Ottawa Convention 1997

The Ottawa Convention (1997) and the Cluster Munitions Convention are in the news as numerous European countries are withdrawing from them. Read here to understand the global strategic implication sof the move.

In a significant development, NATO members, Poland, Finland, and the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), have announced their withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention, citing heightened security threats from Russia amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

They argue that a potential ceasefire could allow Russia to re-arm, making anti-personnel mines strategically necessary for territorial defence.

What is the Ottawa Convention (1997)?

Official Name: Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.

It emerged from the “Ottawa Process,” a fast-track humanitarian disarmament initiative led by Canada, civil society groups, and international organizations after devastating civilian casualties in conflicts such as:

• Afghanistan
• Angola
• Cambodia
• Bosnia

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) played a pivotal role and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997.

Adoption & Entry into Force:

• Finalized: Oslo Diplomatic Conference, 18 September 1997
• Entered into force: 1 March 1999

Membership:

• 164 States Parties
• Major non-parties: US, Russia, India, China, Pakistan

Core Objectives

The Convention seeks to eliminate anti-personnel landmines due to their indiscriminate and long-term humanitarian consequences.

It mandates:

1. Prohibition of use, production, transfer, and stockpiling
2. Destruction of stockpiles within 4 years
3. Clearance of mined areas within 10 years
4. Victim assistance and rehabilitation
5. International cooperation and reporting obligations

Scope of the Ban

The treaty specifically prohibits anti-personnel landmines, which:

• Are designed to be detonated by proximity or contact with a person
• Often remain active long after hostilities
• Disproportionately harm civilians, including children

The Convention does not apply to:

• Anti-vehicle mines
• Improvised explosive devices (unless designed as anti-personnel mines)

What Are Anti-Personnel Landmines?

Landmines are concealed explosive devices triggered by pressure or proximity.

Anti-personnel mines:

• Target individuals (soldiers or civilians)
• Often remain active long after conflicts end
• Cause indiscriminate civilian casualties

Why Are Some NATO Members Withdrawing?

Security Context

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, frontline NATO states perceive:

• Increased territorial threat
• Strategic vulnerability
• Need for deterrence capabilities

They argue that anti-personnel mines serve as:

• Cost-effective defensive barriers
• Force multipliers
• Tools to delay or deter mechanized invasion

This reflects the tension between humanitarian disarmament and national security imperatives.

Geopolitical Re-Militarization of Europe

Europe is witnessing:

• Increased defence spending
• NATO expansion
• Military modernization

Humanitarian disarmament treaties, designed for a post-Cold War optimism era, are now being reassessed under renewed great-power rivalry.

2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions

Another key humanitarian arms treaty is the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

What Are Cluster Munitions?

Cluster munitions:

• Disperse multiple small bomblets over a wide area
• Often fail to detonate immediately
• Leave unexploded ordnance posing long-term civilian risk

Key Provisions

The Convention prohibits:

• Use
• Production
• Transfer
• Stockpiling

Membership:

• 112 State Parties
• 12 Signatories

Recently, Lithuania has also withdrawn from this treaty, citing regional security concerns.

Major Non-Signatories

Countries not party include:

• India
• United States
• Russia
• China
• Ukraine
• Israel

Reasons for non-signing:

• Military utility
• Strategic flexibility
• Security environment considerations

India’s Position

India is not a party to either treaty.

Rationale:

• Security concerns along contested borders
• Military necessity doctrine
• Reliance on mines for defensive purposes

However, India maintains:

• Commitment to international humanitarian law
• Responsible use doctrines
• Clearance of mines post-conflict

India’s stance reflects a broader approach prioritizing national security in a volatile regional environment.

Humanitarian vs Strategic Debate

The Russia-Ukraine war has revived debate on whether humanitarian disarmament regimes can withstand high-intensity interstate conflict.

Broader Implications

• Weakening of disarmament norms
• Erosion of humanitarian treaty regimes
• Security dilemma intensification in Eastern Europe
• Re-militarization of European security architecture

Implications for Global Arms Control

• Weakening of norm-based disarmament regimes
• Precedent for other withdrawals
• Shift from humanitarian security to hard deterrence logic
• Potential re-fragmentation of international law

It also raises questions about the resilience of other treaties, such as:

• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
• Chemical Weapons Convention
• Biological Weapons Convention

Conclusion

The withdrawal of NATO frontline states from humanitarian disarmament treaties highlights a recurring international dilemma:

When security threats intensify, states often prioritize strategic deterrence over humanitarian commitments.

The future of arms control regimes may increasingly depend on whether global powers can reconcile security imperatives with humanitarian obligations in an era of renewed geopolitical rivalry.