to the remark of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif this week that Pakistan was “ready to initiate a significant dialogue with India”.
