Ukraine‘s recent move to suspend its adherence to the Mine Ban Treaty, a landmark international agreement prohibiting antipersonnel mines, has raised meaningful concerns. The treaty, ratified by 166 countries including Ukraine, mandates the destruction of stockpiles, clearance of mined areas, and assistance to landmine victims. Antipersonnel mines are condemned for their indiscriminate nature and the devastating, long-term harm they inflict, disproportionately affecting civilians, especially children.
The Ukrainian government enacted a law to suspend the treaty’s operation with remarkable speed and without public consultation. This action was justified by citing Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which allows for treaty suspension due to a “fundamental change of circumstances.” Though, legal experts and commentaries on the Vienna Convention suggest that Article 62 is not applicable to armed conflict situations, and crucially, the Mine Ban Treaty itself is specifically designed to function during such conflicts.
Withdrawal from the mine Ban Treaty is permissible, but it requires a six-month notice period, during which a state engaged in armed conflict cannot withdraw until the conflict concludes. International law imposes obligations on states, and while Ukraine faces an existential threat from Russia, a nation known to use antipersonnel mines with disregard for international humanitarian law and civilian safety, this does not negate Ukraine’s treaty commitments. The Mine Ban Treaty explicitly prohibits reservations and does not permit states parties to suspend or halt their obligations, even during armed conflict.
The fundamental purpose of the Mine Ban Treaty is to alleviate the suffering caused by antipersonnel landmines, a goal that remains as critical today as when the treaty was established. It stands as a vital and effective multilateral instrument that demands continued respect and adherence in all circumstances.
