Attachments
Tamar Gabelnick, Director, International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munition Coalition
On March 6, 2025, Lithuania will formally withdraw from the Convention on Cluster Munitions, an unprecedented move with potentially profound consequences for the protection of civilians in Lithuania and elsewhere. This date ends the convention’s required six-month delay after Lithuania submitted its official intent to withdraw document in September 2024. Lithuania’s decision was designed to address its population’s understandably heightened sense of insecurity in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. But it may paradoxically increase risks to its people given the immediate and long-term danger these weapons pose to civilians. It could also impact people far beyond its borders if other states use the example to justify abandonment of other instruments of international humanitarian law.
Cluster munitions were banned in 2008 because of their inherently indiscriminate nature both at time of use and long afterwards. Each cluster munition scatters hundreds of deadly submunitions over football field-sized areas, making it impossible to distinguish between military and civilian targets as required by international humanitarian law. Moreover, their complex arming mechanism means each cluster bomb will unfailingly leave behind a significant number of unexploded submunitions. These landmine-like remnants will litter fields, orchards, and homes for the many long years it takes to clear them. Children in particular are drawn to these small objects, resulting in accidents that often take the life or limbs of the not just the curious child, but also of any bystanders. Indeed, according to the 2024 Cluster Munition Monitor Report, civilians made up 93% of all recorded cluster munition casualties in 2023, with children accounting for almost half of the total.
For these reasons, states adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008 to ban cluster munitions and to remedy past use through clearance of remnants and support for survivors. With 124 countries now bound by the convention, it has already had impressive results. The number of casualties has been sharply reduced, large tracts of land have been rendered safe, and there is greater recognition of the rights of survivors. Wary of the stigma now attached to these weapons, the convention has even had a positive impact on the behavior of non-member states, including past users and producers. For example, the United States has not used cluster munitions since 2003, when an internal military assessment found cluster munitions were “a cold war relic,” and has not produced them since 2016, though it has recently sent cluster munitions from its stockpiles to Ukraine.
Lithuania justified its decision to leave the convention by arguing that cluster munitions would deter a Russian attack and protect Lithuanian citizens should an invasion occur. Clearly Lithuania has the right to seek the best possible defence in today’s challenging security environment. But the arguments in favor of leaving the convention are deeply flawed. Lithuania has never possessed or produced cluster munitions, so it would not be in an position to use them in the near term. Moreover, Ukraine’s freedom to use cluster munitions – it has never been party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions - did nothing to deter Russia’s invasion in 2022. In any case, it is difficult to believe that one outdated weapon system will deter a resolute aggressor. On the other hand, if Lithuania were to use cluster munitions on its own territory, there would be massive long-term costs for civilians living in contaminated areas. Past use in countries like Lao PDR or Iraq show how much and how long a country will suffer from past use of these weapons.
A decision to leave a humanitarian disarmament convention – as opposed to not joining in the first place – is particularly problematic for international humanitarian law (IHL). Since the 19th century, governments have agreed to accept limits on the methods of warfare not only to protect their own populations from the most egregious effects of armed conflict, but also to insert some element of humanity into the brutal business of war. It goes without saying that when governments sign up to such laws, they are not simply endorsing theoretical legal principles. They must also be willing to abide by them in case they would need to be implemented. What message does it send to Russia and other states intent on undermining global norms and the rule of law if past commitments are so casually set aside? What does it say to other countries feeling similar threats in other regions of the world? And where does one draw the line relative to other banned weapons or practices?
For these reasons a departure from a multilateral disarmament convention is exceedingly rare. The only other example is North Korea’s departure from the Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003. But unfortunately, other states are now also considering joining this disreputable club. Political leaders in other countries on Russia’s borders are now openly questioning their commitment to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, a previously unthinkable reversal. “Deterring” a Russian threat is again being held up as a rationale for placing civilians at risk of use of these equally heinous and indiscriminate weapons. But history has shown that determined enemies can quickly breach an anti-personnel minefield, and the real threat these mines pose is to civilians, who make up the vast majority of victims.
At a time when IHL is under attack in multiple brutal conflicts around the world, strong leadership by defenders of humanitarian norms is crucial. March 6th is an opportunity for States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to push back against norm erosion by celebrating the successes of the convention, taking further steps to bring in new members, and reminding all countries of the reasons cluster munitions were banned in the first place. Most of all, it is a time for all countries to loudly defend the protection of civilians by upholding international humanitarian law anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances.