The United States decision to transfer antipersonnel landmines to Ukraine, in a reversal of its own policy, is reckless and marks an abandonment of international law. The prospect of Ukraine using landmines puts civilians at severe risk of harm and it encumbers the already vast clearance efforts that will be required for decades to come.

The decision also marks yet another concerning setback in global efforts to strengthen the protection of civilians, and risks undermining years of progress made by states and civil society in establishing rules and norms against certain types of weapons, means and methods of warfare due to the likelihood of harm to civilians.

Ukraine is still a party to an international treaty that prohibits antipersonnel mines. The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty prohibits the production, use, export and stockpiling of landmines. Signed by 164 states, the treaty has been hugely effective in stigmatising and eradicating stocks of the weapon, as well as facilitating global clearance efforts of contaminated areas in the last twenty-five years since it was agreed (for which, the US has been a major donor).

The treaty has driven a huge shift in global policy and practice on landmines. Whilst the United States is not party to the Mine Ban Treaty, the treaty has had an influential effect on US domestic policy – the US has not used, produced or transferred landmines since the 1990s.  Ukraine has ratified the Mine Ban Treaty, and as such any import and use will not only have direct repercussions on civilians but will also be in direct contravention to its obligations under the treaty.

This blatant disregard for the protection of civilians and the law is extremely concerning, not least because it is representative of the deteriorating status of global rules and norms and of a tragic failure to better promote civilian protection. The widespread bombardment of densely populated areas in Gaza, including many attacks that appear to be in violation of international humanitarian law; new use and transfer of cluster munitions and incendiary weapons despite the known harm these weapons also cause to civilians are but a few recent examples.

The deteriorating global security situation should not be used as an excuse to give up on globally agreed standards of behaviour. In fact, it is precisely in times of uncertainty and crisis that rules must be upheld. In times of war, this includes laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, and regulating the choice of weapons, and means and methods of warfare. These have all been developed with the same shared goal – to ameliorate the suffering to civilians.

Actions in violation of globally agreed standards are not only weaking the protection of civilians, but they also risk eroding belief and trust in the value of rules and norms. States must act in the face of escalating humanitarian crises and breaches of agreed norms, including calling out allies when it is justified.

The upcoming meeting in Siem Reap, Cambodia – a country that has suffered hugely from the scourge of landmines, is an opportunity for all States Parties to enact this moral obligation. We need to work to rebuild confidence in the value of rules and norms, and that positive normative pressure can shape behaviour in our shared global society.

Featured image: Landmine contamination in Ukraine © Mines Advisory Group