Water victory
What began as a supplemental request has now crystallised into a full-fledged award — a binding, enforceable judgment that firmly upholds Pakistan's position under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The August 8 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague is a landmark moment, not merely for Pakistan's water security but also for the principle that international agreements cannot be set aside on a whim. India must allow the waters of the Western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — to flow for Pakistan's unrestricted use, in line with the treaty's provisions.
Since 2016, Pakistan has objected to India's designs for projects like Kishanganga and Ratle, arguing that excessive pondage and unrestricted spillway gates risk violating the treaty, which protect Pakistan's "unrestricted use" of Western rivers. The PCA's ruling effectively aligns with this interpretation, limiting India's operational flexibility. Equally significant is the court's rejection of India's April 2025 declaration that it would hold the IWT "in abeyance."
The award makes clear that unilateral suspension is not permissible under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It instead affirms that the treaty's dispute resolution system is hierarchical but interconnected: while a Neutral Expert may decide certain technical issues, a Court of Arbitration can interpret treaty provisions, and both outcomes are equally final and binding. This ruling is the result of Islamabad's persistence since 2016 in seeking arbitration despite considerable diplomatic headwinds.
But the real test begins now. Implementation has long been the Achilles' heel of international rulings. Pakistan must invest in technical capacity for water monitoring and maintain diplomatic pressure to ensure compliance. This award is a significant win — but its true worth will be measured by whether its promises flow, uninterrupted, from the rivers to the fields.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
India says international court lacks authority to rule on Pakistan water treaty
NEW DELHI: The international Court of Arbitration lacks any legal authority to make pronouncements on the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan as New Delhi has never recognised the legitimacy of the court, India's foreign ministry said on Thursday. Pakistan hails arbitration court's ruling on Indus Waters Treat A ruling from the Court of Arbitration last week backed Pakistan by saying that India must adhere to the Indus Waters Treaty in the design of new hydro-electric power stations on rivers that flow west into Pakistan.
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
UK PM hosts Zelensky in London on eve of US-Russia summit
LONDON: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met Thursday in London with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a strong show of support on the eve of a key US-Russia summit from which Kyiv and its European allies have been excluded. Starmer greeted the Ukrainian leader with a warm hug and handshake on the steps of his Downing Street residence, only hours after Zelensky took part in a virtual call with US President Donald Trump. Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet Friday at an air base in Alaska, the first time the Russian leader has been permitted on Western soil since his February 2022 invasion of Ukraine which has killed tens of thousands of people. A stepped-up Russian offensive, and the fact Zelensky has not been invited to the Anchorage meeting Friday, have heightened fears that Trump and Putin could strike a deal that forces painful concessions on Ukraine. But Starmer said Wednesday there was now a 'viable' chance for a ceasefire in Ukraine after more than three years of fighting. Near the front line Thursday, Ukraine fired dozens of drones at Russia overnight into the early morning, wounding three people and sparking fires including at an oil refinery in the southern city of Volgograd. Trump says wants three-way meeting with Putin, Zelensky Kyiv calls the strikes fair retaliation for Moscow's daily missile and drone barrages on its own civilians. With such high stakes, all sides were pushing hard in the hours before Friday's meeting. Three-way meeting? Zelensky, who has refused to surrender territory to Russia, joined the call from Berlin with Trump, as did European leaders who voiced confidence afterward that the US leader would seek a ceasefire rather than concessions by Kyiv. Trump has sent mixed messages, saying he could quickly organise a three-way summit afterward with both Zelensky and Putin, but also warning of his impatience with Putin. 'There may be no second meeting because, if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we are not going to have a second meeting,' Trump told reporters on Wednesday. But Trump added: 'If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one,' involving both Putin and Zelensky. Zelensky, after being berated by Trump at a February meeting in the White House, has publicly supported US diplomacy but has made clear his deep scepticism. 'I have told my colleagues – the US president and our European friends – that Putin definitely does not want peace,' Zelensky said. As the war rages on in eastern Ukraine, Zelensky was in Berlin Wednesday joining Chancellor Friedrich Merz on an online call with other European leaders, and the NATO and EU chiefs, to show a united stance against Russia. Starmer on Wednesday said Ukraine's military backers, the so-called Coalition of the Willing, had drawn up workable military plans in case of a ceasefire but were also ready to add pressure on Russia through sanctions. 'For three and a bit years this conflict has been going, we haven't got anywhere near… a viable way of bringing it to a ceasefire,' Starmer told Wednesday's meeting of European leaders. 'Now we do have that chance, because of the work that the (US) president has put in,' he said. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte declared: 'The ball is now in Putin's court.'
Business Recorder
17 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Opposing Israel is not anti-Semitic
EDITORIAL: In many Western countries, it has become commonplace for politicians, media outlets, or various interest groups to frame any criticism of the Israeli government's policies as anti-Semitic. This trend was highlighted recently in a public exchange between Athens Mayor Haris Doukas and Israeli Ambassador to Greece Naom Katz. In comments published last Sunday, Katz complained that Israeli tourists in Athens felt 'uncomfortable' due to the mayor's failure to act against 'organised minorities' putting up anti-Semitic graffiti. Doukas swiftly responded on X, stating, 'We have proven our strong opposition to violence and racism, and we do not take lessons in democracy from those who kill civilians.' Frustrated by the narrative equating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, he added, 'it is revolting that the ambassador concentrates on graffiti (that is clearly wiped off) while an unprecedented genocide is taking place in Gaza.' Doukas' remarks shed light on a broader frustration with efforts to divert attention away from Israel's actions in Gaza. Since Israel launched its offensive on October 7, 2023, over 60,800 people, many of them children, have been killed, and at least 149,880 others wounded. The death toll continues to rise daily as Gaza faces forced starvation and widespread destruction. Despite this, many Western governments continue to label any criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza — including its ethnic cleansing of the enclave and the violence in the occupied West Bank — as anti-Semitic. This labelling serves to shut down meaningful discussion about the ongoing crisis. The tactic manifests in various ways, from the discrediting of activists and human rights organisations that speak out against Israel's military actions, to laws passed in countries like the US and the UK that equate any denunciation of Israel with anti-Semitism. Such attempts to blur the lines between legitimate political critique and anti-Semitism risk trivializing genuine instances of hatred and bigotry against Jewish people. While it is crucial to combat all forms of racism and hate speech, it is equally important to distinguish between legitimate criticism of a government and expressions of bigotry. The exchange between Mayor Doukas and Ambassador Katz also highlights a growing divide within Western nations. More and more citizens are increasingly unwilling to offer blind support for Israel, particularly in light of the ongoing campaign in Gaza to annihilate Palestinians for the furtherance of expansionist ambitions of a 'Greater Israel.' By challenging the ambassador's focus on graffiti and calling out Israel's actions in Gaza as 'an unprecedented genocide', Doukas has aligned himself with a broader movement that refuses to let the defence against anti-Semitism obscure genuine human rights concerns. His remarks underscore an important point: while combating anti-Semitism needs to be confronted, it should not come at the expense of the right to criticise Israel. People should be free to voice concerns about Israeli policies without fear of being labelled as Jew-haters. Free expression is a cornerstone of democratic society, and it must remain a protected space for serious, open discussions, especially when it concerns the lives of Palestinians who are fighting for their right to live in their ancestral lands, free from occupation and violence by a colonial settler state. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
