Abstract

Critics of the Ukrainian use of cluster munitions (CMs) fail to acknowledge several key details of the case: Ukraine’s lack of alternatives, use in own, already heavily mined territory, the existential threat the country is facing or the fact the less harmful class of CMs is being used in finite and pre-determined amounts as a stop-gap measure. Given these circumstances, standard arguments against CM use fail to convince. The case of Ukraine’s CM use also showcases several weaknesses of the contemporary prohibition-focused approach to weapons law, such as a failure to deliver alternatives, to acknowledge outlier cases and to be more aware of organizational biases that may affect NGOs and IGOs advocating for new bans and restrictions.