The Bangladeshi government shows no mercy for “Razakars.” Is the onus to protect civilians on international law?
- ISI Commentaries
- Mar 7
- 5 min read
Updated: Apr 19
by: Xolisile Dube
Bangladesh’s appalling refusal to respect its obligation to the United Nations Human Rights Council is evident through the ongoing student protests. Students have taken to the streets to protest against a “discriminatory'' 30% employment quota system enforced by the government in favour of descendants of the 1971 freedom fighters. Police brutality! “Razakars” a term coined during the war against Pakistan, is weaponized to offend protesters; it is uttered by the prime minister Sheikh Hasina. This disregard for human rights has resulted in the loss of at least 150 lives. The failure of the state to act on its responsibilities poses a question on the role of international law in intervening on behalf of civilians. International law is premised on rules and norms created globally to obligate states to abide. One of the council's objectives is to “promote the universality, interdependence, indivisibility and interrelatedness of human rights”. The lack of intervention from international bodies in stopping the unrest calls for a revision of the level of their priorities in responding to the violation of human rights. The blatant disregard for human lives reflects that international law lacks enforceability in ensuring that countries abide by international standards.
Police brutality around the world
Police are entrusted with protecting citizens, but during unrest, they are unleashed dogs, set on civilians in the name of protecting state officials and their self-serving policies. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, states that utilising force and firearms should only apply when all crowd control methods have been exhausted. It urges the police to always preserve human lives at all costs. The killings allow one to conclude that the directive from the state is the opposite of the UN’s mandate. The small arms survey estimates a worldwide figure of 19 000 people who died due to police brutality between the years 2007-2012. The recent protests in Kenya (#Ruto must go) and Nigeria (#End bad governance protests) that both ended in bloodshed outline the continued disregard of international laws. Due to the lack of strict laws to regulate police behaviour and a priority for immunity, the perpetual refusal for human preservation is subject to increase. Therefore, the basis of international law is questionable as state leaders continue to prioritize personal interests by choosing to lead with aggression when faced with public dissatisfaction.
Should the United Nations Human Rights Council reconsider the membership of Bangladesh in conjunction with the deadly protests?
As an elected member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Bangladesh promises to uphold a mandate in the protection of human rights and in any event of gross human rights violations inflicted both domestically and internationally, the council is obligated to suspend the membership rights of the state. This statement swiftly indicates that the membership of Bangladesh should be of serious contestation, mainly because of the outright infringement of the lives of protesters. To legitimise international law, harsh and coercive measures should be taken to hold the government accountable. Moreover, to give power to the rule of law and high regard to human rights, the expulsion of rebels such as Bangladesh and its counterparts; Nigeria and Kenya, is a necessary step to certify international law as a force to be reckoned with. In this case, these countries also need to submit evidence of training of officers on appropriate response, for any sanctions from international bodies to be lifted. Other steps would involve monitoring and evaluation on progress until the state can be fully reintegrated in the international sphere.
Postinternational Theory and International Law
Failure of the revision of the role of international bodies in forging peace, weakens the credibility of international law. To address the limitations and inadequacies of international law, James N. Rosenau developed the postinternational theory. The basis is premised on the argument that the dynamics of international systems are ever-changing, the presence of different key players (as opposed to the state), the constant shift in norms, disputes, and globalization. Rosenau’s criticism of traditional international relations theories is that they tend to view the state as the key actor. In this regard, this is an outdated perspective that Rosenau believes is not accommodative of current issues. International bodies’ reliance on states as mediators absolves states from being instigators, and such cases are evident in conflicts between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. When pressed by the UN in 2022, the two countries agreed to cease-fire, yet to this day, there is outcry as people are displaced from their homes and there are continual killings. The preservation of lives is slipping through the cracks because of the constant fight from state leaders to cling to power. Amnesty International emphasizes the need for incremental change in the international system to address present-day issues. Therefore, International bodies need to unite and agree to stop any international benefits for such governments as only those in power reap from relations instead of civilians. Failure to hold governments accountable calls for the abolishment of international institutions. It is outrageous that states collectively sign agreements while possessing the liberty to choose not to comply, validating the argument that international law is mythical.
The question still stands “is the onus to protect civilians on international law?”. I beg to differ after witnessing the unrelenting spirit of Bangladeshi people in their fight for justice and accountability. Eventually, prime Minister Hasina was forced to flee and descend from power. Populations have reached their threshold and are willing to sacrifice their own lives to fight for what is owed to them and international law falls short in that fight. International law ought to review its delegative strategies that lack the means to coerce states to act in the interest of civilians. It is inspiring that people are showing leaders that they are not exceptions to the rule; they, too, can be shown no mercy. The uncompromising spirit to fight in a cruel world where hope is a finite resource, is proof that people are not powerless.
Disclaimer
This content is part of ISI Commentaries to serve the latest comprehensive and reliable analysis on International Relations, security, politics, and social-cultural in Indo-Pacific Region. Read more how to to submit it: https://www.isi-indonesia.com/write-for-us
Division: Foreign
About the writer
Xolisile Dube recently obtained her BA in Development Studies from the University of Johannesburg. She is currently an honours student in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Johannesburg. Her beliefs mainly lie in shedding light on the miscarriages of justice in the world.
Comments