Introduction On 18 March 2025, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia announced their withdrawal from the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti- Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Ottawa Convention or the Convention). In their joint statement they expressed their concern regarding the deterioration of security and increased military threats to NATO Member States bordering Russia and Belarus. They also stated that their withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention aimed at defending their territory and freedom. At the same time, they vouched their commitment to international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians in case of armed conflict. On 1 April 2025, speaking to the press, the Prime Minister of Finland, justifying the Finish government’s decision to withdraw from the Convention, stated that the security environment in Europe had changed fundamentally and there was a need to boost national defence, as Finland shares a 1,340-kilometer border with Russia (see Press Release). In light of these new developments, this blogpost will analyze the significance of the 1977 Ottawa Convention and the security conundrum that has taken off in recent times.
Understanding the 1977 Ottawa Convention
Landmines, such as anti-personnel and anti-vehicle, were widely used in World War II (WWII) by various States as a defensive mechanism. The most famous landmines were the Teller mines used by Germany which were made of Bakelite or wood, thereby making it impossible to locate through a metal detector. These landmines caused huge loss to people and destroyed property. Knut Dörmann in his MPEPIL article on Land Mines explains that land mines are victim- activated and can be triggered in a number of ways. Anti-personnel landmines activate under the weight of a person’s body or through the tension of a tripwire. Dörmann also articulated that landmines cannot distinguish between the foot of a soldier and that of a civilian, thereby causing immense human suffering by killing or injuring anyone who comes in contact with them.
After the end of WWII, the continued use of landmines by various countries raised significant concerns. The 1949 Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibited the forcible use of prisoners of war for clearing of mines and did not proscribe the use of land mines. Since then, numerous international efforts have been undertaken to promote guidelines on the use of anti-personnel landmines. In October 1996, at the closing session of the International Strategy Conference: Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines held at Ottawa, Lloyd Axworthy, (Canada’s then-Minister of Foreign Affairs), urged the negotiation and signing of a treaty banning anti-personnel mines by the end of 1997. By 1996, the United Nations General Assembly had also passed several resolutions addressing anti-personnel mines. After a series of negotiation conferences held in Vienna in February 1997, Bonn in April 1997 and Brussels in June 1997, the treaty banning the anti- personnel landmines was formally adopted at Oslo (Norway) in September 1997 (see the progression of the Ottawa Convention here).
As of April 2025, 165 States are party to the Ottawa Convention. The Convention prohibits the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. States are prohibited from raising reservations on any of the provisions of the Convention. It mandates that the State parties must destroy existing stockpiles within four years of joining the treaty. States are required to clear the mined areas within ten years and the time shall be extended upon submission of a formal request by a State party. Apart from regulation, the Convention emphasizes providing support to landmine victims, including medical care and rehabilitation and encourages collaboration among states to achieve the objectives of the Convention. State parties are also encouraged to seek assistance from the United Nations and other international organizations such as Red Cross, NGOs and other institutions in fulfilling their obligations under the Convention (see full text of the Ottawa Convention here.)
Since its inception, the Ottawa Convention has strongly influenced the global production of anti-personnel mines, and has resulted in a drastic reduction in their deployment. Vast numbers of mined and suspected hazardous areas have been declared free of landmines and released for productive use. As a result of these efforts, the number of casualties had sharply declined (see UN Press Release).
Challenges to the Ottawa Convention
The Ottawa Convention faces significant challenges. The Landmine Monitor 2024 by ICBL1 has published the following findings:
a. Major powers of the world like the United States, Russia and China have not ratified the Convention.
b. Russia used anti-personnel mines expansively in Ukraine since invading the country in February 2022.
c. Anti-personnel landmines were used by states not party to the Mine Ban Treaty, including Myanmar, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Non-state armed groups in various regions also deployed landmines.
d. Twelve states not party to the treaty continue to develop or produce landmines, including Russia, China and India.
e. Over 5,700 casualties were recorded globally in 2023, with civilians making up 84% of the victims and 37% of these were children.
These findings raise legal and ethical questions on the Ottawa Convention since it addresses the devastating impact of landmines on civilians. States are ethically responsible to protect lives and prevent harm. However, with the unprecedented use of landmines, States are avoiding their legal responsibility under the Convention. Some countries argue that landmines are essential for their national defence and banning them will compromise their security. Their apprehensions are further fueled by the fact that United States, Russia and China have not ratified the Convention, thereby creating a strategic imbalance coupled with the increased fear of potential attacks.
Many countries also face difficulties in implementing the provisions of the Convention pertaining to mine clearance, stockpile destruction and victim assistance. These procedures are time consuming and very expensive. Many of the State parties also find it difficult to comply with the deadlines set by the Convention.
Additionally, the treaty does not effectively address the use of landmines by non-state parties or propose solutions where a state party is targeted with landmines by a non-state party. For example, Russia, which is not a party to the Convention, used anti-personnel mines in Ukraine, who is a party to the Convention. The UNDP report of October 2024 has published that Ukraine is now the most mined country in the world, with potentially 23 percent of its land at risk of contamination with landmines and unexploded ordnance.
Concluding Remarks
Regrettably, security needs versus compliance with international humanitarian law and disarmament efforts are being increasingly juxtaposed by States in their rhetoric and actions. The Ukraine war has highlighted the double-edged sword that landmines represent in military operations. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Ottawa Convention is a significant milestone to eliminate the impact of anti-personnel landmines. Despite the fact that recently several European countries have noted their intention to withdraw from the treaty citing security reasons, the Convention has achieved significant progress in reducing the use of landmines and promoting victim assistance and demining efforts. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), The International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC), and the Nordic-Baltic Red Cross Societies, in a joint statement have called upon States to reinforce the stigma upon the landmines and have urged for an unwavering pursuit of a landmine-free world.
- International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Landmine Monitor 2024 (Geneva: ICBL-CMC, November 2024). ↩︎
Be First to Comment