Reversing international humanitarian law in Europe: the reintroduction of land mines

In response to escalating security concerns, Finland, along with the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—and potentially Poland, have announced intentions to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention. This treaty, formally known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, was established in 1997 to eliminate the use of anti-personnel landmines globally. It prohibits the use, development, production, stockpiling, and transfer of such mines but does not ban anti-vehicle mines, command-detonated devices like Claymore mines, or other types of explosive ordnance. As of March 2025, 165 countries are parties to the treaty, including a majority of United Nations member states. Notably, major military powers such as the United States, China, and Russia have not ratified the convention. 

At the time of its inception, the Ottawa Convention was hailed as a significant milestone in international humanitarian law, aiming to prevent the severe civilian casualties associated with landmines. However, the current geopolitical landscape, marked by Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine and heightened tensions in Eastern Europe, has prompted a reassessment of defense strategies among neighboring countries. The reintroduction of landmines is now viewed by these nations as a critical component in fortifying defenses against potential Russian incursions. 

Landmines serve as a force multiplier in the defense of extensive land borders, especially for countries with limited military personnel. A defensive force multiplier is something that allows a smaller number of troops to have the same effect as a larger number, in defensive actions. Land mines act as both physical and psychological deterrents, channeling enemy movements into predetermined areas outside the scope of minefields where defensive forces can concentrate their efforts. Incorporating landmines into a comprehensive border defence strategy typically involves a combination of surveillance systems, rapid reaction forces, fortified positions, and other obstacles to create a multi-layered defence network. Anti-personnel mines target individual soldiers, while anti-vehicle mines are designed to incapacitate or destroy enemy vehicles, often being placed around military checkpoints or border posts to prevent circumvention.

The decisions by Finland and the Baltic States to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention may influence other signatory countries facing similar security dilemmas to reconsider their commitments, and in particular to restart the global production and sale of landmines that have plagued conflict zones worldwide, often in developing countries. This shift underscores the tension between humanitarian objectives and national security imperatives, particularly in regions where the threat of conventional warfare remains high. The original purpose of the Ottawa Convention was to address the humanitarian crises caused by landmines in asymmetric conflicts, where non-state actors often employed mines indiscriminately. However, the resurgence of symmetrical warfare, characterised by state-on-state conflicts with defined front lines, has led some nations to argue that landmines are a necessary deterrent against numerically superior adversaries like Russia.

While European countries generally possess greater financial resources and technological capabilities, Russia’s larger population (or, at least, the higher proportion of her population that she can conscript without undue protest due to the totalitarian nature of her governmental regime) provides her with a substantial pool of military personnel. This demographic advantage poses a significant challenge for neighbouring states, prompting them to seek effective means of offsetting potential Russian numerical superiority. The redeployment of landmines is viewed as a pragmatic solution to enhance defensive capabilities along extensive borders.

The withdrawal of Finland, the Baltic States, and potentially Poland from the Ottawa Convention reflects a strategic recalibration in response to evolving security threats in Europe. While the humanitarian concerns associated with landmines remain valid, these nations prioritise national defense and deterrence in the face of potential aggression and when such traditionally peaceful countries renounce humanitarian arms control treaties it is very much the thin end of the wedge. A massive deployment of landmines along the Finnish and Baltic borders with Russia and the Polish borders with Russia and Belarus. Because the Russian Armed Forces proceed by taking land, heavy use of landmines across the entire border with Russia, including by Ukraine who also uses them, may deter future aggression or at least make it far more expensive and complicated.

However this development may prompt a broader reevaluation of the balance between humanitarian disarmament initiatives and the imperatives of national security in contemporary geopolitical contexts. Once landmines are available in the Baltics, Nordic areas and Eastern Europe, they will inevitably proliferate everywhere and the humanitarian objectives sought by the Ottawa Convention will be sadly undone. There seems no way around this, given current perceptions of the existence and threat of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.