The Federal Government welcomed on Monday the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague to issue a “prize on the general interpretation issues of the Indo Water Treaty (IWT)” in the case of the Indo waters, stating that India must generally “let the waters of the Western rivers flow” for the “non -restricted use” of Pakistan.
India in April kept the IWT in suspense after the attack in the occupied asshole that killed 26, an incident of New Delhi blamed Islamabad without evidence. Pakistan described any attempt to suspend his water to share a “act of war”, noting that the IWT had no provision for unilateral suspension. He later said that he was considering judicial action, citing a violation of the Vienna Convention of 1969 on the Law of Treaties.
A supplementary PCA prize in June argued that India could not keep the treaty in suspense unilaterally. India, in response, said he did not recognize the court or his decisions.
A press release issued today by the PCA said he issued an award on Friday in an arbitration initiated by Pakistan against India on August 19, 2016, in accordance with article IX and Annex G to the IWT.
“This arbitration refers to the interpretation and application of the IWT to certain design elements of the river hydroelectric plants that allow India to be built in the tributaries of the Indo, Jhelum and Chenab rivers.”
With respect to the general approach of article 3 (provisions on the western rivers) of the IWT, the prize said: “The general rule is that India” will let the waters of the Western rivers flow “for the use without restrictions of Pakistan.
“There are certain specific exceptions to this rule, even in relation to the generation of hydroelectric energy, but these exceptions must be interpreted strictly: the design and operation of river hydroelectric plants are strictly executed of the requirements in the treaty, instead of what India could consider an” ideal approach to best practices. “
In addition, he pointed out that the questions related to the balance between the respective rights and obligations of the parties in this regard should be identified and addressed through the procedures of the Treaty for the notification, objection and resolution of disputes in the objective of the objective of the treaty and their mutual cooperation obligations.
The PCA said that to date, India had not participated in the arbitration procedures and had repeatedly opposed the competence of the Court of the Court, and added that he had addressed the problem of several positions before.
“Thourhout before proceedings, The Court Has Reured That India Is Fully In respect of the Proceedings and That the Opportunity to Participate Remains Open To It. Notwithstanding This, The Court has straightened to Ascertain, Underestand, and considered India’s views Materials, Including the Records of the Commission, correspondence Between the Parties, and/or Submsions by India in Previous dispute resolution proceedings under the treaty, ”The PCA Said.
He added that he had also taken measures to evaluate the accuracy of Pakistan’s claims, even requesting new written presentations from Pakistan, questioning Pakistan both before and during the audience on the merits, when requesting that Pakistan produce historical evidence related to the operation of the permanent IWT commission as of the inference, and considering the public materials available and the jurisco not present by Pakistan.
The PCA explained that the award of August 8 addressed questions about the interpretation and general application of the treaty, even in relation to article 3 and paragraph 8 of Annex D (which refers to new river hydroelectric plants that India can build in Western rivers).
“The prize also addresses a related issue on the legal effect of the decisions issued by dispute resolution agencies under the treaty (namely, arbitration courts and neutral experts),” said PCA press release.
“The prize is binding for the parties and without appeal,” said the press release.
A statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (FO) said that Pakistan welcomed the prize.
“The prize is especially important following the recent announcement of India to maintain the IWT in suspense, and its previous decision to boycott the procedures of the Arbitration Court. It is a support of Pakistan’s historical position on the aforementioned issues.
“Pakistan remains committed to the complete implementation of the IWT. He also hopes that India immediately resume the normal functioning of the treaty and faithfully implements the prize announced by the Arbitration Court.”
Prize details
Among its 10 conclusions, the Court said that the awards of an arbitration court were final, binding for the parties and had a legal controlling effect on subsequent neutral experts, the subsequent courts of arbitration and the court that issued the prize.
In addition, he pointed out that, to the extent that an arbitration court and a neutral expert operated at the same time in related matters, it was incumbent to both pay attention to the decisions of the other that had a binding or controlling effect.
The court said that the decisions of an expert neutral in matters within their competence were “final and binding” in the parties and any arbitration court, with respect to the particular issue on which the decision was made.
“Due to the vulnerability of Pakistan as the riparian descending of a resource of critical but shared nature, and the potential of a serious conflict between India and Pakistan in this regard, the object and purpose of the treaty, as relates to the western rivers, is to delimit the rights and obligations of the two states, in the set of rights and the obligation of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights of the rights. of the dispute and the issues of resolution of the dispute for the issues of the issues of interpretation and the obligation of the obligation and the obligation of the obligation of the exputing of the dispute.
The award said paragraphs 8 (d), 8 (e) and 8 (f) of Annex D, at low levels of sale, closed spills and intakes for turbines, respectively, contained specific directions on their existence, size and/or location (approached below), which could depart from the best engineering practices that sought to maximize efficiency or output power.
“These limitations were of central importance in the treaty negotiations to address Pakistan’s concerns about India’s ability to release virtually all water in dams of dams, along with sediments, and retain a large volume of water by filling the deposits,” said the court.
More to follow.
