&w=3840&q=100)
Does Pakistan know why India rejects Indus Water Treaty dispute resolution mechanism?
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Tuesday said that the 'enemy can't snatch even a single drop of water' as he joined the country's military leadership in ramping up rhetoric over the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
His statement came after India reiterated its decision to hold the treaty's dispute resolution process in abeyance, citing procedural objections that Islamabad has long ignored.
At the heart of the disagreement lies India's refusal to recognise the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the ongoing dispute. The Hague-based tribunal has reportedly ruled that India must 'let flow' the waters of the Western Rivers the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab for Pakistan's unrestricted use under the treaty.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
New Delhi has consistently maintained that it never accepted the World Bank's 2022 decision to simultaneously activate two parallel processes, a neutral expert mechanism and at Pakistan's insistence, the Court of Arbitration to adjudicate the same set of technical objections. India argued that such concurrent proceedings pose both practical and legal challenges and formally sought a reconsideration of the treaty's dispute settlement provisions.
Despite acknowledging India's concerns, the World Bank in October 2022 appointed both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration. This, officials in New Delhi say, undermines the procedural safeguards intended by the 1960 treaty and sets a precedent that could weaken the framework for resolving future differences.
With Pakistan signalling it will press ahead with its case at the PCA and India refusing to participate in its proceedings, the stalemate over the IWT's dispute resolution mechanism appears far from over and now, political posturing on both sides threatens to overshadow the complex legal issues at its core.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
India rejects arbitration court's IWT ruling: ‘Holds no legal standing'
India has rejected the award of the 'so-called Court of Arbitration' on issues of general interpretation of Indus Waters Treaty, which New Delhi has kept in abeyance following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. Responding to queries on the latest award given by the Court of Arbitration, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, 'India has never accepted the legality, legitimacy, or competence of the so-called Court of Arbitration. Its pronouncements are therefore without jurisdiction, devoid of legal standing, and have no bearing on India's rights of utilisation of waters.' 'India also categorically rejects Pakistan's selective and misleading references to the so-called 'award',' Jaiswal said. 'As reiterated in our press release of 27 June 2025, the IWT stands in abeyance by a sovereign decision of the Government of India, taken in response to Pakistan's continued sponsorship of cross-border terrorism, including the barbaric Pahalgam attack,' he said. On August 8, 2025, the Court of Arbitration, chaired by Prof Sean D Murphy of the US, gave an award that 'addresses certain questions concerning the overall interpretation and application of the Treaty, including in relation to Article III (which concerns the Western Rivers) and Paragraph 8 of Annexure D (which concerns new run-of-river hydro-electric plants that India may construct on the Western Rivers).' India has not participated in the arbitration proceedings and has repeatedly objected to the competence of the court. Earlier, the Court of Arbitration had given its Award on Competence on July 6, 2023, in which it held that India's non-appearance in these proceedings does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence. On June 27, it gave a Supplemental Award on Competence, stating that 'India's position that it is holding the Treaty in 'abeyance', however that position may be characterized as a matter of international law, does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence.' India has opposed the proceedings of the Court of Arbitration since its constitution in October 2022, saying it could not be 'compelled to recognise illegal and parallel proceedings not envisaged by the Treaty' and boycotted the court hearings. It, however, continued participating in the 'Treaty-consistent Neutral Expert proceedings'.
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
Russia Claims New Ukraine Gains Ahead Of Putin-Trump Summit
Russia said on Thursday its troops had captured two new settlements in eastern Ukraine on the eve of a summit between President Vladimir Putin and US counterpart Donald Trump. The defence ministry said Russian forces captured the village of Iskra and the small town of Shcherbynivka in Ukraine's Donetsk region, which the Kremlin claimed to have annexed in September 2022. Shcherbynivka is near the mining town of Toretsk, captured by Russian troops in February, and Kostiantynivka -- one of the last large urban areas in the Donetsk region still held by Ukraine. The Russian army has accelerated its gains in recent months. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday conceded that Russian forces had advanced by up to 10 kilometres (six miles) in a narrow section of the front line near the coal mining town of Dobropillia. The Russian army's gains on Tuesday were the biggest for a single 24-hour period in over a year, according to an AFP analysis of data from the US-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW). In southern Russia, 13 people, including two children, were injured Thursday in a Ukrainian drone attack that damaged around 10 residential buildings in Rostov-on-Don, regional governor Yuri Sliusar said on Telegram. The Russian military claimed to have shot down 268 Ukrainian drones and four glide bombs in 24 hours. In Ukraine, the air force said Russia had fired two missiles and 45 drones at Ukrainian territory overnight. Two people were injured in the northern Sumy region and one in the Kherson region, according to local authorities. Putin and Trump are to meet on Friday in Alaska for a summit which the Kremlin said would focus on "the resolution of the Ukraine crisis".
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Free speech clash: Supreme Court allows Mississippi's law requiring age verification for minors; tech giants oppose mandate
US Supreme Court (AP image) The US Supreme Court on Thursday declined to temporarily block a Mississippi law that requires age verification and parental consent for minors to use social media platforms. The law, aimed at protecting young people from potential online harm, will remain in effect while legal challenges continue. It is one of several measures passed by US states to curb the influence of social media on children. NetChoice – a group representing companies including Facebook, Instagram , Reddit, X and YouTube had asked the Supreme Court to halt the law after the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals allowed its enforcement. A lower court had earlier blocked the law, ruling it likely violated the First Amendment. US District Judge Sul Ozerden said the measure was overly broad and that parents already have other ways to monitor their children's online activity. The Supreme Court did not explain its decision. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that while the law may be unconstitutional, NetChoice had not proven that enforcing it during the court battle would cause enough harm to justify halting it. NetChoice attorney Paul Taske called the ruling a 'procedural delay' and expressed confidence the group would ultimately prevail in protecting free speech rights. 'Although we're disappointed with the Court's decision, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment − not just in this case but across all NetChoice's ID-for-Speech lawsuits," Taske said in a statement. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it better to shower in the morning or at night? Here's what a microbiologist says CNA Read More Undo Mississippi officials defended the law, saying it targets platforms that allow predators to contact minors. They cited a case in which a 16-year-old boy took his own life after he met someone on Instagram who threatened to expose their sexual encounter unless he paid $1,000. The state also argued that blocking the law conflicted with the Supreme Court's earlier decision to uphold a Texas law requiring age verification for pornographic websites. NetChoice maintains the law infringes on free speech by forcing all user, including adults to provide personal information to access online platforms. "Social media is the modern printing press − it allows all Americans to share their thoughts and perspectives,' Taske said. 'Just as the government can't force you to provide identification to read a newspaper, the same holds true when that news is available online.'
