evidence: On Sir Creek, the critics’ assessment that India’s insistence on mutual consultation and a solution in the spirit of the Shimla agreement is incompatible with New Delhi’s SCS statement is both legally and conceptually flawed. While Pakistan’s right to invoke international arbitration is recognised by the law, India cannot be denied a position which it believes leads to a just and equitable solution. What’s more important is Pakistan’s own reluctance to seek the legal remedy. Islamabad hesitates to act on its threat of international arbitration, because of an "opt-out" clause (Article 298) under Part XV of the UNCLOS, which entitles a state to refuse legal adjudication on a matter involving sea boundary delimitation. Needless to say, Pakistan knows that any attempt to elevate the Sir Creek issue to an international dispute will lead New Delhi to invoke the exclusion provision. [...] Pakistani officials privately acknowledge that the disputed patch of maritime territory in Sir Creek does not offer any immediate benefits — barring fishing rights — which Pakistani fishermen seem to already enjoy, even if at some risk from Indian law-enforcement agencies. The issue thus appears more symbolic than substantive for Pakistan, albeit one where Islamabad won’t cede an inch for political reasons, regardless of the utility of the maritime real estate in question.