The Regime Has Run Out of Professional Lawyers
- Admin of the NAM
- Jul 24
- 7 min read
An International Law Lesson for the Lukashenko Regime
As you know, the NAM team is now actively working to bring representatives of the Lukashenko regime to accountability along three main lines. These are:
Crimes against humanity committed against the Belarusian people.
Deportation of Ukrainian children to Belarus from temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.
An act of aggression against Ukraine.
However, it's important to note that we also have a fourth line of work. Right now another case against Belarus is proceeding at the International Court of Justice, initiated by Lithuania. For now we're not disclosing all the details of this process, but we continue to work on it actively and systematically.
And today we'll talk about the absurd reaction that followed from the regime to the lawsuit at the International Court of Justice, and clearly show just how deeply degraded the level of the Lukashenko regime's chief lawyers has become.
Who defends the regime? A portrait of a pseudo-professional
Let's go back a bit. On June 26, the head of the Main Treaty and Legal Department of the Lukashenko regime's Foreign Ministry, Andrei Popkov, commented on the progress of the case initiated by Lithuania at the International Court of Justice against Belarus over the organization of a flow of illegal migration. And he made, to put it mildly, astonishing statements for someone holding the position of chief lawyer of the regime's Foreign Ministry.
Who is Andrei Popkov?
He is an international lawyer, a career diplomat. After returning from the post of the regime's Ambassador to South Korea, he headed the Main Treaty and Legal Department of the Foreign Ministry for the second time. So Popkov is essentially the regime's chief international lawyer. And here is what this person states regarding the possibility of using international justice mechanisms and Lithuania's appeal to the International Court of Justice:
"It is clear that legal aggression is, for us, a manifestation of the collective West's undermining of the international order based on the norms and principles of the UN Charter, and in particular the undermining of its key components. This is the system of international justice and dispute resolution. We respond to all these new challenges in accordance with the principles of international law, within the framework of the relevant international judicial procedures. Our Russian colleagues have already accumulated significant experience, but we are only learning. And we appreciate any kind of support from the expert community and from friendly countries."
This is an astonishing claim. It doesn't just demonstrate professional incompetence — it evokes outright pity from fellow professionals.
Let's explain why this statement is a disgrace for a diplomat of this rank.
For every international lawyer, the International Court of Justice in The Hague is a kind of main temple, a Mecca and symbol of the profession. It's the center of legal doctrine formation and intellectual gravity. Participating in an ICJ case as the official representative (agent) of one's country is often the pinnacle of a career one can only dream of.
And here, the regime's chief international lawyer, at a moment when he should have shown the full weight of his knowledge, experience, and his department's potential, and demonstrated readiness to confidently defend the country's interests, instead starts looking plaintively toward Moscow and publicly declaring that he and his team are "only learning."
Now let's imagine a situation where Belarus's real interests — not the regime's — require an appeal to the ICJ to settle a dispute with, say, Russia, or other actions necessary to defend the country's sovereignty by legal means. Andrei Popkov's statement directly proves that neither he himself nor the regime's Foreign Ministry have any capacity for this.
Popkov's attempt to call the use of international justice mechanisms "legal aggression" and "undermining the system" deserves special attention. He tries to convince us that some imaginary "collective West" is breaking the world order.
This is a striking claim. Let's start with the basic facts: the International Court of Justice was established after World War II as the UN's principal judicial organ specifically for the peaceful, civilized settlement of disputes between states. The Court's Statute was adopted by 50 founding states simultaneously with the UN Charter and is an integral part of it. At present, the UN Charter has been signed by 193 states.
And, as we all well remember, Belarus was one of the founding countries of the UN! That is, in essence, a co-author of both the Charter and the Court's Statute.
Here the regime's chief international lawyer displayed an "incredible" command of the skill of substituting concepts. What was once laid down by Belarus itself as a civilized means of resolving disputes, he calls "aggression." The use of legitimate instruments of international law becomes, in his telling, "undermining the system."
Next, the regime's representative decided to disclose some details of Belarus's position in the memorandum submitted to the ICJ in the case initiated by Lithuania. And here we found some highly interesting details.
Let's start with a well-known fact: the regime, unfortunately representing Belarus, submitted its written position on the case back on January 19 of last year. Meanwhile Lithuania is only required to submit its own by July 20. For any lawyer this looks strange, since as a general rule it's always the applicant party (the plaintiff) — that is, Lithuania — that submits its position first.
Here Popkov gives a very clear explanation. He names three possible options for handling the case within — quote — the "jurisdictional stage." One of these options is organizing a separate procedural stage to examine all questions of the court's jurisdiction and the admissibility of the application. According to Popkov, this option is typically proposed by the president of the court during in-person consultations with the parties. In professional legal language, this process is called bifurcation of the case.
But according to the regime's chief lawyer, it was Lithuania (the plaintiff state) itself that proposed bifurcation, and he personally agreed to it. I would like to speculate on how events actually unfolded and who really proposed what, but I'll limit myself to noting that this is exactly how things always go in a legal dispute — accepting the other side's proposal.
So what's the outcome?
On July 14, 2025, at a meeting with the Lithuanian side and the President of the International Court of Justice, Andrei Popkov didn't just agree to bifurcation. In effect, a role reversal took place: at this specific stage, Lithuania became the respondent, and Belarus the applicant.
In an international judicial proceeding, the respondent always has a procedural advantage. It can react to the plaintiff's position, calmly preparing counterarguments to an already-formulated written claim. And Popkov voluntarily gave up this advantage!
Why was this an advantage? Because jurisdictional objections could have been raised through a traditional objection within no later than three months after the plaintiff party submits its memorandum, or already within the proceedings on the merits. In both of these scenarios, Lithuania would not have had significant opportunities to react to the regime's legal position, since it would no longer have been able to depart from the position originally set out in the Memorial.
So what did the regime get in exchange for such a surrender of position? Apparently, only one thing: the ability to prepare its written position over 6 months instead of 3.
Put simply, Andrei Popkov ineptly squandered a key procedural advantage in court just to drag out the process by a measly three months.
Who won in this situation? That's for you to decide. But it's obvious that the regime's entire tactic is built exclusively on the desire to drag out the negotiation and judicial processes with Lithuania. They are trying to delay the inevitable end in the faint hope of a miracle.
Perhaps the regime hopes to wait out a change of power in Lithuania toward someone more loyal. Perhaps they believe Moscow can somehow pressure Vilnius. But neither will happen. Lithuania has had three changes of government since 2023, yet its position on Belarus remains unshakeable. And the Kremlin grows weaker by the day.
The delay tactic is simply the regime's own admission of its inability to act within the legal field. And the main reason for this is a shortage of qualified personnel. Over 30 years, the system has effectively destroyed and shut down any opportunities for the development of an independent school of international law in the country. That's why we're seeing such childish procedural errors already at the very first stages of the case.
Will the experience of his Russian colleagues, on whom he relies so heavily, help Popkov? Let's recall: in 2022 Russia went down exactly the same path in the case initiated by Ukraine over violation of the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. And in the end Russia lost that very "jurisdictional stage" spectacularly. So let them share their experience of defeats.
In conclusion, I want to note that the Lukashenko regime has created for itself an illusion of absolute immunity, completely ignoring the rules that Belarus itself once helped establish. It is precisely the regime's behavior — denying the existence of the system of international law — that undermines the system of world legal order. It is precisely the sense of total impunity that led Belarus to commit real, not merely legal, aggression against a neighboring state, one that has taken the lives of thousands of civilians.
If Andrei Popkov is only learning today, then Lithuania is right now giving him and the entire regime an excellent practical lesson. A lesson that international law works, and that accountability will have to be borne for any crimes.
And we recommend that Foreign Ministry officials learn faster. Something tells us this is far from the last international case against the regime. For our part, we are already actively preparing a "new training course" for them.
Taking this opportunity, we once again express our full solidarity with Lithuania's courageous and principled stance, as well as with its approaches to compelling the regime to comply with international law and Belarus's obligations.
Comments