Mine Ban Policy

Last updated: 18 December 2019


The Republic of Latvia acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty on 1 July 2005, becoming a State Party on 1 January 2006. Latvia has not enacted new legislation specifically to implement the Mine Ban Treaty, but has detailed a number of national implementation measures.[1]

Latvia has attended most meetings of the treaty since becoming a State Party, most recently the Seventeenth Meeting of States Parties in Geneva in November 2018, where it provided a statement on Article 5 extension requests. Latvia also attended the intersessional meetings in Geneva in May 2019. However, Latvia did not attend the Third Review Conference in Maputo in June 2014.

Latvia consistently submits annual Article 7 transparency reports. Before adhering to the treaty, Latvia submitted three voluntary reports.[2]

Latvia is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and its Amended Protocol II on landmines and Protocol V on explosive remnants of war. Latvia is not a state party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Production, transfer, stockpiling, and retention

Latvia did not produce or export antipersonnel mines in the past, but inherited a small stockpile of Soviet antipersonnel mines. Latvia completed destruction of its stockpile of 2,490 PMN-2 mines on 2 August 2006.[3] Latvia’s reporting on its stockpile had been inconsistent. Over the years, it had declared its stockpile to consist of between 0 and 4,666 of six types of antipersonnel mines.[4]

In 2011, Latvia reported that it does not retain any mines for training, and that “APMs retained for training were destroyed in 2010.”[5] It indicated that the PMN-2 and OZM-4 mines were disposed of by detonation.

[1] In its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report for 2007, Latvia for the first time included details about national implementation measures in accordance with Article 9 of the treaty. The report lists four measures. The four measures are: (1) Law on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and their Destruction, which is the law authorizing accession to the treaty; (2) Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 645 of 25 September 2007 on the List of National Strategic Goods and Services, which prohibits export and transit of antipersonnel mines; (3) The Code for Administrative Violations, which lays down liability for violations of circulation, manufacturing, storage and use of strategic goods and arms and explosive devices as well as their export, import and transfer; and (4) The Criminal Law, which provides for liability in case of smuggling explosive devices. Section XX of the Criminal Law stipulates punishment for unauthorized manufacture, acquisition, storage and sale as well as transportation and conveyance of weapons and explosives. Latvia had in the past only reported its Law on the Circulation of Arms prohibiting the export and transit of antipersonnel mines. Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2007), Form A.

[2] It submitted voluntary reports on 16 June 2005, 14 May 2004 and 1 May 2003.

[3] Statement of Latvia, Seventh Meeting of States Parties, Mine Ban Treaty, Geneva, 20 September 2006.

[4] See, Landmine Monitor Report 2005, p. 403. Also, in its four formal Article 7 reports, Latvia did not include in its stockpile the MON-50, MON-100, MON-200, and “Defense Charge-21” Claymore-type directional fragmentation mines listed in its previous voluntary reports. It has stated “they are defence charge and not observed by the Ottawa Convention. Latvia is committed not to use them as APM.” Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form B, 28 April 2006. Use of Claymore-type mines in command-detonated mode is permissible under the Mine Ban Treaty, but use in victim-activated mode (with tripwires) is prohibited. The ICBL has urged States Parties to report on steps taken to ensure that these types of mines can only be used in command-detonated mode.

[5] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for period 01 January 2010 to 31 December 2010), Form D, Form G. In the report, Latvia indicated that the PMN-2 and OZM-4 mines were disposed of by detonation. However, it did not explain the decrease in the number of mines retained from 2009 to 2010. Previously, in its Article 7 report submitted in 2010 (for calendar year 2009), Latvia recorded 118 mines retained for training, and it noted “781 paces [sic] of bounding mines OZM-4 were destroyed as part of training and demilitarization.”