Belarus emerges as new nuclear threat

Belarus’s recent declaration that it would use nuclear weapons if its "sovereignty and independence" were threatened raises important questions about international law, according to an opinion piece by The Hill.

The first issue is how Belarus, an ally of Russia, came to possess nuclear weapons. These weapons were provided by Russia. This leads to the question of whether the presence of nuclear weapons in Belarus and the training of Belarusian soldiers in their use violates international law.

The relevant international law is the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to which both Belarus and Russia are signatories. Article I of the treaty forbids the transfer of nuclear weapons or control over them to any recipient. Article II prohibits receiving nuclear weapons or control over them from any transferor. Initially, it might seem that Russia’s stationing of nuclear weapons in Belarus violates the treaty. However, historical precedent suggests otherwise.

This precedent comes from the U.S. and NATO’s practice of nuclear "sharing arrangements," where the U.S. stations nuclear warheads in allied countries. The argument made by the U.S. and NATO is that these arrangements do not violate the NPT because the weapons remain under U.S. control at all times, thus not triggering the treaty’s provisions. Similarly, Russia’s placement of nuclear weapons in Belarus appears to be legal under international law as long as Russia retains control over the weapons.

A more contentious issue is whether the use of these weapons by Belarus, rather than Russia, would violate the NPT. If control over the weapons is transferred to Belarus, Articles I and II would be triggered, constituting a violation of international law.

Another critical question is whether the actual use of nuclear weapons by Belarus would violate international law. Belarus seems to be relying on Article X of the NPT, which allows a state to withdraw from the treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. Belarus’s recent statement mirrors the language of Article X, emphasizing state "sovereignty."

However, the interpretation of what constitutes a threat to sovereignty is highly subjective. International law provides a mechanism for assessing the legitimacy of such threats. Article X requires a state intending to withdraw from the NPT to notify all other parties to the treaty and the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. The notice must include an explanation of the extraordinary events that the state believes jeopardize its supreme interests.

This provision offers an objective constraint on the use of nuclear weapons and a chance for the international community to define what constitutes a valid threat to state sovereignty that would justify the use of nuclear weapons. Belarus’s statement serves as a warning, and it is now up to the global community to respond appropriately.

In conclusion, while Belarus’s possession of nuclear weapons supplied by Russia does not seem to violate the NPT under current international legal interpretations, any transfer of control over these weapons to Belarus would breach the treaty. The use of nuclear weapons by Belarus hinges on its ability to justify such actions under the treaty’s provisions, which involves notifying and justifying its position to the international community. This situation underscores the need for a robust international response to prevent the escalation of nuclear threats.