Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:30:58.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ottawa Process and the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Stephen D. Goose
Get access

Extract

Between 3 and 4 December 1997, 122 governments signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and On Their Destruction, marking the first time in history that die international community banned a weapon that is already in widespread use.

Tens of millions of landmines are emplaced in about 70 nations. Another 100–200 million anti-personnel landmines are believed to be in the arsenals of more than 100 governments. Although militaries around the world have used antipersonnel landmines for decades, this treaty banning the weapon was proposed, developed, negotiated and signed in record time in recognition of the humanitarian imperative ‘to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines mat 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’.

Type
Current Developments
Information
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law , Volume 1 , December 1998 , pp. 269 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and On Their Destruction, Preamble, paragraph one. Reprinted at p. 539.

2. There is not yet a commonly accepted short title for the treaty. This chapter will use the ‘Mine Ban Treaty’. The ‘Ottawa Treaty’, ‘ Landmine Convention’, and variations thereof are also seen.

3. The Nobel Peace Prize for 1997, Announcement by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, 10 October 1997.

4. The formal title is the ‘Diplomatic Conference on an International Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Land Mines, Oslo, Norway, 1–18 September, 1997’. Negotiations were based on a draft treaty prepared by Austria. See conference document APL/CRP.3, 1 September 1997.

5. Statement to the Closing Plenary of the Oslo Diplomatic Conference on a Treaty to Ban Antipersonnel Landmines by Jody Williams, Campaign Coordinator, on behalf of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, 18 September 1997.

6. ‘Oslo Conference: Landmines Banned’, ICRC Press Release 97/25, 17 September 1997.

7. The Landmines Protocol (Protocol II) is formally the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices. The CCW Convention was negotiated in 1980 and entered into force on 2 December 1983. The official proceedings of the Review Conference are contained in ‘The Final Document of the Review Conference of the States Parties to the [CCW], Parts I and II,’ United Nations, CCW/CONF.I/16, Geneva, 1996. The CCW negotiations were dominated by attempts by many nations to write in loopholes for particular types of mines or particular means of using mines, with the result a very weak and ineffective treaty.

8. The draft treaty proposed by the ICBL was titled, ‘Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, Transfer and Use of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction,’ dated January 1997. The text was circulated to governments as a free-standing document. The full-text is reprinted in the ICBL's ‘Conference Report: Brussels International Conference for the Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines, 24–27 June 1997, pp. 103–106 (1997).

9. ‘Mine Ban Closerto Reality’, ICBL Press Release, Vienna, Austria, 14 February 1997. The ICBL elucidated the elements as (1) it must be a comprehensive treaty banning use, production, stockpiling and trade of antipersonnel mines; (2) there must be provisions for the destruction of stockpiles in a rapid fashion and a requirement for destruction of emplaced mines; (3) there must be transparency measures requiring reporting of details of stockpiles and minefields.

10. ‘United States Seeks to Undermine Landmine Ban Treaty’, ICBL Press Release, 25 June 1997.

11. As of June 1998, official proceedings of the Conference had not been made publicly available. Some of the official documentation, as well as ICBL press releases and newsletters tracking the negotiations, are compiled in the ICBL's ‘Report on Activities, Diplomatic Conference on an International Total Ban on Anti-Personnel Landmines, Oslo, Norway, 1–18 September 1997’ (November 1997).

12. Rule 35 of the Draft Rules of Procedure, Conference Document APL/CRP.2, p. 10.

13. This provision would prohibit, for example, the export of components for use in anti-personnel mines. The ICBL also believes that it prohibits the stockpiling of US anti-personnel mines in States Parties or the transit of US aircraft and ships carrying anti-personnel mines through States Parties. In 1998, the US engaged in bilateral discussions on these matters with Germany, Norway, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Japan.

14. There are precedents for this approach, such as the Genocide Convention and the Convention on Environmental Modification.

15. This understanding was reached after extensive discussions in the Definitions Working Group during the Oslo negotiations. The representatives from Canada and Australia were most vocal in articulating this clarification. The understanding was then clearly stated by the Chair of the Working Group, Dr. Thomas Hajnoczi of Austria, and agreed to by participants of the Working Group. Dr. Hajnoczi subsequently reported the understanding to the Committee of the Whole, where it was reinforced by the Australian delegation, and met with no objections.

16. Belgium, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands spoke to this point. Subsequently, Austria announced that it will retain for these purposes 58 mines; Canada 1,500; the Czech Republic 3,000; Germany 3,000; Italy 10,000; the Netherlands 2,000; Norway 50; South Africa 5,000; Spain 10,000; the UK 4,000; and Hungary zero.

17. Among those pushing for a longer time period for destruction were eventual signatories Poland, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Chile, Ecuador, and Croatia, as well as observers Finland and Egypt.

18. Author's meeting with Ukraine Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk, Kiev, 25 May 1998.

19. See for example, ‘Remarks to the Opening Plenary for Mine Action Forum’, by Stephen Goose (Human Rights Watch) on behalf of the ICBL, Ottawa, Canada, 2 December 1997.

20. The ICRC, in consultation with the ICBL, had suggested language, but no government formally proposed it.

21. The US announcement, made by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on 21 May 1998, indicated that signature should occur by 2006. Russian officials have stated the intention to sign on several occasions, including at the time of the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize to the ICBL (Mr. Yeltsin on 10 October 1997), at the treaty signing ceremony in Ottawa in December 1997 and at the ICBL Conference in Moscow in May 1998, using phrases such as ‘in due time’. Both countries state the need to develop alternatives to mines before signing.

22. For the Finnish position on landmines, see Hannikainen, infra p. 436.

23. A comprehensive legal analysis of landmines in international humanitarian law appeared in Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, Landmines: A Deadly Legacy (New York, Human Rights Watch 1993) pp. 261–318Google Scholar.

24. Ratifications include Canada, Ireland, Mauritius, Turkmenistan, Holy See, San Marino., Switzerland, Hungary, Niue, Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, Djibouti, Croatia, Mali, Denmark, Bolivia, Mexico, Fiji, and Peru.