Updated April 8, 2021
U.S. Antipersonnel Landmine Use Policy
2020 Trump Administration
on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and
Landmine Policy
Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction,
On January 31, 2020, the Department of Defense (DOD)
(also known as the Ottawa Convention), which entered into
announced a new policy on the use of antipersonnel
force for those signatory countries in 1999. The Clinton
landmines (APLs). According to a January 31, 2020, DOD
Administration declined to sign the Ottawa Convention
memorandum, President Trump “decided to cancel
because it would preclude U.S. use of APLs in the DMZ. In
Presidential Policy Directive-37 (PPD-37),” which was
February 2004, the Bush Administration announced the
issued by the Obama Administration in January 2016. The
United States would use persistent APLs only in the DMZ
Administration adopted the new policy following an
until 2010, after which the United States would not use
internal DOD review ordered by former Secretary of
such APLs anywhere. The Bush Administration also
Defense James Mattis that was completed in 2018.
indicated that the United States would develop alternatives
to persistent landmines. The Obama Administration
The January 2020 memorandum permits Combatant
conducted a review of U.S. policy regarding landmines. A
Commanders to authorize the use of nonpersistent APLs
National Security Council spokesperson stated in June 2014
regardless of geographic location “when necessary for
that the United States would not “produce or otherwise
mission success in major contingencies or other exceptional
acquire any anti-personnel landmines in the future,”
circumstances.” Nonpersistent landmines, according to the
including for the purpose of replacing expiring stockpiles.
memorandum, “must possess self-destruction mechanisms
In 2014, the Obama Administration announced the APL
and self-deactivation features.” Persistent landmines, which
policy described in PPD-37 (discussed earlier). The
the new policy forbids, lack these features. PPD-37 forbade
Department of State noted in December 2014 that the
the use of APLs “outside the Korean Peninsula,” as well as
United States was “pursuing solutions that would be
assisting, encouraging, or inducing “anyone outside the
compliant with the [Ottawa Convention] and that would
Korean Peninsula to engage in activity prohibited by the
ultimately allow us to accede to the convention while
Ottawa Convention.” The Ottawa Convention, to which the
ensuring that we are still able to meet our alliance
United States is not a party, requires states parties to stop
commitments” to South Korea.
the production, use, and transfer of APLs, as well as to
destroy all stockpiled APLs, except for the “minimum
Details
number absolutely necessary” for training purposes. The
As noted, the new policy “will not have any expressed
Obama Administration’s policy stated the United States
geographic limitations.” DOD’s January 31, 2020,
would “undertake to destroy APL stockpiles not required
memorandum adds
for the defense” of South Korea.
[A]ppropriate geographic limitations will be
Background
formulated based on specific operational contexts
With the end of the Cold War in 1991, during the mid- to
and will be reflected in relevant rules of
late 1990s, the international community began to question
engagement, consistent with existing DOD policy
the utility of APLs in light of the growing number of
and practice.
civilian and U.N. peacekeeper casualties resulting from
abandoned unmarked or unregistered minefields. In 1996,
The policy described in the memorandum permits the use of
President Clinton announced a policy that immediately
nonpersistent APLs “in major contingencies or other
discontinued U.S. use of persistent APLs except in the
exceptional circumstances.” Responding to a question
demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating North and South
during a January 31, 2020, press briefing, the acting
Korea and supported negotiation of a worldwide ban on
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and
APLs in the U.N. In November 1996, the United States
Capabilities did not provide any specific scenarios that
introduced a resolution to the U.N. General Assembly to
might constitute “exceptional circumstances.” With respect
pursue an international agreement that would ban the use,
to the U.S. stockpile of persistent APLs, the “Military
stockpiling, production, and transfer of APLs. While many
Departments will continue to demilitarize” any such
nations supported such a ban, others were concerned that
landmines “remaining in existing inactive stockpiles,”
verifying such a ban would be difficult and that APLs still
according to the January 31, 2020, memo which mandates
played a useful role in military operations. The UN General
that DOD
Assembly, however, could not agree on a way forward.
may acquire, retain, and transfer a limited number
In 1997 the government of Canada and a number of
of persistent landmines for the purposes of training
nongovernmental organizations sponsored The Convention
personnel engaged in demining and countermining
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S. Antipersonnel Landmine Use Policy
operations and improving countermine capabilities.
the Administration and DOD reexamine the need for
The stocks of such persistent landmines will not
nonpersistent APLs.
exceed the minimum number absolutely necessary
for such purposes.
2021 Biden Administration Policy on
Landmine Use
DOD’s January 31, 2020, briefing also noted that the
DOD Press Secretary John Kirby told reporters on April 6
United States may need to develop new APLs for use in
that the department is analyzing then-Secretary of Defense
accordance with the new policy and that
Mark Esper’s decision with regard to the January 2020
policy described above. Upon completion of that analysis,
all activated landmines … will be designed and
DOD will “be able to have a better idea of whether or not
constructed to self-destruct in 30 days or less after
further review of our landmine policy is warranted,” Kirby
emplacement and will possess a back-up self-
added. However, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield
deactivation feature. Some landmines, will be
stated during an April 8 UN Security Council debate that
designed and constructed to self-destruct in shorter
”President Biden has been clear that he intends to roll back”
periods of time, such as two hours or forty eight
the Trump administration’s above-described policy, “and
hours.
our administration has begun a policy review to do just
that.”
The memorandum also stipulated that “Military
Departments should explore acquiring landmines and
Potential Issues for Congress
landmine alternatives that could further reduce the risk of
Potential issues for Congress might include the following:
unintended harm to noncombatants.” The memorandum
also states DOD “will continue to adhere to all applicable
When does DOD plan to complete its 2020 Landmine
international legal obligations concerning landmines” and
Policy review?
specifically cites the Protocol on Prohibitions or
Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other
Does DOD plan to brief Congress on the results of the
Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 annexed to the
2020 Landmine Policy review?
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of
Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be
What are some of the “exceptional circumstances” DOD
Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects
(hereafter “Protocol”). The United States is a party to the
believes could require the use of APLs?
Protocol, which entered into force in 1998. In addition to
Does DOD have sufficient quantities and types of
prohibiting the use of nondetectable APLs and imposing
nonpersistent APLs to meet potential Combatant
detailed restrictions on the use of persistent APLs, the
Commander’s requirements as envisioned under DOD’s
Protocol requires that its parties take “[a]ll feasible
precautions … to protect civilians from the effects” of
current policy?
APLs. The written 2020 DOD policy apparently conforms
Aside from self-destruct and deactivation features on
to these requirements.
nonpersistent APLs, what measures will military
Why the Change in Policy?
commanders employ to help prevent civilian/friendly
According to DOD’s January 31, 2020
force casualties?
, Landmine Policy
statement, the change in policy was required because
Under the current policy, are APLs to be used in a
strictly defensive role or as a barrier to advancing enemy
the strategic environment has changed since 2016
forces or can they be used in an offensive role such as
and the U.S. faces an era of strategic competition
during ambushes and raids?
that requires our military to become more lethal,
resilient, and ready for future contingencies.
Will the current policy on U.S. APL usage be acceptable
Regarding the utility of landmines in modern warfare, it
to our regional allies, some of whom no longer use
was further stated that
APLs?
such area denial systems are a force multiplier in
With the possibility of more widespread use of APLs
key operational contexts: they can obstruct,
resulting from the current U.S. policy, how could this
affect civilian casualties?
channel, and delay/stop numerically superior
adversaries and prevent them from outflanking
friendly forces.
Andrew Feickert, Specialist in Military Ground Forces
Paul K. Kerr, Specialist in Nonproliferation
While DOD did not provide any specifics, incidents outside
of the Korean peninsula, such as in Afghanistan in 2019
IF11440
and in Manda Bay, Kenya, in 2020, might have compelled
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S. Antipersonnel Landmine Use Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11440 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED