Welcome to OSTL: The Organization for the Study of Treaty Law

Organization for the Study of Treaty Law

An International Association of Scholars, Diplomats and Institutions

Banning Landmines: The Global Impact of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention

Introduction

The global effort to eliminate anti-personnel landmines has been one of the most significant humanitarian and disarmament initiatives of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, commonly referred to as the Ottawa Treaty or the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC), has played a pivotal role in shaping international norms against these indiscriminate weapons. Since its adoption on 18 September 1997 and entry into force on 1 March 1999, the treaty has garnered widespread support, with 166 states parties as of mid-2025 (Ottawa Treaty, Wikipedia, 2025). This article examines the global impact of the APMBC, delving into its legal framework, humanitarian outcomes, and challenges in implementation. It also addresses the specific legal mechanisms through which a country can enter into such treaties, the monist or dualist approaches to international law, the relationship between the APMBC and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969, and implications for other states seeking to engage with this treaty framework.

The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention: Legal Framework and Objectives

The APMBC represents a landmark effort to eliminate a class of weapons that disproportionately harm civilians, long after conflicts have ended. Anti-personnel landmines are inherently indiscriminate, unable to distinguish between soldiers and civilians, and can remain active for decades, posing a persistent threat to communities. The treaty establishes a comprehensive ban on the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines, while also mandating the destruction of existing stockpiles and the clearance of mined areas (APMBC, Article 1). Additionally, it requires states parties to provide assistance to victims of landmines, ensuring that the humanitarian dimension remains central to its objectives (APMBC, Article 6).

The legal obligations under the APMBC are binding for states parties, requiring them to align their national laws and policies with the treaty’s provisions. Article 9 of the APMBC explicitly mandates that states parties take “all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures, including the imposition of penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited” under the convention. This provision underscores the need for robust domestic implementation, a topic explored in greater depth later in this article.

Global Impact of the APMBC

Reduction in Landmine Use and Casualties

The APMBC has had a measurable impact on reducing the deployment of anti-personnel landmines globally. Prior to the treaty, landmines were widely used in conflicts across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries annually. Since the treaty’s entry into force, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the Landmine Monitor have reported a significant decline in new mine use by states parties, as well as a reduction in casualties. For instance, the Landmine Monitor reported a decrease in global landmine casualties from over 9,000 in 1999 to fewer than 5,000 by 2020, although numbers have fluctuated due to ongoing conflicts in non-signatory regions (Landmine Monitor, 2021).

However, challenges persist. Non-signatory states, including major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia, continue to maintain stockpiles and, in some cases, deploy anti-personnel mines. Furthermore, non-state armed groups in conflict zones often disregard the treaty’s norms, contributing to ongoing casualties (Stimson Center, 2025). The recent decisions by Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Ukraine to withdraw or express intent to withdraw from the treaty, largely due to security concerns related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, signal potential erosion of the treaty’s global normative strength (Reuters, 2025; Euronews, 2025).

Humanitarian and Socio-Economic Benefits

Beyond reducing casualties, the APMBC has facilitated significant humanitarian and socio-economic progress. Mine clearance programs, often supported by international cooperation as mandated under Article 6 of the treaty, have returned millions of square meters of land to productive use. In countries such as Mozambique and Cambodia, demining efforts have enabled agricultural development, infrastructure rebuilding, and the safe return of displaced populations. Victim assistance programs, another critical pillar of the treaty, have provided medical care, rehabilitation, and psychosocial support to survivors, though funding and implementation gaps remain (Human Rights Watch, 2022).

Normative Influence on International Law

The APMBC has also contributed to the evolution of international humanitarian law (IHL) by establishing a precedent for banning specific categories of weapons based on their indiscriminate effects. Its success inspired subsequent treaties, such as the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), which mirrors the APMBC’s structure and objectives. The treaty’s emphasis on victim assistance and international cooperation has further embedded humanitarian principles into the discourse on disarmament (GICHD, International Humanitarian Law).

Legal Mechanisms for Entering into Treaties: A General Framework

For a country to legally enter into treaties such as the APMBC, it must adhere to both its domestic constitutional processes and international legal norms. While the APMBC itself does not explicitly outline how states should join (as this is governed by general international law), the treaty’s provisions on signature, ratification, and accession are articulated in Articles 16 and 17. Article 16 states that the treaty is open for signature by all states, and Article 17 allows states to accede to the treaty if they did not sign it during the initial period. Upon ratification or accession, the treaty enters into force for that state on the first day of the sixth month following the deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession with the United Nations Secretary-General (APMBC, Article 17).

Under international law, the process of entering into treaties is further guided by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969, which codifies customary practices concerning treaty formation, interpretation, and termination. Articles 11 to 15 of the VCLT detail the means by which states express consent to be bound by a treaty, including signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession—processes that apply to the APMBC as a multilateral treaty (VCLT, 1969). A state must follow its internal constitutional procedures to ensure that the treaty is binding at the domestic level, a process that varies depending on whether the state adopts a monist or dualist approach to international law.

Monist vs. Dualist Approaches to Treaties and National Implementation

The incorporation of international treaties into domestic law depends on whether a given country follows a monist or dualist legal tradition. In a monist system, international law is automatically part of the national legal order upon ratification, requiring no further legislative action for the treaty to be enforceable domestically. For example, in many civil law countries like the Netherlands, ratified treaties are directly applicable and can be invoked in national courts without additional legislation.

In contrast, dualist systems treat international law and domestic law as separate legal orders. In such systems, a treaty must be transformed into national law through specific legislative or administrative action before it can be enforced domestically. Common law countries like the United Kingdom and Canada typically follow this approach, where parliamentary approval or enabling legislation is required to give effect to treaty obligations.

For the purposes of this analysis, let us assume a hypothetical state to illustrate these concepts, as the user has not specified a particular country. If this state operates under a dualist system, ratification of the APMBC would necessitate the passage of domestic legislation aligning national laws with the treaty’s prohibitions on anti-personnel mines, as mandated by Article 9 of the APMBC. This could involve amending military codes, enacting penal laws to criminalize prohibited activities, and establishing mechanisms for stockpile destruction and mine clearance. Failure to enact such legislation could result in a gap between international obligations and domestic enforcement, undermining the treaty’s effectiveness.

In a monist system, by contrast, the APMBC would automatically become part of the national legal framework upon ratification, though practical implementation might still require administrative measures or regulations. For instance, even in monist systems, budgetary allocations and institutional frameworks for victim assistance and mine clearance must often be established to ensure compliance with treaty obligations.

Regardless of the system, effective implementation of the APMBC often requires states to develop national action plans, designate responsible authorities, and engage with international partners for technical and financial assistance. The treaty’s emphasis on international cooperation under Article 6 facilitates such collaboration, helping states bridge gaps in capacity and resources.

The APMBC and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969

The relationship between the APMBC and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969 is an important consideration for understanding how states can properly enter into and implement treaties. The VCLT, often described as the “treaty on treaties,” provides the foundational rules for the conclusion, interpretation, and termination of international agreements. It applies to all treaties between states, provided the states are parties to the VCLT or recognize its provisions as customary international law.

The APMBC itself is not a party to the VCLT, as treaties are agreements between states, and the VCLT governs the behavior of states rather than treaties per se. However, the APMBC, as a multilateral treaty, is subject to the principles and rules outlined in the VCLT, particularly for states that are parties to both instruments. For instance, the VCLT’s provisions on treaty formation (Articles 6-18), interpretation (Articles 31-33), and reservations (Articles 19-23) are directly relevant to how the APMBC is concluded and applied. Even for states that are not parties to the VCLT (e.g., the United States, which has signed but not ratified it), many of its provisions are considered customary international law and thus binding (Crawford, 2012).

For other countries seeking to enter into treaties with the framework of the APMBC, the VCLT provides critical guidance on best practices. States must ensure that they have the capacity to enter into treaties (VCLT, Article 6), follow proper procedures for expressing consent to be bound (VCLT, Article 11), and address any reservations or declarations in a manner consistent with the treaty’s object and purpose (VCLT, Article 19). Given that the APMBC does not allow reservations under Article 19 of its own text, states must accept the treaty in its entirety, a principle reinforced by the VCLT’s emphasis on the integrity of treaty obligations.

Furthermore, the VCLT’s rules on treaty interpretation can assist states in understanding and implementing the APMBC’s provisions. For example, Article 31 of the VCLT stipulates that treaties must be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their terms, and in light of their object and purpose. This approach ensures that the humanitarian goals of the APMBC—eliminating landmines and protecting civilians—are prioritized in domestic implementation.

Challenges and Recent Developments in APMBC Implementation

Despite its achievements, the APMBC faces significant challenges in maintaining its global impact. The non-participation of major military powers limits the treaty’s universal applicability. The United States, for instance, has not signed the treaty, citing national security concerns, though its policies on landmine use have fluctuated across administrations (CNA, 2024). Similarly, China and Russia maintain substantial stockpiles, undermining efforts to establish a comprehensive global ban.

Recent developments in Eastern Europe further complicate the treaty’s landscape. In 2025, several NATO members, including Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, announced plans to withdraw from the APMBC, citing the need for defensive measures against potential aggression from Russia (Amnesty International, 2025; Reuters, 2025). Ukraine, a state party to the treaty, has also expressed intent to withdraw amid the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War, during which landmines have been extensively used by non-signatory belligerents (Ottawa Treaty, Wikipedia, 2025). These withdrawals, if finalized, could weaken the treaty’s normative power and encourage other states to prioritize security over humanitarian commitments.

Another persistent challenge is ensuring compliance with the treaty’s timelines for stockpile destruction and mine clearance, as outlined in Articles 4 and 5 of the APMBC. Many states parties, particularly those in post-conflict regions, struggle with limited resources and technical expertise, necessitating greater international assistance. The treaty’s mechanisms for transparency and reporting, such as annual reports under Article 7, are critical for monitoring progress, but inconsistencies in data submission hinder a full understanding of global implementation (Landmine Monitor, 2021).

Implications for Other States and Future Directions

For states considering accession to the APMBC, the experiences of current parties offer valuable lessons on legal and practical implementation. First, aligning domestic laws with treaty obligations, whether through a monist or dualist approach, is essential to ensure enforceability. States must prioritize the criminalization of prohibited activities, establish mechanisms for stockpile destruction and mine clearance, and allocate resources for victim assistance.

Second, engagement with international organizations and civil society, as encouraged under Article 6 of the APMBC, can enhance capacity-building efforts. Partnerships with entities like the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) and the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) provide technical expertise and funding opportunities (UNODA, Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention).

Finally, the relationship between the APMBC and the VCLT underscores the importance of adhering to established norms of treaty law. States must approach accession to the APMBC with a clear understanding of their international obligations, ensuring that domestic procedures for ratification or accession are consistent with both national constitutions and international standards.

Looking ahead, the future of the APMBC depends on sustained political will and innovative strategies to address emerging challenges. Efforts to engage non-signatory states through dialogue and confidence-building measures could expand the treaty’s reach. Additionally, addressing the root causes of withdrawal intentions, such as regional security threats, requires integrating disarmament initiatives with broader peacebuilding and conflict resolution frameworks.

Conclusion

The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention has had a profound global impact, reducing the use of landmines, saving lives, and restoring land to productive use. Its legal framework, rooted in principles of international humanitarian law, has set a powerful precedent for disarmament and victim-centered approaches to conflict resolution. However, challenges such as non-signatory states, recent withdrawals, and implementation gaps underscore the need for continued international cooperation and commitment.

For states seeking to join the APMBC, understanding the legal mechanisms for treaty accession, whether through monist or dualist systems, is critical to effective implementation. The guiding principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provide a roadmap for ensuring that treaty obligations are met in good faith, offering a model for other states to follow. As the global community navigates new geopolitical tensions and security concerns, the APMBC remains a vital instrument for protecting civilians and advancing a world free from the scourge of anti-personnel landmines.

References

[Word count: approximately 4,200 words]