Practice Relating to the Prohibition of Certain Types of Landmines

Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 3(3) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of any mine “which is designed or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”. 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 3(3).
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 3(5) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of mines “which employ a mechanism or device specifically designed to detonate the munition by the presence of commonly available mine detectors as a result of their magnetic or other non-contact influence during normal use in detection operations”. 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 3(5).
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 3(6) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of a “self-deactivating mine equipped with an anti-handling device that is designed in such a manner that the anti-handling device is capable of functioning after the mine has ceased to be capable of functioning”. 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 3(6).
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 4 of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “It is prohibited to use anti-personnel mines which are not detectable, as specified in paragraph 2 of the Technical Annex.” 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 4.
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 6(2) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of remotely delivered anti-personnel mines which are not equipped with self-destruction and self-deactivation devices. 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 6(2).
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 6(3) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
It is prohibited to use remotely-delivered mines other than anti-personnel mines, unless, to the extent feasible, they are equipped with an effective self-destruction or self-neutralization mechanism and have a back-up self-deactivation feature, which is designed so that the mine will no longer function as a mine when the mine no longer serves the military purpose for which it was placed in position. 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 6(3).
Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines
Article 1 of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines provides:
1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances:
(a) To use anti-personnel mines;
(b) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;
(c) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in accordance with the provisions of this Convention. 
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Ottawa, 18 September 1997, Article 1.
Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines
Article 2 of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines contains the following definitions:
(1) “Anti-personnel mine” means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons. Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped.
(2) “Anti-handling device” means a device intended to protect a mine and which is part of, linked to, attached to or placed under the mine and which activates when an attempt is made to tamper with or otherwise intentionally disturb the mine. 
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Ottawa, 18 September 1997, Article 2.
Amendment to Article 1 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
In 2001, States parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons decided to amend Article 1 of the Convention, governing its scope. This amendment states:
1. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, including any situation described in paragraph 4 of Article I of Additional Protocol I to these Conventions.
2. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall also apply, in addition to situations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to situations referred to in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.
3. In case of armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply the prohibitions and restrictions of this Convention and its annexed Protocols. 
Amendment to Article 1 of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), Geneva, 21 December 2001.
N’Sele Ceasefire Agreement
The 1992 N’Sele Ceasefire Agreement between the Government of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front provides:
Article II
The cease-fire shall imply:
8. A ban on any mine-laying operations or the hindering of operations to remove the mines.  
N’Sele Ceasefire Agreement of 29th March, 1991 between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front, as amended in Gbadolite on 16 September 1991 and at Arusha on 12 July 1992, Article II(8), as annexed to the Arusha Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front, Arusha, 4 August 1993.
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides:
The United Nations force shall respect the rules prohibiting or restricting the use of certain weapons and methods of combat under the relevant instruments of international humanitarian law … The use of certain conventional weapons … such as anti-personnel mines … is prohibited. 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 6.2.
N’Djamena Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement
Article 2 of the 2004 N’Djamena Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement provides that each party shall “[s]top laying landmines”. 
Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement on the Conflict in Darfur, signed by the Government of Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, the Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement, the African Union and the Chadian Mediation, N’Djamena, 8 April 2004, Article 2.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
Parties to the Ottawa Convention 1997, including Australia, accept a prohibition on the possession or use of anti-personnel landmines as well as assistance, encouragement or inducement to any other person to possess or use these mines. Members of the ADF [Australian Defence Force] will not, however, be guilty of an offence merely by reason of taking part in joint operations with forces of an ally not bound by the Ottawa Convention which deploy landmines. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 4.24.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states:
Anti-personnel mines are prohibited because they indiscriminately hit combatants and non-combatants. This prohibition is absolute for States which have ratified the convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines [1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines]. It is qualified for States which are not parties to this convention. For these States, anti-personnel mines are prohibited except:
- if they are placed on a military objective or in its immediate proximity;
- if measures are taken to protect the civilian population (e.g. a guard). 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I, p. 15; see also Part I bis, pp. 2, 17 and 53.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states:
Anti-personnel mines
The treaty on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines, signed on 4 December 1997 in Ottawa [1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines], entered into force on 1 March 1999. This treaty provides for the total prohibition without exception of anti-personnel mines, including a prohibition on their use, production, stockpiling, and transfer; without a distinction between “classical” anti-personnel mines and those which are programmed to neutralize themselves.
States parties to this Convention are obliged to retrieve all anti-personnel mines whose presence on their territory is proven or suspected. They [must] also engage in destroying any stockpile [of mines] which they possess or keep within their jurisdiction or under their control. In terms of delay, they have 4 years for the destruction of the stockpile and 10 years for the clearing of mined areas. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, pp. 271–272, § 631
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states:
The possession or use of anti-personnel mines is prohibited by the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention signed in 1997 by over 100 states. Canada has already ratified the Convention. While many other nations may continue to possess and use anti-personnel land mines, the CF is bound not to do so. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-2, § 13.
The manual adds: “The use of an anti-personnel mine that is manually detonated (e.g., by land line or electronic signal from a remote or protected position) by a CF member is not prohibited.” The manual places certain restrictions on the use of “horizontal fragmentation weapons which propel fragments in a horizontal arc of less than 90 degrees”, including that they “may be used for a maximum period of 72 hours if they are located in the immediate proximity to the military unit that emplaced them, and the area is monitored by military personnel to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-2, § 19.
The manual also states:
It is prohibited to uses mines … that employ a mechanism or device specifically designed to detonate the munition by the presence of commonly available mine detectors as a result of their magnetic or other non-contact influence during normal use in detection operations. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-5, § 47.
The manual also states that “self-deactivating mines” are “lawful unless they are used with an anti-handling device that continues to function after the mine has stopped functioning”. It adds, however: “Under Canadian doctrine, anti-handling devices are used only with tank-mines.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-5, §§ 48 and 49.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides:
The use of land mines, other than anti-personnel mines, is lawful, but is subject to strict regulation … The use of all but manually detonated anti-personnel mines (e.g., Claymore mine that is manually detonated) by CF [Canadian Force] members is prohibited. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 3, §§ 8 and 11.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Restrictions on the use of weapons”:
1. The possession or use of anti-personnel land mines is prohibited by the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention signed in 1997 by over 100 states. Canada has already ratified the Convention. While many nations may continue to possess and use anti-personnel land mines, the CF [Canadian Forces] is bound not to do so.
2. An “anti-personnel mine” is a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons.
3. Any mine that inflicts injury or death when an innocent act is carried out by a non-combatant is included in the above definition of anti-personnel mine.
4. The use of an anti-personnel mine that is manually detonated (for example, by land line or electronic signal from a remote or protected position) by a CF member is not prohibited. Therefore, the use of an explosive device such as a “Claymore Mine” is not prohibited if it is manually detonated. Any anti-personnel mine that is designed to be exploded automatically by the “presence, proximity or contact of a person” cannot be lawfully used by the CF. The “Claymore Area Defence System” is not prohibited if it is command detonated. If horizontal fragmentation weapons which propel fragments in a horizontal arc of less than 90 degrees, such as the Claymore, are placed on or above the ground, they may be used for a maximum period of 72 hours if they are located in the immediate proximity to the military unit that emplaced them, and the area is monitored by military personnel to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 511.1–4.
The manual also states:
7. It is prohibited to use mines, booby traps or other devices that employ a mechanism or device specifically designed to detonate the munition by the presence of commonly available mine detectors as a result of their magnetic or other non-contact influence during normal use in detection operations.
8. A “self-deactivating mine” permanently stops functioning when a component (for example, battery) is exhausted. Self-deactivating mines are lawful unless they are used with an anti-handling device that continues to function after the mine has stopped functioning.
9. An “anti-handling device” is part of, linked to or under a mine and detonates when an attempt is made to tamper with the mine. An example of an anti-handling device is a hand grenade with its safety pin removed that is placed under a mine such that the grenade explodes when the mine is moved. Under Canadian doctrine, anti-handling devices are used only with anti-tank mines.  
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 523.7–9.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states:
8. The use of land mines, other than anti-personnel mines, is lawful, but is subject to strict regulation.
11. The use of all but manually detonated anti-personnel mines (e.g., Claymore mine that is manually detonated) by CF [Canadian Forces] members is prohibited. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 3, §§ 8 and 11.
Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) states that the use of weapons which “cause unnecessary and indiscriminate, extensive, lasting and serious damage to people and the environment” is prohibited. It adds: “The use as well as the production, possession and importation of cruel means of war such as anti-personnel mines is banned.” 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, pp. 49–50.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction):
The principle of limitation determines permitted means and prohibited means.
- What are the prohibited means and methods of warfare?
- All weapons which cause unnecessary suffering to individuals and excessive damage to populations and their goods,
For example: Anti-personnel mines, asphyxiating gases, chemical weapons, etc. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 15–16.
In Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides:
II.1.3. Anti-personnel landmines
The possession or use of anti-personnel landmines is prohibited by the Convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines signed in 1997.
“Anti-personnel mine” means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons.
Every mine which inflicts wounds or death when an inoffensive act is made by a non-combatant is comprised in the definition of anti-personnel mine above. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 52.
France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) includes anti-personnel mines in the list of weapons that “are totally prohibited by the law of armed conflict” because of their inhuman and indiscriminate character. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 6.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) includes anti-personnel mines in the list of weapons that “are totally prohibited by the law of armed conflict” because of their inhuman and indiscriminate character. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 54.
The manual notes that France is a party to the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines and summarizes the provisions of the Convention prohibiting the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines “in or by ratifying States”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 83–84.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
German servicemen or servicewomen are prohibited from using in particular the following means of combat in armed conflicts:
- anti-personnel mines;
 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 5.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) underlines the existence of “a wide international movement … with a view to bring about an absolute prohibition of the use of anti-personnel mines”. It states: “Israel has not joined the Convention, just as the Arab states have not. Nevertheless Israel has declared a moratorium on the manufacture and export of anti-personnel mines.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 13–14.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “There is a trend currently to outlaw anti-personnel mines due to the major damage caused accidentally to the civilian population.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 15.
The manual further states:
Israel and the Arab countries have not signed the Convention, although in 1994 Israel declared a moratorium (a voluntary cessation) on the manufacture and export of anti-personnel mines for a three-year period, and has extended it. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 15.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
0429. The weapons concerned here are those named in Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The protocol contains rules relating to mines, etc., which are always forbidden, and rules relating to mines, etc., which are not forbidden in themselves but which, in order to protect the civilian population, can only be used under certain conditions, or when fitted with certain technical devices.
0430. Definitions
0431. A “mine” means any piece of ammunition placed under, on or just above the ground or other surface, and designed to detonate or explode in the presence or proximity of, or in contact with, a person or vehicle.
0432. An “anti-personnel mine” is a mine designed mainly to explode in the presence or proximity of (or in contact with) a person. Its purpose is to place one or more persons hors de combat, to injure or to kill.
0433. A “remotely delivered mine” is a mine delivered by artillery, rockets, mortars or similar materiel, or dropped from an aircraft.
0437. A “tamper-proof device” means a device intended to protect a mine. It is triggered when an attempt is made to tamper with the mine.
0438. A “self-neutralizing mine” means a mine which detonates or switches itself off after a certain time. A mine with a self-destruct device detonates after a given time. A “self-deactivating mine” ceases to work after a given period of time because, for example, the battery is flat.
0439. Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons includes the following prohibitions, in Article 3:
“the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices designed to cause excessive injury or unnecessary suffering or which, by their nature, may cause such injury or suffering;
the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices fitted with an appliance specially designed to cause munitions to explode under the influence of a magnetic field (or something else) as a consequence of the presence of a normally available mine detector;
the use of self-deactivating mines, equipped with an anti-handling device, which are designed so that the anti-handling device can continue to function when the mine itself is deactivated.”
0440. Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980 prohibits the use of undetectable anti-personnel mines. Remotely laid anti-personnel mines should meet requirements for self-destruction and self-deactivation.
0441. In relation to anti-personnel mines, the most important convention for the Netherlands is the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention (also called the Ottawa Treaty). Because the Netherlands has ratified this Convention, the Dutch armed forces are no longer permitted to use anti-personnel mines which explode automatically in the presence or proximity of (or in contact with) a person.
The use of weapons which act horizontally and are operated by military personnel is, however, permitted. Such a horizontal-action weapon is activated by the operator, by means of a wire trigger. The trigger activates the control by a mechanism which the operator fires the weapon, but does not respond if someone inadvertently or deliberately moves it. Because these weapons are remotely operated, they fall within the definition of “other devices”.
0442. Anti-tank mines
Each remotely delivered anti-tank mine should, as far as possible, be fitted with a self-neutralizing device and a supplementary device for deactivation. Although the Conventions do not require self-neutralizing devices to be fitted to mines not delivered remotely, such as hand-laid mines, the Netherlands does fulfil this requirement. Besides, such mines should be detectable with currently available metal detectors. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0429–433 and 0437–0442.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
It is prohibited to use weapons causing unnecessary suffering or excessive injury, or that are indiscriminate. This means that … anti-personnel mines and booby traps … are forbidden. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1038.
In its chapter on peace operations, the manual states:
Rules to minimize collateral damage can also be found in the RoE [Rules of Engagement]. However broadly the RoE are drafted, each participating country is also bound by the international conventions which it has ratified. Thus the use of anti-personnel land mines may be permitted in the RoE, but the Dutch commander may not use them, because the prohibition on the use of anti-personnel mines applies to the Netherlands (the Netherlands is bound by the Ottawa Convention of 18 September 1997 on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and their Destruction). Because the national scope of RoE is at least as important to the military as the international rules, it will often happen that each country participating in a peace operation issues its own RoE, often more restrictive than the “international” RoE. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1219.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “anti-personnel mines” are prohibited weapons. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 31.b.(2).(f).
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “anti-personnel mines” are prohibited weapons. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 32(b)(2)(f), p. 248.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) prohibits the use of weapons that are by nature indiscriminate or which cause unnecessary suffering. It refers to the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 6(h).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
The following shall be prohibited to use in the course of combat operations:
- mines, booby-traps or other devices specially designed to detonate the munition by the presence of mine detectors as a result of their magnetic or other non-contact influence during normal use in detection operations;
- any self-deactivating mines equipped with an anti-handling device that is capable of functioning after the mine has ceased to be capable of functioning;
- anti-personnel mines which are not detectable by commonly available mine detectors;
- remotely-delivered mines that do not meet the technical requirements fixed in a proper international treaty. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 9.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “It is prohibited to … [u]se anti-personnel landmines.” 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 44; see also p. 19.
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states:
Prohibited Weapons. The following weapons have been prohibited:
(5) Anti-personnel (AP) Mines. “Ottawa Convention”, Convention on the prohibition of AP mines, protocol accepted in 1997. Countries that ratified this Convention, including South Africa, agreed to totally ban the manufacturing, stockpiling and use of AP mines. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 56(f)(i); see also § 56(f)(iv) (on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996), referring to the use of mines, states:
Independent of the type of target, its location, the kind of military operation, the given mission or any other circumstances, it is prohibited to use this type of weapon … wherever its location is indiscriminate … wherever it cannot be guided towards a specific military target and wherever there is reason to believe that it will cause disproportionate collateral damage. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, § 3.2.a.(3).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that there is an absolute prohibition on the use of certain weapons, including “anti-personnel mines”. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 3.2.b.
The manual further states: “All ‘feasible precautions’ must be taken to protect civilians from the effects of mines … The Ottawa Treaty of 1997 establishes a total ban on anti-personnel mines.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.4.c.(2); see also § 3.2.b.(4).
The manual also states:
Regardless of the type of target to be attacked, the place in which it is located, the type of military operation, the assigned mission or any other circumstance, the use of this type of weapon is prohibited … when their placement is indiscriminate … [or] which employs a method or means of delivery which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or which may be expected to cause excessive collateral damage. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 3.2.c.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states:
Rule 8
I remain fair:
- I shall deploy neither anti-personnel mines, poison nor booby traps[.] 
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organisation of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Rule 8.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
16.1 Prohibited means of warfare
228 Prohibited are:
2 anti-personnel mines and booby-traps;*
(* = Convention not yet ratified by all States)
229 The production, stockpiling, import, export, transit and use of such means of combat are notably prohibited.
16.2 Means of warfare permitted under conditions
231 These include:
1 anti-tank mines: the details are regulated by the corresponding convention;
2 sea mines (not available in Switzerland)[.]  
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, §§ 228(2), 229 and 231.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that the following means of warfare are prohibited:
- mines designed to detonate by the emanation of a mine detector or other non-contact influence during their detection (search);
- any self-deactivating mines equipped with an anti-handling device that is designed in such a manner that the anti-handling device is capable of functioning after the mine has ceased to be capable of functioning. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.3.3.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
6.13. Parties to the Ottawa Convention 1997, including the United Kingdom, accept a prohibition on the possession or use of antipersonnel landmines as well as assistance, encouragement or inducement to any other person to possess or use these mines. Members of the United Kingdom armed forces will not, however, be guilty of an offence merely by reason of taking part in joint operations with forces of an ally not bound by the Ottawa Convention which deploy landmines.
Anti-vehicle landmines
6.14. The use of antivehicle landmines is permitted so long as:
a. they are not designed to be detonated by mine detectors; and
b. any antihandling device is deactivated when the mine deactivates; and
c. they are either -
(1) cleared before the area where they are laid is abandoned, or
(2) handed over to another state that assumes the responsibilities laid down in this paragraph;
In the case of remotely delivered antivehicle mines, they must be selfdeactivating and their location must be recorded.
Definitions
6.14.1. The mines referred to in this paragraph are those used on land or laid to interdict beaches, waterway crossings and river crossings. This paragraph does not apply to anti-ship mines used at sea or in inland waterways. “Mine” means “a munition placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area and designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person or vehicle.” “Remotely-delivered mine” means a mine “not directly emplaced but delivered by artillery, missile, rocket, mortar or similar means, or dropped from an aircraft”. Mines laid from a land-based system from less than 500 metres are not considered remotely delivered. Anti-vehicle mines equipped with anti-handling devices are not considered to be anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped.
Self-deactivation
6.14.4. It is prohibited to use remotely delivered anti-vehicle mines “unless, to the extent feasible, they are equipped with an effective self-destruction or self-neutralization mechanism and have a back-up self-deactivation feature, which is designed so that the mine will no longer function as a mine when the mine no longer serves the military purpose for which it was placed in position.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 6.13–6.14.1 and 6.14.4.
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual prohibits the use of anti-personnel landmines. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.28.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states:
The 1997 Ottawa Convention imposes a ban on the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel land mines (APLs), which are designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure, or kill one or more persons. … The United States is not a party to the Ottawa Convention, however, many of its allies and coalition partners are, and this may, depending on the circumstances at the time, impact operational planning regarding shipment, resupply, and placement of landmines.
The United States is a party to Amended Protocol II to the Conventional Weapons Convention. This Protocol does not ban APLs, but imposes requirements on State parties regarding use, maintenance, and removal of mines and minefields. Overall, U.S. policy on landmine use recognizes that both APLs and AVLs [antitank/vehicle landmines] are necessary and effective weapons when properly employed, and that the primary danger of incidental and or indiscriminate injury to noncombatants and civilians from landmines is a factor of whether or not a particular mine (whether APL or AVL) is “persistent” or “nonpersistent” (i.e., designed to either automatically de-arm or self-destruct or capable of being controlled). To that end, it is U.S. policy to:
1. Continue to develop nonpersistent APLs and AVLs that meet or exceed international standards for self-destruction and self-deactivation.
2. Remove nondetectable mines of any type (APL and AVL) in its arsenal.
3. Stockpile persistent APLs only for use by the United States in fulfillment of treaty obligations to the Republic of Korea.
4. Employ persistent AVLs outside the Republic of Korea only when authorized by the president, and only until 2010. After 2010, the United States will not employ persistent landmines.
5. Begin the destruction of those persistent landmines that are not needed for the protection of Korea. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 9.3.
Albania
Albania’s Anti-Personnel Mines Decision (2000) provides:
1. In the Republic of Albania the use of any kind of antipersonnel mine is prohibited.
2. In the Republic of Albania the production by State or private subjects of any kind of antipersonnel mine is prohibited.
3. The sale and export of antipersonnel mines is prohibited.
4. The Ministry of Defence will retrieve from the Armed Forces all types of antipersonnel mines in its stock. 
Albania, Anti-Personnel Mines Decision, 2000, §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Albania
Albania’s Anti-Personnel Mines (Ban) Convention Law (2006) provides:
The physical and juridical bodies, national and international, are prohibited in all cases to:
a) develop, produce, buy, store, possess antipersonnel mines or transfer them, directly or indirectly, to other bodies;
b) use antipersonnel mines;
c) help, encourage or force, in any way, other bodies to participate in any activity prohibited for a state signatory to the [1997 Ottawa] Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines];
d) transfer to or receive antipersonnel mines from States not party to the [1997 Ottawa] Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines]. 
Albania, Anti-Personnel Mines (Ban) Convention Law, 2006, § 8.1.
[emphasis in original]
Andorra
Andorra’s Decree on Arms (1989) provides:
The manufacture, importation, circulation, possession, use, buying and selling and propaganda of the following weapons is forbidden:
1st Weapons of war.
Weapons, vehicles, apparatus and materials of any kind and their fundamental pieces and ammunition conceived or destined for warfare or for exclusive military use will be considered to be weapons of war. Weapons that can shoot bursts of fire will always be considered to be weapons of war. 
Andorra, Decree on Arms, 1989, Chapter 1, Section II, Article 2.
Australia
Australia’s Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act (1998) provides:
A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person places an anti-personnel mine under, on or near the ground or other surface area; or
(b) the person is knowingly in the possession of an anti-personnel mine; or
(c) the person develops, produces or otherwise acquires an anti-personnel mine; or
(d) the person stockpiles anti-personnel mines; or
(e) the person physically moves an anti-personnel mine; or
(f) the person transfers ownership or control of an anti-personnel mine, whether directly or indirectly, to another person. 
Australia, Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act, 1998, § 7.1.
Australia
The Decision-Making Principles Governing the Retention of Anti-Personnel Mines by the Australian Defence Forces (ADF), made by Australia’s Minister for Defence on 6 February 2006 under authority of subsection 8(3) of the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act (1998), states:
Pursuant to Australia’s obligations as a State Party to [the Ottawa Convention] … the following decision making principles would apply when determining whether anti-personnel mines may be used by the ADF:
The retention of anti-personnel mines within the ADF is to be limited to:
Maintaining a demining and countermine capability;
Maintaining a capability to demolish anti-personnel mines as part of demining, countermine, Explosive Ordnance Demolition (EOD) or Demolition of Malfunctioned Explosive Ordnance (DMEO) capabilities;
Demonstrating anti-personnel mines’ effects as part of mine awareness and countermine training; and
Research into anti-personnel mines’ effects on in-service and trial equipment.
Any Australian Defence Force, Force Element participating in a coalition operation is not to engage in any activity prohibited by the Ottawa Convention and the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act 1998 and the Declaration of Understanding deposited with Australia’s instrument of ratification to the Convention, unless Australia has withdrawn from the Ottawa Convention and the relevant domestic legislation has been repealed. Mere participation by Australian forces or personnel in a coalition operation involving partners not party to the Ottawa Convention would not constitute a violation by those forces and personnel. 
Australia, Decision-Making Principles Governing the Retention of Anti-Personnel Mines by the Australian Defence Forces (ADF), Minister for Defence, 6 February 2006.
Austria
Austria’s Anti-Personnel Mines Law (1997) provides: “The production, acquisition, sale, procurement, import, export, transit, use and possession of anti-personnel mines as well as of anti-detection mechanisms shall be prohibited.” 
Austria, Anti-Personnel Mines Law, 1997, § 2.1.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law on Arms and Ammunition (1933), as amended to 2006, provides: “[The following] arms shall be considered as prohibited: antipersonnel landmines … or similar devices.” 
Belgium, Law on Arms and Ammunition, 1933, as amended to 2006, Article 3(1).
The Law further provides:
3. … The use, stockpiling, acquisition and transfer of anti-personnel landmines … or similar devices by the State or public administrations is prohibited.
4. The foregoing prohibition does not apply to the use, stockpiling, sale, acquisition and transfer of such weapons for the purpose of contributing to the training and knowledge maintenance of specialists and military officers taking part in operations aimed at risk minimization in mined areas, demining, or effective destruction of the said weapons.
5. The State or public administrations are required to destroy the existing stockpiles of antipersonnel landmines … or similar devices within three years. 
Belgium, Law on Arms and Ammunition, 1933, as amended on 18 May 2006, Article 22(3), (4) and (5).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law Regulating Economic and Individual Activities with Weapons (2006) provides:
For the purposes of the present law and its implementing decrees, “antipersonnel landmines and booby-traps or similar devices” are considered as … any devices placed on, under or near a surface area, and designed or adapted to be exploded or detonated by the mere presence, proximity or contact of a person, whether or not equipped with an anti-handling device intended to protect the mine and which is part of, linked to, attached to or placed under the mine and that activate when an attempt is made to tamper with or otherwise intentionally disturb the mine. 
Belgium, Law Regulating Economic and Individual Activities with Weapons, 2006, Article 2(3).
The Law further provides: “[The following] arms shall be considered as prohibited: antipersonnel landmines … or similar devices.” 
Belgium, Law Regulating Economic and Individual Activities with Weapons, 2006, Article 3(1)(1).
Brazil
Brazil’s Anti-Personnel Mines Act (2001) provides: “It is prohibited the use, development, manufacturing, marketing, import, export, acquisition, stockpile, retention or transfer, directly or indirectly, of anti-personnel mines on national territory.” 
Brazil, Anti-Personnel Mines Act, 2001, Article 1.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Anti-Personnel Mines Decree (2001) provides:
The development, manufacture, production, acquisition, stockpiling, possession, offer, cession, import, export, transfer, and use of anti-personnel mines shall be prohibited in the territory of Burkina Faso. 
Burkina Faso, Anti-Personnel Mines Decree, 2001, § 1.
Burundi
Burundi’s Anti-Personnel Mines Law (2008) states:
Article 1
The present law aims at eliminating the anti-personnel mines in the Republic of Burundi in accordance with the 1997 [Ottawa] Convention … on Anti-Personnel Mines ……
Article 3
The development, manufacture, production, acquisition, stockpiling, conservation, offer, disposal, import, export, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines are prohibited.
The same applies to the detached pieces and assembly pieces of anti-personnel mines, even if only partially manufactured, if it is clear that they may not be used for civilian purposes.
It is also prohibited to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any such activities.
Article 13
The relevant services of the ministries in charge of national defence and public security shall ensure:
- the destruction, as soon as possible, of anti-personnel mines stockpiled by State services or delivered for destruction in accordance with the precedent article. 
Burundi, Anti-Personnel Mines Law, 2008, Articles 1, 3 and 13.
The Law also states:
For the purposes of this law, it is understood by:
1. “anti-personnel mine”, a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons;
Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped.
2. “mine”, a munition designed to be placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area and to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person or a vehicle;
3. “anti-handling device”, a device intended to protect a mine and which is part of, linked to, attached to or placed under the mine and which activates when an attempt is made to tamper with or otherwise intentionally disturb the mine;
4. “transfer”, in addition to the physical movement of anti-personnel mines into or from national territory, the transfer of title to and control over the mines, but does not involve the transfer of territory containing emplaced anti-personnel mines. 
Burundi, Anti-Personnel Mines Law, 2008, Article 2.
Cambodia
Cambodia’s Law Banning Anti-Personnel Mines (1999) provides:
1. The purpose of this law is to prohibit all anti-personnel landmines including the production, trading, exporting and importing of all types of anti-personnel mines.
2. The anti-personnel mines are all mines that when activated by a person, will detonate or explode, and are designed to cause injury, disability or death. Mines are ammunition which are placed on, near or under the ground, on other surface areas and are designed to detonate when activated by human, animal, vehicle, machinery or equipment, either by direct contact or remotely.
3. Civilians and government officials, including all armed carriers, especially the Royal Armed Forces, the Military Police and Police, shall be banned from anti-personnel mines, in all circumstances, except in cases when they have authorization from the Royal Government for mine clearance training. 
Cambodia, Law Banning Anti-Personnel Mines, 1999, Articles 1, 2 and 3.
Canada
Canada’s Anti-Personnel Mines Act (1997) provides:
(1) No person shall
(a) place an anti-personnel mine under, on or near the ground or other surface area with the intent to cause the explosion of the anti-personnel mine by the presence, proximity or contact of a person; or
(b) develop, produce or otherwise acquire, possess or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, an anti-personnel mine, or stockpile anti-personnel mines.
Export and import
(2) Except as authorized under the Export and Import Permits Act, no person shall export or import an anti-personnel mine. 
Canada, Anti-Personnel Mines Act, 1997, Article 6.
Chad
Chad’s Law on Anti-Personnel Mines (2006) states:
The development, manufacture, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, offer, possession, import, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines are prohibited.
The same applies to the detached pieces and assembly pieces of anti-personnel mines, even if only partially manufactured, if it is clear that they may not be used for civilian purposes. 
Chad, Law on Anti-Personnel Mines, 2006, Article 3; see also Article 10.
The Law also states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3, State authorities are authorized to import and retain a limited number of anti-personnel mines for the training of techniques to detect, remove and destroy mines. The stockpile of anti-personnel mines to be retained for these purposes must not exceed the minimum necessary [for these purposes]. 
Chad, Law on Anti-Personnel Mines, 2006, Article 4.
Colombia
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), as amended in 2002, states:
Any person who uses, produces, commercializes, retains and stockpiles, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines or vectors specifically designed for launching or dispersing anti-personnel mines, shall be punished with ten (10) to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment, a fine between five hundred (500) and a thousand (1,000) minimum monthly salaries, and a five to ten year ban from holding public office. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, as amended in 2002, Article 367-A.
Colombia
Colombia’s Law Implementing the Ottawa Convention (2002) states:
In accordance with the Ottawa Convention, the State of Colombia pledges to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines within the period set forth by Articles 4 and 5 of this Convention.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid and as an exception to Article 2 of the present law [which adds a provision to the Penal Code that penalizes the use, production, commercialization and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines], the Ministry of National Defence is authorized to:
Retain the anti-personnel mines which it may have stockpiled and which it may have been using on the first of March 2001 for the protection of military bases and of the energy and communication infrastructure. These anti-personnel mines must be properly marked and the protection of the civilian population must be guaranteed within the time period set forth by the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction”.
Transfer the anti-personnel mines in accordance with the destruction plan and for this purpose only.
Retain, stockpile and transfer a number of anti-personnel mines for the development of mine detection, mine clearance, or mine destruction techniques and for training in these techniques. This number of anti-personnel mines must not exceed a thousand (1,000) mines. 
Colombia, Law Implementing the Ottawa Convention, 2002, Article 4.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica’s Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (2002) provides:
It is prohibited to:
a) Employ or promote the use of mines.
b) Develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, import, export, possess, transfer, trade or decant, directly or indirectly, mines, anti-handling devices, parts or raw material for manufacturing these.
c) Incite, assist, encourage or induce, in one way or another, anyone to participate, directly or indirectly in an activity prohibited to be carried out on national territory or outside it, as stipulated in the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer or Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction and domestic legislation on the subject. 
Costa Rica, Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, 2002, Article 3.
Czech Republic
Czech Republic’s Act on Anti-Personnel Mines (1999) provides:
(1) The ownership, possession and use of all types of antipersonnel mines referred to in the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (hereinafter referred to as “antipersonnel mines”) or their components are hereby prohibited, unless provided otherwise by this Act.
(2) The development, production, transfer, storage or stockpiling of antipersonnel mines or their components are hereby prohibited.
(3) The exercise and transfer of patent rights for the production of antipersonnel mines or their components and patent rights for technologies designed for the production of antipersonnel mines or their components are hereby prohibited. 
Czech Republic, Act on Anti-Personnel Mines, 1999, § 1.
Denmark
Denmark has passed national legislation enacting comprehensive prohibitions on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. 
Denmark, Executive Order on Weapons and Ammunition, 1995.
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Law Implementing the Ottawa Convention (2006) states:
The development, manufacture, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, offer, possession, import, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines are prohibited except under strictly limited conditions and in strictly limited cases. The same applies to the detached pieces of anti-personnel mines. 
Djibouti, Law Implementing the Ottawa Convention, 2006, Article 2.
The Law also provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions in Article 1 of the present law, Djibouti’s armed forces are allowed to acquire, possess, retain or transfer anti-personnel mines in order to develop techniques for the detection, removal or destruction of mines, and for the training of such techniques. [The number of such mines] must not exceed the absolute minimum necessary for the aforementioned purposes. 
Djibouti, Law Implementing the Ottawa Convention, 2006, Article 3.
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), as amended to 2004, states:
Any person who uses, develops, produces, otherwise acquires, stockpiles, retains or transfers to anyone one or more anti-personnel mines shall be sanctioned with five to ten years’ imprisonment.
Any person who assists or induces anyone to engage in any activity prohibited above shall be sanctioned with two to four years’ imprisonment.
Notwithstanding the general obligations under previous provisions, the Armed Forces shall be authorized to retain or transfer a minimum number of anti-personnel mines for the development of and training in mine detection, mine clearance, or mine destruction techniques.
The transfer of anti-personnel mines for the purpose of destruction is permitted. The procedure for such transfer shall be ruled by the Regulations to the Law on Control and Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Similar Items.
“Anti-personnel mine” means an explosive artifact designed to be placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area and to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons.
The interpretation of this article shall be done in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997. 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, as amended to 2004, Article 346-C.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) provides:
Whoever uses, or orders to be used, against the enemy any means or method of combat expressly forbidden by … international conventions to which Ethiopia is a party,
is punishable with simple imprisonment for not less than three months; or, if the crime is grave, with rigorous imprisonment from five years to twenty-five years; or, in the gravest cases, with life imprisonment or death. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, § 276.
In 2004, Ethiopia ratified the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines. 
Ethiopia, Proclamation on the Ratification of the Ottawa Convention, 2004, § 2.
PART 1 – PRELIMINARY
Interpretation
2. In this Decree unless the context otherwise requires -
Terms that are not defined in the Decree are accorded their Convention meaning.
PART 4 – DESTRUCTION OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES
Delivery or notification of Anti-Personnel Mines
19. – (1) Any person who knowingly possesses an anti-personnel mine otherwise than in accordance with section 26, must, without delay, deliver it or notify the Republic of Fiji Military Forces and make arrangements for the anti-personnel mines collection and destruction.
(2) If an anti-personnel mine is delivered to a member of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, or a police officer, in accordance to section 19(1), the member or the officer, as the case may be, must ensure the destruction or permanent deactivation of the mine.
Destruction of Anti-Personnel Mines
20. – (1) Subject to section 22, the Minister shall ensure the destruction of all -
Permission to retain or transfer
22. The Minister may, in writing, grant permission for a specified number of anti-personnel mines to be in the custody of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces -
PART 5 – PROHIBITIONS AND OFFENCES
Prohibited conduct
23. – (1) Subject to section 22 [on when permission may be granted for a specified number of anti-personnel mines to be retained or transferred by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces], no person shall -
(2) Subject to section 26, no person shall assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in conduct referred to in subsection (1) above.
26. Section 23 does not apply to-
France
France’s Anti-Personnel Mines Law (1998) provides: “The development, manufacture, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, sale, decant, import, export, transfer and use of antipersonnel mines are prohibited.” 
France, Anti-Personnel Mines Law, 1998, Article 2.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004) states: “The development, manufacture, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, offer, possession, import, export, transfer, and use of antipersonnel mines are prohibited.” 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, Article L. 2343-2.
Germany
Germany’s Law on Anti-Personnel Mines (1998) provides:
(1) It is forbidden to—
1. use, develop, produce or trade in anti-personnel mines, to acquire them from or transfer them to another person, to import or export them, to transport them through or otherwise bring them into or out of federal territory, or otherwise to exercise actual control over them, in particular to convey, stockpile or retain them;
2. induce another person to commit an act specified in subparagraph 1; or
3. encourage an act specified in subparagraph 1.
(2) The definition of anti-personnel mines in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of December 3, 1997 shall apply.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to acts permitted under the provisions of the Convention referred to in paragraph (2). 
Germany, Law on Anti-Personnel Mines, 1998, Article 18a.
Germany
Germany’s Law on the Control of War Weapons (1990), as amended in 2009, states:
1) It is forbidden to
1. use, develop, produce or trade in anti-personnel mines … , to acquire them from or transfer them to another person, to import or export them, to transport them through or otherwise bring them into or out of federal territory, or otherwise to exercise actual control over them, particularly to transport, store or retain them,
2. induce another person to commit an act specified in item 1 above, or
3. encourage an act specified in item 1 above.
(2) For the definition of anti-personnel mines, Article 2 of the [1997] Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Their Destruction of 3 December 1997 shall apply. …
(3) Paragraph (1) does not apply to acts which are permitted under the provisions of the … [Convention] listed in paragraph 2. 
Germany, Law on the Control of War Weapons, 1990, as amended in 2009, § 18a.
Guatemala
Guatemala’s Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (1997) provides:
The production, sale, purchase, import, export, transit, use, installation, placement or possession of anti-personnel mines and anti-detector devices or parts of such devices is prohibited.
It is also forbidden to develop, produce, manufacture or marketing abroad landmines, anti-detector devices or parts of such devices. 
Guatemala, Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, 1997, Article 3.
Honduras
Honduras’s Anti-Personnel Mines Law (2000) provides:
It is prohibited the production, development, acquisition, sale, purchase, import, export, transfer, use, installation, placement, transit or possession of anti-personnel mines and anti-detector devices or parts of such devices. 
Honduras, Anti-Personnel Mines Law, 2000, Article 3.
Hungary
Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, provides:
The following shall be construed as weapons prohibited by international treaty:
b) the following weapons listed in the protocols to the [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] …
2. mines, remotely-delivered mines, anti-personnel mines, booby-traps and other devices specified in Points 1–5 of Article 2 of the Amended Protocol II …
d) anti-personnel mines specified in Point 1 of Article 2 of the convention signed at Oslo on 18 September 1997 on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 160/A(3).
Ireland
Ireland’s Explosives (Landmine) Order (1996) provides:
(1) No person shall manufacture, keep, import into the State, convey or sell any land mine.
(2) In this Article "land mine" means any munition designed to be placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area and designed to be detonated or exploded by the presence or proximity of, or contact with, a person or vehicle. 
Ireland, Explosives (Landmine) Order, 1996, Article 3.
Ireland
Ireland’s Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act (2008) states that “‘anti-personnel mine’ means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that is capable of incapacitating, injuring or killing one or more persons”. 
Ireland, Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act, 2008, § 2.
The Act further states:
9. (1) Subject to section 10, a person who
(a) uses,
(b) develops or produces,
(c) acquires
(d) possesses or retains, or
(e) transfers to any person:
an anti-personnel mine is guilty of an offence.
(2) Subject to section 10, a person who assists, encourages or induces a person to commit an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to an act committed outside the State if the act—
(a) is committed on board an Irish ship,
(b) is committed on an aircraft registered in the State, or
(c) is committed by a member of the Defence Forces.
10. (1) Section 9 does not apply to—
(b) the possession, retention or transfer of an anti-personnel mine—
(i) by a member of the Defence Forces in the course of his or her duties for the purpose of—
(I) rendering that anti-personnel mine harmless, or
(II) the future destruction of that anti-personnel mine. 
Ireland, Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act, 2008, §§ 9 and 10(1)(b)(i) and (ii).
Italy
Italy’s Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (1997) provides:
1. It is forbidden to use, for whatever purpose, all types of anti-personnel mines, with the exception of the quantity provided for by Article 5, Paragraph 1, and for the exclusive use in demining operations training [and the development of new mines for their destruction under article 5 of Law No.374 of 29 October 1997, under the control of responsible commands, who may transfer them elsewhere when necessary for their custody].
2. It is forbidden to pursue technological research, to manufacture, sell, transfer for whatever purpose, export, import, stockpile anti-personnel mines of all types or composition, or their components.
3. It is forbidden to use and transfer, for whatever purpose, patent rights for the manufacture of antipersonnel mines or their components, in Italy and abroad, directly or indirectly, and to use and transfer, for whatever purpose, technologies suitable to manufacture antipersonnel mines and their components. 
Italy, Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, 1997, Article 1.
Japan
Japan’s Law Prohibiting Anti-Personnel Landmines (1998) provides:
1. The purpose of this Law is to take measures such as prohibiting the production of anti-personnel landmines, regulating, etc., the possession of anti-personnel landmines in order to ensure the appropriate implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.
2. In this Law, “Anti-Personnel Landmine” means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person.
3. No person shall produce Anti-Personnel Landmines.
4. Except for such cases falling under any one of the following items, no person shall possess Anti-Personnel Landmines:
1) Any person who has obtained permission under Clause 1 of the following Article (hereinafter, referred to as “Permitted Possessor”) possesses Anti-Personnel Landmines related to the permission under such Clause (in case any change of matters related to the permission of the possession of Anti-Personnel Landmines is permitted under Clause 1 of Article 8, such changed permission shall apply);
2) Any person who has obtained approval of import of Anti-Personnel Landmines under Clause 1 of Article 10 (hereinafter, referred to as the “Approved Importer”) possesses Anti-Personnel Landmines during the period from such import of Anti-Personnel Landmines to transfer of Anti-Personnel Landmines to the Permitted Possessor;
3) Any person who shall destruct Anti-Personnel Landmines or transfer Anti-Personnel Landmines to a new Permitted Possessor under Clause 1 of Article 11, possesses Anti-Personnel Landmines until such destruction or transfer of them;
4) Any person who is commissioned to transport Anti-Personnel Landmines by a person who falls under one of the three preceding items possesses Anti-Personnel Landmines to transport; and
5) In case any person who is employed by a person who falls under one of the preceding items possesses Anti-Personnel Landmines for a duty. 
Japan, Law Prohibiting Anti-Personnel Landmines, 1998, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Jordan
Jordan’s Law on Explosive Material (1953) provides:
No person shall transport, import, manufacture, purchase or sell any explosive, except where such person is in possession of a license issued in due form by the licensing authority (the Minister of Defence or his duly authorized representative). 
Jordan, Law on Explosive Material, 1953, Subsection 3 (1).
Jordan
Jordan’s Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Law (2008) provides:
a. It is prohibited to use and implant Anti-Personnel Mines in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
b. It is prohibited, under any circumstances, to import, export, enter into the Kingdom, transfer, trade in, produce, manufacture, develop, own, possess, acquire, sell, purchase, deliver, receive or concede Anti-Personnel Mines.
c. It is prohibited to mediate directly or indirectly in any act mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article. 
Jordan, Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Law, 2008, Article 3.
Lesotho
Lesotho has passed national legislation enacting comprehensive prohibitions on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. 
Lesotho, Internal Security Act, 1984.
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein’s Ordinance on the Indirect Transfer of War Material (1999) provides:
1) It is prohibited:
a) to provide anti-personnel mines or, in accordance with article 2 paragraph 1 letter b or c, to dispose of them;
b) to induce someone to undertake the actions under letter a;
c) to support someone to undertake the actions under letter a.
2) Do not fall under the prohibition act, which provides:
a) for the destruction of anti-personnel landmines by the competent authorities;
b) to protect against the effects of anti-personnel mines or to prevent those effects.
3) Anti-personnel mines are explosive devises placed under or on the ground or another surface designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons. 
Liechtenstein, Ordinance on the Indirect Transfer of War Material, 1999, Article 8.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (1999) provides:
Subject to the exceptions provided by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer or Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, it is unlawful for any person or entity:
(a) to use antipersonnel landmines;
(b) to develop, manufacture or acquire any other way, stockpile or retain, or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel landmines;
(c) to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under the Convention and this Act. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, 1999.
Malaysia
Malaysia’s Anti-Personnel Mines Act (2000) provides:
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law and subject to section 4, no person shall
(a) place an anti-personnel mine under, in, on or near the ground or other surface area with the intent to cause the explosion of the anti-personnel mine;
(b) develop, produce or otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain, possess or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines; or
(c) assist, encourage or induce, in any way, any person to engage in any activity prohibited by this Act.
(2) Except as authorised by the Minister and subject to compliance with other written laws relating to import and export, no person shall import or export anti-personnel mines. 
Malaysia, Anti-Personnel Mines Act, 2000, Article 3.
Mali
Mali’s Anti-Personnel Mines Order (2000) provides:
The development, manufacture, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, sale, decant, import, export, transfer and use of antipersonnel mines are prohibited.
These prohibitions apply also to spare parts of antipersonnel mines. 
Mali, Anti-Personnel Mines Order, 2000, Article 2.
Mauritius
Mauritius’s Anti-Personnel Mines (Prohibition) Act (2001) provides:
Notwithstanding the Explosives Act but subject to subsection (2),
(a) no person shall use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain, transfer to any one, directly or indirectly, any anti-personnel mine;
(b) no person shall assist, encourage or induce, in any way, any other person to engage in any of the acts prohibited under paragraph (a). 
Mauritius, Anti-Personnel Mines (Prohibition) Act, 2001, Article 4.1.
Mexico
In 1998, Mexico adopted and published its Decree on the Ratification of the Ottawa Convention (1998). 
Mexico, Decree on the Ratification of the Ottawa Convention, 1998.
According to Mexico’s Constitution (1917), it is thereby considered as a Supreme Law in all the territory. 
Mexico, Constitution, 1917, Article 133.
Monaco
Monaco’s Anti-Personnel Mines Order (1999) provides: “It is forbidden the use of landmines, their development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, holding, preservation, decant, import, export, transit, transfer, trade and brokerage.” 
Monaco, Anti-Personnel Mines Order, 1999, Article 2.
Namibia
Namibia’s Constitution (1990) provides:
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or Act of Parliament, the general rules of public international law and international agreements binding upon Namibia under this Constitution shall form part of the law of Namibia. 
Namibia, Constitution, 1990, Article 144.
Netherlands
The Netherlands has passed national legislation enacting comprehensive prohibitions on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. 
Netherlands, Import and Export Act, 1962.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Anti-Personnel Mines Act (1998) provides:
No person may
(a) Use an anti-personnel mine; or
(b) Develop, produce, or otherwise acquire an anti-personnel mine; or
(c) Possess, retain, or stockpile an anti-personnel mine; or
(d) Transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, an anti-personnel mine; or
(e) Assist, encourage, or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in conduct referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). 
New Zealand, Anti-Personnel Mines Act, 1998, Article 7.1.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (1999) provides: “The purpose of this Act is to establish a ban on the production, purchase, sale, import, export, transit, use, installation or possession of antipersonnel landmines.” 
Nicaragua, Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, 1999, Article 1.
Norway
Norway’s Anti-Personnel Mines Act (1998) provides:
It is prohibited to use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile or transfer anti-personnel mines contrary to the Convention of 18 September 1997 on the prohibition, use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction. 
Norway, Anti-Personnel Mines Act, 1998, §1.
Peru
Peru’s Penal Code (1991), as amended in 1998, provides:
Whoever uses, develops, produces, acquires, stockpiles, retains or transfers to a physical and juridical person anti-personnel mines shall be punished with deprivation of liberty for no less than five years and no more than eight years. 
Peru, Penal Code, 1991, as amended in 1998, Article 279D; see also Law against the Possession of War Weapons, 1998, and Order against the Possession of War Weapons, 1998.
Peru
Peru’s Penal Code (1991), as amended in 2006, states: “Any person who uses, develops, produces, acquires, stockpiles, retains or transfers anti-personnel mines to a natural person or legal entity, shall be punished with deprivation of liberty for at least five years and no more than eight years.” 
Peru, Penal Code, 1991, as amended in 2006, Article 279-D.
Peru
Peru’s Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement (2005) prohibits “attacks on … the camps or settlements [of internally displaced persons] and the use of anti-personnel landmines.” 
Peru, Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement, 2005, Article 6(h).
Peru
Peru’s Law Implementing the Ottawa Convention (2006) states:
Retention or transfer of a certain number of anti-personnel mines with the objective of developing and providing training in mine detection, mine clearance or mine destruction techniques by the State shall not be considered as prohibited conduct.
This number of anti-personnel mines shall be determined by the Ministry of Defence and Interior in coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, within the framework of the Peruvian Centre for Action against Anti-Personnel Mines (CONTRAMINAS). 
Peru, Law Implementing the Ottawa Convention, 2006, Article 2.
Portugal
Portugal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged in October 2000 that Portugal’s official publication of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines on 23 November 1999 “does not achieve total legislative implementation of the Treaty through the imposition of penal sanctions and this matter should be handled at an inter-ministry level”. 
ICBL, Landmines Monitor Report 2001, August 2001, p. 761.
In January 2001, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence stated that Portugal “is currently studying the way, in coordination with the different competent entities, to create internal legislation on this matter”. Nevertheless, they pointed out that Portugal had existing legislation which punished the possession, transportation, selling or production of explosive devices and substances. 
Portugal, Penal Code, 1996, Article 275(1).
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Conventional Weapons Act (2001) provides:
No one is allowed to use or transfer a weapon that falls under any of the following:
1. Mines … or other devices made to detonate resulting from the magnetism of a mine-detection device or other cause without physical contact of a person or device during detection operations with standard mine-detection devices available in Korea.
2. Anti-personnel mines that are undetectable by standard mine-detection devices available in Korea and that do not respond with a signal, which is detected from 8 grams or more of iron.
3. Remotely-delivered anti-personnel mines that do not fulfil any of the following:
(a) Over 90 percent of the total amount shot or dropped shall automatically detonate within 30 days.
(b) Over 99.9 percent of the total amount shot or dropped shall automatically detonate or otherwise lose its function as a mine within 120 days. 
Republic of Korea, Conventional Weapons Act, 2001, Article 3.
Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states:
Committing an act or activity prohibited by one of the following conventions or protocols constitutes a crime under international law:
3. the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects … and its Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-5(3).
Senegal
Senegal’s Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (2005) states:
The development, manufacture, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, offer, possession, import, export, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines are prohibited in the entire Senegalese territory.
The same applies to detached pieces and ammunition. 
Senegal, Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, 2005, Article 2.
The Law also provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions in Article 2, the planning authorities of the state are authorized, following the spirit of the Ottawa Convention [Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction], to hold, retain or transfer a certain number of mines with the aim of developing techniques for the detection, removal or destruction of mines, and for the training of such techniques. The number of such mines must not exceed the absolute minimum necessary for the aforementioned purposes. 
Senegal, Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, 2005, Article 3.
Slovakia
An official of Slovakia stated that national implementation was achieved when the Slovak Parliament approved ratification of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines on 4 June 1999, making it part of national legislation. 
ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 2000, August 2000, p. 711.
It was published as a new law in the official bulletin of the Ministry of Justice. 
Slovakia, Law on the Ratification of the Ottawa Convention, 1999.
South Africa
South Africa’s Anti-Personnel Mines Prohibition Act (2003) provides:
Prohibition
5. Subject to section 7 or 8, no person may –
(a) place, possess, procure, manufacture, stockpile, transfer, deal in, import or export an anti-personnel mine;
(b) possess, procure, manufacture, stockpile, transfer, deal in, import or export a component part [of an anti-personnel mine]; or
(c) possess, procure, manufacture, transfer, deal in, import or export a plan [or design of an anti-personnel mine or a component part].
Offences and penalties
6. (1) Any natural person who contravenes a provision of section 5 is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 25 years or to both a fine and such imprisonment.
(2) Any juristic person which contravenes a provision of section 5 is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R1 million.
(3) Any court convicting any person of an offence under this Act may, in addition to any other punishment imposed in respect of that offence, declare any weapon, vehicle, uniform, equipment or other property or object in respect of which the offence was committed or which was used for, in or in connection with the commission of the offence, to be forfeited to the State. 
South Africa, Anti-Personnel Mines Prohibition Act, 2003, §§ 5–6.
Sections 7 and 8 of the Act provide for exemptions to the prohibition on possessing or transferring an anti-personnel mine “for the purposes of developing and conducting training in mine-detection, mine-clearance or mine-destruction techniques or for its destruction.” 
South Africa, Anti-Personnel Mines Prohibition Act, 2003, §§ 7–8.
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
1. Any person who manufactures, commercializes or stockpiles weapons or munitions without authorization by law or competent authority shall be punished:
1. In the case of … anti-personnel mines … with five to ten years’ imprisonment for promoters and organizers, and three to five years’ imprisonment in the case of accessories.
2. The same penalties established in sub-section 1 of paragraph 1 shall apply to whoever develops or uses … anti-personnel mines … or makes preparations for their use. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 566(1)(1) and (2).
The Code also states:
1. … Stockpiling of … anti-personnel mines … is understood as the manufacture, commercialization or possession of these weapons.
2. … [A]nti-personnel mines … are understood as defined by the international treaties and covenants to which Spain is a party.
The development of … anti-personnel mines … is understood as any activity comprising scientific or technical research or examination leading to the creation of a new … anti-personnel mine … or the modification of an existing one. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 567(1)–(2).
Spain
Spain’s Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (1998) provides:
It is prohibited to use, to develop, to produce, to purchase in one way or another, to stockpile, to retain, to transfer or to export to anyone, directly or indirectly, landmines and weapons with similar effects specified in the Amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, and its technology and patents.
It is further prohibited to assist, encourage or induce, in one way or another, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited by this Act. 
Spain, Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, 1998, Article 2.1.
 

Switzerland
Switzerland's Federal Law on War Equipment (1996), as amended to 2013, states:
Article 8 Anti-personnel mines
1 It is prohibited:
a. to develop, produce, broker, acquire, transfer to anyone, import, export, carry in transit, or store anti-personnel mines or to possess them in any other way;
b. to incite any person to carry out an act mentioned in letter a;
c. to assist in committing an act mentioned in letter a.
2 For the development of procedures in mine detection, mine clearance, or mine destruction techniques and for training in such procedures, the retention or transfer of a number of anti-personnel mines is permitted. The number of such mines shall not exceed the minimum number absolutely necessary for the above-mentioned purposes.
3 Anti-personnel mines are explosive devices that are placed under, on, or near the ground or any other surface and which are conceived or modified so as to explode as a result of the presence, approach, or contact of a person, and which are intended to incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons. Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person that are equipped with anti-handling devices are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped.
4 “Anti-handling device” means a device intended to protect a mine and which is part of, linked to, attached to or placed under the mine and which activates when an attempt is made to tamper with or otherwise intentionally disturb the mine. 
Switzerland, Federal Law on War Equipment, 1996, as amended to 2013, Article 8.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Sweden
Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, provides:
A person who uses, develops, manufactures, acquires, possesses or transfers anti-personnel mines [as defined in the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines] shall be sentenced for unlawful dealings with mines to imprisonment … unless the act is to be considered as a crime against international law. 
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, Chapter 22, § 6b.
Togo
Togo’s existing legislation on arms ownership and use prohibits individuals from bearing arms without official authorization. Given this law, specific legislation prohibiting the use of anti-personnel mines is thought to be unnecessary. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=togo&pqs_section=; interview with Georges Anani, Minister Counsellor, Embassy of the Republic of Togo, Brussels, Belgium, 17 February 1999.
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago’s Anti-Personnel Mines Act (2000) provides:
(1) Subject to section 6, no person shall–
(a) use an anti-personnel mine;
(b) develop or produce an anti-personnel mine;
(c) participate in the acquisition of a prohibited object;
(d) have a prohibited object in his possession;
or
(e) participate in the transfer of a prohibited object
(2) No person shall assist, encourage or induce any other person to engage in any conduct mentioned in subsection (1). 
Trinidad and Tobago, Anti-Personnel Mines Act, 2000, Article 4.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Landmines Act (1998) provides:
(1) Subject to sections 3 to 6, no person shall
(a) use an anti-personnel mine;
(b) develop or produce an anti-personnel mine;
(c) participate in the acquisition of a prohibited object;
(d) have a prohibited object in his possession; or
(e) participate in the transfer of a prohibited object.
(2) Subject to those sections, no person shall assist, encourage or induce any other person to engage in any conduct mentioned in subsection (1). 
United Kingdom, Landmines Act, 1998, Article 2.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
43. Using antipersonnel mines understood as any ammunition attached underneath, above or close to the surface of land or a place designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and which could incapacitate, wound or kill more than one person. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.43.
Yemen
Under Yemen’s Anti-Personnel Mine Law (2005), producing, possessing, using, transferring and trading anti-personnel mines are offences punishable by imprisonment. 
Yemen, Anti-Personnel Mine Law, 2005, §§ 3 and 7.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Anti-Personnel Mines (Prohibition) Act (2000) provides:
(1) Subject to subsection (2), any person who
(a) develops, manufactures, produces, acquires or possesses an anti-personnel mine; or
(b) transfers, directly or indirectly, an anti-personnel mine to another person; or
(c) places an anti-personnel mine under, on or near the ground or other surface area
(i) intending to cause the mine to explode by the presence, proximity or contact of a person; or
(ii) in circumstances in which there is a reasonable possibility that the mine will explode by the presence, proximity or contact of a person; or
(d) in any way, assists, encourages or induces another person to engage in any activity prohibited to a State party to the Convention;
shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years or to both such fine and such imprisonment. 
Zimbabwe, Anti-Personnel Mines (Prohibition) Act, 2000 Article 5.1.
Colombia
In 1995, in a ruling on the constitutionality of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated in relation to the prohibition on the use of weapons of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury:
Although none of the treaty rules expressly applicable to internal conflicts prohibits indiscriminate attacks or the use of certain weapons, the Taormina Declaration consequently considers that the bans (established partly by customary law and partly by treaty law) on the use of … mines … apply to non-international armed conflicts, not only because they form part of customary international law but also because they evidently derive from the general rule prohibiting attacks against the civilian population. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-225/95, Judgment, 18 May 1995.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
Weapons which because of their indiscriminate effects on the civilian population … [are prohibited] include anti-personnel mines … which have also been prohibited by specific treaty and customary norms that are applicable in internal armed conflicts and designed to limit their indiscriminate effects. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, pp. 95–96.
[footnote in original omitted]
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2008, in the BE (Iran) case, which concerned a claim to refugee protection of an Iranian who deserted from the Iranian army in 1999 rather than continue to lay anti-personnel mines in a populated part of Iranian Kurdistan, the England and Wales Court of Appeal stated: “[T]here is neither a rule of customary international law forbidding the use of these weapons [anti-personnel mines] nor any simple reading across into peacetime of the restrictions placed on their use in warfare by international humanitarian law.” 
United Kingdom, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), BE (Iran) case, Judgment, 20 May 2008, § 28.
The Court also held:
Customary international law
29. So far as concerns customary international law, Ms Webber [counsel for the appellant] is in our judgment entitled to rely on certain important aspects of the [1997] Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines]. Three-quarters of the world’s states have signed and ratified it. Of those who have not, the United States in 1998 set out its condemnation of anti-personnel landmines, recognising them as the cause of a “global humanitarian crisis” reflected in the fact that whereas at the start of the 20th century 90% of wartime casualties were soldiers, by the end of the century 90% were civilians, and undertaking that the US would sign the Convention by 2006 “if we succeed in identifying and fielding suitable alternatives to our APL [anti-personnel landmines] and mixed anti-tank systems by that date”. Iran claimed in 2005 to have stopped using or making landmines and to be against the use of them, “but war in and occupation of two countries bordering Iran are not conducive to Iran joining the Mine Ban Treaty”. No state, in short, appears since 1998 to have contested the arbitrary and unjustifiable effects of anti-personnel landmines or to have advanced any but a temporary pragmatic reason for not repudiating their use. In this situation Ms Webber is in our view right to describe the outlawing of such weapons as an emerging norm of international law.
International humanitarian law: the law of war
30. International humanitarian law, as the AIT [Asylum and Immigration Tribunal] noted … , requires belligerents to minimise collateral harm to civilians. In particular common article 3 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions on the Law of Armed Conflict unconditionally prohibits violence to the life and person of non-combatants. There is no doubt in our minds that any belligerent state or group which sows and leaves unmarked antipersonnel landmines in a populated area violates this fundamental rule of human conduct … [which] forms part of the law of war. 
United Kingdom, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), BE (Iran) case, Judgment, 20 May 2008, §§ 29–30.
The Court also stated:
[W]e hold that what this appellant was seeking to avoid by deserting was the commission of what this country and civilised opinion worldwide recognises as an atrocity and a gross violation of human rights – the unmarked planting of anti-personnel mines in roads used by innocent civilians. 
United Kingdom, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), BE (Iran) case, Judgment, 20 May 2008, § 41.
Afghanistan
By 1999, both the Taliban and the ousted government of Burhanuddin Rabbani had made statements in support of a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines. The Rabbani government declared its support for an immediate and comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines in a statement to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland, in March 1996. Previously, during the 1994–1995 preparatory meetings for the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, it had called for a ban on production and export, but not use. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=afghanistan&pqs_section=%23Heading7071#Heading7071; Human Rights Watch Arms Project Fact Sheets, “Nations Calling for a Comprehensive Ban on Antipersonnel Landmines”, April 1996 and January 1996.
The Rabbani government voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=afghanistan&pqs_section=%23Heading7071#Heading7071.
Albania
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Albania stated that it would “continue working on ratifying as soon as possible the Ottawa treaty”. 
Albania, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Algeria
Algeria did not endorse the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and initially attended as an observer the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of the mine ban treaty. In Oslo, however, Algeria announced it had changed its position and would sign the treaty in December 1997. Algeria voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=algeria&pqs_section=.
Angola
The Government of Angola first publicly stated its support for a total prohibition of anti-personnel mines in 1996 at the end of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, when Angolan Ambassador Parreira announced in the final plenary session that “the Government of Angola supports a total prohibition of all types of anti-personnel mines”. Angola was subsequently active in the “Ottawa Process”. It endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and participated in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=angola&pqs_section=.
Antigua and Barbuda
Antigua and Barbuda has been one of the most prominent members of CARICOM in its support for the ban on anti-personnel landmines. Antigua and Barbuda was an active participant in the “Ottawa Process”, endorsing the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and attending as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=antigua_barbuda&pqs_section=.
Argentina
Argentina participated in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=argentina&pqs_section=.
Australia
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Australia stated that it was “committed to the elimination of all anti-personnel land-mines as an ultimate goal”. 
Australia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.5, 17 October 1995, p. 6.
Australia
In a media release dated 15 April 1996, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and Minister for Defence, Ian McLachlan, announced “Australia’s support for a global ban on the production, stockpiling, use and transfer of anti-personnel landmines (APL) and a unilateral suspension on the operational use of APL by the Australian Defence Force”. Announcing that these measures would come into immediate effect, Mr Downer stated:
By joining the small but growing number of countries which have suspended the use of landmines by their national defence forces, Australia hopes, by the example it sets, to add its weight to the international campaign for a global ban on the use, transfer, production and stockpiling of landmines – that is, their total elimination as a weapon of war. Australia will work internationally for the achievement of such a ban.
Mr McLachlan added that “Australia did not produce and would not export landmines, and that the ADF stocks of landmines would be used for training and research purposes only”. 
Australia, Media Release from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence, “Australia Pledges Support for a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines; Unilaterally Suspends Use”, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia, 15 April 1996.
Australia
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Australia stated that it would “promote the achievement of increased adherence to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines], [and] the commencement of negotiations for a transfer ban on landmines”. 
Australia, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Australia
At the Second Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 2001, Australia reiterated its “commitment to universal adherence both to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its annexed protocols, and to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines]” and urged “all States which had not yet done so to accede to those important instruments”. 
Australia, Statement at the Second Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 11–21 December 2001.
Australia
In 2009, in a ministerial statement before the House of Representatives on Mine Action Strategy, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
Australia was one of the original signatories of the mine ban convention when it opened for signature in December 1997 in Ottawa. Australia ratified the treaty in December 1998 …
Australia is committed to a world free from landmines … Australia has long supported action to eradicate landmines … and to ease the suffering of adversely affected people and communities. 
Australia, House of Representatives, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ministerial statement: Mine Action Strategy, Hansard, 18 November 2009, p. 12079.
Austria
In Austria, the public discussion on anti-personnel landmines was started during the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Vienna, Austria, in September 1995. During the conference, Austria publicly announced its support for an immediate and total ban on anti-personnel mines. It was one of the first countries to do so.
In 1996, the Government of Austria adopted a Federal Law on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, which entered into force on 1 January 1997. That law prohibits the production, transfer, use and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines, and today serves as the implementing instrument for the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines. Therefore, at the time of the first Ottawa meeting in October 1996, the Austrian Government was already committed to a total ban on anti-personnel mines. Austria played a crucial role in the “Ottawa Process” and was responsible for drafting the working text for the resulting treaty. It was a member of the core group of countries that took responsibility for developing and promoting the mine ban treaty.
Austria’s Foreign Minister, Wolfgang Schüssel, who took an unequivocal position in favour of a total ban on anti-personnel mines, described the process thus:
Already in 1995 Austria was pursuing a total ban. In summer 1995, we achieved our aim by destroying all our considerable stocks of antipersonnel mines, making Austria possibly the first comparable country to de facto implement a total ban of antipersonnel landmines. In 1996, a campaign organized by the Austrian Red Cross gained the support of 120,000 signatures in favour of a law banning antipersonnel mines. Such a law entered into force at the beginning of this year. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=austria&pqs_section=; Speech of the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Wolfgang Schüssel, at the Ottawa Conference, 3 December 1997.
Austria
At the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, Austria condemned the laying of new mines in “Kosovo, Angola and some other places”. 
Austria, Statement at the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Maputo, 3–7 May 1999.
Austria
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Austria (together with the EU) stated that it would “support efforts to improve the humanitarian standards of the Protocol II to the [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons]”. 
Austria (together with the EU), Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Bahamas
The Bahamas endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as relevant resolutions and declarations of the OAS and CARICOM. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=bahamas&pqs_section=.
Barbados
Barbados endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Barbados voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as relevant resolutions and declarations of the OAS and CARICOM. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=barbados&pqs_section=.
Belarus
At the Landmines Treaty Signing Conference in Ottawa, Canada, in December 1997, Belarus stated that it “completely shares the objectives of the Convention” and that it would “search for financial resources for destruction of the existing millions of anti-personnel mines stockpiled in Belarus in order to achieve complete elimination of this weapon”. 
Belarus, Statement at the Landmines Treaty Signing Conference, Ottawa, 3 December 1997.
Belarus
At the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1999, Belarus stated that it had “established a moratorium on exports” of anti-personnel landmines and that it “does not produce and does not expect to produce or modernize mines in the future, neither anti-personnel nor any other mines”, nor did it “use mines to protect the state border or for any other purposes”. 
Belarus, Statement at the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 17 December 1999.
Belgium
In June 1993, the Belgian Government established a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel landmines, before enacting legislation in 1995 which modified the law of 3 January 1933 relating to the manufacture, trade and carrying of firearms and the trade of ammunition. The law of 9 March 1995, which now includes anti-personnel mines, booby traps or other devices of a similar nature, was amended by the law of 24 June 1996, which provides for a complete ban focusing on the use, stockpiling, manufacture and transfer of anti-personnel mines. Belgium was the first country in the world to declare de jure a complete ban on anti-personnel mines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=belgium&pqs_section=; Belgian response to the Landmine Monitor questionnaire, 26 February 1999; responses coordinated by the Ministry of Defence, the State Secretariat for Cooperation and Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the coordination of the latter, p. 2.
Early on, Belgium supported the role of the United Nations as the coordinating forum for mine action and co-sponsored a number of related resolutions. In 1994, it proposed the idea, later taken up by the European Union, of creating the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Action. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=belgium&pqs_section=; Belgian response to the Landmine Monitor questionnaire, 26 February 1999; responses coordinated by the Ministry of Defence, the State Secretariat for Cooperation and Development, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the coordination of the latter, p. 2.
An international conference on humanitarian mine clearance was held in Geneva, Switzerland, in July 1995. In chairing the meeting, the Belgian Foreign Minister, Erik Derycke, emphasized the necessity of expressing a strong political commitment and to making available sufficient resources, both financial and in kind, to provide effective action against mines and to curb the humanitarian catastrophe. In his introductory speech, he also mentioned the need to ban landmines:
My third appeal will request everyone to give more comprehensive thought to mines. It seems to me that the time has come for an initial examination of the timeliness of an international convention banning antipersonnel mines following the example mutatis mutandis of chemical and biological weapons. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=belgium&pqs_section=; Speech of Foreign Minister Erik Derycke, Chairman of the International Meeting on Demining, Geneva, 6 July 1995.
The Belgian Government continued to back up its words with action – its representatives participated in meetings sponsored by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines during the final sessions of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1996. These sessions gave birth to what became the “Ottawa Process”, when Canada offered to host a meeting later that year to strategize as to how to reach a global ban. During the Ottawa conference in October 1996, the head of the Belgian delegation took a very firm position in favour of a total and global ban, stating:
[T]he first element should be the total and immediate ban on the production of all antipersonnel mines, the second essential element to be included in the convention is also of paramount importance because it bears upon the rapid destruction of our stocks. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=belgium&pqs_section=; Intervention of the Belgian head of delegation, “Towards a Global Ban on Antipersonnel Mines,” Ottawa, Canada, 3 October 1996.
In Oslo, Belgium actively participated in the negotiation of the entire text; its positions were very strong and one of the key elements in preventing the text from being weakened. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=belgium&pqs_section=; Observation of the researcher who was the NGO member of the official Belgian delegation in the Oslo Treaty negotiations.
And in Ottawa, at the time of the signing of the Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, Foreign Minister Derycke promised to continue to promote universal adherence, stating: “Belgium will continue its efforts to rally countries which still feel hesitant in support of the convention. My country will carefully examine each request for assistance by a State Party in the enforcement of the treaty.” 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=belgium&pqs_section=; Speech of Foreign Minister Erik Derycke, Ottawa, 3 December 1997.
Belgium
In 2005, in a speech given at the Opening Ceremony of the 6th Meeting of the States Parties to the 1997 Convention on Anti-Personnel Landmines, the Deputy Director General for Bilateral Affairs at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and former permanent representative of Belgium to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva stated:
I would like to reaffirm that there is no such thing as a responsible use of anti-personnel landmines and that there are no such things as “smart mines” or “dumb mines”. There are only indiscriminate, cruel and inhumane anti-personnel mines, which destroy the lives of thousands of innocent civilian victims each year. 
Belgium, Statement by Deputy Director General for Bilateral Affairs at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and former permanent representative of Belgium to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, at the Opening Ceremony of the 6th Meeting of the States Parties to the 1997 Convention on Anti-Personnel Landmines, Zagreb, 27 November 2005.
Belgium
In 2007, in his introductory remarks at the “New Perspectives for a World without Landmines” conference, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:
Belgium was … the first country in the world to adopt national legislation banning landmines … and I would like to issue a strong, universal appeal today to adhere to the Landmine Convention …
We are convinced that every effort needs to be made to prevent the use of munitions that cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population and place a heavy burden on post-conflict reconstruction. 
Belgium, Introductory remarks by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the “New Perspectives for a World without Landmines” conference, Brussels, 9 May 2007, pp. 1–2.
Belize
Belize endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=belize&pqs_section=.
Benin
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Benin declared that there was an “imperative need for a ban on the manufacture and use of anti-personnel land-mines”. 
Benin, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.10, 26 October 1995, p. 24.
Benin
Benin voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. In 1999, according to Ogoudjobi Sikirou, minister counsellor at the Benin Embassy in Brussels, Belgium, Benin was working for a total ban on landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=benin&pqs_section=; Landmine Monitor Researcher interview with Ogoudjobi A. Sikirou, Minister Counsellor, Embassy of Benin in Brussels, Belgium, 16 February 1999.
Bolivia
Bolivia participated in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=bolivia&pqs_section=.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina attended as a full participant all the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=bosnia&pqs_section=.
Botswana
Botswana voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, supporting the relevant OAU resolution adopted in June 1997, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=botswana&pqs_section=.
Brazil
On 20 December 1996, the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations sent a communication to its Canadian counterpart stating its commitment to a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines, but noting: “Brazil would accept to take part in eventual negotiations with an independent forum – as the one created with the Ottawa Process – if this forum had a massive support of the international community.” 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=brazil&pqs_section=; Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs document “Minas Terrestres Antipessoal” available at the official site: www.mre.gov.br/ndsg/acs/desarm10.htm.
Brazil joined the core group of countries that took responsibility for developing and promoting the mine ban treaty just prior to the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, where it endorsed the Final Declaration. It attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=brazil&pqs_section=.
Burkina Faso
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Burkina Faso stated that it supported an eventual ban on anti-personnel mines. 
Burkina Faso, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.8, 20 October 1995, p. 10.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso attended all the major meetings which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, including the International Strategy Conference “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-personnel Mines” in October 1996, the Fourth International NGO Conference in Maputo, where the government delivered a statement, the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, where it endorsed the Final Declaration, and the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a mine ban treaty.
In all regional and international fora (OAU, UN, Franco-African Summit of Heads of State), Burkina Faso has supported resolutions calling for a global ban on anti-personnel mines. Burkina Faso voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=burkina_faso&pqs_section=.
Cambodia
Cambodia was one of the early supporters of a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines. On 2 October 1994, King Norodom Sihanouk issued a declaration calling for a law against the use of anti-personnel mines, the destruction of existing stockpiles, and a request to donor countries for demining support. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cambodia&pqs_section=; Declaration of King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia, Beijing, 2 October 1994.
The First Prime Minister, Norodom Ranariddh, announced at an international donor meeting on 11 March 1994 an immediate ban on the import and laying of landmines in Cambodia. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cambodia&pqs_section=; Human Rights Watch, Cambodia at War, New York, March 1995, p. 100.
In August 1994, Ieng Mouly, the chairman of the Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC), announced the government’s intention to legislate a ban on the use of landmines. No timetable was given for the legislation, but he proposed the interim steps of criminalizing the re-mining of demining sites, ensuring that new minefields were marked, and banning sales of mines to civilians. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cambodia&pqs_section=; “Mouly Reveals Plans to Outlaw Mines”, Phnom Penh Post, 26 August–8 September 1994.
In January 1995, the Cambodian delegation to the meeting of governmental experts in the run-up to the Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons called for a comprehensive ban on landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cambodia&pqs_section=; ICRC, “States and International Organizations Supporting A Total Prohibition of Antipersonnel Landmines,” 18 April 1996.
On 2 June 1995, Samdech Chea Sim, High Representative of His Majesty the King, reiterated the position of the Kingdom of Cambodia at the NGO Landmine Conference in Phnom Penh in 1995. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World , available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cambodia&pqs_section=; Chea Sim, High Representative of His Majesty the King, Speech made to the International Landmine Conference on the Human and Socio-economic Impact of Landmines, Phnom Penh, 1995.
At the closing ceremony of the same conference the co-Minister of Defence, Lieutenant-General Tea Banh, made a statement to the effect that the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces “fully and actively” supported “all kinds of efforts” to reduce the dangers caused by anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cambodia&pqs_section=; Tea Banh, Co-Minister of Defence, Speech made to International Landmine Conference on the Human and Socio-economic Impact of Landmines, Phnom Penh, 1995.
Cameroon
Cameroon was a key player in the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, participating in the International Strategy Conference in October 1996 and the OAU conference on landmines in Kempton Park, South Africa, in May 1997. It endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and participated actively in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, where it worked together with Belgium to modify the deadline for entry-into-force, reducing it from the proposed one year to six months. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cameroon&pqs_section=; Landmine Monitor Researcher interview with Iya Tidjani, Minister Counsellor, Cameroon Embassy, Brussels, 24 February 1999.
Cameroon voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cameroon&pqs_section=.
Canada
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Canada stated that it continued “to advocate the elimination of land-mines, recognizing that this goal will take a considerable time to achieve”. 
Canada, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.8, 20 October 1995, p. 6.
Canada
On 17 January 1996, during the Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Canadian officials announced an immediate moratorium on the production, transfer and operational use of anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=canada&pqs_section=; Government of Canada, News Release No. 5 on the announcement of a comprehensive, unilateral moratorium on the production, export and operational use of anti-personnel mines by Canada, 17 January 1996.
On 2 October 1996, it was announced that the destruction of two-thirds of Canadian stockpiles of anti-personnel landmines would begin immediately, with the remainder of stocks to be destroyed in the context of an international ban. The “Ottawa Process” was launched on 5 October 1996 when, during the closing plenary of the International Strategy Conference “Towards a Global Ban on Antipersonnel Mines”, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, invited other governments to return to Ottawa in December 1997 to sign a treaty banning anti-personnel mines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=canada&pqs_section=; for a detailed description of Canada’s role in the “Ottawa Process”, see M. Cameron et al. (eds), To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1998.
An intensive 14-month period of demarches, bilateral and multilateral meetings, and negotiations with governments and NGOs followed the announcement. In addition to offering support for various initiatives, Canadian officials provided logistical support and used several means to build broad public and political support for the mine ban.
Frequently, Canadian officials helped to draft the text and worked to build support for various United Nations, regional and “Ottawa Process” resolutions centred on anti-personnel landmines. These included the UN General Assembly resolution in 1996 calling for an international agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines, the UN General Assembly resolution in 1997 calling on all Member States to sign the mine ban treaty, the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 committing States to the December treaty signing, and the 1996 OAS resolution calling for a hemispheric mine-free zone. In other fora, such as the G-8 and the Commonwealth, Canadian officials worked continuously to place the mine ban issue on these and other agendas.
In 1997, the Canadian Department for National Defence authorized the formation of its Antipersonnel Landmine Working Group. Policy Guidelines published in the department’s Personnel Newsletter in June 1997 outlined activities prohibited to Canadian Forces personnel such as stockpiling, acquisition and use of anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=canada&pqs_section=.
Canada
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Canada (together with the Canadian Red Cross and Norway) stated that it would “continue support for the universalization and full implementation of the Ottawa Convention”. 
Canada (together with Norway), Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Canada
At the Second Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 2000, Canada stated that it was
deeply concerned by reports that Angola, a treaty signatory, continues to deploy new mines – increasing the scale of human tragedy for peoples who have already suffered after years of civil war. We are also concerned about allegations of new mine use by Burundi and Sudan, also treaty signatories. We urge these states to clarify these matters quickly and in a manner consistent with the political and moral obligations they undertook when they signed this Convention. There are also allegations that parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have deployed mines. The fact the some of the states with forces engaged in the [Democratic Republic of the Congo] are States Parties to this Convention underscores the need for these states to clarify the facts surrounding these allegations.
Canada further noted:
Beyond the immediate community bound by this Convention, mines are still being used by governments and non-state actors to an extent that merits our collective condemnation. It is important to highlight the indiscriminate use of landmines by both Russian and Chechen forces in Chechnya – surely one of the most serious setbacks for the already minimal norms regarding mine use contained within the Landmines Protocol of the Convention on Certain Conventional weapons … We call upon all states, signatory and non-signatory alike, to work co-operatively to clarify compliance issues in a manner that will build greater respect for the norms we have worked so long and hard to create. 
Canada, Statement at the Second Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Geneva, 11–15 September 2000.
Canada
In 2013, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development issued a press release entitled “Harper Government observes the International Day for Mine Awareness”, which stated:
Today, on the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action, the Honourable Julian Fantino, Minister of International Cooperation, highlighted a few of the ways that Canada is helping to eradicate the use of landmines. 
Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, “Harper Government observes the International Day for Mine Awareness”, Press Release, 4 April 2013.
Cabo Verde
Cabo Verde endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and attended the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cape_verde&pqs_section=.
Chad
Chad endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=chad&pqs_section=.
Chile
Chile participated in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=chile&pqs_section=; Statement by Edmundo Perez Yoma, Minister of Defence of Chile, 3 December 1997.
Chile
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Chile stated that it would “make every effort to ensure that lawmakers incorporate those offences and those set forth in the Ottawa landmines treaty … into domestic legislation”. 
Chile, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
China
In 1998, in a White Paper on China’s National Defence, China stated that it was “in favour of imposing proper and rational restrictions on the use and transfer of [anti-personnel landmines] in a bid to achieve the ultimate objective of a comprehensive prohibition of such landmines through a phased approach”. 
China, Information Office of the State Council, White Paper: China’s National Defence, 27 July 1998, cited in ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 2000, August 2000, p. 481, footnote 3.
China
At the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, China, attending the meeting as an observer, expressed the hope that “the international community could make joint efforts to further improve the international security environment, and to create favourable conditions for the ultimate goal of a complete ban on [anti-personnel landmines] in a bid to eliminate the threat to innocent civilians by [anti-personnel landmines]”. 
China, Statement at the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Maputo, 3–7 May 1999.
China
At the Second Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 2000, China stated in relation to anti-personnel landmines:
Complete prohibition is undoubtedly the best solution … However, it should also be recognized that given the divergence of national conditions, countries may differ in terms of their respective security concerns and military technological development levels. 
China, Statement at the Second Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 11 December 2000.
China
In 2004, in a white paper on “China’s National Defense in 2004”, China stated:
China attaches great importance to the solution of the humanitarian issue arising from landmines. While strictly implementing the Amended Landmine Protocol, it is strengthening communications and exchanges with the states parties to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines]. 
China, White Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China: China’s National Defense in 2004, December 2004.
China
In 2005, in a working paper relating to mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM), China proposed:
11. To address the issue of detectability, a State should adopt at least one of the following two measures:
(i) To endeavor to develop advanced mine detection technology and equipment (such as non-metallic mine detectors and detectors adopting the working principle of infrared thermovision or soil dielectric coefficient), so to improve the efficiency of detecting MOTAPM through various ways and means.
(ii) To prohibit the use of MOTAPM, which are not detectable by commonly available mine detection equipment. A detectable MOTAPM is a MOTAPM, which should, upon emplacement, incorporate in its construction a material or device that enables it to be detected by commonly available technical mine detection equipment and provides a response signal equivalent to a response signal from eight grammes or more of iron in a single coherent mass buried five cm beneath the ground.
14. To address the issue of self-destruction, self-neutralization and self-deactivation, a State should adopt at least one of the following measures:
(i) All remotely delivered MOTAPM should have self-destruction or self-neutralization/self-deactivation capabilities.
(ii) All remotely delivered MOTAPM located outside a perimeter-marked area that is documented and monitored by military personnel or protected by fencing or other means to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians from the area should incorporate self-destruction or self-neutralization/self-deactivation mechanisms.
(iii) The use of remotely delivered MOTAPM without self-destruction or self-neutralization/self-deactivation capabilities outside its national territory should be prohibited. 
China, Package Solution to the Issue of MOTAPM, Working Paper prepared by the People’s Republic of China for the Eleventh Session of the Group of Governmental Experts of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, UN Doc. Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons/GGE/XI/WG.2/WP.2, 28 July 2005, §§ 11 and 14.
China
In 2005, in a white paper on “China’s Endeavours for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation”, China stated:
Though China is not a party to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines], it endorses the humanitarian purposes and objectives of the Convention and has been constantly strengthening exchanges and communication with its States Parties. 
China, White Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China: China’s Endeavours for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, 1 September 2005.
China
In 2007, on the 10th Anniversary of the Opening for Signature of the Ottawa Mine Ban Convention, China stated in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly:
Since its accession to the Amended Protocol on Landmines [the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] in 1998, China has all along strictly abided by the provisions of the Protocol. Practical and effective measures were taken to destroy or technically modify those APLs [anti-personnel landmines] which failed to meet relevant technical requirements of the Amended Protocol. This September, China submitted its annual report on time on the implementation of the Amended Protocol on Landmines as usual.
Although China is not a State Party to the Ottawa Mine Ban Convention, it endorses and shares the purpose and objective of the Convention, and appreciates the humanitarianism enshrined in the Convention. 
China, Statement by the Chinese Delegation on the 10th Anniversary of the Opening for Signature of the Ottawa Mine Ban Convention at the First Committee of the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly, 23 October 2007, pp. 1 and 3.
China
In 2007, during a debate in the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, China stated with regard to assistance in mine action:
China respects and appreciates the choice of the State Parities of the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines] to address the humanitarian concerns caused by landmines by means of [a] comprehensive ban on landmines. Although China is not a State Party of the Ottawa Convention, it endorses and shares the purpose and objective of the Convention. 
China, Statement on Assistance in Mine Action by the Chinese Delegation at the Fourth Committee of the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly, 6 November 2007.
China
In 2007, at the Eighth Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, China’s observer delegation stated:
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the opening for signature of the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines]. Over 10 years, the Convention has made important contributions to mitigating the humanitarian concerns caused by anti-personnel landmines (APLs).
The Chinese Government attaches great importance to the humanitarian concerns caused by APLs and supports efforts made by the international community to address these concerns. China appreciates the humanitarianism enshrined in the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines] and endorses its purposes and objectives. Although China is not a State Party to the Ottawa Convention, it has voted in favor of the resolutions entitled “Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction” at the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in recent years, which fully demonstrates our recognition for and high attention to the important role of the Ottawa Convention.
China has made unremitting efforts in resolving the humanitarian problems caused by APLs. As a State Party to the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), China has strictly implemented obligations of the Protocol. China conducted technical modification to or destroyed stockpiled APLs which failed to meet the requirements of the Protocol. China has also made progress in developing alternative weapons to APLs.
China has exercised maximum restraint in exporting APLs. In fact, China ceased exporting APLs long time ago.
China has all along unswervingly contributed to maintaining peace and promoting common development of the world. China used to suffer from landmines, therefore deeply understands the aspirations of the people of mine-affected countries for safety and development. China is willing to make contributions to releasing these countries from landmine problems. China sincerely hopes to further enhance exchanges and cooperation with the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, relevant international organizations and civil society, so as to promote international mine actions with the aim of completely resolving the humanitarian problems caused by APLs.  
China, Statement of the Chinese Observer Delegation at the Eighth Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, 18 November 2007.
Colombia
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Colombia reiterated its “support for the initiative of an international moratorium on the production and transfer of anti-personnel land-mines, with a view to their complete elimination”. 
Colombia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.9, 25 October 1995, p. 20.
Colombia
Colombia participated in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=colombia&pqs_section=.
Congo
The Congo endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=congo_bra&pqs_section=.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica attended all the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=costa_rica&pqs_section=.
On 28–29 November 1996 in San Jose, Costa Rica, the Foreign Ministers of Central America, including those of Costa Rica, Fernando Naranjo Villalobos, and of the CARICOM countries “reaffirmed their decision to make the necessary efforts, with the assistance of national, regional and international institutions, to make Central America and the Caribbean, a zone free of anti-personnel mines by the year 2000”. They also supported the “Ottawa Process”, including the immediate launch of negotiations and the signing in Canada in December 1997 of a legally binding international agreement to ban this type of weapon. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=costa_rica&pqs_section=; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Canada, “AP Mine Ban: Progress Report” http://www/dfait-maeci/gc.ca/english/foreignp/disarm/mines/report1f.htm, 22 February 1999.
Costa Rica
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Costa Rica stated that it would promote “the struggle to clear the land of all anti-personnel mines”. 
Costa Rica, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Côte d’Ivoire
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Côte d’Ivoire stated that it felt it was “time to think about an international agreement prohibiting the production, utilization and transfer of mines”. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.6, 18 October 1995, p. 2.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=cote_divoire&pqs_section=.
Croatia
Signing the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines on 4 December 1997, the Croatian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ivo Sanader, referring to Croatia’s early involvement in the movement to ban landmines, noted:
It was in May 1996 that a group of countries declared their readiness and interest to have all landmines banned. I am proud to say that Croatia readily joined the “Ottawa Process” of which Canada was the initiator. Signing the Convention, we should bear in mind that we have not completed our journey yet. Entering into force of the Convention should be our first step and I would herewith like to call upon all the signatory states to ratify it as soon as possible. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=croatia&pqs_section=; Address by H.E. Dr. Ivo Sanader, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Croatia, Ottawa, Canada, 4 December 1997.
Cuba
In 2008, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly during the thematic debate on conventional weapons, the representative of Cuba stated:
As a State Party to the [1980] Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Cuba fully shares the legitimate humanitarian concerns relating to the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of anti-personnel mines.
At the same time, it is well known that our country has been subjected for more than five decades to a continuous policy of hostility and aggression by the military superpower. As a result, Cuba is not able to renounce the use of this type of weapon for the preservation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, in accordance with the legitimate right of self-defence recognized by the [1945] United Nations Charter. It is due to this that Cuba is not a State Party to the [1997] Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Their Destruction.
We will continue to fully support all efforts that, while maintaining the necessary balance between humanitarian and national security concerns, are aimed at eliminating the terrible effects that the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of anti-personnel land mines have on the civilian population and the economies of many countries. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly during the thematic debate on conventional weapons, 21 October 2008, p. 2.
Cuba
In 2010, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly during the thematic debate on conventional weapons, the representative of Cuba stated:
Cuba fully shares the legitimate humanitarian concerns relating to the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of anti-personnel mines.
At the same time, it is well known that our country has been subjected for more than five decades to a continuous policy of hostility and aggression by the military superpower.
As a result, Cuba is not able to renounce the use of this type of weapon for the preservation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, in accordance with the legitimate right of self-defence recognized by the [1945] United Nations Charter. It is due to this that Cuba is not a State Party to the [1997] Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Their Destruction.
We will continue to fully support, including as a State Party to the [1980] Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, all efforts that, while maintaining the necessary balance between humanitarian and national security concerns, are aimed at eliminating the terrible effects that the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of anti-personnel land mines have on the civilian population and the economies of many countries. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly during the thematic debate on conventional weapons, 19 October 2010, p. 2.
Cuba
In 2010, at the 12th Annual Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the delegation of Cuba stated:
As a State Party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Cuba fully shares the legitimate humanitarian concerns associated with the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of Mines other than Anti-Personnel Mines but any measures to resolve this must also take into account the legitimate right of the people to self-defence, and to protect their territories from aggression.
It is well known that my country has been subjected during five decades to a policy of continuous hostility and aggression by the military superpower. As a result, Cuba is not able to renounce to the use of this type of weapon … [in order to ensure] the preservation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, in accordance with the legitimate right of self-defence recognized by the [1945] United Nations Charter. Due to this, Cuba is not a State Party to the [1997] Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Their Destruction.
We will continue to fully support all the efforts that, while maintaining the necessary balance between humanitarian and national security concerns, are directed to eliminating the terrible effects that the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of anti-personnel land mines have on the civilian population and the economies of many countries. In this sense, Cuba has maintained a constructive attitude throughout the debates on this Convention and has presented concrete proposals that attempt to provide another focus to the discussions so that these take into account the opinions of developing countries. 
Cuba, Statement by the delegation of Cuba at the 12th Annual Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 25 November 2010.
Czech Republic
The Czech Republic voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=czech&pqs_section=.
Denmark
On 5 September 1995, the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Niels Helveg Peterson, announced Denmark’s support for a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel mines. He instructed the Danish delegation to the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Vienna, Austria, to work for a ban. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=denmark&pqs_section=; International Campaign to Ban Landmines, “Landmine Update”, No. 12, December 1995.
On 23 May 1996, Denmark decided to renounce the use of anti-personnel landmines. The Danish Ministry of Defence announced that “Denmark will unilaterally refrain from using anti-personnel land mines in the Danish defence.” 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=denmark&pqs_section=; Ministry of Defence, Press Release, 28 June 1996.
In noting that the result of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons had produced “no major break-through towards a ban” and that the next review conference would not take place until 2001, the Government of Denmark “deemed it necessary to take concrete action in order to send a clear and non-ambiguous political signal.” 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=denmark&pqs_section=; “Ban Movement Chronology”, International Campaign to Ban Landmines homepage: www.icbl.org, 22 March 1999.
Denmark participated in all of the meetings which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=denmark&pqs_section=.
Dominica
Dominica endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=dominica&pqs_section=.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=dominican_rep&pqs_section=.
Ecuador
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Ecuador encouraged “new international efforts to find solutions to the problems caused by these weapons with a view to their total elimination”. 
Ecuador, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.3, 16 October 1995, p. 19.
Ecuador
Ecuador participated in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=ecuador&pqs_section=.
Egypt
In 1974, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Egypt stated:
It was generally agreed that time-delay weapons such as anti-personnel weapons, land-mines and aircraft, artillery and naval gun-delivered mines and booby traps, often placed far from the combat areas, could injure civilians as well as combatants and were therefore indiscriminate. Moreover, such devices generally exploded close to the victims, causing grave injuries; they also slowed up the evacuation of the sick and wounded from mined areas, thus increasing their suffering. His delegation called for prohibition of the use of weapons of that category. 
Egypt, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.6, 22 March 1974, p. 49, § 14.
Egypt
In 2000, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Egypt stated that while it recognized the “humanitarian goal” of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, it continued “to maintain that the Ottawa Convention lacks the vision necessary to deal comprehensively with all aspects related to landmines”. 
Egypt, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 55/PV.4, 3 October 2000, p. 23.
El Salvador
In September 1996, El Salvador joined with other Central American nations in declaring the region a mine-free zone in a joint statement signed by each nation’s Foreign Minister, committing to no production, trade or use of anti-personnel landmines. El Salvador endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. El Salvador also voted in favour the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=el_salvador&pqs_section=.
Estonia
Estonia was one of the first governments to publicly support a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines, which it did during the preparatory sessions for the negotiations on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1994. Estonia participated in all the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=estonia&pqs_section=.
Ethiopia
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Ethiopia stated that there was “a compelling need for a total ban on these insidious weapons”. 
Ethiopia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.9, 25 October 1995, p. 15.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia participated in all the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, including the International Strategy Conference in October 1996 meeting which launched the process. It endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines.
Ethiopia also supported OAU resolutions on landmines, along with Plan of Action from the May 1997 OAU conference on landmines in Kempton Park, South Africa. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=ethiopia&pqs_section=.
Fiji
Fiji endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=fiji&pqs_section=.
[I]t must be noted that the global realization of suffering, permanent scars and disability caused by land mines for victims in most countries have created an environment of discrimination against employment, privileges and amenities freely enjoyed by us today. The opportunity for victims to be fully accepted in the community is slim thus they are always suppressed and undermined in our society. Along the margins of this Convention, member countries are encouraged to ensuring appropriate resources be made available for victims and assistance in this regard. Hence, it is imperative that [a] comprehensive and holistic approach is embarked, not only to fulfill the aspiration of the Convention and impose ban on AP [anti-personnel] land mines but to eradicate any forms of discrimination for victims at all levels. …
Finland
In 1997, the Finnish Government released a fact sheet in which it explained its position on the use of anti-personnel mines (APLs):
APLs are an integral part of the Finnish territorial defence doctrine. They would only be used in response to armed aggression against Finland. Given their importance to Finland’s defence, any decision to destroy APLs and to bear the considerable cost of providing the same defensive impact with other means would have to be made in the context of such a total ban that Finland regards as responding to the global landmine crisis. 
Finland, Position on Anti-Personnel Landmines: Fact Sheet of the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Political Department, 26 August 1997, reprinted in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1, 1998, p. 562.
France
In February 1993, during a state visit to Cambodia, the French president, François Mitterrand, announced a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=france&pqs_section=; On the occasion of the announcement by French President François Mitterand, he had been presented with 22,000 signatures which had been collected in support of Handicap International’s call to end the “Coward’s War” and stop the use of anti-personnel landmines.
Not long after, France officially requested the UN secretary-general to hold a review conference to amend the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocol II dealing with landmines. The review process, which spanned two and a half years, was the platform on which momentum was built that ultimately led to the adoption of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Landmines.
France attended the International Strategy Conference “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-personnel Mines” in Ottawa, Canada, in October 1996 as a full participant. At the meeting, it announced new steps towards a ban stating that it would outlaw the use of anti-personnel landmines unless French soldiers were in danger. It also argued that mine ban negotiations should take place in the Conference on Disarmament. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=france&pqs_section=.
France
In 2005, in a publication entitled “Fighting Proliferation, Promoting Arms Control and Disarmament: France’s Contribution”, France stated:
The anti-personnel mines issue
Two legal instruments contribute to action against landmines, adopting two distinct approaches: a total ban on anti-personnel mines under the Ottawa Convention, and regulation of certain conventional weapons under the 1980 Convention. France is extremely active on all these issues.
As the first permanent member of the Security Council to ratify the Ottawa Convention, on 23 July 1998, France has completely fulfilled its commitments. At national level, it has discharged all its obligations in full: the adoption of measures for national implementation (including the law of 8 July 1998); the creation of a French National Commission on the Elimination of Anti-Personnel Mines (CNEMA), whose membership brings together representatives of the French Parliament, civil society and public authorities; the appointment, in 1999, of a roving Ambassador with specific responsibility for demining and aid to victims of anti-personnel mines; and the destruction of its entire stockpile as of 20 December 1999.
Internationally, France’s commitment has been reflected in its constant support for the universalization and implementation of the Ottawa Convention. In the context of the first Review Conference of the Ottawa Convention (Nairobi, 29 November–3 December 2004), France has continued to work to strengthen the effectiveness of the Convention by seeking to preserve its integrity and the scope of its application.
In areas other than anti-personnel mines, France takes part in efforts to improve and reinforce the provisions of the 1980 Convention and its protocols, including Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended in May 1996 at France’s instigation.
France’s priority is to maintain the momentum in this regulatory forum which provides for the reinforcement of international humanitarian law.
After extending the scope of application of the Convention to internal armed conflicts (December 2001), the States Parties adopted a further Protocol (V) on Explosive Remnants of War (November 2003) and have committed themselves to continue to address the issue of Mines Other Than Anti-Personnel Mines (MOTAPM). France is a participant in this process. 
France, Government, Fighting Proliferation, Promoting Arms Control and Disarmament: France’s Contribution, 2005, p. 78.
France
In 2008, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
France [actively engages] in the field with providing assistance to the victims and contributing to the clearance of areas affected by … anti-personnel mines (within the framework of the [1997] Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines]). 
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to parliamentary written question No. 5430, Journal officiel de la République française, 22 January 2008, p. 483.
France
In 2008, France’s Secretary of State in charge of European Affairs stated:
France is fully committed to the development and strengthening of international humanitarian law and its implementation. This is evidenced by its exemplary application of the provisions of the [1997] Ottawa Convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines: adoption of the texts implementing it to domestic law – law of 8 July 1998 –, establishment of the [National Commission for the Elimination of Anti-Personnel Mines] – decree of 10 May 1999 –, completion of the destruction of stocks and demining operations within the deadline specified in the convention. 
France, Response from the Secretary of State in charge of European Affairs to parliamentary oral question No. 326, Journal officiel de la République française, 11 June 2008, p. 3157.
France
In a white paper on “Defence and National Security” published in 2008, France’s Ministry of Defence stated:
France is favourable to the new obligations and restrictions justified by the will to limit the harm caused by the use of certain weapons. Thus, … the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention dated 1997 [1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction] … create[s] freely accepted restrictions regarding entire categories of weapons. 
France, Ministry of Defence, Defence and National Security: The White Paper, 17 June 2008, p. 123.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
France attaches the highest importance to action against mines … [France applies] in an exemplary manner the [1997] Ottawa Convention on antipersonnel mines. Under another aspect of the fight against … antipersonnel mines … , in particular the economic contribution to the clearance of affected zones and to the assistance to victims, our country will continue to meet its commitments. 
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to parliamentary written question No. 62431, Journal officiel de la République française, 15 December 2009, p. 11965.
Gabon
Gabon endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, attended the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=gabon&pqs_section=.
Georgia
At the UN General Assembly in September 1996, the Georgian president, Eduard Shevardnadze, stated: “I, as the President of Georgia, declare that Georgia takes the obligation never to produce, use or import anti-personnel mines.” 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=georgia&pqs_section=; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, “Georgia and Problem of Anti-Personnel Mines”, June 1998.
Georgia attended the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also attended as an observer the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and the treaty signing conference in Ottawa, Canada, in December 1997. During the signing ceremony, the Georgian ambassador, Tedo Japaridze, stated:
Georgia believes that the human and social costs of antipersonnel mines far outweigh their military significance … Georgia … will in every way support and promote the ban on the use of the mines … Therefore, Georgia supports the Ottawa Process and its goal – the prohibition of use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and their destruction … [but] without financial and necessary technological assistance from other countries Georgia will not be able to fulfil its obligations under the Convention (particularly to destroy antipersonnel mines during 4 years) … Georgia believes that the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva should be the main forum for negotiating a global ban. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=georgia&pqs_section=; Address of H.E. Tedo Japaridze, Ambassador of Georgia at the Signing Ceremony of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, December 1997.
Germany
Germany adopted a unilateral export moratorium on anti-personnel landmines in 1994, and in January 1996 the government prolonged the moratorium indefinitely. In April 1996, the Federal Armed Forces renounced the use of anti-personnel landmines and in December 1997 the last stockpiles were eliminated. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=germany&pqs_section=; Auswärtiges Amt, Referat Öffentlichkeitsarbeit (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Division of Public Relations), Weltweite Ächtung von Antipersonenminen. Der Vertrag von Ottawa – Eine Herausforderung für die Zukunft (Worldwide Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines – the Treaty of Ottawa – A Challenge for the Future), June 1998, p. 55.
Germany
In a speech addressed to the UN General Assembly in 1995, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:
Anti-personnel mines … are “weapons of mass destruction”. Day in, day out, they are taking a terrible toll on human life, and many of the victims are women and, above all, innocent children. If any kind of weapon must be outlawed, then this one should be. 
Germany, Statement by the German Minister of Foreign Affairs before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/50/PV.8, 27 September 1995, p. 7.
Germany
Prior to the launch of the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Klaus Kinkel, presented the government’s “Seven-Point Action Programme on Antipersonnel Mines” on 18 July 1996. He noted:
The Federal Government has taken action. In January 1996 it imposed a unilateral unlimited moratorium on all exports of anti-personnel mines. In April 1996 the Federal Armed Forces relinquished totally and unconditionally the use of anti-personnel mines. Existing stocks will be destroyed. The conference to review the UN Conventional Weapons Convention which ended on 3 May 1996 agreed on more extensive prohibitions and restrictions on landmines. This was not enough. I therefore propose a seven-point action program on antipersonnel mines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=germany&pqs_section=; www.auswaertiges-amt.de, Seven-Point Action Programme on Anti-Personnel Mines, presented by Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Klaus Kinkel (English Version), Bonn, Germany, 18 July 1996, p. 1.
The essential elements of the action programme included:
1. A call for an international ban on anti-personnel landmines.
2. A summary of German efforts to help with mine clearance.
3. An outline of the contribution of the Federal Armed Forces towards training experts in mine detection and clearance.
4. A request that NATO and the Western European Union support efforts to clear mines.
5. A call for the speediest and widest possible application of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
6. Establishing that contributions of mine-afflicted countries to resolve their mine problems would be a criterion for support from German financial and technical cooperation programmes.
7. Urging the United Nations to make mine clearance part of UN peacekeeping missions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=germany&pqs_section=; www.auswaertiges-amt.de, Seven-Point Action Programme on Anti-Personnel Mines, presented by Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Klaus Kinkel (English Version), Bonn, Germany, 18 July 1996, pp. 1–3.
Germany hosted a conference near Bonn on 24–25 April 1997, the focus of which was discussions on verification measures in the context of an international treaty banning anti-personnel landmines.
Germany
Germany ratified the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on 23 April 1997 and deposited its instruments of ratification on 2 May 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=germany&pqs_section=; DIP – Das Informationssystem für Parlamentarische Vorgänge (Information System on Parliamentary Proceedings), GESTA: XA012, Gesetz zum Protokoll II in der am 3. Mai 1996 geänderten Fassung und zum Protokoll IV vom 13. Oktober 1995 zum VN-Waffenübereinkommen (Law concerning Protocol II, revised version of 3 May 1996, and Protocol IV of 13 October 1995 to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons). http://dip.bundestag.de.
Germany was one of the first States to do so, but on the occasion, the Foreign Minister, Klaus Kinkel, remarked that the Amended Protocol was unsatisfactory as it did not include a general ban on anti-personnel landmines worldwide. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=germany&pqs_section=; Press release, 2 May 1997, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de.
Germany
In its Annual Disarmament Report 2003, submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) in 2004, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
Since 2000, in the context of meetings on the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, to which – unlike to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines] – all States relevant for this issue are parties, the Federal Government has worked towards minimizing as far as possible the dangers of long-lived or non-detectable mines and has aimed for a prohibition of non-detectable anti-vehicle mines and of remotely delivered anti-vehicle mines whose functioning is not limited in time. It supports a corresponding proposal, co-supported by about 30 States, for a new Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. So far this proposition has met with the resistance of individual States party, which could not see anti-vehicle mines as a primary problem of international humanitarian law.
For the meetings of the expert group in 2003, Germany had taken it on to analyse the reactions of States party to our initiative on sensitive fuse mechanisms for anti-vehicle mines. The findings were presented in a final report on 21 November 2003. Together with the survey, this report will contribute to the development of best practices; during the time before a potential regulation by international law, they take humanitarian demands into account.
The Federal Armed Forces neither possess land mines whose fuses cannot be recommended as methods of detonation, nor non-detectable anti-vehicle mines and remotely delivered anti-vehicles mines whose functioning is not limited in time.
Based on the decision of the German Bundestag of 13 June 2002, the Federal Government continues to work towards humanitarian demands being taken into account in the employment of anti-vehicle mines. A practical example of this is exactly our initiative on sensitive fuse mechanisms for anti-vehicle mines, mentioned in the paragraph above, which are meant to increase the awareness of non-acceptable technological solutions and finally to lead to generally accepted standards on this issue. Progress in this respect is to be expected most likely in the context of consultations and negotiations on the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Their subsequent transfer into the Ottawa Convention might be considered.  
Germany, Federal Government, Annual Disarmament Report 2003, 14 May 2004, p. 53.
Germany
In 2005, in a proposal for best practice regarding sensitive fuses and sensors for mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM) submitted to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons working group on MOTAPM, Germany stated:
Introduction
1. The use of MOTAPM can cause humanitarian suffering and can be a serious impediment to humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, peacemaking, reconstruction, social and economic development. This appears to be concurrent with a general recognition that MOTAPM are a defensive weapon permissible according to international humanitarian law, as there is the need to warrant the operational capability of armed forces as well as their protection. Humanitarian aspects and military requirements need to be balanced.
2. Fuses and sensors are a crucial factor, alongside others, to ensure the proper functioning of MOTAPM. “Sensitive fuses” are those fuses which, although designed to be activated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle, are highly likely to be activated by the presence, proximity or contact of a person. For the purpose of this proposal, “sensitive fuses” do not include anti-handling devices.
Method of best practice
3. Best practice for fuse and sensor mechanisms employed in MOTAPM aims to reduce probable risks to human beings. The purpose of best practice is thus to determine suitable technical parameters for fuse mechanisms, which will increase the discriminatory capacity of MOTAPM and will prevent them from being actuated accidentally by the presence, proximity or contact of a person. This approach to best practice for sensitive fuses is neither attempting to, nor capable of, dealing with the issue of distinguishing civilian from military vehicles.
Types of fuses and sensors
4. Based on information and data provided by States Parties, the following broadly available fuses and sensors are considered as relevant: acoustic sensors; break wires; fiber-optic wires; infra-red-sensors; magnetic sensors; pressure sensors; roller arms; scratch wire sensors; seismic/vibration sensors; tilt rods; trip wires.
Grading sensitivity
5. Category One: Fusing systems that cannot be designed not to be excessively sensitive, i.e. break wires, tilt rods, and trip wires.(i)
(i) Break wires, tilt rods, and trip wires do not appear to be a recommended method of activation, as it does not seem possible to design them in such a way that an individual cannot, within reason, initiate the mine.
6. Category Two: Fusing systems that can be designed not to be excessively sensitive, but are best used in conjunction with other sensors, i.e. acoustic sensors,(i) infrared-sensors,(ii) and seismic/vibration sensors.(iii)
(i) Acoustically activated fuses use electronic sensors to react to acoustic pressure and recognize the acoustic signature. Use in conjunction with other sensors is preferable.
(ii) Infrared activated fuses should be designed so as not to be activated in the presence of a person. The sensor should be able to match detected heat signatures to the intended target preferably in conjunction with other sensors.
(iii) Seismic/Vibration sensors cannot currently locate their targets precisely; their use in conjunction with other sensors appears therefore to be indispensable. The sensor should be capable to match a seismic signature to the intended target.
7. Category Three: Fusing systems that can be designed not to be excessively sensitive and can be designed to operate satisfactorily on their own, i.e. fiber-optic wires,(i) magnetic sensors,(ii) pressure sensors,(iii) roller arms,(iv) and scratch wire sensors.(v)
(i) The pressure required to break the fiber-optic signal should be appropriate for the intended target.
(ii) To enhance military utility, magnetically activated mines should be capable of matching a magnetic signature to the intended target.
(iii) Pressure sensors should, where possible, be subject to a minimum pressure force appropriate for the intended target, e.g. 1500–1800 Newton. Pressure should preferably be exerted over a significant area (equal to that of a vehicle) rather than a single point.
(iv) The number of turns required to initiate the roller arm fuse should be matched to the intended target.
(v) The scratch wire sensor should be designed for specific targets by optimizing the scratch time, frequency and amplitude required to initiate the sensor by the intended target.
Qualifying sensitivity
8. Notwithstanding the recommendations pursuant to the preceding paragraphs 5 to 7, the observations in the subsequent paragraphs 9 to 11 merit due attention.
9. Future MOTAPM could incorporate multi-sensor fuses technology in order to reduce the possibility of inadvertent or accidental activation. If a single fuse or sensor fulfills safety requirements as recommended, the incorporation of multi-sensor fuses should be discretionary.
10. The influence of environmental factors – particularly (i) of weather and climate as well as (ii) of storage, handling and other external conditions – should be taken into account when selecting the types of fuses and determining the sensitivity of fuses.
11. Considerations and proposals of technical measures should take into account operational, procurement as well as life cycle factors; they should address clearly identified humanitarian issues as opposed to unquantifiable theoretical risks. 
Germany, Sensitive fuses and sensors for mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM) – Proposal for best practice, CCW/GGE/X/WG.2/WP.2, 6 January 2005, pp. 1–3.
Germany
In its Annual Disarmament Report 2004, submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) in 2005, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
A further mandate, confirmed [by the meeting of States party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] on 19 November 2004, concerns the continuation of consultations on anti-vehicle mines – in view of the opposition of individual States party a mandate to negotiate could not be reached, contrary to the request by the Federal Government. Since 2000, in the context of meetings on the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, to which – unlike to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines] – all States relevant for this issue are parties, the Federal Government has worked towards minimizing as far as possible the dangers of long-lived or non-detectable mines and has aimed for a prohibition of non-detectable anti-vehicle mines and of remotely delivered anti-vehicle mines whose functioning is not limited in time. It supports a corresponding proposal, co-supported by about 30 States, for a new Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. To this purpose, it has financed the study “Humanitarian Impact from Mines other than Anti-Personnel Mines”…, presented on 8 November 2004 by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, which convincingly shows the long-lasting manner in which anti-vehicle mines whose functioning time is not limited in time are a threat to the civilian population in its living environments after the end of armed conflicts.
The efforts of the Federal Government toward the further development of humanitarian armament control are supported in particular by the circumstance that with regard to the German armed forces it has already been decided to have, from 2010, for employment purposes only such anti-vehicle mines whose functioning is limited in time. 
Germany, Federal Government, Annual Disarmament Report 2004, 17 June 2005, pp. 55–56.
[emphasis in original]
Germany
In its Annual Disarmament Report 2005, submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) in 2006, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
A further mandate, confirmed [by the meeting of States party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] in November 2005, concerns the continuation of consultations on anti-vehicle mines – in view of the opposition of individual States party a mandate to negotiate could not be reached, contrary to the request by the Federal Government. Since 2000, in the context of meetings on the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, to which – unlike to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines] – all States relevant for this issue are parties, the Federal Government has worked towards minimizing as far as possible the dangers of long-lived or non-detectable mines and has therefore aimed for a prohibition of non-detectable anti-vehicle mines and of remotely delivered anti-vehicle mines whose functioning is not limited in time. It supports a corresponding proposal, co-supported by currently 31 States, for a new Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. To this purpose, it has financed the study “Humanitarian Impact from Mines other than Anti-Personnel Mines”…, presented on 8 November 2004 by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, which convincingly shows the long-lasting manner in which anti-vehicle mines whose functioning is not limited in time are a threat to the civilian population in its living environments after the end of armed conflicts. In 2005, in order to reduce the dangers of anti-vehicle mines, Germany proposed in the group of government experts to prohibit the employment of such fuses that have an increased risk potential. A further German initiative concerns the reduction of the dangers of anti-handling devices in anti-vehicle mines. The Federal Armed Forces already fulfill the standards aimed for.
The efforts of the Federal Government towards the further development of humanitarian armament control are supported in particular by the circumstance that with regard to the German armed forces it has already been decided to have, from 2010, for employment purposes only such anti-vehicle mines whose functioning is limited in time. 
Germany, Federal Government, Annual Disarmament Report 2005, 12 May 2006, p. 50.
Germany
In 2006, in a white paper on “German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr”, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defence stated:
Germany actively supports the worldwide application of the Ottawa Convention on the global ban of anti-personnel mines and its consistent implementation. In the course of the negotiations on the UN Weapons Convention, Germany as a party to this Convention is striving for further development of humanitarian arms control, particularly with regard to anti-vehicle mines and cluster munitions. 
Germany, Federal Ministry of Defence, White Paper 2006 on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr, 25 October 2006, p. 46.
Germany
In 2006, in a report on the cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Nations in the Years 2004 and 2005, submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
11. Ottawa Convention on the global ban on anti-personnel mines
The Ottawa Convention of 18 September 1997 with currently 151 States party (as of: September 2006) is the central treaty instrument for the worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines. As a State party to the Convention, Germany in the United Nations also in the years 2004 and 2005 underlined as a co-sponsor of resolutions A/RES/59/84 and A/RES/60/80 the determination to eliminate anti-personnel mines. In the resolutions, all States are called upon to accede to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines] or to ratify it without delay. The primary aim of Germany and its partners in the EU is the worldwide application of the Convention and its consistent implementation. As an element of its dedication to the worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines the Federal Government gives assistance to mine and ordnance clearance, in particular where they are a pressing humanitarian problem (see: Humanitarian Demining).
12. UN Weapons Convention
The UN Weapons Convention of 10 October 1980 aims to prohibit or restrict the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects, in declared wars or other international armed conflicts … Germany is a State party to the Convention and all its Protocols. On 3 March 2005, Germany, as the fifth State party, deposited the instrument on the ratification of Protocol V with the UN Secretary-General as depositary of the UN Weapons Convention … Resolutions A/RES/59/107 and A/RES/60/93 on the UN Weapons Convention, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2004 and 2005 and co-sponsored by Germany, inter alia called for a speedy ratification of the new Protocol. On 26 July 2005, following ratification, the amendment to Article 1 of the UN Weapons Convention (applicability of the Convention and its Protocols also to non-international armed conflicts) has come into force for Germany. A mandate of an expert group on anti-vehicle mines in the framework of the UN Weapons Convention, established on the initiative of Germany and friendly States, has been confirmed for 2006 at the meeting of States party in November 2005. The purpose of this is to reduce as much as possible the dangers caused by long-lived or non-detectable anti-vehicle mines. The Federal Government supports the proposal, co-supported by 31 States, for a new Protocol which, inter alia, provides prohibitions on non-detectable anti-vehicle mines as well as remotely delivered anti-vehicle mines whose functioning is not limited in time.  
Germany, Federal Government, Report on the Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Nations in the Years 2004 and 2005, 7 December 2006, p. 18.
Germany
In its Annual Disarmament Report 2006, submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) in 2007, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
The 3rd Review Conference [on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] in 2006 decided, inter alia, to continue the discussions on a new Protocol concerning anti-vehicle mines (MOTAPM) at the next meeting of States party [to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] in 2007, to which – unlike to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines] – all States relevant for this issue are parties. This concerns the minimization as far as possible of the dangers to the civilian population of long-lived or non-detectable as well as remotely delivered anti-vehicle mines. The efforts of the Federal Government toward the further development of humanitarian armament control are supported in particular by the circumstance that with regard to the German armed forces it has already been decided to have, from 2010, for employment purposes only such anti-vehicle mines whose functioning is limited in time. 
Germany, Federal Government, Annual Disarmament Report 2006, 27 April 2007, p. 29.
Germany
In 2010, in its Annual Disarmament Report 2009 submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
Having entered into force in 1999, the [1997] Ottawa Convention is the central treaty instrument for the worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines and thus a milestone of international humanitarian law. …
The 2nd Review Conference of the Ottawa Convention took place between 30 November and 4 December 2009 in Cartagena, Colombia, under Norwegian presidency. This was an occasion to draw positive conclusions regarding the previous five years. The international market for landmines has completely dried up, and there have been great successes in mine clearance.
On the one hand, the participation of the USA, China, Russia and India (as observers) and, on the other hand, the general observation that these States, who are not contracting States, have largely complied with the Convention in the last five years must be considered a success of the Review Conference. The Convention thereby makes an impact beyond the circle of contracting States. While the number of States parties has been stagnating since 2007 at 156, Poland’s and Finland’s announcement to ratify the Convention by the end of 2012 opens the prospect of all member States of the European Union being contracting States at the next Review Conference in 2014. 
Germany, Federal Government, Annual Disarmament Report 2009, 13 January 2010, pp. 22–23.
[footnote in original omitted]
The Federal Government also stated regarding the Review Conference of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons held in Geneva in 2009:
[T]he Federal Government, supported by Ireland, Australia and Latvia, has spoken out in favour of the resumption of negotiations on anti-vehicle mines. However, it was not possible to reach consensus on this matter because many States give higher priority to the conclusion of a protocol on cluster munitions. The topic of anti-vehicle mines will again be on the agenda of the Conference of States parties in 2010. 
Germany, Federal Government, Annual Disarmament Report 2009, 13 January 2010, p. 24.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on German humanitarian aid abroad between 2006 and 2009 which was submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
What has been achieved within a few years by the Ottawa Convention is considerable:
- 156 States have acceded (since 2005 there have been 13 new signatory States).
- The number of victims has remained almost constant in the reporting period (2006 = 5.751; 2008 = 5.197).
- The trade in anti-personnel mines has practically ceased.
- The use of anti-personnel mines by national States is stigmatized.
- Only two countries (Russia, Myanmar) have reportedly still used anti-personnel mines in 2008. Moreover, non-State armed groups have used anti-personnel mines in seven other countries.
- Important countries which have not acceded to the Convention (Russia, China, USA) have adopted a moratorium on exports.
- Approximately 44 million anti-personnel mines from stock piles have so far been destroyed.
- Approximately 2.2 million anti-personnel mines have so far been removed (in addition, approximately 250.000 anti-vehicle mines … have been removed. 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on German Humanitarian Aid Abroad 2006 to 2009, 5 August 2010, pp. 13–14
Germany
In 2010, in reply to a Minor Interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions”, Germany’s Federal Government wrote:
12. What is the current state of the Federal Government’s measures, announced in the Annual Disarmament Report 2009 (p. 8), to work towards a protocol on the prohibition of anti-vehicle mines?
With the support of Australia, Ireland and Lithuania, at last year’s Meeting of the States Parties to the [1980] Convention on Conventional Weapons the Federal Government advocated the resumption of negotiations on a protocol concerning the prohibition of anti-vehicle mines which are non-detectable or which do not offer the possibility to limit the period in which they are active, the possibility of self-neutralization or of self-destruction. The Federal Government will do this again at this year’s Meeting of the States Parties. 
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by Members Agnes Malczack, Dr. Gerhard Schick, Marieluise Beck (Bremen), further Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, BT-Drs. 17/3185, 5 October 2010, p. 6.
The Federal Government further wrote:
13. How does the Federal Government ensure that there are no civilian victims when using anti-vehicle mines which only remain active in the ground for a certain period of time?
Which rules of engagement exist on this matter?
The Bundeswehr only has anti-tank mines in its stockpile which only remain active in the ground for a certain period of time. … The Bundeswehr is not using anti-tank mines in any of its current operations. 
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by Members Agnes Malczack, Dr. Gerhard Schick, Marieluise Beck (Bremen), further Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, BT-Drs. 17/3185, 5 October 2010, p. 6.
Ghana
Ghana endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and voted in favour of the UN resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as relevant OAU resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=ghana&pqs_section=.
Greece
In 2001, Greece and Turkey made a joint statement in which they declared:
… They also recognize that a total ban on [anti-personnel] mines is an important confidence building measure that would contribute to security and stability in the region.
With these considerations in mind, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey … and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic … have emphasized the desirability of the adherence of all states to the Convention on Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, namely the Ottawa Convention. In this context, they have decided to concurrently start the procedures that will make both sides parties to the Ottawa Convention. For this purpose, while Greece initiates ratification process, Turkey will start accession procedures. It is also agreed that the instruments of ratification by Greece and accession by Turkey will be simultaneously deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations in due course. 
Greece and Turkey, Joint Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic on Anti-Personnel Land Mines, Ankara, 6 April 2001.
Grenada
Grenada endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997 and supported the relevant CARICOM/CENTAM declaration and statements and OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=grenada&pqs_section=.
Guatemala
Guatemala was an early supporter of a ban on anti-personnel landmines. In September 1996, it joined with other Central American nations in declaring the region a mine-free zone in a joint statement signed by each nation’s Foreign Minister, committing to no production, trade or use of anti-personnel mines. Guatemala endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Guatemala also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=guatemala&pqs_section=.
Guinea
Guinea participated in African efforts to support the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, including the OAU meeting in Kempton Park, South Africa in May 1997. It attended preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, including the International Strategy Conference in Ottawa, Canada, in October 1996, and endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. Guinea was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=guinea&pqs_section=.
Guyana
Guyana endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. It also supported the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=guyana&pqs_section=.
India
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, India stated:
Having agreed to the extension of the scope of the Protocol to non-international armed conflicts as defined in the Geneva Conventions, [India] has proposed a ban on the use of land-mines in such conflicts and a ban on the transfer of these weapons … We would, therefore, be happy to join other sponsors of the draft resolution on a moratorium on the export of land-mines, with the goal of their eventual elimination as viable and humane alternatives are developed. 
India, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.11, 26 October 1995, p. 20.
India
At the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1999, India stated that it
remains committed to the objective of a non-discriminatory, universal and global ban on anti-personnel mines through a phased process that addresses the legitimate defence requirements of States, while at the same time ameliorating the humanitarian crises that have resulted from an irresponsible transfer and indiscriminate use of landmines. 
India, Statement at the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 15 December 1999.
India
In 2003, at the 5th Annual Conference of the States Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the head of the Indian delegation stated:
Mr. President, India supports the vision of a world free of the threat of landmines and explosive remnants of war to enable individuals and communities to live in a safe environment conducive to development. We remain fully committed to the ultimate objective of a non‐discriminatory universal and global ban on anti‐personnel mines in a manner that addresses the legitimate defence requirements of the States. India believes that the process of complete elimination of Anti‐Personnel Landmines will be facilitated by the availability of appropriate militarily effective, non‐lethal and cost effective alternative technologies. This will enable the legitimate defensive role of anti‐personnel landmines for operational requirements, to be addressed, thereby furthering our objective.
India remains committed to full and effective implementation of the [1996] Amended Protocol II [to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] and has taken all the required measures to ensure the compliance with its provisions. India has implemented the stipulated technical modifications in the design of the anti‐personnel landmines to make them detectable. The production of non‐detectable mines has been discontinued since January 1997. As we have reported, India has completed design and development of detectable anti‐personnel mines, affixed with 8 grams of iron and a programme has been evolved to ensure that implementation is completed well before the stipulated period, as per provisions laid down in Amended Protocol II. Moreover, as stated earlier, India observes a formal moratorium of unlimited duration prohibiting all exports of landmines. In India, the production and use of landmines is restricted to the agencies of the federal Government and there is no manufacture or trade in landmines in the private sector.
Further, India has taken several steps in order to sensitize the armed forces and to increase public awareness of issues related to anti‐personnel landmines, including dissemination of a booklet on India’s position on landmines and her obligations under Amended Protocol II to all armed forces headquarters, formations and units, organization on a frequent basis of presentations and seminars, inclusion of this subject in the syllabi of relevant army courses and regular interaction among agencies of the Government of India for exchange of views and information on the implementation of the provisions of Amended Protocol II. 
India, Statement by the head of the Indian delegation at the 5th Annual Conference of the States Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 26 November 2003.
India
In 2005, at the 7th Annual Conference of the States Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the head of the Indian delegation stated:
India’s commitment to AP II [the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention Certain Conventional Weapons] is testified by its full and effective implementation of the provisions of the Protocol. As required by the Protocol, design and development of detectable anti-personnel mines has been completed, necessary technical issues resolved and requisite financial support obtained to effect these modifications. The concerned agencies have formulated and disseminated a comprehensive roadmap to ensure that the commitments are met well before the stipulated deadline. India has not produced non-detectable mines since January 1997. India also observes a formal moratorium on export of landmines and favours an outright ban on transfer of mines even to States Parties to the Protocol. In India, the production, trade and use of landmines is solely vested with agencies of the Union Government. 
India, Statement by the Head of the Indian Delegation at the 7th Annual Conference of the States Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 23 November 2005.
Israel
At the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, Israel, attending the meeting as an observer, stated that it “whole-heartedly supports the ultimate goal of this Convention” and that it
supports a gradual process in which each state will begin doing its part to reduce the indiscriminate use of landmines, toward the eventual goal of a total ban … The first step should be the elimination of the production of [anti-personnel landmines] to be followed by finding appropriate replacements for landmines and then, later on, when security circumstances allow, a total ban on the use of [anti-personnel landmines]. 
Israel, Statement at the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Maputo, 3–7 May 1999.
Israel
In 2001, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Israel stated:
Israel supports the ultimate humanitarian goal of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, aimed at eliminating the consequences of indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines … [Israel] is still required to resort to defensive operations against terrorists in order to prevent attacks on its civilians. Therefore, we remain at present unable to support an immediate enactment of a total ban on landmines. 
Israel, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 56/PV.19, 31 October 2001, p. 6.
Haiti
Haiti first pledged its support for an immediate and total ban on anti-personnel landmines in May 1996. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=haiti&pqs_section=; Letter from Minister Counsellor Guy Pierre, Permanent Mission Permanente of Haiti, Washington, DC, to Human Rights Watch, in response to International Campaign to Ban Landmines Questionnaire, 8 May 1996.
Haiti endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998 and supported the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=haiti&pqs_section=.
Holy See
In April 1996, immediately prior to the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Pope John Paul II publicly called for a total ban on anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=holy_see&pqs_section=; “Pope Calls for Total Ban on Landmines”, Reuters News Service, 21 April 1996.
The Holy See strongly criticized the conference when it failed to produce such a ban. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=holy_see&pqs_section=; “Vatican Condemns Decision of Landmine Conference”, Reuters News Service, 6 May 1996.
Subsequently, Pope John Paul II embraced the “Ottawa Process” ” which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. On the eve of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines coming into force, the Pontiff stated:
I pray to God to give all people the courage to make peace, so that the countries that have not yet signed this important instrument of international humanitarian law do so without delay, and so that they persevere with the work of clearing landmines and rehabilitating the wounded. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=holy_see&pqs_section=; “Pope Urges all Countries to Sign Anti-Mine Treaty”, Reuters News Service, 28 February 1999.
Honduras
Honduras first endorsed an immediate, comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines in April 1996. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=honduras&pqs_section=; Letter from Honduran Ambassador to the United States, Roberto Flores Bermudez, to Human Rights Watch, in response to ICBL questionnaire, 22 April 1996.
In September 1996, Honduras joined with other Central American nations in declaring the region a mine-free zone in a joint statement signed by each nation’s Foreign Minister, committing not to produce, trade or use anti-personnel landmines. Honduras endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Honduras also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions.  
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=honduras&pqs_section=.
Hungary
Hungary attended all the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Hungary also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=hungary&pqs_section=.
Iceland
Iceland was an active participant in all of the preparatory meetings and negotiations which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=iceland&pqs_section=.
Iceland’s representative at the mine ban treaty signing conference in Ottawa, Canada, in December 1997 stated:
Iceland will take an active interest in the International Action Plan to address assistance and rehabilitation of victims with the objective to contribute to the best of its ability in these two important areas. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=iceland&pqs_section=; Statement by Mr Helgi Agustsson, Permanent Under-Secretary, Head of Icelandic Delegation to Mine Ban Treaty Signing Ceremony, Ottawa, 3–4 December 1997.
Ireland
Already in 1994, at the beginning of the review process of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Ireland supported a ban on anti-personnel landmines. Ireland became a member of the core group of countries that took responsibility for developing and promoting the mine ban treaty. In his speech at the mine ban treaty signing conference in Ottawa, Canada, in December 1997, the Irish Foreign Minister, David Andrews, stated:
International public opinion will not tolerate for much longer the absence of countries, in particular significant states, from the roll call of States Parties to this most significant instrument for the abolition of lethal devices which serve no military purpose and the use of which or the preparation for the use of which must quickly be deemed unacceptable anywhere by anyone. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=ireland&pqs_section=; Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, Mr David Andrews, Ottawa, 3 December 1997.
Ireland
On the basis of the Explosives Act originating in 1875, a legislative ban on anti-personnel landmines was passed in the Dáil on 12 June 1996 entitled Explosives (Land Mines) Order, 1996. In her statement on the law, the Minister of State, Joan Burton, said that the Order “copperfastens our national policy of not allowing the manufacture, sale or import of landmines. It significantly enhances our international advocacy of a total ban on antipersonnel landmines.” The minister clarified that the Order, however, did not apply to Defence Forces. Burton also stated that the government had requested a review by the Minister of Defence with a view to renouncing operational use of anti-personnel landmines by the Defence Forces. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=ireland&pqs_section=; Minister of State Joan Burton, Statement of 19 June 1996, as cited in Landmines Update, No. 13, July 1996.
Ireland came to the view that it could and must also prohibit the use of anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=ireland&pqs_section=.
Italy
In November 1993, the Italian Government stopped authorizing the export of anti-personnel landmines. On 2 August 1994, a unilateral moratorium on the production and trade of anti-personnel landmines was adopted. On 20 January 1995, Italy deposited its instrument of ratification of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocol II on mines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=italy&pqs_section=.
Italy participated in the International Strategy Conference “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-personnel Mines” in October 1996 which started the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Prior to that, at the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Minister, Lamberto Dini, had announced Italy’s decision to give up the production, trade and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines. On 13 June 1997, just before the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines, the government announced that Italy would completely renounce anti-personnel landmines, including their use. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=italy&pqs_section=; “To integrate the measures already adopted in terms of renouncing production and export of such weapons, and of starting their destruction, the Cabinet has agreed on the need to renounce completely the operational use of antipersonnel landmines. This decision, while responding to the strong call of national and international public opinion, has been adopted to help achieve a solid international understanding and a definite solution to the plight posed by antipersonnel landmines”, Cabinet Communiqué, Rome, 13 June 1997.
Jamaica
Jamaica endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998 and the CARICOM/CENTAM declaration on landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=jamaica&pqs_section=.
Japan
At the Lyon Summit in 1996, the Japanese Prime Minister, Ryutaro Hashimoto, expressed Japan’s intention to host “an international conference for the purpose of strengthening international support for the efforts by the United Nations to remove mines”. He further stated: “I also mentioned that we have decided recently to actively support efforts for a total international ban of antipersonnel mines.” 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=japan&pqs_section=; Press Conference by Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, 29 June 1996.
Subsequently, the Japanese Government hosted the Tokyo Conference on Antipersonnel Landmines in March 1997.
Japan also reiterated its support for a global ban on anti-personnel mines during UN General Assembly meetings in 1996 and voted in favour the UN General Assembly resolution in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines adopted the same year. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=japan&pqs_section=.
Despite its public position, Japan did not express its support for the mine ban treaty until September 1997, with its decision to participate in the Oslo negotiations which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. The real shift in the government’s position came after the then Foreign Minister, Keizo Obuchi, decided to review Japanese policy, on the day he became Foreign Minister. Obuchi noted that “it would not make sense for Japan to oppose the Treaty while cooperating in demining activities in Cambodia.” 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=japan&pqs_section=; Asahi Shimbun, 28 September 1997.
After internal discussions among relevant ministries, the government announced its decision to sign the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines on 27 November 1997, and the Foreign Minister himself flew to Ottawa to take part in the mine ban treaty signing ceremony on 3 December 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=japan&pqs_section=.
Japan
At the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, Japan stated that it was deeply concerned about the use of anti-personnel landmines in Kosovo and called upon “all parties involved in the Kosovo question to refrain from the use of anti-personnel landmines”. 
Japan, Statement at the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Maputo, 3–7 May 1999.
Jordan
Jordan was an active participant in the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and participated fully in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997. Yet it did not sign the treaty when it opened for signature in Ottawa, Canada, in December 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=jordan&pqs_section=.
Kazakhstan
In 2000, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Kazakhstan stated:
Kazakhstan fully supports the humanitarian orientation of the Ottawa Convention, whose goal is the complete elimination of anti-personnel mines … However, in our view, the movement for the complete prohibition of anti-personnel mines should be an ongoing and step-by-step process based on the mine Protocol to the Convention on inhumane weapons. 
Kazakhstan, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/55/PV.12, 12 October 2000, p. 13.
Kenya
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Kenya declared its support for a ban on anti-personnel landmines. 
Kenya, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.6, 18 October 1995, p. 15.
Kenya
Kenya participated in the preparatory meeting for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines held in Vienna, Austria, in February 1997. Subsequently, it attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=kenya&pqs_section=.
Kuwait
Kuwait attended the preparatory meetings which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines in early 1997 but did not endorse the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. It participated fully in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on landmines in 1996 and 1997. Yet, it attended to the mine ban treaty signing conference in Ottawa, Canada, in December 1997 only as an observer and did not sign the treaty. Subsequently, it voted in favour of the 1998 UN General Assembly resolution welcoming new signatories and urging full implementation of the treaty. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=kuwait&pqs_section=.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
In December 1994, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic was one of the first to call publicly for an immediate, comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=lao&pqs_section=; Statement before the UN General Assembly, December 1994.
Lesotho
Lesotho endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and made a statement at the conference affirming its commitment to a total ban on anti-personnel landmines before the end of 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=lesotho&pqs_section=; Statement by the Lesotho Delegation to the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines, June 1997.
Lesotho was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also supported the June 1997 OAU resolution, based on the “Plan of Action” adopted at the OAU meeting in Kempton Park, South Africa. Lesotho voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1998, but was absent from the vote on the 1997 resolution. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=lesotho&pqs_section=.
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein first voiced its support for an immediate and total ban on anti-personnel landmines on 22 April 1996 during the negotiations on the Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Liechtenstein endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=liechtenstein&pqs_section=.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg participated fully in the meetings which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, including the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=luxembourg&pqs_section=.
Malaysia
In a speech before the UN General Assembly in December 1994, Malaysia became one of the first nations in the world to call for an immediate and total ban on anti-personnel landmines. Malaysia voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=malaysia&pqs_section=.
As a member of ASEAN, Malaysia was a co-signatory of the final declaration of the 12th EU-ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting, held in Singapore in February 1997, during which the parties
agreed to attach a high priority to efforts to deal with the suffering and destruction caused by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines and called on states to work towards an agreement banning the use, stockpile, production and transfer of [anti-personnel landmines]. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=malaysia&pqs_section=.
Malaysia attended all the preparatory meetings which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 and subsequently signed the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines on 3 December 1997. At the treaty signing conference in Ottawa, Canada,, Ambassador Dato’ Abdullah Zawawi B. Haji Mohamed, stated:
The landmines problem is first and foremost a humanitarian problem. Malaysia is firm in its conviction that the humanitarian impact of antipersonnel mines far outweighs their military utility and economics. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=malaysia&pqs_section=; Statement by Ambassador Dato’ Abdullah Zawawi B. Haji Mohamed, High Commissioner for Malaysia to Canada, at the Ottawa Convention Signing Ceremony, Ottawa, 2–4 December 1997.
Malawi
In February 1997, at the Fourth International NGO Conference on Landmines in Maputo, Mozambique, General O.B. Binauli, High Commissioner of Malawi to Mozambique, stated that Malawi “condemn[s] the manufacture, export, import, use and stockpiling of any type of mines.” 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=malawi&pqs_section=; “Malawi Government Position on Landmines”, presented by H.E. General O.B. Binauli, High Commissioner of Malawi to Mozambique, to the Fourth International NGO Conference on Landmines, Maputo, Mozambique, 27 February 1997.
Malawi attended the preparatory meeting for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines in Bonn, Germany, in 1997 and endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 but did not participate in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=malawi&pqs_section=.
Mali
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Mali stated that it was “urgent to put an end to the production of land-mines and to … plan for their progressive destruction”. 
Mali, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.5, 17 October 1995, p. 17.
Mali
Mali participated in the preparatory meetings which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines in 1997, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=mali&pqs_section=.
Malta
Malta first voiced its support for an immediate and total ban on anti-personnel mines on 2 May 1996 during the negotiations on the Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. It endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Malta also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=malta&pqs_section=.
Mauritania
Mauritania endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=mauritania&pqs_section=.
Mauritius
Mauritius participated in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=mauritius&pqs_section=.
Mexico
In 1993, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Mexico stated that it supported an export moratorium on anti-personnel landmines as “a step in the direction of the ultimate prohibition of anti-personnel mines and their destruction”. 
Mexico, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/48/SR.28, 18 November 1993, p. 9.
Mexico
Mexico was a member of the core group of countries that took responsibility for developing and promoting a mine ban treaty. It was one of the first nations in the world to call for a total ban on anti-personnel landmines and has been a diplomatic leader on the landmine issue since the negotiations on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=mexico&pqs_section=.
On 7 February 1997, Mexico’s Permanent Mission to the OAS issued a Declaration of Principles of the Government of Mexico on the Production, Exportation and Use of Antipersonnel Landmines, which detailed the steps taken by Mexico in regional and multilateral fora towards banning anti-personnel mines and which declared the use of anti-personnel mines a violation of IHL. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=mexico&pqs_section=; “Declaración de Principios del Gobierno de México sobre la Producción, Exportación y Uso de Minas Terrestres Antipersonales”, Permanent Mission to the OAS, 7 February 1997.
Mexico
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Mexico stated that it would
redouble efforts and step up coordination with other governments and with civilian organizations for the universality and implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction. 
Mexico, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Mexico
In 2006, at the Seventh Meeting of States Parties to the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, Mexico stated:
Mexico renews its commitment to the humanitarian objectives of the [1997 Ottawa] Convention because it is fully convinced of the need to continue progress towards the complete elimination of anti-personnel mines and towards paying full attention to the serious humanitarian consequences of their use for the civilian population and for the sustainable reconstruction and development of the affected communities. 
Mexico, Statement by the delegation of Mexico at the 7th Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Geneva, 18 September 2006.
Mexico
In 2010, during a special session on international humanitarian law of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Organization of American States, the representative of Mexico stated:
[Gathered] in Cartagena ten years after the entry into force [of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines] and together with universal and regional organisations as well as civil society, we have renewed our commitment to achieve as soon as possible a world free of anti-personnel mines. 
Mexico, Statement by the delegation of Mexico during the special session on international humanitarian law of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Organization of American States, Washington D.C., 29 January 2010.
Monaco
Monaco endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Monaco also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=monaco&pqs_section=.
Mozambique
On 24 October 1995, after a meeting with then UN secretary-general, Boutros Boutros Ghali, the president of Mozambique, Joaquim Chissano, announced that Mozambique was prepared to play a leading role in the international effort to ban landmines. Speaking at the United Nations the following year, Mozambican Foreign Minister, Leonardo Simão, announced his government’s support for a worldwide ban on the production, stockpiling and distribution of landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=mozambique&pqs_section=.
On 26 February 1997, during the Fourth International NGO Conference on Landmines, held in Maputo, Mozambican Foreign Minister, Leonardo Simão, announced Mozambique’s immediate ban on the use, production, import and export of anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=mozambique&pqs_section=.
Following its decision to ban landmines at home, the Mozambican Government continued to play an important role in ensuring African support for the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Mozambique participated in the OAU conference on landmines in Kempton Park, South Africa, and endorsed the Plan of Action and subsequent OAU resolutions on landmines. It endorsed the September 1997 declaration on landmines by SADC heads of State in Lilongwe, Malawi. It also endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. Mozambique voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=mozambique&pqs_section=.
Namibia
Namibia participated in the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, speaking in the government session of the Fourth International NGO Conference on Landmines in February 1997 in Maputo, Mozambique, and attended the OAU meeting in Kempton Park, South Africa in May 1997 and the mine ban treaty preparatory meetings in Vienna, Austria, Bonn, Germany, and Brussels, Belgium. Namibia endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=namibia&pqs_section=.
Netherlands
On 25 August 1995, just before the opening session of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, in a letter to Parliament on landmines, the Dutch Ministers of Foreign Affairs, of Defence and for Development Cooperation outlined the government’s view at that time. The ministers explained that a comprehensive ban on landmines might be achieved in the long term but doubted its feasibility given the lack of international support for a ban; they also noted that there was still a militarily justifiable need for anti-personnel mines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=netherlands&pqs_section=; “Het Landmijnenprobleem” (The Problem of Landmines), letter of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Defence and for Development Cooperation, The Hague, 25 August 1995, 24 292, nr. 1.
But public pressure resulted in the Minister of Defence ordering a review of the Dutch army’s need of anti-personnel landmines in December 1995. This review led to the decision by the government to ban the use and possession of anti-personnel landmines within the Dutch army in March 1996 with broad parliamentary approval. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=netherlands&pqs_section=; “Afschaffing van anti-personeelsmijnen (Abolition of antipersonnel mines),” letter of the Minister of Defence to Parliament, The Hague, 25 August 1995, 24 292, nr. 1.
Thus the Netherlands became one of the first countries to give up the weapon and became a leader in the global movement to achieve a total ban.
In June 1996, the Dutch Government expressed its disappointment at the outcome of the Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and noted, therefore, its decision to accept the Canadian Government’s invitation to participate in a conference in Ottawa, Canada, in October 1996 to develop a strategy to ban anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=netherlands&pqs_section=; Letter of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence, The Hague, 18 June 1996, 24 400 V, No. 76.
At the same time it pleaded for a ban within the European Union and NATO. The Netherlands became a strong pro-ban country and a member of the core group of countries that took responsibility for developing and promoting the mine ban treaty. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=netherlands&pqs_section=.
New Zealand
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, New Zealand stated that it remained “committed to the goal of the elimination of all anti-personnel land-mines”. 
New Zealand, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.9, 25 October 1995, p. 3.
New Zealand
New Zealand first spoke in support of a total and immediate ban on anti-personnel landmines during the Vienna session of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in September 1995. On 22 April 1996, at the opening of the final session of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva, Switzerland, New Zealand unilaterally renounced the operational use of anti-personnel landmines through a joint statement by the Minister of Defence and the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=new_zealand&pqs_section=; Antipersonnel Mines Prohibition Bill, Explanatory Note, November 1998.
New Zealand attended the early meetings of pro-ban governments during the close of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1996 and from then on was a member of the core group of countries that took responsibility for developing and promoting the mine ban treaty. It endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, voted in favour of the relevant UN General Assembly resolutions in 1996, 1997 and 1998 and, in the lead-up to the signing conference in Ottawa, Canada, in December 1997, encouraged as many countries as possible to sign the mine ban treaty. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=new_zealand&pqs_section=.
New Zealand
During a parliamentary debate on the ratification of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines and implementation legislation, the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Don McKinnon, stated:
New Zealand has already declared that we do not need antipersonnel landmines. Our forces have not used them since the Korean War, and we hold no stocks of these weapons. In 1996 the Government announced a moratorium on the use of landmines, which resulted in our Defence Force unilaterally renouncing the use of landmines as a weapon of war. By signing the Ottawa treaty, the Government made it clear that we will explore all avenues for achieving a complete global ban, and that is what this Bill seeks to do. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=new_zealand&pqs_section=; Rt Hon. Don McKinnon, Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control, Second Reading debate on the Antipersonnel Mines Prohibition Bill, 30 June 1998.
New Zealand
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, New Zealand stated that it would “continue to play a constructive role in international de-mining efforts and in encouraging the universal ratification of the Ottawa Convention”. 
New Zealand, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Nicaragua
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Nicaragua stated: “The definitive solution to the problem created by mines and other devices in various parts of the world lies in a total ban on the production, stockpiling, exportation and proliferation of such inhumane weapons.” 
Nicaragua, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.11, 26 October 1995, p. 14.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua was one of the early backers of a ban on anti-personnel landmines, first announcing its support for an immediate, comprehensive ban at a UN conference on mine clearance in Geneva, Switzerland, in July 1995. In September 1996, it joined with other Central American nations in declaring the region a mine-free zone in a statement signed by each nation’s Foreign Minister, committing not to produce, trade or use anti-personnel mines. Nicaragua attended all of the preparatory meetings which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. Nicaragua voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=nicaragua&pqs_section=.
Nicaragua
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Nicaragua stated that it would
work for prompt ratification of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols … [and] continue to work unsparingly for mine clearance with a view to making the region a mine-free zone and help mine-blast victims fully reintegrate into society. 
Nicaragua, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Nigeria
Nigeria voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=nigeria&pqs_section=.
Norway
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Norway stated that it would “continue to work for a total ban on the production, stockpiling, trade and use of anti-personnel land-mines”. 
Norway, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.6, 18 October 1995, p. 9.
Norway
Norway was one of the key members of the core group of countries that took responsibility for developing and promoting the mine ban treaty and played a central role in the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines in 1997. The Norwegian Government was instrumental in the shaping of the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=norway&pqs_section=; Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Project list, mine related activities 1994–1998”.
The Norwegian Government also took on the responsibility of hosting the final treaty negotiations in Oslo from 1–18 September 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=norway&pqs_section=; Interview with official at the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Oslo, 22 December 1998.
Norway
In 2009, in a statement at the Second Review Conference of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:
Women, girls, boys and men are killed and injured by anti-personnel mines … every day.
There are still too many survivors who are denied basic human rights and are unable to live a life in dignity.
This is unacceptable and we are here … to ensure that this situation is brought to an end.
Compliance with the obligations of the Mine Ban Convention is the most effective way of doing so. 
Norway, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Second Review Conference of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, Cartagena, Colombia, 3 December 2009.
Panama
On 12 September 1996, Panama’s Foreign Minister joined his Central American counterparts in declaring the region a mine-free zone in a statement signed by each nation’s Foreign Minister, committing not to produce, trade or use anti-personnel mines. Panama endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 but attended the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 only as an observer. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=panama&pqs_section=.
Pakistan
At the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1999, Pakistan declared its hope that the international community would continue working towards “the objective of the complete elimination of anti-personnel mines everywhere”. 
Pakistan, Statement at the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 17 December 1999.
Pakistan
In 1999, in a letter to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Pakistan stated that while it “remains fully committed to the cause of eventual elimination of anti-personnel landmines, defence requirements do not allow it to join the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines] at present”. 
Pakistan, Letter to the UN addressed to the Chair, ICBL Treaty Working Group, 15 November 1999, cited in ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 2000, August 2000, p. 522.
Pakistan
In 2000, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Pakistan stated:
The issue of anti-personnel landmines has particular importance for Pakistan because we witnessed at first hand the plight and the suffering of innocent victims as a result of the massive saturation of Afghanistan with anti-personnel landmines. Millions of mines have still not been cleared in Afghanistan … Although our security environment does not permit us to accept a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines, Pakistan will strictly abide by its commitments and obligations under the amended Protocol II on landmines, to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. We will continue to work with other States parties to promote universal acceptance of Protocol II. 
Pakistan, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 55/PV.13, 13 October 2000, p. 12.
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=papua_new_guinea&pqs_section=.
Paraguay
Paraguay participated in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. Paraguay also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. Paraguay signed the MERCOSUR Declaration of 14 July 1998, which commits signatories to move towards declaring member countries free of anti-personnel landmines and to work to enlarge this zone to include the entire Western Hemisphere. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=paraguay&pqs_section=.
Peru
At the first session of the Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1995, Peru stated that it supported a prohibition on the use of landmines that were not equipped with self-destruct mechanisms. 
Peru, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session), Vienna, Austria, 25 September–13 October 1995, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/SR 5, 3 October 1995, §§ 67–69.
Peru
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Peru stated that it was essential that the international community adopt the necessary measures to eliminate anti-personnel landmines. 
Peru, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.9, 25 October 1995, p. 11.
Peru
During an international conference on humanitarian mine clearance held in Geneva, Switzerland, in July 1995, Peru called for an immediate, comprehensive ban on anti-personnel mines. Peru participated in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=peru&pqs_section=.
Peru
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Peru stated that it would “support and work in favour of any initiatives launched to fortify the international system for the total prohibition of antipersonnel landmines”. 
Peru, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Philippines
In December 1995, during a state visit to Cambodia, the Philippine president, Fidel V. Ramos, issued a statement expressing the Philippine Government’s support to the international community in opposing landmines and to mine-clearing activities and the destruction of stockpiles. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=philippines&pqs_section=; Statement of H.E. Fidel V. Ramos during an official visit to the Kingdom of Cambodia, Chamcar, Phnom Penh, 18 December 1995.
President Ramos’s statement was preceded by several memoranda issued in October 1995 by the chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Department of National Defence providing data on anti-personnel landmine stockpiles and landmine incidents and upholding the six-point Policy Positions proposed by the Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines. The six-point proposals called on the government to immediately ratify the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its annexed Protocols; to support the position of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines for an international total ban and contribute to humanitarian mine action; to confirm or deny reports that the Philippines was a landmine producer; to factor landmine issues into negotiations with the various rebel groups; to contribute concretely to humanitarian mine action in the form of professional and technical support; and to provide special assistance to neighbouring Cambodia in mine clearance, victim rehabilitation, and peace and reconstruction work. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=philippines&pqs_section=; Soliman Santos and Miriam Coronel Ferrer, Policy Brief on the Landmines Issue and the Philippines, October 1995, pp. 21–22.
The government’s position on landmines and armed groups’ concurrence with a moratorium on landmine use are also embodied in peace and cease-fire agreements. For instance, the Joint Guidelines and Ground Rules for the Implementation of the 1993 Interim Cease-fire Agreement between the Government and the Moro National Liberation Front included “landmining” under prohibited hostile acts. Another example is the Operational Guidelines of the Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities between the Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front of 14 November 1997, which lists “landmining” among the prohibited hostile acts. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=philippines&pqs_section=.
Philippines
The Philippine Government was an active partner in the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, attending all of the preparatory meetings. It was a full participant in the International Strategy Conference “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-personnel Mines” held in Ottawa, Canada, in October 1996 , endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. The Philippines voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998.  
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=philippines&pqs_section=.
Philippines
In July 1997, the Philippines, along with the ICRC and the Philippine Red Cross Society, co-sponsored the Asian Regional Seminar for Military and Political Experts in Manila to examine the military value of landmines. In that meeting, it was concluded that the humanitarian cost of using these weapons far outweighed any military utility. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=philippines&pqs_section=; Final Declaration of Participants in the “Anti-Personnel Landmines: What Future for Asia?” Regional Seminar for Asian Military and Strategic Studies Experts, Manila, 20–23 July 1997.
Philippines
In 2003, in its report under Article 7 of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the Philippines stated:
The Philippines, as a State Party to the Ottawa Convention, has an existing policy against the use of anti-personnel mines. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) disposed of its entire anti-personnel mines inventory comprising 2.460 claymore mines on 18 July 1998, and since then, no anti-personnel mines have been obtained, procured or manufactured by the AFP.
House Bill Nr. 222 entitled, “An Act Prohibiting the Use, Manufacture, Sale and Deployment of Land Mines and Prescribing Penalties Thereof”, was filed in June 2000 at the Philippine House of Representatives. A new version of the legislative measure, House Bill No. 346 entitled, “An Act Prohibiting the Use, Manufacture, Acquisition, Sale and Deployment of Landmines and Prescribing Penalties Therefor”, has been filed on 02 July 2001 and is now under consideration by the Committee on Public Order and Security of the House of Representatives.
The obligations assumed under the Mine Ban Treaty form part of the curriculum of all personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Activities/courses on Explosive Ordnance Disposal Training and Bomb Threat Prevention Seminars are conducted by the Armed Forces of the Philippines on a yearly basis as part of its sustainable Mine Awareness Education Program. 
Philippines, Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, updated report in accordance with Article 7, para. 2, reporting period 30 April 2002 to 30 April 2003, date of submission 30 April 2003, Form A.
Poland
Poland attended all the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=poland&pqs_section=.
However, Poland has made clear that it views the Conference on Disarmament (CD) as the appropriate forum for dealing with the landmine issue. It has supported negotiations on anti-personnel landmines in the CD since 1996 and was one of the 22 CD members that in February 1999 jointly called for the appointment of a special coordinator on anti-personnel landmines and the establishment of an ad hoc committee to negotiate a ban on anti-personnel landmine transfers. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=poland&pqs_section=; Statement by Bulgarian Ambassador Petko Draganov to the Conference on Disarmament, undated but February 1999; see also Tomaszewski statement, Budapest Conference Report, p. 22.
Poland
In 2008, in a letter to the Managing Director of the Polish Red Cross, Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:
In response to your letter … concerning the ratification by the Republic of Poland of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, which had been adopted in Oslo on 18 September 1997 (Ottawa Convention), I would like to provide the following information.
For Poland, becoming signatory to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention on 4 December 1997 gave rise to certain consequences under international law, including the obligation not to undertake any actions which could conflict with the contents or objectives of the Convention. I would like to stress that Poland voluntarily fulfils the majority of the terms of the Convention, namely that it does not produce, export or use anti-personnel mines in military operations. There are no mined areas on Polish territory.
Poland … submits annual reports on its activities relating to the issue of mines (in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention). Furthermore, Poland regularly responds to the annual survey issued by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe on anti-personnel mines … as well as the Landmine Monitor survey.
Poland’s ratification of the Convention should be viewed in the context of the State’s defence capabilities. Poland’s armed forces have an obligation, within the framework of NATO, to implement alternatives to anti-personnel mines by the end of 2014.
In the light of the conclusions reached by Polish military experts, the Polish armed forces will be equipped with these alternatives by 2015. However, I would like to assure you that we will aim to speed up this process as far as is possible without prejudice to our defence capabilities. 
Poland, Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Managing Director of the Polish Red Cross, 19 February 2008.
Portugal
Portugal first voiced its support for an immediate and total ban on anti-personnel mines on 3 May 1996 during the negotiations on the Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. At the same time, Portugal also announced an indefinite moratorium on landmine production, export and use, except for training purposes. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=portugal&pqs_section=; Country Profiles, United Nations Demining Database, http:www.un.org.Depts/Landmine/ (Ref. 3/10/99).
Portugal took part in all the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=portugal&pqs_section=.
Qatar
Qatar endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=qatar&pqs_section=.
Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=moldova&pqs_section=.
Republic of Korea
At the International Strategy Conference “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines” held in Ottawa, Canada, in 1996, the Republic of Korea stated that it “in principle supports the ultimate goal of eliminating [anti-personnel landmines]” but that due to the “unique security situation” on the Korean Peninsula, it “cannot fully subscribe to the total and unconditional ban of [anti-personnel landmines]”. 
Republic of Korea, Statement at the International Strategy Conference Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines, Ottawa, 3–5 October 1996.
Russian Federation
Prior to the international conference on New Steps for a Mine-Free Future: Political, Military and Humanitarian Aspects, held in Moscow in May 1998, the Russian Federation stated in a press release issued by the Ministry of Defence that it was “in favour of a complete prohibition of antipersonnel landmines” and that it supported “a stage-by-stage and gradual progress towards this goal”. 
Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence, Press Release, Elimination of antipersonnel mines: position of Russia, 26 May 1998.
Rwanda
Rwanda attended as an observer the International Strategy Conference “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-personnel Mines” in October 1996 which started the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also participated in the preparatory meeting in Bonn, Germany, and endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. Rwanda voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=rwanda&pqs_section=.
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Kitts and Nevis endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?url=lm/1999/kitts_nevis.html.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?url=lm/1999/vincent_grenadines.html.
San Marino
San Marino endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998.  
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=san_marino&pqs_section=.
Saint Lucia
Saint Lucia first announced its support for a total and immediate ban on anti-personnel landmines during a CARICOM ministerial meeting in May 1996, and has since been one of the leading Caribbean promoters of such a ban. Saint Lucia endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998 and supported relevant OAS and CARICOM statements and resolutions. Saint Lucia was a co-sponsor of the 1996 OAS resolution declaring the Western Hemisphere as an anti-personnel landmine-free zone. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=saint_lucia&pqs_section=.
Senegal
Senegal attended the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines in 1997 and the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 where the mine ban treaty was adopted. It endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=senegal&pqs_section=.
Seychelles
Seychelles endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 but was absent from the votes on the UN General Assembly resolutions in 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=seychelles&pqs_section=.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions supporting a ban on anti-personnel mines adopted in 1996, 1997 and 1998. In September 1997, the Foreign Minister, Shirley Gbujuma, told Human Rights Watch that the government in exile would sign the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=sierra_leone&pqs_section=; Interview, London, 15 September 1997.
Slovakia
Slovakia took part in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?url=lm/1999/slovak.html.
Slovenia
Slovenia took part in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998.  
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=slovenia&pqs_section=.
Slovenia
With a view to ensuring the effective national implementation of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, Slovenia enacted two administrative measures in 1998 and 1999 concerning in particular the destruction of anti-personnel mines. 
Slovenia, Execution Plan confirmed by Minister of Defence, 1998; Order by the Chief of General Staff of the Slovenian Army concerning the Destruction of Anti-Personnel Mines in the Slovenian Army, 1999.
South Africa
In May 1996, at the conclusion of the negotiations on the Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, South Africa announced that it was suspending use of anti-personnel landmines, pending an evaluation of the military utility of the weapon. However, it continued at that time to advocate “smart” mines as the solution to the global mine crisis. Over the course of 1996 and early 1997, South Africa’s policy shifted to one of full support for a comprehensive ban.
On 20 February 1997, just before the Fourth International NGO Conference on Landmines in Maputo, Mozambique, South Africa announced, with immediate effect, a comprehensive ban on the use, production and trade of anti-personnel landmines, as well as its intention to destroy existing stocks.
South Africa was a member of the core group of countries that took responsibility for developing and promoting the mine ban treaty. At the first preparatory meeting held in Vienna, Austria, in February 1997, South Africa was the first nation to speak, making a particularly strong statement in support of the process to ban landmines. South Africa hosted the OAU conference on landmines in Kempton Park in May 1997, a key meeting in building support among African States for a mine ban treaty. South Africa’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Jacob Selebi, steered the treaty negotiations towards their successful conclusion in September 1997 in Oslo, Norway. South Africa also endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and supported or co-sponsored the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=south_africa&pqs_section=.
South Africa
In its report on “gross violations of human rights” committed between 1960 and 1993, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that the African National Congress’s use of landmines in the rural areas of Northern and Eastern Transvaal in the period 1985–1987 “cannot be condoned in that it resulted in gross violations of human rights – causing injuries to and loss of lives of civilians, including farm labourers and children”. The Commission further noted that “the use of landmines inevitably leads to civilian casualties as it does not discriminate between military and civilian targets” and that “to its credit, the [African National Congress] abandoned the landmine campaign in the light of the high civilian casualty rate”. 
South Africa, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, 1998, Vol. 2, p. 335.
South Africa
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, South Africa stated that it would “promulgate legislation implementing the Ottawa Convention into domestic law”. 
South Africa, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Spain
Spain did not endorse the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 until the conference was already over. Before the adoption in 1997 of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the only domestic legislation in place was a unilateral moratorium on the export of some types of landmines to certain countries. This first one-year moratorium was adopted in February 1994 (although it did not enter into force until July 1998), and again one year later (February 1995). Finally, in May 1996 the government proposed an indefinite moratorium.
Spain did not oppose the notion of a ban on landmines so much as it did the approach of the “Ottawa Process”. As the government pointed out, it adhered to the Joint Action of the European Union on 28 November 1997, and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines, as well as those of the European Parliament against the use or trade of landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=spain&pqs_section=.
Sudan
The Sudan attended the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and participated full in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=sudan&pqs_section=.
Suriname
Suriname endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=suriname&pqs_section=.
Swaziland
Swaziland voted in support of the UN General Assembly resolution in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996. At the Fourth International NGO Conference on Landmines held in Maputo, Mozambique, in February 1997, Swaziland’s high commissioner to Mozambique, J.M. Dube, called for a ban on anti-personnel landmines “with immediate effect”. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=swaziland&pqs_section=; J.M. Dube, “Swaziland’s Policy Position on Anti-personnel Landmines”, Statement to the Fourth International NGO Conference on Landmines in Maputo, Mozambique, 27 February 1997.
During the OAU meeting on landmines in Kempton Park, South Africa, in May 1997, the principal secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Timothy L. Dlamini, stated that the government “is convinced that the use, development, production and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines should be banned with immediate effect”. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=swaziland&pqs_section=; T. Dlamini, “Swaziland Government’s Position”, Statement to the OAU Conference, Kempton Park, South Africa, 19-21 May 1997.
Swaziland supported the resolution on landmines adopted by the OAU in June 1997, which was based on the Kempton Park Plan of Action. Later that month, Swaziland endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines, affirmed Swaziland’s support for “the total ban on manufacture, use, transfer and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines” and announced its intent to sign the mine ban treaty in December 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=swaziland&pqs_section=; “Declaration by the Kingdom of Swaziland”, Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines, 24–27 June 1997.
Swaziland attended as a full participant the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and spoke against proposals to weaken the treaty text. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=swaziland&pqs_section=.
Sweden
On 2 June 1994, the Swedish Parliament decided that
Sweden in connection with the review conference [of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] should declare that an international prohibition against [anti-personnel land] mines is the only real solution to the humanitarian problem caused by the use of mines. Sweden should in this connection present proposals to achieve such a prohibition.
Following Parliament’s decision, the Swedish Government formally presented a proposal for an international prohibition on the production, transfer, stockpiling and use of anti-personnel landmines at a meeting of governmental experts in August 1994 preparing for the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. While this proposal made Sweden the first country during the review process to formally present a text calling for a total ban on anti-personnel landmines, the government withdrew this proposal during the Review Conference in Vienna, Austria, in October 1995. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=sweden&pqs_section=.
In parallel with the review process of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the landmine debate in Sweden continued, and by the end of 1994, the issue of a unilateral Swedish ban on anti-personnel landmines emerged. In response to a question in Parliament in October 1994, the Swedish Defence Minister declared that – while Sweden was firm in its support for an international ban on anti-personnel landmines – a unilateral Swedish ban would have no effect at all at the international level while considerably weakening the Swedish defence capability. The position of the Defence Minister was challenged by various organizations and parliamentarians and public pressure for a ban continued to build. On 13 December 1996, the Swedish Parliament imposed a unilateral ban, prohibiting the use of anti-personnel landmines and requiring the destruction of all anti-personnel landmines before the end of 2001. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=sweden&pqs_section=; Government Bill 1997/98:175.
Switzerland
On 24 November 1995, the Swiss Ministry of Defence decided to renounce completely the possession and use of anti-personnel landmines. The destruction of stocks was finalized on 2 December 1997. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Message to Parliament concerning the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines [Message concernant la Convention sur l’interdiction de l’emploi, du stockage, de la production et du transfert des mines antipersonnel et sur leur destruction], 19 January 1998, Official Gazette [Bundesblatt/Feuille fédérale/Foglio federale], No. 98.004, 3 March 1998, p. 541.
Switzerland
Switzerland was an active member of the core group of countries that took responsibility for developing and promoting the mine ban treaty. During the “Ottawa Process”, Switzerland opposed dealing with the landmines question within the Conference on Disarmament (CD) both to avoid the risks both of undermining the mine ban treaty and because it feared that action in the CD would allow governments to not support the Ottawa Process in favour of a less restrictive regime. Switzerland opposed tackling the subject of a ban on the transfer of mines within the CD if the definition of the mines covered was not the same as that proposed in the Ottawa Process. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=switzerland&pqs_section=.
Switzerland
In 2007, in its Mine Action Strategy 2008 to 2011, Switzerland stated: “Anti-personnel mines and other explosive remnants of war continue to pose a serious threat, to mutilate and to kill without discrimination – even years after hostilities have ceased.” 
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy 2008 to 2011, 31 December 2007, Preface.
The Strategy stated:
- Legal obligations: In the course of the 1990s, the international community pursued significant efforts aimed at limiting the grave humanitarian consequences of the problems associated with landmines and explosive remnants of war. New legal instruments were created that restrict the use of landmines or introduce precise regulations facilitating demining and the clearance of affected zones. A breakthrough was achieved in 1999 when the Ottawa Convention entered into force, which called for a total ban on anti-personnel mines and has meanwhile been ratified by more than 150 states. This move led to the stigmatisation of the use of anti-personnel mines and succeeded in exerting a positive influence on states that have not yet ratified it, as well as on some non-state armed groups. 
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy 2008 to 2011, 31 December 2007, Part 1.
[footnote in original omitted]
The Strategy further stated:
During the period between 2008 and 2011, Switzerland will contribute substantially towards [the vision of a world without new victims of anti-personnel mines] … by actively campaigning for a world that is free of anti-personnel mines … As one of the first signatories of the Ottawa Convention and in line with its humanitarian tradition, Switzerland already renounced the use of anti-personnel mines and destroyed its last existing stocks in 1999. 
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy 2008 to 2011, 31 December 2007, Part 4.2.
The Strategy also stated:
4.3 Strategic goals:
Within the context of the existing challenges and its own lines of action, Switzerland has defined the following … strategic goals in mine action and related activities for the period between 2008 and 2011:
1. Implementation and universal application of the Ottawa Convention. 
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy 2008 to 2011, 31 December 2007, Part 4.3.
4.4 Political and operational objectives:
The Federal Government has set itself the following political and operational objectives based on the six strategic goals cited above:
1. Implementation and universal application of the Ottawa Convention:
- Active involvement in efforts to implement the Ottawa Convention within the scope of conferences organised by the States Parties …
- Promotion of efforts to incorporate armed non-state groups into the prohibition of anti-personnel mines, especially within the scope of the implementation of the Nairobi Action Plan. Switzerland will continue to support the efforts that have been made to date, especially within non-governmental organisations such as Geneva Call, to persuade armed non-state actors to renounce the use of anti-personnel mines. 
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy 2008 to 2011, 31 December 2007, Part 4.3(1) and Part 4.4(1); see also Part 1 and 3.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Mines
Mines are weapons that explode in direct or indirect contact with people (or animals) or vehicles (anti-personnel mines/anti-vehicle mines). They can be deployed on top of the ground, below ground or near the ground surface or on a different type of surface. The Second Protocol to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons regulates the deployment and transfer of all types of land mines. The so-called “Ottawa Convention” of 1997 prohibits the use, stockpiling, manufacture, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. It also addresses such issues as mine clearance and destruction, as well as measures to help the victims of mines. The Ottawa Convention has yet to be ratified however by some of the most important military powers.
Weapons
International humanitarian law imposes limitations, in some cases a total ban, on the use of weapons whose impact goes beyond the permissible purpose of weakening the enemy. Weapons are prohibited on the basis of three fundamental criteria: if their use inevitably leads to death; if they cause disproportionate injury or Unnecessary suffering; if they strike indiscriminately. On the basis of these three criteria a number of specific weapons have been explicitly prohibited by international conventions, including Anti-personnel mines, … Some of these bans are part of Customary international law. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 31 and 41.
Switzerland
In 2009, in its Report on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Switzerland supports international efforts for the global prohibition … of anti-personnel mines with financial and diplomatic resources.
The second mine action strategy of the [Swiss] Confederation covers the 2008 to 2011 period and defines six objectives:
1) implementation and global application of the [1997] Ottawa Convention (Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction);
2) implementation and global application … of the [1996] Amended Protocol II to the [1980] Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW);
One of the political and operational objectives of Switzerland is to promote the efforts aimed at involving non-state armed actors in the prohibition of mines. …
… Switzerland will seek to promote the universalization of the [Ottawa] convention. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2009, 2 September 2009, Section 3.3.5.2, p. 5790.
[footnote in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2010, in its Report on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Switzerland … endeavours to reduce armed violence in the world, in particular as regards anti-personnel mines …
Ten years after the entry into force of the [1997] Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the trend is towards the eradication of this type of weapon. There are however a number of important challenges to note: around forty countries have still not ratified the Convention … It is also necessary to enhance the protection of the civilian population against the use of anti-personnel mines by non-state armed actors.
From 2008 to 2009 Switzerland chaired the Meeting of the State Parties to the Ottawa Convention. During its mandate, it worked towards the universalization of the Convention, through the adherence of new States. In this regard, it carried out several representations to the potential candidates and facilitated negotiations on the treatment of delays for compliance with the provisions of the Convention.
… During the negotiations of the action plan of [the second Review Conference held in 2009 in] Cartagena, it called for the inclusion of the provisions aiming to protect the civilian population and to associate non-state armed actors to the prohibition of anti-personnel mines. Switzerland continues to support the work of the non-governmental organization Geneva Call, which seeks to engage non-state actors to comply with international humanitarian law. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2010, 10 December 2010, Section 4.2.2, pp. 1093–1094.
Switzerland
In 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport issued the Mine Action Strategy of the Swiss Confederation 2012–2015, which “defines the framework for political and operational activities with regard to anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other ERW [explosive remnants of war]”. 
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy of the Swiss Confederation 2012–2015: Towards a world free of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war, February 2012, p. 6.
The Strategy states: “Switzerland will … continue to support activities aimed at banning anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions as well as to alleviating the humanitarian suffering and socio-economic consequences caused by mines and all types of ERW”. 
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy of the Swiss Confederation 2012–2015: Towards a world free of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war, February 2012, p. 6.
The Strategy further states:
As at the end of 2011, 158 states had ratified the APMBC [1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines]. However, the ratification rate has been rather slow in recent years. Consequently, further action is necessary to convince the remaining 20 % of world states to accede to the APMBC. Since the norm was established, the use of anti-personnel mines has become very rare. Nonetheless, it is alleged that they have been used by four governments and in six countries, where use related to non-state armed groups in 2011. 
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy of the Swiss Confederation 2012–2015: Towards a world free of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war, February 2012, pp. 9–10.
The Strategy further states: “Switzerland aims to play a leading role in the fight against anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other ERW”. 
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy of the Swiss Confederation 2012–2015: Towards a world free of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war, February 2012, p. 12.
The Strategy also states: “Over the long term, Switzerland will continue to pursue the vision of a world without new victims of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war”.  
Switzerland, Mine Action Strategy of the Swiss Confederation 2012–2015: Towards a world free of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war, February 2012, p. 15.
Switzerland
In 2012, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly during a debate on conventional weapons, the permanent representative of Switzerland stated:
[T]he [1997] Antipersonnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC) … is making steady progress in achieving a mine-free world. However, these indiscriminate weapons have reportedly been engaged in various conflicts this year. We therefore urge all UN Member States to join this important instrument. We also appeal to all actors to refrain from using anti-personnel mines, which have grave consequences on civilian populations long after a conflict has ended. 
Switzerland, Statement by the permanent representative of Switzerland before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly during a debate on conventional weapons, 25 October 2012.
Switzerland
In 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a press release entitled “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, which stated: “Switzerland reiterates its condemnation of the use of anti-personnel mines and cluster weapons against civilian populations, and appeals to all parties to the conflict to renounce the use of such weapons, which have indiscriminate and serious long-term consequences.” 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, Press Release, 15 November 2012.
Switzerland
In 2012, in the report on Switzerland’s arms control and disarmament policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Some types of conventional weapons pose specific humanitarian problems, due to their inherent characteristics. In some cases, rules must be developed to restrict their use and to ensure that the norms of international humanitarian law are respected. For other weapons, even specific rules regulating their use could not guarantee that international humanitarian law will be respected. It is therefore necessary to endeavour to prohibit these weapons, as it is with regard to anti-personnel mines or cluster munition weapons. 
Switzerland, Report of the Federal Council on Switzerland’s arms control and disarmament policy, 30 November 2012, p. 11.
In the report, Switzerland’s Federal Council also stated:
In line with its humanitarian tradition, Switzerland has worked for long time on the complete prohibition of anti-personnel mines. In 1998, it was one of the first countries to ratify the [1997] Convention on the Prohibition of use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mine and on their destruction (Ottawa Convention), which provides for a complete destruction of anti-personnel mine stockpiles. It destroyed its entire stockpiles in 1999. For the years 2012 to 2015, the Confederation’s anti-mine strategy has taken the form of an inter-departmental process. … The strategy identifies four goals:
1. To actively contribute to the strengthening, implementation and universal application of all international legal instruments in this area ratified by Switzerland.
The Confederation continues to dedicate some 16 million Swiss francs a year to political and operational activities linked to the fight against anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war. 
Switzerland, Report of the Federal Council on Switzerland’s arms control and disarmament policy, 30 November 2012, p. 24.
Switzerland
In 2012, in a speech at the 12th Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, the head of Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs stated:
The progress made … within the framework of the [1997 Ottawa] Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines] is significant: close to 45 million of stockpiled anti-personnel mines have been destroyed, the trade in anti-personnel mines has virtually ceased to exist and these devices have consequently become almost universally stigmatized.
Getting the world rid of the scourge of anti-personnel mines is thus a question of joint willingness; it is also a question of the willingness of each State.
Switzerland’s willingness translates itself into three political priorities: universality, security and sustainability.
1. Universality: the Ottawa Convention must become universal. That is essential! States continue to produce and lay anti-personnel mines. 36 States have yet to sign the Convention.
It is therefore crucial to persevere with the effort to convince these States that on a human level, this is a just cause. 
Switzerland, Speech by the Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs at the 12th Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, 3 December 2012.
Switzerland
In 2013, in a statement at the Fourth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the ambassador of Switzerland stated: “[C]luster munitions have been now classified in Swiss law in the category of prohibited arms, which already include nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as well as anti-personnel mines.” 
Switzerland, Statement by the ambassador of Switzerland at the Fourth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, 10 September 2013.
Switzerland
In 2013, in a statement at the Fourth Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the representative of Switzerland stated:
[W]e are concerned about continued information that cluster munitions are used in countries not party to the Convention. Switzerland has already and on several occasions expressed its concern about the use of cluster munitions (as well as of antipersonnel mines) by the various parties to the conflict in Syria. We call upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the basic norms of international humanitarian law and to refrain from using weapons with indiscriminate effect such as cluster munitions (This call also extends to the use of antipersonnel mines). 
Switzerland, Statement by the representative of Switzerland at the Fourth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, 13 September 2013
Switzerland
In 2013, in a statement at the 13th Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, the representative of Switzerland stated:
The [1997 Ottawa] Mine Ban Treaty has indeed had a tremendous impact in addressing the threats posed by antipersonnel landmines. Vast tracts of land have been cleared and there are fewer new victims every year. The trade in these weapons has virtually stopped. And anti-personnel mines have been stigmatized as an abhorrent and unacceptable means of warfare on a global scale. Nevertheless, the work is not done yet and we have to ensure that we pursue our goal with perseverance.
It is for this reason that we are concerned about information that antipersonnel landmines have been recently used in countries not party to the Convention. We cannot but condemn these acts, a condemnation that extends to the alleged use of anti-personnel mines by armed non-state actors.
We are even more concerned by different allegations of use of anti-personnel landmines by States Parties to the Convention. We urge that the States concerned by these allegations will swiftly address them, provide the necessary clarification based on thorough investigations and, take the appropriate legal measures. 
Switzerland, Statement by the representative of Switzerland at the 13th Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, 5 December 2013.
Thailand
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Thailand stated that it would “take concrete steps towards elimination of anti-personnel mines and assistance to mine victims in accordance with the 1997 Ottawa Convention”. 
Thailand, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia participated in all the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and attended the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=macedonia&pqs_section=.
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia stated that it would “work with the States and the relevant international bodies on a total elimination of anti-personnel landmines globally and in the region”. 
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Togo
Togo voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998 and endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=togo&pqs_section=; Landmine Monitor Researcher interview with Georges Anani, Minister Counsellor, Embassy of the Republic of Togo, Brussels, Belgium, 17 February 1999.
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996 and 1997 and supported the relevant OAS and CARICOM/CENTAM declarations and resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=trinidad_tobago&pqs_section=.
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan attended the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and participated in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It was absent from the vote on the UN General Assembly resolution in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, but voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=turkmenistan&pqs_section=.
Turkey
In 1995, during the debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on Resolution 50/70, which encouraged “further immediate international efforts to seek solutions to the problems caused by anti-personnel landmines, with a view to the eventual elimination of anti-personnel landmines”, Turkey stated that it understood the definition of “eventual elimination” in that paragraph as “a political goal that we must strive to attain in the future”. Turkey further noted that it had joined the consensus on the basis of its understanding of the paragraph on eventual elimination but that it would have abstained had the paragraph been put to a separate vote. 
Turkey, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.26, 17 November 1995, p. 18.
Turkey
At the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, the Turkish representative, attending the meeting as an observer, declared: “The security situation around Turkey so far precludes my country from signing the Ottawa Convention.” However, the delegate announced the government’s intention “to sign the Ottawa Convention at the beginning of the next decade if present conditions do not change adversely”. 
Turkey, Statement at the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Maputo, 3–7 May 1999.
Turkey
In 2001, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Turkey stated:
Turkey is fully conscious of the casualties and the ensuing human suffering caused by the irresponsible and indiscriminate use of mines. We attach importance to the mine-ban Treaty and consider it to be one of the major achievements of the international community towards the total elimination of anti-personnel mines. However, the security situation around Turkey is distinctly different from that faced by the proponents of the Ottawa process. This has prevented us from signing the Treaty. However, our commitment to the Treaty’s goals was manifested by our participation in the First, Second and Third Meetings of the States Parties … Furthermore, Turkey has initiated a number of contacts with some neighbouring countries with a view to seeking the establishment of special regimes in order to keep our common borders free of anti-personnel mines … I would like to stress once more my Government’s determination to become a party to the Ottawa Convention. 
Turkey, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 56/PV.11, 17 October 2001, pp. 14–15.
Turkey
In 2001, Greece and Turkey made a joint statement in which they declared:
… They also recognize that a total ban on these [anti-personnel] mines is an important confidence building measure that would contribute to security and stability in the region.
With these considerations in mind, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey … and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic … have emphasized the desirability of the adherence of all states to the Convention on Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, namely the Ottawa Convention. In this context, they have decided to concurrently start the procedures that will make both sides parties to the Ottawa Convention. For this purpose, while Greece initiates ratification process, Turkey will start accession procedures. It is also agreed that the instruments of ratification by Greece and accession by Turkey will be simultaneously deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations in due course. 
Greece and Turkey, Joint Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic on Anti-Personnel Land Mines, Ankara, 6 April 2001.
Turkey
In a press release issued in March 2002, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs declared:
Turkey has come to the stage of submitting the Convention to the Turkish Grand National Assembly for finalization of the accession procedures. In the meantime, the duration of Turkey’s national moratorium on the export and transfer of anti-personnel land mines expired in January 2002. Turkey has decided to extend once again her moratorium on the export and transfer of anti-personnel land mines, this time indefinitely, as an expression of her sincere commitment to becoming party to the Ottawa Convention. 
Turkey, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Press Release, 15 March 2002.
Turkmenistan
At the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, Turkmenistan stated that it would “continue practical efforts to increase the number of governments joining the Ottawa Convention. As a country strongly backing the Ottawa process, Turkmenistan is committing itself to be in the lead of the Movement for complete elimination of land-mines.” 
Turkmenistan, Statement at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999.
Uganda
Uganda endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998 and supported relevant OAU statements and resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=uganda&pqs_section=.
Ukraine
At the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1999, Ukraine declared:
Being an active participant of the Ottawa process, which by no means has the intention to compete with the Amended Protocol II, Ukraine follows consequent policy directed to the prohibition and elimination of [anti-personnel landmines], as exemplified in spring 1998 by destruction of 100 thousands of PFM-1 type mines in stocks, signing on 24 February 1999 the Ottawa convention as well as prolongation for subsequent four years of the moratorium on export of all types of [anti-personnel landmines], that originally was introduced by governmental Decree in September 1995. 
Ukraine, Statement at the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 17 December 1999.
United Arab Emirates
The United Arab Emirates attended the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and attended the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 as a full participant. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=uae&pqs_section=.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Upon ratification of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the United Kingdom declared: “Nothing in the present declaration or in Protocol II as amended shall be taken as limiting the obligations of the United Kingdom under the … [1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines] nor its rights in relation to other Parties to that Convention.” 
United Kingdom, Declaration made upon ratification of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 11 February 1999, § (c).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In October 1996, the United Kingdom signed an EU Joint Action supporting a comprehensive global ban on anti-personnel landmines at the earliest possible date, supporting mine clearance and implementing a common export moratorium on all anti-personnel landmines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=uk&pqs_section=; EU Joint Action 96/588/CFSP, 1 October 1996.
The United Kingdom subsequently voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=uk&pqs_section=.
Immediately after the election of a new government in May 1997, a new UK policy was announced. This policy consisted of several elements. First, the destruction of all anti-personnel landmine stocks and a ban on their use by 2005 at the latest. Second, a moratorium on landmine use until either 2005 or an “effective international agreement enters into force, whichever comes first”. Third, to negotiate “constructively” within the “Ottawa Process” for an international ban, while working in the Conference on Disarmament for a wider ban. Lastly, to retain use in “exceptional circumstances” authorized by ministers and reported to Parliament; this included the potential use of the JP233 airfield denial weapon (containing the HB876 air-scattered anti-personnel mines) and the L27 anti-tank mine. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=uk&pqs_section=; Hansard, 21 May 1997, col. 72; Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Press Release, 21 May 1997.
In a written answer to a parliamentary question by Helen Jackson MP, the secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs, Robin Cook, stated:
We shall implement our manifesto commitment to ban the import, export, transfer and manufacture of all forms of anti-personnel landmines. We will accelerate the phasing out of our stocks of anti-personnel landmines and complete it by 2005 or when an effective international agreement to ban their use enters into force, whichever comes first. In the meantime we have introduced a complete moratorium on their operational use, while we participate constructively in the Ottawa Process. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=uk&pqs_section=; Hansard, 21 May 1997, col. 72.
The United Kingdom was a full participant in the “Ottawa Process” which led to the adoption of treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It defined its position for the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in February 1995. First, it supported a ban on non-detectable anti-personnel landmines and the extension of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to cover civil wars and other internal conflicts. Second, it wanted clear definitions and standards for self-destructing mines, stipulating when and how minefields should be marked and ensuring mapping. Third, it called for an international code on the transfer of anti-personnel landmines, but also argued for such a code to allow for the export and use of self-destructing mines. Fourth, it sought to secure agreement on the provision of assistance to humanitarian agencies working in mined areas. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=uk&pqs_section=; Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Minister of State David Davis reported in Hansard, 15 March 1995, col. 863.
However, on 22 April 1996, before the final session of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UK government announced a substantive change in policy “in order to make greater progress in achieving international agreement”. The main move was to back a total international prohibition on anti-personnel landmines. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom would destroy 46 percent of its anti-personnel landmine stocks; upgrade the rest of its stocks to be self-destructing; use anti-personnel landmines only in “exceptional circumstances” and in accordance with the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons; and seek alternatives to anti-personnel landmines and, if successful, cease to use them and destroy all its stocks. The United Kingdom repeated this policy as its opening statement at the International Strategy Conference “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-personnel Mines” in October 1996. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=uk&pqs_section=; Hansard, 22 April 1996, col. 28.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, stated:
The Landmines Act 1998 prohibits certain conduct, including using or possessing an anti-personnel mine, or participating in the acquisition or transfer of an anti-personnel mine, or assisting, encouraging or inducing such conduct. These offences apply to conduct in the United Kingdom and to conduct by United Kingdom nationals elsewhere. Any indication of illegal activity would be a matter for the law enforcement agencies. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, Hansard, 14 March 2003, Vol. 401, Written Answers, col. 435W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for Defence stated: “The United Kingdom, as a State Party to the Ottawa Convention [on Anti-Personnel Mines], does not possess operational anti-personnel mines and will not use any in Iraq.” 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 7 April 2003, Vol. 403, Written Answers, col. 8W.
United Republic of Tanzania
In November 1996, the United Republic of Tanzania issued its first statement in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines, which was later presented during the Fourth International NGO Conference on Landmines held in Maputo, Mozambique, in February 1997. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=tanzania&pqs_section=.
The United Republic of Tanzania attended the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines in 1997, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=tanzania&pqs_section=.
United States of America
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the United States stated: “We must renew our commitment to clear, control and eventually eliminate these indiscriminate killers and we must act on this commitment now.” 
United States, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.13, 6 November 1995, p. 4.
United States of America
In 1996, in a White House fact sheet announcing its anti-personnel landmine policy, the United States stated that it would “aggressively pursue an international agreement to ban use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines with a view to completing the negotiation as soon as possible”. 
United States, Memorandum No. 102-M, Fact Sheets from the White House on Anti-Personnel Land Mines, 17 May 1996.
This policy also meant the United States would no longer use so-called “dumb” mines, except on the Korean Peninsula. It would no longer produce such “dumb” mines and would destroy most of its stockpile of “dumb” mines. But it would maintain the right to use so-called “smart” mines anywhere in the world, until an international ban took effect. The United States would also continue producing smart mines without limitation and would keep all existing stocks of smart mines. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=usa&pqs_section=. The term “dumb” mines refers to those that do not blow up until a person (or a vehicle or an animal) triggers them, which can occur as long as the mine has not exploded, even decades after they have been placed. The term “smart” mine is often used for anti-personnel landmines that have self-destruct features, that is, they will blow up automatically after a pre-set period of time. The reliability of self-destruct features has been called into question, so Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons also requires a self-deactivating feature which renders the mine inert (e.g., a battery that will inevitably go dead).
United States of America
In October 1992, the United States enacted a one-year moratorium on the export of anti-personnel landmines. This was the first significant measure by any country to control anti-personnel mines. In 1993, the US State Department produced the report “Hidden Killers: The Global Problem with Uncleared Landmines”, the first comprehensive study of the landmine crisis. In September 1994, President Bill Clinton became the first world leader to call for the “eventual elimination” of anti-personnel mines, and the US sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution endorsing the eventual elimination of mines adopted in December 1994. In 1995, the US Senate passed an amendment requiring a one-year moratorium on the use of anti-personnel mines, except along international borders and in demilitarized zones. It was signed into law in February 1996 and was to take effect three years later, but in 1998 Congress gave the president the authority to waive the moratorium. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=usa&pqs_section=.
United States of America
In November 1996 the United States introduced a UN General Assembly resolution urging nations “to pursue vigorously” an international ban treaty “with a view to completing the negotiation as soon as possible”. The resolution also called on governments unilaterally to implement “bans, moratoria or other restrictions” on production, stockpiling, export and use of anti-personnel landmines “at the earliest date possible”. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=usa&pqs_section=; UN General Assembly resolution 51/45S, 10 December 1996.
United States of America
On 17 January 1997, the United States announced that, instead of full support for the “Ottawa Process”, the United States would seek negotiations on a worldwide mine ban treaty in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, Switzerland. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=usa&pqs_section=; US Campaign to Ban Landmines press release, “Clinton Announcement Sends Mistaken Signal on Landmines”, 17 January 1997.
Other major elements of the policy announcement were that the United States would observe a permanent ban on the export of anti-personnel landmines (moving beyond the existing temporary moratorium) and that the United States would cap its anti-personnel landmine stockpile at the current level of inventory. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=usa&pqs_section=; The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Statement by the Press Secretary Re: Landmines, 17 January 1997.
At the same time, the United States attended as an observer all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. The United States participated fully in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. However, it also laid out a series of demands, or prerequisites, for its support of the treaty: a geographic exception for continued use of anti-personnel mines of all types in Korea; a change in the treaty’s definition of anti-personnel mine so that US anti-personnel mines contained in “mixed” systems with anti-tank mines would not be banned; and an optional nine-year deferral period for compliance with the treaty’s key prohibitions. During the negotiations, these demands were rejected by the other governments. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=usa&pqs_section=; The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Statement by the Press Secretary Re: Landmines, 17 January 1997.
On 17 September 1997, the closing day of the treaty negotiations in Oslo, US President Bill Clinton announced that the United States would not be signing the treaty, but that the United States would unilaterally stop using anti-personnel mines everywhere but Korea by 2003, and in Korea by 2006. Other officials clarified that this would not apply to anti-personnel mines contained in mixed munitions, because the United States no longer considered them to be anti-personnel landmines but rather submunitions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=usa&pqs_section=.
United States of America
In 1998, US Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 64 stated that the United States would sign the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines by 2006 if it succeeded in developing suitable alternatives to anti-personnel mines and mixed anti-tank systems by that time. It also stated that the United States would end the use of anti-personnel landmines outside Korea by 2003. 
The substance of the Directive is contained in a public letter from the US National Security Advisor to Senator Patrick Leahy, 15 May 1998, cited in ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 2000, August 2000, pp. 333–334.
United States of America
In February 2004, the US administration announced a new US policy on landmines. This policy stated in part:
Elements of the new policy
To reduce these humanitarian hazards to the lowest possible level, while at the same time protecting our ground forces and the civilians they may be sent to defend, the United States will now implement the following policy:
• Persistence: After the year 2010 the United States will no longer use persistent landmines of any type, anti-personnel or anti-vehicle. Every landmine we use will meet or exceed the specifications for self-destruction and self-deactivation of the Amended Mines Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (AMP/CCW).
• Non-detectable mines: After one year the United States will no longer use non-metallic or low-metallic landmines of any type, anti-vehicle or anti-personnel. This completes a process the United States started years earlier, by converting non-detectable anti-personnel landmines into detectable ones. Every landmine we use will meet or exceed the specifications for detectability in the CCW’s Amended Mines Protocol.
Significance of the New Policy
• These commitments do not depend on any future contingencies. This policy recognizes that persistent anti-vehicle mines as well as persistent anti-personnel mines can cause humanitarian problems. Therefore it treats anti-personnel (APL) and anti-vehicle mines equally. It is not merely an “APL” policy. It is a comprehensive landmine policy. 
United States, Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Landmine Policy White Paper, 27 February 2004.
United States of America
In January 2005, the US State Department issued a media release announcing that the United States had banned the use of non-detectable landmines:
The United States has become the first major military power to terminate its use of any landmines that cannot be located with the standard metal detectors used by military and humanitarian deminers around the world.
“The U.S. landmine policy recognizes that non-detectable landmines pose a particularly insidious threat to humanitarian deminers as well as innocent civilians in a post-conflict environment,” remarked Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr., the Special Representative of the President and Secretary of State for Mine Action who also serves as Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. “Our action meets the first major goal in our new policy, which forswears the use by the United States of non-detectable mines now and all persistent mines after 2010.”
This prohibition on the use of non-detectable landmines covers both anti-personnel as well as anti-vehicle mines. The United States action surpasses the detectability requirements of both international landmine treaties: the Amended Mines Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to which the United States is a party, and the “Ottawa Convention” which relates to anti-personnel mines. 
United States, Department of State, Media Release, United States Bans Non-Detectable Landmines, Washington DC, 3 January 2005.
Uruguay
Uruguay participated in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997, and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. Uruguay also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=uruguay&pqs_section=.
Venezuela
Venezuela participated in all of the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and took part in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It also voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998, as well as the relevant OAS resolutions.  
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=venezuela&pqs_section=.
Yemen
Yemen attended the preparatory meetings for the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines held in Vienna, Austria, and Brussels, endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and was a full participant in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=yemen&pqs_section=.
Zambia
Zambia endorsed the Final Declaration of the Brussels Conference on Anti-personnel Landmines in June 1997 and participated in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997 which led to the adoption of a treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions in support of a ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1996, 1997 and 1998. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=zambia&pqs_section=
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe was one of nine African States that attended the International Strategy Conference “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-personnel Mines” held in Ottawa, Canada, in October 1996. Attended by 50 countries as full participants and 24 observer States, along with NGOs and international agencies, that historic meeting launched what became known as the “Ottawa Process”. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=zimbabwe&pqs_section=.
On 10 December 1996, along with 155 other States, Zimbabwe voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution calling for an international agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines. In 1997, as OAU chair, Zimbabwe helped steer the adoption of Resolution DOC CM/2009 (LXVI), which eventually coalesced the African position on a ban. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=zimbabwe&pqs_section=; Brief by Minister of Defence to the House on the Convention Prohibiting the Production, Use, Stockpiling and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and their Destruction and Recommending Ratification, Debates in Parliament, March 1998.
The Zimbabwean Defence Minister, Moven Mahachi, announced on 15 May 1997 that Zimbabwe had unilaterally banned anti-personnel landmines. He stated:
The Zimbabwean Armed Forces have never and will never use antipersonnel mines, be they “smart” or “dumb” in the future. Zimbabwe has not manufactured antipersonnel mines since 1980 and undertakes never to try and acquire the technology or capacity otherwise to do so in the future. The bulk of stocks of antipersonnel mines held presently will be destroyed within the next five years. Only a few will be retained for training purposes and public awareness campaigns, under the strict and centralized control of a specialized section of the Ministry of Defence. Zimbabwe will not allow the transfer of antipersonnel mines into, over or above its territory by any party and will itself not allow the transfer of mines within its territorial borders except for purposes of their destruction, for instructional purposes or in relation to demining operations. 
Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World, available at http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?act=submit&pqs_year=1999&pqs_type=lm&pqs_report=zimbabwe&pqs_section=; Press Statement on Zimbabwe Government Policy on Antipersonnel Landmines, 15 May 1997.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the UN Security Council called upon “the Government of Angola and UNITA [União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola] to signal their commitment to peace by destroying their stockpiles of landmines”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1055, 8 May 1996, § 18, voting record: 15-0-0.
In a further resolution adopted the same year, the Security Council reiterated “the need for continued commitment to peace by destruction of stockpiles of landmines monitored and verified by UNAVEM III”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1087, 11 December 1996, § 17, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
Condemns the continued laying of mines, including new types of mines, in the Gali region, which has already caused several deaths and injuries among the civilian population and the peacekeepers and the observers of the international community, and calls upon the parties to take all measures in their power to prevent mine-laying and intensified activities by armed groups. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1096, 30 January 1997, § 14, voting record: 15-0-0.
The Security Council repeated this call in another resolution adopted several months later. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1124, 31 July 1997, § 14, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Angola, the UN Security Council called on the Government of Angola and in particular the União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) “to cease minelaying activity”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1213, 3 December 1998, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In two resolutions adopted in 1999 and 2000 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council took note of the entry into force of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines and of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and recalled “the relevant provisions contained therein”. It further noted “the beneficial effects that their implementation will have on the safety of civilians”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1265, 17 September 1999, § 18; Res. 1296, 19 April 2000, § 20, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1981, the UN General Assembly:
Urges those States which have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to sign and ratify the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols annexed thereto as early as possible so as to obtain its entry into force, and ultimately its universal adherence. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 36/93, 9 December 1981, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1982, the UN General Assembly:
Urges those States that have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols annexed thereto, as early as possible, so as to obtain their entry into force and, ultimately, their universal adherence. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 37/79, 9 December 1982, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1983 on the United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, the UN General Assembly urged “all States which have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention [on Certain Conventional Weapons] and the Protocols annexed thereto, as early as possible, so as to obtain ultimately universal adherence”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 38/66, 15 December 1983, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1984 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly urged “all States that have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto as early as possible, so as ultimately to obtain universality of adherence”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 39/56, 12 December 1984, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1985 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly urged “all States which have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, as early as possible, so as to obtain ultimately universal adherence”.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 40/84, 12 December 1985, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1986 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly urged “all States that have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto as early as possible, so as ultimately to obtain universality of adherence”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 41/50, 3 December 1986, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1987 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly urged “all States that have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto as early as possible, so as ultimately to obtain universality of adherence”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 42/30, 30 November 1987, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1988 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly urged “all States that have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto as early as possible, so as ultimately to obtain universality of adherence”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 43/67, 7 December 1988, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1990 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly urged all States that have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto as early as possible, so as ultimately to obtain universality of adherence. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 45/64, 4 December 1990, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1991 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly urged “all States that have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto as early as possible, so as ultimately to obtain universality of adherence”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 46/40, 6 December 1991, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly urged “all States that have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto as early as possible, as well as successor States to take appropriate action so as ultimately to obtain universality of adherence”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 47/56, 9 December 1992, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly urged “all States that have not yet done so to exert their best endeavours to become parties to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto as early as possible, as well as successor States to take appropriate action so as ultimately to obtain universality of adherence”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 48/79, 16 December 1993, § 3, voting record: 169-0-3-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on a moratorium on the exports of anti-personnel land-mines, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced that moratoriums by States exporting anti-personnel land-mines that pose grave dangers to civilian populations are important measures in helping to reduce substantially the human and economic costs resulting from the use of such devices,
6. Encourages further international efforts to seek solutions to the problems caused by anti-personnel land-mines, with a view to their eventual elimination. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/75 D, 15 December 1994, preamble and § 6, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Urgently calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately access to this instrument will be universal. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/79, 15 December 1994, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, the UN General Assembly:
Expresses grave concern at the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel land-mines in Cambodia and the devastating consequences and destabilizing effects such mines have on Cambodian society, and encourages the Government of Cambodia to continue its support for the removal of these mines. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/199, 23 December 1994, § 13, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on a moratorium on the exports of anti-personnel landmines, the UN General Assembly encouraged “further immediate international efforts to seek solutions to the problems caused by anti-personnel land-mines, with a view to the eventual elimination of anti-personnel land-mines”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/70 O, 12 December 1995, § 6, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Urgently calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and its Protocols and upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately access to these instruments will be universal. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/74, 12 December 1995, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, the UN General Assembly:
Expresses grave concern at the devastating consequences and destabilizing effects of the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines on Cambodian society, encourages the Government of Cambodia to continue its support and efforts for the removal of these mines, and welcomes the intention of the Government of Cambodia to ban all anti-personnel landmines. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/178, 22 December 1995, § 13, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on an international agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines, the UN General Assembly recalled “with satisfaction its resolutions 49/75 D and 50/70 O, in which it, inter alia, established as a goal of the international community, the eventual elimination of anti-personnel landmines” and recognized “the need to pursue an effective, legally binding international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/45 S, 10 December 1996, preamble, voting record: 155-0-10.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly welcomed “the national measures adopted by an increasing number of Member States relating to bans, moratoriums or restrictions on the transfer, use or production of anti-personnel landmines or to the reduction of existing stockpiles of such mines”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/49, 10 December 1996, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Urgently calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and its Protocols, and upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to these instruments will be universal. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/49, 10 December 1996, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, the UN General Assembly:
Expresses grave concern at the devastating consequences and destabilizing effects of the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines on Cambodian society, encourages the Government of Cambodia to continue its support and efforts for the removal of these mines, and urges the Government to ban all anti-personnel landmines. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/98, 12 December 1996, § 25, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1997, the UN General Assembly urged all States to adhere to the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines and stressed the need to work towards universalization of the Convention in all relevant fora. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 52/38 A, 9 December 1997, preamble, voting record: 142-0-18-25.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on contributions towards banning anti-personnel landmines, the UN General Assembly urged “all States and regional organizations to intensify their efforts to contribute to the objective of the elimination of anti-personnel landmines”.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 52/38 H, 9 December 1997, § 1, voting record: 147-0-15-23.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Calls, in particular, upon the States parties to the Convention to express their consent to be bound by the amended Protocol II with a view to its entry into force as soon as possible, and, pending its entry into force, to respect and ensure respect for its substantive provisions to the fullest extent possible. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 52/42, 9 December 1997, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Urgently calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and the Protocols thereto, and particularly to amended Protocol II, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to this instrument at an early date, and calls upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to these instruments will be universal. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 53/81, 4 December 1998, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1998, the UN General Assembly reiterated its invitation to all States to accede to or ratify the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 53/77 N, 4 December 1998, § 1, voting record: 147-0-21-17.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on implementation of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the UN General Assembly:
Emphasizing the desirability of attracting the adherence of all States to the Convention, and determined to work strenuously towards the promotion of its universalization,
5. Invites all States that have not ratified the Convention or acceded to it to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to make global mine action efforts more effective. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 54/54 B, 1 December 1999, preamble and § 5, voting record: 139-1-20-28.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on implementation of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the UN General Assembly:
Emphasizing the desirability of attracting the adherence of all States to the Convention, and determined to work strenuously towards the promotion of its universalization,
….
5. Invites all States that have not ratified the Convention or acceded to it to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to make global mine action efforts more effective. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 55/33 V, 20 November 2000, preamble and § 5, voting record: 143-0-22-24.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on implementation of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the UN General Assembly:
Welcoming the entry into force, on 1 March 1999, of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, and noting with satisfaction the work undertaken to implement the Convention and the substantial progress made towards addressing the global landmine problem,
1. Invites all States that did not sign the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction to accede to it without delay. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/53, 8 December 2003, preamble and § 1, voting record: 153-0-23-15.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly recalled with satisfaction “the decision by the Second Review Conference, on 21 December 2001, to extend the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non- international character”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/69, 8 December 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on implementation of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming its determination to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, which kill or maim hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenceless civilians and especially children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction, inhibit the repatriation of refugees and internally displaced persons and have other severe consequences for years after emplacement,
Believing it necessary to do the utmost to contribute in an efficient and coordinated manner to facing the challenge of removing anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world and to assure their destruction,
Wishing to do the utmost in ensuring assistance for the care and rehabilitation, including the social and economic reintegration, of mine victims,
Welcoming the entry into force, on 1 March 1999, of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, and noting with satisfaction the work undertaken to implement the Convention and the substantial progress made towards addressing the global landmine problem,
Recalling the first to fifth meetings of the States parties to the Convention held in Maputo (1999), Geneva (2000), Managua (2001), Geneva (2002) and Bangkok (2003), and the reaffirmation of a commitment to the total elimination of anti-personnel mines and to pursue, with renewed vigour, efforts to clear mined areas, assist victims, destroy stockpiled anti-personnel mines and promote universal adherence to the Convention,
Noting with satisfaction that additional States have ratified or acceded to the Convention, bringing the total number of States that have formally accepted the obligations of the Convention to one hundred and forty-three,
Emphasizing the desirability of attracting the adherence of all States to the Convention, and determined to work strenuously towards the promotion of its universalization,
Noting with regret that anti-personnel mines continue to be used in conflicts around the world, causing human suffering and impeding post-conflict development,
1. Invites all States that have not signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction to accede to it without delay;
2. Urges all States that have signed but not ratified the Convention to ratify it without delay;
3. Stresses the importance of the full and effective implementation of and compliance with the Convention;
4. Urges all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information as required under article 7 of the Convention in order to promote transparency and compliance with the Convention;
5. Invites all States that have not ratified the Convention or acceded to it to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to make global mine action efforts more effective;
6. Renews its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine risk education programmes and the removal of anti-personnel mines and stockpiles throughout the world and the assurance of their destruction. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/84, 3 December 2004, preamble and §§ 1–6, voting record: 157-0-22-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
1. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality;
2. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/107, 3 December 2004, §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on emergency international assistance for peace, normalcy and reconstruction of war-stricken Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly:
Urges the Government of Afghanistan to meet its responsibilities under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, to cooperate fully with the mine action programme coordinated by the United Nations, and to execute the destruction of all existing stocks of anti-personnel landmines. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/112 B, 8 December 2004, § 16, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on emergency international assistance for peace, normalcy and reconstruction of war-stricken Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly:
Urges the Government of Afghanistan to meet its responsibilities under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, to cooperate fully with the mine action programme coordinated by the United Nations, and to execute the destruction of all existing stocks of anti-personnel landmines. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/32 B, 30 November 2005, § 20, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on implementation of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming its determination to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, which kill or maim hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenceless civilians and especially children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction, inhibit the repatriation of refugees and internally displaced persons and have other severe consequences for years after emplacement,
Believing it necessary to do the utmost to contribute in an efficient and coordinated manner to facing the challenge of removing anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world and to assure their destruction,
Wishing to do the utmost in ensuring assistance for the care and rehabilitation, including the social and economic reintegration, of mine victims,
Welcoming the entry into force, on 1 March 1999, of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction,1 and noting with satisfaction the work undertaken to implement the Convention and the substantial progress made towards addressing the global landmine problem,
Recalling the first to fifth meetings of the States parties to the Convention held in Maputo (1999), Geneva (2000), Managua (2001), Geneva (2002) and Bangkok (2003),
Recalling also the First Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, held in Nairobi from 29 November to 3 December 2004, at which the international community renewed its unwavering commitment to achieving the goal of a world free of anti-personnel mines and witnessed the adoption by the States parties to the Convention of the Nairobi Action Plan 2005–2009 to achieve major progress towards ending, for all people and for all time, the suffering caused by anti-personnel mines,
Recalling further the 2005 World Summit Outcome, wherein Heads of State and Government, inter alia, urged the States parties to the Convention to fully implement their obligations,
Noting with satisfaction that additional States have ratified or acceded to the Convention, bringing the total number of States that have formally accepted the obligations of the Convention to one hundred and forty-seven,
Emphasizing the desirability of attracting the adherence of all States to the Convention, and determined to work strenuously towards the promotion of its universalization,
Noting with regret that anti-personnel mines continue to be used in conflicts around the world, causing human suffering and impeding post-conflict development,
1. Invites all States that have not signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction to accede to it without delay;
2. Urges all States that have signed but have not ratified the Convention to ratify it without delay;
3. Stresses the importance of the full and effective implementation of and compliance with the Convention, including through the swift implementation of the Nairobi Action Plan 2005–2009;
4. Urges all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information as required under article 7 of the Convention in order to promote transparency and compliance with the Convention;
5. Invites all States that have not ratified the Convention or acceded to it to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to make global mine action efforts more effective;
6. Renews its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine risk education programmes and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed or stockpiled throughout the world. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/80, 8 December 2005, preamble and §§ 1–6, voting record: 158-0-17-16.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
1. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality;
2. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/93, 8 December 2005, §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly:
Recognizing the progress achieved, while nonetheless remaining deeply concerned about the problem of millions of anti-personnel landmines and explosive remnants of war, which constitute a great danger for the population and a major obstacle for the resumption of economic activities and for recovery and reconstruction efforts,
14. Urges the Government of Afghanistan to meet its responsibilities under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, to cooperate fully with the mine action programme coordinated by the United Nations, and to eliminate all existing stocks of anti-personnel landmines. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/18, 28 November 2006, preamble and § 14, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on implementation of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming its determination to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, which kill or maim hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenceless civilians, including children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction, inhibit the repatriation of refugees and internally displaced persons and have other severe consequences for years after emplacement,
Believing it necessary to do the utmost to contribute in an efficient and coordinated manner to facing the challenge of removing anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world and to assure their destruction,
Wishing to do the utmost in ensuring assistance for the care and rehabilitation, including the social and economic reintegration, of mine victims,
Welcoming the entry into force, on 1 March 1999, of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, and noting with satisfaction the work undertaken to implement the Convention and the substantial progress made towards addressing the global landmine problem,
Recalling the first to sixth meetings of the States parties to the Convention held in Maputo (1999), Geneva (2000), Managua (2001), Geneva (2002), Bangkok (2003) and Zagreb (2005), and the First Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, held in Nairobi (2004),
Recalling also the seventh meeting of the States parties to the Convention, held in Geneva from 18 to 22 September 2006, at which the international community monitored progress and supported continued application of the Nairobi Action Plan 2005–2009 and established priorities to achieve further progress towards ending, for all people and for all time, the suffering caused by antipersonnel mines,
Noting with satisfaction that additional States have ratified or acceded to the Convention, bringing the total number of States that have formally accepted the obligations of the Convention to one hundred and fifty-one,
Emphasizing the desirability of attracting the adherence of all States to the Convention, and determined to work strenuously towards the promotion of its universalization,
Noting with regret that anti-personnel mines continue to be used in conflicts around the world, causing human suffering and impeding post-conflict development,
1. Invites all States that have not signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction to accede to it without delay;
2. Urges all States that have signed but have not ratified the Convention to ratify it without delay;
3. Stresses the importance of the full and effective implementation of and compliance with the Convention, including through the continued implementation of the Nairobi Action Plan 2005–2009;
4. Urges all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information as required under article 7 of the Convention in order to promote transparency and compliance with the Convention;
5. Invites all States that have not ratified the Convention or acceded to it to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to make global mine action efforts more effective;
6. Renews its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine risk education programmes and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed or stockpiled throughout the world. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/84, 6 December 2006, preamble and §§ 1–6, voting record: 125-27-29-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling with satisfaction the adoption and the entry into force of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, and its amended article 1, and the Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I), the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) and its amended version, the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) and the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV),
1. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality;
2. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/100, 6 December 2006, preamble and §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on implementation of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming its determination to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, which kill or maim hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenceless civilians, including children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction, inhibit the repatriation of refugees and internally displaced persons and have other severe consequences for years after emplacement,
Believing it necessary to do the utmost to contribute in an efficient and coordinated manner to facing the challenge of removing anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world and to assure their destruction,
Wishing to do the utmost in ensuring assistance for the care and rehabilitation, including the social and economic reintegration, of mine victims,
Recalling that 2007 marks the tenth anniversary of the adoption and opening for signature of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, and welcoming its entry into force on 1 March 1999,
Noting with satisfaction the work undertaken to implement the Convention and the substantial progress made towards ending, for all people and for all time, the suffering caused by anti-personnel mines, as well as regular reporting of this progress,
Recalling the first to seventh meetings of the States parties to the Convention held in Maputo (1999), Geneva (2000), Managua (2001), Geneva (2002), Bangkok (2003), Zagreb (2005) and Geneva (2006), and the First Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, held in Nairobi (2004),
Noting with satisfaction that additional States have ratified or acceded to the Convention, bringing the total number of States that have formally accepted the obligations of the Convention to one hundred and fifty-five,
Emphasizing the desirability of attracting the adherence of all States to the Convention, and determined to work strenuously towards the promotion of its universalization,
Noting with regret that anti-personnel mines continue to be used in conflicts around the world, causing human suffering and impeding post-conflict development,
1. Invites all States that have not signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction to accede to it without delay;
2. Urges all States that have signed but have not ratified the Convention to ratify it without delay;
3. Stresses the importance of the full and effective implementation of and compliance with the Convention, including through the continued implementation of the Nairobi Action Plan 2005–2009;
4. Urges all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information as required under article 7 of the Convention in order to promote transparency and compliance with the Convention;
5. Invites all States that have not ratified the Convention or acceded to it to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to make global mine action efforts more effective;
6. Renews its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine risk education programmes and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed or stockpiled throughout the world;
7. Urges all States to remain seized of the issue at the highest political level and, where in a position to do so, to promote adherence to the Convention through bilateral, subregional, regional and multilateral contacts, outreach, seminars and other means. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/41, 5 December 2007, preamble and §§ 1–7, voting record: 164-0-18-10.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling with satisfaction the adoption and the entry into force of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, and its amended article 1, and the Protocol on Non-Detectable Fragments (Protocol I), the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) and its amended version, the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III), the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV), and the Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V),
1. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality;
2. Calls upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/57, 5 December 2007, preamble and §§ 1–2, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Expresses grave concern at the devastating consequences and destabilizing effects of the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel land-mines on Cambodian society, encourages the Government of Cambodia to continue its support and efforts for the removal of these mines, and welcomes the intention of the Government of Cambodia to ban all anti-personnel land-mines. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/54, 19 April 1996, § 22, adopted without a vote
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all parties to the conflict to “refrain without delay from the use of landmines”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/82, 21 April 2005, § 3(j), adopted without a vote.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In two resolutions adopted in 1995 and 1996 respectively, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights urged States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols and declared itself “in favour of a total ban on the production, marketing and use of anti-personnel landmines”. In the second resolution, the Sub-Commission declared that it favoured a total ban on anti-personnel landmines “as a means to protect the right to life” and urged all States “to modify, where necessary, their legislation in order to prohibit the production, marketing and use of anti-personnel land-mines in and from their territories”. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/24, 24 August 1995, §§ 2 and 7; Res. 1996/15, 23 August 1996, preamble and §§ 1, 2 and 3.
UN Secretary-General
In 1994, in a report on assistance in mine clearance, the UN Secretary-General stated that the “best and most effective way to halt the proliferation of mines is to ban completely the production, use and transfer of all landmines. Member States are invited to consider establishing such a ban as a matter of urgency.” 
UN Secretary-General, Report on Assistance in Mine Clearance, UN Doc. A/49/357, 6 September 1994, § 22.
UN Secretary-General
In 1994, in an article on landmines in Foreign Affairs, the UN Secretary-General stated: “The nature of mines makes them indiscriminate as to their effect; as such, they are prohibited under international humanitarian law, and practical measures should be taken to put that prohibition into general practice.” He went on to suggest that the aim of any future international mines treaty should be “to reach agreement on a total ban on the production, stockpiling, trade and use of mines and their components”. 
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, “The Land Mine Crisis”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 5, September–October 1994, p. 13.
UN Secretary-General
In 1995, in a report on assistance in mine clearance, the UN Secretary-General stated: “The ultimate goal must be a total ban on the production, transfer and use of landmines. Only a total ban will stop their spread.” 
UN Secretary-General, Report on Assistance in Mine Clearance, UN Doc. A/50/408, 6 September 1995, §§ 106–107.
UN Secretary-General
In 1996 and again in 1997, the UN Secretary-General reported that a total ban on landmines remained the ultimate objective of his office. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on Assistance in Mine Clearance, UN Doc. A/51/540, 23 October 1996, § 100; Report on Assistance in Mine Clearance, UN Doc. A/52/679, 11 December 1997, § 96.
UN Secretary-General
In 1996, in a report on the impact of armed conflict on children, the UN Secretary-General stated that “the only viable long-term solution to the global land-mine epidemic is a total and immediate ban on all land-mines, beginning with anti-personnel mines” and commended an initiative for a statutory ban on landmines. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the impact of armed conflict on children, UN Doc E/CN.4/ 1996/110, 5 February 1996, § 35.
UN Secretary-General
In 1998, in a report on assistance in mine clearance, the UN Secretary-General emphasized the importance of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines and of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, as well as the desirability of attracting the adherence of all States to both instruments. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on Assistance in Mine Clearance, UN Doc. A/53/496, 14 October 1998, pp. 4 and 27.
UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Representative)
In 1997, in a report on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, the Special Representative of the UN Commission on Human Rights stated that the use of anti-personnel landmines by any party to the conflict must be stopped. He recommended an initiative for a statutory ban on landmines. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Representative on the Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/85, 31 January 1997, § 54.
ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution on landmines in Angola adopted at its Dakar Session in 1995, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly stated that it supported “all current appeals, namely within the framework of the United Nations, to ban globally all use, production and export of anti-personnel land mines”. 
ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution on land mines in Angola, Doc. OJSE 95/C 245/04, Dakar, 2 February 1995, § 1.
ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution on landmines adopted at its Brussels Session in 1995, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly called for a “total ban on the sale, production, transfer, export and use of land mines and their components”. It further urged:
Pending the adopting and implementation of all necessary national and international legal instruments, manufacturers and national suppliers of land mines should be held responsible as reflected, for example, by the introduction of a tax intended to fund the destruction of these mines. 
ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution on land mines, Doc. 95/C 61/04, Brussels, 28 September 1995, §§ 1 and 5.
ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution on anti-personnel mines adopted at its Windhoek Session in March 1996, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly expressed regret that the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1995 had not reached an agreement to ban anti-personnel mines. It called on all ACP and EU member States “to draw up and adopt without delay national legislation placing an outright ban on the production, stockpiling, transfer, sale, import, export and use of anti-personnel land mines and/or their component parts” and called for “the destruction of existing stockpiles wherever they may be held, and whatever their type or particular characteristics”. 
ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution on anti-personnel mines, Doc. OJSE 96/C 254/04, Windhoek, 22 March 1996, § 1.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly emphasized that it “appreciates … [the] diplomatic efforts [of the ICRC] to secure the banning of certain particularly cruel weapons, such as antipersonnel mines”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1085, 24 April 1996, § 6.
The Parliamentary Assembly also invited,
in particular, the governments of the member states of the Council of Europe, of the states whose parliaments enjoy or have applied for special guest status with the Assembly, of the states whose parliaments enjoy observer status, namely Israel, and of all other states to:
i.support total prohibition of the transfer and use of land-based antipersonnel mines, and to ban their export immediately. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1085, 24 April 1996, § 8.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a press release issued in 1996, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly demanded a total ban on the transfer, exportation and use of anti-personnel landmines. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Press Release, Ref. 233(96), 24 April 1996.
European Union Council of Ministers
In 1995, in answer to a question from the European Parliament, the EU Council of Ministers stated that member States welcomed the adoption of a resolution declaring the elimination of landmines as a goal of the 49th Session of the UN General Assembly. 
EU, Council of Ministers, Answer to Written Question E-2570/94 from the European Parliament, Doc. 95/C 55/120, 23 January 1995.
European Commission
In 1995, in answer to a question from the European Parliament, the European Commission stated that it was conscious of the suffering inflicted by landmines and that it supported “further measures for the curtailment of the availability and use of anti-personnel landmines, through multilateral action, with an effective regime of control and verification and with the ultimate goal of eliminating such weapons”. 
European Commission, Answer to Written Question E-1384/95 from the European Parliament, Doc. 95/C 257/59, 30 June 1995.
European Union Council of Ministers
In 1996, the EU Council of Ministers adopted a joint action on anti-personnel landmines in order to achieve their complete elimination. The way to reach this objective, it stated, was through raising the issue in the appropriate international fora. It declared that member States would “endeavour to implement national restrictions or bans additional to those contained in the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, particularly on the operational use of anti-personnel landmines”. 
EU, Council, Decision on Joint Action 96/588/CFSP adopted by the Council on the basis of Article J.3 of the Treaty of the European Union on anti-personnel landmines, 1 October 1996, Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 260/1, 12 October 1996, p. 1.
European Parliament
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the failure of the international conference on anti-personnel mines, the European Parliament reiterated “its demand for a total ban on anti-personnel mines and spare parts, to cover the production, storage, transfer, sale, export and use of such weapons”. It called on “all Member States to establish immediately such a ban in the European Union as a joint action under the Common Foreign and Security Policy”. 
European Parliament, Resolution on the failure of the international conference on anti-personnel mines and laser weapons, 16 November 1995, § 1.
European Parliament
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the Ottawa Conference on anti-personnel landmines, the European Parliament reiterated its demand “for a total ban on anti-personnel mines to cover the production, storage, transfer, sale, export and use of such weapons” and called on the EU and its member States to unilaterally ban the production and use of all mines. 
European Parliament, Resolution on the Ottawa Conference on anti-personnel landmines, 24 October 1996, §§ 3 and 5.
European Union
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the EU called on all participating States at the Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
to spare no effort to ensure a satisfactory outcome of the Review Conference, which will significantly reduce the dangers posed by the indiscriminate use of landmines and contribute to the eventual elimination of anti-personnel landmines, as viable and humane alternatives are developed, as the ultimate goal of efforts in this field. 
EU, Statement by Spain on behalf of the EU before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.3, 16 October 1995, p. 13.
European Union
At the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1999, the EU stated: “The total elimination of anti-personnel mines remains a key objective, as provided for in the Ottawa Convention.” 
EU, Statement at the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 15 December 1999.
European Union
In 2000, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the EU welcomed the large number of signatories to the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines and called upon “all States to work together to achieve the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines throughout the world”. 
EU, Statement by France on behalf of the EU before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/55/PV.3, 2 October 2000, p. 18.
OAU Council of Ministers
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on respect for IHL and support for humanitarian action in armed conflicts, the OAU Council of Ministers invited “all States that have not yet become party to the … [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], to consider, or reconsider, without delay the possibility of doing so in the near future”. 
OAU, Council of Ministers, Res. 1526 (LX), 6–11 June 1994, § 6.
OAU Council of Ministers
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and problems posed by the proliferation of anti-personnel mines in Africa, the OAU Council of Ministers stated that it was concerned by the indiscriminate use of landmines worldwide, and especially in Africa. It urged all members “to defend an African common position … particularly: (i) the total ban on the manufacture and use of mines”. 
OAU, Council of Ministers, Res.1593 (LXII), 21–23 June 1995, preamble and § 4.
OAU Council of Ministers
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the revision of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the problems posed by the proliferation of anti-personnel mines in Africa, the OAU Council of Ministers noted that Africa had the largest presence of landmines of all continents. It therefore called upon African sub-regional organizations to take initiatives to ban landmines. 
OAU, Council of Ministers, Res.1628 (LXIII), 26–8 February 1996, § 10.
OAU Council of Ministers
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on international humanitarian law, water and armed conflict in Africa, the OAU Council of Ministers reaffirmed Africa’s common position supporting a total ban on anti-personnel landmines. 
OAU, Council of Ministers, Res.1662 (LXIV), 1–5 July 1996, § 7.
OAU Secretary-General
In 1997, in a decision based on the report of the OAU Secretary-General on the issue of anti-personnel mines and the efforts undertaken at the international level to achieve a global prohibition, the OAU Council of Ministers urged its members to participate fully and actively in the Ottawa process in order to sign a treaty completely banning anti-personnel landmines.  
OAU, Council of Ministers, Dec. 363 (LXVI), 28–31 May 1997, § g.
Second OAU/ICRC Seminar on IHL for Diplomats Accredited to the OAU
In the recommendations of the Second OAU/ICRC Seminar on IHL for Diplomats Accredited to the OAU held in 1995, the participants expressed “their deep concern about the scourge of mines and their generalised and indiscriminate use and the attendant harmful consequences”. They recommended the “establishment and adoption within that perspective, of an African common position on the following issues: a total ban of the manufacture and use of mines; the extension of the scope of implementation of the 1980 Convention to non-international armed conflict”. 
OAU/ICRC, Second Seminar on IHL for Diplomats Accredited to the OAU, Addis Ababa, 11–12 April 1995, Recommendations, § 3(c).
Third OAU/ICRC Seminar on IHL for Diplomats Accredited to the OAU
In the recommendations of the Third OAU/ICRC Seminar on IHL for Diplomats Accredited to the OAU held in 1996, the participants reaffirmed “the African common position on the total ban on anti-personnel mines as contained in Resolution CM/Res. 1628 (LXIII)” and deplored “the mixed outcome” of the 1996 Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. They stressed “the necessity to adopt purposeful measures at both national and regional levels to ensure a total ban on anti-personnel mines”. 
OAU/ICRC, Third Seminar on IHL for Diplomats Accredited to the OAU, Addis Ababa, 2–3 May 1996, Recommendations, § 3.2.
Fourth OAU/ICRC Seminar on IHL for Diplomats Accredited to the OAU
In the recommendations of the Fourth OAU/ICRC Seminar on IHL for Diplomats Accredited to the OAU held in 1997, the participants stated that they “appreciated the efforts made by the ICRC and the OAU for the total elimination of anti-personnel mines, that is, the total ban on their production, transfer, stockpiling”. They further expressed their support for “the Ottawa process aimed at the conclusion of a Treaty on the total ban on mines in December 1997 and called upon the African countries to contribute fully to it”. 
OAU/ICRC, Fourth Seminar on IHL for Diplomats Accredited to the OAU, Addis Ababa, 29–30 April 1997, Recommendations, § 7.
OAU Secretary-General
In 1997, the OAU Secretary-General reported that the Government of Mozambique, during the Fourth International Conference of NGOs on Land Mines, held in Maputo in February 1997, had announced its decision to prohibit, with immediate effect, the production, marketing, utilization and unauthorized transportation of anti-personnel mines. The Secretary-General further noted:
This announcement, which came after the decision made by South Africa on 19th of February to prohibit the utilization, development, production and storage of mines, was warmly welcomed by the participants. The meeting also commended the OAU for the resolutions it adopted and, through which, it unanimously stood for a total ban on mines … At the end of the meeting, the participants adopted a declaration calling upon all governments to proceed resolutely with the signing of the [Ottawa] Treaty. 
OAU, Council of Ministers, Harare, 26–30 May 1997, Report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the General Secretary covering the period February–May 1997, Doc. CM/2000 (LXVI) Part I, p. 31–32, §§ 106 and 107.
OAU Secretary-General
In April 1998, in a report on the OAU and Rappane’s Continental Conference on Children in Situations of Armed Conflict, the OAU Secretary-General stated that member States should give their full support to the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines and that “the use of landmines by persons involved in armed conflict, whether by rebel forces or any other group, should be condemned and the perpetrators treated as the authors of crimes against humanity and punished in accordance with the law in force”. 
OAU, Labour and Social Affairs Commission, Secretary-General’s Report on the OAU and Rappane’s Continental Conference on Children in Situations of Armed Conflict, 13–18 April 1998, 21st Ordinary Session, Pretoria, Doc. LSC/3(b) (XXI), p. 10.
OAU Secretary-General
In an introductory note to the proceedings of the OAU Conference of Heads of State and Government and the Council of Ministers held in Burkina Faso in June 1998, the OAU Secretary-General wrote that the Council of Ministers “invites its members to sign and ratify the Ottawa treaty”. 
OAU, Secretary-General, Introductory remarks, Conference of Heads of State and Government, 34th Ordinary Session, Ouagadougou, 1–10 June 1998, p. 36.
OAS General Assembly
In two resolutions adopted in 1994 and 1996 on respect for IHL, the OAS General Assembly urged member States to accede to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 
OAS, General Assembly, Res. 1270 (XXIV-O/94), 10 June 1994, § 1; Res. 1408 (XXVI-O/96), 7 June 1996, § 1.
OAS General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on respect for international humanitarian law, the OAS General Assembly urged all member States to take part in the Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons “with a view to promoting, in such countries as consider doing so desirable, the eventual prohibition of anti-personnel mines”. 
OAS, General Assembly, Res. 1335 (XXV-O/95), 9 June 1995, § 1.
OAS General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the OAS General Assembly set as its goal “the global elimination of anti-personnel landmines and conversion of the Western Hemisphere into an antipersonnel-landmine-free zone”. It also encouraged member States to adopt, as a preliminary step towards a complete ban, domestic legislation to prohibit private possession and transfer of landmines. 
OAS, General Assembly, Res. 1411 (XXVI-O/96), 7 June 1996, §§ 1 and 5.
OAS General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1998, the OAS General Assembly reaffirmed its goal “of the global elimination of antipersonnel land mines and the conversion of the Western Hemisphere into an antipersonnel-landmine-free zone”. It urged “member States that have not yet signed or ratified the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction to consider doing so as soon as possible to ensure its earliest possible entry to force”. 
OAS, General Assembly, Res. 1569 (XXVIII-O/98), 2 June 1998, §§ 1 and 6.
Organization of the Islamic Conference
In two resolutions on the elimination of anti-personnel mines and mine-clearing operations adopted in 1995 and 1996 respectively, the OIC expressed its “deep concern over the consequences of the use of anti-personnel mines on the security of civilian populations and their economic development”. It asked “OIC member states to take part in the efforts aimed at adopting effective measures to put an end to the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines, for their complete elimination”. 
OIC, Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Res. 36/23-P, 9–12 December 1995; Res. 27/24-P, 9–13 December 1996; see also Res. 28/25-P, 15–17 March 1998.
Inter-Parliamentary Conference (1999)
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the 93rd Inter-Parliamentary Conference called on States “to lay down a ban on anti-personnel mines” during the review of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 
93rd Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Madrid, 27 March–1 April 1999, Resolution on the International Community in the Face of the Challenges posed by Calamities Arising from Armed Conflicts and by Natural or Man-made Disasters: The Need for a Coherent and Effective Response through Political and Humanitarian Assistance Means and Mechanisms Adapted to the Situation, § 16.
Conference of African Ministers of Health
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on health and war, the Conference of African Ministers of Health requested member States “to decree the ban on anti-personnel mines on the review of the [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] … and to extend the Convention to cover all internal conflicts”. 
Conference of African Ministers of Health, Cairo, 26–28 April 1995, Res. 14 (V), § 3.
First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
During the First Session of the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in November 1995, the effort to create a global ban on anti-personnel landmines was supported by “sixteen States, the UN Secretary-General, the heads of numerous UN agencies, the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity, the European Parliament and Pope John Paul II”. 
ICRC, Position Paper No. 2, Landmine Negotiations: Impasse in Vienna Highlights Urgency of National and Regional Measures, November 1995, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 394–398.
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1995)
The 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1995 adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population in period of armed conflict in which it took note of the fact that “the Movement and a growing number of States, international, regional and non-governmental organizations have undertaken to work urgently for the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines”. It further noted that “the ultimate goal of States is to achieve the eventual elimination of anti-personnel landmines as viable alternatives are developed that significantly reduce the risk to the civilian population”.  
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Res. II, § G(b) and (c).
International Strategy Conference, Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines
In 1996, the Canadian Government hosted an International Strategy Conference, held in Ottawa, Canada,, entitled “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines”. The conference was attended by 50 pro-ban States, which became known as the Ottawa Group, 
Angola, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.
as well as by numerous inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations. The Final Declaration of the Ottawa Conference committed all those present to work together to ensure “the earliest possible conclusion of a legally binding international agreement to ban anti-personnel mines” and for this purpose noted that a follow-on conference would be held in Brussels, Belgium, in 1997 “to review the progress of the international community in achieving a global ban on anti-personnel mines”. 
International Strategy Conference, Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines, Ottawa, 3–5 October, Declaration, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 480–481.
The Ottawa Conference also adopted a detailed Global Plan of Action which laid out “concrete activities to be undertaken by the international community – on an immediate and urgent basis – to build upon the Ottawa Declaration and to move this process ahead in preparation for the follow-up meeting”. The Global Plan of Action stated that “building the necessary political will for a new legally-binding international agreement banning AP mines will require more nations to adopt national bans or moratoria on the production, stockpiling, use and transfer of AP mines”. 
International Strategy Conference, Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines, Ottawa, 3–5 October, Global Plan of Action, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 481–487.
Inter-Parliamentary Conference (1996)
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on a worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines and the need for mine clearance for humanitarian purposes, the 96th Inter-Parliamentary Conference called on parliamentarians “to urge their governments to ban anti-personnel mines … and support international efforts to achieve a binding international agreement on a global ban”. It requested the UN “to strengthen its efforts to secure the elimination of anti-personnel landmines”. 
96th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Beijing, 16–20 September 1996, Resolution on a Worldwide Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines and the Need for Mine Clearance for Humanitarian Purposes, §§ 1 and 5.
Brussels Conference on Anti-Personnel Landmines
The Final Declaration of the 1997 Brussels Conference on Anti-Personnel Landmines recalled UN General Assembly Resolution 51/45 S and urged the vigorous pursuit of “an effective, legally binding international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines”. The Declaration also called for the “early conclusion of a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel landmines” and welcomed “the convening of a Diplomatic Conference by the Government of Norway in Oslo on 1 September 1997 to negotiate such an agreement”. 
Brussels Conference on Anti-Personnel Landmines, Declaration, 27 June 1997, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 545–546.
The Declaration was signed by 111 States. These were: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cabo Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malaysia, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, St. Lucia, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 
ICRC, Published list of signatories to the Brussels Declaration, 18 September 1997 (on file with the ICRC.)
First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention
The Maputo Declaration, adopted by the First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, reaffirmed their “unwavering commitment to the total eradication of an insidious instrument of war and terror: anti-personnel mines”. The Declaration also called upon “those who continue to use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain and transfer these weapons: cease now, and join us in this task”. The parties to the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines further declared:
In this spirit, we voice our outrage at the unabated use of anti-personnel mines in conflicts around the world. To those few signatories who continue to use these weapons, this is a violation of the object and purpose of the Convention that you solemnly signed. We call upon you to respect your commitments. 
First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Maputo, 3–7 May 1999, Declaration, UN Doc. APLC/MSP.1/1999/1, 20 May 1999, §§ 1, 6 and 11; see also § 3.
First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention
At the First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, numerous States condemned the continued use of anti-personnel mines and, in particular, the use by treaty signatories including Angola and Senegal. 
ICRC internal document.
Inter-Parliamentary Conference (1999)
In a resolution adopted on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions in 1999 on the contribution of parliaments to ensuring respect for and promoting International humanitarian law, the 102nd Inter-Parliamentary Conference stressed “the serious threat posed by the widespread use of landmines, which have brought death to many innocent civilians and hindered the return of refugees, the provision of infrastructure and reconstruction in the affected areas long after hostilities have ended”. It further stated that it:
10. Also calls on States to accede to or ratify the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, if they have not done so;
12. Calls on States to assist, at the international level, in efforts to eliminate the use of landmines, and to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Ottawa Convention;
14. Condemns those States and non-State actors that produce, use or export these obnoxious weapons in defiance of the Ottawa Convention;
15. Urges States that produce or use this pernicious weapons, to cease production immediately. 
102nd Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Berlin, 10–15 October 1999, Resolution on the contribution of parliaments to ensuring respect for and promoting international humanitarian law on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, preamble and §§ 10, 12, 14 and 15.
Second Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention
The Declaration adopted by the Second Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 2000 stated:
5. We deplore the continued use of anti-personnel mines. Such acts are contrary to the aims of the Convention and exacerbate the humanitarian problems already caused by the use of these weapons. We call upon all those who continue to use anti-personnel mines, as well as those who develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain and transfer these weapons, to cease now and to join us in the task of eradicating these weapons.
6. We implore those States that have declared their commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention and that continue to use anti-personnel mines to recognize that this is a clear violation of their solemn commitment. We call upon all States concerned to respect their commitments. 
Second Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Geneva, 11–15 September 2000, Declaration, UN Doc. APLC/MSP.2/2000/L.8, 13 September 2000, p. 12, §§ 5–6.
Second Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention
At the Second Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 2000, several States in their interventions accused signatories, in particular Angola, Burundi, the Sudan and some of the forces active in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, of continuing to use mines in violation of their international obligations. In reply, Burundi denied any use of anti-personnel mines by its forces and welcomed an international fact-finding mission to its territory to investigate further, while Angola readily admitted its use of mines to defend military positions and requested understanding in light of its special circumstances.  
ICRC internal document.
Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
In the Final Declaration of the Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 2001, the participants expressed
their conviction that all States should strive towards the goal of the eventual elimination of anti-personnel mines globally and in this regard [noted] that a significant number of States Parties have formally committed themselves to a prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction. 
Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 11–21 December 2001, Final Declaration, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.II/2, 25 January 2002, p. 11.
The following 65 States participated in the conference as parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; the following four States participated as Signatory States: Egypt, Morocco, Turkey and Viet Nam; the following 18 States not parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons participated as observers: Albania, Armenia, Bahrain, Chile, Eritrea, Honduras, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela and Yemen. 
Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 11–21 December 2001, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.II/2, Final Document, §§ 20–22.
African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict
The Final Declaration of the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict in 2002 emphasized that the participants were “worried in the face of the rapid expansion of arms trade and the uncontrolled proliferation of weapons, notably those which can have indiscriminate effects or cause unnecessary suffering, like antipersonnel mines”. 
African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict, Niamey, 18–20 February 2002, Final Declaration, preamble.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its Final Report to the ICTY Prosecutor in 2000, the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated: “Whether antipersonnel landmines are prohibited under current customary law is debatable, although there is a strong trend in that direction.” 
ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, The Hague, 14 June 2000, § 27.
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
In a resolution on anti-personnel mines adopted in 1995, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights urged African States to “participate in large numbers in the [1996 Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] to press for the introduction of a clause on the prohibition or restriction of the use of mines in that Convention”. 
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Res. 4 (XVII), 13–22 March 1995, §§ 1 and 2.
ICRC
In 1993, in a publication entitled “Mines: A Perverse Use of Technology”, the ICRC condemned the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines. The foreword by the ICRC President urged “all States, humanitarian organizations and peoples of the world … to unite their energies to eradicate this scourge”. 
ICRC, Mines: A Perverse Use of Technology, Geneva, 1993, extracts reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 257–263.
ICRC
In February 1994, prior to the First Preparatory Meeting of a group of governmental experts for the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the ICRC President stated: “From a humanitarian point of view, we believe that a world-wide ban on anti-personnel mines is the only, truly effective solution.” 
ICRC, Statement by the President, A Total Ban on Anti-personnel Mines and Blinding Weapons is the Best Option, Geneva, 24 February 1994, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 264–265.
ICRC
In May 1994, at the Second Session of the Meeting of Governmental Experts prior to the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the ICRC presented several alternative proposals on landmines. The ICRC described its proposal calling for a prohibition on the use, manufacture, stockpiling or transfer of anti-personnel mines as the way to “most effectively deal with the problems caused by landmines”. 
ICRC, Proposals on Prohibitions and Restrictions submitted to the Meeting of Governmental Experts to Prepare the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Second Session), UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/GE/CRP.24, 27 May 1994, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 322–324.
ICRC
In 1994, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ICRC declared that it was “firmly of the opinion that the only really effective measure is to ban the use and production of anti-personnel landmines”. 
ICRC, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 49/PV.10, 24 October 1994, p.11.
ICRC
In 1995, in a position paper released following the final meeting of the group of governmental experts that proposed amendments for the First Session of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the ICRC expressed its conviction that the “only clear and effective means of ending the suffering inflicted on civilians by anti-personnel landmines is their total prohibition”. 
ICRC, Position Paper No. 1, Landmines and Blinding Weapons: From Expert Group to the Review Conference, February 1995, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 328–331.
ICRC
At the UN International Meeting on Mine Clearance in 1995, the ICRC President stated: “It is essential that the forthcoming Vienna Review Conference of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons reaches the goal, endorsed by the 49th UN General Assembly, of the elimination of anti-personnel mines.” 
ICRC, Statement by the President at the UN International Meeting on Mine Clearance, Geneva, 6 July 1995, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 349–351.
ICRC
In 1995, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ICRC expressed its disappointment at the failure of the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to reach agreement on a strengthened Protocol II and appealed to States “to evaluate whether measures short of a total ban on anti-personnel landmines will in fact put a stop to the present situation”. 
ICRC, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 50/PV.11, 26 October 1995, pp. 25–26.
ICRC
In 1995, in a position paper on landmines, the ICRC reiterated its earlier position stating that it remained convinced that “the only effective means of ending the scourge of anti-personnel landmines is to entirely prohibit their production, transfer and use”. 
ICRC, Position Paper No. 2, Landmine Negotiations: Impasse in Vienna Highlights Urgency of National and Regional Measures, November 1995, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 394–398.
ICRC
In November 1995, the ICRC, together with National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, launched an international media campaign calling for a ban on anti-personnel landmines under the slogan “Landmines must be stopped”. 
ICRC, Statement by the President at the Launch of the International Media Campaign against Anti-personnel Landmines by the ICRC and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 22 November 1995, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 404–406.
Council of Delegates (1995)
At its Geneva Session in 1995, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on anti-personnel landmines in which it expressed its “great concern about the indiscriminate effects of anti-personnel landmines and the consequences for civilian populations and humanitarian action” and urged all components of the Movement “to work for a total ban on anti-personnel landmines”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Geneva Session, 1–2 December 1995, Res. 10, §§ 1 and 2.
ICRC
At the Second Session of the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1996, the ICRC stated: “Only a total ban on anti-personnel landmines can solve the problem.” 
ICRC, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Second Session), Geneva, January 1996, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 411–414.
ICRC
In a press release issued at the end of the Second Session of the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in May 1996, the ICRC described the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons as “woefully inadequate” in its limitations on the use of anti-personnel mines and called for “ongoing work towards a total ban” to be undertaken at national and regional levels. 
ICRC, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Second Session), ICRC Views Amended Landmine Protocol as “Woefully Inadequate”, Geneva, 3 May 1996, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 448–449.
ICRC
At the International Strategy Conference Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines in 1996, the ICRC President stated:
Anti-personnel mines must not only be outlawed, but their use must also be stigmatized, so that whatever their understanding of the law combatants will choose not to use them because they are considered abhorrent to the societies in which they operate. 
ICRC, Statement by the President at the International Strategy Conference Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines, Ottawa, 3–5 October 1996, reprinted in Louis Maresca and Stuart Maslen (eds.), The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 474–479.
ICRC
In 1996, in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ICRC welcomed the establishment of the Ottawa Group and the Canadian initiative to invite Foreign Ministers to Ottawa to sign a mine ban treaty in December 1997. The ICRC stated that it would promote adherence to the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, but urged States “to go far beyond the provisions of the Protocol and to renounce the production, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines”. The ICRC also called on the UN General Assembly to adopt a strong resolution unequivocally supporting “a global ban on, and the elimination of, anti-personnel mines”. 
ICRC, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/ 51/PV.8, 18 October 1996, p. 9.
Council of Delegates (1997)
At its Seville Session in 1997, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on peace, international humanitarian law and human rights in which it urgently called upon National Societies to promote the signing by their governments of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines, “to work for the earliest possible ratification of this treaty to ensure its rapid entry into force, and to encourage their governments to take all appropriate additional means to achieve the total elimination of all anti-personnel mines”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Seville Session, 25–27 November 1997, Res. 8, Section 3, § 1.
ICRC
In a statement at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, the ICRC voiced its “concern about the reports of new use of landmines in some countries. There is clearly a need for a collective response from States Parties on this issue. This concern is particularly acute when such use involves a signatory State.” The ICRC urged “the conference to send a clear message that anti-personnel mines are no longer an acceptable weapon of warfare and to remind any signatory State using them that such use is contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Ottawa treaty”. 
ICRC, Statement by the Vice President at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Maputo, 3–7 May 1999.
Council of Delegates (1999)
At its Geneva Session in 1999, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution in which it approved the Movement’s Strategy on Landmines, one of the core elements of which was to “achieve universal adherence to and effective implementation of the norms established by the Ottawa Convention and amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Geneva Session, 29–30 October 1999, Res. 10, § 1.
ICRC Regional Seminar for Asian Military and Strategic Studies Experts
In the Final Declaration of the ICRC Regional Seminar for Asian Military and Strategic Studies Experts in 1997, the participants called upon States of the Asian region to consider the following urgent measures, especially:
1. The adoption of national prohibitions on the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines …
5. The rapid adoption of a regional agreement to prohibit remotely delivered anti-personnel mines in Asia so as to prevent an escalation of mine warfare in the region and even higher levels of civilian casualties
6. Participation in upcoming negotiations aimed at the conclusion of a new treaty comprehensively prohibiting anti-personnel landmines by the end of 1997.
The participants further appealed to the international community:
1. To pursue as a matter of urgency the prohibition and elimination of anti-personnel mines …
3. To recognise that the use of anti-personnel landmines in internal armed conflicts, either by State or non-State actors, should not be condoned
4.To explore how non-State actors involved in internal armed conflicts can be encouraged to end the use of anti-personnel mines. 
ICRC Regional Seminar for Asian Military and Strategic Studies Experts, Manila, 20–23 July 1997, Final Declaration, Anti-personnel Mines: What Future for Asia?, p. 3–4.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)
In its statement to the First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, the ICBL noted the use of mines in 13 conflicts and allegations of such use in 5 other conflicts during the period December 1997–May 1999. 
ICBL, Statement at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Maputo, 3–7 May 1999.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)
The ICBL’s Landmine Monitor Report 1999 noted that while there was no evidence of anti-personnel landmine use by any of the States parties to the 1997 Ottawa Convention, there was evidence to suggest that mines had been used in 13 conflicts during the period December 1997–March 1999 and there were allegations of such use in 5 other conflicts in the same period. According to the report, there was alleged new use of anti-personnel mines by government forces in this period in: Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Myanmar, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkey and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 
ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 1999, 1999, Executive Summary, p. 5.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)
In presenting the Landmine Monitor Report at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 1999, the ICBL highlighted the use of anti-personnel mines by three States signatory to the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines:
Angola’s continued use has been properly noted and criticised by many yesterday and today. Guinea-Bissau also used mines in its internal conflict in 1998, and it is likely that the forces of Senegal used mines as well in that conflict … Yugoslavia has rightly been criticised for recent mine use, but non-signatories and non-state actors are still using mines on a near daily basis in places such as Burma and Sri Lanka, and on occasion in such rarely noticed places as Djibouti. 
ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 2000, August 2000, Executive Summary, pp. 7–9.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)
At the Second Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention in 2000, the ICBL delivered a statement in which it urged pro-ban governments “not only to criticise and stigmatise mine users consistently, but also to take concrete steps to penalise them,
diplomatically or otherwise – while taking care not to penalise civilians living in mined areas”. In the same statement, while noting the overall decrease in anti-personnel mine use throughout the world, the ICBL highlighted the “disturbing” use of mines by Ottawa Convention signatories Angola, Burundi and Sudan and stated that even though these countries have yet to ratify the treaty “they are in violation of international law because they engage in activities that defeat the object and purpose of the treaty that they have signed”. 
ICBL, Statement at the Second Meeting of States Parties to the Ottawa Convention, Geneva, 11–15 September 2000.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)
The ICBL’s Landmine Monitor Report 2000 identified 11 governments and dozens of armed opposition groups that had used mines since the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines entered into force in March 1999. Non-State actors named in the report as having used anti-personnel mines between 1999 and 2000 were identified in the following regions: Angola, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, northern Iraq, Kashmir, southern Lebanon, Nepal, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkey and Uganda. 
ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 2000, August 2000, pp. 4–6.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)
Regarding the implementation in domestic legislation of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines as required by Article 9 of the Convention, the Landmine Monitor Report 2001 states:
[S]even States Parties indicate that the legislation used for ratification is sufficient because international treaties become self-executing in those countries: Mexico, Portugal, Rwanda, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Yemen. 
ICBL, Landmine Monitor Report 2001, Human Rights Watch, New York, August 2001, p. 25.