Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-03
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Julia Grignon, Associate Professor, Director of the International Law Clinic at Assas, University Paris-Panthéon-Assas
Anti-personnel mines have already caused, and continue to cause, millions of victims worldwide. A 1997 treaty had led to a significant decrease in their production, but in the context of the war in Ukraine, several countries have decided to start using them again, even though, by their nature, they violate international law and are moreover largely ineffective at blocking the advance of enemy troops, which is the reason given to justify their use.
While international law is now openly flouted, and within it international humanitarian law is increasingly being manipulated,International Mine Awareness Day, April 4, is an opportunity to recall some fundamentals about a means of warfare that was believed to belong to the past but about which certain recent events have raised serious concerns.
What are anti-personnel mines?
Anti-personnel mines are weapons “designed to explode due to the presence, proximity, or contact of a person and intended to incapacitate, injure, or kill one or more people“”. Used intensively since at least the Second World War, like the“Bouncing Betty”(German Mine-S), UNICEF already estimated in 1996 that they had causedmore than one million victims since 1975. The Mines Observatory, for its part, has recordedmore than 165,724 victims of these weapons since the beginning of its systematic records in 1999. Due, in particular, to their incompatibility with the fundamental rules related to the conduct of hostilities in international humanitarian law, anti-personnel mines are prohibited.
When triggered, these weapons are indeed incapable of distinguishing between a civilian and a military person, which constitutes a violation of therule of distinction. Likewise, when they do not kill, these weapons maim, in violation of theprohibition of superfluous evils. Although these rules alone are sufficient to prohibit their use, the ban on anti-personnel mines is the subject of an international Treaty. Adopted in 1997 in Ottawa, thisTreatyis not limited to prohibiting the use of these weapons, but also provides for the ban on their development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and transfer.
Today, 161 States are parties to this Treaty, which has had undeniable positive effects since 1997, such as the drastic reduction in the number of countries producing mines – down from 50 in 1999 to onedozen today– and the destruction of more than 55 million stockpiled mines. But some recent decisions rekindle concerns. During the course of the year 2025, five countries – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Poland – haveannounced their withdrawalof the Treaty,citing security imperatives.
Moreover, Ukraine has indicated that itsuspended the application of the Convention due to the conflict opposing it with Russia, in order to try to circumvent the prohibition that States Parties to the Treaty have on withdrawing from it when they are engaged in an armed conflict. However, this suspension is not contemplated by the Convention, since it would completely go against its purpose if States in conflict situations could ultimately decide to use anti-personnel mines.
These decisions of opportunity raise the threat of a return to a weapon banned for nearly 30 years. The fact that they were made by five member countries of the European Union is all the more worrying as it contributes to the erosion of international humanitarian law. This fivefold withdrawal is moreover in perfect contradiction with the EU’s objectives in this area, which, through the Council in May 2024, reaffirmed that the Ottawa Convention was a“Key instrument of disarmament, whose integrity, full implementation and strict application must be ensured, and efforts made to obtain universal adherence”.
A weapon whose military effectiveness is contested but devastating for civilians
Beyond legal aspects, anti-personnel mines also have very long-term effects. In addition to the lifelong disability they cause when the victims have had to undergo amputation, and the psychological trauma they cause, they hinder the return to a peaceful life and reconstruction.
The fields that have been mined are no longer cultivable, the residences that have been mined are no longer habitable, the roads that have been mined are no longer passable, etc. So many situations that prevent the civilian population from resuming their pre-war activities and that daily revive the conflict, making it impossible to leave the past behind and move forward.
Moreover, not only are civilians the primary victims of these, but the military effectiveness of these weapons is also called into question. They do not offernot really a security guaranteeand do not haveno effect on border protection. As we had the opportunity to point out during the announcement of these withdrawals,“It is therefore possible both to continue to pursue military advantages and to minimize the human cost of conflicts”. Thanks to technological advances made over 30 years, ofmany alternativesexisting today, like modern precision-guided weapon systems or new ground surveillance technologies.
Moreover, the argument that these weapons should be able to be used because they areused by the opponentis inadmissible. In international humanitarian law, the rule of reciprocity does not apply: that one party to the conflict violates it does not authorize another to do the same.
Also to read:
Amnesty International and Ukraine: the difficulty of invoking humanitarian law in times of war
This was also highlighted by the president of the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights in aletter addressed to the French authoritiesIn April 2025: “The rearmament of Europe cannot be done to the detriment of rights and protection of individuals, and the use of illicit means by one party to an armed conflict should never justify their use by another.”
Moreover, all States of the world, under customary international humanitarian law, whether or not they are parties to the Ottawa Convention, are required to respect the rules relating to the conduct of hostilities in their military operations. They must therefore at all times ensure to use only weapons that allow distinction between a civilian and a combatant and that are not of a nature to createexcessive collateral damage, while taking all thepractically possible precautionswith the aim, in particular, “to avoid and, in any case, minimize loss of human life among the civilian population and injuries to civilian persons.”
As for the Baltic States (except Lithuania, which has not ratified it), Poland, and Finland, they remain subject to the obligations contained in the conventional instruments to which they are bound, foremost among which is theProtocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which limits the use of mines.
The campaign launched by Handicap International
On the occasion of this April 4, Handicap International launches itscampaign “Nobel Piece. Repairing peace, together”. This echoes the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 under the banner of theInternational campaign for the ban on anti-personnel mines. The goal is that by the 30theAt the anniversary of the awarding of this prize, at the end of 2027, with the States that had withdrawn from the Treaty retracting their decision and others joining. The organization has moreover announced a strong symbolic act: it willcut his Nobel Prize into several piecesand send these pieces to several world leaders to alert them to the danger of the return of anti-personnel mines.
This objective requires the mobilization of everyone. Respect for international humanitarian law is the responsibility of the entire community, and perhaps even more so when it comes to anti-personnel mines whose90% of the victimsare civilians and among them nearly half are children.
At the time when France, along with others, is preparing tothe hypothesis of a high-intensity conflict, it is essential that the entire population not only be made aware of the rules applicable in armed conflicts but also mobilize for their full and entire implementation. It is not when times are troubled that issues related to respect for the law and the rule of law should be addressed – by then it will be too late – but already in times of peace, by consolidating existing rules, rather than contributing to their erosion. The objective remains amine-free world, wherelive standingis a right, not a challenge.
Julia Grignon is a member of the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights.
Julia Grignon led two projects funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Julia Grignon leads the International Law Clinic at Assas, of which Handicap International is one of the partners
Célia Aubry does not work for, advise, own shares in, receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no affiliation other than her research institution.
–ref. Antipersonnel mines: the worrying return of a weapon that law had banned –https://theconversation.com/mines-antipersonnel-the-worrying-return-of-a-weapon-that-law-had-banned-279816