Author: Pranav Kumar, National Law University, Assam
Abstract:
In May 2025, India took a dramatic diplomatic turn by suspending its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a landmark water-sharing agreement with Pakistan brokered by the World Bank in 1960. The decision followed a deadly terror attack in Kashmir, allegedly backed by elements within Pakistan, which reignited long-standing tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. India’s move has raised significant concerns in international legal circles, given that the IWT had been seen as a rare example of functional bilateral cooperation despite geopolitical animosities. This article explores the constitutional, international, and environmental legal frameworks relevant to India’s decision. It also examines the possible repercussions under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international customary law, and the implications on regional water security. The suspension invites renewed discourse on the enforceability of international treaties, the legality of unilateral actions under international law, and the political will behind treaty obligations. The article also evaluates the potential for adjudication before international forums such as the International Court of Justice or arbitral tribunals and critically assesses the evolving intersection of national security and international legal commitments.
India’s Move: A Treaty in Crisis
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan, stands as a rare testament to sustained bilateral cooperation amidst decades of hostility. The World Bank brokered the agreement, which splits the waters of the six rivers in the Indus Basin. India received the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej), whereas Pakistan received the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab). A Permanent Indus Commission was also established under the treaty to handle any disagreements.
India’s decision to suspend the treaty in May 2025—citing national security concerns following a militant attack in Kashmir—marks an unprecedented challenge to this longstanding framework. Although India has expressed discontent with Pakistan’s support of cross-border terrorism on multiple occasions, it had never before chosen to formally disrupt the IWT.
At the heart of the legal debate lies a fundamental question: Can a state unilaterally suspend a treaty obligation on grounds of national security, especially in the absence of direct conflict or an international declaration of war?
Legal Foundations: The Vienna Convention and Treaty Law
One party may terminate or suspend a bilateral treaty in whole or in part if the other party materially breaches the treaty, according to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). But in order for a breach to be considered “material,” it must include the breaking of a clause that is necessary to achieve the treaty’s goal.
India may argue that Pakistan’s continuous support for terrorism qualifies as a material breach, thereby justifying the suspension.
Yet, two issues complicate this position. First, India is not a signatory to the VCLT, although it often adheres to its provisions as customary international law. Second, the IWT does not contain any explicit provision allowing for suspension or termination, and India has historically affirmed its binding nature, even during wartime.
Moreover, pacta sunt servanda, which asserts that agreements must be respected, is a cornerstone of international treaty law. Unilateral suspension undermines this principle and risks setting a precedent that could destabilize other international agreements.
National Security and International Obligations: A Delicate Balance
India’s justification, based on the doctrine of necessity, claims that national security interests override treaty obligations. The International Law Commission has recognized necessity as a defense to international responsibility, but only under strict conditions: the act must be the only way to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril.
This principle was tested in the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case (Hungary/Slovakia, ICJ 1997), where the International Court of Justice held that necessity could not be invoked unless the state had no other means to resolve the threat. Critics argue that diplomatic and economic channels remain open to India, thereby weakening the claim of necessity.
Environmental Implications and Water Rights
The cessation of the IWT may result in severe environmental and humanitarian repercussions, in addition to the legal dispute. Millions in Pakistan rely on the western rivers for potable water, irrigation, and energy production. Interference with water flow could lead to ecological degradation, food insecurity, and public health crises, potentially violating international environmental law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 64/292 recognizes access to clean water as a human right. Any disruption of water flows by India may not only escalate tensions but also invite international condemnation and possibly legal proceedings at international human rights forums.
A Comparative View: Precedents and Global Practice
Instances of unilateral treaty suspension are rare but not unprecedented. The United States’ withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and Iran’s threats to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have previously tested the boundaries of treaty law. However, in most cases, such actions attract diplomatic backlash and legal challenges.
In Namibia (Advisory Opinion, ICJ 1971), the ICJ emphasized that unilateral declarations by states regarding treaties must be made in good faith and in line with the principle of estoppel. India’s historical conduct of honoring the IWT even during full-scale wars weakens its claim to unilaterally suspend it now.
Constitutional Dimensions and the Role of Indian Judiciary
Domestically, India’s treaty obligations are governed by Article 253 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to enact laws implementing international treaties. While the judiciary has limited itself from reviewing foreign policy decisions (see Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549), the courts have occasionally intervened in matters involving human rights and environmental concerns arising from international obligations.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court held that international conventions, even if not legislated upon, could be relied upon to interpret fundamental rights. This line of reasoning suggests that a drastic move like suspending the IWT could face legal scrutiny if it affects domestic rights or environmental norms.
Diplomatic Fallout and Possible Dispute Resolution
Pakistan has already indicated that any obstruction of river flows would amount to an “act of war.” While this may be rhetorical, it underscores the gravity of the situation. As a third party to the treaty, the World Bank may be called upon to mediate. In previous disputes, such as the Kishanganga arbitration, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has played a vital role.
Given the treaty’s arbitration and neutral expert provisions, Pakistan may seek resolution under Article IX of the IWT. However, the success of such proceedings depends heavily on both countries’ willingness to engage with the dispute resolution mechanisms.
Conclusion
India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty marks a turning point in South Asia’s geopolitical and legal landscape. While the rationale grounded in national security is understandable, the legality of such a move remains highly contentious under both domestic and international legal standards. The issue raises fundamental questions about the durability of international obligations, the scope of state sovereignty, and the threshold for invoking necessity in treaty law.
The need of the hour is measured diplomacy, guided by international legal norms and humanitarian considerations. As water security becomes increasingly politicized, adherence to legal processes and environmental ethics will determine the future of cross-border cooperation in South Asia.
FAQs
1. Can India legally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty?
Legally, India cannot unilaterally suspend the IWT without potentially violating international treaty obligations. Only strict circumstances of material violation or necessity—conditions that are still up for debate in this case—allow suspension under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
2. Does India have to abide by the Vienna Convention?
India abides by many of the Vienna Convention’s principles as part of its customary international law, while not being a formal signatory. Therefore, the provisions still carry persuasive legal value.
3. What role can the World Bank play in this dispute?
As a broker of the original treaty, the World Bank can mediate or facilitate arbitration under Article IX of the IWT. However, it cannot enforce compliance unless both parties consent to its involvement.
4. How might this affect water access in Pakistan?
Humanitarian and environmental repercussions could result from Pakistan’s agriculture, drinking water, and electricity generation being disrupted by the treaty’s suspension.
5. Could this issue be taken to the International Court of Justice?
Yes, but only if both India and Pakistan consent to ICJ jurisdiction. Alternatively, disputes may be settled through arbitration or a neutral expert, as outlined in the treaty.
