Legal future of Bangladesh after the UNECE Water Treaty accession

On 20 June 2025, Bangladesh acceded to the 1992 UN Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (UNECE Water Convention). It is pertinent to delve into the legal and diplomatic implications of the Convention for Bangladesh across internal and international fora. Notably, India and Bangladesh have experienced strained diplomatic relations over transboundary watercourse issues since Bangladesh gained independence in 1971. Discussions of possible inclusion of Chinese monetary cooperation in the Teesta water basin management further complicated the relationship between the two nations. Geographically, Bangladesh is crucial for both the Asian giants. Recent tensions in geopolitics surrounding the expiry of the Ganges Treaty in December 2026 also have profound implications in this regard.

Interestingly, in 2018, it seemed that the agreement, which was drafted in 2011 between India and Bangladesh upon the Teesta tributaries, would very soon be entered into. Unfortunately, it did not materialise arguably with claims of the then Chief Minister of West Bengal that the people in West Bengal would face dire scarcity of drinking water and water crisis in irrigation, plantation, hydroelectricity, and fishing, had the water been shared.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Bangladesh may now experience the achievements and pitfalls alongside other countries enlisted in the Water Convention. The ratio of the side-effects would intrinsically transcend the loopholes present in the bilateral underpinnings surrounding the Ganges Treaty. In my opinion, multilateralism is now a new paradigm in water diplomacy in South Asia.

Clearly, Bangladesh and India do not have identical policies in terms of water sharing and basin management concerning the largest rivers flowing through the two countries, let alone the smaller ones. On the contrary, both countries have also cooperated with each other across many axes, e.g., economy, trade, culture, and politics since 1971. Both parties, as members of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), have also already exhibited liberal diplomatic intelligence in getting boundaries delimited in the Bay of Bengal. Indeed, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) judiciously delineated the maritime boundary between India and Bangladesh in its 2014 arbitral award. Thus, both the states had utilised rights and privileges under principles of international law.

The same mutual diplomatic bargain between Bangladesh and Myanmar also witnessed an end through maritime delimitation. After prolonged argumentation before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the ITLOS delivered judgement in favour of Bangladesh in 2012 and the country’s dispute with Myanmar over the St. Martin’s Island came to an end. The jurisprudential interpretation of decisions by the PCA and ITLOS strengthens the legal argument for equitable water sharing in South Asia, specifically with respect to Bangladesh, India and Myanmar.

Maritime delimitation was basically compromised to facilitate trade through sea routes and enjoyment of the natural resources under the ocean. On the other hand, mutual placement of bilateral diplomacy over transboundary rivers encircles many more overlapping issues concerning international environmental law, environmental science and geography. The Ganges, the Teesta and the Brahmaputra are indeed crucial ingredients in keeping alive water disputes between the two South Asian deltaic nations.

It is entirely possible to continue diplomatic negotiation among states on issues of trade, culture, economy, geopolitics, and even transboundary waters and oceanic delimitations. But it is in no way fair to sustain a patently unequal bargaining status quo with climate-induced aggressions compounded by the disturbances in watercourse through diversion, barrages and dams, etc. Here, nature is the only authoritarian and sovereign entity to shape the geographical peripheries of the countries.

After the possible expiry of the bilateral water treaty over the Ganges with India in December 2026, the provisions of the UNECE Water Convention would enhance multilateral bargaining over watercourses. Then international laws on watercourses may steadily guide both India and Bangladesh in the utilisation of transboundary watercourses. There are intersecting national interests of both the nations which are protected by international institutions framed under international law. India might plan to implement unilateral use of the water of the Ganges, entirely ignoring Bangladesh’s need. Now Bangladesh may have recourse to the UN agencies against such pursuit.

Bangladesh may now experience the achievements and pitfalls alongside other countries enlisted in the Water Convention. The ratio of the side-effects would intrinsically transcend the loopholes present in the bilateral underpinnings surrounding the Ganges Treaty. In my opinion, multilateralism is now a new paradigm in water diplomacy in South Asia, because otherwise, the states invariably lead a ‘country and people first’ policy. Notably, even after the formation of the democratically elected government in Bangladesh in February 2026, serious and effective discussions on the Ganges water treaty are yet to reach a considerable stage of complacency.

Bangladesh’s accession to the 1992 UNECE Water Convention should never be evaluated as a blow to the longstanding relations, diplomatic and otherwise, between Bangladesh and India. Rather, such a move needs to be viewed as an extension of Bangladesh’s search for broader international partnership in watercourse administration, jointly ventured hydropower research, and exchange of technical and scientific developments in river tributaries. Egocentrism of states in international relations and laws is never conducive because nations are encircled with uncontrollable and hegemonic uncertainties internally, regionally, and also internationally in one way or the other. To mitigate the rather uncomfortable shifts in foreign policies, Bangladesh should address the facilitation of joining the 1992 club by sharing the technicalities driven by partners in Europe and other continents in watercourse management.  As such, both countries should look forward to adopting water ethics for ensuring human rights of the people of both countries along with upholding the norms of the legal provisions of international environmental laws for an equitable world.

The writer is a river-rights enthusiast and Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangladesh Judicial Service.