On 22nd April 2025, Indo-Pak relations dropped to a historical low when five armed militants targeted the Baisaran Valley in the tourist town of Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in 26 fatalities and 20 more wounded. India immediately blamed Pakistan for supporting cross-border terrorism, while Pakistan denied allegations pointing instead to Indian policies as fuel for resistance movements. Amid the heightening tensions, India announced the unilateral suspension of the Indus Water Treaty 1960, a pivotal water-sharing treaty signed between the two countries which has historically survived deteriorated relations, even war. In a retaliatory move, Pakistan announced the unilateral suspension of the Shimla Agreement 1972, a post-war accord that converted the volatile Ceasefire Line into the Line of Control and committed both nations to resolve their issues peacefully and without third-party involvement.
This reciprocal suspension highlights a disturbing trend where emotionally charged and politically driven decisions are made to satiate the public in absolute disregard for International obligations. This behaviour dismisses the foundational norms of International Law and utilises misinterpretation of International Doctrines, ‘Rebus Sic Stantibus’ in this case, for political goals.
‘Rebus Sic Stantibus’, Latin for ‘things standing thus’ is a doctrine based on the principle that a change in circumstances pursuant to certain conditions be invoked by a party as grounds for terminating the treaty and the same has been enshrined in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Yet this vast power that could change the nature of International Relations was never envisioned by the drafters to be an expansive right but an exceptional occurrence and most certainly never a tool for political leverage. Article 62 defined the ‘change in circumstance’ must pass 5 strict criteria:
- Circumstances existing at the time of the conclusion of the treaty,
- Fundamental,
- Not foreseen by the parties,
- The existence of the circumstances must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty and;
- The effect of the change must be to radically transform the scope of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
A mere perusal of the Article reveals that the article was meant solely for exceptional circumstances requiring narrow interpretation. The International Court of Justice interpreted the doctrine similarly in the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project case where it stated that the negative and conditional wording of Article 62 was said to be a clear indication that the stability of treaty relations required that the plea of fundamental change of circumstances be applied only in exceptional cases.
Rather than challenging India’s illegal suspension and inviting the International Community to condemn India’s illegal interpretation, Pakistan chose to mirror them by suspending the Shimla Agreement and by doing so, forfeited the moral and legal high ground
Despite its narrow legal application, a worrying trend has emerged in South Asia which is the political misuse of ‘Rebus Sic Stantibus’. India has particularly adopted a flexible, interest-driven interpretation of the doctrine, applying it to justify suspensions like that of the Indus Water Treaty, setting a dangerous precedent. This precedent prioritises state interests over established International norms, risking erosion of the sanctity of treaty law. While this is not the first instance of such interpretation globally as seen during Brexit where Attorney General G-Cox proclaimed that “a sovereign state has the right to withdraw if a treaty is no longer compatible with its fundamental interest..”, (Attorney General, G Cox, ‘Legal Opinion on Joint Instrument and Unilateral Declaration concerning the Withdrawal Agreement’) 12 March 2019, and in the context of South Asia this can be extremely dangerous considering the volatility of the region and historical animosity of the two nations.
In recent years we have seen India abuse this flexible interpretation to use the doctrine politically and this move was expected since India has constantly utilised the ‘vested state interest’ theory to justify her illegal actions. Usage of slogans such as ‘terror and water cannot flow together’ clearly reveals a political agenda behind its application of the doctrine to the Indus Water Treaty, which is in contravention of the established interpretation of the doctrine.
While India’s move was expected, given their past pattern, Pakistan’s reciprocal suspension was more concerning from a moral and legal point of view. Rather than challenging India’s illegal suspension and inviting the International Community to condemn India’s illegal interpretation, Pakistan chose to mirror them by suspending the Shimla Agreement and by doing so, forfeited the moral and legal high ground. This reciprocal is problematic on several fronts. The Shimla Agreement not only functions as a conflict-resolution mechanism but also acts as a defacto border treaty. Article 62 (2) (a) limits the applicability of the doctrine of ‘Rebus Sic Stantibus’ on border treaties which could allow India to argue the legitimacy of the suspension. Furthermore, in light of India’s politically flexible approach to International Law, they can argue through suspension, Pakistan has effectively brought the two nations into the pre-Shimla Agreement stage which was effectively the 1971 war. This reactionary move makes little sense especially when there is little benefit for Pakistan.
Both India and Pakistan have demonstrated an increasing willingness to reinterpret or selectively apply international legal norms for political gain. Pakistan has, in recent years, violated customary principles such as non-refoulement as well as implemented a flexible approach to the Anticipatory Strike Doctrine against her neighbours, and India has used domestic policy shifts to sideline international commitments. These developments signal a deeper erosion of respect for international law in the region.
While the world dangerously ignored the worrying deterioration of International Law in the Subcontinent, it is imperative to highlight the dangers of this flexible interpretation. In The Function of the International Community Hersch Lauterpacht observes,
“On those rare occasions on which treaties were broken under colour of the doctrine rebus sic stantibus it was obvious that no question of self-preservation arose unless, indeed, every change in the constellation of power enabling the State to disregard with impunity an onerous obligation be regarded as a material change of conditions implied in the treaty”
The dangers of political implementation of ‘Rebus Sic Stantibus’ where states were not inhibited from determining on a subjective basis whether their vital interests were imperilled, the doctrine posed the risk of abusive assessments on the part of the invoking states which as a consequence could negate the binding character of international treaties and eventually derail the sanctity of International Law. This is not just a regional concern. The same logic underpins actions by global powers like Russia and Israel, who have used similar justifications to disregard international obligations. If left unchecked, South Asia's flexible interpretation of Rebus Sic Stantibus could help normalise a dangerous precedent for treaty law worldwide.
The International Community must no longer treat legal distortions in South Asia as mere extensions of historic or political belligerence. India and Pakistan must be held accountable for politically weaponising International legal doctrines. Without consequences, we risk the emergence of dangerous norms, where International Law becomes malleable, treaty obligations are considered optional and legal doctrines are misinterpreted for state propaganda.
For Pakistan, it is vital to avoid sacrificing long-term legal credibility for short-term populist approval. In a global order that still values the rule of law, a state’s commitment to legal norms remains one of its strongest diplomatic assets. If India is willing to sacrifice that diplomatic asset for domestic applause and political gains, that doesn’t mean Pakistan should follow suit.