PARLIAMENTARY PARTICIPATION IN TREATY-MAKING PROCESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR BANGLADESH.

This article evaluates models of parliamentary participation in the treaty-making process and considers their relevance for Bangladesh’s constitutional and administrative context. It surveys Westminster-derived practices, consultative committee systems and ex post ratification models, weighing transparency, speed and accountability. Drawing on examples from the UK, India and Australia, the paper argues that structured scrutiny—through mandatory laying of treaties, committee review windows and impact statements—can improve policy quality without paralysing diplomacy. It identifies legal adjustments and procedural innovations that would enhance democratic legitimacy and inter-agency coordination in Bangladesh.

The body first maps Bangladesh’s current executive-led practice in negotiating, signing and ratifying international agreements. Section One compares comparative frameworks: Ponsonby Rule evolution in the UK, parliamentary committee mandates in Australia, and India’s blend of executive primacy with legislative oversight via questions and debates. Section Two proposes a Bangladesh model comprising (i) a statutory requirement to table treaties with explanatory memoranda; (ii) a 21–30 day review period for a standing committee on foreign affairs and law; (iii) Regulatory Impact Assessments covering fiscal, human-rights and federal implications; and (iv) emergency carve-outs for urgent security instruments subject to post-hoc review. Section Three outlines digital registers for public access and consultation protocols with affected stakeholders. Section Four addresses capacity—training for MPs, legal drafters and line ministries. The conclusion contends that calibrated parliamentary participation would strengthen accountability, produce clearer implementing legislation and improve compliance with international obligations.