{
  "id": "96-362",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "96-362",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100581,
      "date": "1998-08-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:52:17.040941",
      "title": "Landmines: Background and Congressional Concerns",
      "summary": "The decade of the 1990s saw increasing awareness of the dangers to innocent civilians posed by\nthe\nindiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines (APL) in many conflict-torn countries. The\ndeployment of U.S. military forces to Bosnia as part of the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR),\nrefocused the attention of the Congress and citizenry on the dangers of APL. Prior to participation\nby the U.S. military in IFOR, the U.S. Congress had manifested a concern with the larger issue of\nAP landmine proliferation, through hearings and legislation.\n  The history of warfare evinces three uses of AP landmines. The first use is as a tactical weapon\nemployed to protect friendly forces from an enemy advance, or to canalize an enemy into fields of\nfire. AP landmines are also used in conjunction with antitank mines (AT mines). Second, landmines\nhave also been used as a weapon to intimidate and control populations. Use of landmines as a terror\nweapon is prevalent during irregular warfare. The third, consequential role of landmines in warfare\nis as an indefinite hazard to civilians. Landmines left in place after the termination of hostilities have\nserved as a hindrance to refugee resettlement, development, and peacekeeping operations.\n  The response of the United States Congress to landmine proliferation has been multifaceted. \nMoreover, to control the tactical role of landmines, the U.S. military is guided by law and doctrine. \nAdvances in the technology of mine warfare, such as remotely delivered or scatterable mines, have\nbeen accompanied by the development of self-destructing and self-deactivating capabilities. To\ncurtail the indiscriminate use of mines, the U.S. Congress has prohibited the export of AP mines by\nU.S. companies. Congress has reviewed Protocol II of The Convention on Prohibitions or\nRestrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons; an amended protocol remains before the\nSenate. Public Law 104-107 will ban U.S. use of APL in 1999 -- the Administration has asked for\nrepeal. Lastly, Congress has appropriated funds for demining training and other assistance to nations\nwith landmine problems, research and development of countermine technology, and grants for\ndemining equipment.\n  Current U.S. policy is eventually to ban the use of all APL worldwide. The Administration,\nhowever, wants to retain the use of dumb mines in Korea and the use of smart mines in potential\ncombat situations until alternative technologies are available. Advocates for more rapid action\nsupport joining the Ottawa Treaty, which was ready for signing in December 1997, immediately. \nThe Administration prefers the step-by-step approach traditionally adopted by the Conference on\nDisarmament in Geneva to gain more universal participation, but has set a goal of signing the Ottawa\nTreaty in 2006 if alternatives to APL are then available.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/96-362",
          "sha1": "1fd14e77c660f134086ff4fb9783d176de552613",
          "filename": "files/19980826_96-362_1fd14e77c660f134086ff4fb9783d176de552613.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19980826_96-362_1fd14e77c660f134086ff4fb9783d176de552613.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}