Key takeaways for existing Belarus exposure
Learn how Belarus’s new Code of Civil Procedure, Law No. 280‑Z, and BIT protections affect enforcement of ICSID and UNCITRAL awards for investors already exposed to Belarus—and how to plan a realistic recovery strategy.
Who this article is for
This article is for companies and investors who already have operations, contracts, or legacy investments tied to Belarus. You may be:
My practice focuses on helping clients in exactly this situation. I have been involved in several disputes connected to Belarus, each mixing sanctions, public‑policy arguments, and complex enforcement questions. I do not advise on how to invest in Belarus—I help you protect and enforce the exposure you already have.
- A party to a contract with a Belarusian company or state‑owned entity.
- Holding (or considering) an ICSID or UNCITRAL award against a Belarusian counterparty.
- Facing sanctions‑related disruption to an ongoing arbitration or enforcement effort.
My practice focuses on helping clients in exactly this situation. I have been involved in several disputes connected to Belarus, each mixing sanctions, public‑policy arguments, and complex enforcement questions. I do not advise on how to invest in Belarus—I help you protect and enforce the exposure you already have.
How does Belarus’s new Code of Civil Procedure affect enforcement of foreign arbitral awards?
On 1 January 2026, a new unified Code of Civil Procedure (the “Code”) entered into force in Belarus. It unified the codes of civil and economic procedure and introduces a dedicated section on international civil procedure.
For foreign arbitral awards (including those based on ICSID and UNCITRAL proceedings), the key changes are:
In practice, that means award creditors now operate under a clearer, more convention‑aligned framework—but still in a jurisdiction where sanctions and public policy can weigh heavily in hard cases.
For foreign arbitral awards (including those based on ICSID and UNCITRAL proceedings), the key changes are:
- Unified framework: The Code centralizes the rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
- New York‑style refusal grounds: The grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement now mirror Article V of the 1958 New York Convention, making the system more predictable and familiar to international practitioners.
- No limitation period: The previous three‑year limitation period for enforcing foreign arbitral awards has been removed.
In practice, that means award creditors now operate under a clearer, more convention‑aligned framework—but still in a jurisdiction where sanctions and public policy can weigh heavily in hard cases.
Can you enforce an ICSID award against Belarus?
Belarus is party to the ICSID Convention. For an investor who already has an ICSID claim or award against Belarus or a Belarusian state‑owned entity, this is critical:
The new Code provides the procedural vehicle for recognition and execution of ICSID awards in Belarus. In practical terms, enforcement planning should:
If you already have an ICSID award, or are evaluating whether ICSID is the right path for your existing Belarus exposure, the central question is not just “do I have a right to enforce?” but “where, when, and against which assets is enforcement realistic?”
- An ICSID award should be recognized as if it were a final judgment of a Belarusian court.
- Domestic courts are not meant to re‑examine the merits; the only proper way to challenge an ICSID award is within the ICSID system.
The new Code provides the procedural vehicle for recognition and execution of ICSID awards in Belarus. In practical terms, enforcement planning should:
- Identify which Belarusian assets might be reachable and not protected by sovereign immunity.
- Anticipate domestic arguments Belarus may still raise (public policy, sanctions, sovereign immunity), even where they sit uneasily alongside ICSID’s self‑contained enforcement model.
- Coordinate enforcement in other jurisdictions in parallel, using Belarus as one part of a broader pressure strategy rather than the sole forum.
If you already have an ICSID award, or are evaluating whether ICSID is the right path for your existing Belarus exposure, the central question is not just “do I have a right to enforce?” but “where, when, and against which assets is enforcement realistic?”
How are UNCITRAL and institutional awards treated under the new Code?
Many disputes involving Belarusian counterparties are resolved under UNCITRAL rules or institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, SCC, etc.) with seats outside Belarus. Those awards are treated as “foreign arbitral awards” and enforced primarily under the New York Convention (or under the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, where applicable).
Under the new Code:
At the same time, courts may raise non‑arbitrability and public policy on their own initiative. In sanctions‑sensitive or politically charged disputes, this is where most of the real enforcement battle tends to happen.
Under the new Code:
- Belarusian courts now apply refusal grounds that closely follow Article V of the New York Convention (invalid agreement, due‑process failures, excess of mandate, improper composition, setting‑aside at the seat, non‑arbitrability, and public policy).
- The Code recognizes the concept of the arbitral “seat,” distinguishing awards rendered abroad from awards issued in Belarus by a foreign‑seated tribunal.
- There is no limitation period for enforcing foreign arbitral awards, allowing a longer‑term, enforcement‑first strategy.
At the same time, courts may raise non‑arbitrability and public policy on their own initiative. In sanctions‑sensitive or politically charged disputes, this is where most of the real enforcement battle tends to happen.
What is Law No. 280‑Z and how do sanctions affect arbitration against Belarus?
A crucial overlay to the new Code is Belarus’s 2023 Law No. 280‑Z on the application of special restrictive measures (often likened to Russia’s “Lugovoy Law”). This law is central for anyone already in dispute with a Belarusian party in a sanctions environment.
Law No. 280‑Z allows Belarusian courts to:
Belarusian courts have already granted multiple anti‑arbitration injunctions against arbitrations seated abroad. For an award creditor or a party already in arbitration, this means:
My role is to help foreign clients understand how sanctions and Belarus’s response laws interact with jurisdiction, arbitration strategy, and enforcement pathways—and to design lawful, realistic routes to recovery.
Law No. 280‑Z allows Belarusian courts to:
- Assert exclusive jurisdiction over certain disputes involving Belarusian parties affected by foreign sanctions.
- Issue anti‑arbitration and anti‑suit injunctions restraining proceedings in foreign courts or arbitral tribunals.
- Treat some arbitration or forum‑selection clauses as unenforceable where sanctions are said to impede a Belarusian party’s effective access to justice (for example, because of payment restrictions, banking limits, or visa issues).
Belarusian courts have already granted multiple anti‑arbitration injunctions against arbitrations seated abroad. For an award creditor or a party already in arbitration, this means:
- Your Belarusian counterparty may go to a domestic court to try to block or undermine your foreign arbitration.
- A Belarusian injunction can be used to justify non‑participation or later objections, creating additional enforcement risks.
- Some parts of the dispute may be reframed as falling under Belarusian exclusive jurisdiction, leading to conflicting decisions.
My role is to help foreign clients understand how sanctions and Belarus’s response laws interact with jurisdiction, arbitration strategy, and enforcement pathways—and to design lawful, realistic routes to recovery.
How do existing BITs and treaty protections still help if you’re already exposed?
Many clients come to me with pre‑existing corporate structures and treaties that can still be used to their advantage. Belarus has a broad network of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and a number of regional treaties with investment protections with various states. These treaties typically provide:
If your current Belarus exposure is held through a company in a state that has a BIT or another treaty with investment protections with Belarus, you may already have:
A key part of my work is to audit your existing structure and history, identify which treaties actually apply, and build a dispute and enforcement plan that uses those protections effectively.
- Substantive protections such as fair and equitable treatment and protection against expropriation.
- Consent to investor‑state arbitration (often ICSID or UNCITRAL).
- Commitments regarding recognition and enforcement of awards.
If your current Belarus exposure is held through a company in a state that has a BIT or another treaty with investment protections with Belarus, you may already have:
- A direct treaty‑based claim against the state, separate from contractual claims.
- A choice of ICSID vs. non‑ICSID arbitration, which affects how enforcement is handled under the new Code.
- Additional arguments at enforcement: for example, that Belarus’s treaty obligations should guide how its courts interpret public policy and arbitrability.
A key part of my work is to audit your existing structure and history, identify which treaties actually apply, and build a dispute and enforcement plan that uses those protections effectively.
Common questions I hear from clients
“Can I enforce my UNCITRAL award against a Belarusian state‑owned entity?”
Possibly, yes—but the details matter. We need to look at the seat of arbitration, how the tribunal handled jurisdiction and due process, the nature of the claim (public‑law vs. commercial), and how Belarusian courts are likely to see public policy and non‑arbitrability under the new Code of Civil Procedure and Law No. 280‑Z.
“What does Law No. 280‑Z mean for my ongoing arbitration?”
If your Belarusian counterparty is subject to sanctions or argues that sanctions restrict its participation, it may try to obtain an anti‑arbitration injunction in Belarus. That does not automatically invalidate your arbitration, but it raises risks for participation, timing, and later enforcement that should be managed proactively in your overall strategy.
“Should I start arbitration now, or wait?”
That depends on asset location, treaty coverage, and the interaction with any applicable sanctions regime. In some cases, moving quickly preserves leverage and aligns with limitation periods abroad; in others, a short period of asset‑mapping and treaty analysis before filing can materially improve your position.
Practical steps if you already have Belarus‑related exposure
If you are already “in” Belarus, you can:
1.Map your dispute and treaty options
Gather all contracts, corporate charts, and timelines; identify which states and treaties are in play.
2.Run an enforcement‑first asset review
Locate Belarusian and counterparty assets globally; decide which jurisdictions are realistically enforceable and in what order.
3.Assess sanctions‑driven risks
Understand the sanctions regimes that apply and how Law No. 280‑Z might be used tactically by your counterparty.
4.Align arbitration strategy with enforcement
Choose forum, rules, and timing with a clear view of how an eventual award would be enforced, not just how it would be won.
5.Document conduct in real time
Keep detailed records of actions by Belarusian authorities or state‑linked entities that adversely affect your rights; these records are crucial both for arbitration and for resisting public‑policy defences later.
1.Map your dispute and treaty options
Gather all contracts, corporate charts, and timelines; identify which states and treaties are in play.
2.Run an enforcement‑first asset review
Locate Belarusian and counterparty assets globally; decide which jurisdictions are realistically enforceable and in what order.
3.Assess sanctions‑driven risks
Understand the sanctions regimes that apply and how Law No. 280‑Z might be used tactically by your counterparty.
4.Align arbitration strategy with enforcement
Choose forum, rules, and timing with a clear view of how an eventual award would be enforced, not just how it would be won.
5.Document conduct in real time
Keep detailed records of actions by Belarusian authorities or state‑linked entities that adversely affect your rights; these records are crucial both for arbitration and for resisting public‑policy defences later.
How I can help
As an international law and arbitration counsel, I focus on clients who already have exposure to high‑risk jurisdictions like Belarus and need hands‑on, senior‑level guidance. I assist with:
If you have an existing investment, contract, or dispute connected to Belarus and want a realistic view of your options, you are welcome to contact my office for a confidential consultation. Together, we can map your risk, your rights, and the most practical path from award to actual recovery—in a way that respects both legal constraints and commercial realities.
- Deciding whether, when, and where to commence international arbitration in light of any applicable sanctions and enforcement realities.
- Representing clients in investor‑state and complex commercial arbitrations involving Belarusian state and private entities.
- Designing and coordinating cross‑border enforcement strategies, including how and when to use Belarusian courts under the new Code of Civil Procedure as part of a wider, multi‑jurisdictional plan.
- Advising or recommending other professionals to advise on pre-arbitration strategy, including asset mapping.
If you have an existing investment, contract, or dispute connected to Belarus and want a realistic view of your options, you are welcome to contact my office for a confidential consultation. Together, we can map your risk, your rights, and the most practical path from award to actual recovery—in a way that respects both legal constraints and commercial realities.