Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

PCA court holds Indus Waters Treaty in force despite India's 'abeyance', restricts Ratle works

The IAF Insider · Issue No. 3 ·

Today's issue covers commentary on the 31 August 2026 decisions of the Court of Arbitration in Pakistan v. India, and the first NGO complaint to the European Commission alleging that New Zealand has breached the climate provisions of the EU-NZ Free Trade Agreement.

State-to-state · Asia-Pacific

Court of Arbitration rules Indus Waters Treaty remains in force and orders interim limits on Ratle dam construction

In a Daily Jus commentary, Smeeksha Padney of National Law University Delhi reviews two decisions issued on 31 August 2026 by the PCA-administered Court of Arbitration in the Indus Waters Western Rivers Arbitration (Pakistan v. India). In its Award on Treaty Status, the Court unanimously held that India's April 2025 decision to place the Treaty "in abeyance" had no legal basis, rejecting sovereignty, fundamental change of circumstances, armed conflict and countermeasures as grounds for unilateral suspension or termination. The Treaty therefore remains fully in force, including its rules on the design and operation of hydroelectric projects on the Western Rivers. India did not participate, but the Court took account of positions discernible from its official correspondence and public statements.

In a separate Order on Interim Measures, the Court unanimously barred India from carrying out specified works on the dam wall and power intake of the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant above designated levels, until 90 days after the Neutral Expert's final decision, expected in July 2027. It also required reporting on the construction schedule but declined two other measures Pakistan sought. Padney stresses that the measures are preservative, not a finding of breach, and argues the case exposes a design problem in the Treaty's split between Court of Arbitration and Neutral Expert, with a view to the divergent approaches in the Baglihar and Kishenganga proceedings.

Why it matters The decisions confirm that a treaty party cannot escape a compulsory arbitral mechanism by unilateral suspension or non-participation, and show how inter-State tribunals use interim measures to protect parallel technical proceedings.

Sources

State-to-state · Global

Dutch NGO files first climate complaint against New Zealand under EU-NZ Free Trade Agreement

Writing on EJIL: Talk!, Oliver Hailes examines a complaint lodged by Dutch NGO Both ENDS with the European Commission's Single Entry Point, which he describes as the first formal complaint alleging that a trading partner has failed to perform its climate obligations under an EU trade agreement. The trigger was New Zealand's August amendment of its Climate Change Response Act to bar tort liability for emissions-related climate effects, which interferes with the pending Smith v Fonterra case. The complaint also cites weakening of the 2050 methane target, changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme, reversal of the offshore oil and gas exploration ban, and shortcomings in New Zealand's nationally determined contributions.

Both ENDS asks the EU to raise the matter in the FTA's Committee on Trade and Sustainable Development and, if necessary, to pursue dispute settlement under Chapter 26, which covers the sustainability chapter and can lead to a panel procedure. Hailes considers that the strongest allegation is regression contrary to Article 19.2.4, with a possible breach of Article 19.6.2 on implementing the Paris Agreement. He notes, however, that compensation or suspension of trade benefits would require a panel to find that New Zealand's conduct "materially defeats" the object and purpose of the Paris Agreement, a threshold he thinks is unlikely to have been crossed.

Why it matters The complaint tests whether trade-agreement non-regression clauses and State-to-State panel procedures can be mobilised against domestic climate rollbacks, a route that may become relevant alongside investment arbitration in climate disputes.

Sources

In brief

  • On Conflict of Laws.net, Apostolos Anthimos reports that the Thessaloniki Court of First Instance (Decision No. 21257/2026) recognised a Kosovo divorce judgment despite Greece not recognising Kosovo as a state, treating judgment recognition as a private international law question distinct from statehood and relying on a UNMIK certificate of the court's competence authenticated by the Greek consular office in Pristina. Conflict of Laws.net ↗

Summaries are written with AI from the freely available articles linked under each story; read the original sources for full details. Nothing here is legal advice.