Joint Appeal to Uphold the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-personnel Landmines and the Convention on Cluster Munitions
(Published on ReliefWeb on 16 June 2025)
The global bans on anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions are two of the most significant humanitarian achievements of the post-Cold War era and have saved tens of thousands of lives. The victims of these weapons are predominantly civilians, their families and communities. The 1997 Anti-personnel Mine Ban Treaty and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions were adopted to end this legacy of civilian suffering. They have strengthened both human security and international security. Yet today, these hard-won norms are under threat.
Five States in the Baltic region have started the process of withdrawing from these treaties. This may lead others to do the same. These treaties were adopted to protect civilians in war. If they are eroded what other rules of war will be next? Perhaps the global bans on chemical or biological weapons? Or the Geneva Convention’s protections for prisoners of war?
We, the signatories, appeal to States Parties to these life-saving treaties and to responsible political leaders to take urgent action to safeguard these instruments of international humanitarian law from further backsliding. We call on the withdrawing States to reconsider and reverse their decisions.
The Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions are based on compelling evidence: that more than 80% of casualties from anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war are civilians and that the military benefits from using these weapons is far outweighed by their appalling humanitarian impacts, which endure long after conflicts have ended.
Cluster munitions, which can each release dozens or even hundreds of individual submunitions, are designed to saturate wide areas. They were prohibited because they are inherently prone to indiscriminate effects. Their high failure rates — ranging from 10% to 40% — result in contamination of land with unexploded bomblets for years and even decades. Anti-personnel landmines were prohibited because they are incapable of distinguishing between a civilian’s footstep and that of a soldier, because evidence showed that they had made little or no difference in halting enemy advances in any conflicts since the Second World War, and because they were rarely cleared after hostilities – leaving a devastating legacy of civilian casualties and contaminated lands that has yet to be fully addressed. No compelling military rationale has since emerged to warrant their return.
Military commanders who have used anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions, clearance experts who detect and destroy them, first responders and humanitarian workers who assist victims of these weapon, and advocates who monitor treaty compliance have long provided compelling evidence that the human cost of these weapons far outweighs any operational benefits. This understanding underpins the massive global support for the Mine Ban Treaty, with 165 States Parties, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, with 111 States Parties. In both cases, armed forces of the countries that have joined have identified viable alternative means and methods of warfare without having to resort to these indiscriminate weapons.
There is no new evidence available today that justifies reversing these decisions. The risk to civilians is as grave as ever. The weapons themselves have not changed—but our knowledge of their long-term harm and of alternatives and the international consensus on their unacceptability, have grown stronger. If anything, these weapons have become even less relevant than when they were first banned due to technological advances in modern warfare.
It is especially concerning that certain States are citing heightened security threats in northeastern Europe as justification for leaving these treaties or for not opposing these withdrawals. These are instruments of international humanitarian law, designed to apply in wartime — situations of great insecurity when civilians are most at risk. Abandoning them at such a time undermines the very purpose for which they were created. This sets a bad example for other States to follow, threatening the protection of civilians provided by these two treaties. It also tears at the fabric of international humanitarian law itself that has been developed over generations to limit the brutality of war. If we let long-standing protections for civilians in war unravel, we are moving towards “war without rules”.
The positive impact of these treaties on human security is undeniable. Civilian casualties have dropped significantly, thanks to non-use (including by many non-party States), concerted clearance efforts and risk education for local communities. Thousands of square kilometers of contaminated land have been cleared and returned to productive use so people can walk in their communities and plant crops without fear. More than 55 million stockpiled anti-personnel landmines and more than 1.4 million cluster munitions containing 179 million cluster submunitions have been destroyed.
Yet, this progress is fragile. Clearance efforts are already faltering in many countries due to reduced international aid funding. Renewed use of these weapons by any State would reverse decades of work and expand the scale of future clearance needs. It will result in a new generation of civilian victims and heightened insecurity for affected communities for generations to come.
We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The evidence is clear. The human suffering is real. These treaties work. Upholding them is not only a legal and moral obligation—it is a strategic imperative for all who seek to limit suffering in war.
We call on all States to reaffirm their commitments, to urge those withdrawing to reconsider, and to prevent any further erosion of the humanitarian norms we have built together.
1. Lloyd Axworthy Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada
2. Kjell Magne Bondevik Former Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Norway
3. Helen Clark Former Prime Minister of New Zealand (1999-2008) and former Administrator of the UN Development Program (2009-2017)
4. Carla Del Ponte Former Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
5. Flavio Del Ponte Former war surgeon, International Committee of the Red Cross
6. Giles Duley CEO Legacy of War Foundation and first global UN Advocate for People with Disabilities in Conflict and Peacebuilding Situations
7. Jan Egeland Former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Secretary-General of the Norwegian Refugee Council
8. Bjørn Tore Godal Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Defence, Norway
9. Thorbjørn Jagland Former Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Norway and former Secretary General of the Council of Europe
10. Channapha Khamvongsa Founder, Legacies of War
11. Bernard Kouchner Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, France and Founder of Médecins sans Frontières
12. Patrick Leahy US Senator from Vermont (1975-2023) and initiator of the US Landmine Export Moratorium Act & Leahy War Victims Fund
13. Robert Mood Lt. General (ret.), Norway and former NATO and UN military leader
14. David Pratt Former Minister of National Defence, Canada
15. Helena Ranta Helsinki University, former war crimes investigator in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo
16. Elisabeth Rehn Former Minister of Defence, Finland and former Special Representative of the UN Secretary General
17. Bruno Stagno-Ugarte Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Costa Rica and Chief Advocacy Officer, Human Rights Watch
18. Erkki Tuomioja Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Finland
19. Phil Twyford Former Minister for Disarmament, New Zealand
20. Knut Vollebæk Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway
21. Jody Williams Nobel Peace Laureate and Founding Chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative