Between November 25 and 29, a major event for the protection of civilians was held in Cambodia: the International Review Conference of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty. As delegates from 99 states and dozens of civil society organizations converged on the beautiful city of Siem Reap, the United States announced its intention to transfer antipersonnel mines to Ukraine.
The decision had the effect of a bolt from the blue. All the actors present at the conference were clearly aware of the seriousness of this American decision, which resulted in the potential use of antipersonnel mines by a State party to the Treaty: Ukraine. Everyone had the feeling of reaching a tipping point in respect for this Treaty, a true pillar of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which has indisputably proven its effectiveness in the protection of civilians, by dividing by ten the number victims of these weapons in 20 years.
An increase in victims of antipersonnel mines
A few days earlier, the report from the Antipersonnel Mine Observatory, reporting on the implementation of the Treaty, provided these chilling figures: during the year 2023, the annual number of mine victims increased by 22%, including 84% civilians, and 37% children. Last October, Lithuania decided to withdraw from the Oslo Treaty, which bans cluster bombs, banned because they are among the most harmful to civilians.
This withdrawal is a first, and Finland, currently in the middle of discussions on the possibility of leaving the Ottawa Treaty, could unfortunately take inspiration from it. The United States, again, has, since 2023, already crossed a red line by organizing the transfer of cluster munitions to Ukraine on several occasions.
Towards an erosion of standards
We cannot ignore the fact that these decisions come in a context where Russia, a non-party to these two treaties, uses cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines intensively in Ukraine.
While armed conflicts are increasing (120 conflicts in the world in 2024 according to the ICRC, a record), the imperative of national security is too often erected as a justification for all violations. We are witnessing the temptation to forget what had hitherto been a consensus: the disastrous and disproportionate consequences of antipersonnel mines and cluster bombs on civilians, widely documented for around thirty years, with vast contaminated territories becoming a danger for populations, decades after the fighting.
International humanitarian law (IHL), whose fundamental pillars, inherited from the atrocities of the Second World War, have structured relations between States for 70 years, is today under attack. The intensive use of explosive weapons targeting urban areas, attacks against hospitals and humanitarian workers, and obstacles to humanitarian aid seem to be becoming a macabre routine in Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine, and even Sudan. These practices are in flagrant contradiction with the principles of IHL, which requires taking all precautions to protect civilians during attacks.
Respect for international law
The choices that our political representatives make are decisive for the future of respect for the norms of international law. We urge them to unequivocally condemn any violation, by any actor, in all circumstances, and to ensure that those responsible are punished. The rules that govern armed conflicts and the commitments made in the Treaties must be respected and promoted by States and armed forces.
Put to the test in the current context, IHL remains the most effective lever we have to preserve a part of humanity, including at the heart of conflicts. We must not resign ourselves to its weakening. Civilian populations would be the first victims, as would the prospects for future generations of living in a peaceful world.
As a humanitarian organization committed to communities impacted by war, we have no choice but to make every effort to ensure that these standards are preserved and respected. This is what we did in Siem Reap. On the second day of the Conference, states were greeted by anti-personnel mine activists lined up in a row of silent protest – a notable moment, which sparked many reactions among delegates. Our objective: an unequivocal commitment on the part of the States Parties, and unconditional respect for the principles of the Treaty. The text adopted at the end of the conference reflects the success of our mobilization. Until next time.
