India’s Ministry of External Affairs firmly declared on Thursday that the Court of Arbitration, established to oversee disputes under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan, operates without legal sanction in its perspective. The Ministry criticized the tribunal's legitimacy, emphasizing that it has never recognized its authority, particularly in light of recent tensions linked to allegations of terrorism.

The controversy escalated following a militant attack in Kashmir this April, after which India suspended the treaty, citing national security concerns and demanding Pakistan cease its alleged support for cross-border terrorism. This suspension was in response to Pakistan initiating arbitration in 2016 to address its grievances over water sharing.

In June, the tribunal attempted to assert its relevance by issuing a Supplemental Award on Competence. It argued that India's suspension of the treaty did not affect its jurisdiction and emphasized its commitment to proceed with the arbitration in a "timely, efficient, and fair manner." However, India dismissed this claim, maintaining that the tribunal's decisions are "illegal and void" as it does not recognize the tribunal’s existence or authority.

Further complicating matters, the tribunal recently issued an Award on Issues of General Interpretation concerning the application of the treaty's rules to hydroelectric projects on the rivers shared by the two nations. It reaffirmed that its rulings are "final and binding," a stance that India refuses to accept, stating its non-participation in the proceedings strips the tribunal of its decision-making power.

Analysts highlight a significant procedural disagreement between the parties. India points to a foundational flaw in how the tribunal was formed and its unilateral decision to hold the treaty in abeyance. In contrast, Pakistan and the tribunal argue that the treaty’s provisions for dispute resolution remain valid and that proceedings should continue irrespective of unilateral actions taken after their commencement.

This standoff not only strains the long-standing water-sharing agreement, considered a model of bilateral cooperation, but also poses critical questions about water security in South Asia and the effectiveness of international arbitration in resolving state-level disputes.

Without mutual consent to negotiate, the dispute is likely to persist as a complex blend of legal and political challenges, testing the limits of international legal frameworks against national sovereignty imperatives.