They also sanctioned involved individuals. It's more like a family kidnaps their own kid while he was at your birthday party, and as response you get a restraining order and freeze some of their bank accounts.
Are you saying a kid is the property of his family...?
Anyway, citizenship matters, it is one of the many elements that determine jurisdiction. The US taxes and prosecutes (!) his citizens anywhere in the world, for example; and extradition is a thing.
Legal protection to a foreign citizen abroad is extended by the host country, and that's really what the problem is here: the journalist was effectively protected by European law at all times (going from EU country to EU country with a EU airline), but Belarus invaded our legal space with a competing jurisdiction claim and enforced it with guns and subterfuge. That cannot be allowed.
> Are you saying a kid is the property of his family...?
Hehe, I'll admit that's not a good argument.
> but Belarus invaded our legal space with a competing jurisdiction claim...
They violated an international convention on to which they had signed. In turn it seems reasonable that we no longer extend any benefits pertaining to said convention.
I think you'll find quite a few legal systems currently disagree with that perspective. I'll give you that it's often the traditional perspective, but the children's wellbeing is increasingly the leading priority of related legislation in developed countries, including on issues like forced movement.
