5cjxburmr

The United States has announced policy changes that align U.S. antipersonnel landminepolicy outside the Korean Peninsula with the key requirements of the Ottawa Convention. 340Among other reasons, because the practice of the United States and other States remainsinconsistent with the prohibitions of the Ottawa Convention, its prohibitions do not reflectcustomary international law. 341Many U.S. allies and coalition partners, including Australia, Canada, and the UnitedKingdom, are parties to the Ottawa Convention. Article 1 of the Ottawa Convention prohibitsStates Parties from using, developing, producing, otherwise acquiring, stockpiling, retaining, ortransferring to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel landmines, or to assist, encourage, orinduce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under theConvention. Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have taken the position that its armedforces would not violate the Ottawa Convention merely by reason of taking part in jointoperations with forces of an ally that is not bound by the Ottawa Convention and that uses antipersonnelmines. 342340 Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Fact Sheet: Changes to U.S. Anti-Personnel LandminePolicy (Sept. 23, 2014) (“President Clinton, in his 1994 address to the United Nations General Assembly, called forthe eventual elimination of anti-personnel landmines (APL). Today, the Obama Administration is announcing newpolicy changes that bring the United States closer to that goal. Specifically, the United States is aligning our APLpolicy outside the Korean Peninsula with the key requirements of the Ottawa Convention, the international treatyprohibiting the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of APL, which more than 160 countries have joined,including all of our NATO Allies.”).341 See, e.g., Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Central Front, Ethiopia’s Claim 2, 95 (Apr. 28,2004) (“Landmines. As with other weredas [i.e., geographic districts], the evidence indicates that Eritrea madeextensive use of anti-personnel landmines, but it does not demonstrate a pattern of their unlawful use. For liability,the Commission would have to conclude that landmines were used in ways that intentionally targeted civilians orwere indiscriminate. However, the available evidence suggests that landmines were extensively used as part of thedefenses of Eritrea’s trenches and field fortifications. Thus, the declarations citing landmine use also frequentlyrefer to the presence of Eritrean trenches in the area/kushet concerned. In principle, the defensive use of minefieldsto protect trenches would be a lawful use under customary international law.”).342 Australia, Statement on Ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production andTransfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, Jan. 14, 1999, 2057 UNTS 214, 218 (“It is theunderstanding of Australia that, in the context of operations, exercises or other military activity authorized by theUnited Nations or otherwise conducted in accordance with international law, the participation by the ADF, orindividual Australian citizens or residents, in such operations, exercises or other military activity conducted incombination with the armed forces of States not party to the Convention which engage in activity prohibited underthe Convention would not, by itself, be considered to be in violation of the Convention.”); Canada, Statement onSignature of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-PersonnelMines and on Their Destruction, Dec. 3, 1997, 2056 UNTS 211, 310 (“It is the understanding of the Government ofCanada that, in the context of operations, exercises or other military activity sanctioned by the United Nations orotherwise conducted in accordance with international law, the mere participation by the Canadian Forces, orindividual Canadians, in operations, exercises or other military activity conducted in combination with the armedforces of States not party to the Convention which engage in activity prohibited under the Convention would not, byitself, be considered to be assistance, encouragement or inducement in accordance with the meaning of those termsin article 1, paragraph 1 (c).”); 2004 UK MANUAL 6.13 (“Members of the United Kingdom armed forces, will not,however, be guilty of an offence merely by reason of taking part in joint operations with forces of an ally not boundby the Ottawa Convention which deploy landmines.”).379