ISLAMABAD
September 10, 2026: Bahria University Law School, with the assistance of the Bahria University Law Moot Society, hosted a comprehensive academic Table Talk examining the final legal, strategic, and diplomatic implications arising from the recent Award rendered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) under the framework of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).
Convening prominent international law scholars, water security analysts, and policy researchers, the forum undertook a rigorous structural evaluation of the Award, assessing its impact on state compliance, transboundary water governance, and Pakistan’s long-term environmental security. The panel featured Ms Rabia Anwaar, Research Associate at the Centre for Law and Security (CLAS); Dr Bushra Bibi, specialist on the Indus Waters Treaty and transboundary water law; and Dr M. Jahanzeb Butt, Senior Assistant Professor of Law and expert in Public International Law. Together, the panellists deconstructed the jurisdictional, technical, and enforcement dimensions of the PCA Award, culminating in a synthesised legal and policy roadmap for the Government of Pakistan.
The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 under the aegis of the World Bank, has long served as the fundamental legal architecture governing transboundary water allocations between Pakistan and India. Allocating the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) predominantly to Pakistan and the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) to India, the treaty established explicit engineering and operational boundaries regarding upstream run-of-the-river hydroelectric developments. Recent decades have witnessed acute operational disputes concerning Indian hydroelectric design modalities, specifically regarding pondage, spillway gate configurations, and low-level drawdown sluicing mechanisms on projects situated on the Western Rivers. Following parallel requests for dispute resolution that led to the simultaneous invocation of the Neutral Expert mechanism and the Court of Arbitration, the PCA addressed core jurisdictional challenges, affirming its authority to adjudicate disputes arising under Annexure F and Annexure G of the Treaty. The Award issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration represents a pivotal moment in contemporary international water law (lex aquarum). By resolving technical design questions through strict treaty interpretation and confirming the primacy of the dispute settlement mechanisms contained in Article IX of the IWT, the PCA reinforced the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) amid asymmetric regional hydro-politics.
The primary objective of the Table Talk convened at Bahria University Law School was to transcend surface-level reporting, offering a granular legal, diplomatic, and security critique of the Award. The proceedings evaluated the binding nature of the tribunal’s findings, the legal consequences of a party state’s non-participation or non-compliance, and the available enforcement pathways for Pakistan under international law.
Dr. M. Jahanzeb Butt initiated the legal assessment by analysing the procedural validity, jurisdictional affirmations, and substantive rulings contained within the PCA Award. Dr. Butt examined the Court’s application of the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, affirming that international arbitral tribunals possess the inherent authority to determine the limits of their own jurisdiction. In addressing objections regarding the concurrent proceedings between the Neutral Expert and the Court of Arbitration, the PCA established that the presence of technical inquiries does not divest an arbitral court of its jurisdiction over broader legal interpretations under Article IX(2) and Annexure G. Addressing the legal consequences of a state’s non-participation in arbitral proceedings, Dr. Butt highlighted established precedent under Article 53 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and customary international law rules reflected in international arbitration. Non-appearance by a party does not constitute a bar to proceedings, nor does it invalidate the binding nature of an award. Pursuant to Paragraph 23 of Annexure G of the IWT, the Award is final and binding upon both high contracting parties.
Dr Bushra Bibi provided a detailed technical and legal assessment of the engineering dimensions of the dispute, evaluating how structural parameters dictate downstream water security. Dr Bibi explained that the legal dispute over run-of-the-river power plants hinges on the inclusion and elevation of gated spillways. Under Annexure D of the IWT, crest-level spillways must be designed to restrict artificial control over water discharge. Gated spillways positioned below full pondage level grant upstream operators temporal control over river flows, creating risks of sudden flow reduction or unannounced water releases during critical agricultural sowing seasons in downstream riparian territories. Addressing the operational mechanics of low-level outlet gates intended for sediment flushing, Dr Bibi highlighted that while sediment accumulation poses engineering challenges in Himalayan river basins, low-level outlets must not also serve as drawdown mechanisms that deplete dead storage. The PCA’s Award establishes legal boundaries ensuring that sediment management practices do not undermine the core quantitative allocation guarantees secured by Pakistan under Article III. Dr. Bibi emphasized that contemporary treaty interpretation requires reading the 1960 text in light of evolving principles of customary international environmental law, specifically: Upstream states are obligated to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm, As affirmed by the ICJ in Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (2010) and Certain Activities (2015), states must perform rigorous EIAs before undertaking works capable of altering transboundary watercourses, and Embedded within the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention, requiring a balance between upstream power generation and downstream agricultural dependency.
Ms Rabia Anwaar contextualised the Award within regional security dynamics, examining how transboundary water management intersects with national defence and diplomatic leverage. Ms Anwaar presented a strategic risk assessment detailing how upper-riparian structural control can be leveraged as an instrument of coercion. Artificial alteration of Western River flows threatens Pakistan’s agricultural economy, urban water security, and ecological balance across Punjab and Sindh. The PCA Award provides an authoritative legal buffer against structural hydro-hegemony by formalising the limits of upstream water control. Analysing the broader geopolitical environment, Ms Anwaar noted that relying solely on bilateral legal communication is insufficient. Pakistan must operationalise its water diplomacy across international platforms, framing treaty compliance not merely as a bilateral dispute, but as a test case for the stability of global transboundary water regimes. Ms Anwaar highlighted the critical role of legal literacy in public and media communications. Misinterpretations regarding the Treaty’s operational provisions undermine national consensus and weaken diplomatic messaging. She called for sustained collaboration between research institutes, think tanks, and official legal teams to project a unified, fact-based narrative in international forums.
Based on the findings of the panel, the Table Talk synthesised an actionable policy roadmap for the Government of Pakistan. To ensure effective enforcement of the PCA Award and secure long-term water rights, Pakistan must adopt a multi-tiered legal, diplomatic, and technical strategy. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), in coordination with the Ministry of Water Resources and the Office of the Attorney General for Pakistan, should issue formal diplomatic communications to the upper riparian state, serving notice of the final and binding nature of the PCA Award pursuant to Annexure G, Paragraph 23. Should the upstream state fail to modify non-compliant engineering designs in accordance with the Award, Pakistan should formally invoke state responsibility under international law. This includes documenting violations, asserting non-compliance as a breach of conventional obligations, and reserving the right to seek legal remedies, including cessation and full reparation for downstream losses. Create an inter-ministerial, permanent Hydro-Legal Strategy Council comprising experts in public international law, hydraulic engineering, satellite remote sensing, and transboundary diplomacy. This council will ensure continuous monitoring of upstream construction projects and prepare real-time legal interventions.
While the World Bank’s role under the 1960 Treaty is primarily procedural, Pakistan should formally brief the World Bank’s President and Executive Board on the Arbitral Award. Pakistan must urge international financial institutions (IFIs), including the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), to withhold financing for hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers that fail to comply with the design criteria affirmed by the PCA.
The Table Talk concluded with a consensus among the panellists that the Permanent Court of Arbitration Award provides Pakistan with a strong legal foundation for protecting its transboundary water rights. However, legal victories must be sustained by continuous diplomatic outreach, advanced technical monitoring, and strategic institutional alignment.
Bahria University Law School remains committed to advancing rigorous legal scholarship, supporting public policy formulation, and training the next generation of legal scholars in public international law and its domestic application.
