June 30, 2025
ISLAMABAD – According to the PCA’s rules, a supplemental award is an additional ruling issued by a court or tribunal after its initial decision, usually to address a specific issue that wasn’t fully resolved or to clarify certain points, such as jurisdiction, competence, or interpretation of a treaty or agreement.
India in April held the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance following the attack in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam that killed 26 — an incident New Delhi blamed on Islamabad without evidence. Pakistan termed any attempt to suspend its water share an “act of war”, noting the IWT had no provision for unilateral suspension. It later said it was considering court action, citing a violation of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
According to the government’s statement, Pakistan welcomed the PCA’s decision and stated that the court affirmed its competence despite India’s unilateral action against the IWT.
“Pakistan looks forward to receiving the Court’s Award on the First Phase on the Merits in due course following the hearing that was held in Peace Palace in The Hague in July 2024,” the statement read.
“The high priority, at this point, is that India and Pakistan find a way back to a meaningful dialogue, including on the application of the Indus Waters Treaty,” the government said, reiterating remarks made by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that Pakistan was “ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with India on all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, water, trade and terrorism”.
Meanwhile, the Indian Ministry for External Affairs (MEA) “categorically rejected” the PCA’s supplemental award and stated that it did not recognise the court itself, according to Indian newspaper The Hindu.
“India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India’s position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and consequently any proceedings before this forum and any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void,” the ministry maintained.
According to The Hindu, the MEA said that after the Pahalgam attack, India exercised “its rights as a sovereign nation under international law” and placed the IWT in abeyance “until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism”. The ministry additionally described the Court of Arbitration’s latest declarations as a “charade at Pakistan’s behest”.
‘The treaty remains in force’
According to a press release from the PCA, the court found that it was not open to India to unilaterally suspend the IWT or hold it in abeyance.
“The Court first considered the terms of the Treaty (IWT), which do not provide for the unilateral ‘abeyance’ or ‘suspension’ of the Treaty; rather, according to its terms, the Treaty continues in force until terminated with the mutual consent of India and Pakistan,” the press release read.
“The Court found that the terms of the Treaty, read in light of the Treaty’s object and purpose, do not allow either Party, acting unilaterally, to hold in abeyance or suspend an ongoing dispute settlement process, given that to do so would fundamentally undermine ‘the value and efficacy of the Treaty’s compulsory third-party dispute settlement process’.”
During the court proceedings, the PCA noted that it was not open to India to unilaterally hold the IWT in abeyance “regardless of how India’s position was characterised or justified under international law”.
