The Necessity of Reforming the International Crimes Tribunals Law of Bangladesh for Fair Trial

 The present interim government of Bangladesh has decided to try the former ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina before the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) accusing genocide and crimes against humanity during the students led anti-discrimination mass uprising between 1 July-5 August along with all involved in these crimes. The decision follows the first complaint made against her with the probe agency of the ICT on 14 August together with former ministers, law enforcers and her party men.

The Hasina-led government domestically constituted the ICT in 2010 under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973 to probe atrocities during the liberation war against Pakistan in 1971. As a result, there is disagreement among lawyers about whether the tribunal is competent to try the war crimes of 1971 only or offenses that took place afterward as well. There is no such explicit bar in the ICT Act while jurists opined that the July-August massacre can be tried before the tribunal. Apart from this, some analysts advise going to the International Criminal Court (ICC) while few propose forming a hybrid ad hoc international crimes tribunal under the UN.

There were huge criticisms both politically, legally, nationally and globally including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Council etc against the Hasina formed tribunals for lack of neutrality and non-compliance with the international legal standard. Even members of this current interim administration also critiqued boldly about the political motive, lack of due process and procedural fairness of the ICT.

Thus, the tribunal as well as the ICT Act need massive legislative and institutional reform to align with the international standard and ease the previous controversies against it. The ICT Act is outdated and has not been updated after the evolution of new international criminal law jurisprudence specially after evolving the ICC. Within the existing framework, the trial of Sheikh Hasina and her allies will not be fair and neutral. This may lead to concerns about using the Act as a tool for political vendetta rather than genuine justice.

Consequently, if Hasina's trial also takes place under the same arrangement, then it will again be condemned by the international community. The perpetrators of the July-August mass killing will also get the opportunity to vindicate the credibility of the trial even though they did not take all these criticisms into notice themselves earlier.

However, the adviser to the ministry of law, justice and parliamentary affairs of the current interim government has disclosed in a recent interview that they will address the concerns expressed by foreign and UN agencies relating to deficiencies in definitions, limitations in recording evidence, constraint of right to get legal relief of the accused persons etc.  

Experts have identified both substantive and procedural flaws in the legal framework and practice of the tribunal. Human rights and legal monitor bodies have also urged to define crimes against humanity and genocide comprehensively in compliance with international criminal law, and that due process rights for the accused be enlarged. The ICT Act, as amended, did not permit the accused a right against self-incrimination or a right to legal counsel when being questioned by the investigator. Moreover, the Act does not provide robust witness protection measures, which could discourage witnesses from coming forward or lead to intimidation, thus compromising the integrity of the proceedings.

Other loopholes include restrictions on interlocutory appeals to the Supreme Court and limitations on challenging the composition of the judicial bench. Earlier, the appointments of the prosecutors and judges of the tribunal were condemned due to their lack of expertise and affiliation with the then government. Under section 6(8) of the Act, the formation of the tribunal cannot be challenged either by the prosecution or by the accused. The government has already appointed the chief prosecutor and four other lawyers as the prosecutor of the tribunal although reorganisation of the tribunal is yet to done.

The defective application of the modes of liability and the ingredients of offenses presents critical concerns as to the fairness of the trial. During Hasina's regime, the tribunals also prohibited open access for foreign observers and journalists. Free observation is crucial not only during trials but also in the pre-trial stage for transparency. Furthermore, the defence was not allowed to engage foreign lawyers or given adequate time to prepare its case which needs to be addressed adequately now. Although the Law Adviser confirmed that foreign lawyer will be allowed to get involved in hearing process by amending the law. He also informed that foreign agencies would get opportunity to observe the process as they may not be able to involve with the trial process directly due to the existing capital punishment provision in the law.

The tribunal's significant limitation in defining the 'crimes against humanity' as it ignores considering the newest criminal law necessity of crimes against humanity. It needs to be committed in a 'widespread and systematic' attack against any civilian population. This jurisprudence emerged during the 1990s by the UN-backed ad hoc international criminal tribunals (the ICTY and the ICTR) and is regarded as the customary rule of international law. Subsequently, the Rome Statute also accepted this principle of customary international law and other internationalized criminal tribunals, prosecuting crimes against humanity. Therefore, the definition of crimes against humanity under the ICT Act does not comply with present and past customary international law advancements, which are necessary for identifying and differentiating the same crimes from ordinary crimes.

Hence, in prosecuting and punishing such crimes, the law needs to include the customary law ingredients of crimes against humanity; otherwise, the crimes in question never be separated from domestic crimes of murder, extermination, torture, etc. If the prosecuting tribunal neglects to apply customary law requirements of crimes against humanity, the legitimacy of the tribunal sets substantial doubt in ensuring criminal justice for the parties.

The ICT also put a legal obligation on the State to enact law prohibiting and punishing the crime of genocide at the national level. According to the Constitution of Bangladesh, a treaty obligation is also conferred by the Genocide Convention, 1948 on Bangladesh as a contracting party to it.

The current interim administration has already sent an official letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to probe the recent student movement and uprising along with finding out the causes of past and latest violence and recommendations for necessary measures to prevent such occurrences in future. However, the UN has historically opposed the death penalty and campaigned for its abolition. The ICT Act has provision for death sentence among other suggested punishments.

Nevertheless, section 8 of the ICT Act implies that an agency will be established by the government for the purpose of investigation. Now, a question may come whether the UN prob team will be a part of that agency. If not, then it is not clear under the existing provisions as to the acceptance of an investigation report prepared by the UN as the government-constituted agency is primarily responsible for investigation.

However, the Constitution of Bangladesh has provision to exclude fundamental rights including protection in respect of trial and punishment for the war criminals held at the ICT. The very 1st amendment to the Constitution (Art. 47(3)) struck out fundamental rights for member of armed, defence or auxiliary forces at the ICT. Subsequently, the 15th amendment took fundamental rights away for any individual, group of individuals or organization as well. Consequently, there was criticism about the ICT for going beyond the scope of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.

The recent anarchy in the courts raises serious questions relating to the fairness of justice and the rights of the accused. Also, there are suspicions about those arrests, for example, former state minister for Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology Zunaid Ahmed Palak had been detained at the airport on 6 August during an attempted departure. Albeit the authority did not inform under which law they captured him at the airport. Later, police showed him arrested on 14 August. As a result, his condition from 6 to 14 August is not certain whereas constitutionally police cannot detain anybody for more than 24 hours without producing him to the magistrate. 

The government has not disclosed their stance as to how do they deal with the complaints, investigation, appointment of prosecutor, judges, trial etc. in the ICT. The government may set up one or more designated contact points for victims of violations, or their family members, to seek assistance, information and advice as filing a flawless case is highly complicated which private individuals cannot do.

It is expected that the present administration will ensure the rule of law and respect human rights for all including the accused after the exemplary fall of the repressive political regime and mass uprising. Criminals must be brought before justice adhering to proper and just legal proceedings.

Published in the New Age as Op-ed on 8 September 2024 on page 9.

Published on the International Law Blog on 23 September 2024

Make the Bus in Galway City Timely and Available, Please…

 The bus services in Galway city have been facing considerable delays, causing severe frustration among the regular passengers. I’m an international student at the University of Galway and I frequently travel particularly through 404 and 405 buses operated by Bus Éireann in Galway. Late arrivals are a common issue of these buses, leading to missed appointments and increased journey times. We need a solution to this problem who often take public transports to commute. However, there are numerous factors contribute to these delays, and addressing them by the concerned authority immediately can assist improve the public transport system for the city and give a relief to the travellers.

One of the major causes of bus delays in Galway city is heavy traffic congestion especially in morning and afternoon hours. Galway's roads are often crowded with private vehicles, creating traffic bottlenecks during peak hours. With the city's population growing and more people relying on cars, buses get stuck in the same traffic jams, reducing their efficiency and punctuality. Inadequate bus priority measures, like dedicated bus lanes, further compound the problem, as buses compete with other vehicles for road space.

Another issue is the unpredictability of the buses' schedules. In many bus stops like John Cogan Park and Gaelcarraig Park, especially on routes 404 and 405, there are no posted timetables at the bus stops, leaving passengers uncertain about when the next bus will arrive. Even where schedules are available, the buses often do not adhere to them, adding to the unreliability of the service.

I personally notice in some bus stops people also cannot rely on the time shown on the digital display as the display often change the bus arrival time. Few make joke that those display boards count 100 seconds for a minute. This lack of information can be exasperating, as it prevents commuters from planning their journeys effectively. Absence of timely bus services are causing incredible hardship for passengers who do not own car. The government want us to walk, cycle, take buses whereas we do not get adequate buses in time.

Additionally, long boarding times contribute to delays. Some bus stops, particularly during busy times, have large numbers of passengers waiting to board, which can slow down the service further. A lack of efficient boarding systems, such as multi-door entry or contactless payment, can lead to longer waits at each stop.

Another key issue affecting bus delays and overall commuter experience in Galway is the infrequency and reduced services in weekends. Currently, buses like the 404 only run twice an hour, leaving long gaps between services. This limited frequency means that if a bus is delayed or missed, passengers are left waiting for extended periods, causing significant inconvenience. More frequent buses, especially during peak hours, would alleviate this problem by providing passengers with more flexibility and reducing overcrowding on buses. Increasing the number of buses to at least four per hour would significantly enhance the efficiency of the public transport system, reduce wait times, and improve overall satisfaction among commuters

In Galway, restaurants, café, pubs remain open until 2 AM, but the last bus departs before midnight, leaving late-night commuters and students living in Galway stranded. Introducing late night buses would provide a safe, convenient option for those out late, ensuring public transport caters to the city's nightlife and reducing reliance on expensive taxis.

To improve the public transport system in Galway, several measures can be taken. First, implementing dedicated bus lanes and bus priority signals at key intersections would allow buses to bypass traffic congestion and maintain their schedules. This would significantly reduce delays and make buses a more attractive option for commuters.

Second, providing effective real-time bus tracking and updating the physical timetables at bus stops would help passengers plan their journeys more effectively. Third, improving the boarding process, perhaps by implementing better ticketing solutions, could reduce the time spent at each stop, helping buses to stay on schedule. Finally, by increasing bus frequency and launching late night buses, Galway can significantly improve the reliability and quality of its public transport system, making it more accessible, dependable, efficient and user-friendly for its residents and all the commuters.

Published in The Galway Advertiser on 19 September 2024 on page 24.

The Legal Hurdles to Bring Sheikh Hasina Back to Bangladesh from India

THE deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina has taken shelter in India since August 5, when she was compelled to resign in the face of a student-led mass uprising. Subsequently, the media reported, and her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy also confirmed that she was not willing to leave the country, whereas her family members forced Hasina to flee to India as they feared a threat to her life. According to a UN report, nearly 650 people were killed in police brutalities in July-August. Unarmed civilians, children, and students were indiscriminately and brutally killed by the law enforcement agencies throughout the protest.

Family members of the victims, protesters, and students alleged that many of them were shot by the police on her orders, and consequently, the first criminal case was filed against her on August 13 before a Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate court. Since then, more than 50 criminal cases have been lodged against her along with her cabinet members, partymen, and aides for murder, torture, enforced disappearance, abduction, attack, etc. in ordinary criminal courts, including a few in the International Crimes Tribunal (which was actually constituted during her regime to try the war criminals of 1971) for genocide and crime against humanity.

However, there was a demand from the beginning when she escaped to India to bring her back to Bangladesh and try all the crimes that took place during her tenure in power. The demand got momentum again when these criminal cases were being filed against her. Moreover, the law adviser of the newly formed interim government also confirmed that they would go to the International Crimes Tribunal to try her for her offences during the protest.

Thus, the question of Sheikh Hasina’s extradition from India becomes relevant in this scenario, although the criminal courts and the ICT have jurisdiction to try in absentia. However, the trial in her absence and without bringing her back to the country will not be fruitful. At the same time, extradition is a complex process that not only involves legal issues but is also associated with international, political, diplomatic, and human rights concerns. 

Extradition Treaty between Bangladesh and India

NEW Delhi and Dhaka have an extradition treaty signed in 2013 during Hasina’s regime and subsequently amended in 2016. This is the first time in the history of Bangladesh when a former prime minister was forced to resign through a mass uprising and fled directly to India. It is not clear whether Sheikh Hasina is going to seek political asylum in India or anywhere else yet. The situation became more complex when the interim government of Bangladesh revoked the diplomatic passport of Hasina, her advisers, cabinet members, all the members of the dissolved 12th national parliament, their spouses, and their children on August 22. She was enjoying the privilege of the red passport in India, which allows her to stay there for up to 45 days without having a visa. Indian officials have remained silent from the beginning about the status of the former prime minister in India, and it will now be more difficult for her to flee elsewhere after the cancellation of her diplomatic passport.

The interim government so far has not taken any visible action to bring Hasina back from India, whereas the adviser responsible for foreign affairs told the press that they will initiate the process and ask their Indian counterpart to return her if the government decides to do so. In the meantime, if she seeks political asylum in India or elsewhere, then the discussion of the extradition of Hasina from India will be pointless. Sheikh Hasina had previously sought and obtained political asylum from India in 1975 after the assassination of her father, Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, the founding president of Bangladesh.

What is Extradition?

EXTRADITION is the legal process between two countries where they sign treaties to hand over a fugitive, accused, or convict to the requesting state for prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in the requesting country’s jurisdiction. Extradition treaties between countries vary from one another; some may enumerate what is an extraditable crime, while some have instances when extradition is to be denied. Authorities generally refuse extraditing individuals for military or political offences, with exceptions for terrorism and other violent acts. Some states do not extradite to jurisdictions with capital punishment or life imprisonment under any circumstances, or unless the requesting country pledges not to impose those penalties.

Can Bangladesh Make an Extradition Request to India?

WITHIN its legal framework, the extradition treaty between Bangladesh and India has scope to ask for Hasina’s extradition; however, there are provisions to deny that appeal under the same treaty. According to the treaty, the requested state shall extradite the fugitives found in its territory who have been proceeded against for, have been charged with, have been found guilty of, or are wanted for the enforcement of a judicially pronounced penalty for committing an extraditable offence (Art. 1(1)).

Only crimes punishing a minimum one-year imprisonment can be extraditable offences, including those relating to financial irregularities (Article 2(1)). In addition, the principle of dual criminality must be satisfied for an offence to be extraditable (Article 1(2)). This means that the offence should be punishable in both countries. According to Article 2(4), extradition shall also be granted in respect of an attempt to commit or aiding, abetting, inciting, or participating as an accomplice in the commission of an extraditable offence.

Article 10(3) makes it even easier for the requesting country, which states that furnishing the proof of crime will not be mandatory; an arrest warrant issued from a court of law will be sufficient for the extradition. Hence, the ‘theoretically’ issuance of a mere arrest warrant by a magistrate court against Sheikh Hasina is enough to ask for her extradition without furnishing concrete proof of evidence against her.

When can India Refuse the Request for Extradition under the Treaty? 

NEVERTHELESS, the treaty itself contains several provisions (Article 6–8), while India can refuse the appeal of extradition of Sheikh Hasina on the grounds of offences having political character, oppressive in nature, or unjust, or if the offence is purely a military offence. Additionally, it can decline if a case that requires extradition to the country to which the extradition request has been made is filed in that country. Albeit no case has been filed against the former Bangladeshi leader until today, nor is there any reasonable possibility of doing so shortly.

What are not political offenses? However, Article 6(2) stipulates the following offences shall not be regarded as offences of a political character: (a) any acts or omissions which are punishable as a criminal offence according to the obligations under multilateral treaties to which both contracting states are parties; (b) murder; (c) manslaughter or culpable homicide; (d) assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or causing injury, maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm whether by means of a weapon, a dangerous substance or otherwise; (e) the causing of an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious damage to property; (f) the making or possession of an explosive substance by a person who intends either himself or through another person to endanger life or cause serious damage to property; (g) the possession of a firearm or ammunition by a person who intends either himself or through another person’s to endanger life; (h) the use of a firearm by a person with intent to resist or prevent the arrest or detention of himself or another person; (i) damaging property, whether used for public utilities or otherwise, with intent to endanger life or with reckless disregard as to whether the life of another would thereby be endangered; (j) kidnapping, abduction, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention, including the taking of a hostage; (k) incitement to murder; (l) any other offence related to terrorism that, at the time of the request, is, under the law of the requested party, not to be regarded as an offence of a political character; (m) an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offences or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offence.

Interestingly, so far, the allegations brought against Hasina mostly fall under the above categories, which are not political in nature as per the treaty. Despite that, the treaty says denial can be made if the accusation has not been made in good faith in the interests of justice (Article 8 (1)(iii)). Moreover, India can reject the extradition request if it is feared that Hasina may be treated badly or denied justice.

Former social welfare minister Deepu Moni and deputy sports and youth minister Arif Khan Joy were physically assaulted by mobs, whereas former law minister Anisul Huq and industrial advisor Salman F Rahman were humiliated in an overly crowded courtroom, thrown eggs by lawyers linked with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and did not get the opportunity to be presented by their lawyer. Former judge of the Appellate Division, AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik, was attacked while being produced in the court after their arrest recently. Some of their longer remand granted by the court was also criticised by the rights bodies. As a result, anyone can naturally raise concerns about the security of Sheikh Hasina and the fairness of her trial.

Interim Government’s Task in Hand

THE interim government must ensure Hasina’s safety, security, human rights, right to be heard, consultation and representation by a lawyer, fair treatment, impartiality, fair trial, no political motive, etc. convincingly to India while requesting her extradition under the treaty. Otherwise, India can reject the request on these grounds. Besides, many loopholes in the treaty can be invoked by India to delay the process for a long time.

Even the extradition request would go through India’s judicial system, where the courts would assess the validity of the extradition request based on the treaty’s terms and the evidence provided by Bangladesh. This process can be lengthy and involve significant legal debate over the nature of the charges and the applicability of any exceptions. The courts might deny extradition if they believe that the former head of government would face political persecution, unfair trial, or inhumane treatment upon return to their home country. This is particularly relevant if the individual claims asylum or refugee status on these grounds.

Comprehensive and compact record of evidence that substantiates the charges against Hasina, ensuring that the offences are clearly criminal and not merely political. This would strengthen the case against the application of the political offence exception. Strong and solid legal interpretation and arguments are essential to counter the claims that the charges are politically motivated. This might include evidence of a fair and neutral investigation by a credible and impartial body like the UN, maintaining full fairness in each step of the legal proceedings initiated in Bangladesh, robust application of all standards of justice, implementation of all rights of the accused, overseeing the judicial process through reputed international human rights organisations and fulfilling their recommendations, etc. Extradition must comply with international legal standards, including respecting the principle of non-refoulement (not extraditing individuals to a country where they might face torture, inhumane treatment, or persecution).

The political offence exception, judicial intervention, concerns about human rights and fair trial, and the complexity of political and diplomatic relations between India and Bangladesh could all pose significant obstacles to her extradition. The ultimate decision may rest more on diplomatic negotiations and the political will of both governments than purely on legal arguments. Credibly assure the Indian government that Sheikh Hasina will receive a fair trial and humane treatment in Bangladesh. If necessary, offer guarantees and provide them with opportunities to observe the process closely.

Conclusion

WE must not forget that an existing extradition treaty between the two countries only provides a legal framework for mutual cooperation; several other non-legal challenges could arise, particularly regarding the political nature of the charges, human rights considerations, and the potential for unfair treatment. Hence, the treaty itself cannot guarantee extradition in all cases. Especially if the complaint is against an influential person like a former head of the government. Then its political nature, intention, justness, neutrality, etc. become significant indicators. So, political will, mutual trust, friendly relations, effective cooperation, respect for democracy, international norms and rule of law, effective diplomatic negotiations, and respect for people’s aspirations can be the only way to truly solve the problem.

Published in the Daily Bonik Barta (Online) on 26 August 2024.

Published in the New Age on 29 August on page 9.

Published in The Business Standard as Thoughts on 13 September 2024.

Could Bangladesh’s former prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, be extradited to the country to stand trial?

Former Bangladeshi prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, fled to India in early August after a mass uprising forced her to step down. Her resignation followed weeks of unrest in which nearly 650 people were killed and many more injured.

Since then, at least 94 criminal cases have been lodged against Hasina and her cabinet members, followers and aides. The charges against them range from murder, torture, enforced disappearance and abduction, to crimes against humanity and genocide.

Courts do have the authority to hold a trial in Hasina’s absence. But this is unlikely to be fruitful as there will be questions regarding fairness, due process and the motive behind the trial. At the same time, implementing the court’s orders would be tough should Hasina not be present.

So, from the moment she escaped Bangladesh, there have been calls to extradite her to stand trial for the crimes that took place under her leadership. But it’s far from certain whether India would hand her over should Bangladesh seek her extradition.

Bangladesh can, in theory, request the return of Hasina from India. New Delhi and Dhaka signed an extradition treaty in 2013, which was subsequently amended in 2016 to simplify the process.

Both countries were eager for such a treaty. Two of the convicts involved in the 1975 assassination of Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who was also the first president of Bangladesh, were at the time hiding in India. Hasina’s government wanted to extradite the men to Bangladesh for execution.

Some countries, like Canada, refuse to extradite fugitives if there is a possibility that they will be executed. However, as India also retains the death penalty, extradition was granted irrespective of whether the convicts would face execution on their return. The two men were handed over to Bangladesh in 2020

India, on the other hand, sought the handover of Anup Chetia, the general secretary of the banned United Liberation Front of Assam militant organisation. Chetia, who had spent 18 years in prison in Dhaka, was returned to India in 2015.

According to the treaty, only crimes for which the punishment is a minimum of one year in prison can be extraditable offences. And the offence must be punishable in both countries. The accusations against Hasina are prosecutable in India, and the punishments for her alleged crimes are also substantial, so she can be extradited on these grounds.

Article 10 of the treaty makes it even easier for the requesting country. It states that an arrest warrant issued from a court of law will be sufficient for the extradition without furnishing concrete proof of evidence against the offender. That said, no arrest warrant has been issued for Hasina at the time of writing.

Not a simple task

However, the treaty itself also contains several provisions that could enable India to refuse an appeal for Hasina’s extradition. It could, for example, decline to return her on the grounds that the offences are political in nature.

It is generally accepted that extradition will be refused for political or military offences. This is justified by the need for states to remain detached from political conflict elsewhere, while also protecting the right of a state to grant asylum to political refugees.

The treaty does stipulate that an attempt to commit murder, manslaughter, kidnap, false imprisonment or incitement to murder shall not be regarded as political offences. And the charges brought against Hasina so far mostly fall under these categories.

But, even then, the treaty says a request can be denied if Indian courts determine that the accusation was not made in good faith or in the interests of justice. Courts may deny extradition if they believe Hasina would face political persecution, unfair trial or inhumane treatment upon her return to Bangladesh.

This will not be easy for Bangladesh to disprove. Some of the ministers from Hasina’s government who have been arrested over recent weeks were physically assaulted by apparent bystanders when being taken to court, and reportedly did not get the opportunity to be represented by a lawyer.

Several murder cases have also been said to be registered out of anger and resentment. Some people, including cricketer and ousted lawmaker, Shakib Al Hasan, have been charged as instigators or abettors when it is unclear whether the actual culprits have been indicted or not.

As a result, there are plenty of concerns over Hasina’s security and the fairness of any trial should she be returned to Bangladesh.

If Hasina’s safety is not guaranteed, then there is a chance she will be granted political asylum in India or elsewhere. Asylum would render the discussion of her extradition pointless as people with refugee status cannot be extradited. Sheikh Hasina has successfully obtained political asylum from India before, following the assassination of her father.

But her stay in India this time around has become complex. The interim government in Bangladesh has revoked diplomatic passports, including Hasina’s.

She is now reportedly trying to seek asylum in one of the UK, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia or Finland. However, her son, Sajeeb Wazed Joy, has told the press that Hasina has not yet sought asylum anywhere and will “certainly go back” to Bangladesh when elections are declared.

The treaty itself cannot guarantee extradition in all cases. In practice, it merely provides a legal framework for mutual cooperation. The ultimate decision may rely more on diplomatic negotiations and the political will of both governments than it will legal arguments.

Published on The Conversation on 5 September 2024

Reprinted in the Dhaka Tribune as Opinion on 11 September 2024 on page 4.