TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIROMENTAL DISPUTES: CASE STUDY OF INDIAN BORDERS

 

[i]Transboundary Environmental Disputes and the role International Arbitration

-Ananya Singh


 

ABSTRACT: Transboundary environmental disputes are the disputes which arises when conflicts about usage of resources, pollution or ecological damage which occur cross countries or affects multiple countries at once leading to environmental damage or harmful repercussions for long haul. The basic roots of all these conflicts shared resources like rivers, lakes, or air, where one country’s actions such as pushing the levels of water below DSL (Dead storage level) river, emitting pollutants, or overexploiting ecological system or causing harm to aquatic life. One of the landmark cases that laid foundation of the arbitration during the transboundary disputes was the Train Smelter case where fumes damaged the crops. In this paper, we are going to examine two major conflicts of South Asia Kishenganga Arbitration case (2013) which was the arbitration case between India and Pakistan was resolved Permanent Case Arbitration (PCA) under Indus Water Treaty (IWT) (1960). The other case that will briefly be examined will be the ongoing conflict in Siachen Glacier which for the resolution the conflict which proposed to be resolved by the Siachen Peace Park. Offen international arbitration has emerged. As a mechanism which is preferably used. By the parties or the states Which are affected It is a resolution mechanism. Which is used for resolving the disputes OR conflicts due to its neutrality, and possibility and structured legal framework. International arbitration will help in Enhancing the scientific input. Promoting regional corporation and strengthening compliance mechanisms.    

Introduction: Transboundary environmental disputes arise when human activities such as deforestation industrialisation or the overdue usage of the resources and infrastructure development updates of the exploitation of the environment takes place either of the parties or the states which leads to ecological consequences or the eventual harm. One of the leading disputes in environment will be water sharing conflicts, pollution, climate induced environmental changes These disputes will be discussed by one of the most two leading conflicts between the nation's will be Kishenganga arbitration 2013 And Siachen Glacier which has been proposed to resolve under Siachen Peace Park. As we further discuss in examine Kishenganga arbitration Which is one of the most leading and successful example of permanent Court of Arbitration PCA resolved a technical dispute between India and Pakistan where in India’s hydroelectric project KHEP integrating environmental considerations End to Indus water treaty 1960 framework. Indus water treaty which was signed on September 19  1960 allocate the eastern river (Sutlej,Beas,Ravi) To India and the western rivers (Indus Jhelum Chenab) to Pakistan while allowing India the limited uses of the western rivers for purpose like hydroelectric power subject to conditions protecting Pakistan downstream interest that dispute between India and Pakistan arose when India was on the verge of constructing Kishenganga hydroelectric project 3300 mega water run of the river Dam on the Kishenganga river called as Neelum river in Pakistan, which is a tributary of Jhelum River in India administered Jammu and Kashmir (Kemakar, 2006). And India was also obliged to maintain the minimum water level or dead storage level DSL to mitigate the ecological harm. Dart tribunal also determined that India should not drop below the dead storage level which is below 9 cubic metres per second will stop both the parties saw this decision as a win of the arguments. (Kemakar, 2006)As we further examine Siachen Glacier conflict characterised by military occupation and ecological damage, the challenges of applying the arbitration to territorial disputes lacking a clear legal basis or political consensus.  The other transboundary dispute which is Siachen Glacier peace park is an innovative solution, analysing legal framework, environmental dispute which is ongoing and helps in the diplomatic dimensions of the decisions to assess the arbitration strength and limitation and this study aims to provide an insight on the application of arbitration which helps in contributing peace building and sustainability of the ecosystem in South Asia predominantly.

 

Disputes

Kishenganga Arbitration Case (2013)

·       On 19 February 2013, permanent Court of Arbitration administered Court of Arbitration issued a partial award under dispute between Pakistan and India regarding the use of water Kishenganga / Neelum a tributary of Indus system of rivers.

·       The awards contribution is there for mixed despite its complete regard for the principal equality of right it has contributed to clarifying the criteria for existing users of water course and reaffirmed both the substantive obligation to refrain from transboundary harm and procedural duty to carry out for an environmental impact assessment.

·       [1]The Kishenganga hydroelectric project is an Indian project which was located on a tributary of Jhelum which is one of the western reports. This tributary is also known as Kishenganga in India and the Neelum in Pakistan. The KHEP was originally designed as a storage plant then reconfigured to constitute as a run of a river plant. Although there is a no definite definition for the run of river plant it is assumed as the type of plant which utilises the rivers flow rather than storing water to generate hydropower. The KHEP was planned to be operated by diverting the river flow through a system of tunnels from Kishenganga Neelum to the Bonar Nallah, which is another tributary of Jhelum. Then the water flows back into the Jhelum through Wular Lake.

·       Kishenganga Hydro-electric Project (KHEP):  The run-of river plant was constructed by India to harness river’s hydroelectricity potential and to make the full-fledged usage by the country 'citizen which can also be the indirectly supportive of the India development.

 

The project includes a dam which is 37-meter-tall concrete-face and a 23-kilometer-long tunnel. With an installed capacity of 330 MW, it generates approximately 1,713 million kWh annually and fulfil its ability to able to utilize its potential. The construction of KHEP began in 2007 which has run-of-river

design which also means that by using the natural flow and elevation drop of Kishenganga River to generate the electricity without requiring a large reservoir. Head Race Tunnels (HRT) A 23-kilometre-long tunnel diverts from Kishenganga River to the power station. The tunnel has been designed to minimize the water loss and maintaining the efficiency of flow. Pelton turbines: This project use Pelton type turbines each with the capacity of 110 MW. These turbines were ideal for high-head, low-flow conditions, The turbines were supplied by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), a leading manufacturer in India. Concrete Faced Cut-off Wall Dam (CFRD): This was designed durability and efficiency which consist of Plastic, Concrete Cut-off-wall, Rock slope stabilization, Face Slab Joint. Plastic Concrete Cut-off wall: This deep wall prevents seepage and ensures the dam’s stability. It was constructed using borehole drilling and blasting methods. Rock Slope Stabilization: Advanced techniques were used to stabilize the rock slopes, ensuring safety in mountainous terrain. Face Slab Joints: Special attention was given to the design of face slab joints enhance the dam’s structural integrity. Run of River Plant are governed by Indus water treaty under: Article 2(d) outlines the rights and obligations of both nations regarding the use of waters of Indus system and specifies the allocation of water from the Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) to India and the Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) to Pakistan, with certain exceptions for non-consumptive uses by India. And Annexure (D):( The annexure provides the detailed guideline for the construction of hydroelectric project of Western Rivers. It includes technical specification, permissible uses, and dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure compliance with the treaty.)

 

·       Raised concerns of Pakistan:[2]When in request of arbitration Parties had failed to resolve concerning Kishenganga Hydro- Electric Project (the KHEP) by agreement pursuant to Article IX(4) of the Treaty(it outlines that the dispute resolution mechanism between India and Pakistan that is specified by Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) feels to resolve or disagreement a matter can be escalated to neutral export or code of arbitration depending on the nature of dispute this ensures structured and the cooperative approach to address the conflict that is related to treaty). Pakistan defined two questions:

1.       Whether India’s proposed diversions of the river Kishenganga (Neelum) into another Tributary i.e. Bonar-Madmati Nallah bring central element of Kishenganga Project, breaches India’s legal obligations owed to Pakistan. Under the treaty as interpreted and applied in accordance with international Law, including India’s obligations under Article III (2) let the water flow all the water of Western Rives and not permit any interference with those waters) and Article IV (6) maintenance of Water channels?

2.     Whether under the Treaty, India may deplete or bring the reservoir level of run-of river Plant below Dead Storage Level (DSL) in any circumstances except the unforeseen emergency?

1.     Vienna Congress of Law Treaties: [3] This plays an incredibly significant role in the interpretation of the Indus Water Treaty Provisions especially during disputes like the Kishenganga Arbitration which took place in 2013 highlights one of the two most important articles that are [4]Article 31 and [5]Article 32. Article 31 discuss about the General rule of Interpretation which emphasize on interpreting the treaties in good faith with the consideration of ordinary meaning of the treaty’s terms and the context of treaties with the text, preamble and annexures. Lastly the object and purpose of the treaty. Here it is with the reference of Annexure (D) and the interpreted term run-of river Plant. Article 32 (Supplementary Means of Interpretation) This article allows to recourse the preparatory work and the circumstances of a treaty’s conclusion to resolve all the ambiguities or conform the interpretations. During the arbitrations, the tribunal Indus water Treaty’s negotiating history to address disputes over terms like “existing uses” and “necessity”.

2.      Prior Use vs Equitable Utilisation:

·       Prior Use: the principle of prior use guarantees the priority to states pre-existing and the operational uses or shared resources this principle is rooted in international water law and aims to protect historical investments and the dependencies with the reference of Kishenganga hydroelectric project that was planned in India. With reference to taking India's argument India has already initiated the plans and construction for before Pakistan's project which was Neelam Jhelum became operational. India claimed that it was the early commitment to the project and give it a strong claim to the water under the prior use principle and with this it was concluded with Pakistan's counter argument that although they are project Neelam Jhelum Hydro-electric Project was developed later but it relied on natural and uninterrupted flow unlike Kishenganga hydroelectric project. Pakistan based the argument on the principle of equitable utilization which emphasised on the fair allocation of water rather than historical precedence. One of the key implications for the prior use rights war that there should be no harm rule which prevents the action that cause significant harm to other riparian states and the need for sustainable development integrating environmental protections into prior use claims.

·       Equitable Utilization: the principle of equitable utilization is considered as one of the cornerstone of international water law and it also plays a very significant role in resolving the disputes over the share boundaries all cross borders and with reference to Kishenganga Hydro-electric Project and the Indus water treaty 1960 equitable utilization primarily aims to ensure that all the bordering states are shared water courses have access to and can benefit from the water in a fair and a reasonable manner. it also does not necessarily emphasise on the equal division bat considers factors like historical usage, economical dependency, environmental impact and the needs of both the parties. with respect to Kishanganga arbitration Pakistan who centres their argument around this principle claims that India's diversion was very disproportionate affecting the Pakistan's downstream which was Neelam Jhelum hydroelectric project and their agricultural needs. the tribunal did not excessively rely on the principle of equitable utilization but indirectly addressed it through its interpretation of Indus water treaty and balanced India's right to divert water for hydropower Against Pakistan's downstream meets by imposing a minimum environmental flow of 9 cubic metre per second and this step ensured ecological protection and level of fairness in water sharing.

 

·       The role of Permanent Court of Arbitration:

1)     Answers of India to Pakistan’s Concern:

[6]Having found that it is necessary to lay down interim measures “to avoid prejudice solution....... of the dispute” As provided under paragraph 28 of Annexure (G) to the Indus water treaty the court unanimously rules that:

1.     For the duration of proceedings up until the rendering of the Award:

1)     It is open to India to continue with all works relating to the Kishanganga hydroelectric project, except for the works specified in 3 below.

2)     India may utilise the temporary diversion tunnel it is set to have completed at Gurez site, and may construct and complete temporary coffer dams to permit the operation of temporary diversion tunnels search tunnel being provisionally determined to constitute a” temporary bypass” Within the meaning of article one bracket 15 b as it relates to Article 3(2) of the treaty:

3)     Except for the subsurface foundation of the dam stated in photograph V iv above India shall not proceed with the construction of any permanent works on or above Kishanganga\ Neelam River at the that me inhibit the restoration of full flow of the river to its natural channel;

2) Pakistan and India shall arrange for periodic joint inspection of the dam site right at Gurez to monitor the implementation of sub paragraph 1 (c) above. The Parties also submit by no later than December 19th, 2011, at joint report setting forth the areas of agreement at any point of disagreement that may arise between the parties concerning the implementation of the order.

 

153. The court chat remain actively seized of this matter, may revise order or issue further add time in the light of circumstances the obtaining.

 

2.) Order of Interim Measures:

The order on interim measures in the Indus water Kishanganga arbitration was issued on September 23, 2011, was as a part of the arbitration proceedings between India and Pakistan under the Indus water treaty 1960. This order addressed Pakistan's concern regarding India's construction of Kishenganga hydroelectric project and its potential impact on the Pakistan's downstream what are usage and impact on projects of Pakistan like Neelam Jhelum hydroelectric project. one of the key highlights of this order was to put temporary halt   the construction and prevent the restoration of status quo ante[7] of certain elements of Kishanganga hydroelectric project that would prevent the restoration of the star reversed now and it was intended to avoid prejudicing the final resolution of the dispute or making remedies disproportionately costly. The tribunal also ensured the joint inspection of the dam site to ensure the compliance with its order. The tribunal relied on paragraph 28 Annexure (G) which outlines the provisions for requesting interim measures during disputes allows either party to seek such measures firstly to safeguard the entrance by protecting rights and interest under the deity, to avoid prejudice by preventing actions that would compromise the final resolution of the disputes and lastly prevent aggravation ensuring that dispute does not escalate further. this kind of love also specifies that will be no decision on interim measures should not be interpreted as indication of its view on merits of dispute. to ensure neutrality and fairness during arbitration proceeding. It also considered the principles of international law such as possibility of Pakistan's case and the need to avoid irreparable harm. The tribunal emphasis that its decision on interim measures did not reflect its view on the merits of the caves and allowed India which non-permanent aspects of the project such as the construction of powerhouse and bypass channel but at India's own risk.

            3)  Issuing Awards:

·       The Permanent Court of Arbitration played a pivotal role in the Kishanganga arbitration between India and Pakistan which revolved around the interpretation of Indus water treaty 1960 and disputes concerning the Kishanganga hydroelectric project. The first partial award which was given in February 20 13 in this the tribunal ruled that India was permitted to divert water from Kishanganga can use for power generation under Indus Water Treaty however the right was not absolute. The award-imposed conditions like India must maintain dead storage level DSL Township to mitigate ecological harm. The tribunal rejected Pakistan's claim that Kishan Ganga hydroelectric project violated the treaties provision on in the tributary transfer finding that such transfers were permissible under Annexure (D) of Indus water treaty 1960. Final award which was issued December 2013 states that the tribunal determine the minimum flow or that dead storage level to maintain the downstream of Kishanganga hydroelectric project at 9 cubic metres per second Diplo was intended to balance India's hydropower generation meets with Pakistan's downstream ecological and hydropower concerns. it also furthers the flow to be considered after every 7 years, allowing for the adjustments based on new data or the further changing circumstances or unforeseen circumstances.

·       The Composition of Tribunal: the composition of the tribunal constitutes of agent's council and the representatives the council members were eminent jurist and the advocates of respective countries. then the representative from Pakistan was Mr Amir Shaukat[8] and Mr Faris Qazi and the representatives India was HE Rajesh Nandan Prasad and Mr Darpan Talwar. there were several representatives work considered from the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. the export witnesses from the respective countries were present in this the engineer's scientist and the project manager were present. Lastly technical experts from Pakistan and India were also present. the composition of the tribunal reflected upon the technical and legal complexity of the dispute between two countries.

·       Significance: the Kishanganga arbitration case further contributed to reinforcing the global principles like precautionary measures, sustainability and the prevention of significant harm and the possible mitigation of ecological harm. The ruling emphasised on the necessity for the upstream state to ensure that their interest structure may not harm the downstream states and their ecosystem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIACHEN CONFLICT AND PEACE PARK:

·       The Siachen Glacier which is in the Karakoram Range which is a unique case when it comes to environmental disputes and glacial melting. Many Himalayan glaciers a retreating rapidly due to the climate change, the Siachen Glacier is melting at a terribly slow rate, and this phenomenon has been attributed as Karakoram anomaly, it is a localised climatic condition that helps in stabilising certain glacier in the Karakoram region despite surge of the global warming. However, military activities on the glacier have also resulted in the search of pollution a localised global warming which has accelerated the melting in the specific areas.

·       The long-standing territorial dispute between India and Pakistan which is centred at Siachen Glacier also known as Siachen Glacier conflict. [9]The dispute stems from 1949 Karachi agreement and the 1972 Simla agreement which left the territory beyond the map with the undefined coordinates of NJ 9842. In, 1984 Indian launched operation Meghdoot pre-empting Pakistan plan to occupy glacier Indian forces successfully took control of the glacier and surrounding Saltoro Ridge marking the beginning of the conflict. The glacier is located in near China- Pakistan border making it a critical buffer zone for India and control over the glacier provide static advantages including surveillance of nearby regions.

·       Operation Meghdoot was launched on April 13th which was strategic operation by India to secure Siachen Glacier, which is one of the world's highest battlefields.[10] Due to its significant geopolitical move the operation and their subsequent military presence had a profound and deep impact on environment of Siachen Glacier. Firstly, Due to continuous military presence and inclusion of heavy machinery and the construction of camps which also led to fuel combustion has accelerated the melting of glacier due to the release of the carbon compounds in the air. significant release of carbon compounds can be seen when the black carbon deposits from the military activities reduces glaciers 'albedo. In terms of pollution, non-biodegradable waste like plastics metals and chemicals were left behind the troops for contaminating the data and downstream water and fuel spills see deep into the eyes affecting the quality of water in the rivers fed by the glacier. Due to the lasting harsh conditions which was induced by military activities there was a significant disruption in the habitat of local flora and fauna which was seen as the potential ecological threat. The geographical positioning of Siachen Glacier makes it out as a critical source of the fresh water for the Indus River basin which allows millions of people in India and Pakistan sees it as a water resource and due to the accelerated melting, it has further threatened the long-term availability of the freshwater to the citizens.

Humanitarian Issues: One of the major challenges being in Siachen Glacier was the temperature which drops below 50 degrees Celsius with frequent blizzards and avalanches this high altitude causes hypoxia leading to altitude sickness and other health complications. there were many casualties due to the conflict between India and Pakistan but due to the natural hazards like frostbite, avalanches, and pulmonary Edema many soldiers lost their lives. Psychological impact like isolation and stress played a key role for impacting the soldiers living there and faced how many mental health challenges like depression and anxiety. Eminent sociologist Emile Durkheim described man a social animal who tends to function with the better social position. Since this was lacking the ability, many were impacted negatively and irrevocably. another dimension all this humanitarian issue was economic burden for both the countries since Siachen was at the extreme altitude for maintaining the military presence it was quite difficult to manage the expense of logistics transportation and the military machinery. The militarization of the region has limited access for the local communities, affecting their livelihoods and traditional practices and functioning of them for day-to-day life. Due to the military activities on Siachen Glacier have indeed severely impacted the fragile ecosystem, it has been posing threats to endangered species like snow leopard and Himalayan ibex. the presence of soldier and machinery has caused disturbance pollution has disrupted the natural balance of the area. Animals such as snow leopards are described as illusive creditors who rely on undistributed terrain for hunting and shelter. the inducing of pollutants in the environment and the disruption of habitat has threatened the prey base and survival and Himalayan ibex add mountain goats that inhabit rocky slopes and rely on natural vegetation which has been compromised due to high military activities and the which is produced from the continuous presence and the degradation of environment. The crucial point is that why conservation matters and why the highlight of Humanitarian issues in Siachen Glacier because it is just not the geopolitical flashpoint, but it is also a critical ecological zone, and ecology also forms a certain relationship with the locals and people living there. There is an elevated risk of escalation and continuance of military presence if the risk of inadvertent conflicts, which would further escalate into larger confrontations, given back the region is located and is the highest battlefield which leads to its strategic importance and is the highly proximity with nuclear armed states. Further, since it is near China Pakistan border and both the nation's is unwilling to avoid conflict then there is a formation of perception of the glacier as a critical perpetuates zone which perpetuates the stalemate as neither side is willing to compromise.

·       The situation at Siachen serves as a stark reminder of the need for peaceful resolution in territorial disputes which is further discussed in this paper. The initiative is necessary to mitigate ecological harm and resolve the humanitarian issues. one of the major resolutions for this conflict was Siachen Peace Park initiative which emphasised on demilitarization, Environmental Conservation and posting cooperation between India and Pakistan. By achieving these goals demand mutual trust and willingness to prioritise environmental and humanitarian consideration over strategic rivalry.

SIACHEN PEACE PARK:

·       The concept was the proposed initiative aimed at resolving the long Sunday conflict between India and Pakistan over the Siachen Glacier. the idea behind this peace park was to firstly demilitarise the region and then transform it into a protected area for the environmental conservation and scientific research. 3rd though to emphasise on the mutual trust and cooperation between 2 nation prioritising ecological and humanitarian considerations over strategic military rivalry. The peace spark was symbol of peas and collaboration, fostering regional stability and preserving fragile ecosystem of the glacier. further we will discover collaborative management based on IUCN and UNESCO based on World Heritage listing.

·       Demilitarisation of Siachen: April 25, 2005, mark saw diplomatic dialogue exchange between Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the existing issues or territories of Kashmir which resulted in the search of cooperation between India and Pakistan which are well positioned to consider demilitarization of Siachen. what the further demilitarization there was a there was three step approach for this. In first step it was induce that both the countries should discontinue the warfare that was happening in Siachen and recede from the public mind for a period of 2 to 3 years. for the security the countries should resolve to the technical means of monitoring and surveillance of Siachen after the reduction in force. Secondly it would provide a means of militaries and both the sides to work together for constructive purposes and by building camaraderie friendship and mutual confidence. [11]Asad Hakeem, former Pakistani military official warned that employing soldiers as Rangers might be difficult because two sides might be varied of trusting one and other. the retired Brigadier proposed enlighten of this concern with more knowledge about Siachen. specifically former military personnel could lead about national committee of Rangers whose work could be supplemented with corporative aerial monitoring and activities. The third point talks about the transboundary management approach from the side of farmers and the visitors of both the countries. One of the significant issues that was highlighted in the failure of Siachen piece park was and that trust deficit between both the nations and India expressed their concerns about Pakistan's reliability in adhering the stated agreement.

·       Failure of Siachen Peace Park:

·       Military Priorities: the ongoing conflict between the nations affected the strategic significance of the glacier have overshadowed environmental and humanitarian considerations. This led to continuance of military establishment and Siachen the degradation of environment and endangered species like Himalayan ibex and snow leopard.

·       Environmental Impact: The militarization of the region led to the acceleration of the global warming by the continuous usage of military machinery and equipment. there were the sorting casings of black carbon deposits which seep deep into the ice and led to the contribution of global warming.

·       Humanitarian Issues: The harsh conditions temperature like -50 degree Celsius which is proving hard for sustaining human life and maintaining ecological foreground. the harsh conditions resulted in many casualties of both the nation soldier due to the natural hazard and the conflicts.

Collaborative management based on IUCN and UNESCO:[12] IUCN promotes shared management responsibilities among the governments, local communities NGOs and other stakeholders who are involved and this is to ensure that that diverse perspective is there and involved in equitable decision making. this collaborative management izzat rights-based approach which integrates governance principle that respects the right of indigenous and local communities, fostering trust and corporation Tailored strategies which is adaptive to specific ecological cultural and socio-economic context of the area like Siachen. UNESCO acted as a neutral facilitator between two countries through encourage the exchange of dialogue between them managing transboundary World Heritage sites could establish a relationship for the joint management of Siachen region. Designating Siachen Glacier as a biosphere reserve or World Heritage site emphasised the ecological and cultural significance of the region encouraging both nations to prioritise the conservation over the conflict. UNESCO provides training and resources to the local communities and the stakeholders the training includes the workshops on sustainable practices, environmental monitoring and the importance of preserving the fragile ecosystem. it also facilitated the collaborative in research initiatives to study the impacts of climate change and the militarization of Siachen. this data quiet be helpful in making and the formulation of policies and promote evidence-based decision making. Prince Siachen is declared as critical ecological zone this could attract a major international support for funding for conservation efforts and plays a pivotal role from transforming the Siachen Glacier from a buffer conflict zone into was symbol of peace and corporation.

 

Conclusion:

This document has studied over two different transboundary disputes and the role of international arbitration like permanent Court of Arbitration or the collaborative management with IUCN and UNESCO. The study further elaborates on the role of government and the humanitarian aspect which is one of the dimensions in transboundary environmental disputes. The commonality between both the disputes were to resolve the conflict and the promotion of peace and corporation. Transboundary environmental disputes are expected to rise due to climate change, resource competition, and industrial growth. Arbitration provides a
valuable legal mechanism. Because many of principles of law of water courses an international environmental law are vague and indeterminate, the only way they can be concrete is through elaboration of buy international court and tribunals. The Kishanganga decision also reinforced some important international environmental law principles, search as duty of due diligence prevention and continuous environmental impact assessment and confirmed the customary international law status of obligation to avoid transboundary harm. The failure of Siachen Peace Park was the introspection upon the fact that the military Powerses supersedes the ecological and humanitarian aspect. The Siachen Glacier dispute highlights the potential for alternative resolution methods, such as the peace park initiative, to integrate environmental protection with conflict

resolution. To effectively manage shared environmental resources, future arbitration should incorporate scientific expertise, foster regional collaboration, and enhance legal enforcement. This approach will help ensure sustainability.

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Jasmine Moussa, Implication Of the Indus Water Kishenganga Arbitration for the International Law Of Watercourses and the Environment  (2006)

[2] Permanent Court of Arbitration,In the matter of the Indus Water Kishenganga  Arbitration The islamic Republic of Pakistan and The Republic Of India,20 December 2013

[3] Jasmine Moussa, Implication of the Indus Water Kishenganga Arbitration for the International Law Of Watercourses and the Environment (2006)

[4] Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties

[5] Ibid

[6] Permanent Court of Arbitration, In the matter of the Indus Water Kishenganga Arbitration the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and The Republic Of India,20 December 2013

[7] For detailed analysis Andreva, Brunetti and Lemenez.

[8] Permanent Court of Arbitration, In the matter of the Indus Water Kishenganga Arbitration. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and The Republic of India,20 December 2013

 

[9] Neal A. Kemkar, Environmental Peace-making ending conflict between India and Pakistan On the Siachen Glacier Through the creation of Transboundary Peace Park,(2005)

[10] Neal A. Kemkar, Environmental Peace-making ending conflict between India and Pakistan On the Siachen Glacier Through the creation of Transboundary Peace Park, (2005)

[11] Interview with Retired Pakistani Brigadier Asad Hakeem, Visiting Research Scholar at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque N.M(15 July 2005)

[12] Neal A. Kemkar, Environmental Peace-making ending conflict between India and Pakistan On the Siachen Glacier Through the creation of Transboundary Peace Park,(2005)

 



[i]

Comments