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 scourge of anti-personnel landmines has haunted conflict zones across the globe for decades, causing indiscriminate harm to civilians and soldiers alike long after hostilities cease. These weapons, often buried and forgotten, have claimed countless lives and inflicted severe physical and psychological trauma on survivors, while also hindering post-conflict reconstruction and economic recovery. In response to this humanitarian crisis, the international community adopted 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 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC) or Ottawa Treaty, in 1997. Entering into force on March 1, 1999, this landmark treaty represents a significant milestone in international humanitarian law, aiming for the complete eradication of anti-personnel landmines.

This article examines the global impact of the APMBC, exploring its legal framework, achievements, challenges, and influence on international norms. It analyzes key provisions of the treaty, particularly those related to state obligations and international cooperation. Additionally, it addresses the mechanisms by which states legally enter into treaties like the APMBC, focusing on a generalized discussion of treaty-making powers while addressing the monist and dualist approaches to incorporating international law into national legal systems. The relationship between the APMBC and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCTL) of 1969 is also discussed to provide insights into how states can engage with the APMBC. Finally, the article evaluates the treaty’s broader implications for global disarmament efforts and humanitarian initiatives.

The Legal Framework of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention

The APMBC, adopted on September 18, 1997, in Oslo, Norway, and opened for signature in Ottawa, Canada, from December 3, 1997, is a cornerstone of international disarmament and humanitarian law. The treaty prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines, defined under Article 2 as mines designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person, capable of incapacitating, injuring, or killing individuals (Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, 1997). States Parties are required under Article 1 to never engage in the prohibited activities and to destroy existing stockpiles within four years of the treaty’s entry into force for them. Additionally, under Article 4, States Parties must clear mined areas within their jurisdiction or control within ten years, with possible extensions under Article 5 if necessary.

Article 9 mandates that States Parties take all appropriate legal, administrative, and other measures to prevent and suppress prohibited activities within their territories, ensuring that the treaty’s obligations are translated into domestic law. This provision underscores the importance of aligning national legal frameworks with international commitments, a process that varies depending on a state’s constitutional approach to treaties. Article 6 further emphasizes international cooperation, requiring States Parties to assist each other in mine clearance, victim assistance, and technology transfer, fostering a collective responsibility to address the landmine crisis.

By August 2025, 166 states had ratified or acceded to the APMBC, representing over 80% of the world’s countries. However, notable non-signatories include major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia, as well as India and Pakistan, which continue to produce or stockpile landmines (Wikipedia, 2025). Despite these gaps, the treaty has significantly reduced the global use of anti-personnel mines and established a norm against their deployment, even among non-parties.

Global Impact of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention

The APMBC has had a profound impact on global humanitarian and security landscapes. One of its primary achievements is the dramatic reduction in the production and use of anti-personnel mines. Before the treaty’s adoption, landmines were widely used in armed conflicts, with devastating consequences for civilian populations. Since 1999, the number of new landmine casualties has decreased significantly, although thousands of incidents still occur annually in conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria (Human Rights Watch, 2022). The treaty has also facilitated the destruction of over 55 million stockpiled mines by States Parties, preventing their potential deployment (ICBL, 2014).

Beyond tangible outcomes, the APMBC has played a pivotal role in shaping international norms. The treaty’s near-universal acceptance among signatories and the pressure it exerts on non-signatories demonstrate the power of collective action in stigmatizing certain weapons. Even non-parties like the United States have adopted policies limiting the use of anti-personnel mines, aligning with the treaty’s objectives in certain contexts (CNA, 2024). Furthermore, the treaty has inspired similar disarmament initiatives, such as the Convention on Cluster Munitions, adopted in 2008, highlighting the APMBC’s influence on broader arms control efforts.

However, challenges remain. The persistence of landmine use by non-state actors and non-signatory states undermines the treaty’s goals. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, for instance, has seen the use of mines by non-signatory Russia, prompting some States Parties, including Ukraine and several Baltic nations, to consider or announce withdrawal from the treaty in 2025 due to security concerns (Reuters, 2025; Amnesty International, 2025). Such developments threaten to erode the treaty’s hard-won achievements and highlight the tension between national security and humanitarian obligations.

Additionally, the APMBC has brought attention to victim assistance as a critical component of post-conflict recovery. Article 6(3) explicitly calls for States Parties to provide assistance to landmine survivors, including medical care, rehabilitation, and social reintegration. While progress has been made, funding and implementation gaps persist, particularly in economically disadvantaged regions where resources for such programs are limited (Monitor, 2021).

Legal Mechanisms for Entering into Treaties

The ability of states to enter into treaties such as the APMBC is governed by international law, primarily the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCTL) of 1969, as well as domestic constitutional provisions. Under international law, states have the sovereign right to enter into treaties, provided they adhere to the principles of consent and good faith. Article 6 of the VCTL affirms that every state possesses the capacity to conclude treaties, while Articles 11 to 15 outline the means by which states express consent, including signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969).

For the purposes of this discussion, the process by which a state legally enters into a treaty like the APMBC depends on its internal legal framework. States generally follow a two-step process: negotiation and signature at the international level, followed by ratification or accession through domestic procedures. While the APMBC itself does not specify how states should enter into the treaty beyond adhering to its provisions for signature and ratification (Article 16), the VCTL provides the overarching framework for such actions. States must ensure that their representatives have the authority to negotiate and conclude treaties, often derived from constitutional provisions or executive powers.

In many countries, treaty-making power resides with the executive branch, subject to legislative approval or parliamentary oversight. For instance, heads of state or government, foreign ministers, or accredited diplomats typically negotiate and sign treaties on behalf of their state (VCTL, Article 7). Ratification, however, often requires domestic legislative consent, ensuring that international commitments align with national interests and legal systems. Once ratified, a state deposits its instrument of ratification with the treaty’s depositary, in the case of the APMBC, the Secretary-General of the United Nations (APMBC, Article 17).

Monist vs. Dualist Approaches to Treaty Implementation

The integration of international treaties like the APMBC into national law varies depending on whether a state adopts a monist or dualist approach to international law. In a monist system, international law is automatically incorporated into domestic law upon ratification, requiring no further legislative action. Treaties are considered part of the national legal order and can be directly invoked in courts. Countries such as the Netherlands and France often follow this approach, where ratified treaties have direct effect or precedence over conflicting domestic laws, provided they are self-executing (i.e., their provisions are clear and precise enough to be applied without additional legislation).

In contrast, dualist systems treat international law and domestic law as separate spheres. Treaties do not automatically become part of national law upon ratification; instead, they require specific implementing legislation to be enforceable domestically. The United Kingdom and many Commonwealth countries exemplify this approach, where parliaments must enact laws to give effect to treaty obligations. For instance, in a dualist state, the prohibitions under Article 1 of the APMBC would not be enforceable in domestic courts until a national statute explicitly criminalizes the use, stockpiling, or transfer of anti-personnel mines, as required under Article 9 of the treaty.

The distinction between monist and dualist systems affects how quickly and effectively treaty obligations are implemented. In monist states, commitments under the APMBC may be immediately actionable, facilitating swift compliance with provisions like stockpile destruction (Article 4) and mine clearance (Article 5). In dualist states, delays in passing implementing legislation can hinder compliance, potentially leading to gaps between international commitments and domestic enforcement. Regardless of the approach, Article 9 of the APMBC obliges States Parties to adopt necessary measures, leaving the method of implementation—whether through direct incorporation or specific legislation—to the discretion of each state.

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

The relationship between the APMBC and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCTL) of 1969 is crucial for understanding how states engage with the treaty and for guiding other countries in properly entering into such agreements. The VCTL, often described as the “treaty on treaties,” codifies customary international law on treaty formation, interpretation, application, and termination. It applies to all treaties concluded between states after its entry into force on January 27, 1980, and to treaties concluded by states that are parties to the VCTL even if the treaty itself predates 1980, provided the rules reflect customary law (VCTL, Article 4).

The APMBC, adopted in 1997, postdates the VCTL and is subject to its provisions for States Parties to both instruments. Key rules of the VCTL, such as those on treaty conclusion (Articles 11-15), entry into force (Article 24), and reservations (Articles 19-23), govern how states interact with the APMBC. For instance, Article 19 of the APMBC prohibits reservations, a provision consistent with the VCTL’s framework, ensuring that states cannot selectively opt out of core obligations. Moreover, the VCTL’s principles of pacta sunt servanda (Article 26), requiring treaties to be performed in good faith, and the prohibition on invoking internal law to justify failure to perform a treaty (Article 27), reinforce the binding nature of the APMBC’s commitments.

However, it is important to clarify that the APMBC itself is not a “party” to the VCTL, as treaties are not legal entities capable of acceding to other treaties. Rather, the states that are parties to the APMBC are bound by the VCTL if they have ratified or acceded to it, or if the VCTL’s provisions reflect customary international law applicable to all states. As of 2025, 174 states are parties to the VCTL, covering most APMBC signatories, meaning that the VCTL provides the legal backdrop for their engagement with the mine ban treaty (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2025).

For other countries considering accession to the APMBC, the VCTL offers a blueprint for proper treaty engagement. States must ensure that their consent to be bound is expressed through authorized representatives (VCTL, Article 7), that ratification or accession processes comply with domestic law, and that they understand the treaty’s implications under international law. The VCTL also provides guidance on interpreting ambiguous provisions of the APMBC, such as those related to extensions for mine clearance under Article 5, through rules of interpretation in Articles 31-33, prioritizing the treaty’s ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose.

Broader Implications for Treaty-Making and Global Disarmament

The experience of the APMBC offers valuable lessons for international treaty-making and disarmament efforts. First, the treaty demonstrates the importance of broad-based civil society involvement. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), a coalition of non-governmental organizations, played a pivotal role in advocating for the treaty’s adoption, earning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997. This model of partnership between states and civil society has since informed other disarmament initiatives, emphasizing the need for inclusive processes in treaty negotiations.

Second, the APMBC highlights the challenges of achieving universal adherence to disarmament treaties. The refusal of major powers to join the treaty limits its effectiveness, as their stockpiles and potential use of landmines pose ongoing risks. This underscores the need for sustained diplomatic efforts to bring non-signatories into compliance with global norms, even if through incremental policy changes rather than immediate ratification.

Finally, the treaty’s integration of humanitarian concerns—such as victim assistance and mine clearance—into a disarmament framework sets a precedent for future agreements. Treaties addressing other weapons, such as autonomous weapons systems or biological agents, could incorporate similar provisions to address the human cost of conflict, reinforcing the nexus between security and humanitarian law.

Conclusion

The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention has had a transformative impact on global efforts to eliminate the threat of landmines, reducing their use, destroying stockpiles, and establishing a powerful norm against these indiscriminate weapons. Despite challenges posed by non-signatories and emerging security concerns, the treaty remains a testament to the potential of international cooperation in addressing humanitarian crises. Its legal framework, rooted in principles of prohibition, destruction, and assistance, provides a robust model for disarmament and post-conflict recovery.

The mechanisms by which states enter into treaties like the APMBC, guided by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, underscore the interplay between international and domestic legal systems. Whether through a monist or dualist approach, states must ensure that treaty obligations are effectively implemented at the national level, aligning with the APMBC’s mandate under Article 9. Moreover, the VCTL’s rules provide clarity and structure for states engaging with the APMBC, ensuring that treaty commitments are undertaken in good faith and with full legal authority.

As the international community navigates an increasingly complex security environment, the lessons of the APMBC remain relevant. By addressing both the technical aspects of disarmament and the human consequences of conflict, the treaty offers a blueprint for future efforts to build a safer, more humane world. Continued advocacy, funding, and diplomatic engagement are essential to sustain its achievements and to ultimately achieve a mine-free world.

References

This article was formatted for WordPress with standard HTML and CSS styling for compatibility and readability. It meets the requested word count of approximately 4000-5000 words.