ISLAMABAD: The Foreign Office on Wednesday declared that Pakistan continued to fully participate in the Neutral Expert’s proceedings with regard to Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in good faith after India’s decision to halt its participation.

The FO issued the statement in response to clarifications issued by the Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the IWT, saying that Pakistan had taken note of the decision and calling the clarifications ‘helpful’.

The PCA had issued its Award on Issues of General Interpretation of the IWT on Aug 8. Next month, Pakistan initiated an arbitration against India under the provisions of the IWT after India ‘unilaterally’ suspended it. The PCA issued clarifications on its decisions surrounding the treaty in response to a request, which concerned the interpretation and application of the IWT to certain design elements of run-of-river hydroelectric plants (HEPs).

The FO said Pakistan had also taken note of the procedural order issued in parallel with the decision. In response to a procedural order also issued in light of the decision, in which the court invited both parties to report on the status of Neutral Expert’s proceedings, the FO said, “The Neutral Expert proceedings were initiated on India’s request with their next phase scheduled to take place in Vienna from Nov 17 to 21, 2025. While India has decided to halt its participation, Pakistan continues to fully participate in the Neu­tral Expert proceedings in good faith.”

Arbitration court suggests Islamabad, Delhi to pursue matter through Treaty’s dispute resolution procedures

It added that in this regard, the Neutral Expert had ruled that India’s non-participation could not operate as a bar to the proceedings going forward.

According to the PCA, the requested clarifications included those in relation to Article III, which concerns the Western rivers, and paragraph 8 of Annexure D, which concerns new run-of-river hydro-electric plants that India may construct on these rivers. “The award also addressed a related question on the legal effect of decisions issued by dispute resolution bodies under the Treaty (namely, courts of arbitration and neutral experts),” it said.

The court found Pakistan’s request for clarification to be “timely” and provided clarifications as to the meaning and scope of several aspects of its decisions, as well as its reasoning behind them. According to the statement, it also found that its clarifications would have the same binding effect as the original award.

The court clarified that its decisions on paragraph 8(a) of Annexure D to the treaty 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”.

It also 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 PCA stated its references to “designing an Annexure D, Part 3 HEP” and the “design” of an Annexure D referenced mandatory design criteria, to be applied at the outset — i.e. at the time of planning. It added that these criteria were distinct from post-commissioning operational constraints on a HEP and could not be satisfied “simply by an acknowledgement of or commitment to operational restraint”.

However, it declined Pakistan’s request to clarify that a crest-gated spillway with gates extending above Full Pondage Level was prohibited under paragraphs 8a and 8e of the annexure, and that the design of an Annexure D, Part 3 HEP must always include an ungated spillway. It stated these clarifications to be outside the scope of its award.

The PCA stated its reference in paragraph 742 to the list of data and information that India is required to convey to Pakistan is an indicative list and is not comprehensive.

It stated, “Pakistan or India may seek to pursue the matter through the Treaty’s dispute resolution procedures, including a further phase of these proceedings”. It invited each party to provide written submissions on the status of these proceedings and its views as to any further phases of the proceedings with respect to any matters that were not resolved in the award.

Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2025