Anti-personnel landmines and their humanitarian implications

Report

Doc. 7891

3 September 1997

Rapporteurs: Mrs Lisbeth Fehr, Switzerland, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Group

and Mr Georges Clerfayt, Belgium, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Group

Summary

The use of anti-personnel landmines ("mines") as weapons of war is a global humanitarian tragedy. The indiscriminate use of these weapons has long-lived consequences and has aroused immense distress throughout the world. This report is aimed at exposing the dimensions of the problem of anti-personnel mines and their humanitarian implications, with a view to reinforcing the call for a global ban on the manufacture, use, stock-piling and transfer of anti-personnel mines. The report demonstrates that mines are no longer indispensable weapons of war, examines their compatibility with international humanitarian law and describes the numerous national and international efforts to eliminate them.

The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers should adopt a recommendation to member states condemning the manufacture, use, transfer and stock-piling of anti-personnel mines, declare these activities contrary to the Council of Europe's principles and draw up a list of companies producing mines in the member states. It calls on the member states, inter alia, to subscribe to international commitments aimed at totally banning anti-personnel mines or limiting their use, to adopt national legislation in that respect, to promote the establishment of a mine-free zone in Europe, to support international mine-clearance programmes and to increase aid to mines victims.

I. Draft recommendation

1. Every year, anti-personnel landmines ("mines") kill or maim at least 24 000 people. Set apart from other conventional weapons in that their impact is multiple, they cause lasting wounds which are difficult to treat and occasion serious psychological traumas.

2. Mines hamper the repatriation of refugees, make land unusable, complicate humanitarian relief operations, prevent the reconstruction of countries after the havoc wreaked by war and remain able to kill and maim a long time after conflicts have come to an end.

3. Over 113 million mines are scattered around the world, 13 million in Europe itself. 6 to 9 million mines were planted in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina alone, making them two of the five countries in the world most seriously affected by mines.

4. Anti-personnel mines are no longer indispensable weapons of war, as their military value is minimal. It has been clearly demonstrated that the main victims of mines are civilians.

5. Whereas anti-personnel mines are priced at 3 to 30 dollars each, their clearance costs between 300 and 1 000 dollars per mine. Most countries affected by mines have insufficient resources to cope with the huge financial burden of clearing them and those who lay them seldom take responsibility for mine-clearance.

6. Despite the efforts to date, the rate of mine-clearance is, and will remain, far too slow for the two to five million new mines laid each year. Consequently, the Assembly considers that the only means of effectively fighting this scourge is a total ban on mines worldwide.

7. The Assembly welcomes the increasing awareness among states, international organisations and public opinion against mines. It welcomes, in particular, the results achieved in the follow-up process to the Ottawa Conference aimed at persuading the largest possible number of states to introduce a total ban on anti-personnel mines.

8. Consequently, the Parliamentary Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

1. condemn the manufacture, use, transfer and stock-piling of anti-personnel mines, declare these activities contrary to the Council of Europe's principles and adopt, in this spirit, a recommendation to the member states based on the proposals contained in sub-paragraph c. below;
2. instruct the competent bodies of the Council of Europe to draw up, up-date and publish a list of companies producing anti-personnel mines established on the territory of the member states;
3. invite the member states to:

1. make every necessary effort to bring about as quickly as possible a total ban on the manufacture, use, transfer and stock-piling of anti-personnel mines worldwide;
2. participate actively in the "Ottawa Process" and undertake to sign, at the next Ottawa Conference in December 1997, an international treaty banning anti-personnel mines, ensuring that this treaty is enforced;
3. adopt legislation for a total ban on anti-personnel mines in their territory, as a first step towards a total ban, introduce national measures to ban, suspend or take other restrictive measures against anti-personnel mines, in particular concerning their use, production and transfer, and impose criminal sanctions in relation to these measures;
4. apply criminal sanctions against the use of anti-personnel mines in violation of the rules of international humanitarian law;
5. impose on those who lay mines the responsibility of financing or carrying out the clearance of mines which they have laid;
6. promote the establishment, as soon as possible, of an anti-personnel mine-free zone in all the member states and applicant member states of the Council of Europe, where the manufacture, use, transfer and stock-piling of mines would be totally banned;
7. step up their support for mine-clearance humanitarian programmes by supporting, in particular, efforts in the search for rapid and effective mine-clearance and mine-detection methods;
8. contribute to rehabilitation and assistance programmes for mine victims in Europe and the rest of the world with a view to their social rehabilitation and re-entry into working life;
9. encourage the media to circulate relevant information among populations exposed to the danger of anti-personnel mines in order to avoid new victims;
10. raise the population's awareness of the dangers of mines in order to mobilise international public opinion in respect of the harmful effects of anti-personnel mines;
11. if they have not already done so to immediately ratify the "1980 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have acting Indiscriminate Effects" ("Convention on Conventional Weapons") and, in particular, revised "Protocol No. II on the ban or limitation of the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices";
12. provide the competent bodies of the Council of Europe, on request, with a list of companies producing anti-personnel mines established in their countries.

II. Draft order

The Assembly asks its Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe to take account of the attitude of member states to the manufacture, use, transfer and stock-piling of anti-personnel mines, considering these activities to be contrary to the Council of Europe's principles.

III. Explanatory memorandum by Mrs FEHR and Mr CLERFAYT

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Seminar on anti-personnel landmines and their humanitarian implications (Budapest, 7 March 1997)

3. Consequences of the use of anti-personnel mines

4. Scope of the problem

5. Difficulties in mine-clearance

6. Military uselessness of anti-personnel mines

7. International law against anti-personnel mines

8. International organisations against anti-personnel mines

1. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
2. European Union
3. Inter-Parliamentary Union
4. Western European Union
5. Council of Europe
6. Non-governmental organisations

9. Conclusion

APPENDIX: List of the Council of Europe member States, observers and special guests unilaterally supporting a global ban on the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines

I. MEMBER STATES

II. NON-MEMBER STATES WITH OBSERVER STATUS WITH THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

III. NON-MEMBER STATE HAVING ACCREDITED A PERMANENT OBSERVER WITH THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

IV. NON-MEMBER STATES WHOSE PARLIAMENTS HAVE SPECIAL GUEST STATUS WITH THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

1. Introduction

1. The idea that anti-personnel landmines are vital weapons of war and that honouring the rules of international humanitarian law can lessen the effects of their "blindness" no longer holds water. The tragic consequences of the use of mines have led to worldwide opposition to the continuation of their use as weapons of war. Even if conflicting parties endeavour to use mines in compliance with the rules of international humanitarian law, the very nature of mines is such that they hit at random and cause terrible suffering. It is no longer possible to ignore the fact that existing international humanitarian law barely offsets the "blind" effects of mines and that the humanitarian consequences of the use of mines have far greater weight than their usefulness, limited in any case, on the military front.

2. Public opinion, states and international organisations are increasingly aware that controls on the use of mines are insufficient and that a total ban is called for if we are to put an end to their destructive and cruel effects. Throughout the world public opinion is rising up against mines, experts and armed forces themselves are calling into question their military value and a growing number of states and organisations are taking a position against these weapons.

3. 156 countries supported the December 1996 Resolution 51/45S of the United Nations General Assembly asking countries, as a matter of urgency, "to do their best in order to carry through successfully, when possible, the negotiations on an efficient and legally binding international agreement banning use, stock-piling, manufacture and transfer of anti-personnel landmines". Globally, 109 countries have unilaterally supported a total ban on anti-personnel mines, 24 of these have renounced their use, 6 have suspended their use and 18 are destroying their stocks of mines. At present, of the 40 Council of Europe member states, 27 are in favour of a total ban on mines (13 of which are destroying some or all of their stocks of mines: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). At present, only four countries (Austria, Belgium, Ireland and Switzerland) have adopted national legislation banning the manufacture, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines. A list of the Council of Europe member States, observers and special guests supporting a total ban on anti-personnel mines, giving information on concrete measures taken by these States, is appended to this report.

2. Seminar on anti-personnel landmines and their humanitarian implications (Budapest, 7 March 1997)

4. As regards the problem of definition, we can commonly distinguish between two categories of landmines: "anti-tank mines" aiming at vehicles and "anti-personnel mines" designed to mutilate and kill human beings. Considering that anti-tank mines are usually activated by pressures between 100 and 300 kg, this report concentrates primarily on anti-personnel mines, i.e. those which may be triggered by a human being. Thus it also covers "dual-purpose mines", aiming at both vehicles and humans.

5. As part of the preparation of this report, the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography held in Budapest, on 7 March 1997, in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), a Seminar on anti-personnel landmines and their humanitarian implications. Apart from parliamentarians, this seminar was attended by experts from the ICRC, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, national Red Cross Societies in Austria and Hungary, representatives of various relevant non-governmental organisations, the European Parliament, Hungarian military experts and other experts in this field. At the seminar, the Committee appealed for a total ban on anti-personnel mines, the main points of which have been reproduced in the preliminary draft recommendation contained in this report.

6. All the main issues of the use of anti-personnel mines were discussed: the medical, social and economic impact, the difficulties faced in humanitarian mine-clearance, the military uselessness of mines, and international and European initiatives (public, political and legal) aimed at a total ban of mines. The case-study of mine-clearance in Bosnia-Herzegovina was presented together with anti-mine initiatives in Austria and Hungary.

7. Your rapporteurs would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed to the debates of this seminar, the results of which have greatly contributed to the drafting of this report. In particular they wish to thank the ICRC for its invaluable help and the European Youth Centre of the Council of Europe in Budapest for the excellent working conditions it provided.

3. Consequences of the use of anti-personnel mines

8. The multiple impact of landmines sets them apart from other conventional weapons. They prevent the evacuation of victims, who often die in the minefields because no one dares to enter them. They overburden medical facilities, because the wounds inflicted by mines are very difficult to treat.

9. The rehabilitation of mine victims is difficult and costly. In cases of amputation, artificial limbs need regular replacement (in the case of children, replacement is necessary at least twice a year). The serious wounds inflicted on victims cause lasting psychological traumas. Survivors are usually seriously disabled, which often makes it difficult for them to find a job, may lead to divorce and social exclusion, and makes it difficult for them to find a wife or husband, to mention only some of the problems encountered. Many victims are burdened with debt as a result of the expense involved in their medical treatment, and it is not unheard of for them to turn to drug-abuse, crime or alcoholism. In the long term, the high cost of rehabilitation, loss of income and social and economic dependency weakens individuals, their families and society as a whole.

10. The presence of mines not only leads to an exodus of refugees but impedes their repatriation together with resettlement and reintegration efforts. Before they can return to their homes, refugees must wait for roads, farmland and even their own houses to be cleared of mines. Refugees are also less aware of the exact location of minefields than the people who remain behind. Consequently, the presence of mines is often mentioned as one of the main reasons for refusing to return.

11. Because of mines, food and medical aid cannot reach those who need it and the precautions to be taken in order to avoid mined areas increases the costs of humanitarian aid and development aid.

12. The presence of mines removes from production useable resources, which weakens the economic basis of growth. Disturbances to internal markets, as a result of paralysed transport communications, lead to a devaluation of local currencies, leading in turn to higher prices and in-built inflation, factors likely to prevent the recovery of a war-struck country. Interruptions to farming, transport and production further weaken the economy. Finally, production capacity is reduced by economic dependency and the exclusion of disabled victims. It is also clear that even the possibility that mines have been laid discourages tourists. Similarly, the consequences are serious for cultural and religious life since many cultural monuments have been mined. From the human point of view, the mining of cemeteries, which is also frequent, is to be particularly condemned.

13. The presence of mines may concentrate populations and reduce inhabitable areas, creating demographic pressure, destabilising neighbouring regions and leading quickly to environmental deterioration. Mines accentuate demographic pressure in already over-used areas, including a marked increase in major urban problems.

4. Scope of the problem

14. Mines are scattered throughout the world, killing or maiming 24 000 people per year, mainly civilians. In October 1996, the estimated number of known uncleared mines globally exceeded 113 million. The United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs landmine database recorded the presence of over 44 million mines in Africa, 33 million in Asia, 26 million in the Middle East, 13 million in Europe and 2 million in Central and South America. Between 2 and 5 million new mines are laid each year.

15. Of the five countries most severely affected by mines, two are in Europe, namely Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, where approximately 6 million mines currently litter the landscape and obstruct reconstruction. Elsewhere in Europe, around 500 000 mines infest Azerbaijan, and there are also mines in Cyprus, Denmark, Georgia, Latvia, Ukraine, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and elsewhere.

16. According to a study presented at the aforementioned seminar by Professor _unec (University of Zagreb), Bosnia-Herzegovina takes first place worldwide in terms of the rate at which mines are being laid (during the conflict an average of 142 000 mines were laid per month), with regard to the number of mines per km² (117.4 mines per km²), for the percentage of total service area which had been mined (23.5%), and for the ratio of mine areas to useable land (25.6%). It came second worldwide in terms of the number of mines per capita: 1.42 mines per person, and fourth in terms of the total number of mines laid. Croatia takes second place worldwide with regard to the number of mines per km² (53.06 mines per km²), and for the percentage of total surface area mined (10.61%).

5. Difficulties in mine-clearance

17. An anti-personnel mine costs between 3 and 30 dollars. In fact, mines are so cheap that it is difficult for manufacturers to make a big profit from mine sales alone. As a result, mines are often given away as a bonus when major arms contracts are concluded.

18. On the other hand, clearing mines costs between 300 and 1 000 dollars on average per mine. Most countries severely affected by mines are poor countries with few resources available to cope with the huge financial burden of clearing the millions of mines in their soil. Mine-producing states take little responsibility for paying for the clearance of mines they have sold.

19. Demining and rehabilitation programmes and efforts are often met with insufficient support from the international community. Lack of funds for mine-clearance poses a huge barrier to post-war reconstruction. An international meeting on mine-clearance, held in Geneva in July 1995, intended to raise 70 million dollars for the United Nations voluntary fund for mine-clearance, closed with only 20 million dollars pledged. The low level of commitment to clearance programmes prolongs the presence of substantial numbers of mines globally and maintains the danger of their tragic repercussions.

20. Co-ordination of mine-clearance activities at world level is the responsibility of the United Nations' Department of Humanitarian Affairs through its special Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine-Clearance. The number of co-ordination meetings have already been held, but no significant results have been achieved so far.

21. The international community cannot take over responsibility for mine-clearance operations from nations affected by the problem. On the other hand, it must do everything in its power to strengthen those nations' ability to carry out such operations themselves, in particular by training of mine-clearance experts. This training must be rationalised but, to take account of the differences in circumstances, it must not be standardised.

22. The rapid progress made in technologies linked to mines and the slow progress in that linked to mine-clearance techniques only accentuates and prolongs the devastating effect of mines. Most of the mine-clearance equipment used nowaday is the product of 1940s technology and can barely meet the need. The fact that today's third-generation mines are mostly made of plastic and materials with almost no metal content means that mine detection is mainly a matter of probing the ground with basic, pointed tools. However, in recent years manufacturers of demining equipment have discovered that there is a growing market for their products and this has led to an increased interest in improving detection devices. Even though manual mine-clearance will always be necessary, it must be used in complementarity with mine-clearance machines. Various prototypes of these machines exist at present but are still far from coming into mass use in the field. For example, promising experiments have been made with the "Krohn" mine-clearance machine (manufactured in Germany), used in Mozambique, or with Slovak mine-clearance machines, tried out in Yugoslavia. As regards mine-detection, it is necessary to explore the possibility of future use of detection from the air, a method which seems to have considerable potential.

23. Despite every possible effort the rate of mine-clearance worldwide is, and will remain, completely insufficient compared with the new number of mines being laid. Consequently, the cause of the problem and not the symptoms must be attacked and mines must be subject to a global ban.

6. Military uselessness of anti-personnel mines

24. An ICRC study published in March 1996 yielded a unanimous endorsement by a group of military experts refuting claims of the indispensability and high military value of mines. This group of experts argued that the nature of modern warfare eliminates the marginal advantage gained by the use of mines. The increasing use of armoured formations and decreasing use of dismounted infantry has nullified the "multiplying effect" of mines, hence reducing their relevance in modern warfare. Furthermore, the nature of certain terrains, causing mines to move considerable distances, makes mines as dangerous to one's own forces as to the enemy. In combat conditions, it is extremely difficult to mark them. Remotely delivered mines (by plane, for example) are even more dangerous since marking of such mines is completely impossible. In both cases, mines are also dangerous for those who lay them.

25. This study also demonstrated that mines are far more effective against civilian populations than they are against military forces. The likelihood of treading on a mine is ten times higher for a civilian than for a soldier engaged in combat. It is clear from the examples of Cambodia, Angola, the Balkans and Central America that most mine victims are civilians. The study concluded that the "military utility of anti-personnel landmines was very small compared to the appalling humanitarian consequences of their use in conflicts".

7. International law against anti-personnel mines

26. The efforts to put an end to the destruction caused by the use of anti-personnel mines have been numerous and persistent. A certain number of international organisations, states and non-governmental organisations have been intent on achieving a ban on the production, stock-piling, transfer and use of mines. The progress made through such concerted efforts has been impressive. Currently, the use of certain types of mines has been prohibited by various international or national legal instruments which also impose restrictions on the use of any type of mine.

27. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of indiscriminate weapons, as well as those which cause injury disproportionate to their military purpose. These two basic rules of international humanitarian law apply to mines. In the view of your rapporteurs, anti-personnel mines are, by nature, weapons which do not discriminate between civilian and military targets (the "blindness" of mines). However, mines in general evade prohibition under international humanitarian law because, according to military doctrine, their "correct" use may avoid the "blind" or "indiscriminate" effect of mines.

28. Apart from the restrictions imposed by customary international humanitarian law, the second possibility for limiting the use of mines is to compel states to make conventional commitments by acceding to international treaties. The most relevant treaty is the "United Nations Convention on Prohibitions and 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") and, in particular, its revised Protocol No. II "on the ban or limitation of the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices".

29. The Conference to examine this convention led to the revision of its Protocol in May 1996, but only brought about modest improvements. The clear assignment of responsibility for mine-clearance by those who lay them and the requirements that all anti-personnel mines must be detectable and that long-lived mines must be used only in marked, fenced and guarded minefields are some of the improvements to the general provisions of the revised Protocol No. II. The Protocol also widens the scope of the Convention to non-international conflicts.

30. However, the examination Conference did not lead to a total ban and, moreover, left a number of loopholes. For example, authorising the placement of self-destructing mines (which self-destruct by explosion within 30 days and if self-destruction fails, de-activate within 120 days) without any specific restrictions will not in itself lead to a significant reduction in a number of civilian victims. Similarly, the distinction made between self-destructing ("smart") mines and classic ("dumb") mines may well result in countries replacing "dumb" mines with "smart" ones. Moreover, the "smart" mines render useless the methods of mine-detection from the air. Finally, no adequate surveillance machinery was set up to enforce this instrument.

31. The revised Protocol will enter into force six months after 20 states have pledged to apply its provisions. It is estimated that this will take about three years. Several years will have lapsed before recently adopted rules take full effect; anti-personnel mines might claim 200 to 250 000 new victims in the meantime. Furthermore, certain provisions will not enter into force before the year 2000 and yet others not before the year 2007.

32. Because of the need for a consensus, the revised Protocol reflected a certain degree of timidity in dealing with the anti-personnel mines problem. As a result, it was necessary to take another approach, concentrating on activities aimed at compelling states to commit themselves to a total ban on anti-personnel mines.

33. With this in mind, an international Conference on anti-personnel mines was held, at the initiative of the Canadian Government, in Ottawa in October 1996, and the fifty participants committed themselves to a joint effort to secure a worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines. The Ottawa Process was continued at conferences in Vienna in February 1997 and in Brussels in June 1997. At the latter conference, 95 States adopted the "Brussels Declaration" in which they committed themselves to conclude an anti-personnel landmine ban treaty by the end of 1997. The essential elements of this treaty should comprise: comprehensive ban on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines, destruction of stockpiles of mines and international co-operation and assistance in the field of mine clearance. It is expected that following the negotiations at a Diplomatic Conference held on 1-19 September 1997 in Oslo, this treaty should be signed in the first week of December 1997 in Ottawa.

34. The possibility to consider the problem of anti-personnel mines is also a subject of debate within the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. Although every debate emphasising the dangers of mines is useful, it must be ensured that the Conference on Disarmament does not divert attention from the Ottawa Process. Anti-personnel mines are a humanitarian problem and far less a disarmament issue.

8. International organisations against anti-personnel mines

a. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

35. The ICRC has been particularly active in its efforts to obtain a total ban on the production, stock-piling, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines. In November 1995, it launched an international campaign with the slogan "Landmines must be Stopped", aimed at mobilising public opinion, creating political will and promoting an increased commitment for providing assistance to mine victims and mine-clearance.

36. By virtue of its mandate to promote international humanitarian law, the ICRC participated throughout the review process of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) as an expert observer. To promote ratification of the CCW and to encourage states to move towards a total ban on the mines, the ICRC has organised a number of regional seminars in Africa and Central America. These activities resulted, inter alia, in the adoption, in June 1995, of an Organisation of African Unity (OAU) resolution calling for a total ban on anti-personnel mines and a resolution passed by the Organisation of American States (OAS), adopted in June 1996, calling on member states to work towards the establishment of a mine-free zone in Central America by the year 2000. In Europe, the ICRC has been active in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, the Russian Federation (Chechnya, Ingushetia and North Ossetia) and Tajikistan.

37. Since 1978, the ICRC has been bringing assistance to people disabled by war through medical activities and rehabilitation programmes. Over 25% of the war-wounded treated by the ICRC are anti-personnel mine victims, the majority of whom are civilians. Of these 25%, one-third have to have at least one limb removed. The ICRC sends its own surgical unit to conflict zones to work within existing structures, set up first-aid posts and transportation facilities and open ICRC-administered facilities for surgical care and rehabilitation. The ICRC owns orthopaedic workshops where prostheses are produced and trains technicians to ensure continuity after its withdrawal. In January 1997, the ICRC was running 19 prosthetics or orthopaedic programmes in eight countries, all infested to varying degrees by mines (Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya and Rwanda); 26 programmes in 16 other countries have now been handed over either to local organisations, the Ministries of Health of the countries concerned or NGOs.

b. European Union

38. Through the Joint Position adopted by the Council of the European Union on 1 October 1996, the European Union reaffirmed efforts for achieving an immediate total ban on mines. It set the objective of having an agreement on a total ban of mines concluded at the earliest possible date. Such an agreement would also apply to member states' exports of mines to third countries. On 17 July 1997, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on anti-personnel landmines calling in particular on all member States of the European Union to sign the Brussels Declaration of June 1997 and to participate in the Oslo negotiations in September 1997.

c. Inter-Parliamentary Union

39. In its resolution adopted on 20 September 1996, in Beijing, the Inter-Parliamentary Union declared its support for a world-wide ban on the production, stock-piling, transfer and use of mines and stressed the urgent need for internationally concerted efforts to contribute to existing mine-clearance work and to begin new mine-clearance programmes.

d. Western European Union (WEU)

40. The Assembly of Western European Union adopted, on 3 June 1997, a recommendation on the fight against the proliferation of anti-personnel mines by which it invited the WEU Council to make every possible effort to promote and support a comprehensive international ban on all types of anti-personnel mines. The Assembly also recommended the WEU Council to call on the WEU member, associate member, observer and associate partner states to destroy all stocks of anti-personnel mines on their territory by December 1999.

e. Council of Europe

41. The issue of anti-personnel mines has been one of concern to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and, in particular, its Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography. In the Parliamentary Assembly's Declaration No. 242 (1995) on landmines and blinding laser weapons, and Resolution 1085 (1996) on the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Parliamentary Assembly recognised the use of mines as a violation of international humanitarian law, invited all states to support the total prohibition of the use, transfer and export of mines (smart or dumb), and supported the ICRC's efforts to ban mines.

f. Non-governmental organisations

42. There are tens if not hundreds of non-governmental organisations fighting to have anti-personnel mines banned. Among those which took part in the first seminar, "Norwegian People's Aid" is at present one of the biggest humanitarian NGOs involved in mine-clearing activities. These include mine-awareness campaigns, surveys and mine-clearance operations in the field. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, "Norwegian People's Aid" has been running a mine-clearance project in the Tuzla region, where it has a capacity of 125 men.

43. Handicap International was also represented in Budapest. Its terms of reference are to provide assistance to destitute handicapped people. Over a period of fifteen years, Handicap International's assistance programme has made it possible to fit over 150 000 amputees with orthopaedic prostheses. More than 80% of these amputees were injured by anti-personnel mines. This led Handicap International to take direct action with a view to reducing the risk of accidents involving mines. Handicap International is also a member of the Steering Committee of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. In this framework it is working with nearly 600 organisations in 30 countries to have the manufacture, sale and use of anti-personnel mines banned for good.

44. The example of Austria shows that NGO campaigns against landmines may have practical results. In that country, public debate on anti-personnel mines began at the end of the 1970s. At the time, Austrian industry was producing anti-personnel mines and the army had stocks of them. The Austrian Red Cross then launched a wide-ranging campaign against mines using public information and awareness-raising meetings, posters, petitions, media coverage, etc. This campaign led to the adoption of a law on the total ban of mines in Austria, which came into force on 1 January 1997.

9. Conclusion

45. The use of mines as weapons of war has caused irreversible damage to many regions of the world that continue to suffer the traumatic long-term effects. The theory of the indispensability of anti-personnel mines in time of war and the added military advantages gained by users of mines has been seriously contested. Their indiscriminate and disproportionate effects lead many to believe that these weapons are a violation of the basic principles of international humanitarian laws.

46. It can no longer be overlooked that only a total ban of mines and their subsequent elimination can end the human suffering caused by them and lift the lasting obstacles presented by them to the development of certain countries. A ban of this type can only be imposed if the international community takes a harmonised approach and combines its efforts, if it sets up application and surveillance machinery, if it improves and strengthens mine-clearance programmes and if it sets up rehabilitation centres for victims. Mine producing states must accept their responsibilities for mine-clearance and related activity and make financial contributions to victims' rehabilitation, but above all must stop producing and selling mines.

47. Despite considerable progress, the fight to have anti-personnel mines banned goes on. We can no longer accept half-hearted or moderate legal responses to this worldwide humanitarian tragedy. We hope that the recommendations set out in this report will help to bring about a total ban on the production, stock-piling, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines throughout the world.

APPENDIX

Towards a global ban on anti-personnel mines

List of the Council of Europe member States, observers and special guests unilaterally supporting a global ban on the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines

(as at 10 July 1997)

I. MEMBER STATES

II. NON-MEMBER STATES WITH OBSERVER STATUS WITH THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

III. NON-MEMBER STATE HAVING ACCREDITED A PERMANENT OBSERVER WITH THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

IV. NON-MEMBER STATES WHOSE PARLIAMENTS HAVE SPECIAL GUEST STATUS WITH THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Reporting committee: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography.

Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.

Reference to committee: Doc. 7598 and Reference No. 2110 of 7 November 1996.

Draft recommendation and draft order unanimously adopted by the committee on 26 June 1997.

Members of the committee: Mrs Aguiar (Chairperson), MM. Iwi_ski, Junghanns (Vice-Chairmen), A�ba, Akselsen, Amoruso, Andres, �rnason, Mrs Arnold, MM. Aushev, Beaufays, Billing, Bogomolov, van den Bos, Brancati, Branger, Mrs Brasseur, MM. Brennan, Caceres, Cardona, Christodoulides, Chyzh, Clerfayt, Din�er, Ehrmann, Mrs Fehr, MM. Filimonov, Fuhrmann, Mrs Garajov�, MM. Godo, Gross (Alternate: Mrs Vermot-Mangold), Sir John Hunt (Alternate: Mr Atkinson), Mr Jaki_, Mrs Johansson, MM. Kalus, Kara_, Lord Kirkhill (Alternate: Mr Wray), Mr Kukk, Mrs Kušnere, MM. Laakso, Lauricella, Laurinkus, Lazarescu, Leitner, Lesein, Liapis, Lu�s, McNamara, M�sz�ros, Micheloyiannis, Minkov, Moser, Nogalo (Alternate: Mrs Buši_), Mrs Plechat�, MM. Rakhansky, von Schmude, Sincai (Alternate: Mr Paslaru), Solonari, Mrs Soutendijk-van Appeldoorn, MM. Tahir, Vangelov, N... (Alternate: Mrs Guirado).

N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries of the committee: Mr Newman, Mr Sich and Mrs Nachilo.