Indus water treaty (1 Viewer)

LETHALFORCE said:

View: https://x.com/OopsGuess/status/1928553889894379531

chinese threats
Click to expand...

Idiot chinese forgot, only 4 of Indian rivers start in Tibet : Brahmaputra & few of it's tributaries, Kashi river, satluj and Indus.
Of these, only 20-25% of massive water volume of Brahmaputra originates in Tibet, only 15-20 % of Kashi river and indus, and pretty much all of satluj.

Most of Indus's waterflow at tarbela dam originates in ladakh-gilgit Baltistan catchment area.shyok itself is significantly bigger than Indus in water volume when it meets Indus and there's plenty of tributaries joining Indus in upper gilgit before it's great Ben's south.

So the idiot chinese can only hurt us on paper with satluj. Not a problem, we can divert Ravi AND chenab into satluj portion of India and solve our problems. GG chinku noob.
We are not Pakistan in water terms to you just coz technically you ARE upper riparian nation due to 0% of our rivers flowing into you and 0.01% of our rivers coming from you.
 

India launches pre-feasibility study to divert Chenab water​

The project proposes to channel 15-20 million acre-feet of water from the Chenab to Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan.
In addition to the Chenab-Ravi-Beas-Sutlej link canal project, India is fast-tracking several new storage and run-of-river projects to support these initiatives. Under the IWT, India was allowed to use up to 20% of the water for non-consumptive purposes, and plans to demand permission to use up to 40% of the water in case of renegotiations, an officer said.
www.newindianexpress.com

India launches pre-feasibility study to divert Chenab water

NEW DELHI: India has launched a pre-feasibility study for the construction of the Chenab-Ravi-Beas-Sutlej link canal project aimed at diverting water from the C
www.newindianexpress.com www.newindianexpress.com
 
From bit of AI research
1749501634687.webp1749501682989.webp
1749501720925.webp

Other water sharing treaties or agreements for comparison
1749502123122.webp
1749502287852.webp
1749502824732.webp
 

Attachments

  • 1749502435575.webp
    1749502435575.webp
    42 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I don't think Pakistan realize how grateful they should have been to India for sticking to such agreement for more than 60 years.

I am curious even if they take this to ICJ, they will have a hard time making a case for such an unequal and unfair treaty to be enforced back in it's original form.
 
snakeeyes07 said:
I don't think Pakistan realize how grateful they should have been to India for sticking to such agreement for more than 60 years.

I am curious even if they take this to ICJ, they will have a hard time making a case for such an unequal and unfair treaty to be enforced back in it's original form.
Click to expand...
ICJ has jurisdiction if both parties consent. If both parties signed the agreement what is
the dispute??

Neither India nor Pakistan are party to the Vienna Convention, its provisions are considered to reflect customary international law. This means that if India were to unilaterally suspend or modify the treaty, it would be required to follow the principles outlined in the Vienna Convention.

A treaty can be suspended due to a fundamental change of circumstances. This means that if there's an unexpected and substantial change in the conditions that existed when the treaty was made, the treaty's operation can be temporarily suspended, or even terminated, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Vienna Convention clause India is invoking​

To underpin its legal case, India has invoked the principle of rebus sic stantibus—a concept under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.


Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
 
Last edited:
In the context of treaty violations, good faith is a crucial principle, deeply rooted in international law and the concept of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). Good faith requires states to be honest and sincere in fulfilling their treaty obligations.
Key aspects of good faith in treaty law and its violation:
  • Honesty and Fairness: Good faith necessitates states to act honestly and fairly in their interactions related to a treaty, taking into account the legitimate expectations of other parties.
  • Preventing Abuse of Rights: The concept also includes the prohibition of abuse of rights, meaning a state cannot exercise its treaty rights in a way that harms the interests of other states or defeats the treaty's purpose.
  • Interpretation: Treaties should be interpreted in good faith, considering the ordinary meaning of the terms, their context, and the treaty's object and purpose.
  • Consequences of Bad Faith: A violation of a treaty committed in bad faith can lead to serious legal consequences, including:
    • Treaty Termination or Suspension: A material breach in bad faith can be a ground for terminating or suspending the treaty.
    • Legal Action: The injured party may initiate legal action to seek remedies like compensatory damages or specific performance.
    • Reputational Damage: States acting in bad faith risk damaging their reputation and future relationships.
Determining Good Faith:
While "good faith" can be somewhat abstract, courts and tribunals consider factors like:
  • Willingness to cooperate and communicate: Open and honest communication demonstrates good faith.
  • Efforts to follow agreements: Respecting treaty obligations is a sign of good faith.
  • Honesty in sharing information: Concealing or misrepresenting relevant information can be viewed as bad faith.
In essence, acting in good faith in the context of treaty relations promotes trust, stability, and cooperation among states. Violations of good faith undermine these crucial elements and can have significant repercussions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top