On Wednesday, November 20, 2024, the United States announced its decision to supply anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine. Zelenskyy thanked the US for its decision and called these landmines essential for stopping Russian assaults, clearly indicating the intention to use these anti-personnel mines during the conflict. However, while the announcement was met with approval from Ukrainian officials, it also sparked criticism from numerous non-governmental organizations, which highlighted the grave humanitarian consequences associated with the use of anti-personnel landmines. These critics underscored the indiscriminate nature of such weapons and their potential to inflict enduring harm on civilian populations.
Ukraine already ranks among the nations most affected by civilian casualties from landmines and unexploded ordnance. Potentially up to 40 per cent of Ukrainian territory is contaminated by landmines, a stark reminder of the enduring and devastating legacy such weapons leave behind. This development thus not only exacerbates immediate concerns but also casts a long shadow over the region’s post-conflict recovery and the broader humanitarian and legal landscape.
Despite the immediate focus on civilian harm, a broader and perhaps more alarming dimension of this decision has gone largely unaddressed: the escalation it represents in the conflict and its implications for international arms control norms. While recent discourse has been dominated by concerns over long-range missile strikes deep into Russian territory and the deployment of Russian intermediate ballistic missiles, the introduction of anti-personnel mines into the equation raises profound questions about the trajectory of the war and the erosion of global arms control frameworks.
International Effort to Regulate Anti-personnel Mines
Anti-personnel landmines have long been the subject of intense criticism due to the disproportionate harm they inflict on civilian populations. Their inherent inability to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants has raised significant legal and ethical concerns, prompting calls for their prohibition by numerous NGOs. However, achieving an outright ban initially proved challenging, as many states considered the strategic advantages of these weapons to outweigh their potential for civilian casualties.
As a compromise, early efforts focused on regulating their use rather than eliminating them entirely. This approach materialized through the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), particularly Protocol II, which imposed specific restrictions on the deployment of anti-personnel mines. These included limitations on placement, measures to mitigate risks to civilians, and requirements to record and disclose their locations. Despite these safeguards, the enduring and widespread harm caused by landmines—often persisting for decades after conflicts have ended—highlighted the inadequacy of such regulations.
The continued civilian toll, coupled with mounting pressure from NGOs and sympathetic states, fuelled efforts to pursue a comprehensive ban. These efforts culminated in the adoption of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, commonly known as the Ottawa Treaty, in 1997. This landmark treaty not only prohibits state parties from using anti-personnel landmines but also forbids their development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, or transfer in any form, whether directly or indirectly.
Ukraine and the Ottawa Treaty
Ukraine signed the Ottawa Treaty in 1999 and formally ratified it on December 27, 2005, becoming a state party to the treaty. Since ratification, Ukraine has not signalled any intention to withdraw from the treaty. However, under Article 20 of the treaty, withdrawal is only permissible after the conclusion of hostilities if the state party is involved in an armed conflict. As a result, Ukraine remains bound by the treaty’s provisions, including the prohibition on the use and acquisition of anti-personnel mines.
Since the onset of the conflict in 2014, Ukraine has submitted two declarations acknowledging its inability to ensure the treaty’s full implementation in territories under occupation, citing a lack of effective control. Furthermore, Ukraine has requested and been granted delays in meeting its obligation to destroy pre-existing stockpiles of anti-personnel mines, postponing this requirement until hostilities cease.
The recent decision by Ukraine to acquire anti-personnel mines from the United States constitutes a clear violation of the Ottawa Treaty. While past allegations of Ukraine’s use of such mines have been denied by Ukrainian authorities and ostensibly investigated, this instance is different. Unlike previous claims, which were officially refuted, the acquisition of mines from the U.S. has not been denied or contested by Ukraine. Instead, Ukrainian authorities have openly welcomed and embraced this decision.
Notably, only a few months ago, during an intersessional meeting of the Ottawa Treaty, Ukraine reaffirmed its commitment to “fully comply with its international obligations, including the Ottawa Convention.” This recent development, however, contradicts that statement and undermines Ukraine’s adherence to the treaty, representing a marked departure from its previously declared compliance.
A Dangerous Escalation
The conflict in Ukraine is veering into increasingly perilous territory. The use of prohibited means of warfare, including chemical weapons such as riot-control agents, has already been reported, though such allegations have consistently been denied by all parties. While there is credible evidence suggesting that anti-personnel mines have been deployed by both sides, Ukraine had thus far consistently denied these allegations. Russia, not being a state party to the Ottawa Treaty, is not bound by its prohibitions, whereas Ukraine’s recent acquisition of anti-personnel mines from the United States represents an unambiguous violation of the treaty. Unlike previous instances of alleged treaty breaches, this marks the first clear-cut case where a party has neither obfuscated nor denied its actions.
Despite the blatant nature of this violation, there has been a notable lack of significant international outcry, raising serious concerns about the future of arms control and international humanitarian law. While Russia’s violations in this conflict have rightly drawn widespread condemnation, Ukraine’s actions, if left unchecked, set a dangerous precedent. Failure to hold all parties to the same standard risks eroding the legitimacy of arms control agreements and the foundational principles of international humanitarian law. This development also reflects an alarming escalation in the conflict, with both sides appearing increasingly willing to push beyond legal boundaries as the war continues to grind on.
The justification of Ukraine’s actions under the pretext of self-defense, if not strongly opposed, undermines the very basis of arms control and humanitarian law. The breach of the Ottawa Treaty, alongside Russia’s increasing use of riot-control agents and the relentless nature of the conflict, points to a troubling trend: a gradual return to the doctrine of Kriegsraison, the notion that the necessities of war outweigh the rules of war. If this trajectory persists, the likelihood of further violations, including the potential use of other prohibited weapons like lethal chemical agents, becomes increasingly plausible.
It is imperative for the international community to respond decisively to all breaches of international law, regardless of the perpetrator. A strong and consistent response is essential to uphold the framework of arms control agreements and to safeguard the broader principles of international humanitarian law. Without such accountability, the erosion of these critical legal standards could have far-reaching and devastating consequences for the future of armed conflict.
