Legal Stance of Bangladesh on the Palestine question
Since its independence, Bangladesh has been a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause. In fact, Bangladesh is one of 28 United Nations (UN) member states that neither recognise Israel nor maintain diplomatic relations therewith.
Bangladesh's stance on the Palestine issue is grounded in its historical struggle for self-determination, a unique instance of remedial secession outside the colonial context. Indeed, Article 25 of the Bangladesh Constitution pledges support for oppressed peoples fighting against imperialism, colonialism, or racialism, which Bangladesh referenced in the Oral Statement on 20 February 2024, to justify its participation in the current Advisory Opinion proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the question of Israel's occupation of Palestine.
Previously, Bangladesh also participated in the oral proceedings of the ICJ's Advisory Opinion proceedings on the question of construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and expressed its intent to intervene in the proceedings of South Africa v Israel. Alongside South Africa, Bolivia, Comoros, and Djibouti, Bangladesh referred the Palestinian situation to the International Criminal Court under Article 14 of the Rome Statute. Consequently, its participation in the current Advisory Opinion proceedings was anticipated, with expectations regarding how it would contribute to the legal questions posed by the UN General Assembly to the ICJ on the Legal Consequences arising from Israel's Policies and Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
Bangladesh's participation in the current Advisory Opinion proceedings is symbolically and legally significant, reaffirming its historical stance on the Palestine question and contributing to the deliberation of the Court.
In the 1st written submission, Bangladesh addressed issues on the ICJ's competence, the nature of the questions posed, the adequacy of evidence, and the potential impact of the Advisory Opinion on political peace negotiations. Bangladesh asserted that there are no compelling reasons for the Court to decline rendering the opinion, as historically, the Court has never refused to render advisory opinions.
Regarding the nature of the question and the Court's propriety, Bangladesh indicated that the Court could refer to the Wall Opinion to address jurisdictional and judicial propriety concerns. In the 2nd Written Submission, Bangladesh argued that legal and political questions are often intertwined, and that the presence of political questions does not negate or dwindle the legal nature of the issues. It affirmed that the Court had sufficient evidence from various UN sources to render the Advisory Opinion in question. Bangladesh contended that future solutions for the Palestinian people should be grounded in international law, without them having to negotiate their freedom under unlawful conditions.
Bangladesh highlighted that the legality of occupation is still debated and countered the argument that occupation can never be illegal. It proposed two frameworks, based on reports by Special Rapporteurs Michael Lynk and Francesca. Bangladesh contended that Israel's occupation policies violate both frameworks and outlined the legal consequences, stating that Israel must end its occupation, provide assurances against repetition, and make reparations.
Bangladesh's submission also underscored the Palestinian right to self-determination, supported by various international recognitions and previous ICJ opinions. Although it did not fully analyse this right, it highlighted Israel's violation of this right and the obligations of Israel, other states, and the UN to ensure its realisation.
Bangladesh's participation in the current Advisory Opinion proceedings is symbolically and legally significant, reaffirming its historical stance on the Palestine question and contributing to the deliberation of the Court.
The writer is apprentice lawyer.
Comments