Nations rally behind treaty sanctity as Pakistan hosts UNSC meeting amid rising unilateralism

By Staff Writer

NEW YORK (MNVT) — In a packed Conference Room 11 at United Nations headquarters, diplomats from across the globe gathered Friday for an Arria Formula Meeting convened by Pakistan to address what many see as a growing crisis: the erosion of international treaty commitments.

The three-hour session, chaired by Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative, drew pointed remarks from Security Council members and featured four expert briefers. Pakistan convened the meeting in the wake of India’s decision last April to hold in abeyance the Indus Waters Treaty—a 1960 water-sharing agreement brokered by the World Bank that had survived three wars between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

At the session’s heart lay a deceptively simple question: when promises between nations are broken, what remains of international order?

“Treaties are not ceremonial texts,” Ambassador Ahmad declared. “They are the operating system of peaceful international relations—converting power into obligation, rivalry into restraint, uncertainty into predictability.”

He warned that when treaties are weakened, “legal uncertainty becomes political risk and this becomes security risk.”

Pakistan’s intervention centered on the Indus Waters Treaty. India’s unilateral decision last April to hold the treaty in abeyance, Ahmad argued, “represents a grave departure” with “systemic consequences” for 250 million downstream Pakistanis in a now-nuclearized region. “The risks are not merely hypothetical, but real,” he said.

The United States offered a starkly different vision. Its delegate announced that American policy “is no longer tied to a network of international institutions and agreements, some of which are driven by anti-Americanism.” Washington described the multilateral architecture as “sprawling global governance, often dominated by progressive ideology and detached from national interests.” The US now pursues “peace through strength,” the delegate said, “ushering a new era” where parties appreciating American strength would turn to Washington for dispute resolution.

Russia turned the treaty-compliance lens toward Western nations, condemning unilateral sanctions and seizure of commercial vessels as “flagrant violations.” Moscow accused Ukraine of trampling bilateral agreements, while Latvia countered by citing Russia’s violations of the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal for security guarantees. “Repeated non-compliance by aggressor must not be without consequences,” Latvia’s delegate said.

Colombia broke from geopolitical jousting to name “obvious violations” of the UN Charter: “the genocide in Gaza, the prevention of humanitarian aid there. Colombia calls it out.”

Somalia delivered the session’s sharpest moral framing: “We cannot accept a world where treaties are upheld by the weak but not by the powerful.” China emphasized treaty sanctity, rejected selectivity and non-compliance, and called for non-interference and respect for state sovereignty. Beijing warned against the use of force and military adventurism to resolve disputes.

The United Kingdom called treaties “cornerstones of the international system,” while Denmark warned of growing “disregard for or outright violation” of obligations, emphasizing the ICJ’s central role in dispute settlement. France stressed that “lasting peace cannot come from fragile balances between powers” and that state consent, once given, “entails obligation.” Bahrain urged collective action to “reject selectivity.”

Panama highlighted its constitutional hierarchy placing treaties above ordinary law, while the Democratic Republic of Congo noted its courts directly apply international law without domestic transposition. “Return to international law is a must,” the DRC delegate said. Greece and Liberia also participated in the Council member discussions.

Several non-Council members—Cuba, Sri Lanka, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Estonia, and Singapore—contributed remarks, reflecting broad engagement with the session’s themes.

Briefers’ remarks

Among the briefers, former UN High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein offered a blunt diagnosis: too many leaders pursue strategic interests “regardless of international treaties,” dismissing global costs as “too distant a factor.” His warning: “They will realize their colossal folly when it is too late.”

Dr. Adil Najam, Dean Emeritus and Professor of International Relations at Boston University, grounded the debate in something primal.

“When you make a promise, you keep a promise. The fact that we must gather to reaffirm this basic truth reveals the state of our world.”

Ahmer Bilal Soofi, prominent Pakistani international law expert and president of the Research Society of International Law, challenged the notion that treaties merely follow power.

“International law does not undermine power,” he argued. “It disciplines it.”

David Nanopoulos, Chief of the UN’s Treaty Section, reminded delegates that concluding a treaty means committing to “a regime of treaties”—”not a matter of political convenience.”

As the session concluded, fault lines were clear: between defenders of multilateral legal order and those recalibrating toward national interest.

Yet the majority echoed Somalia’s refrain—a world where only the weak honor their word is no order at all.