How the Lukashenko Regime Was Embarrassed in the EAEU Court While Trying to Challenge Kazakhstan’s Aviation Restrictions
- Apr 30
- 5 min read
Kazakhstan Reminded Lukashenko of His Duty to Follow International Rules
Imagine this:
Minsk. The capital of Belarus. A city where the vertical power structure usually serves the dictator’s interests. Yet something unexpected happens...
In Minsk, at the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), located at 5 Kirova Street, a verdict is publicly and officially pronounced — not against opposition members or dissenters, but... against the very regime of Lukashenko.
The regime tries to push through its decision. But instead of submissive approval — the Court rejects the demands of the Lukashenko regime, which holds the EAEU chairmanship in 2025. Right on Belarusian soil, an international court sides with international law, not the political whims of a dictatorship.
This is not just a legal ruling. It's a symbolic moment — a defeat of Lukashenko in the very heart of his power.
The case concerns the April 2025 decision of the EAEU Court, where Lukashenko — represented by his Ministry of Justice — tried to contest the restrictions introduced by Kazakhstan on flights of the Belarusian airline operating American-made Boeing aircraft. These restrictions were introduced by Kazakhstan in response to the threat of secondary sanctions from the U.S. and other Western countries targeting states and companies continuing to interact with regimes sanctioned for human rights violations, aggression, and interference in other nations' affairs.
You often ask: where are the results? Let me remind you — we placed Lukashenko’s personal aircraft fleet under sanctions. But let’s return to the legal dispute initiated by the regime.
Why Did Kazakhstan Restrict Belavia Flights?
To understand the context, it’s important to recall: the aviation industry is among the most sensitive sectors when it comes to international sanctions.
EAEU member countries, to avoid being subjected to secondary sanctions and restrictions from the U.S., EU, UK, and others, are forced to interact very cautiously with Belarusian and Russian air carriers. For Kazakhstan, this is not a matter of "loyalty" or "betrayal" — it’s simply about protecting national interests and the economy. Being targeted by secondary sanctions would mean losing access to international financial markets, technologies, and development opportunities — something no one in Astana wants.
Therefore, Kazakhstan imposed restrictions on Belavia’s Boeing aircraft from flying into its airports. Lukashenko, however, believing that EAEU allies should offer him unconditional support, decided to go on the offensive through the EAEU Court.
Attempt to Push Through Regime Interests via Court
The illegitimate Belarusian authorities demanded the EAEU Court interpret the EAEU Treaty in such a way that Kazakhstan’s actions would be recognized as a violation of the principles of creating a unified transport space and services trade within the EAEU. In simpler terms, Minsk wanted the Court to effectively compel Kazakhstan to lift its restrictions.
But this plan failed.
Court’s Decision: International Law Prevails
The Grand Panel of the EAEU Court, after examining all the facts, delivered a clear advisory opinion. The Court stated that:
Decisions regarding the admission or denial of foreign aircraft fall under the exclusive competence of member states.
International law, specifically the 1944 Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation, gives each state full authority to regulate the access of foreign aircraft to its territory.
The creation of a unified air transport market in the EAEU has not yet been completed. It remains a long-term goal, not a current reality.
States have the right to take measures to protect their own security, including in light of the threat of secondary sanctions, and such actions cannot be regarded as discriminatory under EAEU obligations.
Thus, the Court sided with international law — not with the political demands of Lukashenko. Again, note: the EAEU Court sits in Minsk.
Judge Ayrinyan’s Separate Opinion: Even More Critical Assessment
Special mention should be made of the dissenting opinion by Judge Erna Vladimirovna Ayrinyan (Armenia), a former Chair of the EAEU Court. In her opinion, she emphasized that Belarus completely misinterpreted EAEU law:
EAEU norms do not cover the regulation of aircraft admission to flights — this is a domestic matter for individual states.
The airspace of each country remains fully under its sovereignty, a principle clearly enshrined in international conventions.
Moreover, existing aviation agreements between Kazakhstan and Belarus are bilateral and fall outside EAEU jurisdiction.
In other words, the judge plainly stated: Belarus had no legal grounds to raise this issue at the EAEU level. This was a clear overreach — legally, politically, and morally.
Judges Ismailov and Kishkembaev, in their opinions, also emphasized that the Lukashenko regime had misinterpreted the EAEU Treaty. They noted: the regulation of aircraft access remains entirely within national jurisdiction, and the "freedom of trade in services" provisions do not apply to air transport rights. The development of a single transport services market is still in the planning phase, not yet operational. Kazakhstan is entitled to base restrictions on national security grounds. Full sovereignty over airspace is enshrined both in the EAEU Treaty and the Chicago Convention.
Why This Matters: Allies Are Not Siding with Dictators
The story of Lukashenko’s defeat in the EAEU Court shows more than just a legal loss. It reflects a broader trend: even within Russia-led integration projects like the EAEU, allies are increasingly prioritizing international law and global economic realities over blind support for autocracies.
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia — despite sharing organizations with Russia and Belarus — are clearly signaling they do not want to become hostages of others’ reckless ambitions. Nor are they willing to pay the price for Minsk or Moscow’s agendas.
Observing international sanctions has become a matter of economic security and development. No one wants to jeopardize their economy to maintain Belavia’s flight schedule or support a regime in international isolation.
President Tokayev has also made it clear: Kazakhstan will not serve as a tool in anyone’s confrontation with the West. The country has officially affirmed that it complies with international sanctions and does not intend to help Lukashenko circumvent them.
This means that even at the expense of short-term interests, Kazakhstan — unlike Lukashenko — chooses international legitimacy over support for aggression. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is also steadily distancing himself from both Moscow and Minsk, prioritizing normalization with the West and openly ignoring many “collective loyalty” gestures that Lukashenko had hoped for.
Conclusion: Lukashenko’s Public Failure
The outcome of this case is grim for the Lukashenko regime and very telling for observers:
The EAEU Court refused to become a tool of political pressure.
International law proved more important than political demands.
Even “allies” in integration unions don’t want to blindly follow Lukashenko’s orders.
The Lukashenko regime once again showed a complete misunderstanding of how international norms and institutions work.
The Court’s decision indirectly confirms the legitimacy of sanctions.
This episode is another reminder: the world has changed. Betting on international isolation and trying to impose conditions on neighbors through political pressure only leads to more failures and loss of face on the global stage.
Comments