I was wondering if those conventions made an significant negative effect on the effectiveness for modern armies?
My reasoning is that the modern armies, especially the western ones, have an significant amount of "smart", high-tech weapons. I wonder if the effectiveness of those weapons outweigh the absence of the outlawed mines/munitions? Did the signatories just signed the treaty because at that time they assumed that no significant military conflict would emerge in foreseeable future? Or did they consider the now outlawed weapons to be not that necessary for their protection as they where superseded by newer weapon systems?