Published On: 5th December 2025
Authored By: Muhammad Shahzad Latif & Atia irfan
BZU Multan
Abstract
The relationship between India and Pakistan involves nuclear rivalry and deep-rooted historical grievances. It requires a shift from managing crises to fostering cooperation. This analysis suggests that the most effective path to peace lies in creating a framework of mutual legal obligations in non-traditional security areas. Drawing on the principles of Complex Interdependence (Keohane & Nye) and the stability of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), this paper supports a strategy of building peace through binding legal agreements. Key proposals include creating a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) for security cooperation, establishing protocols for environmental and disaster management, and setting up mechanisms for technical dispute resolution. The main argument is that by raising the cost of conflict through legally required cooperation, both nations will be motivated towards long-term stability, even without immediately solving core political disputes.
1. The Theoretical Imperative: Complex Interdependence
Traditional (Realist) views on India-Pakistan relations highlight the security dilemma and the need for military power. They predict ongoing hostility due to the challenging nature of the Kashmir dispute and the nuclear balance of power (Cohen, 2013). However, a more constructive approach can be found in Liberal Institutionalism and the theory of Complex Interdependence.
Complex Interdependence, as outlined by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, includes three main aspects:
Multiple Channels: Relationships are not restricted to government interactions but also involve non-governmental (e.g., trade, scientific, cultural) connections and bureaucratic links (e.g., water commissioners).
Absence of Issue Hierarchy: Military security does not always dominate discussions; other issues, such as climate change or trade, can be just as significant.
Decline in the Utility of Force: Military force becomes a costly and ineffective tool when states rely heavily on each other.
Applying this to South Asia, the aim is not to eliminate all conflict—which may be unrealistic in the short term—but to protect cooperation from confrontation by enhancing legal and institutional engagement. By connecting the two countries in areas of shared need, peace becomes a natural result of managing interdependence, rather than a political goal negotiated from a zero-sum position.
2. The Legal Architecture: Foundations and Failures
The framework for modern India-Pakistan relations relies on two key diplomatic and legal foundations, along with one successful model.
A. The Bedrock of Bilateralism: Simla and Lahore
The Simla Agreement (1972): Signed after the 1971 war, this agreement serves as India’s main legal basis for bilateral engagement. Its most important provision is the commitment to resolve all issues, including Kashmir, only through bilateral talks, effectively rejecting third-party mediation. Legally, the agreement mandates both sides to:
- End conflict and confrontation
- Respect the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, agreeing that “neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally”
This provision upgraded the LoC from a temporary ceasefire line to a de facto border.
The Lahore Declaration (1999): Signed after both nations became nuclear powers, this declaration reaffirmed the principles of Simla and introduced specific confidence-building measures regarding nuclear security. It committed both sides to reduce the risks of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons, acknowledging their nuclear deterrent status while institutionalizing restraint.
The main shortcoming of both the Simla and Lahore frameworks is their focus on high-level political dialogue and crisis management rather than creating detailed, self-executing rules-based mechanisms at bureaucratic and technical levels.
B. The Enduring Legal Model: The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)
The Resilience of Treaty Law: The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), 1960, is the most successful example of legal cooperation, having survived multiple wars. Brokered by the World Bank, the treaty legally allocates the use of the Indus system rivers and establishes the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) for mandatory consultation and data exchange. Its resilience lies in its technical, rules-based structure and its predefined mechanisms for disputes, which include reference to a Neutral Expert or a Court of Arbitration for specific treaty interpretation issues.
The Simla Agreement (1972) and Lahore Declaration (1999) are legally fundamental, committing both countries to resolving differences exclusively through bilateral negotiations, rejecting third-party intervention for core issues. The Simla Agreement also transformed the ceasefire line into the Line of Control (LoC). The Lahore Declaration reinforced these principles and introduced concrete, if fragile, Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), including a Memorandum of Understanding on nuclear risk reduction.
3. Leveraging Non-Traditional Security for Diplomatic Gain
Cooperation in shared threats—where national interests align out of necessity—offers depoliticized pathways for trust-building.
A. Environmental and Disaster-Relief Diplomacy
Climate Cooperation: Both nations share the vulnerable Himalayan ecosystem. The need to manage transboundary risks like glacial melt, unpredictable monsoons, and extreme weather constitutes a cooperative imperative.
Actionable Steps:
-
Joint Technical Committee: Establish a legally mandated Joint Technical Committee for Flood Forecasting and Climate Data Exchange. This body, focused purely on data and early warning, would operate under the principles of international environmental law and the shared stewardship of natural resources.
-
Codified Disaster Protocols: While spontaneous cooperation has occurred (e.g., the 2005 earthquake), a standing legal framework is missing. An agreement based on the international principles of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the IDRL Guidelines would create Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for immediate cross-border assistance, bypassing political hurdles during emergencies.
4. Establishing Formal Legal Mechanisms for Dispute Settlement
To prevent disputes from escalating, institutionalized legal “off-ramps” are required for specific, non-core issues.
A. Judicial and Arbitrational Frameworks
Technical Boundary Disputes: The dispute over the Sir Creek maritime boundary, a technical issue concerning the interpretation of historical boundary resolutions, is ideal for resolution via bilateral arbitration. Agreeing on the terms of reference for such a tribunal demonstrates a commitment to legal process over military confrontation.
UN Charter Compliance: Both states are legally bound by Article 33(1) of the UN Charter to seek peaceful dispute resolution. While India prioritizes bilateralism (Simla Agreement), the flexibility of the Charter—listing negotiation, inquiry, mediation, and arbitration—can be constructively employed for specific, non-core disputes.
5. Codified Cooperation on Security and Humanity
A. Mutual Counter-Terrorism Efforts
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT): A bilateral MLAT is essential for professionalizing counter-terrorism efforts. It would codify the legal obligations for securing evidence, conducting joint investigations, and sharing intelligence, moving cooperation into the realm of domestic criminal procedure, as is standard between cooperating nations globally.
International Convention Implementation: Both countries are signatories to various UN Counter-Terrorism Conventions (e.g., the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism), providing a common legal basis for action against transnational non-state actors.
B. People-to-People Legal Protections
Humanitarian and social exchange should be legally protected from political volatility. The success of the Kartarpur Corridor Agreement (which governs pilgrim access) should be replicated by a formal Consular Access and Travel Protocol that simplifies and legally guarantees visas for specific groups (students, medical patients, elderly citizens).
6. Conclusion: A Liberal Institutionalist Pathway Forward
The academic dialogue on India-Pakistan peace is primarily defined by the tension between Realism, which explains conflict persistence through the anarchic structure of the state system (Cohen), and Liberal Institutionalism, which highlights the success of regimes like the IWT and the potential of Complex Interdependence to create constraining structures (Keohane & Nye).
The policy recommendations in this paper are strongly rooted in the Liberal Institutionalist tradition, emphasizing that even partial, sector-specific legal cooperation can build the domestic constituencies necessary for enduring stability (Lambah). By creating a web of binding legal obligations across non-traditional security domains—environmental cooperation, disaster management, counter-terrorism, and people-to-people exchanges—both nations can raise the costs of conflict while generating tangible benefits for their populations. The success of the Indus Waters Treaty demonstrates that depoliticized, rules-based cooperation can survive even the most severe political crises. Expanding this model to other domains offers the most pragmatic pathway to sustainable peace in South Asia.
References
Legal Instruments and Treaties
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations (1945), Chapter VI (Article 33).
Government of India and Government of Pakistan. The Indus Waters Treaty, signed September 19, 1960.
Government of India and Government of Pakistan. Agreement on Bilateral Relations (Simla Agreement), signed July 2, 1972.
Government of India and Government of Pakistan. Lahore Declaration and Memorandum of Understanding, signed February 21, 1999.
UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Model Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Reference for proposed MLAT).
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Guidelines for the Domestic Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance (IDRL Guidelines).
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.
Academic and Policy Works
Cohen, Stephen P. Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum. Brookings Institution Press, 2013.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. Power and Interdependence. Longman Classics in Political Science, 2011.
Lambah, Satinder. In Pursuit of Peace: India-Pakistan Relations: 1972-2020. Penguin Viking, 2021.
Clary, Christopher. The Difficult Politics of Peace: Rivalry and Cooperation in U.S.-Pakistan Relations. Cornell University Press, 2022.
Sheikh, F. (2023). “An Analysis of Confidence-Building Measures in India-Pakistan Relations: Pre-1999 Perspectives.” ResearchGate.
