Indus Waters Treaty Stays in Abeyance Until Pakistan Ends Terror Support: UNGA Exchange Follows Hague Ruling

A Hague arbitration ruling says the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force, while India rejects the tribunal’s jurisdiction and maintains its abeyance position.

What Happened

The legal dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has entered a new phase after a five-member Court of Arbitration at The Hague issued an award on 31 August 2026 concerning India’s decision to place the treaty in abeyance. The arbitration was conducted under the IWT and administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the case of Pakistan v. India.

The Court held that the treaty “remains fully in force” and that India must observe its obligations under it. It rejected India’s decision to hold the treaty in abeyance, while India did not participate in the hearings and subsequently rejected the award, the constitution of the Court and its jurisdiction.

The same day, the Court also issued an Order on Interim Measures concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant on the Chenab River. The measures concern construction at the project. The separate Neutral Expert process concerning the Kishanganga and Ratle projects remains ongoing.

The dispute then surfaced again at the United Nations General Assembly. On 25 September, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif criticised India’s decision to hold the treaty in abeyance and described any attempt to stop, impede or divert Pakistan’s share of the Indus waters as an “act of war”. On 26 September, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar responded in India’s national statement by referring to terrorism and India’s right to defend itself, without naming Pakistan. The material available for this report does not quote Jaishankar as mentioning the IWT by name.

Background & Context

The IWT was signed in Karachi on 19 September 1960 after negotiations brokered by the World Bank. It allocates the Eastern Rivers to India and the Western Rivers, comprising the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, primarily to Pakistan, while permitting specified uses by India, including run-of-river hydropower. Its dispute-resolution framework is set out principally in Article IX and the treaty’s annexures.

The immediate political background dates to the 22 April 2025 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed. India attributed cross-border links to the attack, while Pakistan denied involvement.

On 23 April 2025, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced that the IWT would be held “in abeyance with immediate effect” until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism”. Pakistan rejected the move as unilateral and without legal merit, and argued that the treaty contains no provision permitting unilateral suspension.

The arbitration predates that announcement. Pakistan had initiated proceedings in 2016 concerning the Ratle and Kishanganga hydropower projects. In June 2025, the Court issued a Supplemental Award on Competence holding that India’s subsequent decision on abeyance did not limit the Court’s competence over the dispute.

Pakistan later sought a determination specifically on the present status of the treaty. The resulting 31 August 2026 award is now the central legal document in the dispute. The PCA’s case record lists the award on treaty status and the separate order concerning interim measures on the same date.

Key Details

• Forum: Court of Arbitration in the Indus Waters Western Rivers Arbitration, administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague.
• Case: PCA Case No. 2023-01, Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Republic of India.
• Date: 31 August 2026.
• Instrument: Indus Waters Treaty, 1960, including Article IX and Annexure G.
• India’s declaration: On 23 April 2025, India announced that the treaty would be held in abeyance.
• Court’s position: The Court held that the treaty remains in force and that India must observe its obligations.
• India’s position: India rejects the award and maintains that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the issue.
• UNGA statements: Shehbaz Sharif spoke on 25 September 2026; S Jaishankar delivered India’s national statement on 26 September 2026.
• Current status: The arbitral Court has issued its treaty-status award, while India continues to reject the Court’s jurisdiction. Separate Neutral Expert proceedings remain pending.

Why It Matters

For law students, the significance of the dispute lies less in the political rhetoric surrounding the treaty and more in the underlying treaty-law questions.

India’s stated position is that the treaty can remain in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably ends its support for cross-border terrorism. Pakistan’s position is that India’s unilateral action has no legal basis under the treaty. The Court of Arbitration has taken a different position, holding that the treaty remains in force and that the treaty does not authorise the unilateral suspension or termination asserted by India.

That creates a particularly important question in international dispute settlement: what is the practical and legal effect of an arbitral award when one participating state rejects the tribunal’s jurisdiction and did not participate in the hearings?

The procedural history makes the question more complex. The PCA records that the Court continued its proceedings despite India’s position on abeyance, while India maintains that the Court was not lawfully constituted for this dispute and has no jurisdiction over its sovereign decisions.

The UNGA exchange adds another layer. Pakistan’s statement relied heavily on the treaty and the Hague award, while India’s response focused on terrorism and the right to defend itself. The two statements therefore restated the broader dispute from different legal and security perspectives, without resolving the underlying disagreement over the treaty’s present status.

The consequences of the award, including how the competing positions will affect the treaty’s operation and the ongoing water-project disputes, remain contested. This article does not determine whether India’s abeyance position is legally valid, nor does it draw a conclusion about the award’s eventual enforcement or practical effect.

Reactions

Speaking at the UN General Assembly on 25 September, Shehbaz Sharif said India’s decision to place the treaty in abeyance had “no legal basis whatsoever”. He also said that an attempt to stop, impede or divert Pakistan’s share of the waters would be treated as an “act of war”. That language is reported here as Sharif’s statement and not as an independent legal characterisation.

On 26 September, Jaishankar said that arguments seeking to normalise terrorism and claim immunity from its consequences would not stand. He stated that India’s right to defend itself against terrorism would be exercised. Pakistan was not named in those remarks.

Following the 31 August award, India rejected the Court’s decision and its jurisdiction, maintaining that the treaty remains in abeyance. The Court, for its part, stated in its award that the treaty remains fully in force.

Closing

The Indus Waters Treaty dispute now sits at the intersection of treaty law, international arbitration and regional security. The Hague award has provided a clear statement from the Court on treaty status, but India’s rejection of the tribunal’s jurisdiction means the central disagreement remains unresolved.

The next legal significance may therefore lie not only in what the award says, but in how the competing positions of India, Pakistan and the arbitral process develop from here.