Winning the Indus lawfare

FEW agreements in the belligerent India-Pakistan relations have demonstrated the resilience of the Indus Waters Treaty. Wars have been fought, but despite all this, through every crisis, the IWT endured. Why? Because this endurance reflects a reality that neither India nor Pakistan can escape. Rivers continue to flow regardless of political tensions. In the modern space, the dispu­­te has acquired a fast-paced lawfare dimension.

The term ‘lawfare’ is often used casually. But every legal disagreement is not lawfare, and neither is every international court case. In sum, lawfare involves the strategic use of legal arguments/ narratives in pursuit of political objectives. In today’s international environment, legal contests unfold simultaneously in diplomatic circles, think tanks, professional networks, even media platforms. The battle is not simply about who possesses the stronger legal argument. It is equally about who succeeds in shaping the broader perception surrounding its legal position.

Having worked on international legal disputes over the past two decades, I have learned that legal merit and influence are not the same thing. The strongest legal argument in the courtroom does not automatically become the dominant argument internationally. By the time a tribunal reaches a decision, journalists may have framed the dispute in a particular way and policymakers may already have formed opinions. Those impressions can become remarkably difficult to reverse.

Recent international experience illustrates this point. The South China Sea arbitration demonstrated how legal arguments can shape global discourse. Similar dynamics can be observed in proceedings before the International Court of Jus­­tice involving the genocide case against Israel. In such cases, legal proceedings unfold alongside pa­­rallel efforts to influence international opinion. The courtroom is no longer the only arena that matters. There is now more to it than meets the eye.

At the heart of the present India-Pakistan controversy lies one of the most fundamental principles of international law: pacta sunt servanda. This principle dictates that agreements must be honoured in good faith. Much of the international legal order depends upon it. States do not negotiate treaties because they expect harmony. Treaties are designed to survive animosity. A legal commitment that remains meaningful only during periods of friendship can end up being a recipe for disaster.

For that reason, the implications of the current dispute extend beyond the Indus Basin itself. A broader issue is what happens when confidence in long-standing international commitments begins to weaken. What message is sent when treaty obligations appear vulnerable to shifting circumstances such as the ones invoked by India? These are questions that resonate far and beyond. Countries across the world have a stake in preserving confidence in agreements because uncertainty in one area of international cooperation can give rise to dangerous precedents.

Effective lawfare requires coordination among international lawyers, academics, communication specialists and technical experts.

Pakistan therefore faces a gargantuan challenge that is partly legal and partly strategic. The legal dimension is straightforward because Pakistan possesses substantial arguments grounded in treaty law. The more difficult challenge is ensuring that those arguments are consistently taken seriously beyond diplomatic channels. Frankly, I do not believe periodic public statements are sufficient anymore. For many years, Pakistan’s response to international disputes has often followed a familiar cycle. A controversy emerges, official statements are issued and public attention intensifies. And then the issue fizzles out until the next dispute arises.

That is why I firmly believe Pakistan should seriously consider establishing a permanent institutional mechanism, whether such a body is cal­le­­­d a ‘National Lawfare Commission’ or something else. But that is less important than the role it performs. Effective lawfare requires coordination am­­­ong international lawyers, academics, com­m­u­nication specialists and technical experts. A compelling legal argument cannot achieve its full po­­tential if it remains disconnected from public en­­g­­agement. And, much to its chagrin, this is the hard lesson Pakistan has repeatedly failed to learn.

International outreach, firmly grounded in lawfare, deserves particular attention. One of Pakistan’s recurring weaknesses has been the assumption that legal positions, once articulated, will somehow speak for themselves. They don’t — ever. The battle for credibility increasingly takes place in policy journals, research institutes and international conferences where future decision-makers develop their understanding of international affairs. Ideas travel faster than diplomacy. Pakistan should, therefore, invest heavily in highlighting the broader principles of international law that underpin its robust legal position.

Lawfare is not to be conflated with propaganda. Credibility remains the foundation of effective legal advocacy. International audiences are rarely persuaded by slogans. They respond positively to evidence. Any successful lawfare strategy by Pakistan must therefore be grounded in rigorous analysis capable of withstanding scrutiny rather than merely generating headlines.

There is also a human dimension that deserves greater emphasis. Lawyers have a natural tendency to focus on treaty provisions. Yet, ordinary citizens experience these issues differently. Farmers think about harvests and communities think about economic security. The Indus Basin supports millions of people whose daily lives depend upon the continued availability of water. Any effective legal strategy by Pakistan should connect legal principles with these lived realities. International law ultimately exists to serve people, not merely to file and prepare documents.

Pakistan is not approaching this dispute from a position of weakness. Far from it. Hand on heart, I believe Pakistan’s legal position deserves serious consideration. The real question is whether Pakistan is prepared for the long game that modern international disputes increasingly require. Lawfare has become a permanent feature of international competition. Countries that understand this aspect can shape debates long before judgements are delivered. The future of the Indus dispute will depend not only on what the law says, but also on who succeeds in defending it and embedding it within the broader international conversation. That contest is already underway, and Pakistan needs to get ready for the long haul of international lawfare before it is too late.

The writer is an international law practitioner and a graduate of Harvard Law School.

veritas@post.harvard.edu

Published in Dawn, June 20th, 2026