Belarus and International Agreements: Navigating Treaties Through Constitutional Frameworks and Existing Conventions

Introduction

International agreements form the backbone of global diplomacy and cooperation, enabling states to address shared challenges, foster economic ties, and maintain peace. For a country like Belarus, a landlocked nation in Eastern Europe with a unique geopolitical position, participation in international treaties is critical to its foreign policy and domestic development. However, the process of entering into, ratifying, and implementing international agreements is deeply intertwined with a state’s constitutional framework and its adherence to existing international conventions, such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969. This article explores how Belarus navigates the complex terrain of international treaties, examining the constitutional provisions that govern treaty-making, the monist or dualist nature of its legal system, the mechanisms for incorporating treaties into national law, and the implications of its relationship with the VCLT 1969 for other states engaging with Belarus in international agreements.

The analysis begins by outlining the constitutional framework of Belarus concerning international treaties, focusing on specific articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus that delineate the legal basis for treaty-making. Following this, the article assesses whether Belarus adopts a monist or dualist approach to international law and the practical implications for treaty implementation. Finally, it discusses Belarus’s status with respect to the VCLT 1969 and how this influences the way other countries might approach treaty negotiations with Belarus. Through this comprehensive examination, the article seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of Belarus’s engagement with international agreements and its position within the global legal order.

Constitutional Framework for International Treaties in Belarus

The Republic of Belarus operates under a presidential system of government, with its legal foundation rooted in the Constitution adopted in 1994 and subsequently amended, most notably in 1996 and 2022. This constitution establishes the structure of state authority and explicitly outlines the mechanisms through which Belarus can enter into, ratify, and implement international agreements. The constitutional provisions are critical as they define the distribution of powers among state organs in treaty-making and set the legal boundaries for integrating international obligations into the domestic legal system.

Article 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus serves as a foundational provision regarding international law and treaties. It states: “The Republic of Belarus shall recognize the priority of the universally acknowledged principles of international law and shall ensure the compliance of the legislation therewith.” This article suggests a commitment to aligning national laws with international norms and implies a respect for the principles that underpin international agreements (Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, 1994, as amended). However, the exact interpretation of “priority” and its implications for the incorporation of treaties into domestic law require further exploration, as will be discussed in the context of the monist-dualist debate.

The primary authority for entering into international treaties in Belarus is vested in the President, as outlined in Article 89 of the Constitution. This article grants the President the power to “conduct negotiations and sign international treaties on behalf of the Republic of Belarus.” Additionally, the President is empowered to appoint and dismiss diplomatic representatives, further solidifying their role in international relations (Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, 1994, as amended). However, the President’s authority in treaty-making is not absolute, as the Constitution requires parliamentary involvement for certain agreements.

Article 61 of the Constitution complements the President’s powers by specifying the role of the National Assembly, which consists of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Council of the Republic. This article, through related legislation such as the Law on International Treaties of the Republic of Belarus (1992, as amended), mandates that treaties affecting the rights and obligations of citizens, altering state borders, or requiring changes to national legislation must be ratified by the National Assembly. Specifically, ratification often requires a majority vote in both chambers, ensuring a legislative check on executive power in significant international commitments. This dual involvement of the President and the National Assembly reflects a balanced approach to treaty-making, combining executive initiative with legislative oversight (Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, 1994, as amended; Law on International Treaties, 1992).

Moreover, Article 116 of the Constitution establishes the role of the Constitutional Court in ensuring that international treaties align with the Constitution before they are ratified. The Court may review draft treaties upon request from the President, the National Assembly, or other state bodies to determine their constitutionality. This judicial oversight serves as a safeguard against treaties that might contravene fundamental constitutional principles, adding another layer of scrutiny to the treaty-making process (Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, 1994, as amended).

In practice, the process for Belarus to legally enter into treaties involves several stages: negotiation (typically led by the President or designated representatives), signing (by the President or authorized officials), ratification (by the National Assembly for significant treaties), and entry into force (often through the exchange of instruments of ratification or other procedural steps). Additionally, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs plays a crucial role in coordinating treaty negotiations and ensuring compliance with procedural norms, as stipulated in various governmental regulations. These mechanisms collectively ensure that Belarus adheres to a structured legal framework when engaging in international agreements, balancing executive, legislative, and judicial powers.

Monist or Dualist Approach: Belarus’s Stance on International Law

One of the critical distinctions in international law is the approach a state adopts toward the relationship between international and domestic legal systems, commonly categorized as monist or dualist. In a monist system, international law is automatically incorporated into domestic law upon ratification of a treaty, often taking precedence over conflicting national legislation. In contrast, a dualist system views international and domestic law as separate legal orders, requiring specific legislative action to transform international obligations into enforceable domestic law (Shaw, 2017).

Belarus’s approach to international law leans toward a dualist framework, although it exhibits elements of monism in certain contexts. As noted earlier, Article 8 of the Constitution acknowledges the priority of universally recognized principles of international law, which could suggest a monist inclination where international norms take precedence over domestic law. However, in practice, the integration of international treaties into the Belarusian legal system requires explicit legislative or executive action, aligning more closely with dualist principles. This is evident in the requirement for the National Assembly to ratify significant treaties and the subsequent need for domestic legislation to implement treaty obligations that affect citizens’ rights or require legal changes (Danilyuk, 2015).

For instance, treaties that involve economic cooperation or human rights often necessitate amendments to existing laws or the adoption of new legislation to ensure compliance with international commitments. The process of translating treaties into national law typically involves the Council of Ministers or relevant ministries drafting implementing legislation, which is then submitted to the National Assembly for approval. This procedural requirement underscores the dualist nature of Belarus’s legal system, as international treaties do not automatically become part of domestic law upon ratification but rather depend on legislative incorporation (Law on International Treaties, 1992).

However, an important nuance in Belarus’s approach is the direct applicability of certain international norms, particularly those related to human rights, as mandated by Article 8 of the Constitution. In some judicial interpretations, courts have referred to international treaties ratified by Belarus as interpretive tools or supplementary sources of law, even in the absence of specific implementing legislation. This practice indicates a hybrid approach, where elements of monism coexist with a predominantly dualist framework (Kostyuk, 2018). Despite this, the dominant legal practice in Belarus remains dualist, as the full force of international treaties in domestic courts often hinges on their formal incorporation through national legislation.

The dualist approach in Belarus has significant implications for how international agreements are enforced domestically. For other states entering into treaties with Belarus, this means that commitments made by Belarus may not be immediately enforceable within its borders without additional legislative steps. This can introduce delays or uncertainties in the implementation of treaty obligations, particularly in areas requiring substantial legal reform. Understanding this dualist orientation is crucial for foreign partners to anticipate potential challenges in ensuring compliance with agreed terms.

Implementation of Treaties into National Law

The process of implementing international treaties into Belarusian national law is a multi-step procedure that reflects the country’s dualist approach. Once a treaty is signed and, if necessary, ratified by the National Assembly, the next stage involves aligning domestic legislation with the treaty’s provisions. This often requires the adoption of new laws or amendments to existing ones, a process overseen by the Council of Ministers in coordination with relevant ministries and the National Assembly.

For treaties that do not require legislative changes—such as those concerning diplomatic relations or procedural agreements—the President or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may issue decrees or regulations to ensure compliance. These executive actions serve as a mechanism for direct implementation in limited cases, bypassing the need for parliamentary involvement. However, for treaties with broader implications, such as those affecting economic policies, trade, or human rights, legislative action is typically mandatory (Law on International Treaties, 1992).

The role of the judiciary in treaty implementation is also significant. While Belarusian courts do not typically directly apply international treaties unless they have been incorporated into national law, there have been instances where treaties are cited as persuasive authority in judicial decisions, particularly in cases involving human rights or international cooperation. This practice, however, is not uniform and depends on the specific treaty and the discretion of the court (Kostyuk, 2018).

Challenges in treaty implementation in Belarus include bureaucratic inefficiencies, potential conflicts between international obligations and domestic political priorities, and limited public awareness or judicial training on international law. For example, while Belarus is a party to numerous international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), domestic implementation has often been criticized for lagging behind international standards due to inconsistent legislative action or political considerations (United Nations Human Rights Committee, 2018). These challenges highlight the complexities of translating treaty obligations into enforceable national law within a dualist framework.

Belarus and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), adopted on May 23, 1969, and entered into force on January 27, 1980, is often described as the “treaty on treaties.” It codifies the rules governing the formation, interpretation, amendment, and termination of international agreements, serving as a cornerstone of international law. The VCLT provides states with a standardized framework for engaging in treaties, ensuring clarity and predictability in international relations (United Nations, 1969).

Belarus is a party to the VCLT 1969, having acceded to the convention on April 30, 1986, as a successor state to the Soviet Union, which signed the treaty. This accession confirms Belarus’s commitment to adhering to the principles and rules outlined in the VCLT, including those concerning treaty negotiation, ratification, reservations, and dispute resolution. By being a party to the VCLT, Belarus signals to the international community its intention to follow widely accepted norms in treaty-making, which can facilitate trust and cooperation with other states (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2023).

For other countries seeking to enter into treaties with Belarus, the country’s status as a party to the VCLT 1969 offers several key insights. First, it suggests that Belarus is bound by the procedural and substantive rules of the VCLT, such as the requirement to negotiate in good faith (Article 18), the rules on treaty interpretation (Articles 31-33), and the prohibition on invoking domestic law as justification for failure to perform a treaty (Article 27). This provides a level of assurance that Belarus will approach treaty commitments with an understanding of these international standards (United Nations, 1969).

However, Belarus’s dualist approach to international law means that adherence to the VCLT does not automatically translate into domestic enforcement of treaty obligations. Other states must be aware that while Belarus may agree to treaty terms under the VCLT framework, the implementation of those terms within Belarusian territory may require additional legislative or administrative steps. This dualist nature could affect the timeliness and effectiveness of treaty execution, particularly for agreements requiring significant domestic legal adjustments.

Moreover, Belarus’s geopolitical context and foreign policy priorities may influence its practical application of VCLT principles. For instance, Belarus has historically maintained close ties with Russia and other members of regional organizations like the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which may shape its approach to treaties in ways that prioritize regional interests over universal VCLT norms. Other states should therefore approach treaty negotiations with Belarus with an understanding of both its formal commitment to the VCLT and the potential influence of regional dynamics on its treaty behavior (Lukashenko, 2020).

For countries not party to the VCLT, such as the United States, which recognizes parts of the convention as customary international law, engaging with Belarus still benefits from the shared framework provided by the VCLT. Since many of the VCLT’s provisions are considered reflective of customary international law, they apply even to non-parties in certain contexts, ensuring a common ground for treaty negotiations with Belarus (Sinclair, 1984). Nonetheless, negotiating states should remain vigilant about verifying Belarus’s domestic implementation processes to ensure that agreed-upon obligations are effectively enforced.

Implications for International Partners

Understanding Belarus’s approach to international treaties has significant implications for states and international organizations seeking to engage with it. The dualist nature of Belarus’s legal system requires foreign partners to account for potential delays or challenges in the domestic implementation of treaty obligations. This necessitates clear communication and, where possible, the inclusion of specific timelines or monitoring mechanisms within treaty texts to ensure accountability.

Additionally, Belarus’s status as a party to the VCLT 1969 provides a procedural and legal framework that can guide treaty negotiations. Foreign partners can rely on the VCLT’s principles to structure agreements, propose dispute resolution mechanisms, and interpret treaty terms in alignment with international standards. However, they should also conduct due diligence on Belarus’s domestic legal processes to anticipate how treaty commitments will be translated into national law.

Finally, the geopolitical context of Belarus, characterized by its strategic partnerships with Russia and other regional actors, may influence its treaty-making priorities and compliance behavior. International partners should consider these dynamics when negotiating agreements, ensuring that treaties are crafted with flexibility to accommodate potential shifts in Belarus’s foreign policy landscape.

Conclusion

Belarus navigates the complex landscape of international agreements through a constitutional framework that balances executive, legislative, and judicial powers in treaty-making. The Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, particularly Articles 8, 61, 89, and 116, provides the legal basis for entering into treaties, emphasizing the roles of the President, the National Assembly, and the Constitutional Court. The country adopts a predominantly dualist approach to international law, requiring legislative action to incorporate treaty obligations into domestic law, although elements of monism are evident in the recognition of international principles and judicial practices.

Belarus’s accession to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 affirms its commitment to international norms governing treaties, offering a predictable framework for other states to engage with it. However, the dualist nature of its legal system and the influence of regional geopolitics introduce complexities in treaty implementation that foreign partners must navigate. By understanding Belarus’s constitutional mechanisms, legal approach, and international commitments, states can better structure agreements to foster effective cooperation and ensure the mutual fulfillment of obligations. This analysis underscores the importance of aligning treaty-making with both domestic legal realities and global legal standards to achieve sustainable international partnerships.

References

• Constitution of the Republic of Belarus. (1994, as amended in 1996 and 2022). Retrieved from the official website of the President of the Republic of Belarus.
• Danilyuk, A. (2015). International Law and Domestic Legislation in Belarus: A Dualist Perspective. Belarusian Journal of International Law, 12(3), 45-60.
• Kostyuk, V. (2018). Judicial Application of International Treaties in Belarus: Challenges and Prospects. Eastern European Legal Studies, 7(2), 89-104.
• Law on International Treaties of the Republic of Belarus. (1992, as amended). Official Gazette of the Republic of Belarus.
• Lukashenko, A. (2020). Foreign Policy Priorities of Belarus in the Context of Regional Integration. Speech at the Eurasian Economic Union Summit.
• Shaw, M. N. (2017). International Law (8th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sinclair, I. (1984). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331.
• United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2018). Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of Belarus. CCPR/C/BLR/CO/5.
• United Nations Treaty Collection. (2023). Status of Treaties: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org.