Practice Relating to Rule 82. Recording of the Placement of Landmines
Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 2(6) of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
“Recording” means a physical, administrative and technical operation designed to obtain, for the purpose of registration in the official records, all available information facilitating the location of minefields, mines and booby-traps.
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 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, 10 October 1980, Article 2(6).
Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 5(1) of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
The use of remotely delivered mines is prohibited unless such mines are only used within an area which is itself a military objective or which contains military objectives, and unless:
(a) their location can be accurately recorded in accordance with Article 7(1)(a); or
(b) an effective neutralizing mechanism is used on each such mine, that is to say, a self-actuating mechanism which is designed to render a mine harmless or cause it to destroy itself when it is anticipated that the mine will no longer serve the military purpose for which it was placed in position, or a remotely-controlled mechanism which is designed to render harmless or destroy a mine when the mine no longer serves the military purpose for which it was placed in position.
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 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, 10 October 1980, Article 5(1).
Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 7 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
1. The parties to the conflict shall record the location of: (a) all pre-planned minefields laid by them; …
2. The parties shall endeavour to ensure the recording of the location of all other minefields, mines … which they have laid or placed in position.
3. All such records shall be retained by the parties who shall:
(a) immediately after the cessation of active hostilities:
(i) take all necessary and appropriate measures, including the use of such records, to protect civilians from the effects of minefields, mines … and either
(ii) in cases where the forces of neither party are in the territory of the adverse party, make available to each other and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations all information in their possession concerning the location of minefields, mines … in the territory of the adverse party; or
(iii) once complete withdrawal of the forces of the parties from the territory of the adverse party has taken place, make available to the adverse party and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations all information in their possession concerning the location of minefields, mines … in the territory of the adverse party;
(b) when a United Nations force or mission performs functions in any area, make available to the authority mentioned in Article 8 such information as is required by that Article;
(c) whenever possible, by mutual agreement, provide for the release of information concerning the location of minefields, mines … particularly in agreements governing the cessation of hostilities.
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 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, 10 October 1980, Article 7.
Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 8 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons stipulates:
1. When a United Nations force or mission performs functions of peacekeeping, observation or similar functions in any area, each party to the conflict shall, if requested by the head of the United Nations force or mission in that area, as far as it is able:
(a) remove or render harmless all mines … in that area;
(b) take such measures as may be necessary to protect the force or mission from the effects of minefields, mines … while carrying out its duties; and
(c) make available to the head of the United Nations force or mission in that area, all information in the party’s possession concerning the location of minefields, mines … in that area.
2. When a United Nations fact-finding mission performs functions in any area, any party to the conflict concerned shall provide protection to that mission except where, because of the size of such mission, it cannot adequately provide such protection. In that case it shall make available to the head of the mission the information in its possession concerning the location of minefields, mines … in that area.
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 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, 10 October 1980, Article 8.
Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 9 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
After the cessation of active hostilities, the parties shall endeavour to reach agreement, both among themselves and, where appropriate, with other States and with international organizations, on the provision of information and technical and material assistance – including, in appropriate circumstances, joint operations – necessary to remove or otherwise render ineffective minefields, mines … placed in position during the conflict.
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 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, 10 October 1980, Article 9.
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 1(2) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
This Protocol shall apply, in addition to situations referred to in Article 1 of this Convention, to situations referred to in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. This Protocol 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.
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 1(2).
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 3(2) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
Each High Contracting Party or party to a conflict is, in accordance with the provisions of this Protocol, responsible for all mines, booby-traps, and other devices employed by it and undertakes to clear, remove, destroy or maintain them as specified in Article 10 of this Protocol.
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(2).
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 6(1) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: “It is prohibited to use remotely-delivered mines unless they are recorded in accordance with sub-paragraph 1 (b) 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 6(1).
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 9 of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
1. All information concerning minefields, mined areas, mines … shall be recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Annex.
2. All such records shall be retained by the parties to a conflict, who shall, without delay after the cessation of active hostilities, take all necessary and appropriate measures, including the use of such information, to protect civilians from the effects of minefields, mined areas, mines … in areas under their control.
At the same time, they shall also make available to the other party or parties to the conflict and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations all such information in their possession concerning minefields, mined areas, mines … laid by them in areas no longer under their control; provided, however, subject to reciprocity, where the forces of a party to a conflict are in the territory of an adverse party, either party may withhold such information from the Secretary-General and the other party, to the extent that security interests require such withholding, until neither party is in the territory of the other. In the latter case, the information withheld shall be disclosed as soon as those security interests permit. Wherever possible, the parties to the conflict shall seek, by mutual agreement, to provide for the release of such information at the earliest possible time in a manner consistent with the security interests of each party.
3. This Article is without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of this Protocol.
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 9.
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 12 of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
1. Application
(a) With the exception of the forces and missions referred to in sub-paragraph 2(a)(i) of this Article, this Article applies only to missions which are performing functions in an area with the consent of the High Contracting Party on whose territory the functions are performed.
(b) The application of the provisions of this Article to parties to a conflict which are not High Contracting Parties shall not change their legal status or the legal status of a disputed territory, either explicitly or implicitly.
(c) The provisions of this Article are without prejudice to existing international humanitarian law, or other international instruments as applicable, or decisions by the Security Council of the United Nations, which provide for a higher level of protection to personnel functioning in accordance with this Article.
2. Peace-keeping and certain other forces and missions
(a) This paragraph applies to:
(i) any United Nations force or mission performing peace-keeping, observation or similar functions in any area in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
(ii) any mission established pursuant to Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations and performing its functions in the area of a conflict.
(b) Each High Contracting Party or party to a conflict, if so requested by the head of a force or mission to which this paragraph applies, shall:
(i) so far as it is able, take such measures as are necessary to protect the force or mission from the effects of mines, booby-traps and other devices in any area under its control;
(ii) if necessary in order effectively to protect such personnel, remove or render harmless, so far as it is able, all mines, booby-traps and other devices in that area; and
(iii) inform the head of the force or mission of the location of all known minefields, mined areas, mines, booby-traps and other devices in the area in which the force or mission is performing its functions and, so far as is feasible, make available to the head of the force or mission all information in its possession concerning such minefields, mined areas, mines, booby-traps and other devices.
3. Humanitarian and fact-finding missions of the United Nations System
(a) This paragraph applies to any humanitarian or fact-finding mission of the United Nations System.
(b) Each High Contracting Party or party to a conflict, if so requested by the head of a mission to which this paragraph applies, shall:
(i) provide the personnel of the mission with the protections set out in sub-paragraph 2(b) (i) of this Article; and
(ii) if access to or through any place under its control is necessary for the performance of the mission’s functions and in order to provide the personnel of the mission with safe passage to or through that place:
(aa) unless on-going hostilities prevent, inform the head of the mission of a safe route to that place if such information is available; or
(bb) if information identifying a safe route is not provided in accordance with sub-paragraph (aa), so far as is necessary and feasible, clear a lane through minefields.
4. Missions of the International Committee of the Red Cross
(a) This paragraph applies to any mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross performing functions with the consent of the host State or States as provided for by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and, where applicable, their Additional Protocols.
(b) Each High Contracting Party or party to a conflict, if so requested by the head of a mission to which this paragraph applies, shall:
(i) provide the personnel of the mission with the protections set out in sub-paragraph 2(b) (i) of this Article; and
(ii) take the measures set out in sub-paragraph 3(b) (ii) of this Article.
5. Other humanitarian missions and missions of enquiry
(a) Insofar as paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above do not apply to them, this paragraph applies to the following missions when they are performing functions in the area of a conflict or to assist the victims of a conflict:
(i) any humanitarian mission of a national Red Cross or Red Crescent Society or of their International Federation;
(ii) any mission of an impartial humanitarian organization, including any impartial humanitarian demining mission; and
(iii) any mission of enquiry established pursuant to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and, where applicable, their Additional Protocols.
(b) Each High Contracting Party or party to a conflict, if so requested by the head of a mission to which this paragraph applies, shall, so far as is feasible:
(i) provide the personnel of the mission with the protections set out in sub-paragraph 2(b) (i) of this Article, and
(ii) take the measures set out in sub-paragraph 3(b) (ii) of this Article.
6. Confidentiality
All information provided in confidence pursuant to this Article shall be treated by the recipient in strict confidence and shall not be released outside the force or mission concerned without the express authorization of the provider of the information.
7. Respect for laws and regulations
Without prejudice to such privileges and immunities as they may enjoy or to the requirements of their duties, personnel participating in the forces and missions referred to in this Article shall:
(a) respect the laws and regulations of the host State; and
(b) refrain from any action or activity incompatible with the impartial and international nature of their duties.
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 12.
Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines
Article 5 of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines provides:
1. Each State Party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control, as soon as possible but not later than ten years after the entry into force of this Convention for that State Party.
2. Each State Party shall make every effort to identify all areas under its jurisdiction or control in which anti-personnel mines are known or suspected to be emplaced and shall ensure as soon as possible that all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control are perimeter-marked, monitored and protected by fencing or other means, to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians, until all anti-personnel mines contained therein have been destroyed. The marking shall at least be to the standards set out in the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended on 3 May 1996, annexed 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.
3. If a State Party believes that it will be unable to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines referred to in paragraph 1 within that time period, it may submit a request to a Meeting of the States Parties or a Review Conference for an extension of the deadline for completing the destruction of such anti-personnel mines, for a period of up to ten years.
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Ottawa, 18 September 1997, Article 5.
Amendment to Article 1 of the 1980 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 1 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.
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.
New Delhi Draft Rules
Article 15 of the 1956 New Delhi Draft Rules provides:
If the Parties to the conflict make use of mines, they are bound … to chart the mine-fields. The charts shall be handed over, at the close of active hostilities, to the adverse Party, and also to other authorities responsible for the safety of the population.
Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers Incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War, drafted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, September 1956, submitted to governments for their consideration on behalf of the 19th International Conference of the Red Cross, New Delhi, 28 October–7 November, Res. XIII, Article 15.
N’Sele Ceasefire Agreement
Article II(8) of the 1992 N’Sele Ceasefire Agreement provides that “cease-fire” shall imply “a ban on … the hindering of operations to remove mines”.
Cease-fire Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front, N’Sele, 29 March 1991, as amended at Gbadolite, 16 September 1991, and at Arusha, 12 July 1992, annexed to Letter dated 4 March 1993 from the Chargé d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Rwanda to the UN addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/25363, 4 March 1993, Article II(8).
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
Paragraphs 79 and 80 of the 2000 Cairo Declaration adopted at the Africa-Europe Summit states that there is a need to intensify efforts “in the fields of mine clearance, assistance thereto, as well as with respect to mine victims and mine awareness”. The States present at the Summit declared that they would “continue to co-operate towards a comprehensive resolution of the landmine problem in Africa, in particular by addressing the issue of the removal of existing landmines”.
Cairo Declaration, adopted at the Africa-Europe Summit under the Aegis of the Organization of African Unity and the European Union, Cairo, 3–4 April 2000, §§ 79 and 80.
N’Djamena Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement
Article 2 of the 2004 N’Djamena Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement provides that each party shall “[s]top laying landmines; mark and sign post any danger areas and mine fields”.
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.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) reproduces the content of Article 7 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.24(2).
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states: “The location of minefields … is to be recorded.”
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 942.
As regards remotely delivered mines, the Guide states:
Either the location of minefields containing remotely delivered mines must be accurately recorded or the mines themselves must be equipped with an effective neutralising mechanism which destroys or renders them harmless after a period of time.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 940.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states:
The location of all pre-planned minefields and areas in which there has been large scale and pre-planned use of booby-traps must be recorded. A record should also be kept of all other minefields, mines and booby traps so that they may be disarmed when they are no longer required.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 423.
The manual further states:
Remotely delivered mines can only be used within the area of a military objective if their location can be accurately recorded and they can be neutralised when they no longer serve the military purpose for which they were placed in position. Either each mine must have an effective self neutralising or destroying mechanism or a remotely controlled mechanism designed to render the mine harmless or destroy it.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 425.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “The recording of information about minefields, mined areas and mines (as well as booby traps and other devices) is mandatory.”
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 4.29.
The manual further states:
4.38 The location of all pre-planned minefields and areas in which there has been large scale and pre-planned use of booby traps must be recorded. A record should also be kept of all other minefields, mines and booby traps so that they may be disarmed when they are no longer required.
…
4.40 Remotely delivered landmines can only be used within the area of a military objective if their location can be accurately recorded and they can be neutralised when they no longer serve the military purpose for which they were placed in position.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 4.38 and 4.40.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states, with reference to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, that remotely delivered minefields are only permitted if the location of the mines is mapped.
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 38.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states that the restrictions contained in the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons must be scrupulously applied in order to avoid civilian casualties. The manual provides, therefore, that the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices must follow the rules on recording and publication of the location of mines and minefields as defined in Article 7 of the Protocol.
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 123.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), under the heading “The Weapons of Warfare Subject to International Rules”, quotes Article 2 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. It further states:
The only restrictions concern use directed against civilian populations. All rules must be scrupulously observed so that their use in case of armed conflict does not cause victims amongst the civilian populations. Hence the rules regarding:
…
- the recording [of placement] (Article 7 Protocol II).
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, p. 270, § 631.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “The location of all pre-planned minefields … must be recorded. A record should also be kept of all other minefields [and] mines … so that they may be disarmed when they are no longer required.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-5, § 46.
The manual also states:
Canada’s obligation to clear minefields after the cessation of hostilities will vary depending upon circumstances such as the degree of jurisdiction or control exercised over the territory, the terms of any peace accord and any other bilateral or multilateral arrangement.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-2, § 19.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Restrictions on the use of weapons”: “The location of all pre-planned minefields … must be recorded. A record should also be kept of all other minefields [and] mines … so that they may be disarmed when they are no longer required.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 523.6.
With regard to remotely-delivered mines, the manual states:
Remotely-delivered land mines can only be used within the area of a military objective if their location can be accurately recorded, and they can be neutralized when they no longer serve the military purpose for which they were placed in position.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 524.2.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders):
II.2.3. Remotely-delivered mines
…
Remotely-delivered landmines can only be used in the area of a military objective, if their location can be precisely recorded and if they can be neutralized if they are no longer necessary for serving the military purpose for which they were placed in position.
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. 56.
France
According to France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000), employing landmines (except anti-personnel mines) is allowed on the condition that their exact location is recorded. It further provides: “At the end of hostilities the mine fields have to be indicated and as far as possible neutralized.”
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. 7.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that employing landmines (except anti-personnel mines) is allowed on the condition that their exact location is recorded. It further states: “At the end of hostilities the mine fields have to be indicated and as far as possible neutralized.”
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. 55; see also p. 82.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states:
The location of minefields [and] mines … shall be recorded: the parties to the conflict shall retain these records and, whenever possible, by mutual agreement, provide for their publication (Weapons Conv., Prot. 2, Art. 7). In the Federal Armed Force the territorial command authorities are responsible for the mining documentation.
The manual adds:
After the cessation of an international armed conflict, the parties to the conflict shall, both among themselves and, where appropriate, with other states or international organizations, exchange information and technical assistance necessary to remove or otherwise render ineffective minefields [and] mines.
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, §§ 417 and 419.
With respect to remotely delivered mines, the manual, quoting Article 5(1) of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, provides: “After emplacement their location shall be accurately recorded.”
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 413.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states:
It is incumbent on every army to keep a record of a minefield laid during combat. Any mine manufactured after the Convention came into force must contain a metal piece of at least 8 grams to enable its detection by a mine detector.
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 14.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
Every army has a duty to record the minefields for which it is responsible, even minefields laid during battle. Any mine produced after the Convention [on Certain Conventional Weapons] came into force is required to contain a piece of metal weighing at least eight grams that will aid a mine-detector to identify its presence.
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).
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “The location shall be recorded of: pre-planned minefields … other minefields, mines … when the tactical situation permits.” With respect to remotely delivered mines, the manual states that their use is allowed when “their location can be accurately recorded or an effective neutralizing mechanism is used on each mine”.
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, pp. 3–4.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands reproduces the content of Article 7 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, pp. IV-6/IV-10.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
0449. Recording
All information concerning mines, booby-traps and other devices should be logged. The locations should be given in the form of grid references. For the purposes of detection and clearance, maps, diagrams or other information should contain full information on the type, number, methods of placement, type of detonation device, lifetime, date and time of laying, tamper-proof devices (if fitted) and other relevant information. Copies of these written compilations should also be kept at a higher level of command. The parties to an armed conflict must keep the information on mines until after the end of the armed conflict.
…
0450. The logging obligation also applies to remotely delivered mines. For these mines, this means providing grid references for the estimated location and area of distribution. The area should, if possible, be marked at the first available opportunity. the number and type of mines laid, the date and time of laying and the self-destruction mechanisms should also be logged. In addition, a suitable warning should be given, before shooting or firing remotely delivered mines which might also affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.
…
0451. International marking
Minefields and mined areas must be marked with red or orange boards, with a yellow, reflective edge. The boards can be triangular or rectangular … The boards must be erected around the minefield or mined area, at intervals visible from each point to civilians approaching the area.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0449–0451.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) cites Article 7 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and states: “All feasible efforts will be made to record the location of all minefields.”
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 514.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “Minefields reference (minefields location registration) shall be done in relation to the coordinates of at least two reference points.”
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, § 142.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides that when anti-vehicle landmines are used, records must be established.
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, pp. 44–45.
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) provides that if landmines are used, their exact location must be recorded.
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).
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
3. Means and Methods of Warfare
…
Several specific weapons are governed by specific treaties. These treaties establish two categories of weapons, to wit[:]
- Weapons of which the use is totally prohibited; and
- Weapons of which the use is permitted under certain conditions.
…
Weapons of which the use is Permitted under Certain Conditions:
- Land Mines and Similar Devices (Geneva Protocol II [on] the Use of Mines, Booby-traps and Other Devices dated 10 October 1980)
…
- Conditions for Permitted Use
…
- Recording of Minefields, Mines, Booby-traps, etc. (Geneva Protocol II on the Use of Mines, Booby-traps and Other Devices dated 10 October 1980 Article 7). The location of the following must be recorded:
- Pre-planned minefields;
- Areas where large-scale and pre-planned use is made of booby-traps; and
- Other minefields, mines and booby-traps, when the tactical situation permits
…
- Remotely Delivered Mines (Geneva Protocol II on the Use of Mines, Booby-traps and Other Devices dated 10 October 1980 Article 5)
Remotely delivered mines may be used:
…
- When their location can be accurately recorded or an effective neutralising mechanism is used on each mine; …
…
…
- Determination of Lawful Weapons. In operational planning a commander must consider alternative weapons to be used. The following considerations are important in the consideration of the choice of weapons:
…
The Need for Control Measures. For example, minefields must be marked and recorded.
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 3, pp. 174–180.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) contains the same provisions as Article 7 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
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.(4).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) contains the same provisions as Article 7 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
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.(1).
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) states:
According to Protocol II [to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], the parties to a conflict shall record the locations of all pre-planned minefields … The parties shall retain all mine records and, after cessation of hostilities, shall make them available to the adversary – this provision, however, is not obligatory in a case where the latter party still has combat forces on the wrong side of the frontier.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.3.2, pp. 80–81.
With respect to remotely delivered mines, the manual states: “The protocol [II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] states the special precautionary measures to be observed in the form of recording the locations of the mine fields, or the use of self-destruction mechanisms.”
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.3.2, pp. 80–81.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states that large-scale minefields must be mapped, and after the cessation of hostilities, in order to protect the civilian population, these maps shall be handed over to the adverse party and to the United Nations. In this context, the manual refers to Articles 6 to 9 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 23.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981), under the heading “Future Developments”, considers the possibility of a treaty imposing “an obligation to record minefields and to fit remotely delivered mines with self-neutralising mechanisms or to record their location”.
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 11, p. 40, § 4(b).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
The recording of information about minefields, mined areas and mines (as well as booby-traps and other devices) is mandatory and is to be done as follows:
a. Except in the case of remotelydelivered mines, locations are to be “specified accurately by relation to the coordinates of at least two reference points and the estimated dimensions of the area containing these weapons in relation to those reference points”;
b. “Maps, diagrams or other records shall be made in such a way as to indicate the location of minefields, mined areas, booby-traps and other devices in relation to reference points, and these records shall also indicate their perimeters and extent”;
c. For the purposes of detection and clearance of mines, booby-traps and other devices, the records are also to contain “complete information on the type, number, emplacing method, type of fuse and life time, date and time of laying, antihandling devices (if any) and other relevant information on all these weapons laid. Whenever feasible the minefield record shall show the exact location of every mine, except in row minefields when the row location is sufficient. The precise location and operating mechanism of each booby-trap laid shall be individually recorded”;
d. In the case of remotelydelivered mines, the estimated location and area is to be “specified by coordinates of reference points (normally corner points) and shall be ascertained and when feasible marked on the ground at the earliest opportunity. The total number and type of mines laid, the date and time of laying and the selfdestruction time periods” are also to be recorded.
e. Copies of records are to be “held at a level of command sufficient to guarantee their safety as far as possible”.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 6.14.6.
In its chapter on negotiations between belligerents, the manual states:
Although no rules exist as to the form or contents of a capitulation, for the avoidance of doubt, it should be in writing and contain in the most precise and unequivocal words, the conditions which are to be observed. In particular, the agreement should state:
…
g. information on minefields and other defence installations.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 10.30.
United States of America
The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980) states: “The party establishing a minefield should always keep a record of its location.”
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 6-5.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states that international law “requires that, to the extent possible, belligerents record the location of all minefields in order to facilitate their removal upon the cessation of hostilities. It is the practice of the United States to record the location of minefields in all circumstances.”
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/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 Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), p. 448, § 9.3.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “International law requires that, to the extent possible, belligerents record the location of all minefields in order to facilitate their removal upon the cessation of hostilities. It is the practice of the United States to record the location of minefields in all circumstances.”
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: “All the areas of the Republic of Albania infested with mines must be determined and cleared by 2009.”
Albania, Anti-personnel Mines Decision, 2000, § 7.
Chad
Chad’s Law on Anti-Personnel Mines (2006) states:
As far as possible, the relevant sections of the Ministry responsible for national defence attend to the establishment of an inventory of areas in which anti-personnel mines are known or suspected to have been emplaced.
Chad, Law on Anti-Personnel Mines, 2006, Article 13.
The Law also states:
If an area has been identified in which anti-personnel mines are known or suspected to be emplaced, the relevant sections of the Ministry responsible for the national defence and security must ensure that to the extent possible, this area is perimeter-marked according to the international rules on the fight against mines, [and that it is] monitored and protected by fencing or other means in order to prevent civilians from entering until all anti-personnel mines in this area have been destroyed.
This marking must at least be to the standards set out in the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended on 3 May 1996, annexed 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.
Chad, Law on Anti-Personnel Mines, 2006, Article 14.
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).
Malaysia
Malaysia’s Anti-personnel Mines Act (2002) provides:
Where an area is identified as a mined area or is suspected to be a mined area, the Minister shall, wherever possible, ensure that such area is perimeter-marked and protected by fencing or otherwise employ such means as necessary so as to notify civilians of the presence of anti-personnel mines.
Malaysia, Anti-personnel Mines Act, 2002, Section 6.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Conventional Weapons Act (2001) provides:
1. The Commander of the military unit that emplaced mines … must record and maintain the following information on the emplaced field:
a. Precise location and boundary of the emplaced area;
b. Type, number, emplacing method, type of fuse and life time of the emplaced mine … and
c. Location of every emplaced mine (except for remotely-delivered anti-personnel mines) …
2. The Commander of the military unit that emplaced mines must manage the information, which was recorded and maintained as prescribed by paragraph 1 in accordance with the Military Secrets Protection Act.
Republic of Korea, Conventional Weapons Act, 2001, Article 8.
No data.
Afghanistan
In 1994, during the debate in the UN General Assembly that preceded the adoption of Resolution 49/215, Afghanistan stated that it and “many others expect the Secretary-General to enhance the role of the existing Mine Clearance and Policy Unit … in order, inter alia, to study on a continuous basis the problem of land-mines and mine-clearance in war-stricken countries”.
Afghanistan further stated: “All States that have spread land-mines in other countries must provide maps of the minefields.”
Afghanistan, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/49/PV.95, 23 December 1994, p. 4.
Canada
In 1975, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Canada advocated the “automatic and compulsory marking” of remotely delivered minefields.
Canada, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.14, 5 March 1975, p. 131.
Canada
Upon ratification of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Canada stated:
With respect to Protocol II [to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that:
(a) Any obligation to record the location of remotely delivered mines pursuant to sub-paragraph 1(a) of article 5 refers to the location of mine fields and not to the location of individual remotely delivered mines.
(b) The term “pre-planned”, as used in sub-paragraph 1(a) of article 7, means that the position of the minefield in question should have been determined in advance so that an accurate record of the location of the minefield, when laid, can be made.
(c) The phrase “similar functions” used in article 8, includes the concepts of “peace-making”, “preventive peace-keeping” and “peace-enforcement” as defined in an agenda for peace (United Nations document A/47/277 of 17 June 1992).
Canada, Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 24 June 1994, § 3.
Canada
Upon ratification of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Canada stated:
It is understood that the maintenance of a minefield referred to in Article 10, in accordance with the standards on marking, monitoring and protection by fencing or other means set out in Amended Protocol II, would not be considered as a use of the mines contained therein.
Canada, Reservations and statements of understanding made upon ratification of Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 5 January 1998, § 3.
China
In 2005, in a working paper relating to mines other than anti-personnel mines (MOTAPM), China proposed:
21. All minefields upon their emplacement should be recorded, and they should be monitored and guarded by military personnel before conflict, so as to prevent the access by civilians and vehicles and persons of humanitarian missions.
…
31. All MOTAPM minefields should be marked and fenced as early as possible after conflict so as to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians and humanitarian personnel and vehicles from the area. All MOTAPM minefields emplaced during the conflict should be cleared as soon as possible upon cessation of the conflict.
32. All MOTAPM minefields emplaced by a State outside its own territory during the conflict shall be fenced and marked immediately by the State upon cessation of the conflict. The documentation of such MOTAPM minefields shall be provided to the State where the minefields are located, as well as relevant international humanitarian organizations.
…
36. China holds the view that the biggest difficulty in post-conflict demining operations is the clearance of the MOTAPM minefields emplaced by a State on foreign territory, as in most cases that foreign State where the minefields are located has little knowledge about the function of the MOTAPM emplaced as well as the most effective method to clear them. Therefore, the emplacing State shall provide the documentation of the MOTAPM minefields to the State where the MOTAPM minefields are located and relevant international humanitarian organizations in time so as to avoid possible humanitarian consequences.
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. CCW/GGE/XI/WG.2/WP.2, 28 July 2005, §§ 21, 31–32 and 36.
Côte d’Ivoire
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Côte d’Ivoire stated that it welcomed the establishment of the UN fund for assistance in demining.
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.
Ethiopia
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Ethiopia stated that it “welcomed the outcome of the July 1995 international meeting on mine clearance and the pledges made there”.
Ethiopia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.9, 25 October 1995, p. 16.
France
Upon acceptance of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, France stated:
France takes it that article 4 and the Technical Annex to amended Protocol II do not require the removal or replacement of mines that have already been laid …
The provisions of amended Protocol II such as those concerning the marking, monitoring and protection of zones which contain anti-personnel mines and are under the control of a party, are applicable to all zones containing mines, irrespective of the date on which those mines were laid.
France, Declarations made upon acceptance of Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 23 July 1998.
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:
13. How does the Federal Government ensure that there are no civilian victims when using anti-vehicle mines that self-deactivate after a 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 for a certain period of time. …
… [The rules of engagement] state that after their placing, the mines must be measured and documented.
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.
Honduras
In 1994, during the debate in the UN General Assembly that preceded the adoption of Resolution 49/215, Honduras stated that it was “grateful for the work the Secretary-General has done in connection with the establishment of a fund for assistance in mine clearance” and that it supported the mine-clearance work of the OAS in the Central America region.
Honduras, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/49/PV.95, 23 December 1994, p. 3.
India
In 2003, at the 5th Annual Conference of the States Parties to Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the head of the Indian delegation stated:
India remains committed to full and effective implementation of the Amended Protocol II and has taken all the required measures to ensure the compliance with its provisions …
…
Mr. President, in India only the armed forces are permitted to use landmines. They have well- established Standard of Operation Procedures whereby minefields are laid along border areas as a part of military operations and are explicitly marked and fenced to prevent causalities to innocent civilians or grazing cattle. Mines had to be laid along our western border in 2002 and by last month, over 90 percent of mines laid had been recovered. The target of 100 percent recovery of all mines that have been laid will be achieved shortly.
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:
Our landmine policy authorizes the use of landmines exclusively by military formations. They have well established Standard Operating Procedures whereby minefields are laid, if required, along the border areas as part of military operations. These minefields are properly marked and fenced to prevent casualties to innocent civilians or grazing cattle. There is no minefield or mined area in any part of India’s interiors. India has never used mines for maintenance of internal order or in counter-terrorism operations, notwithstanding the gravest security challenges posed by terrorists. On their part, terrorists use improvised explosive devices against civilian targets with wanton indiscrimination.
Dissemination of information to the armed forces and enhancement of public awareness on anti-personnel landmines is an important part of my government’s policy. These measures include distribution of a booklet on India’s position on landmines and her obligations under AP II [the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] to armed forces personnel, and including the subject in the syllabi of the military courses. The concerned government agencies interact on a regular basis with each other on the implementation of the provisions of AP II. A number of civil society organizations, strategic think tanks and the mass media have strengthened the government’s hand in increasing public awareness on the implementation of the provisions of AP II.
…
India supports measures undertaken by the States Parties for the universalization of AP II … I take this opportunity to urge those who have not done so to ratify the CCW Convention [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] and its five protocols as soon as possible. My delegation looks forward to a useful exchange of views on the implementation of the Protocol, to which we have committed ourselves with the objective of securing a mine-free world.
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 Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, 23 November 2005.
India
In 2007, at the Ninth Annual Conference of the States Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the permanent representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament stated:
It would be appropriate at this Conference to provide details of India’s national implementation of Amended Protocol-II under specific heads.
…
Imparting information to the civilian population
• An integral part of our government’s efforts to avoid civilian casualties is to enhance public awareness on landmines, in particular anti-personnel landmines. The Indian army has disseminated information on mines laid along the border areas, as part of military operations, to the concerned civilians, besides placing warning signs at suitable locations. Mine awareness programmes in the relevant locations have also been conducted at the village level.
• Media representatives have been briefed by the Army to disseminate information on the preventive measures required to prevent civilian casualties resulting from exercises or operations.
India, Statement by the permanent representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament at the Ninth Annual Conference of the States Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 6 November 2007.
Italy
In 1976, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Italy stated: “The obligation to record the location of minefields and to fit a neutralizing mechanism on remotely delivered mines provided a satisfactory guarantee for the civilian population.”
Italy, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.29, 25 May 1976, p. 297, § 20.
Israel
Upon accession to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Israel stated:
With respect to Protocol II [to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], it is the understanding of the Government of Israel that:
(i) Any obligation to record the location of remotely delivered mines pursuant to sub-paragraph 1(a) of article 5 refers to the location of mine fields and not to the location of individual remotely delivered mines;
(ii) the term pre-planned, as used in sub-paragraph 1(a) of article 7, means that the position of the minefield in question should have been determined in advance so that an accurate record of the location of the minefield, when laid, can be made.
Israel, Declarations and statements of understanding made upon accession to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 22 March 1995, § c.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya raised the issue of the clearance of mines on its territory dating from the Second World War and stated that it had “asked the countries concerned, bilaterally or through the United Nations, to provide us with maps of the minefields, to help us in the necessary demining operations and to pay compensation for the damage these mines have caused”.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.8, 20 October 1995, p. 18.
Netherlands
Upon ratification of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the Netherlands stated: “With regard to article 8, paragraph 1, of Protocol II: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the words ‘as far as it is able’ mean ‘as far as it is technically able’.”
Netherlands, Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 18 June 1987, § 3.
Pakistan
In 1993, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Pakistan stated that it would have preferred “a more comprehensive approach to the issue of uncleared anti-personnel mines” and that “issues relating to self-neutralizing mines should also be considered”.
Pakistan, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/48/SR.28, 18 November 1993, p. 8.
Pakistan
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Pakistan stated: “Millions of indiscriminately used mines threaten civilian populations in over 60 countries. There must be a global commitment to remove these mines, especially those in developing countries.”
Pakistan, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.8, 26 October 1995, p. 19.
Pakistan
At the First Annual Conference of High Contracting Parties to Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1999, Pakistan stated that it would convert its entire stock of anti-personnel mines to detectable mines.
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.
Peru
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Peru stated that it supported the “establishment of a voluntary fund to finance information and training programmes on de-mining” and stated that it would definitely contribute to the fund.
Peru, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.9, 25 October 1995, p. 11.
Poland
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Poland stated that it had “pledged to make an important contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Clearance”.
Poland, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.9, 25 October 1995, p. 7.
Sweden
At the Preparatory Conference for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1978, Sweden stated that certain limitations on the use of conventional weapons should be agreed upon by the participants including “that minefields on land must be charted when they were laid, so that they could be cleared at the end of hostilities and not remain as permanent hazards to life”.
Sweden, Statement at the United Nations Preparatory Conference for the Conference on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF./I/SR.4, 31 August 1978, p. 2.
Thailand
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Thailand stated that it appreciated “the efforts of the United Nations in drawing up a comprehensive mine clearance programme, in launching mine awareness activities, and, more importantly, in establishing the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for land mine-affected countries”.
Thailand, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/50/PV.5, 17 October 1995, p. 16.
United States of America
In 1976, during discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, the United States supported “reasonable and feasible requirements for recording the location of minefields”.
United States, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.29, 25 May 1976, p. 300, § 35.
UN General Assembly
In numerous resolutions adopted between 1981 and 1999, the UN General Assembly urged all States that had not done so to accede to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols.
UN General Assembly, Res. 36/93, 9 December 1981, § 1, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 37/79, 9 December 1982, § 1, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 38/66, 15 December 1983, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 39/56, 12 December 1984, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 40/84, 12 December 1985, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 41/50, 3 December 1986, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 42/30, 30 November 1987, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 43/67, 7 December 1988, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 45/64, 4 December 1990, § 3, voting record: without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 46/40, 6 December 1991, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 47/56, 9 December 1992, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 48/79, 16 December 1993, § 3, voting record: 169-0-3-19. UN General Assembly, Res. 49/79, 15 December 1994, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 50/74, 12 December 1995, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 51/49, 10 December 1996, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 52/42, 9 December 1997, § 3, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 53/81, 4 December 1998, § 5, adopted without a vote. UN General Assembly, Res. 54/58, 1 December 1999, § III(3), adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on assistance in mine clearance, the UN General Assembly recognized “the importance of recording, where appropriate, the location of mines”.
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/215, 23 December 1994, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on assistance in mine clearance, the UN General Assembly:
Recognizing the importance of recording the location of mines and of retaining all such records and making them available to concerned parties upon cessation of hostilities, in accordance with international law,
…
10. Calls upon Member States, especially those that have a capacity to do so, to provide the necessary information and technical and material assistance, as appropriate, and to locate, remove, destroy or otherwise render ineffective minefields, mines, booby-traps and other devices, in accordance with international law.
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/82, 14 December 1995, preamble and § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on assistance in mine clearance, the UN General Assembly:
Emphasizing the importance of recording the location of mines, of retaining all such records and making them available to concerned parties upon cessation of hostilities, and welcoming the strengthening of the relevant provisions of international law,
Recognizing the important role that the international community, particularly States involved in the deployment of mines, can play in assisting mine clearance in affected countries through the provision of necessary maps and information and appropriate technical and material assistance to remove or otherwise render ineffective existing minefields, mines and booby-traps,
…
11. Calls upon Member States, especially those that have a capacity to do so, to provide the necessary information and technical and material assistance, as appropriate, and to locate, remove, destroy or otherwise render ineffective minefields, mines, booby-traps and other devices in accordance with international law.
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/149, 13 December 1996, preamble and § 11, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on assistance in mine action, the UN General Assembly:
Emphasizing the importance of recording the location of mines, of retaining all such records and making them available to concerned parties upon cessation of hostilities, and welcoming the strengthening of the relevant provisions in international law,
…
Recognizing the important role that the international community, particularly States involved in the deployment of mines, can play in assisting mine clearance in affected countries through the provision of necessary maps and information and appropriate technical and material assistance to remove or otherwise render ineffective existing minefields, mines and booby-traps,
…
10. Calls upon Member States, especially those that have a capacity to do so, to provide the necessary information and technical and material assistance, as appropriate, and to locate, remove, destroy or otherwise render ineffective minefields, mines, booby-traps and other devices in accordance with international law, as soon as possible.
UN General Assembly, Res. 52/173, 18 December 1997, preamble and § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on assistance in mine action, the UN General Assembly:
Emphasizing the importance of recording the location of mines, of retaining all such records and making them available to concerned parties upon cessation of hostilities, and welcoming the strengthening of the relevant provisions of international law,
…
Recognizing the important role that the international community, particularly States involved in the deployment of mines, can play in assisting mine clearance in affected countries through the provision of necessary maps and information and appropriate technical and material assistance to remove or otherwise render ineffective existing minefields, mines and booby traps,
…
11. Calls upon Member States, especially those that have the capacity to do so, to provide the necessary information and technical and material assistance, as appropriate, and to locate, remove, destroy or otherwise render ineffective minefields, mines, booby traps and other devices in accordance with international law, as soon as possible.
UN General Assembly, Res. 53/26, 31 December 1998, preamble and § 11, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on assistance in mine action, the UN General Assembly:
Recognizing the important role that the international community, particularly States involved in the deployment of mines, can play in assisting mine clearance in mine-affected countries through the provision of necessary maps and information and appropriate technical and material assistance to remove or otherwise render ineffective existing minefields, mines and booby traps,
…
15. Emphasizes in this regard the importance of recording the location of mines, of retaining all such records and making them available to concerned parties upon cessation of hostilities, and welcomes the strengthening of the relevant provisions in international law;
16. Calls upon Member States, especially those that have the capacity to do so, to provide the necessary information and technical and material assistance, as appropriate, and to locate, remove, destroy or otherwise render ineffective minefields, mines, booby traps and other devices in accordance with international law, as soon as possible.
UN General Assembly, Res. 54/191, 17 December 1999, preamble and §§ 15–16, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on assistance in mine action, the UN General Assembly:
Emphasizes the importance of recording the location of mines, of retaining all such records and making them available to concerned parties upon cessation of hostilities, and welcomes the strengthening of the relevant provisions in international law.
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/127, 19 December 2003, § 21, adopted without a vote.
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 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, the UN Commission on Human Rights, concerned by the impact of anti-personnel landmines, encouraged Cambodia to “continue its efforts to remove these mines”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/54, 3 March 1995, § 22, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the human rights situation of the Lebanese detainees in Israel, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Noting Security Council resolution 1391 (2002) of 28 January 2002, in particular paragraph 11, and Security Council resolution 1461 (2003) of 30 January 2003, in particular paragraph 10, in which the Council stressed the necessity to provide the Government of Lebanon and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon with any additional maps and records on the location of mines,
…
Gravely concerned about the hundreds of thousands of landmines left behind by Israel in southern Lebanon, which have so far caused hundreds of deaths and injuries to civilians, including women and children,
Deploring the failure of the Government of Israel to submit all the maps showing the deployment of those landmines,
…
4. Calls upon the Government of Israel to submit to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon all the maps of the landmine fields laid throughout the civilian villages, fields and farms, causing casualties among civilians, including children and women, and obstructing the resumption of normal life in the area.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/8, 16 April 2003, preamble and § 4, voting record: 32-1-20.
UN Secretary-General
In 1997, in a report on assistance in mine clearance, the UN Secretary-General noted that the UN had developed quite an extensive mine-clearance programme, but that a more precise global assessment of the mine problem was needed in order to tackle the issue properly.
UN Secretary-General, Report on Assistance in Mine Clearance, UN Doc. A/52/679, 11 December 1997, §§ 107–111.
No data.
Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
A draft text submitted by Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, which elaborated upon an earlier proposal made at the Lugano Conference, dealt with the problems created by landmines and “other devices”. A number of measures were suggested, including the compulsory recording of pre-planned minefields.
CDDH, Proposal entitled “The Regulation of the Use of Land-Mines and Other Devices” submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons by Denmark, France, Netherlands and United Kingdom, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/213 within CDDH/IV/226, pp. 588–591.
The proposal was positively received by the States present and was explicitly supported by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.30, 26 May 1976, p. 308 (Federal Republic of Germany); Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.40, 19 May 1977, p. 411 (Libya).
Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
A proposal was introduced by Austria, Mexico, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, which provided that the use of remotely delivered mines was prohibited unless “each such mine is fitted with a neutralizing mechanism” and “they are used within the combat zone”.
CDDH, “Draft article on the Use of Land Mines and the Use of Certain Explosive and Non-Explosive Devices” submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons by Austria, Mexico, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/222 within CDDH/IV/226, p. 593.
Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
Austria, Denmark, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom submitted a proposal to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH which provided that parties to a conflict “shall record the location of (a) all pre-planned minefields laid by them; and (b) all areas in which they have made large-scale and pre-planned use of explosive or non-explosive devices”. The final part of the section on recording required parties to retain these records and “the location of all recorded minefields, mines and explosive or non-explosive devices remaining in territory controlled by an adverse Party shall be made public after the cessation of active hostilities”.
CDDH, Proposal submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons Austria, Denmark, France, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom, Working Group Document CDDH/IV/GT/4*, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/408/Rev. 1, pp. 544–546.
UN Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons
The Secretariat of the 1979–1980 UN Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons issued a note concerning the recording and publication of minefields, mines and booby-traps commenting on the draft Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and stating:
The accurate recording of the location of minefields and related weapons is only one aspect of the obligation which should be imposed on the parties in order to ensure the protection of a United Nations force or mission … The recording should not only cover the boundaries of the fields but also the number, type and pattern of distribution of the mines, as well as details of any anti-lifting devices attached to them.
UN Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Second Session, Geneva, 15 September–10 October 1980, Note by the Secretariat on the Draft Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/CW/4, 15 September 1980.
UN Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons
The Final Report of the 1979–1980 UN Conference on Certain Conventional Weapons submitted to the UN General Assembly stated in connection with Article 3 of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons:
The parties must take whatever measures are open to them to protect civilians wherever they are … The parties may, if they wish, assist in this process by providing, either unilaterally or by mutual agreement, or through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, information about the location of minefields, mines and booby traps.
UN Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Second Session, Geneva, 15 September–10 October 1980, Final Report of the Conference to the UN General Assembly, Doc. A/CONF.95/15, 27 October 1980, p. 9.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1986)
The 25th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1986 adopted a resolution on work on international humanitarian law in armed conflicts at sea and on land in which it urged all States to become parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols “as early as possible so as ultimately to obtain universality of adherence”. It noted “the dangers to civilians caused by mines, booby-traps and other devices employed during an armed conflict and the need for international co-operation in this field consistent with Article 9 of Protocol II attached to the 1980 Convention”.
25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Res. VII, § B(2) and (5).
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 civilians in armed conflict in which it urged
all States and competent organizations to take concrete action to increase their support for mine-clearance efforts in affected States, which will need to continue for many decades, to strengthen international co-operation and assistance in this field and, in this regard, to provide the necessary maps and information and appropriate technical and material assistance to remove or otherwise render ineffective minefields, mines and booby traps, in accordance with international law.
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Res. II, § G(h).
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 urged
States that produce or use this pernicious weapon [antipersonnel landmines], … to provide financial and technical assistance for (i) de-mining efforts, especially in heavily mined areas, (ii) victim assistance programmes, including rehabilitation and retraining activities, and (iii) mine awareness activities to reduce the risk of accidents.
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, § 15.
No data.
ICRC
In 1995, in a position paper on landmines, the ICRC stated that “certain essential minimum steps must be taken to protect civilians and facilitate mine clearance” including the prohibition of “all mines which are not easily detectable”.
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, p. 330.
ICRC
At its Geneva Session in 1995, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on anti-personnel landmines in which it encouraged “all measures to alleviate the suffering of victims and to remove mines already in place”.
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Geneva Session, 1–2 December 1995, Res. 10, § 2.
ICRC
In 1996, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ICRC welcomed the improvements that had been made in the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, including: the extension of the Protocol to non-international conflicts; clear assignment of responsibility for mine clearance; and requirements that the location of all mines be recorded.
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 (1999)
At its Geneva Session in 1999, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution in which it approved the Movement Strategy on Landmines. One of the core elements of the strategy was to
cooperate with mine-clearance organizations according to humanitarian priorities, by developing mine-awareness activities and providing medical assistance to clearance teams, in accordance with the Guidelines on Red Cross/Red Crescent involvement in mine-clearance activities, adopted at the 1997 session of the Council of Delegates.
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Geneva Session, 29–30 October 1999, Res. 10, § 1.
Africa Watch
In 1998, in a report on violations of the laws of war by both sides in Angola, Africa Watch stated:
It is prohibited to use landmines near a civilian object, even if it contains military objectives, without any precautions, markings or other warnings or if such devices do not self-destruct or are not removed after their military purpose has been served.
Africa Watch, Angola: Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides, New York, April 1998, p. 58.
