Joint operations, anti-vehicle mines with sensitive fuses and mines retained for training

English |

“ The ICBL has put a high priority on the need for States Parties to reach common understandings on interpretation and implementation of Articles 1, 2, and 3 at the First Review Conference. After five years of discussion on these issues, it is reasonable to expect States Parties to reach conclusions. The Mine Ban Treaty will be stronger if ambiguity is removed and State practice is consistent. Our energies can then be focused even more on implementation of other key aspects of the treaty”

ICBL statement at the 5MSP, Bangkok, September 2003

In Nairobi, States Parties should adopt the following conclusion on this issue:

1) States Parties engaging in military operations with other states or groups of states should not:

a. participate in planning for use of anti-personnel mines;

b. train others to use anti-personnel mines;

c. participate in operations wherein direct military benefit is known by the State Party to be derived from the use of anti-personnel mines;

d. agree to rules of engagement permitting the use of anti-personnel mines;

e. request others to use anti-personnel mines;

f.provide protection, maintenance, or transport for storage or use of anti-personnel mines.

2) Mines fitted with breakwires, tripwires, tilt rods and sensitive pressure fuzes meet the definition of “anti-personnel mine” in Article 2.1 of the Convention and are prohibited.

3) If a State Party chooses to retain anti-personnel mines in accordance with Article 3, they should be numbered in the hundreds or thousands, or less, and not in the tens of thousands.

What acts are or are not prohibited under Article 1?

What is an antipersonnel landmine ? See definitions.