Under international law, national security alone cannot justify the unilateral suspension of an international water treaty unless the treaty itself or the applicable rules of international law provide a legal basis for such action. The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is considered as one of the most enduring international water sharing agreements which was signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan with the help of the World Bank which worked  as a proactive mediator. Despite multiple wars and prolonged political tensions between the two countries the Treaty has been monitoring the sharing of the Indus River system for more than sixty years . However, the  decline in India Pakistan relations after the 2025 conflict has placed the Treaty under unmatched pressure. India announced in April 2025 that it was holding the Treaty in abeyance due to national security issues and cross border terrorism. This decision has created significant debate that whether a state may suspend its responsibilities under an international water treaty on grounds of national security.

From an international law point of view, this development raises important questions regarding the binding nature of treaties, the principle of pacta sunt servanda, and the ground or conditions under which a state may suspend or terminate its treaty obligations lawfully. This article examines why, under international law, national security cannot override the obligations contained in the Indus Waters Treaty by analysing the Treaty itself, the applicable rules of international law, and vast implications of such action for international water governance

The Pahalgam attack in April 2025, became the  immediate reason behind India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty . India claimed that the attack was linked to cross border terrorism originating from Pakistan, while Pakistan rejected these allegations. As relations between the two countries worsened, military exchanges took place, further increasing tensions in the region. After these developments, India announced that it was placing the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance and stated that the Treaty would remain suspended until Pakistan took which according to India was credible and irreversible action against cross border terrorism.

Pakistan strongly opposed this decision and argued that the Treaty does not allow either country to suspend or terminate it on its own. This disagreement turned into an important question of international law. It raised the question that whether a state can suspend its obligations under an international treaty by depending on national security concerns. To answer this question, it is necessary to examine both the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty and the rules of international treaty law.

According to international law, the states that sign the treaty are bound by it and the treaty cannot be suspended by one state without a  legal reason. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) provides the legal framework which deals with the suspension and termination of treaties.The principle of pacta sunt servanda is highlighted in article 26 of framework which means that every treaty in force must be carried out in good faith. Therefore, states are generally expected to respect their treaty obligations, even during political or diplomatic disagreements.

India has claimed placing the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance by relying on national security concerns and cross border terrorism. However, international law does not recognise national security as an independent ground for suspending a treaty. Article 60 of the VCLT allows suspension only in cases of a material breach of the treaty by the other party, while Article 62 allows suspension where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances. Both exceptions are interpreted narrowly. Pakistan has not been accused of violating the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty itself, and the physical conditions necessary for implementing the Treaty also remain unchanged. Moreover, Article XII of the Indus Waters Treaty contains no provision which allows either party to suspend or terminate the Treaty unilaterally.

The following cases of the International Court of Justice also supports this principle. In the Gabčíkovo Nagymaros Project case , the Court held that political or economic changes do not automatically free states from their treaty obligations. In the Fisheries Jurisdiction case , the Court stated that changes in national interests are not enough to justify ending treaties. These cases show that treaties should remain stable and that a state may suspend them only in the limited situations that are allowed under international law.

The main reason behind the creation of Indus Waters Treaty was to give a long term and stable system for sharing the waters of the Indus River between India and Pakistan. Article 12 of the Treaty explicitly says that treaty can only be changed or terminated through an agreement which is mutually agreed meaning it is approved by both governments. The Treaty does not contain any article allowing either country to  suspend, withdraw from, or hold it in abeyance without mutual consent. Therefore, any decision taken to stop the implementation of the Treaty without the consent will raise serious legal questions.

The Treaty also includes a lengthy dispute resolution mechanism to solve disagreements peacefully. It first requires disputes to be discussed through the Permanent Indus Commission. If no solution is reached, technical differences may be referred to a Neutral Expert, while legal disputes can be submitted to a Court of Arbitration. Although the World Bank is not a part of to the Treaty, it still has role in appointing the Neutral Expert and helping establish the Court of Arbitration when required.

Another important feature of the Treaty is that it has remained in working despite major conflicts between the two countries, including the 1965 War, 1971 War, and the 1999 Kargil conflict. This shows that both states have traditionally treated water issues separately from political and military disputes. Therefore, India’s decision to hold the Treaty in abeyance appears difficult to reconcile with both the wording and the purpose of the Indus Waters Treaty.

India’s decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance has consequences that go beyond bilateral relations with Pakistan. International water treaties are formed on the principles of legal certainty, stability, and good faith. If states are allowed to suspend treaty obligations on unilateral grounds, it would weaken the principle of pacta sunt servanda and the confidence in the international treaty system.

The suspension also creates uncertainty for other water agreements around the world. Many states have signed long standing river treaties to ensure the fair and peaceful sharing of water resources. Allowing one sided suspension without having any solid legal reason could encourage similar actions in other regions, which will threaten international water cooperation. The smooth flow of the western rivers is not only a treaty right but also important for agriculture, food security, energy production, and the livelihoods of millions of people from Pakistans point of view.

From an international law perspective, conflicts which concern the interpretation or implementation of the Treaty should be resolved through the mechanisms established under the Indus Waters Treaty, which include the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert, and Court of Arbitration, rather than through unilateral suspension. These legal mechanisms are essential to maintaining the rule of law and ensuring the continued effectiveness of international water agreements.

The Indus Waters Treaty has remained one of the most enduring international water agreements,it has survived decades of political tensions and armed conflicts between India and Pakistan. Although India  justifies holding the Treaty in abeyance on national security grounds, neither the Treaty nor international law provides a clear legal basis for its such suspension without mutual consent. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice show that treaty obligations must be performed in good faith and can only be suspended in exceptional circumstances recognised by international law. Therefore, disputes concerning the Indus Waters Treaty should be resolved through the mechanisms established under the Treaty rather than through unilateral action. Keeping the rule of law remains essential for ensuring stability, cooperation, and the peaceful management of shared international water resources.