Human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about the potential consequences of countries abandoning the international treaty that bans the use of anti-personnel landmines. This alarm has been triggered by the announcement from Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania indicating their intention to withdraw from the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, citing heightened military threats from Russia.
Latvia’s parliament was the first to officially back this decision in mid-April, following votes to withdraw from the treaty which prohibits the use, production, and stockpiling of landmines designed to target humans. Activists have described the move as a significant step backward, highlighting the devastating impacts that landmines have on civilian populations, particularly children, who constitute nearly half of the victims worldwide.
Many advocates had previously believed that there was little chance of countries renouncing their commitment to the ban on landmines, given the universally recognized horrors these weapons cause. However, the situation seems to be driven by misconceptions surrounding so-called “smart landmines” that are said to limit harm to civilians—a claim that experts dismiss as highly unlikely, given that landmines cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) views these potential reversals with extreme concern, emphasizing that the military benefits of anti-personnel mines are far outweighed by the long-lasting human suffering they cause. The ICRC’s legal adviser, Maya Brehm, underscored the importance of upholding humanitarian laws during conflicts, warning that an erosion of these principles could have far-reaching consequences for international humanitarian law.
Geopolitics seem to be at the heart of these countries’ decisions, with Russia’s aggressive behavior contributing to their perceived need for enhanced defense measures. Although Russia is not a signatory to the 1997 treaty, it has been documented as one of the most prolific users of landmines in current conflicts, making Ukraine the most heavily mined country in the world.
In response, some countries like Norway, which also shares a border with Russia, have chosen to remain committed to the treaty. They argue that upholding the treaty helps maintain the stigma against these weapons and prevents their proliferation in conflicts worldwide.
The withdrawal of these European countries from the treaty is a stark reminder of the enduring and perilous legacy of landmines. For instance, the ongoing threat in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where millions of unexploded mines remain from the 1990s conflict, serves as a grim reminder of the future dangers that activists warn against. The clear message from Ješić of UDAS and other advocates is that landmines are a scourge that long outlives the conflicts in which they are deployed, causing perpetual harm long after the fighting has ceased.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/apr/27/campaigners-sound-alarm-as-european-nations-move-to-exit-landmine-ban
