The Federal Minister of Water Resources, Muhammad Moeen Wattoo, criticized India on Thursday for seeking “fleeing” of the Indo Water Treaty (IWT) after his Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected a failure of the Hague Court to follow the agreement in the design of new hydroelectric projects in rivers that flow to Pakistan.
Under the IWT of 1960, three rivers that flow west were granted to Pakistan, with India obtaining three rivers that flow this. In 2023, Pakistan presented a case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague on the design of Indian hydroelectric energy projects in Ríos that were granted to Pakistan under the treaty.
The court, in its ruling that was published on its website on Monday, said it had jurisdiction over the dispute and ruled the treaty “does not allow India to generate hydroelectric energy in the Western rivers based on what could be the ideal approach or the best practices for engineering” of these projects. On the other hand, the design of these projects must adhere “strictly” to the specifications established in the treaty, the court said, added that India must generally “let the waters of the Western rivers flow” for the “unrestricted use” of Pakistan.
The government had welcomed the decision and the Attorney General Mansoor Usman had said that the court had accepted the Pakistan position.
Questioned about the matter today at his Weekly Press Conference, the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India, Randhir Jaiswal, said: “India has never accepted the legality, legitimacy or competence of the so -called Arbitration Court of Arbitration. Its pronouncements do not have jurisdiction, without jurisdiction of the legal position and do not have the rights of the India of the use of the use of the waters.” “.”
He said India defended his decision to keep the treaty in suspense.
In response to Mea’s spokesman’s posture, said Water Minister Dawn.com: “India wants to escape this agreement (IWT). According to any article of the agreement, India or Pakistan cannot end this agreement.”
He said that India’s statement was “unfounded and incorrect,” adding that Pakistan rejected him.
“The court has already said that he has the power to decide. India had made this claim before, that the court has rejected.”
He said that a letter from India at the beginning of the year seeks modification in the treaty had no legal coverage and that the country could not make a decision unilaterally with respect to the IWT.
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.
The international lawyer Ayesha Malik said that India’s position was a “testimony of the extent to which India has gone to be a responsible and respectful state of the law.”
She said the PCA award was based on India fulfilling her obligations under IWT and international law.
“India is choosing to ignore the fact that it cannot simply suspend a treaty such as the IWT and act as if those obligations are no longer from it. In addition, it is completely incorrect that India says that” New Delhi has never recognized the legitimacy of the Court “, since it has completely recognized its legitimacy in the arbitration of Kishangga of 2013”.
She said that the appeal of the PCA for the dialogue between the parties in her ruling had “fallen into deaf ears.”
“An increasingly bellicose India underneath [Narendra] Modi’s Hindutva regime seems to be repeatedly avoiding cooperation in favor of confrontation. While legal victories are good for Pakistan, it seems that its belligerent neighbor does not want the matter to be resolved in a court in The Hague, but by force. “
