Скриншот видео
Head of the Treaty and Legal Department of the Belarusian Foreign Ministry Andrei Papkou spoke at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum about the progress of proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Lithuania’s case against Belarus concerning the alleged instrumentalization of migration by Minsk. According to him, negotiations aimed at resolving the dispute failed to produce a settlement. The court is currently considering issues of jurisdiction and the admissibility of Lithuania’s application.
Papkou said that Belarus, like Russia, is facing pressure from what he described as unfriendly states through judicial and other international mechanisms.
“It is clear that, for us, legal aggression is a manifestation of the collective West’s efforts to undermine the international order based on the norms and principles of the U.N. Charter, and in particular to weaken its key elements. These include the system of international justice and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. We are responding to all these new challenges in accordance with the principles of international law and within the framework of the relevant international judicial procedures. Our Russian colleagues have already accumulated considerable experience, while we are only learning. We value all forms of support from the expert community and from friendly countries,” he said.
Papkou said that not all the preliminary conditions required to initiate Lithuania’s case before the ICJ had been fulfilled and that not all available approaches to negotiations had been exhausted.
“This concerns the application filed by the Lithuanian government on May 19, 2025, against the Republic of Belarus before the International Court of Justice, alleging violations of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the U.N. Convention against Transnational Organized Crime of Nov. 15, 2000. This is the first case brought against our state before the International Court of Justice. Here, our neighboring country is attempting to turn a dubious and far-fetched accusation into a judicial case.
We are responding to Lithuania’s actions through the established judicial process and are seeking to ensure that all standards of fair international justice are observed in this case. At the same time, we fully understand that this situation cannot be resolved through litigation. It requires dialogue, negotiations and consultations. Even though the case is now before the court, we remain open to such negotiations, because the dispute involves many different aspects, including political ones,” he said.
The Foreign Ministry official added that efforts had been made since April 2023 to resolve the dispute through negotiations. The possibility of arbitration was also discussed, but no concrete results were achieved. He blamed Lithuania for the failure of the talks.
“In our view, the negotiations were disrupted by the other side, and we ultimately found ourselves before the court. It appears that our neighboring state is not interested in resolving the dispute or restoring normal cooperation, but is instead using this opportunity to further escalate tensions and justify its own actions in the field of migration.
The course of the negotiations and the application filed with the court demonstrate that this case involves numerous jurisdictional issues and questions concerning the admissibility of the application against the Republic of Belarus,” he said.
According to Papkou, jurisdictional issues in the case have also been discussed in articles published on international law platforms, including within the European Union. Judges have also referred to similar issues in separate opinions in other cases, including the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia concerning the application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
“We are not seeking to draw any parallels here, but this demonstrates that the problems surrounding jurisdictional boundaries are indeed highly relevant and acute.
Another very important issue raised by the application concerns the scope of the protocol and the interpretation of its provisions, which, in our view, goes beyond the treaty’s scope and is practically comparable to introducing amendments to the treaty itself. Lithuania is attempting to incorporate into the treaty’s conceptual framework the notion of the instrumentalization of migration, a concept promoted within the European Union. In essence, it shifts greater responsibility for migration problems onto countries of origin and transit, suggesting that migration can be artificially created to exert pressure on other states. This is an entirely new concept that, in our opinion, is not covered by the protocol.
A new concept of state responsibility is also being introduced. The protocol itself is aimed at promoting cooperation between states in criminal matters. Here, however, particular emphasis is placed on state responsibility for various forms of facilitating illegal migration. Even the concept of an organized criminal group is being reinterpreted.
All this demonstrates that the case raises numerous issues relating to jurisdiction, admissibility and the merits,” he said.
Papkou also pointed to issues concerning Lithuania’s acceptance of the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction.
“Another important jurisdictional issue concerns the expression of consent to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Lithuania expressed its consent in an unusual way by withdrawing its previously entered reservation to the compromise provisions of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants.
This was done only after claims had already been presented to us in 2023 and after the negotiation process had begun. In fact, it was done after the fact. This raises questions as to whether such a withdrawal can have retroactive effect, whether the principle of reciprocity has been observed and whether this approach ensures equality between the parties in the judicial process.
After the reservation was withdrawn, the Republic of Belarus submitted an interpretative declaration based on several provisions of the protocol that place states making reservations and those that do not on an equal procedural footing. Naturally, this prompted objections from Lithuania and its European Union allies. They submitted their objections, to which we responded with our comments.
I believe this is the line of argument that our opponents will continue to pursue throughout these proceedings.
I would like to briefly demonstrate how important the jurisdictional stage is in our case. Any state in such circumstances normally raises preliminary objections. We also considered this option. In our view, there were three possible approaches, perhaps even more.
First, this could have been done through a separate procedural stage. Following consultations with the parties, the president of the court usually proposes a separate stage for considering all jurisdictional issues and the admissibility of the application.
Second, this could have been done by filing a traditional preliminary objection no later than three months after the claimant state’s memorial had been submitted.
Third, it could have been done during the proceedings on the merits by raising the relevant objections there. If the court considered it necessary, it could have examined them separately. In our case, we proceeded to a separate procedural stage because the claimant state itself proposed that a separate jurisdictional phase be held.
I will not speculate now on whether this is good or bad, but it is not a well-trodden path and much remains unknown. I hope we will go through it with dignity, and in the end we will understand whether this step was justified. I will not analyze now why we agreed or what risks were involved. There are both advantages and disadvantages. One obvious disadvantage is that, at the initial stage, the greatest burden falls on the respondent state.
If the application is not formulated very clearly, we have to anticipate in many respects the claimant state’s line of reasoning and build a coherent conceptual framework explaining what it actually means. I believe we have coped with this task, and many of our objections are well balanced.
On Jan. 19, 2026, Belarus submitted its memorial challenging the court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the application. We are now awaiting Lithuania’s counter-memorial, which is due by July 20. The issue of admissibility also involves many questions concerning how the negotiations were conducted, because they proceeded very quickly.
From the outset, the Lithuanian side insisted that negotiations were pointless and that the process should move directly to arbitration, while putting forward its own proposals. However, the Belarusian side insisted on negotiations and approached them in good faith, offering various solutions. We also discussed arbitration, including whether consent to arbitration must be expressed separately or whether the protocol itself provides sufficient consent,” he said.
Papkou stressed that the case is highly complex and could have far-reaching consequences.
“Overall, I would like to emphasize that this is a very complex case with far-reaching consequences. Those consequences could affect the application of other international treaties, including U.N. treaties containing similar compromissory clauses, under which the parties first negotiate, then proceed to arbitration and finally to the International Court of Justice.
It could also have significant implications for the application of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants and the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime itself, because entirely new elements are being introduced that are not characteristic of this treaty but rather of criminal law treaties,” he concluded.