The Landmine Ban at a Crossroads: Strategic Retreats and Treaty Breaches

On April 1, 2025, Finland’s Prime Minister announced the country’s intention to withdraw from the international treaty banning anti-personnel land mines. Contrary to the date’s association with pranks, this declaration is no April Fool’s joke. Historically, wars have compelled states to suspend, derogate from, or even terminate treaty obligations. In many cases, the erosion of treaty commitments becomes visible first on the battlefield before formal withdrawals are announced. Violations of international treaties can occur deliberately, unintentionally, or as a last resort under the so-called "fog of war." 

Finland is not alone in reconsidering its commitment to the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, also known as the Ottawa Convention. Recently, several states, namely Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, have also indicated the beginning of a withdrawal process, citing growing national security concerns arising from Russia's actions and posture. However, a complete withdrawal is not instantaneous. In Finland’s case, the move must first be ratified by its national parliament, and the full exit process is expected to take approximately six months.

The Ottawa Convention, which came into force on March 1, 1999, prohibits the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. Importantly, the treaty focuses solely on anti-personnel mines and does not address anti-vehicle (anti-tank) mines, remote-controlled claymore-type mines, booby traps, or mixed mine systems. Over the decades, anti-personnel mines have caused disproportionate civilian harm, often persisting long after hostilities have ended. Since its adoption, the Convention has led to the destruction of over 40 million stockpiled mines and has contributed to a significant decline in their global use and production.

Under the treaty, signatories are obligated to destroy all stockpiled anti-personnel mines within four years of ratification, although a limited number may be retained for training purposes. The Convention has also fostered advances in mine clearance operations, significantly reduced landmine-related casualties, and bolstered assistance for survivors. It has further encouraged integrating mine action into broader national disability and rehabilitation frameworks, particularly in post-conflict states.

As of March 2025, 165 states have ratified or acceded to the Convention. However, several major powers, including the United States, China, and Russia, remain outside the treaty. These states have either historically deployed or continue to maintain operational landmine capabilities. In South Asia, both India and Pakistan are non-signatories, citing enduring regional security challenges. In contrast, Sri Lanka, which acceded to the Convention, declared in September 2021 that it had successfully destroyed its entire stockpile of anti-personnel mines.

India’s stance on the issue reflects a complex calculus. Although it voted in favor of a 1996 UN General Assembly resolution advocating for a global ban, it chose not to join the 1997 Ottawa Convention. Instead, India acceded to Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 1999, which regulates the use of landmines but does not impose a total ban. India is also a party to CCW Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War and currently maintains a self-imposed moratorium on the export and transfer of anti-personnel mines.

India has consistently justified its position by pointing to the persistent threat posed by hostile neighbors, particularly along the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan, where landmines remain in use. These devices, however, also pose a long-term danger to civilian populations in border areas. Some analysts argue that India’s landmines have limited tactical utility today, and their humanitarian cost is increasingly indefensible, urging India to reconsider its position and accede to the Ottawa Convention.

During the 1990s, the European Union often criticized India for refusing to join the mine-ban treaty, emphasizing the long-term humanitarian consequences of landmine use. At the time, Europe was relatively secure, benefiting from NATO protection and facing minimal external threats following the Soviet Union’s collapse. However, the geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically. Today, with Russia's invasion of Ukraine entering its third year, the threat perception among European states, particularly those sharing land borders with Russia, has heightened significantly.

Finland (1,340 km), Estonia (294 km), Latvia (284 km), Lithuania (297 km), and Poland (232 km) all share direct land boundaries with Russia. Their proximity to an increasingly aggressive neighbor and uncertainties surrounding the commitment of the United States, especially under a potential Trump 2.0 administration, have led these states to reevaluate their security postures. There is growing concern about NATO's future cohesion and the reliability of extended deterrence in a changing geopolitical climate.

In such a scenario, anti-personnel landmines are considered cost-effective, high-impact defensive tools. These states may be seeking to reinstate such systems as part of layered border defense strategies, especially if forced to fend for themselves in a worst-case scenario of weakened NATO support. Consequently, their initiation of the withdrawal process from the Ottawa Convention reflects a realistic appraisal of the difficulties in upholding treaty commitments during wartime conditions.

Notably, the evolving European security environment may also bring about a more nuanced understanding of India’s position. What was once perceived as intransigence or disregard for humanitarian norms may now appear, in hindsight, as a strategic necessity born of enduring regional threats.

References:

1. Korkman, A. (2025, April 1). Finland to withdraw from anti-personnel mine ban treaty. Space War. https://www.spacewar.com/reports/Finland_to_withdraw_from_anti-personne…

2. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (n.d.). Anti-personnel landmines convention. https://disarmament.unoda.org/anti-personnel-landmines-convention/

3. Singh, S. J., & Puangsuan, Y. M. (2015, March 19). It's time for India to join the mine ban treaty. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/its-time-for-india-to-join-the-m…