India–Pakistan
Note
Water and cross-border terrorism cannot be delinked in India–Pakistan relations, and bilateralism excludes third-party mediation, leaving the relationship managed rather than resolved. The Simla Agreement, 1972 committed both sides to settle differences bilaterally and converted the ceasefire line into the Line of Control. The Indus Waters Treaty, 1960, brokered by the World Bank, allocates the three eastern rivers to India and the three western rivers to Pakistan with limited Indian use, with disputes routed through the Permanent Indus Commission, a neutral expert, and a court of arbitration. The Lahore Declaration, 1999 addressed nuclear risk reduction.
In the news
Questions on this topic
Consider the following statements regarding India–Pakistan bilateral trade relations and the framework governing them:
- India withdrew Pakistan's Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status in 2019 following the Pulwama attack, a step India took unilaterally under the provisions of the GATT/WTO framework that permit suspension of MFN treatment on national security grounds.
- Under the WTO framework, the MFN principle obligates member countries to extend the same trade terms granted to one trading partner to all other WTO members, unless a specific exception — such as a free trade agreement or national security — applies.
- Pakistan had granted MFN status to India before 2019, and India's withdrawal of MFN status from Pakistan in 2019 meant that Pakistani goods entering India were thereafter subject to higher tariff rates than goods from other WTO members.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Statement 1 is incorrect on a crucial point: it was India that withdrew MFN status from Pakistan, but the characterisation of this as permitted 'under GATT/WTO provisions on national security grounds' conflates two separate legal acts. More fundamentally, the statement gets the direction of MFN wrong in its framing — India's MFN grant to Pakistan was revoked unilaterally under domestic trade law (the Customs Tariff Act), not through a formal WTO national-security exception invocation. The key doctrinal error, however, is that Pakistan had never formally granted MFN status to India before 2019; Pakistan maintained India on a 'negative list' and had been moving towards granting MFN but never completed the process. So Statement 3 is factually incorrect: Pakistan had NOT granted MFN status to India before 2019, meaning the reversal described in Statement 3 did not occur as characterised. Statement 2 is correct and represents core WTO doctrine: the MFN principle under GATT Article I requires that any trade advantage granted to one WTO member be extended unconditionally to all other WTO members, subject to recognised exceptions such as regional trade agreements (Article XXIV) or national security (Article XXI). This is a foundational principle of the multilateral trading system.
Consider the following statements regarding the legal and operational framework governing overflight rights and airspace access under international aviation law, with reference to the India–Pakistan airspace closure:
- The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944) establishes that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory, giving it the unilateral right to restrict or deny overflight to foreign aircraft.
- The International Air Services Transit Agreement (IASTA), 1944, automatically obliges all signatory States to grant scheduled international air services of other signatories unlimited fifth-freedom traffic rights in addition to overflight and technical stop privileges.
- Pakistan's closure of its airspace to Indian carriers compels Indian airlines to operate longer routes over third-country airspace, increasing fuel consumption and operational costs, while foreign airlines retaining Pakistan overflight access face no equivalent burden.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct. Article 1 of the Chicago Convention, 1944, unequivocally recognises that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. This is the foundational principle of international air law and is precisely the legal basis on which Pakistan has closed its airspace to Indian carriers — it is exercising a sovereign right, however commercially damaging to Indian airlines. Statement 2 is incorrect. IASTA (also called the Two Freedoms Agreement) grants only the first two freedoms of the air — the right of overflight (First Freedom) and the right to make a technical stop (Second Freedom) — to scheduled international services. It does NOT grant fifth-freedom rights (the right to pick up and set down traffic between two foreign countries). Fifth-freedom and other commercial traffic rights require separate bilateral Air Services Agreements. The characterisation that IASTA confers 'unlimited fifth-freedom traffic rights' is a common and significant misconception. Statement 3 is correct. It accurately describes the competitive asymmetry at the heart of the airspace-closure controversy: Indian carriers are forced onto lengthier detour routes — consuming more fuel, incurring higher costs, and suffering worse aircraft and crew utilisation — while competing foreign airlines that retain overflight access to Pakistan airspace operate on shorter, more efficient routings to Europe and North America, enjoying a structural cost advantage.
Your record on this topic
Sign in to see how many of these you have answered, which ones you got wrong, and to practise this topic on its own.
Sign in →