Arbitration in Belarus: agreement, proceedings and enforcement

Two statutes and the source framework

Begin by identifying the applicable Belarusian statute. Law 301-Z on arbitral tribunals expressly excludes international arbitral tribunals from its scope; those engage Law 279-Z. Article 4 of the international statute also permits other economic disputes within its defined scope by agreement. The parties’ nationality alone therefore does not determine the regime.

Law 301-Z supplies domestic arbitration rules on agreements, constitution, evidence and enforcement. International arbitration engages a separate statute and its own review grounds. Since 1 January 2026, the new Code of Civil Proceedings places setting-aside proceedings in Articles 466–473 and writ proceedings in Articles 492–497. The procedural version is linked to the time of application; the relevant special statute depends on the nature of the arbitration.

Agreement: form, representatives and a change of party

Article 9 of Law 301-Z requires a written agreement or clause. It permits exchanges recording the parties’ intention and incorporation of a clause through a reference to another document on the prescribed conditions. Article 11 requires identification of the permanent tribunal or the formation and operating procedure of a case-specific tribunal. An ad hoc agreement additionally specifies arbitrator information and selection arrangements.

Article 10 contains significant restrictions: state bodies cannot be parties to such agreements, and specified connections between a party and a permanent tribunal are prohibited. A representative’s authority to conclude the agreement must be expressly stated in the power of attorney. Where a party to the obligation changes, the clause under this domestic statute does not extend to the successor. This Belarusian distinction must not automatically be transferred to the international regime.

Permanent tribunals, ad hoc proceedings and the register

Articles 3–4 recognise both models with different organisational requirements. A permanent tribunal requires registration or recording; awards of an institution lacking the required status have no legal force. Parties form a tribunal for a particular dispute and its activity ends with that arbitration. Russia’s institutional-authorisation procedure is not the applicable mechanism.

Choosing ad hoc proceedings does not dispense with Article 8 on the register. The law requires written notification to the Ministry of Justice concerning the selected arbitrators, agreement, time and place of arbitration, no later than three days before commencement. Failure to meet the expressly identified notification requirements deprives the award of legal force and enforceability. Procedural verification therefore begins before the first hearing.

Appointment, challenge and replacement

Under Article 14 the number of arbitrators must be odd; three are selected if neither the rules nor agreement determine the number. The ad hoc default is one arbitrator selected by each party and a third selected by those two. If appointment fails within the prescribed five-day periods, the statute permits referral of the dispute to a state court. This is not a universal court-appointment mechanism.

Article 15 governs disclosure, challenge and withdrawal. A reasoned written challenge is filed within five days of learning of the ground; the other arbitrators decide a panel challenge under the statutory procedure. A separate rule addresses sole-arbitrator proceedings. Replacement under Article 17 follows the original selection mechanism.

Evidence and interim relief serve different purposes

Article 31 places the burden of proof on the parties and permits the tribunal to request further material. Expert evidence under Article 34 involves party production, a written report and an opportunity to question the expert. These provisions do not themselves confer state coercive power to obtain documents from an outsider.

Under Article 30 a party seeks court interim relief at the place of arbitration or the location of the relevant property, subject to the court’s jurisdiction. The application includes the tribunal’s order commencing proceedings. The international statute separately addresses court measures, tribunal measures and evidence assistance in Articles 14, 23 and 35. Court assistance under the official text amended 16 March 2026 is read with the applicable Code procedure.

Setting aside a domestic award

Article 46 of Law 301-Z provides three months from receipt to apply for setting aside. Article 47 lists invalidity of the agreement, defective notice or inability to exercise procedural rights, excess of the agreement’s scope, and defects in constitution or procedure. A separable part exceeding the agreement may be set aside independently.

The domestic Belarusian list additionally includes significant circumstances that were and could not have been known, together with specified false evidence, translation or forgery established by a final criminal judgment. It cannot be replaced with Russia’s list or automatically equated to the international statute. Read the court procedure with Code Articles 466–473; domestic and international grounds require separate treatment.

Execution: the document, deadline and court

Articles 49–50 of Law 301-Z separate voluntary compliance from obtaining an enforcement document. The successful party applies where the debtor resides, stays or is located; if unknown, where its property is located, subject to judicial competence. The institutional tribunal’s chair certifies its award copy; an ad hoc award copy requires notarisation. The agreement, fee information, evidence of non-compliance and, when applicable, the representative’s authority are also required.

Article 50 of Law 301-Z provides six months from the end of the voluntary-compliance period and allows restoration for valid reasons. Code Article 492(3) independently sets the same period for the specified awards of international arbitral tribunals situated in Belarus. Foreign awards follow separate Code Chapter 51 and treaty rules. Record receipt and the end of the prescribed voluntary-compliance period: the time for seeking an enforcement document is distinct from the setting-aside period.

State control and a foreign award

Article 50 prohibits merits review, provides a single-judge hearing with notice to the parties and permits challenge of the resulting determination under procedural law. Interim relief, setting aside, obtaining an enforcement document and subsequent execution have different purposes. An arbitral award does not itself establish that the debtor’s assets will be found or recovery completed.

For a foreign award, separately examine the New York Convention, applicable treaties and national procedure. The Supreme Court decision of 19 October 2021 illustrates uncertainty over the selected institution and the relevance of pre-claim requirements in that case. It arose under the former commercial procedural code: it does not interpret the new Code or prohibit all geographical clauses. Compare the cross-country overview.

Domestic Law 301-Z: mandatory and optional terms

Domestic Article 11 requires the submitted disputes and permanent tribunal’s name or ad hoc formation and operation. Ad hoc agreements additionally identify arbitrators and selection. Number, place and language are expressly possible terms. Article 12’s invalidity rule for breach of Articles 9–11 does not turn those optional details into mandatory terms.

Articles 14,20–21 require an odd number, default to three without a number in agreement or rules, use Belarusian or Russian without a language agreement, and leave an unagreed place to the tribunal. Article 13 requires a sole arbitrator or chair to have higher legal education and at least three years’ legal experience. These domestic provisions cannot automatically be attributed to international arbitration under Law 279-Z.

International Law 279-Z: different fallback rules

International Article 11 defines consent to submit all or specified disputes from the parties’ relationship and written form. Recorded messages, acknowledged consent through pleadings and incorporation by reference are recognised. Domestic Law 301-Z Article 11’s strict drafting list does not automatically apply.

Article 16 provides three absent agreement. For the stated appointment failures, Article 17 provides the permanent international institution’s chair or, for ad hoc proceedings, the BelCCI chair, unless otherwise provided. Article 27 leaves an unagreed language to the tribunal considering party wishes and arbitrator abilities. Article 26 governs hearing venues; separately identifying the legal seat and hearings elsewhere is preferable. At annulment Article 43 tests agreement validity under its chosen law or Belarusian law absent choice. Article 36 on merits law answers a different question.

International arbitration has its own annulment grounds

Law 279-Z Article 43 assigns annulment of an international award to the regional economic court or the Minsk economic court. Party-proved grounds concern incapacity or agreement invalidity; deficient notice of appointment or proceedings, or a justified inability to present explanations; excess of submission; and constitution or procedure inconsistent with the permissible agreement. A separable excess may support partial annulment.

Article 43 separately addresses non-arbitrability under Belarusian law and conflict with public policy. Domestic Law 301-Z Article 47’s independent grounds concerning previously unknown circumstances or a criminally established false expert opinion must not simply be imported into the international regime. Any reliance on those circumstances needs a basis under the applicable international framework.

Code Article 467 sets three months from receipt, or, for international arbitration where a correction, interpretation or additional-award request was made, from the decision on that request. Restoration of a missed period is provided for. Articles 466–472 of the Code govern the forum, supporting documents and review procedure. Annulment relief and resistance to enforcement remain distinct procedural mechanisms even if they rely on the same defect.

Expert evidence under the domestic and international regimes

In domestic arbitration, Law 301-Z Article 34 connects expert appointment with a request by one or both parties. The requesting parties advance the cost; the tribunal chooses the expert and questions with regard to party views. The opinion is written. The expert attends after submitting it where a party requests this or the tribunal considers it necessary, and answers questions.

In international arbitration, Law 279-Z Article 34 gives the tribunal its own appointment power unless otherwise agreed. It may require a party to provide information, documents or access to the object. The expert attends a hearing after the written opinion under the statutory conditions. Articles 18–19 additionally allow challenge of an expert or interpreter and postpone proceedings while that challenge is considered. These rules differ from the Russian mechanism and should be reflected in the timetable.

International Law Article 35 permits the tribunal, or a party with its approval, to request state-court evidentiary assistance. It also mentions a foreign court, without obliging every foreign court to comply: that court needs jurisdiction and a procedure under its own law. Appointing an expert does not itself replace a separate request for compulsory production from a non-party.

Which awards carry the six-month enforcement-application period

The six-month period does not turn solely on whether the institution’s name includes international. Code Article 492(3) expressly covers awards of domestic tribunals, international arbitral tribunals and other permanent arbitral bodies situated in Belarus: the application is due no later than six months after the period for voluntary performance ends. This is the procedural basis for applying that period to an international award, rather than an analogy with domestic Law Article 50.

Article 492(2) connects the application with the debtor’s residence, stay or location, or the assets if that location is unknown. Paragraph 4 permits restoration for a valid reason. Article 496 refers to the appropriate domestic or international annulment grounds. Foreign awards follow separate Code Chapter 51 and the applicable treaty; a debtor’s presence in Belarus does not bring the award within Chapter 44.