The independent resource on global security
13. Conventional arms control and the regulation of inhumane weapons
Contents
I. Introduction
II. The Certain Conventional Weapons Convention
III. Cluster munitions
IV. Explosive weapons in populated areas
V. Landmines, improvised explosive devices and explosive remnants of war
VI. Conventional ammunition management
VII. International transparency in arms procurement and military expenditure as confidence-building measures
VIII. Conclusions
The main multilateral treaty for regulating inhumane weapons is the 1981 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW Convention). There are also separate conventions on anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. Other categories of conventional weapon that raise humanitarian concerns are dealt with by other
legal and political processes.
Withdrawals from cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines conventions
A key development in 2025 was the unprecedented withdrawals from the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) and the 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine (APM) Convention. Lithuania’s withdrawal from the CCM, which went into effect on 6 March 2025, marked the first time that a state had withdrawn from a humanitarian arms control treaty. Shortly after, five European states—Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland—announced their intent to withdraw from the APM Convention, citing security concerns related to the Russia–Ukraine war. The withdrawal notices for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania took effect on 27 December 2025, while Poland’s took effect on 10 January 2026 and Finland’s on 20 February 2026.
Explosive weapons in populated areas
The use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) continued to be widespread in major armed conflicts in 2025, with particularly devastating effects in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine. A 2022 political declaration that seeks to address the humanitarian consequences of the use of EWIPA has been endorsed by 90 states. The second follow-up conference in 2025 concluded with a renewed collective commitment to translate political promises into concrete military and humanitarian action.
Tension between the humanitarian imperative and military necessity
Efforts to preserve or strengthen the achievements of multilateral conventional disarmament and arms control and to spread norms that reduce the human cost of weapons are clearly under stress. In general, many states are now valuing the pursuit of politico–military advantage over arms control. Amid growing strategic competition, these states are increasingly unwilling to agree to arms control restraints and transparency measures in the belief that these could yield advantages to adversaries. The frameworks designed to protect human life and dignity are under serious pressure at a time when civilians face heightened risks during armed conflict and at a time when international law more broadly is under threat.
English