Verdrag inzake het verbod van het gebruik, de aanleg van voorraden, de productie en de overdracht van anti-personeelmijnen en inzake de vernietiging van deze wapens

PartijenTooltipPartijen met een link hebben een voorbehoud.

Uitbreiding

Verenigd Koninkrijk

Argentinië

14-09-1999

The Argentine Republic declares that in its territory, in the Malvinas, there are anti-personnel mines. This situation was brought to the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations when providing information within the framework of General Assembly resolutions 48/7; 49/215; 50/82; and 51/149 concerning "Assistance in mine clearance".
Since this part of the Argentine territory is under illegal occupation by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Argentine Republic is effectively prevented from having access to the anti-personnel mines placed in the Malvinas in order to fulfil the obligations undertaken in the present Convention.
The United Nations General Assembly has recognized the existence of a dispute concerning sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich and has urged the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to maintain negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and lasting solution to the dispute, with the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who is to report to the General Assembly on the progress made (resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25). The Special Committee on decolonization has taken the same position, and has adopted a resolution every year stating that the way to put an end to this colonial situation is the lasting settlement, on a peaceful and negotiated basis, of the sovereignty dispute, and requesting both Governments to resume negotiations to that end. The most recent of these resolutions was adopted on 1 July 1999.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich and the surrounding maritime areas which form an integral part of its national territory.

Australië

14-01-1999

It is the understanding of Australia that, in the context of operations, exercises or other military activity authorised by the United Nations or otherwise conducted in accordance with international law, the participation by the Australian Defence Force, or individual Australian citizens or residents, in such operations, exercises or other military activity conducted in combination with the armed forces of States not party to the Convention which engage in activity prohibited under the Convention would not, by itself, be considered to be in violation of the Convention.
It is the understanding of Australia that, in relation to Article 1(a), the term "use" means the actual physical emplacement of anti-personnel mines and does not include receiving an indirect or incidental benefit from anti-personnel mines laid by another State or person. In Article 1(c) Australia will interpret the word "assist" to mean the actual and direct physical participation in any activity prohibited by the Convention but does not include permissible indirect support such as the provision of security for the personnel of a State not party to the Convention engaging in such activities, "encourage" to mean the actual request for the commission of any activity prohibited by the Convention, and "induce" to mean the active engagement in the offering of threats or incentives to obtain the commission of any activity prohibited by the Convention.
It is the understanding of Australia that in relation to Article 2(1), the definition of "anti-personnel mines" does not include command detonated munitions.
In relation to Articles 4, 5(1) and (2), and 7(1)(b) and (c), it is the understanding of Australia that the phrase "jurisdiction or control" is intended to mean within the sovereign territory of a State Party or over which it exercises legal responsibility by virtue of a United Nations mandate or arrangement with another State and the ownership or physical possession of anti-personnel mines, but does not include the temporary occupation of, or presence on, foreign territory where anti-personnel mines have been laid by other States or persons.

Canada

03-12-1997

It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that, in the context of operations, exercises or other military activity sanctioned by the United Nations or otherwise conducted in accordance with international law, the mere participation by the Canadian Forces, or individual Canadians, in operations, exercises or other military activity conducted in combination with the armed forces of States not party to the Convention which engage in activity prohibited under the Convention would not, by itself, be considered to be assistance, encouragement or inducement in accordance with the meaning of those terms in article 1, paragraph 1 (c).

Chili

10-09-2001

The Republic of Chile declares that it will apply provisionally paragraph 1 of article 1 of the Convention.

Griekenland

03-12-1997

Greece fully subscribes to the principles enshrined within the [Convention] and declares that ratification of this Convention will take place as soon as conditions relating to the implementation of its relevant provisions are fulfilled.

Litouwen

26-02-1999

The Republic of Lithuania subscribes to the principles and purposes of the [Convention] and declares that ratification of the Convention will take place as soon as [the] relevant conditions relating to the implementation of the provisions of the Convention are fulfilled.

Mauritius

09-01-2020

(…) has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the socalled ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, of the Agreements listed at Annex and in respect of which the Secretary-General is the depositary.
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending these Agreements to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, the United Kingdom purported to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under international law.
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms that it does not recognize the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. The fact that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom’s ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration ‘as rapidly as possible’.
The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial administration in the Chagos Archipelago.
On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to 6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court’s Advisory Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is, by no later than 22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired.
Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to ‘cooperate with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius as rapidly as possible’ and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process by recognizing the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. Lastly, the resolution also called upon ‘all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations, including those established by treaty,’ to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy decolonization, and to ‘refrain from impeding that process’ by recognizing the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.
The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts, its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’ and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.
For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognize the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, reserves all its rights in this regard, and calls upon all States Parties to the Agreements listed at Annex to reject the United Kingdom's extension of these Agreements to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.
--
See depositairy notification no. C.N.52.2020.TREATIES-XXVI.5 for the Annex (list of Agreements).

Montenegro

23-10-2006

Confirmation of the declaration made by Serbia and Montenegro upon accession: [...] it is the understanding of Serbia and Montenegro that the mere participation in the planning or conduct of operations, exercise or any other military activities by the armed forces of Serbia and Montenegro, or by any of its nationals, if carried out in conjunction with armed forces of the non-State Parties (to the Convention), which engage in activities prohibited under the Convention, does not in any way imply an assistance, encouragement or inducement as referred to in subparagraph 1 (c) of the Convention.

Oekraïne

30-03-2016

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as the Depositary of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of 18 September 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”) and has the honour to inform of the following.
In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine. These actions are in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power, bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international law.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation committed against Ukraine and until the complete restoration of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations under the above Convention, as applied to the aforementioned occupied and uncontrolled territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.
Therefore, the Ukrainian Side would be grateful if the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as the Depositary of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of 18 September 1997, would circulate this notification on the specifics of the territorial application and implementation of the above Convention among all the Contracting States to this Convention.

31-05-2018

Ukraine became a State party to the Ottawa Convention on 1 June 2006. Ukraine continues undertaking measures to fully comply with all the Ottawa Convention’s provisions and would Iike to draw attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the situation regarding implementation of Article 5 of the said Convention under current specific circumstances.
In 2007 Ukraine fulfilled its obligation under Article 5 of the Ottawa Convention by submission to the Secretary-General of the United Nations its initial declaration, which indicated the absence of areas, polluted with anti-personnel mines, on the territory of Ukraine.
In February 2014 Ukraine lost its effective control over the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and later - on certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and illegal occupation of these territories. It is important to note that the mentioned temporarily occupied territories remain an integral part of sovereign territory of Ukraine but its jurisdiction on these territories is limited. Shortly after the commencement of the military confrontation Ukraine started to discover on the liberated territories the mined areas containing anti-personnel mines, originated from the State, which is non State party to the Ottawa Convention. Ukraine has been regularly reflecting such facts in its annual declarations since 2015.
The mentioned occupation is in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act principles, the Charter of the Council of Europe, other legally binding international instruments and constitutes the threat not only to the international peace and security, but also creates serious legal obstacles to Ukraine in compliance with the Ottawa Convention.
In order to ensure the vital interests of the society and the State the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and other authorities adopted legal acts that constitute a basis for the derogation of Ukraine from certain obligations under few international agreements. In particular, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted Laws of Ukraine No. 1207-VII “On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and Legal Regime on the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine” of 15 April 2014 and No. 2268-VIII “On particular aspects of public policy aimed at safeguarding state sovereignty of Ukraine over the temporarily occupied territory of Donetsk and Luhansk regions” of 18 January 2018. According to the provisions of these laws the Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power, bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences on the temporarily occupied territories under international law. Ukraine bears no responsibility for illegal actions of the Russian Federation and its occupying administration.
Taking into account the above mentioned and without any prejudice to the application of other provisions of the Ottawa Convention, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary occupation by the Russian Federation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the city of Sevastopol and certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation committed against Ukraine and until the complete restoration of the Ukrainian constitutional law and order in such occupied territories, including effective control by Ukraine over the Ukrainian-Russian state border, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations under Article 5 of the Ottawa Convention, as applied to the aforementioned occupied territories of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.
Ukraine will inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations about future developments and notify him when the circumstances which led to submitting this Verbal Note have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Ottawa Convention are being fully applied again to the whole territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.
At the same time Ukraine is ready for a wider discussion on the issue. This solution will contribute to efficiency of the Ottawa Convention and promote its universalization by creation of an algorithm for resolving technical challenges originated from an aggression against a State party to the Ottawa Convention, including by a State being a non State party to this Convention.

18-07-2025

In accordance with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, Ukraine has decided, as of July 17, 2025, to suspend the operation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of September 18, 1997, signed on behalf of Ukraine on February 24, 1999 in New York.

Polen

27-12-2012

It is the understanding of the Government of the Republic of Poland that the mere participation in the planning or execution of operations, exercises or other military activity by the Polish Armed Forces, or individual Polish nationals, conducted in combination with the armed forces of States not party to the [Convention], which engage in activity prohibited under that Convention, is not, by itself, assistance, encouragement or inducement for the purposes of Article 1, paragraph (c) of the Convention.

Servië

18-09-2003

Declaration:
[...] it is the understanding of Serbia and Montenegro that the mere participation in the planning or conduct of operations, exercises or any other military activities by the armed forces of Serbia and Montenegro, or by any of its nationals, if carried out in conjunction with armed forces of the non-State Parties (to the Convention), which engage in activities prohibited under the Convention, does not in any way imply an assistance, encouragement or inducement as referred to in subparagraph 1 (c) of the Convention.

Tsjechië

26-10-1999

It is the understanding of the Government of the Czech Republic that the mere participation in the planning or execution of operations, exercises or other military activities by the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic, or individual Czech Republic nationals, conducted in combination with the armed forces of States not party to the [Convention], which engage in activities prohibited under the Convention, is not, by itself, assistance, encouragement or inducement for the purposes of Article 1, paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention.

Verenigd Koninkrijk

31-07-1998

It is the understanding of the Government of the United Kingdom that the mere participation in the planning or execution of operations, exercises or other military activity by the United Kingdom's Armed Forces, or individual United Kingdom nationals, conducted in combination with the armed forces of States not party to the [said Convention], which engage in activity prohibited under that Convention, is not, by itself, assistance, encouragement or inducement for the purposes of Article 1, paragraph (c) of the Convention.