The continuing proceedings under the Indus Waters Treaty have exposed an uncomfortable contradiction at the heart of the international system: international institutions can create legal mechanisms to manage disputes, but they cannot always compel powerful states to participate in them. The latest developments in the Indus Waters Treaty proceedings demonstrate both the resilience and the limitations of international law. The Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Neutral Expert mechanism continue to function, yet India’s refusal to participate raises a broader question: what happens when a state decides that the institutions designed to manage a dispute no longer serve its political interests?
The issue is particularly important because the Indus Waters Treaty is not an ordinary bilateral agreement. Signed in 1960 with the World Bank’s involvement, it created one of the most elaborate water-sharing and dispute-resolution frameworks in the world. Article IX establishes procedures for resolving differences and disputes, while the Treaty provides for the Permanent Indus Commission, a Neutral Expert and, in specified circumstances, a Court of Arbitration.
Yet the contemporary dispute increasingly illustrates the limits of these arrangements. Institutions can administer procedures. They can appoint experts, examine evidence and issue decisions. What they cannot easily do is force a sovereign state to accept the legitimacy of a process it has politically rejected.
The Failure Is Not That the Institutions Stopped Working
It would be misleading to argue that international organizations have simply failed in the Indus dispute. In one sense, the opposite has happened. The institutional machinery has continued operating despite political confrontation.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration currently lists the Neutral Expert proceedings as pending. The proceedings concern India’s Ratle and Kishenganga hydroelectric projects and were initiated under Article IX and Annexure F of the Indus Waters Treaty.
The PCA’s record also demonstrates that non-participation does not necessarily bring treaty-based proceedings to an end. In the separate arbitration initiated by Pakistan, the Court of Arbitration determined in 2023 that India’s non-appearance did not deprive the Court of competence. It unanimously found that the Court was competent to consider the disputes brought before it under the Treaty.
That precedent matters because it reveals the central institutional dilemma. International organizations can preserve the continuity of a legal process, but they cannot guarantee political compliance with that process.
The distinction is crucial.
The World Bank’s Experience Reveals the Problem
The World Bank’s own history with the Treaty illustrates how difficult it is for international organizations to balance legal obligations with interstate political realities.
In December 2016, the World Bank paused the appointment processes for both the Neutral Expert and the Chairman of the Court of Arbitration. The pause was eventually lifted in 2022, after which both mechanisms were constituted. The PCA later described the World Bank’s role under the Treaty as special but essentially ministerial.
The episode demonstrated that even an institution associated with the creation and functioning of an international treaty cannot simply impose a political solution on the parties. When India and Pakistan disagreed over the appropriate dispute-resolution mechanism, the institutional response was initially to pause rather than resolve the underlying confrontation.
This is a recurring weakness of international governance. International organizations are often strongest when states agree to cooperate and weakest when major political disagreements make cooperation impossible.
The Indus Waters Treaty was designed to insulate water management from broader India-Pakistan hostility. Yet the opposite dynamic is now increasingly visible: broader strategic tensions are being transferred into the Treaty’s institutions.
India’s Withdrawal Tests the Limits of Institutional Authority
The latest developments therefore represent more than another procedural disagreement. They test whether a treaty mechanism can survive when one of the parties decides not to participate.
India’s withdrawal does not automatically terminate the proceedings. The Neutral Expert mechanism remains active, and the PCA continues to administer the process. The institution has continued to move forward with technical examination rather than allowing political disagreement to determine whether the mechanism exists at all.
That is significant because dispute-resolution institutions derive their authority from rules that states have previously accepted. If participation could be terminated simply by refusing to appear, the entire purpose of treaty-based dispute resolution would be weakened.
The problem, however, is that procedural continuity is not the same as effective enforcement.
An international institution may be able to say that proceedings continue. It may be able to hear evidence, commission technical studies and issue a decision. But implementation ultimately depends heavily on the willingness of states to recognize and act upon the outcome.
This is where the limits of international organizations become most visible.
Law Can Keep the Process Alive, But It Cannot Manufacture Political Will
The Indus dispute demonstrates a fundamental weakness in the international legal order: there is no global government capable of compelling states to behave like ordinary domestic actors.
International institutions depend on state consent, treaty obligations and political cooperation. They can establish procedures, but enforcement is frequently decentralized and politically constrained.
This does not make international law meaningless. Rather, it means that international law operates within a system where legal authority and political power coexist uneasily.
The Neutral Expert proceedings are an example of this tension. The mechanism can continue examining the technical questions surrounding Ratle and Kishenganga even if one party refuses to participate. The PCA can maintain the institutional record. Experts can assess technical questions. Legal arguments can be preserved.
But none of these functions automatically produces compliance.
The result is an institutional paradox: the stronger the procedural independence of the mechanism, the more obvious its inability to compel political cooperation becomes.
Technical Expertise Has Become the Last Line of Institutional Credibility
One of the most important aspects of the continuing proceedings is their reliance on technical rather than political examination.
The dispute concerns complex questions surrounding hydroelectric projects, including their design and operation. The Neutral Expert mechanism exists precisely because some disagreements under the Treaty require specialized technical assessment rather than political negotiation. The Neutral Expert has previously conducted site visits involving the Kishenganga and Ratle projects and has considered questions concerning his competence under the Treaty.
This technical dimension is important because it provides international institutions with a degree of legitimacy independent of the political relationship between India and Pakistan.
If political dialogue collapses, technical procedures can still preserve a factual record.
But even here, international institutions face a limit. Technical neutrality can establish what the evidence demonstrates; it cannot determine whether governments will accept politically inconvenient conclusions.
The Real Failure Is the Growing Politicization of Legal Institutions
The deeper problem, therefore, is not that international organizations have been incapable of keeping the Indus Waters Treaty process alive. They have demonstrated considerable institutional resilience.
The problem is that the broader international system has struggled to prevent strategic competition from overwhelming institutions designed to manage it.
The Indus Waters Treaty survived wars, military crises and decades of diplomatic hostility because both countries generally recognized that water cooperation had to be insulated from wider conflict. The current trajectory challenges that underlying bargain.
When a treaty mechanism becomes viewed primarily through the lens of national security and strategic rivalry, its legal character becomes increasingly difficult to preserve.
That is a warning that extends beyond South Asia.
International organizations frequently possess procedural authority without corresponding enforcement power. They can convene, investigate, mediate, arbitrate and issue decisions. But when states calculate that political or strategic interests outweigh the reputational and legal costs of non-participation, institutions face a fundamental structural limitation.
What the Indus Dispute Means for the International Order
The continuing Indus proceedings therefore present two competing narratives about international law.
The first is pessimistic. If a state can withdraw from participation while the process continues without its cooperation, the eventual decision may have limited practical effect. This exposes the enforcement gap at the heart of international institutions.
The second is more consequential. The fact that the mechanism continues at all demonstrates that a state cannot necessarily erase an international legal framework simply by refusing to participate. The institutional record survives. Evidence continues to be examined. Legal questions remain formally open. And decisions can still be produced.
That distinction matters.
India may be able to walk away from a particular proceeding, but its withdrawal does not necessarily make the Treaty disappear. Likewise, Pakistan’s continued participation allows it to preserve its legal and technical claims within an internationally recognized framework rather than reducing the dispute entirely to political confrontation.
The lesson is therefore not that international organizations are powerless. It is that their power has boundaries.
They can preserve rules when states attempt to politicize them. They can maintain procedures when cooperation deteriorates. They can ensure that disputes remain documented and legally examined.
What they cannot easily do is manufacture political commitment where governments have decided that strategic interests come first.
The Indus Waters Treaty is consequently becoming a test not only of India-Pakistan water diplomacy but of the credibility of international dispute resolution itself. Its institutions are still functioning. The more difficult question is whether the states that created those institutions will continue to treat their decisions as binding constraints on political action.
If international law is to remain more than a procedural exercise, institutions must ultimately possess enough political and legal authority to ensure that states cannot simply opt out whenever compliance becomes inconvenient. The Indus dispute shows that the machinery of international law can keep moving even when one state leaves the room. But it also exposes the uncomfortable truth that keeping the machinery moving is not the same as making the system work.