Generally not as a party. Proceedings before the International Court of Justice, ITLOS in contentious inter-state cases, or WTO panels are brought by states. A private company affected by a dispute can, however, provide evidence and information to its government, request diplomatic support, and in some cases pursue its own claim under an investment treaty. Industry associations often play an important role in trade disputes by gathering data and explaining commercial effects. We advise companies on how to engage constructively and protect their position while the inter-state process continues. Coordination with officials is essential.

The main forums include the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, arbitral tribunals under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or specific treaties, often administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the WTO dispute settlement system for trade. Many treaties also provide for negotiation, joint commissions or conciliation before or instead of adjudication. Which forum is available depends on the treaties in force between the states and any declarations they have made accepting jurisdiction. Consent remains the foundation of each forum.

The 2012 ITLOS judgment and the 2014 arbitral award settled Bangladesh's maritime boundaries with Myanmar and India. That gave legal certainty over large maritime areas, which is important for offshore oil and gas blocks, fisheries, shipping and future marine infrastructure. Investors and operators can now assess offshore rights against a settled legal map, although domestic licensing, environmental and regulatory requirements still apply. The cases also show how state-to-state dispute settlement can unlock economic opportunity when long-standing uncertainty is resolved. Those outcomes remain a reference point for state-to-state dispute settlement in the region.

The Ganges water sharing treaty signed in 1996 was concluded for thirty years, so its term runs to 2026, and renewal or replacement is a matter for negotiation between Bangladesh and India. The outcome depends on diplomacy rather than litigation, although international law on shared watercourses informs the discussion. Businesses in agriculture, fisheries, energy and infrastructure in affected regions should monitor developments. We can advise on the legal framework and on contractual protections for projects that depend on water flows, but cannot predict the diplomatic outcome. Formal state-to-state dispute settlement has not been the chosen route.

Graduation from least developed country status changes Bangladesh's position in the trading system, including the loss over time of some preferential market access and of certain special treatment available to LDCs. Bangladeshi exporters may face more trade remedy investigations, and Bangladesh's own trade measures may be scrutinised more closely. This makes state-to-state dispute settlement under the WTO and trade agreements more relevant. We advise exporters and industry bodies on preparing evidence, monitoring measures and engaging with the government's trade officials at an early stage. Preparation now pays off later.

Not automatically. Bangladesh generally follows a dualist approach, under which international obligations take effect in domestic law through legislation or executive implementation. Courts may refer to international law and treaties when interpreting domestic law, particularly where the law is unclear, but a judgment of an international court does not usually operate directly as a domestic court order. Implementation of decisions from state-to-state dispute settlement therefore normally depends on government action. We advise on how a particular decision or treaty is likely to be given effect in practice. We explain the likely route.

Many bilateral investment treaties allow a foreign investor to bring a claim directly against the host state through international arbitration, often under the ICSID Convention, to which Bangladesh is a party. Some treaties also contain separate state-to-state dispute provisions for questions of interpretation or application. An investor-state claim and a state-to-state process can therefore exist side by side, with different parties and remedies. We advise on whether a treaty applies, whether the investment is protected and how the two routes might interact in a given situation. Both routes need careful analysis.

Formal proceedings are usually lengthy. Cases before international courts and tribunals commonly take several years from filing to final decision, including written pleadings, hearings and deliberation. WTO disputes have their own timetable, which has been affected by the long-standing difficulties with the Appellate Body. Negotiation and mediation may resolve matters faster or more slowly depending on political circumstances. Businesses affected by a dispute should therefore plan for prolonged uncertainty and build appropriate protections into their contracts, financing arrangements and investment structures. Contract planning should assume that state-to-state dispute settlement may take years.