The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) is the first human rights treaty adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, committed to oblige state parties to prevent and punish genocide. Bangladesh (or then East Pakistan) was protected under the Convention during the 1971 war as Pakistan ratified it on 12 October 1957. Bangladesh acceded to the Convention on 5 October 1998 with a reservation to Article IX. Article IX of the Convention grants jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice to deal with disputes relating to its interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the Convention. Any subject matter relating to genocide ‘shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.’ This has impaired Bangladesh’s ability to file cases independently at the ICJ. You may not want to file cases at the ICJ for the time being but that does not stipulate to never be able to do so. Strange to create encumbrances that too by its own will.

However, this could be rectified following simple procedural formalities, following Article 22(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) and Guideline 2.5 of the Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties 2011, particularly the Guide. The former describes withdrawal of reservation to treaties between states but the latter includes international organizations as depository. Here, the United Nations as the depository would be communicated with ‘by means other than a diplomatic note or depositary notification, such as electronic mail or facsimile, must be confirmed within an appropriate period of time by such a note or notification.’ In such case, the withdrawal would be considered as effective at the date of the initial communication by the State. It should be formulated in writing and sent by either:

(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs;

(b) representatives accredited by States to an international organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of withdrawing a reservation to a treaty adopted in that organization or organ;

(c) heads of permanent missions to an international organization, for the purpose of withdrawing a reservation to a treaty between the accrediting States and that organization.

If possible, Bangladesh can also opt for partial withdrawal as per Guideline 2.5.10, following the same procedure as aforementioned; which would limit the legal effect of the reservation, if not completely nullify it.

We cannot deny the fact that every genocide is also subject to contemporary politics. It is unnatural for Bangladesh to reserve on a provision that would allow them to seek for justice against genocide, considering its history to revolt against oppression. Although it is not clear as of yet what caused Bangladesh to make this decision; be it the strong opposition on Article IX by allies like USSR during the negotiation of the Convention or fearing diplomatic protest from countries favouring Pakistan, particularly an international superpower like USA. Whatever the reason may be, citizens deserve to know why it is major enough to be an impediment to justice. And that Bangladesh can always withdraw its reservation to perhaps one-day file a case to the ICJ, themselves.