By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Wednesday welcomed clarifications issued by an international arbitration court on key aspects of the Indus Waters Treaty, a longstanding agreement governing the sharing of river resources with India, amid heightened tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration on Hague, responding to a request from Pakistan, provided detailed interpretations of the 1960 treaty’s provisions on the design of hydroelectric plants along the Western rivers — the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — which flow primarily through Pakistan but originate in India. The clarifications, issued on Saturday, addressed ambiguities in an earlier award from the court and carried the same binding force, according to a press release from the body.
Pakistan’s Foreign Office, in a statement, said it had taken note of the decision and described the clarifications as “helpful.” The office also noted a parallel procedural order from the court, which invited both countries to update it on related proceedings before a neutral expert.
The developments come against a backdrop of strained relations over water rights. On Sept. 19, Pakistan initiated arbitration against India under the treaty’s provisions, weeks after India unilaterally suspended its participation following a four-day conflict between the two countries in May. The court’s initial award on general interpretations of the treaty was issued on Aug. 8.
At the heart of the dispute are run-of-river hydroelectric plants that India may build on the Western rivers under the treaty’s Annexure D. Pakistan has long argued that certain design features could allow India to manipulate water flows, potentially harming downstream agriculture and power generation in Pakistan. The court found Pakistan’s request for clarification to be “timely” and elaborated on several points. It specified that its decisions on paragraph 8(a) of Annexure D were “not limited to freeboard but, rather, extend to all components of run-of-river hydro-electric plants that India may construct on the Western rivers.”
The clarifications further stated that the decisions “further prohibit any design that would allow … the works themselves to be capable of raising artificially the water level in the operating pool above the Full Pondage Level specified in the design,” whether from the outset or via later modifications. The court emphasized that references to “designing an Annexure D, Part 3 HEP” and the “design” of such plants referred to mandatory design criteria to be applied at the planning stage. These, it said, were distinct from post-commissioning operational constraints and could not be satisfied “simply by an acknowledgement of or commitment to operational restraint.”
However, the court declined to clarify whether a crest-gated spillway with gates extending above Full Pondage Level was prohibited under paragraphs 8(a) and 8(e) of the annexure, or whether the design must always include an ungated spillway. It deemed these issues outside the scope of its award. On pondage — the storage capacity allowed for power generation — the court clarified that the amount required for firm power would be calculated “based on, among other things, a realistic, well-founded, and defensible projection of the proposed Annexure D, Part 3 HEP’s installed capacity and anticipated load, reflecting the fluctuations in the discharge of the turbines arising from variations in the daily and weekly loads of the plant, as set forth in Paragraph 2(c) of Annexure D.”
It again declined a request for further details on how the treaty regulates the basis for determining installed capacity and anticipated load, or how these factors are incorporated into pondage calculations. Noting this was beyond the award’s scope, the court recalled its conclusion that “Pakistan or India may seek to pursue the matter through the Treaty’s dispute resolution procedures, including a further phase of these proceedings.” It confirmed that it remained open to conducting such a phase upon request from either party.
The award also addressed Article III of the treaty, which pertains to the Western rivers, and paragraph 8 of Annexure D on new run-of-river plants. Additionally, it touched on the legal effect of decisions by dispute resolution bodies under the treaty, such as courts of arbitration and neutral experts. The court clarified that its reference in paragraph 742 to the list of data and information India must provide to Pakistan was an indicative list and not comprehensive.
In a separate Procedural Order No. 16, the court confirmed it would continue the proceedings “in a phased manner, bearing in mind the status of, and developments concerning, the proceedings taking place before the Neutral Expert.” It invited each party to submit written reports on the status of those expert proceedings and their views on any further phases regarding unresolved matters.
Addressing the neutral expert process, Pakistan’s Foreign Office said, “The Neutral Expert proceedings were initiated on India’s request with their next phase scheduled to take place in Vienna from 17-21 November 2025. While India has decided to halt its participation, Pakistan continues to fully participate in the Neutral Expert proceedings in good faith.” The office added that the neutral expert had ruled that India’s non-participation could not operate as a bar to the proceedings going forward.
The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank, has endured as one of the few areas of cooperation between India and Pakistan despite decades of conflict, including three wars. But recent disputes over projects like the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric plants have tested its resilience, with Pakistan accusing India of violating design restrictions that could affect water flows.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
