Ottawa Treaty Explained

Introduction

The Ottawa Treaty Explained begins with a legal point that is often obscured in public debate: the Convention does not simply regulate the battlefield use of anti-personnel mines. It prohibits states parties from using, developing, producing, acquiring, retaining, stockpiling, or transferring them, and from assisting, encouraging, or inducing prohibited conduct. Its formal title is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction. The treaty also requires stockpile destruction, clearance of mined areas, assistance to victims, international cooperation, transparency reporting, and domestic implementation (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

The Convention applies to mines designed to explode through the presence, proximity, or contact of a person and to incapacitate, injure, or kill. That definition distinguishes anti-personnel mines from the wider category of landmines and prevents legal classification from turning on military labels alone. A device does not fall outside the treaty merely because it is remotely delivered, improvised, detectable, fitted with a self-destruct mechanism, or described as “smart.” At the same time, not every anti-vehicle mine or command-detonated munition is prohibited. The decisive questions concern design and activation.

Anti-personnel mines received separate legal treatment because their effects are not confined to the moment of deployment or the duration of hostilities. Once emplaced, a victim-activated mine cannot distinguish between a combatant and a civilian who later enters the area. It may remain lethal after troops withdraw, front lines shift, and military objectives disappear. Contaminated land can prevent farming, obstruct transport and reconstruction, delay the return of displaced communities, and expose civilians and deminers to danger for decades. Earlier rules, especially Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its 1996 amendment, imposed restrictions on mine use but continued to permit anti-personnel mines under specified conditions. The Ottawa Treaty replaced that regulatory model, for its parties, with a comprehensive ban.

The path to agreement was equally significant. Frustration with slow, consensus-based arms negotiations led a cross-regional group of states to pursue an accelerated diplomatic process outside the Conference on Disarmament. Canada, Austria, Norway, South Africa, Ireland, and other supporting governments worked closely with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the International Committee of the Red Cross, mine-clearance organizations, medical specialists, and survivors. The Convention was adopted in Oslo on 18 September 1997, opened for signature in Ottawa in December 1997, and entered into force on 1 March 1999. Its common name refers to the signing conference, not the place of adoption (Casey-Maslen, 2010).

The treaty now faces its most severe political challenge since entry into force. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania ceased to be parties in December 2025, Finland followed in January 2026, and Poland in February 2026. Their governments linked withdrawal to Russia’s war against Ukraine, concern over territorial defense, and the perceived military disadvantage of remaining bound while Russia was not. Ukraine took a different course by announcing in 2025 that it had decided to suspend the Convention’s operation. The legal effect of that claim remains disputed because the treaty contains no express suspension mechanism, prohibits reservations, and restricts withdrawal when the state concerned remains engaged in armed conflict.

These developments do not amend the Convention or reduce the obligations of states that remain parties. They expose the treaty’s central legal and political test. Article 1 applies “under any circumstances,” including periods when governments believe that security conditions favor renewed reliance on prohibited weapons. The future authority of the mine-ban regime will depend less on declarations of support than on compliance when military planners again argue that anti-personnel mines offer operational value.

1. Ottawa Treaty Explained: Purpose and Legal Design

The Ottawa Treaty is a binding humanitarian disarmament agreement that removes anti-personnel mines from the lawful arsenals of its states parties. Its official title, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, reflects the breadth of the regime. Article 1 prohibits use, development, production, acquisition, retention, stockpiling, and direct or indirect transfer. It also bars states parties from assisting, encouraging, or inducing conduct forbidden by the Convention (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

This is not simply a battlefield rule. A treaty confined to mine use would leave existing arsenals intact and allow production, acquisition, and preparations for future deployment. The Ottawa Treaty instead addresses the weapon throughout its operational life. It prevents new mines from entering military inventories, requires existing stockpiles to be destroyed, and imposes obligations concerning mines already emplaced in affected territory.

The remedial part of the regime is equally significant. States parties must clear mined areas under their jurisdiction or control, protect civilians while clearance remains incomplete, report on implementation, and adopt domestic measures to prevent and suppress prohibited activities. Article 6 establishes a framework for international cooperation, including assistance with mine clearance, stockpile destruction, risk reduction, and the care, rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration of mine victims. The Convention thus links disarmament with the removal of contamination and the treatment of injuries that disarmament alone cannot reverse.

These duties are legally distinct but functionally connected. Production and transfer prohibitions prevent replenishment. Stockpile destruction removes the capacity for later deployment. Clearance addresses weapons that have already left military custody and entered the environment. Victim assistance responds to consequences that remain after the explosive device has been removed. Transparency and national legislation make the international commitments capable of being verified and enforced within domestic legal systems.

1.1 Official Name, Adoption, and Entry into Force

The name “Ottawa Treaty” does not identify the place where the Convention was formally adopted. The final negotiations took place at the Diplomatic Conference on an International Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Land Mines, convened in Oslo in September 1997. Participating states adopted the Convention on 18 September after three weeks of negotiations.

The treaty was opened for signature in Ottawa on 3 December 1997. Its common name refers to that signing conference and to the diplomatic initiative launched by Canada in Ottawa in October 1996. The wider Ottawa Process included negotiations and expert meetings in several capitals, with Austria preparing the draft text, Belgium hosting the conference that selected the basis for negotiation, Norway convening the diplomatic conference, and Canada hosting the signature ceremony.

The Convention entered into force on 1 March 1999, six months after the deposit of the fortieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. That date marks the beginning of the treaty’s operation at the international level, although its obligations enter into force separately for each state that joins after the original entry-into-force threshold has been met (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

Several shorter names remain in common use. Ottawa Treaty, Ottawa Convention, Mine Ban Treaty, and Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention all refer to the same legal instrument. The official title is more precise because it identifies both the prohibited conduct and the obligation to eliminate existing mines.

1.2 Humanitarian Disarmament as a Legal Model

“Humanitarian disarmament” is not a separate branch of treaty law with a fixed legal definition. It describes an approach to weapons regulation that gives decisive weight to foreseeable human harm, especially when the effects of a weapon cannot be confined to active combat or end with the military operation in which it was used. The analysis includes the weapon’s method of activation, the identity of likely victims, the duration of the danger, the severity of injury, and the burden imposed on affected communities.

This approach differs from arms-control agreements designed mainly to manage strategic competition between states. Classical arms-control arrangements may limit the number, location, testing, deployment, or transfer of weapons while leaving possession and some forms of use lawful. Their central concerns often include military stability, reciprocal restraint, and verification between participating powers. The Ottawa Treaty is based on a different legal choice. It does not preserve anti-personnel mines under numerical ceilings or authorize their use subject to improved safeguards. For states parties, the weapon itself is prohibited.

The distinction should not be overstated. Arms control, disarmament, and international humanitarian law overlap, and treaties may serve strategic and humanitarian purposes at the same time. The Ottawa Convention sits at its intersection. It uses the binding techniques of disarmament law to address a humanitarian problem associated with the conduct and aftermath of armed conflict.

Its legal model is also broader than the physical destruction of weapons. Disarmament is not complete when mines remain buried in former battlefields, civilians cannot safely use their land, or survivors lack access to rehabilitation. The Convention consequently joins negative obligations, which require states to refrain from prohibited activities, with positive obligations requiring destruction, clearance, reporting, cooperation, and national implementation. This structure later influenced the Convention on Cluster Munitions, although the two instruments govern different weapons and retain separate legal regimes.

2. Why Anti-Personnel Mines Were Prohibited

Anti-personnel mines were prohibited because several characteristics operate cumulatively. They are activated by the victim rather than directed by an operator at the moment of injury. Their effects may continue after fighting has moved elsewhere or ended. Their location may become uncertain, and their injuries frequently require prolonged medical and rehabilitative care. Suspected contamination can also render land unusable without a mine ever being detonated.

The legal case for prohibition did not rest on the proposition that every use of an anti-personnel mine was already unlawful under general international humanitarian law. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions restricted mine use, while treaty rules imposed more detailed conditions. Some uses could remain lawful if the applicable requirements were satisfied. The Ottawa Treaty created a stricter rule for its parties because a growing group of states concluded that regulation could not reliably prevent the weapon’s recurring humanitarian consequences.

The problem extended beyond casualties recorded during combat. Mines could prevent cultivation of farmland, block roads and water sources, obstruct humanitarian deliveries, delay reconstruction, and impede the safe return of displaced populations. A suspected mined area could produce these effects even when the number and location of devices were unknown. The humanitarian cost arose partly from explosions and partly from the restrictions imposed by credible fear of contamination.

Mine injuries added another dimension. Blast mines can cause traumatic amputation, extensive tissue damage, blood loss, and infection. Fragmentation mines may injure several persons within a wider radius. Survivors often require repeated surgery, prosthetic services, physical rehabilitation, psychological support, and assistance with social and economic reintegration. These needs commonly arise in states whose medical and public institutions have already been weakened by armed conflict.

2.1 Victim Activation and Continuing Danger

A victim-activated mine causes an explosion when a person’s presence, proximity, or contact supplies the triggering event. The person who emplaced the mine does not select the eventual victim and need not be present when the device functions. The decision to place the weapon and the injury it later causes may be separated by years.

That interval has direct legal and practical consequences. At the time of detonation, the military circumstances that originally justified emplacement may no longer exist. Front lines may have shifted, armed units may have withdrawn, and territory may have returned to civilian administration or everyday use. The mine cannot reassess the target, respond to a ceasefire, or distinguish a combatant from a civilian entering the same location later.

International humanitarian law ordinarily requires parties to direct operations against military objectives and to take feasible precautions to protect civilians. Mines complicates the application of those rules because their effects are conditioned by future human movement that cannot always be predicted or controlled. Recording, fencing, warning signs, and surveillance may reduce the danger, but each safeguard depends on accurate emplacement, maintenance, transmission of information, and continuing control over the area.

Those conditions frequently deteriorate during war. Records may be incomplete, lost, or withheld. Markers can be removed or destroyed. Floods, erosion, and soil movement may displace mines. Remotely delivered devices may be difficult to locate precisely. Changes in territorial control can leave the authority responsible for civilian safety without reliable information about what was placed, where it was placed, or whether the original protective measures still exist.

The mine’s tactical effect and its humanitarian duration are also different. A minefield may be intended to delay movement during a limited operation, yet clearance can require years of survey, technical work, and public expenditure. The military objective may disappear within days while restrictions on farming, transport, housing, and return persist for a generation. The Ottawa Treaty addresses that temporal imbalance by prohibiting new use and requiring the removal of mines already emplaced.

2.2 The Limits of Earlier Mine Regulation

Before the Ottawa Treaty, the principal treaty rules specific to landmines appeared in Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The original protocol regulated mines, booby traps, and other devices rather than prohibiting them. It barred their direction against civilians, restricted indiscriminate use, required precautions, and included rules concerning recording and the protection of civilians.

Concern over the scale of mine contamination led to a review process initiated in the 1990s. Amended Protocol II, adopted in 1996, strengthened the earlier regime. It extended the protocol’s application to non-international armed conflicts, tightened transfer restrictions, added detectability requirements, imposed technical standards on certain remotely delivered mines, and expanded duties concerning recording, marking, monitoring, fencing, and removal.

The amended rules improved the legal regulation of mines, but they left the central military option intact. States could continue to develop, produce, possess, and use anti-personnel mines if they complied with the relevant technical and operational conditions. They were not required to eliminate all stockpiles, and the protocol did not create a comprehensive system comparable to the Ottawa Treaty’s combination of prohibition, destruction, clearance, cooperation, and victim assistance.

The reliance on technical safeguards presented a second difficulty. Detectability, self-destruction, and self-deactivation could reduce risk, but their effectiveness depended on design standards, correct deployment, maintenance, and reliable performance. A device that failed to deactivate remained dangerous. Rules on marking, fencing, and recording were only as effective as the forces applying them, particularly during rapid operations, fragmented command, or changes in territorial control.

The regulatory detail also made compliance difficult to establish. The legality of a particular mine could depend on its design, method of delivery, location, recording, protective measures, and the status of the conflict. This did not make Amended Protocol II legally meaningless, but it limited its capacity to establish a clear and uniform rule against the weapon.

The Ottawa approach removed those conditional distinctions for anti-personnel mines covered by its definition. Instead of asking whether a mine had been produced and deployed in conformity with technical rules, the Convention requires states parties to renounce its use, production, acquisition, stockpiling, and transfer. The shift was not a declaration that earlier law had prohibited every mine in every circumstance. It was a deliberate decision to replace conditional regulation with a categorical treaty prohibition because repeated failures of implementation had shown the limits of the earlier model (ICRC, 1998; Casey-Maslen, 2010).

3. The Ottawa Process and the 1997 Agreement

The Ottawa Process grew out of dissatisfaction with the pace and limits of established weapons negotiations. The 1996 Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons strengthened Protocol II but preserved a regulatory system in which anti-personnel mines remained lawful if specified technical and operational conditions were met. Governments supporting a comprehensive ban concluded that consensus-based negotiations were unlikely to produce a prohibition within a reasonable period.

Canada convened the International Strategy Conference: Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines in Ottawa on 3–5 October 1996. The conference did not negotiate the Convention, but it gave the emerging coalition a political timetable. At its close, Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy called for a treaty to be negotiated and opened for signature by December 1997. That deadline forced governments to decide whether they supported a ban, rather than allowing negotiations to continue without a defined endpoint.

Austria provided the drafting foundation. Its delegation brought an initial text to the Ottawa conference and circulated a draft convention internationally in November 1996. The text began with a comprehensive prohibition rather than a compromise between prohibition and continued military use. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 51/45S, adopted in December 1996, added broad political support by urging states to conclude a legally binding agreement banning the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines (United Nations General Assembly, 1996; Casey-Maslen, 2010).

The first detailed governmental discussion of the Austrian text took place in Vienna on 12–14 February 1997. Austria revised the draft after receiving state comments. Bonn then hosted an expert meeting on verification on 24–25 April. Participants disagreed over whether the treaty required an inspection system comparable to those used in traditional arms-control agreements. The final approach favored national reporting, requests for clarification, collective review, and possible fact-finding missions rather than a permanent international inspectorate.

Austria circulated a third draft in April and revised it again in May. The next decisive meeting was the International Conference for a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines, held in Brussels on 24–27 June 1997. Ninety-seven states endorsed the Brussels Declaration, which committed them to negotiate a treaty prohibiting use, stockpiling, production, and transfer, requiring destruction, and providing for cooperation on mine clearance. The Declaration also confirmed the third Austrian draft as the basis for the Oslo negotiations.

The Brussels Conference protected the objective of the process. Full participation in Oslo depended on acceptance of the basic commitment to a comprehensive ban. States opposed to that commitment could observe, but they could not enter the negotiations and use procedural objections to reopen the question of whether anti-personnel mines should remain lawful.

The Diplomatic Conference on an International Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Land Mines met in Oslo on 1–18 September 1997. Negotiations addressed definitions, compliance, international cooperation, retained mines, transition periods, and proposed military exceptions. The conference rejected amendments that would have preserved operational use for certain states or alliances. The Convention was adopted on 18 September.

It was opened for signature in Ottawa on 3 December 1997. The ceremony completed the timetable announced fourteen months earlier, but the signature did not itself bind every participating state to all treaty obligations. Ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession remained necessary under the Convention’s final clauses. The speed of the process was nonetheless unusual: the initiative moved through drafting, technical review, political endorsement, formal negotiation, and signature within little more than a year.

3.1 The Core Group and Accelerated Diplomacy

The Ottawa Process was organized by a coalition rather than a single state. Its early core group included Austria, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, and Switzerland. The members differed in region, alliance status, military policy, and diplomatic tradition, but they agreed that the negotiations should produce a comprehensive prohibition rather than another instrument regulating mine use.

Responsibilities were divided among them. Canada supplied political leadership and the deadline. Austria drafted and revised the treaty text. Germany hosted the technical meeting on verification. Belgium organized the conference that endorsed the negotiating basis. Norway convened the diplomatic conference. South African Ambassador Jacob Selebi chaired the Oslo negotiations. This division of labor allowed legal drafting, technical discussion, political coalition-building, and formal adoption to proceed on parallel tracks.

The decision to negotiate outside the Conference on Disarmament was central. The Conference operates by consensus, which allows any participating state to block the opening, conduct, or completion of negotiations. That protection can be valuable where states are asked to accept limits affecting national security. In the landmine negotiations, however, it also meant that states determined to retain anti-personnel mines could prevent a ban from reaching the drafting stage or make agreement conditional on broad exceptions.

The Ottawa Process removed that veto. Governments that accepted the objective negotiated the treaty; governments that rejected it remained free not to join. The process did not bypass state consent. No state became legally bound merely because a coalition adopted the text. It changed the method of negotiation by separating the production of a clear treaty from the pursuit of universal participation.

This choice involved a calculated trade-off. A consensus text might have secured broader initial approval but imposed weaker obligations. A categorical treaty could establish a clearer legal standard, although major military powers might remain outside it. The core group chose normative precision over universal participation at the drafting stage.

The fixed timetable also constrained bureaucratic delay. Governments had to consult armed forces, review stockpiles, assess proposed exceptions, and formulate legal positions within months. The specialist meetings allowed technical issues to be examined, but they could not displace the political commitment already made in Ottawa and Brussels.

3.2 Civil Society, the ICRC, and Mine Survivors

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines coordinated the main transnational advocacy effort. Established in 1992 by organizations working in human rights, medicine, disability, development, and mine clearance, it grew into a decentralized network operating through national and international campaigns. Its common demand was specific: a complete prohibition on anti-personnel mines, not improved regulation.

The campaign assembled evidence that no single institution could have produced alone. Mine-clearance organizations documented contamination, failed marking, and inaccurate records. Medical groups described traumatic injuries and long-term rehabilitation needs. Human rights organizations investigated civilian casualties, production, and transfers. Development agencies showed how suspected minefields restricted farming, transport, reconstruction, and resettlement. The resulting record connected weapons law with public health, displacement, land use, and post-conflict recovery.

The International Committee of the Red Cross contributed through a different institutional role. It did not become a formal member of the ICBL, but its medical personnel and field delegations had documented mine injuries for years. The ICRC provided legal analysis, military expertise, technical assessments, and direct advocacy before governments and armed forces. Its institutional mandate gave the campaign access to audiences that might have been less receptive to public campaigning alone.

Civil society organizations also monitored the negotiations closely. Representatives attended conferences, analyzed proposed amendments, circulated information among national campaigns, and briefed sympathetic delegations. This reduced the ability of governments to express support for a ban publicly while seeking exceptions that would preserve ordinary military use.

Technical specialists were indispensable because treaty coverage depended on precise distinctions. Questions concerning fuzes, activation modes, anti-handling devices, remote delivery, self-deactivation, clearance, and stockpile destruction could not be resolved by humanitarian advocacy alone. Specialists helped convert broad political commitments into language capable of governing existing and future weapons.

Mine survivors brought direct evidence of the consequences that continued after the explosion. Their participation showed that the harm did not end with casualty counts or emergency treatment. Amputation, repeated surgery, loss of livelihood, social exclusion, and inadequate rehabilitation remained part of the legal and policy problem.

These actors influenced the content and political environment of the negotiations, but states retained formal authority over the treaty. The campaign supplied evidence, expertise, public pressure, and coordination. Governments supplied negotiating authority, adopted the text, and later expressed consent to be bound. The Ottawa Process depended on that interaction.

3.3 Participation and Legitimacy in Treaty-Making

Supporters of the Ottawa Process regarded it as a more open form of international lawmaking. NGOs attended conferences, communicated with delegations, commented on proposals, and mobilized domestic constituencies. Mine-affected communities and specialist organizations introduced information that foreign ministries and military institutions had often neglected. Public reporting also exposed negotiating positions that might otherwise have remained confined to diplomatic channels.

Broader access did not make the process democratic in the same way as domestic representative government. NGOs are generally self-selecting organizations. Their authority may rest on expertise, field experience, advocacy, membership, donor support, or association with affected communities. These sources of legitimacy are not equivalent, and none automatically establishes a mandate to represent a global public.

Material inequality also shaped participation. Organizations with stronger funding, professional staff, language capacity, and access to diplomatic centers could influence negotiations more effectively than smaller groups in mine-affected states. The label “civil society” can conceal these differences.

Anderson’s critique focused on this problem. He disputed claims that the Ottawa Process represented a democratic international civil society acting from below. In his view, transnational advocacy organizations could themselves form an influential professional elite without the accountability expected of elected governments (Anderson, 2000).

That criticism does not establish that state-centered diplomacy is inherently more representative. Governments may exclude survivors, local communities, medical specialists, and humanitarian organizations while giving privileged access to military agencies or arms manufacturers. The relevant issue is not whether either model is perfectly democratic, but which institutions contributed knowledge, authority, and accountability at each stage.

Legal validity must also be separated from participatory legitimacy. The Convention binds states because they consented to it under international law. NGO support did not replace that consent. Civil society participation affected agenda-setting, evidence, drafting debates, public scrutiny, and political pressure.

The Ottawa Process is best understood as state-based treaty-making with unusually extensive non-state participation. It widened access to the diplomatic process without creating a system of global representation. Its record supports a limited conclusion: non-state actors can improve the information and public accountability surrounding treaty negotiations, but claims that they represent affected communities or a wider international public must remain open to examination.

4. The Legal Definition of an Anti-Personnel Mine

The Ottawa Treaty does not prohibit every landmine or every explosive device placed on the ground. Article 2 first defines a mine as a munition designed to be placed under, on, or near the ground or another surface area and to explode through the presence, proximity, or contact of a person or vehicle. It then defines an anti-personnel mine as a mine designed to be activated by a person and to incapacitate, injure, or kill one or more persons (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

The definition has two principal elements. The munition must be designed for placement as a mine, and person activation must form part of its intended operation. The fact that a weapon can injure a person is insufficient. Treaty coverage depends on how the device is designed to function.

Military and commercial labels do not control the classification. Terms such as “area-denial munition,” “protective device,” “smart mine,” or “submunition” may describe tactical use or technical features, but they do not replace the Article 2 test. A device intended to protect a border, installation, or military position remains prohibited if it is designed to explode through a person’s presence, proximity, or contact.

The definition also marks the limits of the Convention. Anti-vehicle mines and exclusively command-detonated weapons are not prohibited merely because they can cause civilian harm. They remain subject to other rules of international humanitarian law and, where applicable, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

4.1 The Design-Based Test Under Article 2

The word “designed” directs attention to the intended technical operation of the device. A mine is not classified as anti-personnel merely because a person could trigger it accidentally or through exceptional handling. Person activation must be one of the functions built into its design or configuration.

Article 2 identifies three forms of activation: presence, proximity, and contact. Physical pressure is not required. A mine may detect movement, heat, sound, vibration, or another human characteristic and still fall within the definition if the system is intended to respond to a person. Tripwires, pressure plates, break wires, and proximity sensors are examples of different means by which the same legal test may be satisfied.

The Convention omits the word “primarily,” which appears in the definition of an anti-personnel mine under Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. That omission narrows the possibility of avoiding the prohibition by claiming that a dual-function device is mainly intended for vehicles or equipment. The relevant question is whether activation by a person forms part of the device’s designed operation, not which function a state regards as predominant.

Dual-mode and selectable-fuze weapons require examination of all designed activation modes. A mine capable only of vehicle activation falls outside the Article 2 definition. A device intentionally equipped with both vehicle-activated and person-activated modes may fall within it because person activation is not accidental; it is one of the functions the weapon was built to perform.

Configuration can also alter classification. An anti-vehicle mine fitted with a tripwire or pressure mechanism intended to be triggered by a person may become an anti-personnel mine in that configuration. The same principle applies to improvised devices assembled from artillery shells or other explosives. Industrial manufacture is not required.

The user’s motive does not change the definition. A person-activated mine remains covered when used to warn, delay, channel movement, or protect another weapon. By contrast, the fact that a person once caused a vehicle mine to explode through unusual interference does not prove that the weapon was designed as an anti-personnel mine.

4.2 Anti-Vehicle and Command-Detonated Weapons

A mine designed to detonate through the presence, proximity, or contact of a vehicle is not an anti-personnel mine solely because people may be injured by the explosion. Anti-tank and other anti-vehicle mines remain outside the categorical Ottawa prohibition when person activation is not part of their design.

That exclusion does not determine their legality under other law. Placement on civilian roads, use without feasible precautions, excessively sensitive fuzes, or failure to record and mark mined areas may breach other conventional or customary rules. Article 2 settles treaty classification, not every legal question concerning the weapon’s use.

Anti-handling devices occupy a narrower category. Article 2 defines them as devices intended to protect a mine and designed to activate when a person attempts to tamper with or intentionally disturb it. A vehicle-activated mine does not become an anti-personnel mine merely because it carries such a device.

The exception is limited to protection against deliberate interference. A mechanism activated by ordinary human presence or contact, rather than an attempt to tamper with the mine, may constitute a person-activated function outside the treaty’s anti-handling qualification. Classification depends on the trigger and its designed purpose.

Command-detonated weapons differ because a human operator authorizes the explosion. A directional fragmentation munition, for example, may fall outside Article 2 when it can function only through deliberate command. The target’s presence informs the operator, but it does not activate the weapon.

A weapon that can operate both by command and through a tripwire or another victim-activated mechanism requires a different conclusion. Its classification cannot be based only on the command mode. The full design and the configuration in which the device is retained or deployed must be assessed.

4.3 Improvised, Remotely Delivered, and Smart Mines

The Convention applies to improvised as well as factory-produced weapons. An improvised explosive device qualifies as an anti-personnel mine when it is designed for placement under, on, or near a surface and for activation by a person. An otherwise similar device initiated only by an operator may fall outside the definition.

Remote delivery concerns placement, not activation. Mines scattered by aircraft, artillery, rockets, vehicles, or drones remain anti-personnel mines when a person later triggers them. Delivery at a distance does not convert a victim-activated device into a command-detonated weapon.

Self-destruction and self-deactivation address how long a mine is expected to remain active. A self-destruct mechanism is intended to destroy the mine after a set period or programmed condition. Self-deactivation usually depends on the exhaustion of an essential component, such as a battery. Neither feature changes the activation test while the device remains operational.

Detectability has the same limited relevance. A mine does not fall outside the Ottawa Treaty because it contains enough metal to be found more easily. Detectability may assist clearance and may affect obligations under other instruments, but it is not an exception to Article 2.

The expression “smart mine” has no defined legal status under the Convention. It may refer to a mine that is detectable, remotely delivered, networked, self-destructing, self-deactivating, or equipped with sophisticated sensors. Each device must be classified according to its placement, activation mechanism, and designed effect.

This drafting allows Article 2 to apply to technologies developed after 1997. Improved reliability, limited operational duration, or advanced sensors may affect military and policy arguments, but they do not alter the legal test. A modern device remains an anti-personnel mine when it is designed to be activated by a person and to incapacitate, injure, or kill.

5. The Prohibitions in Article 1

Article 1 is the operative center of the Ottawa Treaty. It removes anti-personnel mines from the military options available to states parties by prohibiting activities that occur throughout the weapon’s life cycle. The Convention applies before deployment, during armed conflict, and after mines have entered military stockpiles or contaminated territory.

Article 1(1) requires each state party never, under any circumstances, to use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer anti-personnel mines. It also prohibits assistance, encouragement, or inducement connected with those activities. Article 1(2) adds the obligation to destroy or ensure the destruction of mines in accordance with the Convention.

These provisions perform different functions. The prohibitions prevent new weapons from being created, accumulated, supplied, or employed. The destruction obligation addresses mines that already exist. Article 1 thus prevents a state from claiming compliance merely because it has stopped battlefield use while continuing to manufacture, store, or prepare the weapon for future operations.

5.1 Use, Development, Production, and Possession

The prohibition on use applies when anti-personnel mines are employed as weapons. A casualty is not required. Placing or dispensing mines for operational effect constitutes use even if no person later enters the area or triggers a device.

Development reaches activity intended to create a new anti-personnel mine or improve an existing prohibited design. It closes the gap that would arise if states could preserve technical programs while postponing production. The term should still be applied according to purpose. General research involving explosives, sensors, or detection technologies is not prohibited merely because the knowledge could have military applications. The relevant activity must be directed toward developing a weapon covered by Article 2.

Production concerns the manufacture or assembly of anti-personnel mines. It may occur through a complete production line or through coordinated manufacture of components intended to form the finished weapon. Private manufacture does not fall outside the treaty merely because it is not conducted in a state-owned facility. Article 9 requires states parties to adopt measures preventing and suppressing prohibited conduct by persons or on territory under their jurisdiction or control.

The phrase “otherwise acquire” extends beyond commercial purchase. It may include donation, exchange, seizure followed by incorporation into an arsenal, or another transaction through which the state obtains mines for purposes forbidden by the Convention. Temporary custody associated with lawful clearance, destruction, or authorized Article 3 activity must be distinguished from acquisition for military retention.

Article 1 does not list “possession” as an independent prohibition. It prohibits stockpiling and retention. Stockpiling concerns the accumulation or maintenance of stored mines, while retention prevents a state from keeping prohibited weapons outside what it formally describes as a stockpile. Article 4 separately applies to mines that a state owns or possesses, or that are under its jurisdiction or control.

This distinction is relevant when mines are discovered, captured, or held by another state within the territory of a state party. Brief custody for identification, safeguarding, or destruction does not have the same legal character as preserving the weapons for possible use. The factual questions include who controls the mines, why they are being held, how long they remain in custody, and whether a documented destruction process exists.

The Convention does not permit emergency reserves. A state party may not retain anti-personnel mines for possible use after withdrawal, as protection against a neighboring non-party, or as a response to future changes in military doctrine. Mines may be retained only within the narrow purposes and quantitative limits of Article 3.

5.2 Direct and Indirect Transfer

Article 1 prohibits the direct or indirect transfer of anti-personnel mines to anyone. Article 2(4) defines transfer broadly enough to cover both physical movement into or out of national territory and the transfer of title or control over the mines. A commercial sale is only one possible form.

A direct transfer occurs when a supplier provides mines to the intended recipient without an intermediary. An indirect transfer may involve brokers, affiliated entities, transit arrangements, or a sequence of transactions designed to obscure the final recipient. Loan, lease, donation, exchange, and military assistance may all fall within the prohibition when they transfer ownership or practical control.

Movement and legal control should not be treated as identical. Ownership may change while the mines remain in the same location, or physical custody may be handed to another actor while formal title remains unchanged. The treaty’s reference to title and control prevents parties from relying on contractual form to disguise the substance of the transaction.

The Convention expressly excludes the transfer of territory containing emplaced mines from the definition of weapons transfer. A change in sovereignty or control over mined land is not treated as a transfer of every mine buried there. That exclusion does not remove obligations connected with clearance, jurisdiction, control, or responsibility for the contaminated area.

The treaty does not resolve every question concerning transit with complete precision. States parties have expressed different views on the movement of foreign-owned mines across their territory where title and control remain with a non-party. One interpretation treats knowing authorization of such movement as incompatible with the prohibition on transfer or assistance. Another distinguishes transit from transfer unless the territorial state acquires control or actively facilitates the prohibited activity.

This disagreement should not be presented as settled law. The stronger the territorial state’s involvement in authorization, transport, security, storage, or onward delivery, the more likely Article 1(1)(b) or Article 1(1)(c) becomes relevant. Passive geographic passage and active logistical support do not present the same legal facts.

Article 3 permits transfer for two limited purposes: developing or teaching mine-detection, mine-clearance, or mine-destruction techniques, and destruction of the mines themselves. Neither exception authorizes operational supply, resale, indefinite storage, or onward transfer to an actor intending military use.

5.3 Assistance, Encouragement, and Joint Operations

Article 1(1)(c) prohibits a state party from assisting, encouraging, or inducing anyone to engage in activity that would be prohibited for the state party. The provision prevents circumvention through non-parties, private entities, or allied forces.

Certain applications are straightforward. A state party may not instruct another force to lay anti-personnel mines, provide mines for operational use, assist in their production, or supply personnel specifically to establish a minefield. The fact that the principal actor is not bound by the Convention does not make the state party’s contribution lawful.

Joint operations with non-parties are more difficult. Alliance membership or participation in a multinational mission does not by itself establish assistance. The relevant issue is the state party’s contribution to the prohibited activity. Selecting minefield locations, directing emplacement, transporting mines for deployment, or providing operational support specifically tied to their use would present a strong case under Article 1(1)(c).

By contrast, participation in a broader operation in which another state independently retains anti-personnel mines does not automatically amount to a breach. States parties have adopted different interoperability policies. Some prohibit any operational involvement connected with mine use. Others permit participation in combined commands provided their personnel do not request, direct, authorize, or materially facilitate the prohibited activity.

The treaty does not define the precise threshold of assistance. Questions involving general intelligence, financing, transportation, or infrastructure require attention to purpose, knowledge, and connection with the prohibited conduct. Intelligence identifying where mines should be placed is different from general situational information supplied for an operation with multiple objectives. Financing a particular mine-production contract is different from an ordinary investment with a remote and indirect connection to a diversified manufacturer.

The same distinction applies to foreign stockpiles. Mines owned by a non-party but stored on the territory of a state party may raise questions under Articles 1 and 4, depending on jurisdiction, control, custody, and the support provided by the territorial state. Ownership by another government does not settle the legal issue where the state party supplies storage, maintenance, security, or operational access.

The ordinary meaning of assistance also implies some awareness of the conduct being supported. Article 1(1)(c) should not be applied as though any accidental or unforeseeable contribution created automatic responsibility. Military cooperation must nevertheless be organized so that personnel can identify and avoid support that is knowingly connected with prohibited mine activity.

National legislation, military doctrine, rules of engagement, and command instructions are especially important in multinational operations. The treaty establishes the prohibition, but domestic measures determine how personnel recognize and prevent prohibited participation in practice.

5.4 No Exception for War or Self-Defense

The words “never under any circumstances” make the Article 1 prohibitions applicable in both peace and armed conflict. The treaty contains no exception for invasion, reprisal, border defense, military necessity, deterioration in regional security, or use by an adversary.

Reciprocity does not alter that position. A state party may not use anti-personnel mines because an opposing state has used them or remains outside the Convention. The treaty obligation is not conditional on equivalent restraint by the adversary.

The right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter does not authorize departure from Article 1. The law governing resort to force and the law governing the means of warfare answer different questions. A state may be entitled to defend itself while remaining bound by treaties that prohibit particular weapons.

Military necessity likewise cannot supply an exception omitted from the Convention. It operates within the applicable rules of armed conflict; it does not permit commanders to disregard a specific weapons prohibition whenever they consider the weapon operationally useful.

A state concerned about its future security may invoke the Convention’s withdrawal clause, subject to its legal requirements. Until withdrawal takes effect, Article 1 remains binding. A political declaration, parliamentary proposal, procurement plan, or change in defense policy does not suspend the prohibition.

Article 19 reinforces the uniform character of the regime by prohibiting reservations. A state cannot join while preserving the right to use mines on a particular frontier, during a national emergency, or against an adversary that is not a party. Article 3 contains the only express permissions to retain or transfer covered mines, and neither permits combat use.

6. The Narrow Exceptions in Article 3

Article 3 permits limited retention and transfer needed for detection, clearance, destruction, and associated training. It does not preserve an operational stockpile or create a general exception for military research.

The provision must be read narrowly because it qualifies the prohibitions in Article 1. The permitted mines remain prohibited weapons outside the purposes expressly identified. Their lawful retention depends on both purpose and quantity.

Article 3 contains two permissions. States parties may retain or transfer a limited number of mines for developing and teaching mine-detection, mine-clearance, or mine-destruction techniques. They may also transfer mines for destruction.

These exceptions support the implementation of the treaty. Deminers and instructors may require live examples for specialized training or testing, while destruction facilities must be able to receive mines intended for disposal. Article 3 does not authorize renewed development of the weapon as a means of warfare.

6.1 Mines Retained for Training and Clearance

Article 3(1) permits retention or transfer for the development of and training in mine-detection, mine-clearance, or mine-destruction techniques. The institution holding the mines is not decisive. A military school, engineering unit, laboratory, or demining center must still use them for one of the authorized purposes.

The number retained must not exceed “the minimum number absolutely necessary.” The Convention does not impose a uniform numerical ceiling because legitimate needs differ. The scale of training, frequency of courses, variety of mine types, testing requirements, and rate at which mines are consumed may affect the amount required.

The absence of a fixed ceiling does not give states unrestricted discretion. The treaty language demands a reasoned connection between the quantity retained and the authorized program. A large inventory held without active training or technical use is more difficult to reconcile with the standard than a smaller stock regularly consumed in clearance and destruction exercises.

Article 7 requires reporting on the types and quantities retained or transferred under Article 3. The treaty text does not expressly require states to report every training exercise, consumption rate, or periodic review. Later implementation practice has encouraged more detailed disclosure because numerical data alone may not show whether the retained mines remain necessary.

The use of inert replicas, simulators, or other substitutes is also a matter of implementation practice rather than an express treaty requirement. Where such alternatives provide adequate training, they may reduce the number of live mines needed. The legal standard remains whether the retained quantity is the minimum absolutely necessary for the authorized purpose.

Long-term retention is not automatically prohibited. Some training programs may require continuing access to particular mine types. Continued retention should still be reviewed against current needs. Mines held for years without use, training plans, or technical justification may cease to satisfy Article 3 even if they were lawfully retained at the time of accession.

The exception does not permit research aimed at improving battlefield performance. Work on lethality, reliability, delivery, concealment, or military effectiveness would conflict with the prohibition on development in Article 1. Technical activity is permitted only where it serves detection, clearance, destruction, or training in those fields.

States implementing Article 3 commonly identify the responsible institution, maintain secure inventories, record consumption, and destroy mines no longer needed. These practices are not all stated verbatim in Article 3, but they help demonstrate that the exception has not become a disguised operational reserve.

6.2 Transfers Made Solely for Destruction

Article 3(2) permits anti-personnel mines to be transferred for destruction. This exception allows mines to move to a specialized facility, another government authority, a qualified contractor, or another state capable of disposing of them safely.

The purpose of destruction must govern the transaction. Necessary transport, receipt, temporary custody, and processing may form part of a lawful transfer where they are connected to a defined destruction program. Temporary storage does not become prohibited stockpiling merely because immediate destruction is impracticable, but delay must remain consistent with the disposal purpose.

A transfer is not protected when destruction is only nominal. Mines sent to a recipient for military testing, resale, operational retention, or onward supply fall outside Article 3(2). The sending state must not use the destruction exception to place usable mines in the hands of an actor intending to preserve or employ them.

The treaty does not prescribe a detailed verification procedure for every destruction-related transfer. States commonly use transport records, inventories, receipts, destruction certificates, and Article 7 reports to account for the mines. These measures support transparency and help establish that no diversion occurred.

The receiving entity’s capacity is relevant in practice. A state should not transfer mines to a facility unable to secure, process, or destroy them. Where destruction is delayed, custody arrangements should prevent access for purposes inconsistent with the Convention.

A lawful transfer for destruction differs from transferring mined territory. Article 2(4) excludes the transfer of territory containing emplaced mines from the definition of transfer. Collecting mines and moving them to a disposal facility is a weapons transfer, but Article 3(2) permits it because destruction is the objective.

Article 3 is narrow without being impractical. It allows states to retain and move the limited number of mines necessary to remove the broader threat. The exception supports the Convention’s implementation; it does not qualify the rule that anti-personnel mines may not return to military use.

7. Stockpile Destruction and Mine Clearance

The Ottawa Treaty establishes two destruction regimes with different objects, deadlines, and implementation demands. Article 4 governs anti-personnel mines held in stockpiles. Article 5 governs mines emplaced in areas under a state party’s jurisdiction or control. The first concerns weapons that can usually be inventoried and secured; the second concerns territorial contamination that may be uncertain, dispersed, inaccessible, or mixed with other explosive hazards.

The treaty reflects that difference in its deadlines. Stockpiles must be destroyed within four years after the Convention enters into force for the state concerned. Mines in contaminated areas must be destroyed within ten years, unless the States Parties grant an extension. The longer period does not reduce the legal importance of clearance. It recognizes that identifying, surveying, and releasing contaminated land is more difficult than disposing of weapons stored in arsenals.

Reporting also serves different purposes. Stockpile reports identify the types and quantities of mines held and the progress of destruction. Clearance reporting must address the location and extent of mined areas, the status of national programs, methods of destruction, civilian-protection measures, and changes produced by survey. A state may complete Article 4 while remaining subject to Article 5 for many years.

7.1 The Four-Year Stockpile Deadline

Article 4 requires each state party to destroy or ensure the destruction of all stockpiled anti-personnel mines that it owns or possesses, or that are under its jurisdiction or control. Destruction must occur as soon as possible and no later than four years after the Convention enters into force for that state. Mines lawfully retained or transferred under Article 3 are excluded from this requirement (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

The four-year period is an outer limit. The phrase “as soon as possible” requires implementation to begin without unnecessary delay. A state should identify the relevant stocks, secure them against diversion, establish a destruction program, and allocate the technical and financial resources needed to complete it.

Article 4 is not confined to mines formally recorded as state property. Ownership, possession, jurisdiction, and control are alternative bases for the obligation. Mines held by military units, security services, or other public institutions remain covered. Transferring title to a state-controlled entity does not remove the obligation when the government continues to exercise authority over the weapons.

The same language may reach mines located outside the undisputed national territory. A state party may exercise control over captured arsenals, overseas facilities, occupied territory, or other locations where it can determine how the mines are secured, moved, retained, or destroyed. The legal analysis depends on the authority exercised in practice rather than ownership alone.

Foreign-owned stocks situated on the territory of a state party require closer examination. Basing agreements may allocate custody and operational control to another state, but the territorial state may still retain jurisdiction or powers relevant to storage, movement, or disposal. Continued support for such stocks may also raise separate questions under Article 1.

Article 4 contains no extension procedure. Technical difficulty, cost, environmental concerns, or administrative weakness do not create an additional treaty period. A state that misses the deadline remains obliged to complete destruction and explain the failure through the Convention’s transparency and compliance mechanisms.

A declaration of completion does not authorize later retention of newly discovered mines. Additional stocks may be found in abandoned depots, police facilities, captured arsenals, private premises, or records omitted from the original inventory. The state should secure the mines, report the discovery, determine whether any are needed under Article 3, and destroy the remainder promptly.

A later discovery does not automatically establish that the earlier declaration was false. The conclusion depends on what the authorities knew or should reasonably have known and how they respond after discovery. Prompt disclosure and destruction support continued compliance; concealment or incorporation into an operational reserve would raise a different issue.

The Convention does not prescribe a single destruction method. Detonation, incineration, dismantling, and industrial demilitarization may be used where they render the mines permanently unusable. Worker safety, environmental protection, security, recordkeeping, and prevention of component reuse remain relevant to the credibility of the process.

7.2 The Ten-Year Clearance Deadline

Article 5 requires each state party to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control. The work must be completed as soon as possible and no later than ten years after the Convention enters into force for that state (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

A mined area is territory that is dangerous because mines are known or suspected to be present. The duty is not limited to locations where every device has already been confirmed. Suspicion supported by credible information is sufficient to trigger obligations concerning identification, protection, investigation, and eventual release.

Article 5 applies to anti-personnel mines covered by the Convention. A single area may also contain anti-vehicle mines, unexploded ordnance, booby traps, or abandoned munitions. Those hazards may be governed by other legal rules. Operational programs often address them together because mixed contamination cannot safely be separated in the field.

The words “jurisdiction or control” prevent the clearance duty from being restricted to territory over which sovereignty is undisputed. Jurisdiction normally follows territorial authority. Control may arise where a state exercises effective power over territory outside its recognized borders, including situations of occupation or temporary administration.

An occupying state cannot rely solely on the absence of sovereignty where it has the practical capacity to mark, survey, or clear affected areas. The territorial state may retain legal jurisdiction while lacking physical access. The Convention does not provide a complete formula for allocating every overlapping obligation, but control over the territory is legally relevant.

Disputed sovereignty does not remove the need for civilian protection. States may arrange joint surveys, information exchange, marking, or clearance without prejudicing their territorial claims. The treaty’s purpose would be frustrated if contaminated land remained untreated solely because the boundary or title was contested.

Areas controlled by non-state armed groups present a different obstacle. The armed group cannot become a state party, but the state does not cease to have treaty obligations merely because it lacks immediate access. The extent of feasible implementation will depend on security, territorial control, available information, and the possibility of humanitarian arrangements.

The state should still perform measures within its capacity. These may include recording reported contamination, maintaining national databases, supporting mine-risk education, collecting casualty information, cooperating with humanitarian organizations, and clearing accessible areas. Lack of access to one region does not justify inactivity elsewhere.

The ten-year period begins when the Convention enters into force for the state. It does not restart whenever a new minefield is identified or a survey reveals that contamination is larger than previously estimated. New information changes the implementation plan, not the legal starting date.

7.3 Extension Requests and Continuing Duties

A state that cannot complete Article 5 within ten years may request an extension from a Meeting of the States Parties or a Review Conference. An extension may be granted for a period of up to ten years. The request is decided by a majority of states parties present and voting (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

The request must specify the proposed duration and explain why additional time is required. Article 5 calls for information on the preparation and status of national demining programs, the financial and technical means available, the circumstances preventing completion, and the humanitarian, social, economic, and environmental consequences of an extension.

An extension is not automatic. The state must identify the remaining problem, describe the work already completed, explain the causes of delay, and show how the requested period corresponds to a credible path toward completion. A request for the maximum period should be supported by a plan commensurate with that length.

Later implementation practice has developed more detailed expectations. Requests commonly include survey results, remaining contaminated areas, annual targets, budgets, national capacity, risk priorities, and projected completion dates. These expectations assist collective decision-making but should not be confused with amendments to the treaty text.

An extension changes the deadline; it does not suspend the underlying obligation. The state must continue clearance, civilian protection, reporting, national planning, and resource mobilization. It should also seek international assistance where domestic capacity is insufficient.

Resource scarcity may be relevant, but it does not by itself establish entitlement to an extension. The state should explain what national resources were committed, what international support was requested, and whether institutional or administrative failures contributed to the delay.

Further extensions are legally possible. A later request must include information on work completed during the previous extension. Repeated requests require careful scrutiny because the mechanism was designed to facilitate completion, not to convert a time-bound obligation into an indefinite one.

Approval of an extension does not settle every issue concerning past implementation. Questions may remain about incomplete reporting, weak civilian protection, avoidable delay, or failure to use available resources. The extension addresses the period needed for future clearance.

7.4 Marking, Monitoring, and Land Release

Article 5 imposes protective duties before final clearance. Each state party must make every effort to identify areas in which anti-personnel mines are known or suspected to be emplaced. It must ensure, as soon as possible, that such areas are perimeter-marked, monitored, and protected by fencing or other means sufficient to exclude civilians effectively.

These measures must remain functional. Signs may deteriorate, fencing may be damaged, and local conditions may change. Monitoring requires inspection and maintenance rather than a one-time installation. Protective measures that no longer warn or exclude civilians do not satisfy the purpose of Article 5.

The treaty requires marking to meet at least the standards contained in Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Effective warning also depends on local circumstances. Language, literacy, seasonal movement, children’s behavior, agricultural use, and the return of displaced residents may affect the adequacy of signs and barriers.

Modern mine action commonly uses a land-release process combining non-technical survey, technical survey, and clearance. These methods are not separately defined in the Ottawa Treaty. They developed through technical standards and implementation practice as means of determining which land requires physical clearance and which can safely be released on the basis of evidence.

A non-technical survey collects and evaluates information without intrusive technical methods. Military records, community testimony, accident reports, former combatants, maps, imagery, and patterns of land use may help establish whether contamination is reasonably suspected.

Technical survey uses trained personnel and technical methods to confirm hazards and define their location and extent. It can reduce the area requiring full clearance by separating confirmed contamination from land included in earlier, imprecise estimates.

Clearance involves the detection, removal, and destruction of mines and other relevant explosive hazards to an accepted standard. Because it is resource-intensive, it should be directed by reliable evidence rather than applied indiscriminately to every area once described as suspicious.

Evidence-based land release supports Article 5 when it is governed by documented procedures, quality management, and accountable decisions. It cannot be used to cancel land merely because clearance is costly or contamination records are incomplete.

Inaccurate information creates two forms of harm. Overestimating contamination can keep safe land closed and divert resources from confirmed hazards. Underestimating it can expose residents, workers, and returning displaced persons to lethal risk. Effective implementation depends on a disciplined survey, updated records, community knowledge, and review of earlier assumptions.

8. Victim Assistance and International Cooperation

The Ottawa Treaty addresses the consequences of mines for people as well as the destruction of the weapons themselves. Article 6 requires states parties in a position to do so to provide assistance for the care, rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration of mine victims. It also covers mine-awareness programs, clearance, stockpile destruction, and related cooperation (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

The treaty text is concise. It does not contain a complete regulatory framework for healthcare, disability, education, employment, accessibility, or social protection. More detailed standards have been developed through action plans, review conferences, national practice, and international human rights law.

These sources should remain legally distinct. Article 6 creates treaty obligations concerning cooperation and assistance. Human rights treaties impose separate duties on states that are parties to them. Action plans guide implementation and express political commitments agreed within the Convention’s institutional process, but they are not formal amendments to Article 6.

8.1 Medical Care, Rehabilitation, and Inclusion

Article 6 refers to care and rehabilitation and to social and economic reintegration. Mine injuries commonly require more than emergency treatment. Survivors may need repeated surgery, prosthetic and orthotic services, physical therapy, pain management, psychological care, and long-term clinical follow-up.

Emergency response is often difficult because mine incidents occur in rural or conflict-affected areas. Survival may depend on first aid, safe evacuation, transport, trauma surgery, blood supplies, infection control, and referral systems. Weak infrastructure can turn a survivable injury into a fatal one.

Rehabilitation continues after the immediate wound has healed. Children need replacement prostheses as they grow. Adults may require new devices as working conditions, mobility, and health change. A single intervention rarely addresses the lasting consequences of amputation or other serious injury.

Psychological care is also relevant. Trauma, anxiety, depression, social isolation, and loss of livelihood may affect survivors and their families. Peer support, community-based rehabilitation, and accessible mental-health services can form part of effective assistance.

Later implementation practice increasingly uses the language of inclusion rather than reintegration alone. The difference is substantive. Survivors should not be expected simply to adapt to inaccessible institutions. Barriers in education, employment, transport, public buildings, information, and political participation may require changes in law, policy, and infrastructure.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides a broader rights-based framework for equality, accessibility, health, rehabilitation, education, work, participation, and independent living (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006). These obligations arise under that treaty, not under the Ottawa Convention itself.

The regimes are complementary. Article 6 places mine-victim assistance within humanitarian disarmament and international cooperation. Disability law treats survivors as rights-holders entitled to equal participation and non-discrimination. Incorporating assistance into national health, education, labor, disability, and social-protection systems is generally more sustainable than maintaining isolated mine-specific services.

The Ottawa Treaty does not define “mine victim.” Action plans and implementation practice have often used a broader understanding that includes persons injured or killed, their families, and affected communities. This wider approach reflects the social and economic consequences of mines, but it should be identified as an implementation development rather than quoted as a treaty definition.

Reliable data are necessary for planning. Governments need information on injuries, deaths, disability, geographic distribution, service availability, and unmet needs. Data collection must also respect privacy and avoid exposing survivors to discrimination or surveillance.

8.2 Assistance Between States Parties

Article 6 recognizes the right of each state party to seek and receive assistance, where feasible, for implementation. It also requires states parties in a position to do so to provide assistance for mine victims, mine-awareness programs, clearance, and stockpile destruction.

The phrase “in a position to do so” acknowledges differences in technical and financial capacity. It does not reduce cooperation to voluntary charity. States with relevant resources must assess what assistance they can reasonably provide within the treaty framework.

Cooperation may include funding, equipment, training, technology, personnel, research, institutional development, and operational support. It can assist clearance teams, rehabilitation services, national databases, risk education, destruction facilities, quality management, legislation, and strategic planning.

Article 6 also calls for the fullest possible exchange of equipment, material, and scientific and technological information. States should not impose undue restrictions on mine-clearance equipment and related technology intended for humanitarian purposes.

Assistance may be provided bilaterally or through the United Nations, regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, specialized international bodies, and nongovernmental organizations. The treaty permits several channels because implementation requires different forms of expertise.

International organizations often support coordination, technical standards, training, procurement, and national planning. Specialized operators conduct surveys, clearance, explosive ordnance disposal, and risk education. Local organizations contribute language, geographic knowledge, community trust, and access that external actors may lack.

Community participation is not stated as a separate Article 6 obligation, but it has become an important implementation practice. Residents, survivors, displaced persons, local authorities, farmers, and former combatants may possess information needed to identify hazards and prioritize land for release.

Article 6 allows a state to seek help in preparing a national demining program. Such a program may assess contamination, available capacity, required resources, projected timelines, awareness needs, and coordination arrangements. This connects international assistance to defined treaty obligations.

The receiving state also has responsibilities. Article 6 requires parties giving and receiving assistance to cooperate so that the agreed programs are implemented fully and promptly. Access, authorization, customs procedures, information sharing, security arrangements, coordination, and financial oversight may all affect whether assistance can be used effectively.

Assistance should be judged by its contribution to implementation, not only by the amount pledged. Short-term projects may produce visible outputs while leaving national capacity, victim services, or the most difficult contaminated areas underfunded. Sustainable cooperation should support progress toward completion and long-term inclusion.

8.3 National Responsibility and Resource Constraints

International assistance does not transfer the primary treaty obligations away from the affected state. Articles 4 and 5 require each state party to destroy its stockpiles and clear mined areas under its jurisdiction or control. Article 6 helps states perform those duties; it does not make donor support a precondition for their legal existence.

National responsibility includes legislation, planning, coordination, access, reporting, prioritization, and use of available resources. Government authorities control military records, land administration, public-health systems, procurement, border access, and the legal status of released land. External actors cannot replace these functions indefinitely.

National ownership does not mean that every affected state can comply without assistance. Severe contamination may exceed domestic technical and financial capacity. The Convention anticipates this problem by creating a cooperative framework rather than assuming equal resources among states parties.

Financial weakness may explain slow progress and support a request for international assistance or an Article 5 extension. It does not cancel the underlying obligation. The state should demonstrate the scale of the problem, the domestic effort made, the assistance sought, and the steps planned for completion.

Active conflict can prevent access, create new contamination, destroy records, and endanger clearance personnel. Such conditions may reduce what can be accomplished safely in a given area. They do not remove duties that remain feasible, including warning civilians, preserving information, assisting casualties, surveying accessible territory, and planning for later clearance.

Loss of territorial control may similarly limit physical operations. The state should document the constraint and cooperate, where legally and practically possible, with humanitarian organizations and local actors able to reduce civilian risk. The existence of an obstacle must be assessed against the measures still available.

Institutional weakness also affects implementation. Fragmented authority, poor records, corruption, delayed procurement, unclear land ownership, and weak coordination may waste resources even when funding exists. International cooperation may support institutional reform, but the affected state remains responsible for addressing administrative failures within its control.

Prioritization is largely a matter of implementation practice. States commonly direct resources toward areas where contamination threatens homes, water, schools, clinics, transport, livelihoods, or the return of displaced persons. The Convention does not prescribe a single prioritization formula, but decisions should remain consistent with civilian protection and progress toward complete clearance.

Donor conduct can also affect results. Unpredictable funding, short grant cycles, fragmented reporting systems, and restrictions on where assistance may be used can undermine national planning. States assisting should align support, where possible, with credible national strategies and identified humanitarian needs.

The legal responsibilities remain distinguishable. The affected state must lead implementation and comply with Articles 4, 5, 7, and 9. Assisting states must meet Article 6 according to their capacity. International organizations and nongovernmental actors may provide expertise and operations, but they do not become substitutes for the state party’s treaty obligations.

The relevant measure of cooperation is practical progress: fewer people exposed to mines, contaminated land released safely, survivors able to access services, national institutions strengthened, and treaty deadlines met or approached through credible implementation.

9. Transparency, Compliance, and Enforcement

The Ottawa Treaty relies on a cooperative compliance system, but cooperation does not make its obligations optional. Article 7 requires states parties to disclose information needed to assess implementation. Article 8 establishes procedures for clarifying suspected non-compliance and, where necessary, conducting fact-finding. Article 9 requires domestic measures capable of preventing and suppressing prohibited conduct. Meetings, committees, and review conferences provide continuing collective supervision.

The Convention does not establish a permanent inspectorate or an automatic sanctions mechanism. Its operation depends heavily on national implementation, accurate reporting, peer review, diplomatic engagement, and public scrutiny. This model reflects the choice made during the Ottawa Process to adopt a clear prohibition without waiting for agreement on an extensive verification organization.

Implementation failure and deliberate breach must not be treated as identical. A state may miss a deadline because of armed conflict, inaccessible territory, inadequate capacity, poor administration, or unwillingness to comply. The Convention allows states parties to identify the cause, offer assistance where appropriate, and demand corrective action where cooperation proves insufficient.

A violation still engages international responsibility. The cooperative structure affects how compliance concerns are examined; it does not reduce the binding force of the treaty.

9.1 Article 7 Transparency Reports

Article 7 requires each state party to submit an initial transparency report to the United Nations Secretary-General no later than 180 days after the Convention enters into force for that state. Updated information covering the preceding calendar year must then be provided annually by 30 April (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

The report must describe the legislative, administrative, and other national measures adopted under Article 9. It must identify stockpiled anti-personnel mines owned or possessed by the state, or under its jurisdiction or control, with a breakdown by type and quantity and, where possible, lot numbers.

States must also report the location of mined areas under their jurisdiction or control. To the extent possible, the information should include the types and estimated quantities of mines and the dates of emplacement. Where records are incomplete or areas are inaccessible, the state should identify the uncertainty rather than present an absence of confirmed information as evidence that no contamination exists.

Mines retained or transferred under Article 3 require separate disclosure. Reports must identify their types, quantities, and the institutions authorized to hold or transfer them. This information allows other states parties to assess whether retention remains connected to detection, clearance, destruction, or related training and whether the quantity is compatible with the “minimum number absolutely necessary” standard.

Article 7 also covers the conversion or decommissioning of production facilities. Ending current manufacture is not the same as dismantling or converting the capacity to produce prohibited weapons. Reporting on facilities helps establish whether the production ban has been implemented beyond a temporary policy decision.

Destruction programs under Articles 4 and 5 must be described. Relevant information includes the status of the programs, methods of destruction, locations of destruction sites, and applicable safety and environmental standards. States must also report the types and quantities of mines destroyed after the Convention became binding upon them.

Technical information serves an operational purpose. States must disclose available data concerning the characteristics of mines previously produced or currently held, including dimensions, fuzing, explosive content, metallic content, photographs, and other information that may assist identification and clearance.

Reports must also describe measures taken to provide immediate and effective warning to civilians concerning known or suspected mined areas. This requirement confirms that compliance cannot be measured solely by the number of mines destroyed. Protection is required while clearance remains incomplete.

Annual reporting allows declared stockpiles to be compared with destruction totals, retained mines with authorized programs, and contaminated areas with clearance progress. It also creates a record against which later discoveries, revised survey results, and missed deadlines can be assessed.

Late, incomplete, or inconsistent reports weaken the compliance system. A missing report prevents the current evaluation. An incomplete report may conceal unresolved obligations. Unexplained changes in quantities or contaminated areas may indicate poor recordkeeping, new evidence, or a more serious compliance concern.

A state with no material change should still submit an annual update confirming that position. Silence is not equivalent to a no-change report. Regular submission demonstrates that the government has reviewed the relevant obligations and remains accountable for the accuracy of earlier information.

9.2 Article 8 Compliance Procedures

Article 8 begins with a duty to consult and cooperate. This establishes clarification as the initial response to uncertainty, while preserving formal procedures where dialogue does not resolve the concern.

One or more States Parties may submit a request for clarification concerning another State Party through the United Nations Secretary-General. The request must contain information supporting the concern, and states must avoid unfounded or abusive allegations. The requested state has 28 days to respond.

The procedure protects both accountability and fairness. The requesting state must articulate a factual basis, while the requested state receives an opportunity to provide records, explanations, or corrective information before the issue is placed before the wider treaty membership.

If no response is received, or the response is considered inadequate, the requesting state may refer the matter to the next Meeting of the States Parties. The Secretary-General circulates the relevant material, and the requested state retains the right to present its position. The states concerned may also seek the Secretary-General’s good offices.

An urgent matter may be referred to a Special Meeting of the States Parties. Such a meeting must be convened if at least one-third of the States Parties support the request within the period prescribed by Article 8. This threshold prevents a single allegation from automatically producing collective proceedings while avoiding a consensus rule that would allow the state concerned to block scrutiny.

The meeting first determines whether further consideration is warranted. Consensus is preferred, but if a majority of states parties are present and voting may decide to continue. If additional clarification is required, the meeting may authorize a fact-finding mission and define its mandate.

A mission may consist of up to nine experts selected through the procedure established by the Convention. Nationals of the requesting state and states directly affected by the matter may not serve. These restrictions are intended to protect impartiality.

The requested state must facilitate the mission and make reasonable efforts to provide access to relevant places and persons. Access is not unlimited. The state may protect classified information, sensitive equipment, constitutional rights, proprietary interests, and the safety of the mission. Where direct access is restricted, it should provide alternative evidence capable of demonstrating compliance.

The mission reports through the Secretary-General to the States Parties. After considering the findings, the meeting may request corrective measures within a specified period, recommend cooperation and assistance, or propose other procedures consistent with international law.

The Convention’s formal compliance mechanism has historically been used cautiously. States parties have generally preferred committee engagement, bilateral clarification, and diplomatic dialogue. That preference may preserve cooperation, but excessive reluctance to use Article 8 can weaken the credibility of a procedure created for serious unresolved concerns.

Cooperative compliance is most effective when dialogue is supported by the possibility of formal review. Consultation should not become a means of postponing scrutiny indefinitely.

9.3 Article 9 National Implementation

Article 9 requires states parties to adopt all appropriate legal, administrative, and other measures, including penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress prohibited activities undertaken by persons or on territory under their jurisdiction or control (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

Ratification alone may be insufficient. International obligations must be translated into domestic rules that enable public authorities to stop prohibited conduct, investigate suspected violations, punish offenders, control weapons and transfers, and dispose of seized or discovered mines.

Domestic law should define anti-personnel mines consistently with Article 2 and cover the conduct listed in Article 1. A narrower national definition or incomplete list of offenses can leave conduct unpunished even though it violates the Convention.

The treaty does not prescribe a single legislative form. A state may enact a specific mine-ban statute or rely on a combination of criminal law, arms legislation, export controls, military regulations, and administrative measures. The relevant question is whether the resulting framework covers the Convention’s prohibitions effectively.

Penal sanctions must be available against persons responsible for prohibited conduct. Depending on national law, potential offenders may include military personnel, officials, manufacturers, exporters, brokers, transporters, and persons who knowingly assist prohibited activity.

The Convention does not require every state to adopt the same model of corporate liability. Some systems impose criminal or administrative responsibility on legal persons. Others prosecute directors, managers, employees, or agents. Article 9 requires an effective means of preventing and suppressing corporate involvement, but leaves the legal technique to the state.

Jurisdiction must cover conduct by persons or on territory under the state’s jurisdiction or control. States should also ensure that armed forces and officials cannot evade the prohibition during overseas operations. The Convention does not expressly require universal criminal jurisdiction, and it does not impose a single approach to extraterritorial offenses.

Export and customs systems are necessary to enforce the transfer prohibition. Licensing authorities must be able to identify prohibited transactions, stop illicit shipments, regulate relevant intermediaries, and coordinate with investigators and prosecutors.

Military implementation is equally important. Doctrine, operational manuals, procurement policies, inventory controls, rules of engagement, and multinational-command instructions should translate Article 1 into rules that personnel can apply. Interoperability guidance should identify conduct that may amount to prohibited assistance.

Administrative structures support both prevention and reporting. Governments need designated authorities, secure inventories, destruction procedures, inter-agency coordination, and a reliable process for preparing Article 7 reports. Criminal offenses alone are inadequate where no institution is responsible for implementation.

Authorities must also be able to secure discovered or seized mines, preserve evidence where necessary, and arrange destruction. Confiscation without an effective disposal system may merely relocate the prohibited stockpile.

Article 9 gives domestic institutions the primary enforcement role. Article 8 addresses compliance between states; it does not replace national investigation and prosecution. A state may incur international responsibility where its legal system fails to prevent or suppress prohibited private conduct within its jurisdiction or control.

9.4 Meetings and Implementation Machinery

Article 11 provides for meetings of states parties to consider the Convention’s operation, transparency reports, international cooperation, technological developments, compliance matters, and Article 5 extension requests. These meetings review implementation and adopt decisions within the authority granted by the treaty.

Review conferences conduct a broader assessment at intervals of at least five years. They examine progress, identify persistent obstacles, decide future priorities, and review the institutional arrangements supporting the Convention.

The current implementation structure includes four thematic bodies: the Committee on Article 5 Implementation, the Committee on Victim Assistance, the Committee on the Enhancement of Cooperation and Assistance, and the Committee on Cooperative Compliance. Their members engage directly with states, review submitted information, and present observations to the wider membership.

The Article 5 Committee assesses clearance progress and extension requests. The Victim Assistance Committee follows implementation concerning survivors and affected communities. The cooperation committee promotes partnerships and resources. The compliance committee engages states facing alleged or acknowledged compliance concerns.

These committees do not issue judicial decisions. Their influence comes through dialogue, written analysis, public reporting, and recommendations. They can distinguish a state requiring technical support from one failing to address obligations despite having the capacity to do so.

The Implementation Support Unit provides technical, substantive, and administrative assistance to the President, committees, and states parties. It supports reporting, meetings, extension processes, and institutional continuity. It does not possess independent authority to determine that a state has violated the Convention.

Intersessional meetings allow states, international organizations, the ICRC, civil society, and technical specialists to examine implementation between formal annual meetings. They support information exchange and policy development, but they do not amend the treaty.

The Siem Reap–Angkor Action Plan, adopted at the Fifth Review Conference in 2024, guides implementation during the 2025–2029 cycle. It contains agreed actions concerning universalization, national ownership, stockpile destruction, clearance, victim assistance, cooperation, reporting, and compliance (Fifth Review Conference, 2024).

The Action Plan is not a treaty amendment. It cannot alter Article 1, change Article 2 definitions, extend an Article 4 deadline, or create new exceptions. Its function is to translate existing obligations and agreed political commitments into a structured implementation program.

Failure to carry out an individual action does not automatically constitute a separate treaty breach. It may still reveal whether the state is implementing the underlying legal obligation seriously. The Action Plan has institutional weight without possessing the same legal status as the Convention itself.

10. The Treaty Within the Wider Law of Weapons

The Ottawa Treaty operates alongside other weapons rules. The same conduct may be governed by the Mine Ban Convention, Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, general international humanitarian law, and domestic legislation. Each regime has a different scope and legal function.

The first question is the state’s treaty status. A state party to the Ottawa Treaty is bound by its categorical prohibition. A non-party is not bound by Article 1 merely because most states have joined, although it may be bound by Amended Protocol II, customary humanitarian law, or other applicable rules.

Compliance with a less restrictive regime cannot authorize conduct prohibited by a stricter obligation. A state party to both the Ottawa Treaty and Amended Protocol II must satisfy both, applying the complete ban to anti-personnel mines and the Protocol’s regulatory rules to other covered weapons and devices.

10.1 Amended Protocol II to the CCW

Amended Protocol II, adopted in 1996, regulates mines, booby traps, and other devices during international and non-international armed conflicts. Its material scope is wider than that of the Ottawa Treaty because it includes anti-vehicle mines and other devices. Its treatment of anti-personnel mines is less restrictive because it allows their use under defined conditions (CCW Amended Protocol II, 1996).

The Protocol prohibits directing mines against civilians and bars indiscriminate use. It requires feasible precautions and contains technical and operational rules intended to reduce civilian harm.

Detectability is one such requirement. Anti-personnel mines must comply with standards intended to allow their detection by commonly available equipment. Under the Ottawa Treaty, detectability does not affect legality. A detectable anti-personnel mine remains prohibited.

Amended Protocol II also regulates remotely delivered mines. Remotely delivered anti-personnel mines must be recorded and must comply with technical requirements concerning self-destruction and self-deactivation. These mechanisms seek to limit the period during which the mines remain active.

Other anti-personnel mines that do not satisfy those technical standards may be used only within perimeter-marked areas that are monitored and protected by fencing or other effective means. The party controlling the area must maintain the protective measures and remove the mines before abandoning it, unless responsibility is transferred under the Protocol.

Recording requirements support later clearance. Relevant information may include the location, boundaries, number, and type of mines, and dates of emplacement. Marking and monitoring are intended to protect civilians while the devices remain in place.

The Ottawa Treaty adopts a different legal judgment. Technical safeguards may reduce risk, but they do not authorize use. Once a device satisfies Article 2, a state party may not use, produce, stockpile, retain, acquire, or transfer it except within the narrow permissions of Article 3.

Transfer rules also differ. Amended Protocol II restricts the transfer of prohibited or non-compliant weapons and regulates transfers to states not bound by the Protocol. It does not eliminate every transfer of anti-personnel mines satisfying its technical conditions.

The Ottawa Treaty prohibits direct and indirect transfer regardless of assurances concerning future use. Transfers are permitted only for authorized detection, clearance, destruction training, or destruction itself.

Amended Protocol II does not require the destruction of all stockpiles within four years or impose the same ten-year clearance deadline, transparency regime, and victim-assistance structure. Its principal function is to regulate use and post-use precautions, not to eliminate the weapon from national arsenals.

The regimes nevertheless interact. Article 5 of the Ottawa Treaty incorporates the marking standards of Amended Protocol II as the minimum standard for protecting mined areas pending clearance. It borrows a technical safeguard without adopting the Protocol’s permission to use anti-personnel mines.

10.2 General International Humanitarian Law

General international humanitarian law governs mine use by parties to an armed conflict, including states that have not joined the Ottawa Treaty. These rules regulate the conduct of hostilities rather than creating the same peacetime prohibitions on production, acquisition, possession, and transfer.

The principle of distinction requires attacks to be directed against combatants and military objectives rather than civilians and civilian objects. The decision to emplace mines must be assessed according to their intended location, activation, expected effects, and the movement of civilians that can reasonably be anticipated.

A mine does not escape legal scrutiny because it detonates after the person who placed it has left. The relevant attack includes the decision to employ the weapon and the effects expected when that decision is made.

The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is especially important. Mine use may be unlawful where the weapon cannot be directed at a specific military objective or its effects cannot be limited as required by humanitarian law. Location, civilian movement, marking, recording, and the likelihood of losing control over the area all affect that assessment.

Proportionality prohibits an attack expected to cause incidental civilian death, injury, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Long-term consequences may be relevant where they are sufficiently foreseeable and causally connected to the attack. Broader economic and social effects should not be included automatically without examining their legal proximity and evidentiary basis.

The duty to take precautions requires constant care and all feasible measures to reduce incidental harm. In mine warfare, relevant precautions may include weapon selection, placement, recording, warning, marking, fencing, surveillance, and planning for removal.

Military necessity does not override these obligations. It helps identify the military purpose and expected advantage of an operation, but it does not authorize conduct prohibited by humanitarian law. For an Ottawa state party, it cannot create an exception to Article 1.

International humanitarian law also prohibits weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. The severity of mine injuries contributed to the campaign for prohibition, but state practice has not established an uncontested rule that every anti-personnel mine is inherently unlawful on this ground.

The same caution applies to claims that anti-personnel mines are universally prohibited as inherently indiscriminate weapons. Their activation and persistence create severe risks, but several non-parties continue to maintain that certain uses remain lawful under restrictive conditions. A customary rule identical to the entire Ottawa prohibition cannot be assumed solely from widespread treaty membership.

The ICRC’s study of customary international humanitarian law identifies more specific rules concerning landmines. Particular care must be taken to minimize indiscriminate effects, placement should be recorded as far as possible, and parties should remove or neutralize mines after hostilities or facilitate their removal (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, 2005).

These rules do not reproduce the Ottawa regime. They do not impose their four-year stockpile deadline, prohibit peacetime development and production, require Article 7 reports, or create the same victim-assistance and cooperation obligations.

A non-party may violate humanitarian law through the location or manner of mine use without violating the Ottawa Treaty. A state party may violate the Convention through production or retention before the conduct-of-hostilities rules become applicable. The regimes regulate related but distinct conduct.

10.3 The Convention on Cluster Munitions

The Convention on Cluster Munitions is a separate humanitarian disarmament agreement adopted in Dublin in 2008 and in force since 2010. It prohibits states parties from using, developing, producing, acquiring, stockpiling, retaining, or transferring cluster munitions and from assisting prohibited conduct (Convention on Cluster Munitions, 2008).

Cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines are not legally interchangeable. A cluster munition disperses explosive submunitions over an area. Unexploded submunitions may remain hazardous after an attack, but they are governed by a separate treaty definition and do not automatically qualify as anti-personnel mines.

The treaties share a common legal structure. Both prohibit a defined category of conventional weapons, require stockpile destruction and clearance of contaminated areas, establish victim-assistance and cooperation duties, require transparency reports, and mandate national implementation.

Their deadlines differ. Ottawa states parties generally have four years to destroy stockpiles. The Cluster Munitions Convention provides eight years. Both establish ten-year clearance periods, subject to their respective extension procedures.

Victim assistance shows how the later treaty developed the earlier model. Article 6 of the Ottawa Treaty refers concisely to care, rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration. More detailed standards emerged through mine-ban implementation practice.

Article 5 of the Cluster Munitions Convention places greater detail directly in the treaty. It addresses medical care, rehabilitation, psychological support, social and economic inclusion, needs assessment, national planning, focal points, consultation with victims, non-discrimination, and resource mobilization.

This difference does not make victim assistance optional under the Ottawa Treaty. It shows that experience gained under the mine-ban regime influenced the drafting of a later instrument.

The diplomatic process also reflected Ottawa’s influence. The Oslo Process was launched after efforts within the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons failed to produce a prohibition considered adequate by supporting states. Governments worked with the Cluster Munition Coalition, the ICRC, the United Nations, technical experts, and affected communities outside the consensus-based forum.

The latter convention did not simply reproduce the Mine Ban Treaty. It adapted the same humanitarian-disarmament method to a different weapon and incorporated lessons drawn from the first decade of Ottawa implementation. The comparison demonstrates the wider influence of a legal model that combines prohibition with destruction, territorial remediation, victim assistance, and sustained international cooperation.

11. Participation, Non-Parties, and Normative Reach

The Ottawa Treaty’s reach cannot be measured solely through its membership total. Formal participation determines which states are legally bound, but the Convention also influences military policy, export controls, domestic legislation, diplomatic practice, mine-action funding, and the conduct of some non-state armed groups.

As of 4 July 2026, official Convention communications counted 162 states as parties following Lebanon’s accession on 1 May 2026. The Convention will enter into force for Lebanon on 1 November 2026. For legal precision, 161 current parties were already subject to the Convention’s full operative regime on the publication date. Five states had completed withdrawal, while 30 other states had never become parties. No state remained in the separate category of signatory without ratification (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention Implementation Support Unit, 2026; United Nations Treaty Collection, 2026).

These categories have different legal consequences. A state for which the Convention is in force is bound by its complete regime. A state that has deposited an instrument but is awaiting entry into force has expressed consent to be bound, although its treaty deadlines have not yet begun. A former party was previously bound but completed withdrawal. A state that never joined has not accepted the Convention’s obligations, although other rules of international law may govern its conduct.

11.1 States Parties and Former Parties

States that signed the Convention may become parties through ratification, acceptance, or approval. States that did not sign before the signature period closed may join through accession. The relevant instrument is deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General.

Article 17 provides that, for a state depositing its instrument after the Convention’s general entry into force, the treaty becomes binding on the first day of the sixth month following deposit. The deposit date must consequently be distinguished from the date on which Article 1 prohibitions and implementation deadlines become operative.

The Marshall Islands signed the Convention in 1997, ratified it on 12 March 2025, and became bound on 1 September 2025. Tonga joined by accession on 25 June 2025, with entry into force on 1 December 2025. Lebanon acceded on 1 May 2026, but its obligations under the Convention will begin on 1 November 2026 (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2026).

The Marshall Islands had been the last state to sign without ratifying. Its ratification left no current signatory-only state. The category remains legally relevant because Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires a signatory to refrain from conduct that would defeat a treaty’s object and purpose until it makes clear that it does not intend to become a party.

A state that has deposited an instrument of accession but is awaiting entry into force is subject to the same object-and-purpose protection. It is not yet governed by the Ottawa Treaty’s four-year stockpile deadline, ten-year clearance period, Article 7 reporting system, or Article 9 implementation obligation. Those duties begin when the treaty enters into force for that state.

Withdrawal is governed by Article 20. A withdrawing state must communicate its reasons to the depositary, the other states parties, and the United Nations Security Council. Withdrawal normally takes effect six months after the depositary receives the notification. If the state is engaged in an armed conflict when that period expires, withdrawal is postponed until the conflict ends.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania completed their withdrawal on 27 December 2025. Finland’s withdrawal took effect on 10 January 2026, followed by Poland on 20 February 2026. These states are former parties because the Convention had entered into force for them and remained binding until their withdrawals became effective (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2026).

Effective withdrawal releases a state from future performance of the Convention, subject to Article 20 and the general law of treaties. It does not erase responsibility for violations committed while the treaty was binding. Article 70 of the Vienna Convention also preserves rights, obligations, and legal situations created through the treaty’s execution before termination, unless the treaty or the parties establish a different result (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969).

The effect on unresolved contamination may require case-specific analysis. The Convention does not expressly state that every incomplete clearance or reporting obligation survives indefinitely after withdrawal. Prior breaches, accrued legal situations, domestic law, general international humanitarian law, and other treaty obligations may nevertheless continue to require investigation, warning, removal, remediation, or reparation.

A completed withdrawal must be distinguished from a declaration of intended withdrawal, a parliamentary proposal, or a claimed suspension. Until the legal process takes effect, the state remains bound by Article 1 and the Convention’s implementation duties, including during an armed conflict or security emergency.

11.2 Major Non-Parties and Regional Gaps

Several militarily influential states remain outside the Convention. They include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States, as well as North Korea, South Korea, Israel, Iran, Egypt, Syria, and Myanmar. Some possess large stockpiles, retain production capacity, or continue to treat anti-personnel mines as part of defense planning.

Their absence has effects beyond the formal number of non-parties. Several are nuclear-armed states, permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, major weapons producers, or participants in unresolved territorial disputes. Their policies affect neighboring states, alliance planning, military procurement, and perceptions of the weapon’s continuing strategic value.

Regional circumstances help explain some of the gaps. India and Pakistan face a persistent military rivalry and extensive land borders. The Korean Peninsula remains heavily fortified. Several Middle Eastern states refer to border security, occupation, territorial disputes, or regional military imbalance. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also altered defense calculations in northeastern Europe.

Non-parties do not follow a uniform policy. Some have stopped production, restricted exports, destroyed obsolete stocks, or supported humanitarian clearance while preserving the legal option to possess or use mines. Others continue to develop, manufacture, transfer, or employ them.

Border defense remains a common justification. Governments may regard mines as a means of delaying an advancing force, reinforcing barriers, directing movement, or compensating for limited personnel. Long frontiers and difficult terrain can strengthen this argument where states consider alternative technologies too costly or operationally inadequate.

Perceived asymmetry presents a related obstacle. A government may resist accession when a neighboring state retains large mine stocks or remains willing to use them. The concern is that one side would eliminate a defensive capability while the other remained unrestricted by the Convention.

The five European withdrawals demonstrate that this reasoning can affect existing parties as well as states considering accession. The withdrawing governments connected their decisions to regional insecurity, territorial defense, and military capabilities retained by Russia. Their decisions do not negate the Convention’s humanitarian rationale, but they show that support can weaken when governments perceive a direct conflict between treaty commitments and national defense doctrine (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2026).

Alliance membership does not produce uniform treaty status. States within the same alliance may maintain different legal obligations concerning mines. Multinational planning must account for those differences when assigning tasks, storing foreign weapons, sharing intelligence, or conducting operations with non-parties.

Stockpile size and industrial capacity may also affect participation. Accession can require destruction of large arsenals, conversion of production facilities, amendment of military doctrine, adoption of implementing legislation, annual reporting, and investment in clearance. These practical burdens do not alter the legal or humanitarian case for prohibition, but they can influence political decisions.

Regional gaps make universalization more difficult because security policy is relational. States may be reluctant to remove a weapon when they believe neighboring forces would retain an advantage. Progress may depend on regional confidence-building, greater transparency, alternative defensive planning, and sustained diplomatic engagement.

11.3 Political Stigma and Customary International Law

Treaty obligation, voluntary compliance, political stigma, and customary international law are distinct concepts. They may reinforce one another, but they do not have the same legal foundation.

Treaty obligation arises through valid consent and entry into force. A non-party is not bound by Article 1 merely because most states have joined or because its policy resembles that of a party.

Voluntary compliance occurs when a non-party adopts conduct consistent with the Convention without accepting its legal machinery. Export moratoria, non-use policies, destruction of obsolete stocks, financial support for clearance, and votes favoring universalization may advance the treaty’s objectives. They can usually be reversed through national policy without resort to Article 20.

Political stigma concerns the diplomatic and reputational cost attached to production, transfer, possession, or use. A non-party may face condemnation, parliamentary pressure, public protest, commercial disengagement, or criticism from allies even where no Ottawa Treaty violation has occurred.

The Convention has supplied substantial evidence of a wider norm. Most states have accepted the prohibition, many former producers have ended production, more than 55 million declared stockpiled mines have been destroyed, and documented international transfers have become exceptional. Several non-parties have also adopted forms of voluntary restraint (Landmine Monitor, 2025).

These developments are relevant to customary international law but are not conclusive. Custom requires sufficiently general and representative state practice accompanied by acceptance of that practice as legally required. Widespread treaty participation may contribute to both elements, but it does not automatically establish that the same rules bind states that deliberately remain outside the agreement (North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, 1969).

The practice and legal positions of specially affected states carry particular weight. Several major military powers retain anti-personnel mines, preserve production capacity, or assert a legal right to use them under specified conditions. Such conduct weakens the claim that every element of Article 1 has acquired universal customary status.

Recent withdrawals reinforce the need for caution. The withdrawing states did not reject all humanitarian restrictions on mine use. They rejected the continued treaty-based removal of anti-personnel mines from their available defensive means. That position is difficult to reconcile with an assertion that the full Article 1 prohibition already binds every state as customary law.

A narrower customary framework is more defensible. General international humanitarian law requires particular care to minimize the indiscriminate effects of mines. Placement should be recorded as far as possible, and parties should remove or neutralize mines after active hostilities or facilitate their removal (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, 2005).

These rules do not reproduce the complete Ottawa regime. They do not necessarily prohibit all development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, or transfer in peacetime. They also do not establish the Convention’s fixed destruction deadlines, reporting procedures, retention limits, or victim-assistance framework.

The Convention has created a powerful international standard whose influence extends beyond its parties. The evidence supports a broad political stigma and several customary restrictions on mine use. It remains insufficient to treat every Ottawa obligation as a universal customary rule applying to all states in identical terms.

11.4 Non-State Armed Groups

Non-state armed groups cannot ratify or accede to the Ottawa Treaty because it is open to states. Their conduct remains central to the Convention’s humanitarian purpose. In several contemporary conflicts, armed groups have manufactured and used victim-activated improvised devices that qualify as anti-personnel mines.

Classification depends on design and activation rather than the identity of the manufacturer. An improvised explosive device falls within Article 2 when it is designed for placement under, on, or near a surface and for activation by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person.

The armed group is not directly bound by Article 1 as a treaty party. The territorial state’s obligations may still be engaged. Article 9 requires a state party to prevent and suppress prohibited conduct by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control. Contamination caused by armed groups must also be addressed under Articles 5 and 7 where it lies within the state’s jurisdiction or control.

Loss of physical access may obstruct implementation without removing the legal problem. The state should document the contamination and the limits on access, support warnings and casualty recording, cooperate with humanitarian organizations, clear accessible territory, and use the Article 5 extension procedure where its conditions are met.

Non-state armed groups are independently bound by applicable international humanitarian law during armed conflict. Common Article 3, customary rules, and Additional Protocol II, where applicable, regulate their conduct. Distinction, proportionality, precautions, and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks apply regardless of the group’s inability to join the Convention.

Voluntary instruments may supplement these obligations. Geneva Call’s Deed of Commitment allows an armed group to undertake publicly not to use anti-personnel mines, destroy its stocks, issue internal orders, cooperate with mine action, disclose information, and accept monitoring. Signing the deed does not make the group a state or a party to the Ottawa Treaty (Geneva Call, 2023).

The effectiveness of such commitments depends on command authority and organizational stability. Armed groups may fragment, change leadership, lose territory, or lack effective control over local units. A commitment adopted by senior leaders may have limited practical effect where fighters are not trained, disciplined, or supplied with alternatives.

Clearance requires cooperation beyond cessation of use. Armed groups may possess maps, emplacement records, information about improvised designs, or access to territory unavailable to national authorities. Their refusal to disclose information can endanger civilians and clearance personnel long after hostilities decline.

Humanitarian engagement may consequently be necessary even where the group’s conduct is unlawful. Such contact need not confer recognition or legitimize territorial claims. Its purpose is to stop new use, obtain information, secure access, destroy stocks, and reduce civilian harm.

12. Achievements and Unfinished Obligations

The Ottawa Treaty should be assessed through documented changes in stockpiles, production, transfers, contaminated land, casualties, and support for survivors. Diplomatic declarations demonstrate commitment, but implementation depends on material and legally verifiable results.

The Convention has achieved major reductions in available arsenals and international trade. It has also supported clearance, survivor assistance, and national implementation systems. Serious problems remain: destruction deadlines have been missed, clearance extensions have become common, new contamination continues to appear, and victim assistance remains uneven.

Causal claims require restraint. The treaty has been a major influence, but mine policies are also shaped by military technology, domestic politics, export restrictions, changes in armed conflict, economic cost, and independent humanitarian decisions. Not every reduction in production, transfer, or use can be attributed exclusively to the Convention.

12.1 Stockpile Destruction and Reduced Production

Stockpile destruction is the Convention’s clearest measurable achievement. By the 2025 reporting period, 94 states had formally declared completion, and states parties had collectively destroyed more than 55 million stockpiled anti-personnel mines (Landmine Monitor, 2025).

This result has greater practical durability than a policy of non-use. A government can reverse doctrine rapidly, but a destroyed arsenal cannot be restored without new acquisition or production. Article 4 converted legal commitment into a physical reduction in available weapons.

The aggregate total does not establish universal compliance. Greece and Ukraine had failed to complete stockpile destruction by their four-year deadlines and remained subject to outstanding Article 4 obligations during the 2025 reporting period. Their cases show that broad success does not remove the need for individual compliance assessment (Landmine Monitor, 2025).

The reduction in production is also substantial. Numerous states that once manufactured anti-personnel mines have closed or converted facilities and ended production. Several non-parties also ceased production, indicating that the decline cannot be explained by treaty obligation alone.

Production has not disappeared. Landmine Monitor continued to list 12 non-parties as states that develop, produce, acquire, or have not renounced future production. India, Myanmar, Russia, and South Korea were identified as appearing to produce or develop anti-personnel mines actively, although the nature and scale of the evidence differed among them (Landmine Monitor, 2025).

International transfers declined sharply after the 1990s. Treaty prohibitions, export moratoria, reduced demand, advocacy, and political stigma all contributed. For many years, the rarity of documented transfers supported the view that a strong international restraint had developed against trade in anti-personnel mines.

That pattern proved reversible. The United States announced transfers of anti-personnel mines to Ukraine in November and December 2024, departing from its long-standing export moratorium. The decision illustrated the difference between a treaty obligation and a voluntary national policy that can be changed without withdrawal proceedings (Landmine Monitor, 2025).

The Convention’s influence on non-parties remains visible in export restrictions, destruction of obsolete stocks, support for mine action, and diplomatic voting. These practices advance the treaty’s objectives but do not prevent later policy reversal or create the same legal accountability as accession.

Recent withdrawals create another test. Former parties that destroyed operational stocks cannot restore their mine capability through withdrawal alone. Reintroduction requires new acquisition, production, or reconstruction of industrial capacity. Physical destruction retains practical significance after treaty membership ends.

The principal achievement is not the disappearance of every anti-personnel mine. It is the removal of a prohibited weapon from most participating arsenals through declared, time-bound, and internationally reviewed destruction.

12.2 Clearance Progress and Persistent Contamination

Clearance and land release have restored substantial territory to civilian use. Their effects include reopened homes, roads, farms, schools, water sources, grazing land, and public infrastructure. The value of released land cannot be assessed through area alone because a small site near a community may be more important than a larger remote area.

States parties with active clearance obligations reported releasing approximately 1,115 square kilometers of known or suspected contaminated land during 2024 and destroying at least 105,640 anti-personnel mines. Almost 80 percent of the reported releases resulted from cancellation through a non-technical survey rather than physical clearance (Landmine Monitor, 2025).

The distinction is important. Evidence-based cancellation is a legitimate form of land release because it corrects inaccurate or overly broad records. It should not be presented as though every released square kilometer had been physically searched and cleared.

Physical clearance remains necessary where mines are confirmed. Non-technical and technical surveys improve efficiency by establishing the extent of the hazard and directing clearance teams toward land where explosive devices are actually present.

National completion declarations provide another measure of progress. Croatia declared completion of its Article 5 obligation in March 2026, becoming the thirty-second state party to report that all known mined areas under its jurisdiction or control had been addressed (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention Implementation Support Unit, 2026).

Completion is a major legal and operational achievement, but it does not create a permanent presumption that no mine will ever be discovered. New records, accidents, construction, environmental movement, or improved surveys may reveal previously unknown contamination. Later discoveries must be reported and addressed.

The wider record includes a persistent delay. At the time of Landmine Monitor 2025, only two of the 32 states with active Article 5 deadlines were still working under their original ten-year period. The others had requested at least one extension, and 26 had been pursuing completion for 20 years or more (Landmine Monitor, 2025).

An extension is not necessarily evidence of neglect. An improved survey may reveal contamination omitted from earlier estimates. Armed conflict, difficult terrain, border disputes, insecurity, insufficient capacity, and newly discovered improvised mines may make the original deadline unattainable.

Repeated extensions may also expose inadequate implementation. Weak planning, missed annual targets, unreliable data, limited national funding, and unresolved administrative obstacles may prevent completion even when some resources are available.

Active conflict creates the greatest challenge. Mines may be laid faster than earlier contamination can be cleared. Front lines move, records are destroyed or withheld, territorial control changes, and clearance personnel may be exposed to attack.

Improvised mines add another difficulty. They may be manufactured locally, placed without records, moved between locations, or concealed within ordinary objects. Where armed groups continue using them, clearance becomes part of an ongoing security crisis rather than a finite post-conflict program.

Global totals can conceal opposing developments. Completion by one state may coincide with rapid new contamination elsewhere. An increase in land released does not prove that the overall danger has declined when active conflicts are creating additional hazardous areas.

Article 5 is ultimately assessed state by state. Each party must identify and clear relevant mined areas under its jurisdiction or control, protect civilians while clearance remains incomplete, report accurately, and request extensions through the prescribed procedure when necessary.

12.3 Casualties and Victim Assistance Gaps

Casualty figures are an important measure of humanitarian harm, but they do not establish a treaty violation without further legal analysis. Available datasets frequently combine anti-personnel mines, anti-vehicle mines, improvised mines, cluster munition remnants, and other explosive remnants of war.

Landmine Monitor recorded at least 6,279 mine and explosive-remnant casualties in 2024, including 1,945 deaths and 4,325 injuries. The survival outcome was unknown for nine people. Civilians represented 90 percent of casualties where civilian or military status was known. Children accounted for 46 percent of civilian casualties where age was recorded (Landmine Monitor, 2025).

These figures are minimum estimates. Casualty recording is weakest in many locations experiencing the most severe conflict, contamination, displacement, and loss of public infrastructure.

An incident does not automatically prove that a state party breached Article 1. The mine may have been laid before the Convention entered into force, placed by a non-state armed group, situated outside effective governmental control, or excluded from the Article 2 definition. Assessment requires information about the device, actor, location, date of emplacement, and measures taken by the state.

Casualty patterns may still reveal implementation failures. Repeated incidents in a known area can indicate inadequate marking, weak monitoring, insufficient risk education, delayed clearance, or incomplete reporting. Casualty data may also show that an area assigned low priority is used regularly by civilians.

Children face particular risks because they may not recognize explosive devices and may handle unfamiliar objects. They may also enter contaminated areas while playing, herding animals, collecting materials, or traveling to school. Injuries suffered early in life can require repeated surgery, replacement prostheses, educational support, and continuing rehabilitation.

Displaced and returning populations experience a different form of exposure. Contamination may have been created during their absence, leaving homes, roads, fields, wells, and public buildings dangerous when they return.

Casualty records are often incomplete or imprecise. Victims may die before reaching medical care, incidents may occur outside government-controlled territory, and authorities may be unable to identify the device. Databases may also contain duplicate entries or omit age, sex, civilian status, and injury outcomes.

Weak data have legal and operational consequences. States cannot prioritize clearance, risk education, medical services, or requests for international assistance effectively without reliable information about who is being harmed and where incidents occur.

Victim assistance remains uneven. Emergency treatment may be available while physical rehabilitation, assistive devices, psychological care, accessible education, and employment support remain concentrated in major cities or dependent on short-term external funding.

The imbalance is partly institutional. Mines destroyed and land released produce immediate numerical outputs. Improvements in mobility, mental health, school participation, income, and social inclusion are more difficult to measure and require sustained investment.

Clearance completion does not end the need for victim assistance. Survivors may require healthcare, prosthetic replacement, rehabilitation, accessibility, social protection, and employment support for decades after the final known minefield is released. Croatia’s completion of Article 5, for example, did not end its responsibilities concerning survivors and affected families.

The Convention’s implementation record must be assessed through prevention and repair. Success requires fewer people exposed to mines, credible progress toward clearance, accurate casualty information, accessible long-term services, and meaningful participation by survivors in decisions affecting their lives.

Also read

• Baltic States and the Ottawa Treaty: Withdrawal Debate

• The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

• International Humanitarian Law Explained

• Customary International Law: How It Forms and Works

• The Principle of Proportionality in International Law

• State Responsibility in International Law

• Autonomous Weapons and International Law

• Common Article 3 in Non-International Armed Conflict

13. Withdrawal and the Current Treaty Crisis

The Ottawa Treaty is of unlimited duration, but Article 20 permits a state party to withdraw through a defined procedure. The provision balances sovereign consent with the Convention’s humanitarian purpose. It allows departure while preventing a state from abandoning the prohibition immediately when armed conflict makes anti-personnel mines appear militarily useful.

The completed withdrawals of five European states and Ukraine’s separate attempt to suspend the Convention have created its most serious legal and institutional challenge. The situations are distinct. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Poland followed Article 20 and became former parties after the applicable waiting periods expired. Ukraine did not complete its withdrawal and continues to be treated within the Convention framework as a state party whose claimed suspension is disputed.

These developments do not amend the treaty or create an exception for territorial defense. They test whether an unconditional weapons prohibition can remain effective when parties confront severe military pressure and perceive strategic disadvantages in continued compliance.

13.1 Article 20 Withdrawal Procedure

Article 20 declares that the Convention is of unlimited duration while recognizing the sovereign right of each state party to withdraw. That right is subject to substantive notification requirements and a waiting period (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

A withdrawing state must notify all other states parties, the United Nations Secretary-General as depositary, and the United Nations Security Council. The instrument of withdrawal must contain a full explanation of the reasons motivating the decision.

The treaty does not require the other parties to approve those reasons. They may criticize the decision, challenge its factual basis, or dispute wider legal claims contained in the notification, but Article 20 does not make withdrawal dependent on collective consent.

An international notification remains necessary even where the state has completed every step required by its constitution. A presidential decree, parliamentary vote, cabinet decision, or military directive may authorize withdrawal domestically, but it does not by itself alter the state’s international treaty status.

The distinction between domestic authorization and international effect is important. A government may announce that it intends to leave the Convention months before depositing an instrument. During that interval, it remains a party and must comply with Article 1 and the treaty’s implementation obligations.

Withdrawal ordinarily takes effect six months after the depositary receives the instrument. The state remains fully bound throughout that period. It cannot use the notification as immediate authorization to produce, acquire, stockpile, transfer, or employ anti-personnel mines.

The six-month period provides time for diplomatic engagement, military and administrative adjustment, public scrutiny, and examination by the treaty community. It also prevents a sudden exit at the moment a government wishes to engage in conduct that remains prohibited.

Actions taken before the effective date remain governed by the Convention. Later withdrawal does not legalize an earlier violation or extinguish the international responsibility arising from it.

13.2 The Armed-Conflict Safeguard

Article 20 contains an additional safeguard. If the withdrawing state is engaged in armed conflict when the six-month period expires, withdrawal does not take effect until the conflict has ended (Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997).

The provision protects the treaty at the moment when its military restrictions are most likely to become contested. Without it, a state could accept the prohibition during peace and leave immediately when it considered anti-personnel mines useful in war.

A state engaged in armed conflict is not prevented from submitting a notification. The legal effect is postponed. The state remains a party and continues to be bound until the relevant conflict ends.

Article 20 does not define “armed conflict.” The expression should be interpreted through objective international legal criteria rather than the terminology chosen by the state. Calling hostilities a security operation, border incident, counterterrorism campaign, or national emergency does not determine their classification.

An international armed conflict generally exists when armed force is used between states. A non-international armed conflict requires sufficiently intense violence involving organized armed forces or organized armed groups. The absence of a formal declaration of war does not prevent either classification.

The words “engaged in armed conflict” also require attention to the state’s actual relationship to the hostilities. Supplying weapons or political support does not necessarily make a state a party to the conflict. Direct military operations, deployment of forces, participation in targeting, or control over another actor’s operations may produce a different assessment.

Determining when a conflict has ended can be equally difficult. A temporary ceasefire or decline in fighting may not be decisive. Continuing occupation, organized military confrontation, unresolved hostilities, and the realistic prospect of resumed operations may remain legally relevant.

The safeguard can apply where conflict begins after the notification is deposited. Article 20 asks whether the state is engaged in armed conflict when the six-month period expires. A state that was at peace when it gave notice may consequently remain bound if hostilities begin before withdrawal would otherwise take effect.

No international court has interpreted the safeguard in detail. Its text and purpose nevertheless support a broad protective reading. A narrow interpretation allowing a state to leave during active hostilities would undermine the reason the clause was included.

13.3 Reservations, Suspension, and Treaty Law

Article 19 prohibits reservations. A state cannot join while excluding Article 1, preserving a right to use mines along a particular border, or making its obligations conditional on reciprocal restraint by neighboring states.

The substance of a unilateral statement matters more than its title. A declaration described as interpretive may operate as an impermissible reservation if it attempts to exclude or modify the legal effect of a treaty obligation.

The Convention also contains no derogation clause for war, invasion, self-defense, or national emergency. Article 1 applies under all circumstances. Article 20 establishes the specific procedure through which a state may leave, while postponing withdrawal during armed conflict.

The absence of an express suspension clause does not make the general law of treaties irrelevant. It does, however, make unilateral suspension difficult to reconcile with the Convention’s design.

Article 57 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties permits suspension where the treaty provides for it or where all parties consent after consultation. The Ottawa Treaty does not provide a unilateral suspension mechanism, and no collective consent was given to suspend its application for Ukraine (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969).

Article 58 addresses agreements among some parties to suspend treaty provisions between themselves. It does not create a general right for one state to suspend obligations toward every other party. Any inter se arrangement would also have to preserve the rights of other parties and remain compatible with the treaty’s object and purpose.

Article 60 concerns material breach. It is not a convincing basis for suspension in response to conduct by a state that is not party to the same treaty. Russia cannot materially breach the Ottawa Treaty because it has never become a party to it. Its violations of other international obligations do not constitute a breach of this Convention within the meaning of Article 60.

The humanitarian character of the treaty creates a further restriction. Article 60(5) protects provisions relating to the human person in treaties of a humanitarian character against certain forms of suspension based on material breach. No court has decided precisely how that paragraph applies to the Ottawa Treaty, but its protective rationale weighs against reciprocal non-performance.

Article 61 permits reliance on supervening impossibility only where an object indispensable to performance has permanently disappeared or been destroyed. A worsening security environment, increased cost, or renewed belief in the military value of mines does not make compliance physically impossible.

Article 62 allows termination or withdrawal based on a fundamental change of circumstances only under exceptional conditions. The change must have been unforeseen, formed an essential basis of consent, and radically transformed the extent of obligations still to be performed. International courts have applied the doctrine restrictively because broad use would undermine treaty stability (Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, 1997).

Armed conflict and territorial threats were not external to the Convention’s purpose. The treaty was created to regulate weapons policy during precisely those conditions. Article 20 expressly anticipates armed conflict and prevents withdrawal from taking effect while it continues. That structure makes it difficult to argue that wartime pressure alone supplies an unforeseen basis for suspending the prohibition.

The outbreak of hostilities does not automatically terminate or suspend treaties. The treaty’s text, subject matter, purpose, and the nature of the conflict must be examined. Agreements designed to regulate conduct during armed conflict are especially resistant to an assumption of automatic suspension (International Law Commission, 2011).

Necessity under the law of state responsibility presents a separate question. It does not terminate or suspend a treaty. At most, if its stringent conditions were established, it could temporarily preclude the wrongfulness of particular non-performance.

The distinction is essential. A successful plea of necessity would leave the treaty in force and would not create a general legal power to disregard it. The state would need to show, among other conditions, that the conduct was the only way to safeguard an essential interest against grave and imminent peril and that it did not seriously impair essential interests protected by the obligation.

Article 1’s categorical language and Article 20’s armed-conflict safeguard make such reliance especially difficult. A state cannot assume that military usefulness or strategic disadvantage satisfies the narrow conditions of necessity.

General treaty-law doctrines cannot be treated as an alternative withdrawal clause. A state invoking one must identify the precise legal ground, satisfy all of its conditions, comply with applicable procedures, and accept that other parties may dispute the claim.

13.4 Ukraine’s Claimed Suspension

Ukraine communicated to the United Nations Secretary-General on 18 July 2025 that it had decided, with effect from 17 July, to suspend the operation of the Convention. The communication referred generally to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties but did not identify a specific article or provide a developed legal justification for suspension (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2025).

Ukraine did not submit an Article 20 withdrawal notification. It also remained engaged in an international armed conflict. Even if it had notified withdrawal, Article 20(3) would have prevented that withdrawal from taking effect while the conflict continued.

Suspension and withdrawal have different legal consequences. Withdrawal ends the treaty relationship prospectively once the prescribed conditions are met. Suspension temporarily releases parties from performance of affected provisions while leaving the treaty relationship intact. The Ottawa Treaty regulates withdrawal expressly but contains no provision authorizing unilateral suspension.

Ukraine’s communication raises several connected questions. One is whether a ground of suspension exists under general treaty law. Another is whether that ground can operate consistently with Article 1’s application under all circumstances. A third is whether unilateral suspension would defeat Article 20 by allowing a state to achieve during armed conflict what the withdrawal safeguard prevents.

The United Nations depositary circulated the communication. Circulation did not validate the claimed legal effect. A depositary receives, records, and transmits treaty actions but does not ordinarily adjudicate contested questions of validity.

Several states parties objected to Ukraine’s position. The Twenty-Second Meeting of the States Parties later affirmed that the Convention does not allow suspension of its operation or obligations and called upon Ukraine to continue engaging within the treaty framework (Twenty-Second Meeting of the States Parties, 2025).

That decision represents the collective position adopted by the States Parties. It is institutionally significant but is not equivalent to a judgment by an international court. The interpretation could still be examined through dispute-settlement procedures or broader international law.

Ukraine’s circumstances explain the pressure behind its decision. It is defending itself against continuing Russian aggression, while Russia remains outside the Convention and has used mines extensively. Ukraine also faces one of the world’s largest mine-contamination problems.

Those facts do not determine the treaty-law outcome. The Convention was intended to continue operating where a party confronts an adversary that is not bound by the same prohibition. Accepting unilateral suspension on that basis would introduce the type of wartime exception that Articles 1 and 20 appear designed to exclude.

The better-supported interpretation is that Ukraine remains bound by the Convention. This conclusion rests on the absence of a suspension clause, the incomplete legal basis offered in the communication, the armed-conflict safeguard, the objections of other parties, and the collective position adopted in 2025.

That conclusion should not be presented as a final judicial determination. It is an assessment of the treaty text, applicable rules of treaty law, and the current institutional record. Ukraine’s communication created a serious compliance dispute; it did not establish conclusively that its obligations had ceased to operate.

13.5 The European Withdrawals of 2025–2026

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania deposited withdrawal notifications on 27 June 2025, and their withdrawals took effect on 27 December 2025. Finland deposited its notification on 10 July 2025, with effect on 10 January 2026. Poland deposited its notification on 20 August 2025, and its withdrawal became effective on 20 February 2026 (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2025; United Nations Treaty Collection, 2026).

The five states followed Article 20, including the six-month waiting period. None was treated as being engaged in armed conflict when its withdrawal became effective.

Their explanations emphasized Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, deterioration in the European security environment, border defense, deterrence, military asymmetry, and the need for greater operational flexibility. Anti-personnel mines were presented as one possible means of restricting hostile movement and reinforcing territorial defenses.

The notifications also reaffirmed commitments to international humanitarian law and humanitarian mine action. Withdrawal does not place mine policy outside legal regulation. General rules on distinction, proportionality, precautions, indiscriminate attacks, and unnecessary suffering continue to apply. Amended Protocol II also remains applicable to former parties that are bound by it.

The humanitarian objection is that victim-activated mines cannot distinguish between enemy soldiers, friendly forces, civilians, and returning residents. Their danger can outlast the military situation that justified emplacement, particularly when records are lost, markings deteriorate, or control of the territory changes.

The financial assessment must extend beyond purchase and deployment. Secure storage, personnel training, mapping, monitoring, later removal, destruction, medical treatment, rehabilitation, and land restoration can impose costs for decades. Environmental movement, flooding, fire, snow, and vegetation may further complicate control and clearance.

Military utility also depends on context. Minefields may delay or channel an advancing force, but they can restrict friendly maneuver, obstruct evacuation, deny infrastructure, and require continuing protection. Modern surveillance, remote systems, precision weapons, and mechanical breaching may provide alternatives or reduce the expected value of static barriers, although no single substitute will be suitable in every situation.

Article 20 resolves only the states’ status under the Ottawa Treaty. It does not establish that renewed mine deployment is operationally necessary, economically efficient, environmentally manageable, or lawful in every circumstance under other rules.

13.6 Consequences for Humanitarian Disarmament

The withdrawals have produced a more fragmented legal position within European and allied defense structures. Current parties may operate alongside former parties that acquire, manufacture, stockpile, or deploy anti-personnel mines.

Interoperability will require careful planning. Article 1(1)(c) continues to prohibit remaining parties from assisting, encouraging, or inducing conduct prohibited by the Convention. Multinational commands may need clear rules governing task allocation, intelligence support, logistics, transportation, minefield planning, and operational control.

Former parties that destroyed their stockpiles must rebuild the capability if they wish to reintroduce the weapon. New production or acquisition may affect regional arms markets, industrial policy, storage infrastructure, military training, and the political stigma that developed around anti-personnel mines.

The effects on civilians may begin before operational use. Reintroduction requires institutions, doctrine, personnel, and infrastructure organized around a weapon whose consequences may continue after the original security threat has changed.

The withdrawals may also influence states considering accession. Governments facing regional tensions may regard them as evidence that categorical prohibitions are vulnerable when security conditions deteriorate. Existing non-parties may use the decisions to defend their continued refusal to join.

Article 20 can also be understood as preserving consent through a transparent process. The Convention does not claim to bind a state permanently against its sovereign will. It requires notice, explanation, delay, and additional protection during armed conflict.

Departure by some states does not change the legal obligations of others. The Convention remains in force with the same definition, prohibitions, deadlines, and implementation system. A former party’s policy cannot create a defense exception for a current party.

The wider concern is institutional confidence. Humanitarian disarmament depends on the proposition that certain weapons remain unacceptable even when they appear militarily useful. Compliance only when the weapon is considered unnecessary provides a weaker legal commitment than compliance under genuine strategic pressure.

The treaty’s authority will depend on how the remaining parties respond. Clear interpretation, credible national implementation, lawful interoperability policies, continued clearance support, and sustained assistance to victims are more important than declarations that ignore the security arguments driving withdrawal.

Conclusion

The Ottawa Treaty establishes a comprehensive legal regime for anti-personnel mines. For states parties, it prohibits use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer, and assistance with prohibited conduct. Its obligations extend beyond disarmament by requiring the destruction of stockpiles, the clearance of contaminated land, protection of civilians, assistance to victims, international cooperation, transparency, and domestic enforcement.

Its structure is deliberately categorical. Technical improvements, territorial defense, military necessity, self-defense, or use by an adversary do not create exceptions to Article 1. Limited retention and transfer are permitted only for the clearance, detection, destruction, and training purposes defined in Article 3. Withdrawal is possible, but only through Article 20 and subject to its armed-conflict safeguard.

The recent European withdrawals have weakened universality and revived claims that anti-personnel mines retain military value. Ukraine’s claimed suspension presents a different challenge by testing whether general treaty law can be invoked to displace obligations that the Convention expressly applies under all circumstances. Neither development amends the treaty nor releases its remaining parties.

The Convention’s future will be determined by compliance under difficult conditions. Support expressed during periods of relative stability demonstrates political approval. Continued performance during invasion, military rivalry, territorial insecurity, and armed conflict will determine whether the Ottawa prohibition retains its authority as an operative rule of international law.

References

1. Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) (1977) adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 609.

2. Anderson, K. (2000) ‘The Ottawa Convention banning landmines, the role of international non-governmental organizations and the idea of international civil society’, European Journal of International Law, 11(1), pp. 91–120.

3. Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention Implementation Support Unit (2026a) ‘Croatia declares former mined areas safe once again’ [online]. Available at: https://www.apminebanconvention.org/en/news/article/croatia-declares-mined-areas-safe-once-again (Accessed: 1 July 2026).

4. Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention Implementation Support Unit (2026b) ‘Membership’ [online]. Available at: https://www.apminebanconvention.org/en/membership (Accessed: 1 July 2026).

5. Casey-Maslen, S. (2010) ‘Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction’, United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/cpusptam/cpusptam_e.pdf (Accessed: 1 July 2026).

6. Charter of the United Nations (1945) signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.

7. Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008) adopted 30 May 2008, entered into force 1 August 2010, 2688 UNTS 39.

8. Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (1997) adopted 18 September 1997, entered into force 1 March 1999, 2056 UNTS 211.

9. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) adopted 13 December 2006, entered into force 3 May 2008, 2515 UNTS 3.

10. Fifth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (2024) Siem Reap–Angkor Action Plan 2025–2029, adopted 29 November 2024, UN Doc. APLC/CONF/2024/15/Add.1, issued 5 February 2025. Available at: https://docs.un.org/APLC/CONF/2024/15/Add.1 (Accessed: 1 July 2026).

11. Geneva Call (2000) Deed of Commitment under Geneva Call for Adherence to a Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines and for Cooperation in Mine Action [online]. Available at: https://www.genevacall.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Official-DoC-Banning-anti-personnel-mines.pdf (Accessed: 1 July 2026).

12. Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13. International Committee of the Red Cross (1998) Banning Anti-Personnel Mines: The Ottawa Treaty Explained. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0702_ottawa_explained.pdf (Accessed: 2 July 2026).

14. International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), judgment, 20 February, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3.

15. International Court of Justice (1997) Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), judgment, 25 September, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 7.

16. International Law Commission (2011) Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties, with Commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, vol. II, Part Two, UN Doc. A/66/10.

17. Landmine Monitor (2025) Landmine Monitor 2025. Geneva: International Campaign to Ban Landmines–Cluster Munition Coalition. Available at: https://the-monitor.org/reports/landmine-monitor-2025 (Accessed: 2 July 2026).

18. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) (1996) adopted 3 May 1996, entered into force 3 December 1998, 2048 UNTS 93.

19. Twenty-Second Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (2025) Final report, UN Doc. APLC/MSP.22/2025/15, 5 December. Available at: https://www.apminebanconvention.org/fileadmin/_APMBC-DOCUMENTS/Meetings/2025/22MSP-Final-Report.pdf (Accessed: 2 July 2026).

20. United Nations General Assembly (1996) An International Agreement to Ban Anti-Personnel Landmines, A/RES/51/45 S, 10 December.

21. United Nations Treaty Collection (2025a) ‘Estonia: notification of withdrawal’, Depositary Notification C.N.360.2025.TREATIES-XXVI.5, 3 July [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2025/CN.360.2025-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 3 July 2026).

22. United Nations Treaty Collection (2025b) ‘Finland: notification of withdrawal’, Depositary Notification C.N.372.2025.TREATIES-XXVI.5, 11 July [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2025/CN.372.2025-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 3 July 2026).

23. United Nations Treaty Collection (2025c) ‘Latvia: notification of withdrawal’, Depositary Notification C.N.361.2025.TREATIES-XXVI.5, 3 July [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2025/CN.361.2025-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 3 July 2026).

24. United Nations Treaty Collection (2025d) ‘Lithuania: notification of withdrawal’, Depositary Notification C.N.362.2025.TREATIES-XXVI.5, 3 July [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2025/CN.362.2025-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 3 July 2026).

25. United Nations Treaty Collection (2025e) ‘Poland: notification of withdrawal’, Depositary Notification C.N.421.2025.TREATIES-XXVI.5, 26 August [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2025/CN.421.2025-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 4 July 2026).

26. United Nations Treaty Collection (2025f) ‘Ukraine: communication’, Depositary Notification C.N.385.2025.TREATIES-XXVI.5, 21 July [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2025/CN.385.2025-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 4 July 2026).

27. United Nations Treaty Collection (2026) ‘Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction: status, declarations and depositary notifications’ [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=26&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=XXVI-5&src=TREATY (Accessed: 4 July 2026).

28. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) concluded 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331.