India’s defence of its decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance relies more on political argument than on a convincing interpretation of international law. In defending New Delhi’s position, India’s Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Mohan Kwatra, places responsibility for the treaty’s present crisis on Pakistan. Yet the central legal question remains: can one party to a binding international agreement simply declare it suspended because political relations have deteriorated?

The IWT is not a political arrangement that can be switched on and off according to circumstances. Article XII(4) provides that the treaty remains in force until it is terminated through a duly ratified agreement between the two governments. It contains no provision granting either side an unlimited unilateral power to place it in “abeyance.” Changing the terminology cannot create a legal authority that the treaty itself does not provide.

The IWT is not a political arrangement that can be switched on and off according to circumstances.

The IWT is not a political arrangement that can be switched on and off according to circumstances.

India’s terrorism-related argument does not resolve this difficulty. New Delhi has connected its decision to the Pahalgam attack and alleged Pakistani........

© Daily Times