States Parties 161 States Not Party 36
We closely monitor respect of the Mine Ban Treaty's prohibitions
States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty undertake never to use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer antipersonnel mines. The ICBL, through its Landmine Monitor initiative, closely monitors the respect of these prohibitions. Over 10 years after the adoption of the Mine Ban Treaty, only two states (not party to the treaty) and several non-state armed groups continue to use antipersonnel landmines. A dozen states not party to the treaty still produce antipersonnel landmines or have reserved the right to do so. Trade has come to a virtual halt.
States Parties must destroy their antipersonnel mines within four years
Stockpile destruction (Article 4) is the most effective form of preventive mine action: destroyed mines will never claim any victims! States should destroy their stockpiles as quickly as possible - there is no extension possible for the four-year deadline. Every state should be able to meet the deadline with appropriate political will, planning and, if needed, assistance.
Missing the deadline of this vital core obligation is a serious violation of the treaty. If a state misses the deadline, it must provide maximum transparency about the reasons for missing it, and it must have concrete plans - with a definitive new deadline - to complete destruction as soon as possible.
The “minimum number absolutely necessary” should be in the hundreds or thousands or less
The Mine Ban Treaty allows States Parties to keep or transfer antipersonnel mines for training and research in mine clearance (Article 3). The number of mines retained should "not exceed the minimum number absolutely necessary", which the ICBL believes should be in the hundreds or thousands or less, but not tens of thousands. In fact, we encourage States Parties to keep none at all, since training and research do not necessarily depend on using live mines. States retaining mines should declare the intended purposes and actual uses of these mines. States that retain antipersonnel mines and do not use any of these mines for permitted purposes abuse the exception permitted by Article 3.
We urge States to acknowledge that mines that function like antipersonnel mines are banned
The ICBL asks States Parties to reconfirm that according to the definitions in the treaty (Article 2), any mine equipped with a device that causes the mine to explode from an unintentional or innocent act of a person is considered to be an antipersonnel mine and therefore banned by the treaty. Several States Parties have done so, but a small handful does not share this view.
We urge states to clarify their views
The ICBL asks States Parties to come to a common understanding of what acts are and are not permitted under Article 1(c), under which each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party. In particular, we urge States Parties to clarify their views on the legality of joint operations with an armed force that may use antipersonnel mines, as well as on foreign stockpiling and transit of antipersonnel mines. These acts should be considered prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty.
