THIS is with reference to the article ‘Indus water wars’ (June 24), which presented the idea of legal encirclement, including recourse to the Court of Arbitration, the International Criminal Court (ICC) for individual accountability, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for state responsi-bility and customary law, and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for human rights violations.

Let us examine one by one the legal feasibility and the practicability of these proposals. First, the Court of Arbitration, where Pakistan has already taken up the issue of Kishanganga/Ratle project. In 2025, the court affirmed its jurisdiction, but India has boycotted it. The problem is that India has illegally held the treaty in abeyance, and the arbitral award cannot be enforced due to Indian withdrawal. However, this is the most viable legal option remaining within the ambit of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and reaffirming that the treaty remains valid and binding despite India’s unilateral declaration.

Regarding UNHRC, since both Pakistan and India have ratified the relevant articles, the legal route is, indeed, open. However, the route can only lead to fact-finding reports and recommendations, not binding orders. The ICJ route has a jurisdictional roadblock in the shape of a ‘Commonwealth reservation’, along with Indian conditional acceptance of ICJ’s jurisdiction that excludes disputes with a state that is or has been a member of the Commonwealth.

The 1997 UN Watercourses Convention also does not offer a viable route as neither Pakistan nor India has ratified it. The only legal opening is if India offers its consent or a UN organ, like the General Assembly (UNGA) or the Security Council (UNSC), asks for a non-binding advisory opinion.

Regarding the ICC route (Article 15), it should be noted that the option is un-workable as neither Pakistan nor India has acceded to the Rome Statute of the ICC. The article also refers to Additional Protocol I, Article 54 (Starvation of Civilians) of the Geneva Convention, which Pakistan signed but never ratified, while India never signed it. Hence, this route is also out from the enforcement point of view.

The only viable legal route is to agitate the issue at Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) under the IWT obligations regardless of Indian truculence. Besides, Pakistan can take up the case at the UNGA and UNSC seeking recommendations for provisional measures to preserve peace and security, or a binding resolution under Chapter VII. This is subject to Pakistan’s ability to muster enough support within UNSC.

Finally, Pakistan can request for a non-binding advisory opinion, in case Pakistan does not wish to adopt the resolution route.

It is clear that the legal encirclement route is not so simple and clear of limitations. Hence, there is a need for remaining steadfastly focused on revitalisation of the IWT that has remained and still is the most effective legal route to contest Indian violation of the international law.

Brig (retd) Dr Raashid Wali Janjua
Islamabad

Published in Dawn, August 15th, 2026