Pakistan has formulated three-point legal plan
Now, Islamabad is seeking legal remedies. Pakistan’s Secretary of State for Law and Justice Aqeel Malik told Reuters on Monday that the legal advice was “almost complete”.
“Legal strategy consultation is almost complete,” Malik said. “Deciding which cases will be brought soon and may include pursuing multiple avenues.”
Among the options on the table is approaching the World Bank that promoted the 1960 Treaty and escalated the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Pakistan can also raise questions in the UN Security Council.
Malik said: “All options are on the table, and we are pursuing all appropriate and capable forums,” he further asserted, “The treaty cannot be suspended unilaterally, cannot be temporarily carried out, and there is no provision in the treaty (such A).” Islamabad, Islamabad, faces internal water pressure, its lasting dependence on India and its internal dependence on India, relying on India and the scenery, this is a basis for one territory, this is a state of one territory, this is a state of one territory. It warned: “Any attempt to stop or transfer the currents belonging to Pakistan will be considered an act of war.”
India is unmoved, citing terrorism and treaty restrictions
India has not formally commented on legal threats, but officials and water experts say New Delhi is acting within its rights.
“The choice (Pakistan) is very limited…I can say we have solid reasons to defend our (India) action,” said Kushvinder Vohra, former head of the Central Water Commission of India.
Under the 1960 treaty, India was allowed to use non-consumer use of rivers allocated to Pakistan – almost hydroelectric power. However, storage or transfer is restricted. Experts point out that changes to actual river flows will take time, but the political signals are direct and clear.
Can Pakistan bring India to court?
Although Pakistan may seek legal recourse, serious jurisdictional barriers remain.
For example, the International Court of Justice only deals with cases where both parties agree to their jurisdiction. In the 2019 Declaration, India, when accepting the authorization of Article 36, explicitly excluded disputes involving Commonwealth States and matters related to hostilities, national security or armed conflict.
One clause states that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over “a dispute with any State or a member of the State’s federal government.” ”This effectively ruled out Pakistan, a Commonwealth country.
Another exclusion states that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over “disputes or disputes related to facts or hostilities, armed conflicts or national security.”
Similar restrictions apply to permanent arbitration courts, which also relies on mutual consent.
World Bank: Limited roles
The World Bank is often mistaken for the guarantor of the treaty and has no right to enforce the treaty in India’s waters. It acts as a mediator during the original signature, but has no role in daily management.
The bank can appoint neutral experts or advise chairs of arbitration, but its recommendations are non-binding. Its function is strictly limited to promotion, not execution.
Indian Water Treaty: Fragile but lasting agreement
The Indian Water Treaty was signed in 1960 and endured war, small-scale conflict and prolonged diplomatic frost. It separates the six rivers in the Indian Basin between the two countries. India receives water from Sutlej, Beas and Ravi; from Chenab, Jhelum and Pakistan from the Indus itself.
India has certain rights upstream, but has agreed to limits on peace and stability. So far, the two countries have complied with the agreement even during armed conflict.
But this time, India’s decision to “shelf the treaty” marks a driving force for security rather than water disputes.
The attacks in Pahalgam sparked widespread anger in India and were condemned by the Kashmiris themselves, who held protests to accuse Pakistan. Reports show that after the gunmen asked them to prove their religious identity, the gunmen targeted civilians.
The move to suspend the treaty follows other retaliation measures. Indian Space has now closed Pakistan Airlines and all trade with Islamabad has been suspended.
Despite the legal posture, Pakistan has limited options. Even if the matter arrives at the international forum, jurisdictional barriers and treaty immunity from India make it advantageous to win the ruling.
However, as farmers have escaped the climate-induced water pressure, the impact on Pakistan’s agricultural and energy sector is severe.
India’s position remains firm. The message is outspoken: ending horror or facing consequences, even in the water.
