Pakistan, seeking legal recourse following New Delhi's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, is considering taking India to an international court to secure some relief. 

The agreement between the two neighbouring countries, signed in 1960, had survived through three wars in 1965, 1971, and 1999. However, following the recent terror attack in which Pakistan-linked terrorists massacred dozens of civilian tourists in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, New Delhi quickly took decisive diplomatic actions to suspend the water treaty until "Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism." Pakistan, caught off guard by the move, warned that "any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan will be considered as an act of war."

Facing a worsening water crisis, Pakistan, already dealing with extreme shortages, is now preparing to explore every possible option to ease the strain on millions of its people. Minister of State for Law and Justice Aqeel Malik told Reuters on Monday night that the government is considering at least three legal routes to address the issue, including taking the matter to the World Bank, which oversees the treaty.

According to the minister, Islamabad is pondering taking its case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice in the Hague, where it may claim that India has broken the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Malik said that "legal strategy consultations are almost complete," a final decision on which cases to move forward with would be made "soon," possibly involving multiple approaches. He also mentioned a fourth diplomatic route: bringing the matter before the United Nations Security Council. "All the options are on the table and we are pursuing all appropriate and competent forums to approach," he added.

The Indus Waters Treaty outlines how the waters of the Indus River and its tributaries, Sutlej, Beas, Ravi, Chenab, Jhelum, and Indus, are to be shared between India and Pakistan. Under the agreement, India receives the waters of the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, while Pakistan is allocated the waters of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. Although India, as the upstream country, technically holds rights over all six rivers, the treaty granted Pakistan access to the flow of the western rivers.

Malik accused India of unilaterally ending the Indus Waters Treaty, arguing that "The treaty cannot be ended unilaterally" and pointing out that "there is no such provision within the treaty."

However, Pakistan's attempt to challenge this move is unlikely to succeed. Here's why:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) only has authority over countries that willingly agree to its jurisdiction; it is not automatically binding on all nations. Countries can choose to fully or partially accept the Court's authority, often by issuing formal declarations. India, which supports a global rules-based system, submitted such a declaration on September 27, 2019, acknowledging the ICJ’s jurisdiction as compulsory. However, in the declaration signed by EAM S. Jaishankar, India clearly outlined 13 specific situations in which the ICJ would not have authority over it.

In an official declaration by India, Jaishankar stated,  "I have the honour to declare, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of India, that they accept, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate such acceptance, as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, and on the basis and condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice over all disputes other than the following".

Among the 13 exceptions listed, point two specifies that the ICJ will not have jurisdiction over “disputes with the government of any State which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations.” As a Commonwealth member, this means Pakistan cannot bring a case against India at the ICJ, making any such move by Islamabad legally ineffective. Point number five further clarifies that the ICJ cannot intervene in "disputes relating to or connected with facts or situations of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective actions taken in self-defence, resistance to aggression, fulfilment of obligations imposed by international bodies, and other similar or related acts, measures or situations in which India is, has been or may in future be involved, including the measures taken for protection of national security and ensuring national defence."

A similar stance applies to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, meaning it cannot be used in these cases.

The World Bank has no authority over the Indus Waters Treaty apart from acting in a limited capacity as a mediator or advisor to India and Pakistan. It is not in charge of the treaty and cannot enforce or manage it; its role is to encourage dialogue when disputes occur. Even in 1960, the World Bank's involvement was restricted to helping broker the treaty as a neutral party. Today, while it helps appoint neutral experts and heads of arbitration panels, its role ends there. It does not hold any responsibility for overseeing or implementing the treaty. The World Bank can help resolve disputes under the Indus Waters Treaty, but only as a neutral advisor. Its suggestions are not binding, and either country can reject them. Therefore, it cannot be seen as a guarantor of the treaty, nor does it have the authority to enforce or interpret it on its own.

Meanwhile, a brutal terror attack claimed 26 lives, including that of a foreign national. The victims were reportedly targeted after being asked to prove their faith in Islam, pointing to a religious motive behind the killings. The incident has drawn widespread international condemnation. People across Jammu and Kashmir staged protests against the violence, squarely blaming Pakistan, and outrage swept across India over the senseless attack. The Resistance Front, a terror group linked to the outlawed Lashkar-e-Taiba and based in Pakistan, has claimed responsibility for the massacre.