16/07/2025
Permanent Court of Arbitration Supplemental Award
Court's Consideration
"Applying these findings to India’s decision that the “Indus Waters Treaty 1960 will be held in abeyance
with immediate effect”, the Court found that it was not open to India to take unilateral action to suspend
these proceedings, regardless of how India’s position was characterized or justified under international
law. As such, the Court found that its competence remains intact and that it has a continuing
responsibility to advance these proceedings in a timely, efficient, and fair manner.
Given the Court’s conclusions, the Court found it unnecessary to determine the meaning of or
justification for India’s decision that the Treaty would be held in “abeyance”.
The Proceedings before the Neutral Expert
The Court recalled that, in Procedural Order No. 6, the Court refrained from taking any position on the
status of the Neutral Expert’s proceedings. The Court indicated that it continues to refrain from taking
a position on the competence of the Neutral Expert.
The Court nevertheless found, after considering the relevant terms of the Treaty and customary
international law, that to the extent a neutral expert is competent, the analysis above with respect to a
court of arbitration applies equally to a neutral expert, and applies regardless of whether the Party
seeking unilaterally to place the proceedings in “abeyance” is the same Party that initiated those
proceedings. Consequently, the findings reached with respect to the Court of Arbitration apply similarly
with respect to any competence that the Neutral Expert otherwise possesses."
