"If the gun fires, it's unlikely to be a machine gun burst." Maxim Znak assessed the reality of Belarusian propaganda's threats to strip political emigrants of citizenship

"By depriving people of citizenship, the regime loses certain control mechanisms"

— Do the updated Law "On Citizenship" and the Criminal Code provide a legal basis for stripping birthright citizenship?

— If we set aside legal nuances, forget about the norms of the Constitution, and look solely at the practical possibility of Belarusian authorities recognizing someone as a non-citizen, then from the perspective of special Belarusian legislation, there is a basis. New rules are stipulated by part three of Article 19 of the Law "On Citizenship." It has been in force for more than three years, since July 11, 2023, and affects those who became citizens by birth.

For the law to work, four conditions must be met simultaneously. First: the person is over 18 years old. Second: there is a Belarusian court verdict that has entered into force (most likely, an in absentia verdict, the so-called "special proceedings"). Third: the verdict was issued under one of the articles of the Criminal Code from a special list. Fourth: the person is abroad.

It is worth looking at the list of criminal articles. It includes genocide, terrorism, and treason, but alongside them are inciting social hostility (Art. 130 of the Criminal Code), calls for sanctions (Art. 361 of the Criminal Code), aiding extremist activity (Art. 361 of the Criminal Code), and even slandering the president (Part 2 of Art. 367 of the Criminal Code).

This means that, on paper, citizenship can be lost for a comment, a donation, or a joke. Moreover, the law does not attach significance to either the form of the action or where it was committed.

A literal reading of the law suggests that the norm is intended for those who are abroad and against whom a criminal case is being pursued. However, the legal flexibility inherent in law enforcement allows for a broader interpretation of the norm regarding being abroad.

Theoretically, the process of losing citizenship can be initiated even against those who were convicted under a special article (even after serving their sentence), or who were abroad at the time the process began (even on a business trip).

On the one hand, such a risk is unlikely to be high, because by depriving people of citizenship, the regime loses certain control mechanisms and also simplifies the acquisition of international documents. On the other hand, we have observed irrational actions many times, and the wording of the norm can be changed if necessary.

"It is very difficult to restore citizenship"

— How might this formally look?

— The procedure for losing citizenship is as follows. The police prepare materials and send them to the president. There are up to six months for consideration. The decision is made personally by the president through a decree (this authority is also enshrined in Article 84 of the Constitution). Citizenship ceases on the day the decree enters into force. Theoretically, the decree can be appealed to the Supreme Court, but let's be honest: it is unlikely to be overturned.

At the same time, the internationally widespread precautionary norm, which prohibits depriving a person of citizenship if they have no other, is deliberately disabled in this case (Part 2 of Art. 20 of the Law). This means that the law consciously allows a person to become stateless.

It is very difficult to restore citizenship. The procedure for reinstatement of citizenship does not apply in this case, and a new application for acquiring citizenship from such a person will not even be accepted for consideration (Articles 15¹ and 16 of the Law).

Official sources have stated that loss of citizenship can be avoided, one only needs to "return and execute the court decision." But this is another extralegal improvisation: no exceptions to the procedure upon return are provided. Apparently, it is implied that in such a case, the relevant decree might not be adopted. Although, again, given the legal flexibility of the implementers, even if a decree exists, it can be revoked, despite the absence of a legal procedure.

"The law contradicts not only the Constitution, but also itself"

— The old version of the Constitution stipulated that no one could be deprived of citizenship acquired by birth. The 2022 amendments adjusted this norm. How does the law relate to the current Constitution?

— Here, it needs to be clarified immediately. The old Constitution did not have the words "by birth." It simply stated that no one at all could be deprived of citizenship (Art. 10 of the Constitution). And what's interesting: this prohibition remained in the Constitution even after 2022. Nothing changed, it's all word for word the same.

Only one word changed in the last part of Article 10. Previously, it stated that the acquisition and "loss" of citizenship are regulated by law; now it is acquisition and "termination." At first glance, it's a trifle, but the entire structure rests on this word.

The authorities say: we do not deprive (that is forbidden), the person loses citizenship.

This is a special procedure for the termination of citizenship, regulated by law (termination is possible as a result of withdrawal from citizenship or loss of citizenship). At the same time, deprivation of citizenship is not provided for by law. Moreover, the law itself, among its principles, reiterates that no one can be deprived of citizenship, and promises that Belarus strives to avoid cases of statelessness (Art. 3 of the Law). It turns out that the law contradicts not only the Constitution, but also itself.

However, this contradiction does not bother the Constitutional Court. According to its decision of December 1, 2020, the Constitutional Court agreed with the law, stating that it complies with the Constitution. This was done under a procedure of preliminary constitutional review, which itself is a legal nonsense: the Constitutional Court reviews all laws before their adoption, creating a conflict of interest if the case is considered later, and making it practically impossible to change its previously rendered decision.

We are witnessing another legal trick, a play on words. When the state, by its decree, without the person's consent, takes away their citizenship for an act, that is deprivation, no matter what you call it.

The Constitution still states that it has supreme legal force, that acts contradicting it have no force, that Belarus recognizes the priority of generally recognized principles of international law, and that a citizen has the right to freely return to the country (Articles 7, 8, 30 of the Constitution), but there are nuances.

Moreover, deprivation of citizenship is, in essence, a way to circumvent this right: the state cannot forbid its citizen from returning, so it first makes them "not its own." Although from a practical point of view, criminal prosecution or a simple refusal of entry works no worse.

"Arbitrariness is obvious"

— What international norms does the new law violate?

— Belarus currently has a generally difficult situation with the recognition and implementation of international norms. Official sources assure that all measures comply with international practice. But this is not the case, especially considering the substantive part of the introduced guarantees.

First, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to a nationality, and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality (Art. 15). Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enshrined that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country (Part 4 of Art. 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 16, 1966). If there is no dual citizenship, the deprivation of the only existing citizenship deprives a person of the right to have a nationality (and is also used as a way to circumvent the right to enter their country).

Ironically, the CIS Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Minsk, literally reiterates the Declaration (Art. 24 of the CIS Convention of May 26, 1995). But, of course, officials will explain that "here it's different."

There is also the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. It explicitly prohibits depriving a person of citizenship if they become stateless, prohibits deprivation for political motives, and even in exceptional cases requires a fair hearing before an independent court (Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of August 30, 1961).

Belarus is not a party to this convention (although it intended to accede), but in fact, the convention sets the standard by which arbitrariness is assessed today. And arbitrariness is obvious when we talk about political "crimes," an in absentia court without real defense, a decision by one person, and the deliberate creation of stateless persons.

— Are there precedents in EU or US countries where a person was deprived of citizenship acquired by birth?

— In the US, birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution (14th Amendment to the US Constitution, 1868). The Supreme Court in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk ruled that Congress cannot take away citizenship without a person's consent. Only what was obtained by fraud during naturalization can be taken away.

Beys Afroyim, who was born in Poland and became a US citizen, moved to Israel and voted there in elections. The US State Department refused to renew his passport, citing a law according to which one could lose citizenship for this.

In Germany, the Basic Law explicitly prohibits depriving citizenship and only allows its loss if the person does not remain stateless (Art. 16 of the Basic Law of the FRG of May 23, 1949).

In the UK, deprivation of citizenship is possible, but a birthright citizen cannot become stateless. In France, deprivation applies to those who acquired citizenship, and again without creating stateless persons (Art. 25 of the French Civil Code).

Both in Germany and in a number of EU countries (for example, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands), legislation has introduced norms that allow for the deprivation of citizenship (including birthright citizenship) for individuals with dual citizenship if they are convicted of terrorism (in some countries, also for other crimes), but creating stateless persons is not permitted.

"In response, a procedure for general recognition of alternative documents may be launched"

— If Belarus unilaterally deprives a person of citizenship and annuls their passport, will other states recognize this? Does the person become stateless in the eyes of Poland or Lithuania?

— As a general rule, each state decides who its citizen is, and other states recognize this if it complies with international norms.

Theoretically, arbitrary deprivation may not be recognized, especially since the authority of the Belarusian authorities as a whole may not be recognized. But in practice, states will most likely acknowledge the fact: Belarus does not consider this person its own.

And the international definition of a stateless person is precisely factual: it is a person whom no state considers its national under its law (para. 1, Art. 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of September 28, 1954).

So yes: in the eyes of Poland, Lithuania, or Germany, such a person will most likely become stateless.

However, each country has its own situation and its own regulations for recognizing stateless persons, issuing travel documents, and so on. Discussing this in detail now makes no sense, as the threat of deprivation of citizenship is unlikely to be implemented on a massive scale. On the contrary, if this norm begins to be used, in response, a procedure for general recognition of alternative documents may be launched (as has happened in history).

"It is possible to separate the 'lost' from the 'fled'"

— The law has been in effect since 2023, but propaganda has only now begun to widely promote the topic. What do you think this is related to?

— It seems to me that this law was an instrument of intimidation from the very beginning. Now is the time to remind people of this threat.

Second: on the ideological front, there may be some confusion amid the release of political prisoners and the expansion of contacts with the West. And against this background, it is necessary to show their own supporters that there is no thaw and that it is possible to separate the "lost," who can be returned, from the "fled," who must be cut off. The title of the film from which the new promotion of the citizenship deprivation topic began, "Exiled from Paradise," is a message not so much to emigrants as to those who remained: you have paradise, and there is exile.

"The gun has been hanging on the wall for a long time, but if it suddenly fires, it's unlikely to be a machine gun burst"

— What needs to happen for this instrument of psychological pressure to turn into a real mass practice?

— As far as I know from open sources, as of early October 2026, there is no publicly confirmed case where a Belarusian by birth was deprived of citizenship specifically on the new grounds.

As long as there is no precedent, this is primarily a psychological weapon. The gun has been hanging on the wall for a long time, but if it suddenly fires, it's unlikely to be a machine gun burst.

The regime does not use this mechanism not out of sympathy for its opponents, but out of an understanding of the consequences of such an adventure. Firstly, mass deprivation of citizenship and the creation of stateless persons will provoke a reaction from the international community, and measures will be taken either to maximally simplify legalization procedures or to recognize Belarusian documents (meaning the situation of those deprived of citizenship may improve). Even without special measures, the fact of deprivation of citizenship will be sufficient evidence in cases of international protection, and possibly when considering issues of granting citizenship.

Secondly, the negative reaction of foreign countries to a new hybrid attack (this time by their own ex-citizens) could lead to new sanctions and other consequences.

Thirdly, by depriving people of citizenship, the regime loses part of its repressive capabilities and part of its control, which the regime always dislikes. Some articles of the Criminal Code will not apply (for example, treason), there will be no certain obligations (for example, military service), it will be impossible to use the monopoly of the "native state," and so on.

"Deprivation of citizenship itself does not make being abroad illegal"

— What should a Belarusian do if they are deprived of citizenship and have their passport annulled, especially if they don't have a residence permit or other citizenship? How do migration services treat such people, and what might happen if someone discovers this unexpectedly, for example, at passport control?

— First: don't panic until precedents appear. Second: deprivation of citizenship itself does not make being abroad illegal if documents for residence are already in place. If there is no residence permit, one can immediately apply for international protection. The very fact of deprivation of citizenship for a political stance is strong evidence of persecution. Refugee status provides both legality and a travel document.

As for unexpected situations at passport control, we know that Belarusian passports are sometimes annulled even without deprivation of citizenship. Information about this can enter international databases of invalid documents, including the Interpol database. A border guard will see that the document is invalid and will act accordingly. Usually, if this happens in a country that does not closely cooperate with Minsk, the situation will be resolved, but it will take some time.

— Has there been such a massive experience in the world?

— Yes, and it is well known. The closest for us is the Soviet experience. By a decree in 1921, the Bolsheviks deprived emigrants who did not return of their citizenship. Millions of people found themselves without documents, and in response, the League of Nations introduced the Nansen passport, the first international document for stateless persons. The comparison is very telling: when a state abandons its people, the world and the people themselves create a new document for them.

Another example is Nazi Germany, which first deprived political opponents of citizenship through named lists, and in 1941, by a single act, all Jews abroad.

Another example, very interesting for Belarus and the most recent, is Nicaragua. In February 2023, the Ortega regime deported 222 political prisoners to the US and stripped them of their citizenship; a few days later, another 94 people. Simultaneously, the Managua Appeals Court declared them "traitors to the homeland," permanently deprived them of the right to hold public office, and decided to strip them of their Nicaraguan citizenship.

To give this an appearance of legality, Nicaragua's National Assembly urgently (literally within hours) adopted amendments to the legislation. However, this created a blatant constitutional contradiction. Article 20 of the Nicaraguan Constitution at that time explicitly stated: "No citizen [by birth] may be deprived of his nationality." Instead of repealing this article (which would have required a more complex procedure and openly violated international conventions), deputies left it but urgently amended the neighboring Article 21, adding a provision: "Traitors to the homeland lose their status as citizens of Nicaragua." A familiar legal technique.

Mass deprivation of citizenship also occurred in Bahrain, Myanmar (the Rohingya ethnic group), and the Dominican Republic.

"The state can take away a passport. But being Belarusian is not an inscription in a passport"

— If the authorities do start stripping Belarusians abroad of their citizenship, what will be the long-term consequences for the country?

— For the country, like other actions to get rid of its citizens, this is the loss of the most active part of the nation, its money, knowledge, connections, and the solidification of the division into "our" and "alien" Belarusians. But history also offers another lesson: such decrees are almost always eventually annulled. For example, in 1968, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany declared the Nazi decree on mass deprivation of citizenship null and void from the very beginning. In 1990, the USSR restored citizenship to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and other exiled writers and dissidents. A decree on deprivation of citizenship is, in essence, a document in which the state itself admits whom it fears. Years later, such lists are read as lists of honor.

Many practical questions, of course, may arise. For example, questions for families. Children in this case do not lose citizenship (Art. 23 of the Law). This means that families may emerge where parents are "alien" to the state whose citizens their children remain.

But overall, in the long term, formal deprivation of citizenship is not much worse than effectively pushing people abroad without the possibility of returning home. The dire consequences are already present.

As for Belarusian history, it is worth recalling the poet Larysa Hienijush. After Soviet camps, she refused to accept Soviet citizenship and lived in Zelva as a stateless person until her death in 1983. The state can take away a passport. But being Belarusian is not an inscription in a passport.

• 10
• 0
• 0
• 2
• 0
• 1
• 0
• 0