Bold claim: Ukraine’s pause on its commitments under the Ottawa Convention has provoked a strong backlash from its European partners and human-rights groups, who warn that halting obligations undermines decades of international progress. And this is where the controversy deepens: the stakes are not just about mines, but about how far international law can bend during war.
In Geneva’s vast Palais des Nations, Ukraine’s absence was noticeable as delegates gathered under the treaty that bans anti-personnel landmines. The country’s dramatic move to suspend its obligations—announced earlier this summer—sparked intense reactions from a broad array of states, including many of Kyiv’s closest Western allies, who warned that such a suspension could erode years of momentum against weapons that continue to harm civilians long after conflicts end.
Several European nations—Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—joined forces with South Africa and Mexico (speaking for a group of Latin American countries) to press Kyiv to rejoin the treaty. While acknowledging Ukraine’s acute military pressures amid its war with Russia, these countries argued that the Ottawa Convention does not provide for suspension, even in wartime.
The 1997 convention, which prohibits 166 states from producing, stockpiling, or using anti-personnel landmines, is under renewed pressure as five Russian-bordering countries—Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Poland—began a six-month withdrawal process this summer, citing escalating security threats from Moscow.
Ukraine formally notified the United Nations in July that it would follow suit, days after issuing a decree invoking extraordinary wartime pressures. President Zelensky defended the decision, calling mines an “irreplaceable tool in defending the country.” Russia, not a party to the treaty, has reportedly deployed anti-personnel mines extensively in Ukraine, according to soldiers, analysts, and rights groups. The exact extent of Ukraine’s own use remains unclear.
The human cost is hard to ignore in Geneva. Kyiv’s decision drew unusually blunt diplomatic pushback at a high-stakes gathering, even as U.S. officials traveled to Moscow to discuss Washington’s peace plan and returned with no evident breakthroughs. NATO foreign ministers, meanwhile, met in Brussels to discuss Ukraine amid rising tensions.
David Riley, the United Kingdom’s disarmament ambassador, stood beside Ukraine’s empty seat and asserted that the APMBC does not permit suspension of its provisions, even in dire circumstances. Belgium, long a proponent of the treaty, delivered one of the most explicit challenges to the legitimacy of using mines for military necessity, arguing that even in self-defense, rules exist to prevent humanitarian catastrophes. The Belgian delegation stressed that mining cannot be reconciled with international humanitarian law and that the humanitarian costs outweigh any perceived military gains. Other signatories, including Austria, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, France, and New Zealand, have formally objected or highlighted the suspension’s incompatibility with the treaty in communications to the UN secretary-general since October.
There are warnings of a “dangerous race to the bottom.” Although the withdrawal is not legally binding, human rights groups hope the chorus of state objections will produce a definitive rebuke in the final report of the treaty’s president, Japan’s Tomiko Ichikawa, at week’s end. Gerry Simpson of Human Rights Watch emphasized that states should explicitly condemn suspensions and warned that failing to do so could set a dangerous precedent, inviting others to selectively ignore treaty provisions.
The five Baltic states—Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Poland—defended their withdrawals by pointing to a deteriorating security environment, citing threats and ongoing aggressive actions by Russia, including airspace violations, hybrid attacks on critical infrastructure, GPS interference, and sabotage as examples of the broader risk landscape.
NGOs and rights groups argue that it is precisely in moments of conflict when humanitarian disarmament treaties must be upheld. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines reported that last year 6,279 people worldwide were injured or killed by anti-personnel mines and related leftovers—the highest toll since 2020—and that civilians, including many children, bear the brunt.
Speaking at the conference, Gilles Charbonnier of the International Committee of the Red Cross warned that suspending or withdrawing from the treaty risks eroding life-saving protections and undermining decades of progress toward a mine-free world. He stressed that preparing for future conflicts should not involve abandoning treaties designed to protect civilians.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned in a video message that weakening the Ottawa Convention could trigger a dangerous race to the bottom. Izumi Nakamitsu, the UN’s under-secretary-general for disarmament, noted that while the security landscape has shifted, it does not justify abandoning the treaty, and she urged steps to deter other states from following suit.
The overarching question remains: can security concerns ever justify bypassing or suspending international humanitarian norms, or should treaties like the Ottawa Convention remain unwavering benchmarks for protecting civilians in war? Readers are invited to share their views on whether suspending obligations under such treaties is a valid wartime necessity or a dangerous precedent for global law.
