In response to a terror attack in Pahalgam, India has taken robust diplomatic measures, including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, a critical agreement governing water distribution between India and Pakistan. This action is coupled with Pakistan's announcement to hold all bilateral treaties, including the Simla Agreement, in abeyance as well.

Key Points:

• Retaliation Measures: In retaliation to the terror attack, India suspended the IWT and took further diplomatic actions.

• Pakistan's Response: Pakistan also decided to hold all bilateral agreements with India in abeyance, including the Simla Agreement.

• Importance of IWT:

  • The IWT regulates the sharing of river waters between the two nations.
  • India informs Pakistan that the treaty will be “held in abeyance” with immediate effect.

• Legal Implications of Suspension:

  • According to the IWT, alterations to the treaty must be mutually agreed upon. India's letter to Pakistan invoked Article XII, arguing that changes in circumstances justify a reassessment of obligations.
  • India cited "significantly altered population demographics," the need for clean energy development, and Pakistan's perceived lack of good faith due to ongoing terrorism as reasons for the suspension.

• International Law Context:

  • The terms “hold in abeyance” are not formally recognized in international law.
  • The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) includes provisions for the termination or suspension of treaties but requires a significant proof of “fundamental changes in circumstances.”
  • Previous rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have set high standards for what constitutes a fundamental change.

• IWT Dispute Resolution:

  • The IWT includes a three-tier dispute resolution mechanism: the Permanent Indus Commission, appointing a neutral expert, and potentially escalating the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).
  • India's reluctance to participate in parallel proceedings (like those seen in 2016) suggests a potential standoff if disputes arise in the future.

• Simla Agreement Overview:

  • Signed in 1972 after the India-Pakistan war, primarily deals with bilateral relations and recognition of the Line of Control (LoC).
  • The agreement contains “best endeavor clauses” but lacks legally binding obligations, resulting in Pakistan’s repeated violations.
  • Since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 by India, Pakistan has claimed India is breaching the Simla Agreement, leading to further tension.

• Current State of Treaties:

  • The suspension of both agreements suggests a deepening of hostilities, as Pakistan’s action implies non-recognition of the LoC.
  • The Simla Agreement has effectively been rendered inactive due to historical violations and the current diplomatic climate.

Conclusion:

Both countries have opted to escalate tensions with their latest actions, and significant legal and diplomatic hurdles exist regarding the suspension of the IWT and the implications for the Simla Agreement. The situation underscores the complexities of international relations and the challenges posed by underlying issues such as terrorism and territorial disputes. The mechanisms for dispute resolution are present but may not provide effective solutions without political will from both nations.

U.S. President Donald Trump has initiated a significant shift in the approach to deep-sea mining, aiming to commence operations within U.S. waters as well as internationally. This decision has prompted a strong reaction from China, which claims such actions violate international law.

Key Points:

• U.S. Deep-Sea Mining Initiative: President Trump has directed a rapid start to deep-sea mining to extract valuable mineral resources from the ocean floor, positioning the U.S. as a leader in this emerging field.

• International Law Concerns: The move has drawn criticism from Beijing, which has emphasized that bypassing the International Seabed Authority (ISA) goes against established international regulations designed to manage seabed resources responsibly.

• Financial Motivations: The Trump administration believes this initiative could inject hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy while also diminishing China’s dominance over essential minerals crucial for defense and technology sectors.

• Regulatory Oversight: The U.S. has not ratified the treaties that grant the ISA authority over seabeds in international waters, thereby creating a legal framework that permits the federal government to issue its own seabed mining permits based on a 1980 law.

• Timeline for Implementation: The new directive instructs the Secretary of Commerce to expedite the permit process for mineral exploration and recovery in waters beyond national jurisdiction within 60 days.

• Environmental Concerns: Environmentalists warn that this fast-tracked approach poses significant risks to fragile marine ecosystems. Advocates, like Emily Jeffers of the Center for Biological Diversity, have characterized the effort as an alarming push towards ecological destruction.

• Strategic Goals: The policy is partly intended to strengthen partnerships with allies and counter China’s influence over seabed resources while promoting U.S. interests in the global race for rare earth elements.

• Industry Reaction: Notable companies, such as Impossible Metals, have expressed enthusiasm about the potential for U.S. deep-sea mining, indicating that American firms are eager to start operations, supported by Trumps's order.

• Potential Economic Impact: The U.S. could potentially access more than a billion metric tons of material from the seabed, which could create 100,000 jobs and contribute an estimated $300 billion to the domestic GDP over the next decade.

• Ongoing ISA Developments: The ISA continues to work on developing regulations for deep-sea mining, seeking to balance economic benefits against environmental impacts, underscoring the urgency and complexity of the issue.

This policy represents a decisive move by the Trump administration, advocating for a proactive stance on resource extraction despite the potential ecological repercussions. The unfolding of this initiative will have far-reaching implications for international relations, environmental integrity, and the future of global resource management.

On April 22, 2025, a significant terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, claimed the lives of at least 26 individuals, including 25 Indians and one Nepali citizen, while numerous others were injured. In response to this attack, which Indian authorities described as having "cross-border linkages," India implemented a series of diplomatic and policy changes aimed at Pakistan. Following a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India announced several measures to signal its discontent and to take stringent actions against Pakistan.

Key highlights from the summary include:

• Immediate Measures: India is putting the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty on hold until Pakistan ceases its support for cross-border terrorism.

• Travel Restrictions: The Integrated Check Post at Attari will be closed, impacting cross-border traffic. Additionally, Pakistani nationals are barred from traveling to India under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES), and any previously issued visas under this scheme are now canceled.

• Diplomatic Expulsions: Several military and defense officials from the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi have been declared Persona Non Grata, requiring them to vacate India within a week. India will also withdraw its military advisors from Islamabad.

• Reduction of Diplomatic Staff: India plans to decrease the staff at both the Indian High Commission in Pakistan and the Pakistani High Commission in India to a total of 30 diplomats each, down from 55.

• Commitment to Justice: The CCS has stressed that it will pursue accountability for the perpetrators of the attack and their sponsors. This is in line with India's recent efforts to extradite individuals involved in terrorism.

• Condemnation and Solidarity: India received strong support from various governments worldwide condemning the attack, which was characterized as a serious blow to the efforts for stability and development in Kashmir post-elections.

• Heightened Vigilance: The CCS has instructed security forces to maintain a high level of alertness in light of the new security dynamics following the attack.

These actions represent a significant escalation in India's diplomatic posture toward Pakistan, reflecting the seriousness with which the Indian government views the recent attack amid growing concerns over terrorism in the region. The Indian administration's swift action underscores their commitment to national security and the urgency attributed to addressing cross-border terrorism.

This response marks one of the most severe diplomatic actions taken by India against Pakistan since the attacks in Mumbai in 2008, signaling a shift in relations amidst ongoing tensions between the two countries.