Three Rulings, No Compliance

A court can rule as many times as it likes. If the losing side simply refuses to listen, does the ruling mean anything at all? That is the question now facing the Indus Waters Treaty, after India rejected a Hague tribunal’s rulings for the third time in just over a year. Signed in 1960 and brokered by the World Bank, the treaty split the Indus River system between India and Pakistan, surviving three wars without formally collapsing. That six-decade record is now being tested as never before. In June 2025, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that India’s decision to place the treaty in abeyance did not limit the tribunal’s own authority. India rejected this outright, denying the Court’s legal validity altogether. In May 2026, the tribunal issued a further award on “maximum pondage” at India’s hydropower projects. India dismissed this too, calling it a “so-called award. ” HESCO issues power suspension schedule Then came the most direct rebuke yet. On August 31, 2026, the five-member tribunal ruled unanimously that neither party has the right, under the treaty or under customary international law, to unilaterally suspend or terminate it, invoking the principle of pacta sunt servanda: agreements must be kept. The Court examined India’s justifications individually – sovereignty, cross-border terrorism allegations, and claimed changes in circumstances – and found none legally sufficient. It also ordered India to halt further construction at the disputed Ratle Hydroelectric Plant. The next day, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Bishkek, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called water the “lifeblood” of the region, warning it must never be weaponised. Nothing so far suggests India will treat this ruling differently than the last two. Elderly man drowns in Indus River This pattern is not simply a matter of one state ignoring rulings it dislikes; it exposes a structural weakness at the centre of international law itself. India’s strategy from the outset has been non-participation: it has rejected the Court’s jurisdiction outright, declined to appoint arbitrators, and did not attend the hearings that produced any of the three rulings against it. Domestic courts can seize assets, issue fines, or hold officials in contempt. The Permanent Court of Arbitration can do none of this. Its power rests entirely on reputational cost and the voluntary compliance of states, both of which have proven insufficient to compel a country with India’s regional weight and diplomatic leverage. This is not a flaw unique to the Indus dispute; it is the same enforcement gap that lets any sufficiently powerful state treat unfavorable rulings as optional, whether the forum is a water treaty, a maritime boundary case, or a human rights body. What makes the Indus case unusually clarifying is how openly this gap has been exposed: three separate rulings, three separate refusals to engage, and no cost to India beyond words from Islamabad and a paragraph in the next day’s newspapers. Police arrest robber in injured condition after encounter That exposure carries a warning for the international system, not just for South Asia. Dozens of countries around the world share rivers, lakes, or aquifers with more powerful neighbours upstream, from the Mekong basin to the Nile. Many of those arrangements rest on the same assumption the Indus Waters Treaty rested on for sixty years: that even without a global police force, a powerful state has more to lose from open defiance than from quiet compliance. If India can reject three consecutive Hague rulings and pay no meaningful price, that assumption weakens everywhere at once, not only on the Indus. Every downstream state watching this dispute is learning the same lesson India is teaching, whether or not that was the intended message. ACP Hosts Tribute Ceremony in Honour of Renowned Poet Abbas Tabish For Pakistan, this is not an abstract legal debate. As the lower-riparian country, water security for a population of over 240 million rests heavily on the western rivers for agriculture and drinking water. Across three rulings of increasing weight, on jurisdiction, on a technical pondage dispute, and finally on the treaty’s core validity, the tribunal has consistently found in Pakistan’s favour. What Pakistan does not have, and what no downstream state ever fully has, is a mechanism to convert a favourable ruling into water that actually flows on schedule. That gap between legal victory and physical reality is the real story here, and it deserves more attention than the ruling itself has received. SEPA urges industrialists to follow environmental protection laws The question this dispute leaves behind is not whether India broke the rules; the tribunal has settled that three times over. It is what happens to any legal order when a state can refuse to even participate, lose in its absence, and pay no price for either. If the answer is nothing, the lesson will not stay contained to the Indus. It will travel to every river, border, and treaty where a weaker state depends on a stronger one’s word. Syed Murtajiz Haider KazmiThe writer is a research intern at the International Institute of Regional and International Studies (IIRIS), and an undergraduate student of International Relations at the International Islamic University Islamabad. He can be reached at syedhaider1874@gmail. com

Read full story on The Nation