The first hearing of a dispute between Pakistan and India pursuant to the Indus Waters Treaty began on Friday at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, The Netherlands, said a statement issued by Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) office.
The AGP Office also took notice of news stories appearing in the Indian press regarding India’s attempted unilateral modification of the Indus Waters Treaty and said “such stories are misleading”.
“The treaty cannot be unilaterally modified. This is an attempt to divert attention from the ongoing proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the Indus Waters Treaty.”
The statement elaborated that the dispute pertains to concerns raised by Pakistan over India’s construction of the 330MW Kishenganga hydroelectric project on River Jhelum and plans to construct the 850MW Ratle Hydroelectric Project on River Chenab in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJK).
“Pakistan’s delegation is led by Pakistan’s Agent to the Court, Mr. Ahmad Irfan Aslam, Additional Attorney-General and includes Mr. Hassan Nasir Jamy, Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, and Syed Muhammad Mehar Ali Shah, Pakistan’s Commissioner for Indus Waters. Pakistan is represented by, among others, Sir Daniel Bethlehem, KC, a barrister from the UK.”
Pakistan initiated legal proceedings on August 19, 2016, by requesting the establishment of the ad hoc Court of Arbitration pursuant to Article IX of the Indus Waters Treaty. Islamabad took this step after strenuously raising its concerns in the Permanent Indus Commission starting in 2006 for the Kishenganga project and in 2012 for the Ratle project, and then seeking resolution in government level talks held in New Delhi in July 2015. Pakistan’s decision to initiate proceedings is in response to India’s persistent refusal to address Islamabad’s concerns.
“The treaty provides for two forums for settlement of the disputes – the Court of Arbitration that addresses legal, technical, and systemic issues and the Neutral Expert that addresses only technical issues. Pakistan requested the establishment of the Court of Arbitration because of systemic questions requiring legal interpretation.”
India responded to Pakistan’s initiation of a formal dispute settlement process by its own belated request for the appointment of a neutral expert. Submission of a belated request for the resolution of disputes raised by Pakistan was a demonstration of India’s characteristic bad faith, added the statement. Fearing conflicting outcomes from two parallel processes, on December 12, 2016, the World Bank suspended the processes for the establishment of the Court of Arbitration and appointment of the neutral expert and invited both countries to negotiate and agree on one forum.
Pakistan and India could not agree on a mutually acceptable forum and the World Bank, after six years, during which India completed the construction of the Kishenganga project, finally lifted the suspension and created the Court of Arbitration and appointed a neutral expert.
The statement states that Pakistan believes that any risk of conflicting outcomes can be arrested through coordination and cooperation between the two fora. Pakistan is, engaging with both fora. In contrast, and in characteristic bad faith, India has boycotted the Court of Arbitration. The Court is competent to proceed ex parte and is doing so, said the statement.
.jpg)
