Lithuania Takes Belarus To Top UN Court Over Alleged Migrant Smuggling
An inside view of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, on July 23, 2018. ... More (Photo credit: Abdullah Asiran/)
On May 19, 2025, the Government of Lithuania filed a case against Belarus before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with regard to a dispute relating to alleged breaches by Belarus 'of its obligations under the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the Protocol), in relation to the large-scale smuggling of irregular migrants from Belarus into Lithuania. The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The ICJ has a twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States; and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and agencies of the system.
According to the information submitted to the ICJ, Lithuania alleges that Belarus has breached 'many of its obligations under the Protocol by: facilitating, supporting, and enabling the smuggling of migrants, and also failing to take necessary border measures to prevent and detect the smuggling of migrants and to ensure the security and control of documents; failing to exchange information to prevent, detect, and investigate the smuggling of migrants, strengthen cooperation with Lithuania's border control agencies, and cooperate in the field of public information to prevent potential migrants from falling victim to organized criminalized groups; and failing to preserve and protect the rights of migrants and afford them appropriate assistance.'
As indicated by Lithuania, since 2021, the country has faced an unprecedented surge in irregular migrants crossing from Belarus. As indicated by Lithuania, evidence collected by Lithuanian authorities shows that Belarusian state-owned entities increased flights from the Middle East and other regions, arranged visas, and provided accommodation for arriving migrants. Lithuania further submitted that upon arrival in Belarus, many migrants were escorted by Belarusian security forces to the Lithuanian border and pressured or forced to cross illegally, often under dangerous and life-threatening conditions.
Lithuania explained that despite repeated requests for cooperation, Belarusian border agencies have refused to work with Lithuania to stop these illegal crossings. Lithuania alleges that these actions as a deliberate attempt by the Belarusian regime to use migration as a tool of political pressure against Lithuania and the European Union, in response to their support for Belarusian democracy and sanctions against human rights violations.
Despite extensive negotiations, Lithuania and Belarus have been unable to resolve their dispute over Belarus' alleged violations of the Protocol. This is also why Lithuania instituted the proceedings before the ICJ, to resolve the dispute and to hold Belarus fully accountable under international law, if the violation is established.
Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, Mr Rimantas Mockus, commented: 'Lithuania is prepared to demonstrate its legal leadership by asserting its rights under international law through decisive action. (…) The Belarusian regime must be held legally accountable for orchestrating the wave of illegal migration and the resulting human rights violations. Such legal actions not only address the immediate harm but also help establish important interpretations of international law that serve the common interest of the global community, deterring Belarus and other states from committing similar violations in the future.' Head of Legal Representation at the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, Mr. Ričard Dzikovič, added: 'Lithuania's commitments to democracy, the rule of law and peace are not only on the political agenda, but also in taking real legal actions against those who do not respect international law, do not comply with treaties or commit crimes.'
Over recent years, Lithuania has led important initiatives pertaining to upholding the international rules-based order, including investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by Russia in its war against Ukraine. Furthermore, in September 2024, the Government of Lithuania requested the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate alleged international crimes in Belarus. Other States should follow the example of Lithuania and play a more proactive role in seeking justice and accountability for international crimes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Baltic states issue statement backing Ukraine's EU, NATO membership
The parliamentary foreign affairs committees of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania issued a joint statement on June 6, affirming their firm support for Ukraine both in its defense against Russia and in its pursuit of EU and NATO membership. Following their meeting in Lithuania on June 6, the Baltic states reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine's EU integration, stating their goal of concluding accession talks and welcoming Ukraine as a full EU member by Jan. 1, 2030. Ukraine applied for EU membership in 2022 and was granted candidate status within months. Accession talks began in June 2024, with European leaders setting 2030 as a target for Ukraine's potential accession. Despite broad EU support for Ukraine's accession, Hungary remains a major obstacle. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced on March 7 that his government would conduct an opinion survey on Ukraine's potential EU membership. In their statement, the Baltic states also urged the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague to take "concrete political steps" toward Ukraine's membership in the alliance. They argued that Ukraine's NATO accession would 'consolidate a just and lasting peace not only in Ukraine but also in all of Europe" and help uphold the rules-based international order globally. "Ukraine's NATO membership would provide a more effective and enduring framework for safeguarding Euro-Atlantic security," the statement reads. Ukraine applied for NATO membership in September 2022, months after the outbreak of the full-scale war. The country has not received a formal invitation, as the 32 members have not reached a consensus. The statement also reaffirmed the Baltic countries' pledge to support Ukraine 'until its full victory,' and welcomed expanding defense cooperation between Ukraine and like-minded partners. It encouraged inviting Ukraine to join the U.K.-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), calling it a meaningful step toward deeper regional security integration. "We call upon the Foreign Affairs Committees of other national parliaments, international parliamentary assemblies, governments, and responsible institutions to endorse this statement and to adopt corresponding actions that would ensure continued and determined support for Ukraine's victory, reconstruction, and full integration into the Euro-Atlantic community," the statement read. Read also: Nordics, Baltics urge concrete steps toward Ukraine's EU membership We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Baltic states issue statement supporting Ukraine's membership in EU and NATO
The foreign affairs committees of the parliaments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have issued a joint statement expressing their full support for Ukraine in its war with Russia, as well as for its membership in the European Union and NATO. Source: Žygis Pavilionis, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Lithuanian Parliament, on Facebook, as reported by European Pravda Details: The committee meeting took place on Friday 6 June, in Birstonas, Lithuania. In the final document, the parties confirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and stressed that Ukraine's victory over Russia and its accession to NATO are key conditions for a just and lasting peace in Europe. They also noted that Ukraine's membership in NATO would provide a solid foundation for Euro-Atlantic security and stressed that Russia's full-scale war is a gross violation of international law, the UN Charter and basic human rights norms. To quote the countries' statement and five key commitments they declared: To support Ukraine until its full victory, including the liberation of all temporarily occupied territories, accountability for war crimes, and full implementation of international justice; To support Ukraine's membership in the European Union, with the goal of concluding accession negotiations and welcoming Ukraine as a full member of the European Union by 1 January 2030; To support Ukraine's path towards NATO membership, in line with the decisions of the Bucharest (2008), Vilnius (2023), and Washington (2024) NATO Summits, which clearly affirmed that Ukraine's future is in NATO. We call on the upcoming 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague to take concrete political steps that would pave the way for Ukraine's accession to the Alliance; To welcome the growing practical defence cooperation between Ukraine and likeminded partners and to encourage an invitation for Ukraine to join the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) as a meaningful step towards deeper regional security integration; To continue diplomatic and political efforts to isolate russia [the name of the aggressor country was deliberately written with a lowercase letter – ed.] and its supporters in the war within international organisations, to expand and tighten sanctions regimes, and to ensure full legal and political accountability for the crimes committed against Ukraine. The committees of the three countries also called on other parliaments, international institutions and governments to support this statement and take appropriate steps towards Ukraine's victory, its reconstruction and full integration into the Euro-Atlantic community. Background: A NATO summit will be held in The Hague at the end of June. As European Pravda reported earlier, NATO leaders are preparing to adopt a decision to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP, part of which will be allowed to support Ukraine. This could significantly strengthen the defence capabilities of the Ukrainian defence forces. The new spending target is expected to be divided as follows: 3.5% of GDP for direct military needs and another 1.5% for broader security projects, including infrastructure. Some NATO countries, such as Canada and Luxembourg, may use aid to Ukraine as part of their new commitments to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rubio imposes sanctions on four ICC judges for ‘targeting' US and Israel
The United States is placing sanctions on four judges from the international criminal court (ICC) for what it has called its 'illegitimate actions' targeting the United States and Israel. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, announced the sanctions in a statement on Thursday. They target Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin and Beti Hohler of Slovenia. Donald Trump ordered cabinet officials to draw up sanctions against the ICC after the court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and former defense minister Yoav Gallant. They were accused of overseeing an Israeli offensive during the Gaza conflict that caused famine and included the commission of war crimes. Two of the sanctioned judges authorised the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, and two authorised an ICC investigation into abuses by US personnel in Afghanistan. 'As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel,' Rubio said. 'The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies. This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.' The decision to move forward with the sanctions will escalate Trump's feud with the court and other international organisations, which he has broadly dismissed as politicised. The US has already sanctioned the ICC's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, because of his role in pursuing the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. Those sanctions have led Khan to lose access to his email and his bank accounts have been frozen, the Associated Press reported earlier this month. Americans who work for The Hague-based court have been warned that they could be arrested if they set foot on American soil. In a statement, the ICC said it 'deplores' the new designations for sanctions. 'These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 states parties from all corners of the globe,' the ICC said. 'Targeting those working for accountability does nothing to help civilians trapped in conflict,' the statement continued. 'It only emboldens those who believe they can act with impunity. These sanctions are not only directed at designated individuals, they also target all those who support the court, including nationals and corporate entities of states parties. They are aimed against innocent victims in all situations before the court, as well as the rule of law, peace, security and the prevention of the gravest crimes that shock the conscience of humanity.' Danya Chaikel, the International Federation for Human Rights's representative to the ICC, said the types of sanctions imposed by the Trump administration were originally designed to 'disrupt terrorist networks like ISIS, weapons traffickers, and human rights abusers, not international justice institutions.' 'Using them against ICC officials represents a dangerous misuse of executive power and distorts their purpose … It sends the chilling message that enforcing accountability for mass atrocities can get you punished, while allegedly committing international crimes may get you protected. James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society's justice initiative and a former ICC prosecutor, said: 'As a court of last resort, the ICC is the one place victims of the most serious crimes can turn to when other avenues have failed them in their search for truth and justice. These new designations of ICC judges threaten their hopes and embolden the perpetrators. Sanctions against ICC officials are a betrayal of America's proud commitment to the rule of law and international justice.'
