Pakistan will approach the UN and the International Court of Justice if India suspends the 56-year-old Indus Waters Treaty, the country's top diplomat Sartaj Aziz said today, insisting the revocation of the treaty can be taken as an "act of war".
"The international law states that India cannot unilaterally separate itself from the treaty," Aziz, Advisor to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Foreign Affairs, said while briefing the National Assembly on the issue.
He said unilateral revocation of the treaty can pose a threat to Pakistan and its economy. He said that if India violates the treaty Pakistan can approach the International Court of Justice.
"This Indian act can be taken as breach of international peace and hence giving Pakistan a good reason to approach the UN Security Council," Aziz said.
He said Pakistan is considering to draw attention of the international community on the dangers of such an action if it is considered seriously.
"Between the two countries, this act of revocation can be taken as an act of war," he said.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi yesterday chaired a review meeting of 56-year-old Indus Water Treaty during which it was decided that India will "exploit to the maximum" the water of Pakistan-controlled rivers, including Jhelum, as per the water sharing pact.
The meeting came as India weighed its options to hit back at Pakistan in the aftermath of the Uri attack that left 18 soldiers dead, triggering demands that the government scrap the water distribution pact to mount pressure on that country.
Under the treaty, which was signed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan President Ayub Khan in September 1960, water of six rivers - Beas, Ravi, Sutlej, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum - were to be shared between the two countries.
Pakistan has been complaining about not receiving enough water and gone for international arbitration in a couple of cases.
(Reopens FGN 27)
Commenting on the development over the treaty, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a former federal law minister, President Research Society of International Law and an advocate in the Supreme Court on the issue India has no legal competence under the treaty to revoke it per se on its own as Article 12(4) of the treaty entitles the termination of the treaty only if both India and Pakistan agree in writing.
He said there is an arbitration clause in the IWT that can be set in motion if India go to that extreme.
"India cannot itself conclude that Pakistan has breached the treaty on any grounds, including mistrust. In case India 'revokes' the treaty, it literally means it has shunned it," he said.
"The dispute resolution mechanism under article IX and Annexes F and G of the IWT will be of no use and assistance to Pakistan. It is limited to a dispute under the treaty and not meant to provide for specific performance of the treaty itself.
"Since there is no provision in the IWT about its duration or suspension, there is no avenue that Pakistan can approach for 'revival' of the treaty. Nor can Pakistan approach the International Court of Justice seeking specific performance to implement the treaty because of the Indian reservation given under IC J statute that bars filing of case by Pakistan against India.
"In other words, Pakistan will not be left with any peaceful mechanism for seeking performance of the treaty by India," he said.
Soofi said in case India tries to interrupt water flow into Pakistan as an upper riparian, it is setting up a regional state practice which under international law can serve as a precedence and equip China with an argument to consider suspension of the waters of Brahmaputra river.
"India may have already damaged itself by even considering the suspension of water flow as an upper riparian and the Chinese government must be watching Indian moves with interest," he said.
