Aggregate
Registered Member
I got the details from an acquaintance who has spent 30 years as UN Legal Representatives, it not quite as simple but let me explain:Great post!!
But where is this 1 year info coming from? Because in 'abeyance' for one year would mean automatically cancelled after that?
IWT itself will not expire per se, this treaty under abeyance can be kept under abeyance indefinitely
BUT, UN Watercourses Convention say that upper riparian nation cannot hold up or disrupt the supply of any lower riparian nation for more than 1 crop season (around 1 year) without setting up any mechanisms to ensure legal water supply for lower riparian country.
IF upper riparian country fails to do this then the lower riparian country can take them into international court to force an agreement or they will automatically attain the rights to their water under international law.
Meaning Pakistan will effectively get its rights under UN Watercourses Convention within 1 year and can take India to court to either sign another agreement, or if India does not comply, then Pakistan will automatically get its rights. Now Since India is getting more than it has the right to, so it is in India's best interest to keep IWT as it is and renew it within the year. They cannot keep it in abeyance and knowingly start building dams, knowing that those dams will be illegal. So the whole shouting around about stopping water is nonsense in long term, if that started then every country would have long been starving every other country that they did not like.










