Lithuania v. Belarus case could set precedent for state-sponsored migrant smuggling
In de media image: Dorian Lubbe via Unsplash
Lithuania’s case against Belarus before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) could have implications far beyond the dispute itself. The interventions by Poland and Russia add further legal significance to the proceedings. Jens Iverson, assistant professor international law, commented on the case in Table.Briefings.
Lithuania brought Belarus before the ICJ in May 2025 over alleged state-sponsored migrant smuggling into Lithuania. The case is based on the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants, which supplements the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, also known as the Palermo Convention. Poland and Russia have since intervened under Article 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. Their interventions do not make them parties to the proceedings but allow them to submit their views on the interpretation of the treaty. The European Union has also submitted a statement on the case.
According to Iverson, it is questionable whether Russia’s intervention is aimed solely at informing the ICJ judges. ‘I think it is reasonable to ask whether the judges at the ICJ are really the main audience for Russia’s intervention.’ He argues that Russia’s accusations of an international ‘lawfare’ campaign by Lithuania and Poland have little bearing on the Court’s legal assessment. ‘The complaints about lawfare have little material bearing on the judges’ decision in this matter’, Iverson said.
At the same time, Russia’s intervention could have significant legal implications. ‘The interpretation of the law in the current proceedings will be binding on Poland and also on Russia. Even if this does not make them parties to the proceedings’, Iverson said. If a similar legal dispute were to arise in the future, a claimant could refer to the ICJ’s ruling in the Lithuania v. Belarus case. ‘While this is not the same as having been a party to the proceedings oneself, it is by no means irrelevant’, Iverson said. The potential precedent is particularly relevant as other European countries are reporting similar forms of alleged instrumentalized migration. The outcome of Lithuania’s case could therefore influence how states and international courts address the use of migration as a tool of political pressure.