National Academies Press: OpenBook

Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines (2001)

Chapter: Appendix F: Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines

« Previous: Appendix E: The Ottawa Convention and Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Conventional Weapons
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines." National Research Council. 2001. Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10071.
×

Page 115

Appendix F

Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (known as the Ottawa Convention) was open for signature from December 3, 1997, until its entry into force on March 1, 1999, six months after it had been ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to by 40 countries. After that date, no country was allowed to sign it and ratify it later. Countries could join (become a party to) the treaty, however, through a one-step procedure known as accession.

As of September 2000, 107 countries had ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the convention. Although few of these countries are actively searching for or developing alternatives to landmines, many are monitoring international developments in this area; several countries are participating in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) study on the consequences of the APL ban and possible technological alternatives that do not have the negative effects of APL. The Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines found a few instances of countries other than the United States identifying or working to identify alternatives to APL.

AUSTRALIA

An Australian company, Metal Storm, has developed an all-electronic firing system that represents a breakthrough in gun technology, which the company believes could lead to “the development of an area denial weapons system to replace antipersonnel landmines” (Metal Storm, 2000a). The Australian Army has approved a three-year program for the development of a prototype minefield-replacement mortarbox system, utilizing Metal Storm technology (Metal Storm, 2000b). Conceptually, this application would be similar in operation to the U.S. Claymore and the French Sphinx-Moder. According to the company's description, a man-inthe-loop, after observing and identifying a target, would fire a launcher sending a variety of projectiles into the protected area.

CANADA

The Canadian Centre for Mine-Action Technologies (CCMAT), a joint initiative of the Department of National Defence and Industry Canada, is mandated to “conduct research and gather information to show that viable and more humane alternatives [to APL], which do not target civilians, can be developed.” CCMAT also conducts research on demining technologies, medical treatment, and the rehabilitation of mine victims (CDND, 1998). CCMAT is exploring nonlethal alternatives only (ICBL, 2000). It is also conducting a series of studies “to determine the impact of removing antipersonnel landmines on land force operations and to determine if replacement technologies are necessary” (Roy and Friesen, 1999). The first volume in this series, a study on the historical uses of APL, was made available to the Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines.

According to the Antipersonnel Mine Operational Planning and Policy Guidelines for the Canadian Forces, Canada would replace its APL with “a mix of sensors, commanddetonated weapons [such as the M-18 Claymore reclassified as C19s], additional infantry, artillery, armour and air-delivered weapons” (Fredenburg, 1997).

FRANCE

The Sphinx-Moder (described in Chapter 6) is designed to fire wounding, warning, or practice munitions. It is being produced in series and has been adopted by the French Army to take the place of antipersonnel mines.

JAPAN

The Japanese Defense Agency is developing an alternative weapon system to APL called the “antipersonnel obstacle system,” which combines sensors and remote control.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines." National Research Council. 2001. Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10071.
×

Page 116

The system is detonated manually. Until a new system is developed, the Defense Agency will use “directional-multiple-shots” as an alternative weapon (ICBL, 1999).

RUSSIA

Although Russia is not a party to the Ottawa Convention, it has been focusing its efforts on the research and development of landmine alternatives (ICBL, 2000). Few details are available, but researchers appear to be improving antipersonnel munitions that would not be considered APL under the convention, including munitions actuated by an operator by radio, wire, or automatically after a definite period of time. Research on alternatives is being conducted by the State Research and Development Engineer Institute and the Science-Research Machinery Building Institute (ICBL, 1999).

The following 107 countries had ratified or acceded to the Ottawa Convention as of September 2000:

SWITZERLAND

Switzerland conducted an investigation of nonlethal APL alternatives, video monitors, and various technical sensors. However, the program did not lead to feasible results and has been terminated (ICBL, 2000).

UNITED KINGDOM

The U.K. Ministry of Defence is investigating possible nonlethal alternatives, but it is not yet known whether these will be produced (ICBL, 2000).

Albania

Djibouti

Luxembourg

Rwanda

Andorra

Dominica

Macedonia, FYR

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Antigua and Barbuda

Dominican

Republic Madagascar

Saint Lucia

Argentina

Ecuador

Maldives

Samoa

Australia

El Salvador

Malaysia

San Marino

Austria

Equatorial Guinea

Malawi

Senegal

Bahamas

Fiji

Mali

Seychelles

Bangladesh

France

Mauritania

Slovakia

Barbados

Gabon

Mauritius

Slovenia

Belgium

Germany

Mexico

Solomon Islands

Belize

Ghana

Moldova

South Africa

Benin

Grenada

Monaco

Spain

Bolivia

Guatemala

Mozambique

Swaziland

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Guinea

Nauru

Sweden

Botswana

Holy See

Namibia

Switzerland

Brazil

Honduras

Netherland

Tajikistan

Bulgaria

Hungary

New Zealand

Thailand

Burkina Faso

Iceland

Nicaragua

Togo

Cambodia

Ireland

Niger

Trinidad and Tobago

Canada

Italy

Niue

Tunisia

Chad

Jamaica

Norway

Turkmenistan

Colombia

Japan

Panama

Uganda

Costa Rica

Jordan

Paraguay

United Kingdom

Côte d'Ivoire

Kiribati

Peru

Venezuela

Croatia

Lesotho

Philippines

Yemen

Czech Republic

Liberia

Portugal

Zimbabwe

Denmark

Liechtenstein

Qatar

 

Between September 2000 and the publication of this report, two countries ratified the convention:

Romania

United Republic of Tanzania

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines." National Research Council. 2001. Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10071.
×

Page 117

The following 30 countries have signed the convention but have not ratified it and, therefore, are not yet parties to the convention:

Algeria

Chile

Guinea-Bissau

Malta

Sudan

Angola

Cook Islands

Guyana

Marshall Islands

Suriname

Brunei Darussalam

Cyprus

Haiti

Poland

Ukraine

Burundi

Ethiopia

Indonesia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Uruguay

Cameroon

Gambia

Kenya

São Tomé e Principe

Vanuatu

Cape Verde

Greece

Lithuania

Sierra Leone

Zambia

The following countries had not signed the convention as of December 2000:

Afghanistan

D.R. Congo

Korea, North

Myanmar (Burma)

Sri Lanka

Armenia

Egypt

Korea, South

Nepal

Syria

Azerbaijan

Eritrea

Kuwait

Nigeria

Tonga

Bahrain

Estonia

Kyrgyzstan

Oman

Turkey

Belarus

Finland

Laos

Pakistan

Tuvalu

Bhutan

Georgia

Latvia

Palau

United Arab Emirates

Central African Republic

India

Lebanon

Papua New Guinea

United States of America

China

Iran

Libya

Russia

Uzbekistan

Comoros

Iraq

Micronesia

Saudi Arabia

Vietnam

Congo (Brazzaville)

Israel

Mongolia

Singapore

Yugoslavia

Cuba

Kazakhstan

Morocco

Somalia

 

REFERENCES

CDND (Canadian Department of National Defence). 1998. Ministers Announce Creation of Centre for Mine-Action Technologies, News Release, August 25, 1998. Available on line: http://www.dnd.ca/eng/archive/1998/aug98/centremat_n_e.htm.

Fredenburg, P.W. 1997. The banning of the antipersonnel landmine. Canadian Defence Quarterly 27(2): 5–9.

ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines). 1999. Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Toward a Mine-Free World. Washington, D.C.: Human Rights Watch.

ICBL. 2000. Landmine Monitor Report 2000: Toward a Mine-Free World. Washington, D.C.: Human Rights Watch.

Metal Storm. 2000a. Landmine replacement a step closer to reality. Available on line: http://www.metalstorm-ltd.com/press_releases/july03-00.html.

Metal Storm. 2000b. Metal Storm secures Australian Army support for minefield replacement development programme. Available on line: http://www.metalstorm-ltd.com/press_releases/july07-00.html.

Roy, R.L., and S. Friesen. 1999. Historical Uses of Antipersonnel Landmines: Impact on Land Force Operations. Operational Research Division, Research Note 9906. Kingston, Ontario: Canadian Department of National Defence.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines." National Research Council. 2001. Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10071.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines." National Research Council. 2001. Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10071.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F: Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and Their Alternatives to Landmines." National Research Council. 2001. Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10071.
×
Page 117
Next: Appendix G: Mission Need Statements »
Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $57.00 Buy Ebook | $45.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This book examines potential technologies for replacing antipersonnel landmines by 2006, the U.S. target date for signing an international treaty banning these weapons. Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines emphasizes the role that technology can play to allow certain weapons to be used more selectively, reducing the danger to uninvolved civilians while improving the effectiveness of the U.S. military. Landmines are an important weapon in the U.S. military’s arsenal but the persistent variety can cause unintended casualties, to both civilians and friendly forces. New technologies could replace some, but not all, of the U.S. military’s antipersonnel landmines by 2006. In the period following 2006, emerging technologies might eliminate the landmine totally, while retaining the necessary functionalities that today’s mines provide to the military.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!