A Procedural Shift with Strategic Weight
The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s recent order directing India to submit operational records of the Baglihar and Kishanganga hydropower projects marks a consequential moment in the long-running Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) dispute. While procedural in nature, the decision carries strategic significance. By compelling the disclosure of dam logbooks, the tribunal has reinforced the centrality of transparency and treaty compliance in managing one of South Asia’s most sensitive water-sharing arrangements.
The order also clarifies an essential point: arbitration under the IWT proceeds irrespective of political posturing. India’s decision to disengage from the process does not stall legal scrutiny, nor does it dilute the authority of the Court of Arbitration. In treaty-based disputes, participation is a choice, but accountability is not.
Operational Records and Treaty Interpretation
At the heart of Pakistan’s case lies the claim that India’s operation of run-of-river hydropower projects has exceeded treaty limits, particularly through the manipulation of storage and flow timing. Operational logbooks serve as critical evidence in this regard. They provide insight into water levels, discharge patterns, and reservoir management details that bridge the gap between design compliance and operational conduct.
The tribunal’s insistence on these records underscores a key legal principle embedded in the IWT: technical design approval does not grant carte blanche operational discretion. The treaty permits limited uses of western rivers, but it anchors those permissions within strict hydrological and engineering parameters. Any deviation, whether deliberate or incidental, invites legal examination.
Jurisdiction Clarified, Authority Reaffirmed
Equally significant is the Court of Arbitration’s clarification that its jurisdiction extends beyond narrow technical elements such as “freeboard” to encompass the full architecture of run-of-river projects. This interpretation broadens the scope of legal oversight and limits the space for unilateral reinterpretation of treaty provisions.
The court’s emphasis that only the tribunal rather than a neutral expert may authorise additional water storage strengthens the legal firewall against interim alterations. It reasserts that dispute-resolution mechanisms under the IWT are complementary yet distinct, each bound by defined mandates.
Pakistan’s Legal Strategy
Pakistan’s continued engagement with both arbitration and neutral expert proceedings reflects a calibrated legal strategy. Rather than mirroring India’s withdrawal, Islamabad has opted to invest in process legitimacy. This approach reinforces Pakistan’s standing as a treaty-abiding party and places the onus of explanation squarely on India.
The decision to send a high-level delegation led by the Attorney General signals recognition that water disputes under the IWT are no longer purely technical. They sit at the intersection of law, diplomacy, and national security. Litigation, in this context, becomes a form of strategic signalling measured, evidence-driven, and anchored in international norms.
Beyond Bilateral Politics
The broader implications of the tribunal’s order extend beyond Pakistan-India relations. The Indus Waters Treaty has long been cited as one of the world’s most resilient water-sharing agreements, surviving wars, crises, and diplomatic breakdowns. Its durability rests on rule-based mechanisms rather than political goodwill.
By reaffirming its authority and advancing proceedings despite non-participation, the Court of Arbitration strengthens the treaty’s institutional spine. This matters at a time when climate stress, glacial melt, and rising water demand are intensifying disputes over shared rivers globally. Legal predictability becomes an essential stabiliser.
Water, Power and Future Disputes
Hydropower projects on transboundary rivers increasingly test the limits of older treaties designed in a different climatic era. While the IWT anticipated development, it also embedded safeguards to prevent upstream control from translating into downstream vulnerability. The current proceedings illustrate how operational practices, rather than construction alone, now define compliance.
The tribunal’s focus on operational data reflects this evolution. Future disputes are likely to hinge less on blueprints and more on real-time management how water is held, released, and timed across seasons.
Conclusion: Law as a Buffer
The PCA’s order does not resolve the Indus dispute, nor does it determine liability. What it does achieve is equally important: it preserves law as a buffer against escalation. By compelling disclosure, clarifying jurisdiction, and sustaining proceedings, the tribunal reinforces the idea that even deeply politicised disputes can be mediated through rules rather than rhetoric.
For Pakistan, the moment represents a legal opening rather than a final victory. For the treaty itself, it is a reminder that resilience depends on institutions willing to function despite political headwinds. In an era of mounting water stress, the Indus Waters Treaty’s survival may well depend on such quiet, procedural affirmations of law over leverage.
