IWT: PCA's ruling
In its ruling, the Court declared it has full jurisdiction over Pakistan's complaint regarding India's hydropower projects on the Indus system's Western Rivers — the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — and that India must design such projects strictly in accordance with the treaty's specifications. The phrase 'strictly' is indeed the heart of the matter. For years, Pakistan has criticized India for bending the rules in the name of 'best engineering practices' to exert more control over water flows. The Court has now affirmed that the treaty does not permit such unilateral reinterpretation.
Signed in 1960 with World Bank's mediation, the IWT divided six rivers between the two countries: three eastern rivers to India and three western ones to Pakistan. While India was allowed limited non-consumptive uses, such as run-of-river hydropower on the Western Rivers, those rights came with clear technical limits on dam designs and water storage.
The Ruling by the court is a 'Legal Win' for Pakistan and a 'Political Test' for India. But, this is not the end of it. It may well be a head start for Pakistan on the long process of the dispute resolution. What lies ahead is complex and challenging.
The following challenges could unfold as the process moves on:
Sanctity of the court ruling and 'India's legal room to manoeuvre':
The Court's decision is binding, but enforcement is a different game. India has little legal ground to 'overrule' the PCA. The IWT's own dispute resolution mechanism — agreed to by both countries — provides for binding arbitration if bilateral talks fail.
What New Delhi can do is political and procedural: delay implementation through extended technical discussions, seek 'clarifications' on design changes, or partially comply with the ruling while keeping its projects largely intact. India might also use the verdict to re-open the broader debate about modernising the treaty, a move that could dilute Pakistan's hard-won protections.
India's acceptance of the PCA ruling:
An unconditional 'yes' is improbable. But, legally, overturning the ruling is nearly impossible; politically, India can slow-walk or sidestep compliance.
India has already expressed discomfort with the arbitration path, preferring the 'neutral expert' process that offers more room for technical compromise. Accepting the ruling without challenge could be seen domestically as conceding strategic ground to Pakistan.
More likely is a pattern of selective compliance — making some design adjustments with a view to appeasing the Court while ensuring that the core of India's hydropower ambitions remains unaffected.
The 'Enforcement Gap' in relation to Court's ruling:
The PCA cannot send inspectors or impose sanctions. Its power lies in the moral weight of international law and the political cost of open defiance. The World Bank, as treaty guarantor, can exert diplomatic pressure and even influence the flow of international development finance. Still, without active global backing, enforcement risks could become a slow grind of procedural follow-ups rather than a decisive action.
Developing Scenario:
In the near term, the most likely scenario is 'managed tension.' India delays, Pakistan protests, but both avoid a direct treaty breakdown. The IWT has survived wars and political crises for over six decades; neither side wants to be blamed for killing it.
Yet, climate change and domestic politics are making the ground more unstable. Melting glaciers, erratic monsoons, and growing populations are intensifying competition over water. If relations between the two countries take another sharp downturn — as they did after Pulwama in 2019 — water could move from being a managed dispute to an openly weaponised tool of statecraft.
The nightmare scenario for Pakistan is an Indian withdrawal from or suspension of the treaty, something periodically floated in Indian political circles. Such a move would trigger a diplomatic firestorm and invite international intervention — but in a more multipolar, transactional world, that risk cannot be dismissed.
A moment to 'build on'
For now, Pakistan can justifiably claim a legal and diplomatic victory. But this win will only matter if Islamabad can convert it into enforceable compliance. That requires sustained engagement with the World Bank, alignment with other riparian states facing similar upstream challenges, and careful public diplomacy to keep the issue alive at international forums.
For Pakistan, the stakes are existential: about 80 percent of its agriculture and a significant share of its hydropower rely on uninterrupted flows from these rivers. Any upstream alterations — even those framed as 'minor' — can disrupt planting cycles, power generation, and rural livelihoods.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
15 hours ago
- Business Recorder
IWT: PCA's ruling
The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration's (PCA's) August 2025 decision on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is more than a dry legal pronouncement — it is a diplomatic milestone in Pakistan's decades-long efforts to safeguard its lifeline rivers from upstream interference. In its ruling, the Court declared it has full jurisdiction over Pakistan's complaint regarding India's hydropower projects on the Indus system's Western Rivers — the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — and that India must design such projects strictly in accordance with the treaty's specifications. The phrase 'strictly' is indeed the heart of the matter. For years, Pakistan has criticized India for bending the rules in the name of 'best engineering practices' to exert more control over water flows. The Court has now affirmed that the treaty does not permit such unilateral reinterpretation. Signed in 1960 with World Bank's mediation, the IWT divided six rivers between the two countries: three eastern rivers to India and three western ones to Pakistan. While India was allowed limited non-consumptive uses, such as run-of-river hydropower on the Western Rivers, those rights came with clear technical limits on dam designs and water storage. The Ruling by the court is a 'Legal Win' for Pakistan and a 'Political Test' for India. But, this is not the end of it. It may well be a head start for Pakistan on the long process of the dispute resolution. What lies ahead is complex and challenging. The following challenges could unfold as the process moves on: Sanctity of the court ruling and 'India's legal room to manoeuvre': The Court's decision is binding, but enforcement is a different game. India has little legal ground to 'overrule' the PCA. The IWT's own dispute resolution mechanism — agreed to by both countries — provides for binding arbitration if bilateral talks fail. What New Delhi can do is political and procedural: delay implementation through extended technical discussions, seek 'clarifications' on design changes, or partially comply with the ruling while keeping its projects largely intact. India might also use the verdict to re-open the broader debate about modernising the treaty, a move that could dilute Pakistan's hard-won protections. India's acceptance of the PCA ruling: An unconditional 'yes' is improbable. But, legally, overturning the ruling is nearly impossible; politically, India can slow-walk or sidestep compliance. India has already expressed discomfort with the arbitration path, preferring the 'neutral expert' process that offers more room for technical compromise. Accepting the ruling without challenge could be seen domestically as conceding strategic ground to Pakistan. More likely is a pattern of selective compliance — making some design adjustments with a view to appeasing the Court while ensuring that the core of India's hydropower ambitions remains unaffected. The 'Enforcement Gap' in relation to Court's ruling: The PCA cannot send inspectors or impose sanctions. Its power lies in the moral weight of international law and the political cost of open defiance. The World Bank, as treaty guarantor, can exert diplomatic pressure and even influence the flow of international development finance. Still, without active global backing, enforcement risks could become a slow grind of procedural follow-ups rather than a decisive action. Developing Scenario: In the near term, the most likely scenario is 'managed tension.' India delays, Pakistan protests, but both avoid a direct treaty breakdown. The IWT has survived wars and political crises for over six decades; neither side wants to be blamed for killing it. Yet, climate change and domestic politics are making the ground more unstable. Melting glaciers, erratic monsoons, and growing populations are intensifying competition over water. If relations between the two countries take another sharp downturn — as they did after Pulwama in 2019 — water could move from being a managed dispute to an openly weaponised tool of statecraft. The nightmare scenario for Pakistan is an Indian withdrawal from or suspension of the treaty, something periodically floated in Indian political circles. Such a move would trigger a diplomatic firestorm and invite international intervention — but in a more multipolar, transactional world, that risk cannot be dismissed. A moment to 'build on' For now, Pakistan can justifiably claim a legal and diplomatic victory. But this win will only matter if Islamabad can convert it into enforceable compliance. That requires sustained engagement with the World Bank, alignment with other riparian states facing similar upstream challenges, and careful public diplomacy to keep the issue alive at international forums. For Pakistan, the stakes are existential: about 80 percent of its agriculture and a significant share of its hydropower rely on uninterrupted flows from these rivers. Any upstream alterations — even those framed as 'minor' — can disrupt planting cycles, power generation, and rural livelihoods. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
17 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SC urges transformative overhaul to curb delays
The Supreme Court has called for transformative reforms that integrate technological innovation, administrative restructuring and disciplined case management to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases. In a four-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, delivered while hearing a case challenging the auction of an immovable property, the apex court stressed that the judiciary must draw upon the global lessons and commit to the transformative reforms. "Courts must evolve into engines of timely, transparent, and citizen-focused justice," the ruling stressed. The auction in question occurred in 2011, and the petitioner raised objections the same year, which were dismissed. An appeal was filed before the high court, where it lingered for ten years, culminating in a decision in 2021. The matter then reached the SC in 2022 and is being addressed now, three years later, in 2025. The judgment noted that judicial systems worldwide have recognised that delay is not an intractable inevitability but a solvable institutional challenge. "Countries such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Estonia, Canada, China, Denmark, and Australia have undertaken comprehensive reforms combining technology, structural innovation, and procedural discipline to reduce backlog and enhance judicial efficiency," the court observed. "Through tools such as e-filing, real-time dashboards, automated scheduling, and transparent digital oversight, these jurisdictions have moved from being passive custodians of dockets to active managers of justice delivery. These international experiences underscore a basic truth: delays in justice are not inevitable; they are a product of institutional design, and can be remedied with vision, planning, and resolve." Justice Shah observed that delay in adjudication carries severe macroeconomic and societal consequences. "It deters investment, renders contracts illusory, and weakens the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary." "A justice system's credibility rests not only in the fairness of its decisions but also in the timeliness with which those decisions are rendered." It further noted that the issue was not merely administrative, but was also constitutional, highlighting that the right to access to justice was guaranteed by Articles 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. "It encompasses within it the right to a fair and timely trial. Delay that renders a remedy ineffective or a right illusory amounts to a denial of due process. Justice, to be real, must be both just and timely." The judgment further highlighted the scale of the problem. "It is pertinent to highlight that over 2.2 million cases are currently pending before courts across Pakistan, including approximately 55,941 cases before this Court alone, in spite of enhancing the number of judges at the Court. These figures are not abstract; they represent disputes suspended in time." The court noted that delay is not merely the result of docket congestion or branch-level inefficiencies; it is a deeper structural challenge of judicial governance. "The Court, as a matter of institutional policy and constitutional responsibility, must urgently transition toward a modern, responsive, and intelligent case management framework." "Such a system must, at a minimum, ensure: the early fixation of cases on a non-discriminatory basis; the elimination of 'queue-jumping' and preferential scheduling; the prioritization of matters involving constitutional, economic, or national importance without compromising the timely resolution of individual claims; the implementation of age-tracking protocols to automatically identify dormant cases; and the judicious use of Artificial Intelligence ('AI') tools to assist in scheduling and triage while preserving the sanctity of judicial discretion." In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner's appeal remained pending before the high court for ten years. "It is beyond cavil that delay in adjudicating cases by the courts at any tier of the justice system corrodes public confidence in the judiciary, undermines the rule of law, and disproportionately harms the weak and vulnerable who cannot afford the cost of prolonged litigation," the judgment cautioned.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Chinese investment rattles exporters
Such partnerships could align with the broader motives of CPEC, the multibillion-dollar infrastructure project aimed at integrating Pakistan more deeply into regional trade routes. photo: file Domestic textile exporters and industry analysts have described the arrival of a $150 million Chinese garment manufacturing project in Punjab as both a wake-up call and an opportunity, coming just days after the Trump administration cut US tariffs on Pakistani goods to 19%, the lowest in South Asia. "This is the reality of modern trade," said Shahid Khan, General Manager of a large garment unit in Faisalabad. "If a Chinese company can bring in cutting-edge machinery, secure US buyers, and deliver on time, they will dominate. The only way for us to counter this is to either match their efficiency or partner with them through joint ventures." While the investment promises jobs, export revenue, and technology transfer, it also raises strategic questions. Much of the capital and eventual profits will flow back to China, given the ownership structure. Domestic textile exporters privately admit they see this as both a threat and a wake-up call. Some industry leaders, however, warn against viewing the Chinese arrival purely as a threat. "We need to move away from the old habit of finding excuses," said Imran Yousaf, a home textiles exporter. "Yes, a big Chinese player can take market share, but they can also be a partner. If Bangladesh can grow exports with higher tariffs, why can't we with the lowest tariff in the region?" Economists believe the Chinese move is driven not just by Pakistan's low labour cost, but also by the need to bypass higher US tariffs on China-made goods. "Producing in Pakistan now makes perfect sense for Chinese manufacturers," said Farah Iqbal, a Lahore-based trade economist. "They get a lower tariff rate into the US market, local government incentives, and proximity to cotton-producing regions. For Pakistan, it's an investment inflow, but the challenge is ensuring that local companies also grow and do not get sidelined." For domestic producers, the tariff change still represents a unique opportunity, if they can act fast. Pakistan's 19% rate undercuts India's 25%, and is slightly better than Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, all at 20%. Last fiscal year, Pakistan exported over $6 billion worth of goods to the US, dominated by textiles. Analysts project shipments could reach $7 billion in FY26 if the sector leverages its cost advantage. But operational hurdles remain. Energy costs for Pakistani mills are among the highest in the region, and cotton shortages are acute. According to the United States Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service, Pakistan's cotton production in 2025/26 is forecast at just 5.5 million bales, far less than the 15 million bales needed by the textile industry. This forces mills to rely on expensive imports. "If the government reduces duties on imported cotton and polyester fibre, we could operate at full capacity," said Waheed Abbas, a spinning mill owner. "Otherwise, Chinese units in SEZs with better incentives will be the only ones expanding exports to the US." Investment analysts point out that the Chinese company's backing from provincial authorities, combined with its in-house access to global buyers, could see it meeting its production and export targets on schedule. "Local firms often face delays in getting permissions or financing," said Mohsin Ali, an investment adviser. "This group's entry shows how quickly things can move when capital, buyers, and government facilitation come together." Just days after the tariff cut, Challenge Fashion Pvt Ltd announced it will build one of the most advanced garment manufacturing facilities in the country. The project, to be set up in a proposed Special Economic Zone in Punjab, will cover 100 acres and is expected to begin operations within 12 months. It will employ around 25,000 workers, produce up to 8 million garments per month, and supply leading American apparel brands directly from Pakistan. Provincial officials have confirmed the company will enjoy export-based concessions under the SEZ framework. "We are facilitating this investment with infrastructure, security, and fast-track approvals," said a senior Punjab government representative. "It is part of our strategy to attract large-scale export-oriented industries, especially in light of Pakistan's improved tariff position in the US market." Such partnerships could align with the broader motives of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the multibillion-dollar infrastructure project aimed at integrating Pakistan more deeply into regional trade routes. Joint ventures could allow Pakistani firms to gain access to foreign technology, investment, and global distribution networks without losing local ownership completely. Industry pundits said that the next 18 months will be decisive for Pakistan's textile sector. With the US tariff at 19%, the industry holds a clear cost advantage over regional competitors. Converting this into higher exports will require immediate policy action including lowering energy costs, ensuring steady raw material supplies, speeding up tax refunds, and improving port logistics. The recent entry of a Chinese textile group with a $150 million investment in Punjab signals that international players are already eyeing Pakistan as a competitive base for exports to the US and EU. If local manufacturers receive the same level of policy support, they too can seize this moment to expand market share and strengthen Pakistan's position in the global textile supply chain, they added.
