The Lasting Promise of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, also known as the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC), is a landmark achievement in humanitarian disarmament. Negotiated in 1997 through the Ottawa Process and entering into force in 1999, the Convention is the product of a unique partnership between governments, international organizations, civil society and landmine survivors, with the United Nations as a key convener. The Convention prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines, while obligating States Parties to clear contaminated land, destroy stockpiles and assist victims. With 166 States Parties as of April 2025, it remains one of the most widely supported disarmament treaties in history and a cornerstone of humanitarian law.

The impact of the Convention has been profound. More than 53.1 million stockpiled mines have been destroyed, millions of square metres of land have been made safe for agriculture and resettlement, and survivors have been given a voice in global policy. Most importantly, the Convention has established a global norm rejecting anti-personnel mines as indiscriminate weapons with no place in modern warfare.

I have worked in mine action across many regions, including Afghanistan, Cambodia, Colombia, Sudan and, most recently, Ukraine. The story is tragically familiar: communities struggling to recover, families displaced, children navigating dangerous paths to school, and civilians maimed or killed by explosives buried in the ground. Each mine cleared is not just a technical success but a restoration of dignity and hope. APMBC stopped the crisis from escalating; between 1997 and 2012, most stockpiled mines were destroyed, no new large-scale use occurred and the stigma against deploying them took hold. The Convention’s framework enabled this progress and inspired other landmark treaties, including the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions and the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Today, however, APMBC faces a sobering new reality. For the first time in its history, States Parties have begun to withdraw in the interest of national defence. In 2025, several countries in Eastern Europe made this decision, citing heightened security threats in the context of the ongoing war against Ukraine. Ukraine itself has signalled similar intentions, even as mine contamination on its territory reaches levels not seen in Europe since the Second World War. These are sovereign decisions, but they mark an unprecedented turning point. After decades of expansion and consolidation, the Convention must now prove its resilience under the strain of renewed geopolitical tension and unprovoked aggression. 

This moment of strain makes it even more urgent to recall the Convention’s central purpose: protecting civilians. It seeks to spare communities from weapons that do not distinguish between combatants and ordinary people. This protection is hardest to realize in active conflicts, where mines are laid along shifting frontlines and near civilian areas. Yet the obligation remains to prevent new use and to prepare the ground for recovery when the fighting ends.

For States facing invasion, the case for using mines as a deterrent can be compelling. That reality does not diminish the humanitarian cost, but it does underscore the intense pressure now testing the Convention and its limitations. When mines are deployed in response to armed invasion, it is difficult to fault desperate decisions made in defence of national sovereignty. It must also be acknowledged that many of the world’s most powerful militaries – including China, India, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, and the United States – have never joined the Convention. Even as APMBC creates a global stigma that deters use beyond its membership, its strength has always rested more on moral authority than universality.

At stake is not only the progress achieved under the Convention, but the humanitarian norm it represents: that civilians must be protected from weapons that kill indiscriminately. If that principle falters in one country, it can falter in others, as well.

What must not be forgotten is why the Convention was created in the first place. Anti-personnel mines are a direct assault on human rights. They kill and maim indiscriminately, often decades after fighting has ended. Survivors face lifelong physical, psychological and economic consequences. Mines deny people their freedom of movement, block humanitarian aid and sever communities from life’s essentials. It is no coincidence that victim assistance was made a core obligation under APMBC, a pioneering move in international law that placed survivors at the heart of disarmament.

Mine action is an essential enabler for sustainable development. Demining is not just about removing hazards; it makes recovery and growth possible. In Angola, cleared farmland has revitalized agriculture and trade. In Cambodia, families have expanded rice cultivation on previously contaminated paddies. In Ukraine, mine clearance is critical to restoring grain exports that feed the world and stabilize markets, with consequences that ripple across global food security and energy costs. By reducing poverty, strengthening health systems, enabling education and livelihoods, and fostering peace and justice, mine action contributes directly to the Sustainable Development Goals. It is a prerequisite for recovery and resilience, without which other investments cannot take root.

Despite the challenges of the current moment, the humanitarian compact of APMBC remains strong. Humanitarian organizations, national authorities and United Nations partners are clearing contaminated land, educating communities on risk and building national mine action systems. New technologies are also transforming the field. Drones, artificial intelligence, digital mapping and advanced mechanical systems are accelerating survey and clearance, while new generations of sensors are enhancing both effectiveness and safety for deminers. Survivors are increasingly shaping policy, ensuring that those who have lived through the consequences of mines have a voice in how they are addressed.

I have seen these partnerships in action. In the Kharkiv Oblast in Ukraine, mine action teams are racing to make farmland safe in a compensation programme funded by the government. In Sudan, local deminers cleared roads that allowed peacekeepers and humanitarian convoys to reach remote communities. In Afghanistan, thousands of men have found stable employment through mine clearance, enabling them to support their families, invest in the local economy and avoid radicalization. In Colombia, survivor networks help reintegrate former combatants and strengthen peace processes. In Angola, schools and hospitals now stand on previously mined land. In Mozambique, demined roads enabled millions of refugees to return home from neighbouring countries.

These are not abstract policy wins but lived realities made possible by the commitments enshrined in APMBC. As some States Parties reconsider their participation, the international community can respond with sustained diplomacy and support for practical mine action on the ground. Instead of isolating governments under pressure, efforts should aim to keep cooperation alive in ways that protect the core principles of the Convention and keep open the door to future recommitment.

The way forward calls for political courage and practical commitment. States Parties must meet their clearance and assistance obligations, not as a formality but as a lifeline to civilians still living under threat. Donors must sustain and expand their support, especially in emergencies where funding falls short. Countries outside the Convention need to be re-engaged, not just through moral appeals but through demonstration of the benefits of mine action for development and recovery. Innovation must accelerate in technology, but also in how we fund, partner and build local capacity. Only with bold, visible leadership from States Parties can APMBC continue to deliver on its promise.