Articles for category: Belarus

Migrant “Instrumentalisation” before the ICJ

On 19 May, Lithuania introduced proceedings against Belarus before the International Court of Justice for the alleged smuggling of migrants. Lithuania claims that Belarus violated provisions of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, which supplements the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. This blog will detail several difficulties with Lithuania’s argument which seeks to collapse key differences between migrant smuggling and the practice of migrant “instrumentalisation”.

From the EU-Belarus Border to Strasbourg

On 12 February 2025 the ECtHR considered for the first time the interpretation of the Convention in the context of so-called ‘migrant instrumentalisation’ or ‘hybrid attacks’, allegedly orchestrated by the Belarusian regime after the EU imposed sanctions on Minsk. This contribution critically reviews the key arguments of the respondent governments with respect to the interpretation of Art. 3 ECHR and Art. 4 Prot. 4 ECHR and considers the relationship between the two in the particular context.

Remembering Democracy

In the years following the brutal suppression of pro-democracy protests in Belarus in 2020 and 2021, a wave of politically engaged Belarusian artists — visual artists, musicians, filmmakers, poets and novelists — have been driven into exile. Scattered abroad, these artists not only use their work to reflect on the repression at home, but also seek new ways to keep the spirit of resistance alive.

How the EU Commission Backs up Pushbacks at the EU-Belarussian Border

In December 2024, the European Commission issued a communication to the European Parliament and the Council discussing the current situation of so-called ‘hybrid threats’ at the EU-Belarussian border. With the goal of stopping irregular arrivals of migrants and its facilitation by Belarus and Russia, the EU Commission outlines how EU primary law, namely Art. 72 TFEU, could be utilized by Member States to circumvent the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and curtail the protection afforded by fundamental rights for migrants. By advising member states to make use of this legal pathway for the current situation at the EU-Belarussian border, the EU Commission indirectly justifies the current pushback practices from Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

Voting for the Government-in-Exile

So far, democracy in Belarus has struggled to establish itself within the country. After the protest movement in 2020, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya went into exile where she and her supporters have been trying to penetrate the firm autocratic regime of Alexander Lukashenka. On June 8, the results of the elections for the Coordination Council – an exiled substitute assembly for the in situ Belarusian Parliament were announced. Less than 7,000 people participated in the vote. Despite the considerable efforts to mobilise the voters for the Coordination Council, the exiled opposition has failed to secure any meaningful turnout and thus its much-needed further democratic legitimacy.

The EU’s Eastern Border and Inconvenient Truths

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, alongside with the EU’s confrontation with Russia’s ally Belarus, however, has deeply impacted the securitisation of migration within the EU. Highly politicised conflict-related securitisation narratives have rarely found their way so swiftly into Member States’ domestic migration and asylum laws, leading to open and far-reaching violations of EU and international human rights law. Hardly ever before have ill-defined concepts and indiscriminate assumptions been so broadly accepted and used to shift from an individual-focused approach to blanket measures stigmatising, dehumanising and excluding entire groups. And rarely before have radical changes of this kind received so little criticism - a deeply unsettling and dangerous trend.

Migrant Instrumentalisation: Facts and Fictions

The last two years have seen recurring efforts to introduce the concept of instrumentalisation of migration into EU asylum law on a permanent basis. This post will demonstrate why the ‘instrumentalisation of migration’ is an overly simplified and generalised term that does not capture the complexities of the situation on the ground. Its adoption into EU asylum law thus threatens both to undermine legal certainty and bear far-reaching consequences for the Rule of Law in the EU.

#DefendingTheDefenders – Episode 2: Belarus

In the second episode of Defending the Defenders, we talk to Dmitri Laevski about the rule of law and human rights in Belarus. Dmitri is a criminal attorney turned human rights lawyer in the wake of the 2020 presidential elections. He takes us through the recent history of the rule of law in Belarus, from realising that the concept he learned about in university didn't really exist in practice to the organisation of the legal professions in the last decade to the rule of law crackdown in 2020 and ever since.

The “Year of Historical Memory” and Mnemonic Constitutionalism in Belarus

On 1st of September 2022, the academic year in all Belarusian schools started with an atypical lesson, on “historic memory” – led in Minsk by none other than the country’s “President” himself, Aliaksandr Łukašenka. There is a constitutional dimension to historical memory in Belarus, which is better grasped through the looking glass of mnemonic constitutionalism.

Military Actions on Dubious Legal Bases

For months, thousands of migrants from Middle Eastern countries attempted to enter Poland threatened by Belarusian troops. As a reaction, Poland has deployed substantial forces to counter the immigration influx, using the Border Guards along with police and military personnel. Thousands of Polish soldiers have been operating on the border with Belarus. There is, however, no published legal basis for these police-like interventions undertaken by military personnel. The spokesman of the Polish Territorial Defence Forces (WOT) cited an old act of the President on 28th of November, which is not in force anymore as it got repealed in June 2020.