This paper explores the legal and ethical implications of state withdrawals from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC), particularly under claims of national security. As global security dynamics shift, some states are re-evaluating their adherence to disarmament treaties, raising concerns about the durability of humanitarian norms. Focusing on recent developments in Eastern Europe and NATO-aligned countries, the study argues that invoking national security to justify withdrawal lacks sufficient legal foundation and threatens to erode the integrity of international humanitarian law. Through analysis of Article 20 of the APMBC and related legal principles, it demonstrates that the treaty’s non-derogable humanitarian commitments cannot be overridden by strategic calculations. The paper warns that such withdrawals set dangerous precedents, weakening both normative and legal frameworks designed to protect civilians from indiscriminate weapons like landmines.