Symposium on Bangladesh Genocide and International Law: Introduction

The Bangladesh genocide and Bangladesh’s independence movement, also known as the Liberation War, are two inseparable historical events of 1971. For nine months, while Bengali freedom fighters struggled to free themselves from the organised armed forces of Pakistan and establish an independent state named Bangladesh, the Bengali nation simultaneously endured mass atrocities that the author characterises as genocide, committed by the Pakistani military and local collaborators.

This helps explain why independence remains deeply meaningful to people in Bangladesh. The Preamble of the Constitution of Bangladesh, enacted within a year of independence, pledged that the state would realise through democratic means a socialist society free from exploitation, founded upon the rule of law, fundamental human rights, freedom, equality, and justice. The same Preamble also committed Bangladesh to contribute to international peace and cooperation in line with the progressive aspirations of humankind.

Purpose of the Symposium

This symposium forms part of a broader effort to examine the Bangladesh genocide through the lens of international law. Marking the fifty-first anniversary of both Bangladesh’s independence and the atrocities of 1971, the series reflects on the role played by international law and institutions—especially the United Nations—during that period.

It also explores how key states such as China, United States, India, and the Soviet Union shaped international legal responses through geopolitics.

The symposium brings together a younger generation of Bangladeshi international lawyers based both in Bangladesh and abroad. It includes one interview and seven short essays.

Featured Contributions

Interview with Mohammad Shahabuddin

The opening contribution is an interview with Mohammad Shahabuddin. He discusses internal colonialism, self-determination, the military violence inflicted on Bengalis, and the effectiveness of international law and institutions in the geopolitical context of 1971.

A key takeaway from the interview is the need to rethink territorial sovereignty and non-intervention when confronted with gross human rights violations amounting to genocide. He concludes that international law did not fail uniquely in 1971—it acted in the way it often does.

Psymhe Wadud – Rape as an

Actus Reus

of Genocide

Psymhe Wadud critically examines mass rape as an actus reus of genocide, as well as a crime against humanity and grave breach of the laws of war.

She argues that women should not be seen merely as passive objects of genocide or as bearers of communal honour. Rather, they were targeted as active subjects whose overlapping identities—gendered, political, ethnic, and social—remain insufficiently recognised in international criminal law.

Naureen Rahim – The Refugee Crisis of 1971

Naureen Rahim analyses how India dealt with millions of Bengali refugees during the Liberation War in relation to evolving refugee law.

She also portrays the United Nations as a bystander to genocide while India increasingly viewed the refugee crisis as a practical reason to support the liberation struggle militarily.

Shaoli Dasgupta – Liberation to Justice

Shaoli Dasgupta explores the failure of the UN to establish a fact-finding mission or initiate international trials of Pakistani perpetrators.

She contrasts this with Bangladesh’s own efforts at truth, reconciliation, and justice, arguing that Bangladesh has created a unique path toward both liberation and accountability.

M Sanjeeb Hossain – Complementarity and Domestic Justice

M Sanjeeb Hossain discusses the International Criminal Court system of complementarity and argues that states such as Bangladesh are not required to replicate Rome Statute standards exactly in domestic proceedings.

He cautions that judging national tribunals without regard to context risks shielding impunity rather than promoting justice.

Manjida Ahamed – Customary International Law

Manjida Ahamed considers the work of the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh and its engagement with customary international law.

She argues that the tribunal’s effort to identify and apply customary norms is neither unusual nor improper, but part of a broader development in international criminal law.

Quazi Omar Foysal – The ICJ Route

Quazi Omar Foysal examines whether Bangladesh could invoke the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice against Pakistan for alleged violations of the Genocide Convention.

He discusses challenges such as proving a legal dispute exists and overcoming objections to Bangladesh’s standing, concluding that Bangladesh should reconsider withdrawing its reservation to the Genocide Convention.

Emraan Azad – Accountability of Pakistani Prisoners of War

In the final contribution, Emraan Azad argues that repatriated Pakistani prisoners of war accused of atrocities in 1971 still incur criminal responsibility.

He contends that prosecutions for international crimes are not time-barred and that the clemency arrangements of the 1974 tripartite agreement cannot permanently extinguish accountability under Bangladeshi or international law.

Closing Reflections

More than fifty years later, the genocide in Bangladesh remains insufficiently recognised by major powers, global institutions, and Pakistan itself. One reason identified by the author is the lack of widely engaged critical scholarship on the genocide within mainstream international law discourse.

This symposium seeks to help address that gap by bringing the subject before a broader international readership. Its success, the author suggests, depends on sustained scholarly debate and critical engagement.

The hope is that greater recognition of the events of 1971 can strengthen the wider global commitment to Nunca Más / Never Again / Stop Genocide.

Emraan Azad is an Assistant Professor in Law at Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP). He completed an LLM in International Law at University of Cambridge as a Commonwealth Scholar and served as a General Editor of the Cambridge International Law Journal.