NATO Eastern Flank States Discuss Withdrawal From Ottawa Convention
The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of 1997, known informally as the Ottawa Treaty, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, or often simply the Mine Ban Treaty has been one of the most important international law treaties after the 4th Geneva Convention and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons introduced in the 20th century. The harsh experiences from the frontlines of the Second World War, Vietnam and later the Balkans showcased the wide suffering of soldiers and civilians due to the extensive use of anti-personnel mines.
In the International Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), the main prerogative is minimizing unnecessary suffering and collateral damage. However, this premise seems to lose its fundaments concerning Eastern NATO Flank states fearing Russian aggression. Among the countries openly discussing the possibility of withdrawing from said convention are Finland, Lithuania, and Poland.
One of the main arguments following such a decision is the fact there is no other alternative armament in those countries’ arsenals which would be similarly effective. The war in Ukraine has shown how the use of various types of mines is still incredibly effective. Finland and Lithuania lack the means of conventional deterrence while Poland sees the use of weapons such as cluster bombs and mines as a response to having no weapons of mass destruction. The ability to deploy anti-personnel landmines would change the disadvantages of Eastern Flank countries by denying access to wide areas and channeling the combat to favorable defensive positions. In such a way, the infantry assault tactics used by the Russian Armed Forces would make their forces vulnerable and exert heavy losses in potential conflict scenarios.
However, from the LOAC perspective, there are some concerns. The international law system is only as strong as states willing to exercise implemented treaties. Massive withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention could lead to questioning the CCW participation by some states which face analogical threats to their safety.
While the legal element of withdrawing from the treaty is complex it is worth noting that the potential adversary – the Russian Federation, is not an Ottawa Treaty signatory and has been indiscriminately using anti-personnel mines in the ongoing War in Ukraine. Thus, to retain the proportionality of assets on the battlefield the concept of leaving the treaty behind may become a reality in coming years.