The question of IWT suspension

The law does not allow it

In recent days, it has been debated across Pakistan whether the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) could be unilaterally suspended by India or not. This question can be answered quite easily that the Indus Waters Treaty requires the consent of both parties which are Pakistan and India. Thus, any unilateral step towards the suspension of this treaty would be a flagrant breach of the treaty. Because, the provisions mentioned under the Indus Waters Treaty does not allow either party to suspend it on its own.

Following the Pahalgam attack on 22 April 2025, India put the treaty into abeyance on 23 April 2025. That act was not in accordance with the contents written in the treaty as Article 12 of the IWT argues that the treaty cannot be suspended or terminated by either Pakistan or India. Hence, any modification or termination of the treaty requires the consent of both parties, and it is the legal obligation of both parties to comply with the treaty and ensure the uninterrupted continuity of it.

However, the Indus Waters Treaty was signed between Pakistan and India under the mediation of the World Bank on 19 September 1960 in Karachi. It led to the foundation of the structure of water sharing between Pakistan and India. Through this treaty, Pakistan received three Western Rivers- the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab while India was granted rights over the three Eastern Rivers- the Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas.

After the independence of Pakistan, one of the major issues that Islamabad continues to face is the water issue with India. Pakistan, being an agrarian society, suffered a lot due to water crisis, as India always threatens to stop the flow of water towards Pakistan. For an agrarian country water acts as a red line.

In addition, Pakistan believes that any act of diverting the flow of water or sabotaging the treaty would be considered as an act of war because no state can tolerate a violation of its fundamental right to water.

Through the lens of International law, an upper riparian (upstream) state cannot stop or hinder the flow of water towards the lower riparian (downstream) state because if it does so, this will deprive the people of the lower riparian state of access to water. Moreover, the Indus Waters Treaty is based on the principle called Pacta Sunt Servanda, meaning pacts must be fulfilled, upon which all treaties are founded.

Other conditions with regards to the suspension or termination of a treaty are specified under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention of 1969. It stipulates that if a material breach of a treaty is committed by a state, the other party to the treaty may terminate the treaty. However, in the case of the IWT, a material breach was not ever committed by Pakistan. Rather, since the beginning, Islamabad has been acting as the guardian of the IWT and adheres to all its provisions. Thus, India’s claim of its suspension and obstruction, as a result of a material breach committed by Pakistan, is a baseless and flawed argument. From this, India’s move to suspend and obstruct the flow of water under the IWT constitutes a violation of the treaty and also a violation of the water rights of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis.

The Madrid Declaration of 1911 suggests that an upstream state must avoid any alteration or obstruction of the flow of an internationally recognized water body to cause harm to downstream state. This intrinsically obligates an upper riparian state to ensure the safe flow of water towards the lower riparian state.

Additionally, Article 4 of chapter 2 of the Helsinki Rules of 1966 and Article 5 of the 1977 UN Watercourses Convention emphasize the fair usage of an international drainage basin by each state that passes through it and equitable sharing of international watercourse. It argues that every state must have a right to make use of water fairly without breaching the other riparian states’ rights.

Apart from that, United Nations Convention on the Laws of Seas (1982) stipulates that all riparian states must strengthen and maintain the flow of water towards the sea. In this convention, a disruption of the flow of water to the sea by any state is also strictly prohibited, because it may extremely affect marine life and would lead to catastrophic implications for aquatic ecosystems. Resultantly, an attempt to obstruct water flows to a downstream country is an illicit action and would pose a serious threat to the water security of that country.

The Vienna convention on the Laws of Treaty (1969) deals with the formation, interpretation, termination of treaties and suggests the legal aspects concerning treaties. Article 54 of this convention states that the suspension of a treaty is linked to the consent of all parties, and a clause inside a treaty permitting its suspension. Furthermore, Article 59 clearly lays down that a treaty can be terminated if a new treaty itself replaces the previous treaty. But in the context of IWT, there is no treaty that has replaced it over time, meaning any termination of IWT is the breach of it.

Other conditions with regards to the suspension or termination of a treaty are specified under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention of 1969. It stipulates that if a material breach of a treaty is committed by a state, the other party to the treaty may terminate the treaty. However, in the case of the IWT, a material breach was not ever committed by Pakistan. Rather, since the beginning, Islamabad has been acting as the guardian of the IWT and adheres to all its provisions. Thus, India’s claim of its suspension and obstruction, as a result of a material breach committed by Pakistan, is a baseless and flawed argument. From this, India’s move to suspend and obstruct the flow of water under the IWT constitutes a violation of the treaty and also a violation of the water rights of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis.