India Defies Hague Ruling, Continues Two Kashmir Hydropower Projects

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague issued a ruling on the 23rd of this month, ordering India, under the Indus Waters Treaty, to halt two hydro‑electric projects in northern Kashmir and to submit, within three months, an implementation plan that complies with the treaty. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs responded immediately, stating that it does not accept the court’s decision and asserting that the treaty has been effectively “suspended” since 2022, and that India will not alter its established policy because of this case.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in 1899 in the Peace Palace in The Hague. It is an intergovernmental organization, not a United Nations specialized agency, and joined the UN system as an observer in 1993. Its core function is to provide administrative support for the conduct of international arbitration proceedings covering a broad range of legal issues, including territory, maritime zones, sovereignty, human rights, investment and trade. The Court now has more than one hundred member states.

The Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960 under U.S. mediation, allocating the use of six major rivers that flow through India and Pakistan. India received control over the eastern rivers, while Pakistan obtained the right to water from the western rivers. Over the decades the two sides have repeatedly clashed over water allocations and dam construction, and hydro‑electric projects in the Kashmir region have become a particular flashpoint. Pakistan alleges that India’s newly planned Barwan Hydroelectric Project and Delawa Hydroelectric Project will alter river flows and may violate the treaty’s provisions that protect downstream water quantities.

India counters that the two projects are essential national energy‑security and regional‑development infrastructure, and that Pakistan has not raised a specific, treaty‑compliant objection to the projects in the many years since the treaty was signed. Accordingly, India maintains that it is entitled to proceed under its domestic laws. Since the ruling was announced, the Indian foreign ministry has reiterated its intention to continue the projects and has called on the international community to respect its sovereign decision‑making. Pakistan, meanwhile, has appealed to the United Nations, urging the international community to pressure India to ensure full implementation of the treaty.

For Taiwan, this arbitration decision and the India‑Pakistan water‑resource dispute provide a practical case study in trans‑boundary water management and adherence to international law. Taiwan faces similar challenges in the interpretation and enforcement of treaties concerning the distribution of the Fresh Water River with Mainland China, as well as legal disputes with neighboring states over maritime zones and energy development. Observers note that, absent effective international arbitration and treaty mechanisms, parties can become locked in protracted confrontations that undermine regional stability and energy supplies. Consequently, Taiwan may need to seek clearer treaty language and stronger, enforceable international arbitration channels in future water‑resource and energy‑cooperation negotiations to reduce the risk of conflict arising from divergent interpretations.