Defiant not Naïve: The Ottawa Treaty Today

The effectivity of international humanitarian law is often questioned especially when violations of it are seen daily in social media feeds or on TV screens. Time and again we’ve seen hospitals bombed, double-tap attacks on first responders, civilians killed and injured, and cities reduced to rubble.

Over the past ten years when international humanitarian law has been challenged by conflicts in places like Syria, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Yemen, Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan and Iraq, we have been able to point to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention or Ottawa Treaty as it is often known, as a success story. Indeed, the vast majority of the world has joined the treaty and almost all states that were outside the treaty have abided by it. As a result, casualties from anti-personnel mines have dropped significantly since 1997, when the treaty was signed and these days only pariah states and non-state armed groups use them. Unfortunately, challenges to the Ottawa Treaty emerged in 2025.

Like vaccinations, the Ottawa Treaty has become a victim of its own success. The huge amount of land cleared and the reductions of casualties from over 20,000 a year in the early 1990s to 6,279 in 2024, means that people are starting to forget why these weapons were banned in the first place. Forgetting this history, combined with tension in Europe, has had consequences and last summer, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Finland all submitted their notices to withdraw from the treaty citing their legitimate security concerns about Russia. Having those security concerns is immensely logical, leaving the Ottawa Treaty in response is not.

We know anti-personnel landmines have limited military utility. They are not going to deter Russia from invading another country. Anti-personnel landmines target individuals on foot but are often lumped in with anti-vehicle landmines whose use and impact are different. A weapon designed to target military personnel on foot is not an effective deterrent and does not provide significant military advantage especially when facing a military that fights as Russia has been in Ukraine and previously in Syria. In 2024, the Estonian and Latvian militaries publicly stated they do not need anti-personnel landmines because they do not protect against drones, air strikes, artillery or any of the hallmarks of modern conflict and there are better alternatives that are safer for civilians.

Analysis from 1990s by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and endorsed by many military officers also found that minefields are easily breached or circumvented using modern technology and often end up being a hindrance to the military that laid them by inhibiting foot patrols or not being in the right place at the right time. For example, 10 percent of Australian casualties during the Vietnam War were  attributed to an  Australian laid minefield in Phuoc Tuy Province, Vietnam. The Korean War, and the 1991 war in Iraq, also demonstrated the ineffectiveness of anti-personnel landmines. More recently, the extensive mine fields in Nagorno-Karabakh did not prevent Azerbaijan from retaking the land showing yet again that these outdated weapons cannot prevent a modern invasion. All in all, anti-personnel mines give a false sense of security while putting one’s own civilians and military personnel at risk.

Conversations with these governments indicate that leaving the Ottawa Treaty was a public relations decision. Their citizens are rightfully concerned that Russia might attack and want their governments to do something to protect them. Rather than be realistic about the threat they face, it was too easy to leave the Ottawa Treaty and Poland and Finland are also considering producing anti-personnel landmines to further give the impression that they are responding effectively to public concerns. However, this intent on bringing back a banned weapon will not protect their population and likely end up causing civilian casualties instead. Magnus Løvold, with the philanthropic fund Lex International, has called the decision the “theatre of the cruel” where “the price of posturing will be paid not by invading armies, but by the very civilians these policies claim to defend”.

The Ottawa Treaty faced a second challenge in 2025 from one of the states that has most benefited from its international cooperation provisions – Ukraine. Russia has used anti-personnel landmines extensively in Ukraine since the full-scale invasion started in 2022. Huge areas of Ukraine, as a result, are contaminated with anti-personnel landmines along with anti-vehicle mines and other explosive remnants of war causing civilian casualties and impacting agricultural production. In response, Canada and other allies have provided millions of dollars of support to demining operations in Ukraine in line with their international cooperation and assistance obligations under Article 6 of the Ottawa Treaty. Mines Action Canada and other Canadian civil society organizations have been strong advocates for this funding to Ukraine.

Despite the extensive investment by allies in demining and their legal obligations under the Ottawa Treaty, there are reports of anti-personnel landmine use by Ukraine. Until 2025, it was assumed that this alleged use was the result of individual commanders making a poor decision but on 8 July 2025, Ukraine formally notified the UN that it intended to “suspend” its obligations under the Ottawa Treaty allowing the use of anti-personnel landmines. It appears this was an attempt to circumvent the treaty’s prohibition on withdrawal during armed conflict. Although the notification did not provide a rationale for the suspension, Russian use of anti-personnel landmines was frequently cited. However, Russia’s conduct in armed conflict should not be considered a standard for any responsible military.

Suspension is not allowed under the Ottawa Treaty and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not apply to situations of armed conflict so there was no lawful basis for Ukraine’s attempted suspension of its obligations under the treaty. The widespread support for Ukraine made the response to this development very difficult for some States Parties to the Ottawa Treaty and for civil society organizations. For example, in Canada, Mines Action Canada had spent three years advocating for Canadian funding for demining, and the prospect of Ukraine suspending the treaty and potentially using anti-personnel landmines raised questions about the fiscal responsibility of continuing to advocate for landmine clearance funding when the recipient country could be responsible for re-contaminating land that Canadian taxpayers paid to clear. However, many countries also found it difficult to be critical of Ukraine’s position because they wanted to be seen as a supportive ally to the country. They needed a reminder that a true friend is the one who tells you when you are making the wrong choice or when you have the international law equivalent of spinach in your teeth.

After significant debate, it was agreed that Ukraine’s attempted suspension was  unlawful and could not be accepted by the States Parties to the Ottawa Treaty. The annual meeting of the Ottawa Treaty stated clearly that “The Meeting affirmed that the Convention does not allow the suspension of its operation and consequently its obligations. The Meeting called upon Ukraine, as a State Party, to further engage within the framework of the Convention.” The States Parties also addressed the withdrawals in their final report and celebrated Marshall Islands and Tonga joining the Ottawa Treaty. These statements, and new members, show that despite these challenges the Ottawa Treaty is resilient.

It might be tempting to look at the Ottawa Treaty at the start of 2026 and think that its time has passed – a product of a more hopeful or naïve period of history but not fit for purpose in today’s world. But the Ottawa Treaty is not naïve, it is defiant. It defies the might makes right mindset and clearly says that wars have limits and that people should be at the centre of peace and security.