Issues of international legal regulation of the use of landmine weapons in domestic and foreign literature

Ibragimov Akhmed Muslimovich PhD in Law Associate Professor of the Department of Constitutional and International Law, Dagestan State University 367000, Russia, Republic of Dagestan, Makhachkala, Korkmasova str., 8 ahmed63@yandex.ru

Primov Magomedrasul Narimanovich ORCID: 0009-0003-6216-2734 Senior State Customs Inspector of Dagestan Customs 367013, Russia, Republic of Dagestan, Makhachkala, Yusupova str., 3 pmn-05@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Technological progress has not changed human nature, only the weapons with which Homo sapiens ensured its right to life and domination over others have changed. Armed conflicts accompanied the entire development of mankind, moreover, this development was accompanied by an increase in the scale and ferocity of the confrontation, an increase in losses due to the use of increasingly sophisticated types of weapons. At the same time, it is the periodic armed conflicts that have predetermined the need for the formation and development of international humanitarian law (IHL), which is a social mechanism for suppressing the destructiveness inherent in human interaction. At the same time, the law of armed conflict (war) As a branch of international law, its purpose is to determine the specifics of relations between states and other social entities at war. Accordingly, the subject of its regulation is the limitation of means and methods of warfare, as well as the protection of victims of war. It seems noteworthy to conclude that even fragmentary, inconsistent compliance with IHL norms certainly has a real positive impact on military conflicts, helps to minimize their negative consequences ^{[1, p.33]}. The consideration of the right of war as a historically established social mechanism, conditioned by the need of humanity to prevent the course of destructive processes of the appropriate kind, qualitative and quantitative minimization of their negative consequences, leads to the logical conclusion that the rejection of the right of war is an unnatural act, since humanity needs a social mechanism that prevents the realization of its own destructive potential. At the same time, hybrid wars largely neutralize the effectiveness of this social mechanism ^{[1, p.36]}.For our part, we believe that the destructive potential of humanity is mainly a consequence of the destructive influence of the collective West and related global structures.

The most bloody and large-scale wars were started in the twentieth century, entered world history as the First and Second World Wars. The formal reasons for these wars did not cancel out their main reason – the aggressor's desire to parasitize his victim and its resources. The history of tsarist Russia, the USSR, as well as modern history, is an objective confirmation of the constant antagonism between our country and the collective West. The liquidation of the USSR, the largest state in the world, was not accompanied by its defeat in an armed conflict, on the contrary, even at the end of its existence there were no states that would dare to enter into open armed confrontation with it. Nevertheless, the USSR was defeated as a result of the cold war declared against it, the consequences of which turned out to be more devastating for our state than the consequences of the Second World War.

When studying the issue of modern wars and anti-war struggle, the peaceful and military course of public history, it is rightly argued that the role of the Cold War in the destruction of the USSR was underestimated, and a similar war was waged against modern Russia, which could be lost without studying the causes of the previous loss. Moreover, Russia's geographical location makes war against it almost inevitable. The military-political logic of the ruling circles of the United States is expressed in the doctrines of absolute military security of the United States, which pose a danger to the whole world, which are ensured through local wars that bleed out the opponents of the United States and do not entail retaliatory actions against the latter, causing unacceptable damage to the United States. The current state and trends of peaceful and military development are characterized by instability, which is the source of conflicts and wars of various causes and causes, the main generator of which is the United States. The peaceful-military course of social history, as the latter develops, acquires increasing social inertia, therefore, the problem of anti-war struggle is being actualized, the refusal to solve which is historical irresponsibility to current and future generations ^{[2, pp.80-82]}.

 The presence of significant reserves of various natural resources on the territory of the Russian Federation, in itself, is the reason for continuous encroachments on this territory, regardless of the political priorities of the regime ruling on it. At the same time, dependence on external global structures, focus on them, integration into their projects, financial schemes, almost inevitably leads to a complete loss of the legal personality and territorial integrity of the state.

The harsh reality left no stone unturned from the unctuous pacifist declamations of radical reformers, who pointed out in the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR "On the Concept of Judicial Reform in the RSFSR" dated October 24, 1991 No. 1801-1 to the totalitarianism of the USSR, the need to return "to the bosom of world civilization", to "universal values" (URL: https://apkrfkod.ru/zakonodatelstvo/postanovlenie-vs-rsfsr-ot-24101991-n-1801-1 / (date of access: 19.10.2023)). In the context of increasing global instability and local conflicts, the importance of the military force necessary to ensure the security of the state is increasing, which is still one of the main factors of world politics (Medyanik I. A. Military security of modern Russia in the context of a new information reality: abstract. dis. ... cand. philos. sciences'. - Novocherkassk, 2023. URL: https://vak.minobrnauki.gov.ru/advert/100072013 (accessed 19.10.2023)).

The desire of the remaining sole superpower to strengthen world hegemony and expand spheres of influence has caused an aggravation of the international situation associated with a series of wars initiated by the United States. In this regard, researchers note the scale, the total nature of contradictions, conflicts, wars, mutual fear and distrust, which have acquired unprecedented scale and irreversible character in modern conditions ^[3]. 

 The removal from the political map of the world of a superpower opposing the United States and its satellites contributed to the expansion of US hegemony, which could not but affect the state of modern IHL, since the functioning of the system of international relations, deprived of the previously existing balance of interests of superpowers, has completely changed. The theory of seizing living space, which the leader of the German Reich could not implement, did not disappear from the arsenal of "civilized" countries with long-standing colonial roots even after the end of World War II. This theory has transformed into mantras about a "new reality", a "new world order", and "sustainable development" promoted everywhere by globalists, incompatible with humanism, whose visual outlines are becoming more and more apparent. The mentioned plans, as it becomes obvious, are not consistent either with the ideas of humanism or with IHL in general, since its main content is precisely humanism. The desire, the need to "provide at least a little humanity in war", is the idea that triggered the emergence of IHL ^{[4, p.37]}. People have always sought to limit violence and wars, since the limitation of violence is the essence of human civilization, accordingly, no considerations related to the cause of the conflict are grounds for renouncing the obligations imposed by IHL ^{[5, p.125]}.

Without disputing the above conclusions, at the same time, we believe that the main reason for the emergence and development of both humanism in general and IHL as its manifestation is the presence of a person's basic instinct – the instinct of self-preservation and the accompanying fear for his life and health, for the life and health of loved ones. It is the presence of this instinct in the vast majority of Homo sapiens that prompts them to establish rules to be applied in the process of armed conflicts. A significant part of people realize that the existence of appropriate rules will serve as a certain, even if illusory guarantee of the application of these rules to themselves, to people close to them. As for morality and morality, they are the lot of a few, convinced bearers of high moral principles, the observance of which does not depend on the assessment of others.

Thus, in the modern period, IHL is in a state of deep crisis passing into a phase of armed confrontation, caused primarily by the liquidation of the USSR, the system of socialist states led by it, and, accordingly, the loss of the path of development of the world, an alternative to the misanthropic long-term plans of globalist structures to establish a new world order. At the same time, in the context of globalization, wars are being transformed, in connection with which the military and political leadership at all levels have difficulties with an adequate perception of continuous military confrontation (Gerasimov N. N. Philosophical analysis of the image of war in the era of globalization: abstract. dis. ... cand. philos. sciences'. - Volgograd, 2019. URL: https://vak.minobrnauki.gov.ru/advert/100043197 (accessed 19.10.2023)).

The above confirms the fact that there are causes and conditions that cause the emergence of armed conflicts with the participation of the Russian Federation. This circumstance, despite doubts about the effectiveness of the implementation of international treaties, on the contrary, actualizes the solution of the problems of modern IHL, including those related to the turnover of landmine weapons.

1. Mine problem

The mine problem cannot be considered outside the context of the modern IHL, its crisis. G.P. Gesser called the most vulnerable point of IHL, its Achilles heel, too frequent violations of IHL, which are constantly reported by the media during armed conflicts taking place in the world ^{[6, p.53]}.

The US-inspired conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine has turned into an open armed confrontation, during which both sides, among other things, actively use landmine weapons. In this regard, the question arose about the practical significance of international agreements on restrictions and prohibitions on the use of these weapons, their effectiveness, and the ability of States parties to relevant international treaties to fulfill their obligations.

The final phase of the long-term genocide of the Palestinian population, blocked in the Gaza Strip, and the support of the Zionist regime in the UN also indicate the demonstrative disregard by the collective West and the regime supported by it of the elementary requirements of IHL.

However, despite the disappointment in the effectiveness of IHL in the context of periodically emerging armed conflicts, the overwhelming majority of researchers agree that there are no alternatives to the further development of IHL, humanitarian and legal regulation ^{[7, p.79]}.

At the same time, considering the international and non-international armed conflicts arising in the XXI century as a challenge, some researchers predict an increasing tendency towards non-compliance with IHL norms justified by certain higher values ^{[8, p.18]}.

It should be noted that the continuous rocket and bomb attacks on the Gaza Strip and the population trapped in it, as well as the specific reaction of Western countries and their satellites to this, fully confirmed this forecast. In such circumstances, it is fair to conclude that the main problem of IHL is unresolved – the problem of ensuring compliance with existing legal regulations, which devalues the introduction of any new rules ^{[8, p.26]}.Obstacles to the development of IHL are also persistently initiated for a long time, in order to replace real problems, global legislative initiatives that disavow the current legislation ^{[8, p.29]}.

Another study notes the need for adequate solutions both in IHL and international human rights law, as well as in international law in general, indicates the difficult tasks that IHL has faced, at the same time, the lack of initiative by any States to amend IHL. In fact, we are talking about the crisis of IHL, which is considered by the researcher as a temporary inability of IHL to cope with emerging problems, as well as evasion from making necessary decisions, which leads to a negative assessment by the author of the question of updating IHL, its fundamental basis. The latter, according to the author, can negatively affect the further development of IHL ^{[9, p.400]}. In this regard, it is noted, firstly, the fact of the continuous development of IHL, the absence of the need to revise its basic principles, secondly, the possibility of making the necessary changes through changes in customary international law, and thirdly, transformation into IHL while maintaining its foundations in the foreseeable future ^{[9, p.407]}.

Indeed, the crisis of IHL and the lack of the possibility of a positive transformation of IHL are associated with the dominance of the collective West, which not only provokes local armed conflicts everywhere, but also ignores the right of war, the duty of the UN to adequately respond to obvious violations of IHL. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of IHL, the application of which implies the need for the consent of the parties to the conflict, excludes external interference in the conflict. At the same time, IHL is an integral part of international law, which, among other things, contains provisions on the possibility of using coercive measures that do not require the consent of the parties to the conflict ^{[10, pp.128-129]}. Humanitarian activities themselves are carried out regardless of the causes of the conflict, since they should not act as a political tool ^{[10, p.144]}.

Among the factors influencing compliance with IHL norms during an armed conflict, some researchers single out "material interest", "expectation of reciprocity", "mutual trust and respect", "public opinion", "criminalization as a deterrent", believing that their observance will allow achieving a political solution to any conflict ^{[11, p. 45]}. In addition, according to these researchers, minimizing the scale of the negative consequences of war, with the subsequent loss of meaning in open armed conflicts, is ensured through strict compliance by the belligerents with the provisions of international conventions, as well as cooperation with humanitarian organizations ^{[11, p.46]}. It seems to us that the main factor in ensuring compliance with IHL norms is that the parties to an armed conflict have a real opportunity to inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy. In this case, we are talking about damage that the parties to the armed conflict themselves define as unacceptable. In other words, the ability and determination to adequately respond to a military threat, to confront the enemy, is, as we believe, the main factor constraining the emergence of an armed conflict and, at the same time, a decisive factor in compliance with IHL norms, regardless of the scope of their application.

Another study notes that only conscientious compliance with current IHL norms can prevent many disagreements and potential humanitarian risks. This is indisputable. At the same time, at the same time, a significant drawback of the protocols to the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons is pointed out - the lack of a mechanism for monitoring compliance with the prohibitions established by them ^{[12, p.68]}. In such circumstances, it is assumed that the main guarantee of compliance with IHL norms is only the goodwill of the parties to the treaty, which is unacceptable when it comes to compliance with the law. Thus, since participation in the relevant treaties imposes an obligation on the participating States to provide for responsibility for war crimes, part 1 of Article 356 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation establishes responsibility for the use in armed conflict of means and methods prohibited by an international treaty of the Russian Federation, which is punishable by imprisonment for a term of ten to twenty years.

The actual mine problem is solved through humanitarian demining and the implementation of restrictions and prohibitions established by international treaties.

2. Humanitarian demining

The topic of humanitarian demining is widely represented in both foreign and domestic studies. So, in particular, the technical aspects of solving this problem were considered in F.'s research. Abujarad F. Ground penetrating radar signal processing for landmine detection: degree candidate of technical sciences: 00000 / Abujarad F.; [Place defense: Otto von Guericke University]. - Magdeburg, 2007. - 135 p. Retrieved from https://opendata.uni-halle.de/bitstream/1981185920/10797/1/fawabujarad.pdf ), O. V. Valetsky (Valetsky O.V. - The use of improvised explosive devices and methods of combating them. Analytical report, 2013. – M: ANO "CSOiP". - 57 p. URL: http://csef.ru/media/articles/4944/4944.pdf ), M. I. Goltsova ^[13], S. I. Ivashova ^[14], a team of authors consisting of A. I. Karev, V. G. Rayevsky, Yu. A. Konyaev, A. S. Rumyantsev, A.M. Averchenko and R. R. Ilyushenko ^[15], B. P. Maatheis ^[16].

In peacetime, the danger of mines causes a large number of casualties and injuries not only to civilians, but also to animals, especially in rural areas. The urgency of solving the problem of mine clearance is also due to the need to return mined territories to economic circulation, solving this problem entails the need for significant material costs and time. In 2012, the analytical report "Global mine danger of peacetime" was published, the authors of which analyzed the situation related to the presence in sixty countries of the world of large territories with mines installed on them, the possibility of solving problems related to the cleaning of territories from explosive objects and their disposal. The report noted that the crisis associated with the global mine danger is intensifying, since in modern military conflicts, despite the understanding of the accompanying threats, mines are massively used, the number of which is many times higher than the number of defused mines. It was also pointed out the need for due attention to the problems of the use of mine weapons, as well as the financial and technical participation of the world community in neutralizing the mine danger and proper control over the destruction of ammunition. In order to eliminate the mine danger everywhere, the authors of the report proposed to carry out work on the elimination of existing minefields; introduce novelties into international law providing for the complete elimination and prohibition of conventional weapons that do not have selective action; provide the necessary funding for R&D on the subject under consideration. At the same time, the main direction of solving the problem of mine danger, the authors of the report pointed out the work on creating alternative means of protecting important facilities that allow fulfilling the requirements of the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons, abandoning the use of mines without reducing the defense capability of the state (Bogdanovich V. Yu., Vorovich B. A., Timoshenko R. I. - Global peacetime mine danger. Analytical report, 2012. – M: ANO "CSOIP". 20 p. URL: https://www.csef.ru/storage/articles/2899/2899.pdf (date of application: 12.10.2023))

Louise Christopher believes that the only real control regime that fully complies with both legal and humanitarian norms is the complete and unconditional removal of landmines from the territory covered by the conflict. At the same time, with regard to ending the suffering associated with already installed landmines, the only solution to this problem is large-scale mine clearance. The latter requires long-term financial commitments from the international community ^{[17, p.22]}.

Thus, there is an objective need to solve the mine problem both through humanitarian demining and through regulatory regulation of the production, use and proliferation of mine weapons.

In a purely propagandistic style, the problem of humanitarian demining is considered in the electronic magazine of the US Department of State "US Foreign Policy" published in January 2004, in which materials on relevant topics are published under the general heading: "Protecting people's lives, restoring living conditions: the American program for the removal of landmines." It is obvious that the publications contained in this journal reflect the official point of view of the United States. This publication does not contain any later publications on the subject under consideration. The main content of the journal in question consists of thematic (mine action) articles and comments posted in it. The journal also includes country reports: "Afghanistan: a model of humanitarian demining" ^{[18, pp.28-30]}, "Cambodia: reducing the number of victims, returning land to productive use" ^{[18, pp.31-32]}, "Mozambique: restoration of communications and infrastructure" ^{[18, pp.33-34]}, prepared by an employee of the U.S. Department of State. The solution to the problem of the use of anti-personnel mines in Afghanistan is considered in the reports exclusively in the context of US assistance in overcoming the consequences of the indiscriminate use of mines and the contamination of territories with mines. The accusation of creating this problem against the Soviet Union, which was not directly named by the author, is obvious. At the same time, the invasion of US troops in Afghanistan, where they were from 2001 to 2021, as well as the consequences of this invasion, are the best response to the mentoring moralizing of speakers from government and near-government structures of the United States, ignoring the role of their country in exacerbating the mine problem.

The publication of the journal is preceded by a pretentious introduction by the US Secretary of State of that period, who, offering the issue of the magazine "US Foreign Policy" on mine clearance issues, stressed that it highlights "the rich American experience of cooperation, strengthening consensus and leadership in the international community in an effort to put an end to the mine tragedy ^{[18, p.2]}. The rationale for such categorically stated leadership of the United States requires clarification.

Thus, in the publication "US Humanitarian Demining Efforts: making the world safer" ^{[18, pp.6-9]}, the special representative of the US President and the Secretary of State for Mine Clearance, he is also the Assistant Secretary of State for Military and Political Affairs, rightly notes that "mine pollution" is a humanitarian disaster, which leads to poverty, despair and regional instability. At the same time, the content of this publication, summarized in thematic subsections - "The United States retains its leadership", "Efficiency assessment", "Expansion of the concept", "The key role of cooperation", "Public-private partnerships", "Prospects" - contains arguments about the exceptionally positive and dominant role of the United States in the process humanitarian demining, which is largely funded by the United States itself, programs. At the same time, the achievements of the United States include: - creating the basis "for a worldwide movement that has stirred up public opinion and mobilized significant financial resources to overcome the disasters caused by the indiscriminate use of mines with an unlimited duration"; - American programs working "in coordination with multinational and intergovernmental organizations, stimulating the creation of mine action capabilities on the ground so that mine-affected countries can independently implement their own programs"; - The participation of the United States in the Protocol on the Prohibition or Restriction of the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) of 1980, as amended on May 3, 1996 (Protocol II as amended) to the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons.

The above statements do not contain any specifics confirming the reality of the stated achievements of the United States in humanitarian demining. On the contrary, the reality is the huge "contribution" of the United States, in particular, to the mining of Cambodia: "Six million American mines continue to kill people in Cambodia, 40 people died this year as a result of explosions of ammunition left after the war," from 1979 to August 2022, explosions of landmines and explosive remnants of war claimed lives 19818 people, another 45186 people were injured or lost limbs, - it was reported on October 17, 2022 on the website "pattayapeople.ru " with reference to the report of the Cambodian Mine Action and Victim Assistance Office (URL: https://pattayapeople.ru/news/miny-v-kambodzhe-pattaya-thailand (date of application: 12.10.2023)). It was the United States that was the first in the world to massively use the aviation remote antipersonnel mining system. Millions of BLU43/B anti-personnel mines were dropped from US aircraft into Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam to stop the movement of people and goods along the "Ho Chi Minh Trail" ^[19].

Regarding the US participation in the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons (URL: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conv1980.shtml (date of circulation: 10/15/2023)), then it is one of the most important documents of international humanitarian law, the main international mechanism for the control of conventional weapons, including mine weapons. This Convention, together with its first three Protocols, was approved on October 10, 1980 at a conference convened in accordance with UN General Assembly resolutions 32/152 of December 19, 1977 and 33/70 of December 14, 1978, and opened for signature on April 10, 1981. The United States signed this Convention (with Protocols I, II, III attached to it) on April 8, 1981, and ratified it only on March 24, 1995, that is, fourteen years after its signing. The participation of the United States in this Convention, in itself, does not indicate the leadership of this state, its dominant role in the process of humanitarian demining. Moreover, participation in the Convention and its implementation are not the same thing. Meanwhile, the United States is not a state with a good reputation in international relations.

The statement about the leadership of the United States in humanitarian demining - the elimination of a humanitarian catastrophe on the territory of many countries in the form of "mine pollution" that accompanied armed conflicts - is accompanied by a categorical statement: "Almost all the mines defused under this program were manufactured and planted by foreign governments and regimes, some of which no longer exist, as well as by non-state structures, including guerrilla groups, civilians involved in strife, bandits and terrorists" ^{[18, p.6]}.

Meanwhile, arguments about the non-involvement of the United States itself in "mine pollution", as well as about their solving exclusively humanitarian tasks, have nothing to do with reality. The role of this "democratic and civilized" country in organizing the overwhelming number of local armed conflicts in various parts of the world, its direct participation in them, as well as in the emergence of the "global mine problem", are well known, they do not need proof. On February 23, 2023, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said at a briefing in Beijing: "The United States is the largest warmonger. In its more than 240-year history, the United States has not fought in just 16 years." He also stressed that after the end of World War II, the United States initiated about 80% of armed conflicts, tried to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, interfered in elections in at least 30 countries and tried to eliminate more than 50 foreign leaders (URL: https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/17126497 (date of request: 10/27/2023).

Colin King, in his commentary "Myths and reality of mine clearance", considering the problems of mine clearance, the realities of the mine threat in areas where hostilities were waged, a huge number of different mines and unexploded ordnance (LDC) remained, concludes that it is impossible to find a single universal solution in the absence of one universal problem ^{[18, pp.23-27]}. However, as it follows from publications in the media, advanced developments already exist that provide remote detection of mines, which significantly increases the effectiveness of mine clearance. In particular, a method of minefield reconnaissance, obtaining images of mines in the soil, using a multi-frequency ground penetrating radar (GPR) combined with a metal detector has been developed and tested. This method allows you to obtain images of mines in the soil in the range of the sensors of the mine detector. We are talking about a mine detector installation with remote control and scanning sensors, which can be used in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations ^[20]. Remote detection of minefields using the remote sensing method is the subject of a study of the same name by B. H. Maathuis ^[16]. In addition, it is necessary to note the program of the US Army for the detection of minefields from the air (WAAMD). We are talking about hyperspectral sensing, which, among other things, allows the identification of minefields: "The use of COMPASS and AHI hyperspectral sensors ensures reliable detection of both ground and buried minefields with a very low level of false positives" (Electro-optical MASINT. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electro-optical_MASINT&oldid=1186859375 (date of request: 10/27/2023)).

Thus, the main way to increase the effectiveness of humanitarian demining is to finance the development and production of advanced mine clearance systems and their intended use.

3. Restrictions and prohibitions on the circulation of landmine weapons

Similarly, the mine problem is solved by the establishment of prohibitions and restrictions on the turnover of mines, since mine clearance, by itself, does not solve this problem. When studying the problems related to the established restrictions and prohibitions on the circulation of landmine weapons, the main attention is naturally paid to the consideration of the provisions of the Convention on "Conventional" Weapons, Protocol II thereto (Protocol II as amended), as well as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Landmines and Their destruction (Ottawa Convention).

The researchers, commenting on the basic norms of international humanitarian law to be applied during military operations, emphasize the limitation of the parties to the conflict and military personnel in the right to choose methods and means of warfare. That is, a ban on the use of weapons and methods of warfare that can cause unnecessary damage and excessive suffering. At the same time, it is noted that this norm, the source of which is the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, is not only a norm of customary law, but is also reflected in the specific requirements of the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons ^{[4, p.34]}

Considering the issues of legal regulation of armed conflict, both international and non-international, almost all researchers pay attention to the requirement of Protocol II to the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons, on the inadmissibility of the use of mines against civilians and non-military facilities. In addition, with regard to non-international armed conflicts, some authors note the need for an investigation, with the involvement of international experts, for each identified fact of the use of prohibited weapons to identify the manufacturer of weapons, those responsible for their use. At the same time, special services and law enforcement agencies must, according to their competence, ensure the detection, prevention, and suppression of the illegal transportation of prohibited funds into the combat zone ^{[21, p.138]}.

Another study, based on the analysis of the legal consequences of the beginning and end of non-international armed conflicts, indicates the lack of a unified position on the scientific justification of possible participants in non-international armed conflicts, the legal consequences of the beginning and end of such a conflict, the main directions of their international and national legal regulation. At the same time, it is noted that the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons and its Protocols, in relation to the participating States, fully extend their effect to situations of non-international armed conflict. Accordingly, the parties to the conflict, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Convention, are obliged to comply with the prohibitions and restrictions of this Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto ^{[22, p.93]}.

It is noteworthy that the use by the parties to the armed conflict in the south-east of Ukraine of conventional weapons prohibited or restricted in use by the 1980 Convention and its annexed Protocols is a violation of the law of armed conflict with all the legal consequences that follow from it ^{[22, p.94]}.

An overview of the provisions of the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons and Protocols I-III to it is contained in F. Kalshoven's book "Limitations of Methods and Means of Warfare". Describing in detail the process of concluding a Convention on "inhumane" weapons, the author notes the UN's assistance to it, as well as the close relationship of this document with other treaties on humanitarian law ^{[23, p.196]}. With regard to Protocol II to the Convention, the author indicates that its main task is to minimize the danger of mine weapons to the civilian population, especially after the end of active hostilities ^{[23, p.203]}. In fact, the book contains an article-by-article commentary on all articles of Protocol II ^{[23, pp.203-207]}.

The content of Protocol II to the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons, the Ottawa Convention is also considered in the studies of J. Borri and V. M. Randin ^[24], C. Onwuatuegwu ^[25], A. N. Smirnova ^[26], D. Suzev and I. Novikov ^[27], J. H. McCall Jr. ^[28], R. D. Matthews ^[29], J. Matthews and Timothy L. H. McCormack ^[30], P. Herbie and A. R. Nuyten ^[31], other researchers. It seems reasonable to conclude that the authors consider it impossible in the foreseeable future to completely abandon the use of anti-personnel mines.

The existence of grounds for such a conclusion is obvious. First of all, we are talking about a significant excess of the number of newly arriving anti-personnel mines (more than two million pieces annually) over the defused ones (in recent decades, about 200-300 thousand annually) ^{[32, p.129]}. In addition, the Convention on "Inhumane Weapons" and its amended Protocol II contain strict restrictions on the use of anti-personnel mines and establish a ban on certain types of mines. Under such circumstances, in modern conditions, the Ottawa Convention is unacceptable for the Russian Federation, which establishes a ban on the use, accumulation, production and transfer of anti–personnel mines (APM), and as a result - their complete destruction. The position of the Russian Federation on the Ottawa Convention and Amended Protocol II is objectively conditioned by the large length of the state border of the Russian Federation. In addition, it is necessary to compensate for the disabling and elimination of APMs by other "alternative" types of weapons with similar combat effectiveness indicators and the possibility of industrial production. In this regard, a real solution to the problem of PMT is possible only when the world community makes and implements decisions that are mandatory for all to prevent the proliferation and accumulation of mine weapons, which, due to their specificity, pose a direct threat to civilians not involved in armed conflicts ^{[32, pp.130-133]}.

There is another equally radical way to radically solve the mine problem. This is the minimization of local wars, with the prospect of their complete prevention. In relation to the above, researchers have noted a sharp decrease in the role of mine weapons in large-scale wars, whereas in local wars small arms, artillery, armored vehicles and mines come to the fore. At the same time, mine weapons are of particular importance in local wars, given that their professional use is able to neutralize the superiority of the enemy in manpower and equipment ^{[33, p.253]}. This conclusion is fully confirmed by the armed conflict in Ukraine, during which both sides are using mine weapons on a large scale. Thus, for a real restriction and prohibition of the use of mine weapons, it is necessary to minimize as much as possible, and ideally, completely eliminate the possibility of the emergence and development of local armed conflicts.

As for preferences in choosing one of the two currently available options for the legal regulation of the mine problem: restrictions on the use of landmine weapons, coupled with appropriate prohibitions, or a complete ban on anti-personnel mines, it seems unjustified to consider the Ottawa Convention as a document that solves the mine problem more effectively than Protocol II.

Thus, rightly noting the fact that Amended Protocol II is a mine management system based on a set of complex technical solutions supported by norms that facilitate the effective implementation of this document, a number of researchers, at the same time, conclude that Amended Protocol II does not contain an effective solution to the humanitarian crisis, since it does not establish a complete prohibition on the use of mines. For this reason, there have been major changes in the policies of many States, which led to the adoption of the Ottawa Convention. On the other hand, for States that have not become parties to the latter, Amended Protocol II, which minimally regulates the use of all landmines, including anti-personnel mines, retains its importance as the most important document in this area ^{[34, pp.144-145]}.

For our part, we believe that Protocol II, as amended, has a slightly different subject of legal regulation than the Ottawa Convention, since the definitions of mine weapons in these two main documents do not completely coincide ^[35]. While sharing the point of view of the complementary nature of both documents ^{[29, p.214]}, at the same time, we believe that this characteristic implies the use of identical definitions of landmine weapons in them.

Predominantly overestimated assessments of the Ottawa Convention and its predecessor, together with non-governmental organizations of the countries of the collective West, the activities of the ICRC, known as the Ottawa Process, are contained in the works of K. Adachi ^[36], A. Bauer ^[37], P. Bongard ^[38], J. Borri and V. M. Randin ^[24], S. Brem and K. Rutherford ^[39], Y. Korobovsky ^[34], S. Kuri and V. L. Percy ^[40], I. S. Malakhov ^[41], S. Maslen and P. Herbie ^[42], R. J. Matthews and T. L. H. McCormack ^[30]. We believe that these are purely value judgments based on the opposition of the Ottawa Convention to the "ineffective" Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons and Protocol II thereto.

Thus, the Ottawa Convention is characterized as a unique example of an uncompromising and comprehensive approach to the problem of arms limitation, as the first binding agreement between States in the history of IHL, the subject of which is the complete prohibition and destruction of widespread deadly weapons of indiscriminate action capable of causing excessive damage and unnecessary suffering ^{[34, p.147]}.

It is also argued that before the Ottawa Convention, which provides for a complete ban on anti-personnel mines, law and military doctrines were guided by certain rules that broadcast "responsibility" for use ^{[41, p.130]}.

Finally, the Ottawa Convention is considered as the first document establishing a ban on an entire category of weapons, the conclusion of which was mainly due to humanitarian considerations, despite the fact that international legal regulation of the use of anti-personnel mines has not achieved its goals of protecting civilians from suffering. Only a complete ban on the use of anti-personnel mines can achieve these goals ^{[30, p.347]}  

Without sharing the above excellent assessments of the Ottawa Convention, we believe that there are grounds for critical consideration of both this document itself and the process preceding its adoption. A number of researchers negatively assess the ICRC, which, together with non-governmental organizations of the collective West, not only led the Ottawa process, but also made one of its driving forces the discrediting of the activities of the States parties to Protocol II to the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons to introduce amendments to this Protocol ^{[43, p.179]}.

The existing criticisms of the effectiveness of the Ottawa Treaty are also due to the specific example of Angola participating in it, the situation in which showed the existence of obvious discrepancies between the noble motives that led to the adoption of this treaty, its theoretical postulates and relevant law enforcement activities ^[44].

Kenneth Anderson also does not share the optimistic assessments of the Ottawa Process and the Ottawa Convention, since he considers them a manifestation of the development of global transnational elites, respectively, a detriment to truly democratic processes, and suggests this point of view for consideration as an alternative ^[45].

This conclusion is confirmed by the content of a number of publications by other authors. Thus, one of them considers the use of information and communication technologies to create a transnational network of activists of the Ottawa process ^[46]. Another publication specifically points to the role of the network structure in promoting the idea of a complete ban on anti-personnel mines ^[47]. Moreover, some studies claim the genius of the international campaign to ban landmines, as it brought together different politicians and created a space based on this idea that allows for the formation of cosmopolitan and humane social norms ^[48].

The inconsistency of the United States, which declared in 2014 its readiness to participate almost fully in the global mine ban, at the same time, the presence of exclusively verbal changes in their position on this issue, is evidenced by the content of A. Bauer's study. It also touches on the topic of searching for new technologies that allow the United States itself to abandon the use of certain types of weapons (anti-tank mines) in favor of other, alternative weapons ^[49].

In another study, the US refusal to join the Ottawa Treaty is considered as the worst manifestation of American exceptionalism ^{[50, p.228]}. Moreover, there is a direct accusation of the United States of violating IHL, ignoring its basic principles, due to the refusal to sign a Mine Ban Treaty ^[51].

The above indicates that there is a wide range of opinions on the assessment of Protocol II to the Convention on "Inhumane" Weapons and the Ottawa Convention. At the same time, the importance of both treaties for solving the mine problem, with some reservations, is practically not disputed by researchers, due to the lack of another alternative.

Conclusion

The conducted generalization and analysis showed the existence of a common basis for solving issues related to the mine problem, the problem of trafficking in landmine weapons. We are talking about both humanitarian demining, the effectiveness of which will significantly increase with the introduction of the latest developments already available and their improvement, and the further development of international legal regulation of the turnover of landmine weapons. At the same time, at present, the problem of humanitarian demining has not found a proper solution in international treaties regulating the turnover of landmine weapons. The complementary nature of these treaties also represents a promising topic for research, for consideration of which the unification of the currently used classification of landmine weapons is a prerequisite. The absence of such a system at present does not allow solving the problem of establishing uniform restrictions and prohibitions on the circulation of landmine weapons, and, accordingly, ensuring effective control over their compliance. Motivated proposals in this regard, which make it possible to demonstrate the not yet realized potential of legislation restricting the turnover of landmine weapons, can be formulated on the initiative of the Russian Federation, based on a generalization of the practice of fulfilling the requirements of the IHL Manual for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Thus, it is obvious that there are prospects both for improving the effectiveness of humanitarian demining and for the further development of the actual legal regulation of the turnover of landmine weapons. At the same time, a necessary condition for solving these and other issues in the field of international law in general and, in particular, international humanitarian law, is to fill in the real content of the provision of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which our country is the legal debtor of the USSR. The events following the liquidation of the USSR showed that, in another capacity, the Russian Federation is not a participant in international relations, equivalent to the collective West. The latter openly initiates local armed conflicts directed directly or indirectly against the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, minimizing local wars is a primary prerequisite for an effective solution to the mine problem. It is obvious that while maintaining the dominant role of the collective West, the latter will finally no longer need to take into account the interests, including in the field of IHL, of dependent states embedded in the global agenda. In addition, at present, in conditions of almost complete control by the collective West over the UN and its specialized agencies, which are independent international organizations, the role of international organizations at the regional level, not affiliated with the collective West, capable of solving topical issues at the regional level, including those related to international law, is increasing for the Russian Federation-legal regulation of the mine problem. It seems that it makes sense to consider the issue of concluding regional agreements on the initiative of the Russian Federation, including issues related to the turnover of mine weapons, on mutual non-use or restrictions on the use of landmine weapons. Regional activity of this kind, coupled with the potential of the States parties to the relevant agreements, can stimulate the UN to address similar issues at the level of this organization.