As representatives of civil society, we are deeply concerned with the current political crisis unfolding in Belarus. By mapping international responses to the crisis, we explore the toolbox used by various actors to ensure accountability and inspire change. The project’s goal is to monitor, document, and analyze international responses, seeking to clarify their complex nature to the general public, as well as to inform advocacy efforts.
We do not intend to rank international responses based on their effectiveness or formulate a ‘one size fits all’ strategy for handling the crisis. We welcome all steps taken by local and global actors to raise awareness about the dire human rights situation in Belarus. In the absence of a functioning domestic justice system to remedy violations, the response of the international community is especially important. We encourage dialogue and action that can help put an end to human rights abuses and political persecution in Belarus.
States and international organizations, unless neutral by their mandate (e.g., the International Committee of the Red Cross), tend to speak up on events of high international resonance. As numbers of the regime’s victims continue to grow, actors on the international arena respond in a variety of ways, including but not limited to:
- issuing official statements condemning violence and electoral fraud;
- imposing travel bans and asset freezes on state officials;
- shrinking the size of diplomatic missions;
- withdrawing from joint economic projects;
- providing financial support to civil society, independent media, and victims;
- adopting resolutions and recommendations; and starting formal investigations.
Some actors react out of a sense of legal obligation. For instance, states that view the prohibition of torture as a **jus cogens **(peremptory) or **erga omnes **(towards all) rule of international law may treat instances of torture in Belarus as an affront to the rights and interests of all states and consider themselves legally obliged to react to the violation. States that cease the performance of their obligations in respect to Belarus may also frame such actions as countermeasures.
Other actors may frame their responses as something that they choose to do rather than must do. For instance, it is within states’ discretion to condemn Belarusian de facto leadership because they are concerned by the implications of such leadership’s harmful policies, without necessarily qualifying the policies in question as violations of erga omnes rules.
Although states cannot unilaterally impose obligations on other states, international organizations do sometimes have the power to issue binding decisions. For instance, if the United Nations Security Council were to establish an existence of threat to international peace and security, it could adopt a binding resolution adopting either peaceful or forceful measures against a state.
Responses to the situation in Belarus issued by third states and organizations that Belarus is not a member of are not binding in nature. However, just because such responses are not directly binding on Belarus, this does not mean that they do not have consequences on the ground. Discontinuation of joint projects or freezing of assets affect Belarusian authorities, immediately depriving them of tangible economic benefits. Initiating criminal proceedings against perpetrators of torture in foreign states may not prompt Belarus to cease torture, but may result in an actual criminal sentence should the perpetrator be caught and brought to justice.
Although Belarusian state agencies may be quick to label all unfavorable responses to their actions as sanctions, not all responses easily fall under the sanctions umbrella. As discussed in a separate section, sanctions are typically characterized by the taking away certain benefits – like unrestricted travel or unrestricted trade. Other measures (e.g., official statements, resolutions, formal and informal investigations, financial support to civil society) may lack the element of ‘privilege deprivation’, but exert pressure on the regime in other meaningful ways.