Saturday | 5 October 2024 | Reg No- 06
বাংলা
   
Saturday | 5 October 2024 | Epaper
BREAKING: ● BNP demands steps against ABM Khairul Huque at dialogue with CA      ● 3 die in Sherpur flood; 60,000 stranded      ● Ex-president Badruddoza Chowdhury passes away      ● Killing during students' movement: 9 bodies to be exhumed in Sylhet      ● Malaysian prime minister leaves Dhaka for home      ● CA seeks Malaysian support for Bangladesh to be ASEAN dialogue partner      ● Malaysian PM assures of attention to 18,000 Bangladesh workers       

Bangladeshs legal and diplomatic stance on the Palestinian cause

Published : Tuesday, 4 June, 2024 at 12:00 AM  Count : 634
Md Shawkat Alam Faisal
Bangladesh was one of five South Asian countries that endorsed the resolution demanding an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israels occupation of Palestine. Bangladesh then made a written submission to the International Court of Justice and took part in the oral hearings.

Bangladeshs perspective on the Palestinian question is based on its historical struggle for self-determination, which is a rare example of corrective secession outside of the colonial setting. Bangladeshs Proclamation of Independence, which is enshrined in the Seventh Schedule to its Constitution, emphasizes self-determination as a crucial rationale for independence. Interestingly, Bangladeshs declaration on Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights restricts its interpretation of "self-determination" to situations including colonial authority, foreign dominance, and comparable circumstances. Nonetheless, Article 25 of the Bangladesh Constitution promises assistance for oppressed peoples resisting imperialism, colonialism, or racism, which Bangladesh used in its Oral Statement on February 20, 2024, to explain its participation in the current Advisory Opinion procedures.

Since its independence, Bangladesh has been a firm supporter of the Palestinian cause, refusing Israels offer of diplomatic recognition. Bangladesh is one of 28 UN member states that does not recognize Israel or maintain diplomatic relations with it. Furthermore, Bangladeshi passports are invalid for travel to Israel, and vice versa. Notably, in mid-2021, Bangladesh deleted the phrase "except Israel" from its passports, while its Foreign Minister warned that flying to Israel with a Bangladeshi passport would result in legal penalties.

Bangladeshs engagement in the Palestinian cause began with the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and was enhanced during the Organization of Islamic Cooperations second summit in 1974. This participation has been critical in cementing Bangladeshs international stature, especially among previously hostile Arab states. Bangladeshs support for Palestine has remained consistent throughout global platforms.

In addition to political support, Bangladesh has participated in judicial forums. It took part in the oral proceedings of the International Court of Justices Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Wall Opinion) and stated that it intends to intervene in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide in Gaza (South Africa v. Israel). Bangladesh, together with South Africa, Bolivia, the Comoros, and Djibouti, has referred the Palestinian situation to the International Criminal Court in accordance with Article 14 of the Rome Statute.As a result, its participation in the current Advisory Opinion proceedings was anticipated, as was its response to the legal questions posed by the UN General Assembly to the ICJ on the Legal Consequences of Israels Policies and Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.


Bangladesh expressed its view on the Advisory Opinion about the Occupied Palestinian Territory in two written statements dated July 24 and October 25, 2023, as well as an oral statement on February 20, 2024. The first written submission focused on the legality of the occupation, claiming that Israels policies and activities are unlawful. Bangladeshs argument is broken into three sections: (I) introductory considerations, (II) legality of occupation, and (III) implications of illegality.

Bangladesh expressed concerns about the ICJs competence, the nature of the questions addressed, the sufficiency of evidence, and the potential implications of the Advisory Opinion on political peace discussions. Bangladesh claimed that there are no compelling reasons for the Court to decline to deliver the opinion, citing the fact that the Court has never refused to render advisory opinions before. It indicated that the current Advisory Opinion should not be subject to any special reasons for decline, as highlighted in the Advisory Opinion on the Legality of a States Use of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict.

Regarding the nature of the question and the Courts propriety, Bangladesh suggested that the Court consult the Wall Opinion to address jurisdictional and judicial propriety concerns. Bangladesh claimed in its second written submission that legal and political matters are frequently linked, and that the inclusion of political questions does not undermine the legal basis of the issues. It confirmed that the Court had adequate material from UN sources to provide the advisory opinion.

Bangladesh stressed two concerns about the Advisory Opinions potential influence on political peace talks: (i) it contradicts the law of state accountability given Israels illegal behavior, and (ii) such negotiations have been mainly failed. Bangladesh argued that future solutions for the Palestinian people should be established on international law, rather than forcing them to negotiate their freedom under illegitimate conditions. The Second Question in UNGA Res 77/247 inquired as to how Israels policies and behaviors affect the legal status of the occupation, as well as the legal implications for all States and the United Nations. Bangladesh provided a normative framework for establishing the legal validity of the occupation and evaluated Israels occupation against this framework.

Bangladesh stated that the legality of occupation is still debatable and refuted the premise that occupation can never be illegal. It offered two frameworks for judging the occupations legality, based on findings from Special Rapporteurs Michael Lynk and Francesca Albanese. Lynks four-part test and Albaneses framework, which included three peremptory standards, were submitted as appropriate for the Court to consider. Bangladesh explained its support for Lynks approach by citing its foundation in international law principles and the illegality of occupations sustained through illicit conduct. It drew parallels with the International Court of Justices judgment that South Africas mission in Namibia was unlawful. Bangladesh supported Albaneses framework, which highlighted the prohibition of force-acquired territory, alien subjection regimes, and respect for the right to self-determination, all of which are recognized as jus cogens.

Bangladesh said that Israels occupation policies violated both frameworks and highlighted the legal ramifications, adding that Israel must cease its occupation, provide assurances against repeat, and make compensation. These obligations were divided into three categories: to Israel, foreign states, and the United Nations, based on the ILCs Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Bangladeshs submission emphasized the Palestinian right to self-determination, which is reinforced by numerous international recognitions and earlier ICJ rulings. Although it did not go into detail on this right, it did stress Israels violation of it as well as Israels, other governments, and the UNs obligations to ensure its implementation.

Bangladesh missed an opportunity to offer its distinctive perspective by failing to provide a detailed response to the First Question on self-determination. Overreliance on Special Rapporteur reports also hampered its capacity to propose a fresh interpretation of the law of belligerent occupation. Nonetheless, Bangladeshs involvement in the current Advisory Opinion processes is symbolic and legitimate, since it reaffirms its longtime position on the Palestine matter and contributes to the Courts deliberations.

The writer is an Apprentice Lawyer at the Bangladesh Bar Council



LATEST NEWS
MOST READ
Also read
Is a full-scale war in Middle East imminent?  
How UN stays relevant by prolonging ME crisis
Unchanging value of literature in the age of algorithms
Teachers should focus on social justice in classrooms
Our fiscal transparency in the report of USA
Joviality in self exploration
The observance of the world teacher's day in the new light
Natural gas crisis in Bangladesh: Is LNG the only solution?
Editor : Iqbal Sobhan Chowdhury
Published by the Editor on behalf of the Observer Ltd. from Globe Printers, 24/A, New Eskaton Road, Ramna, Dhaka.
Editorial, News and Commercial Offices : Aziz Bhaban (2nd floor), 93, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka-1000.
Phone: PABX- 41053001-06; Online: 41053014; Advertisement: 41053012.
E-mail: info©dailyobserverbd.com, news©dailyobserverbd.com, advertisement©dailyobserverbd.com, For Online Edition: mailobserverbd©gmail.com
🔝