Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:41:58.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolving Arms Control Agenda: Implications of the Role of NGOS in Banning Antipersonnel Landmines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Kenneth R. Rutherford
Kenneth R. Rutherford
Affiliation:
Southwest Missouri State University
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the role NGOs have played in placing and controlling the landmineban issue on the international arms control agenda, which eventually changed state behavior toward landmines. It develops a framework for agenda setting to examine how and why NGOs were successful in this role. More importantly, the article also examines how NGOs were able to generate state action toward the support of the Ottawa Treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, which marked the first time a weapon in widespread use has been banned. The article makes two interrelated arguments. First, NGOs initiated the landmine ban by placing it on the international arms control agenda, which gained intense media and public attention for the cause. The NGOs accomplished their goal by utilizing cognitive attribution strategies to educate the public about the minimal military utility of landmines and the humanitarian problems they pose. Second, NGOs changed states’ perception toward the legality and use of landmines once the issue was on the agenda by highlighting the horrible effects and disproportionate consequences of landmine use, playing leadership games with influential individuals and states, and claiming that antiban states were using incoherent arguments. In comparison, NGOs have not been included in the agenda-setting processes of most other major arms control and disarmament treaties, which typically are negotiated at the behest of major powers. These arguments address the broader question of agency in world politics by showing potential conditions of how NGOs can instigate governments to address issues in a way that may culminate in international law.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , October 2000 , pp. 74 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of AntiPersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction, 1997. Unless noted, all references to landmines refer to antipersonnel landmines and not other forms of landmines, such as antitank mines, antivehicle mines, and sea mines.

2 Statement by Canadian Prime Minister Chretien at the signing conference for the Ottawa Convention, December 2,1997.

3 For further information on the unique features of the Ottawa Convention, see Rutherford, Ken, “The Hague and Ottawa Conventions: A Model for Future Weapon Ban Regimes?” Nonproliferation Review 6 (Spring—Summer 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 International Campaign to Ban Landmines, “Report on Activities: Review Conference on the Convention on Conventional Weapons,” Vienna, Austria (September 25-October 13,1995), 6.

5 International Campaign to Ban Landmines, http://www.icbl.org, April 30, 2000.

6 Price, Richard, “Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines,” International Organization 52 (Summer 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Maxwell A. Cameron, Robert J. Lawson, and Brian W. Tomlin, “To Walk without Fear,” and Williams, Jody and Goose, Stephen D., “The International Campaign to Ban Landmines,” in Cameron, , Lawson, , and Tomlin, , eds., To Walk without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

7 The campaign consists of over fourteen hundred arms-control, development, environmental, humanitarian, human rights, medical, and religious NGOs representing some ninety countries. Liz Bernstein, coordinator, ICBL, letter to Landmine Monitor 2000 researchers, October 1999.

8 Nelson, Paul J., “Deliberation, Leverage or Coercion? The World Bank, NGOs, and Global Environmental Politics,” Journal of Peace Research 34, no. 4 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Korey, William, NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:A Curious Grapevine (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Wapner, Paul, “Politics beyond the State: Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics,” World Politics 47 (April 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Humanitarian Demining Programs, 1998 Hidden Killers: The Global Landmine Crisis, September 1998, pp. 8–9,11.

10 Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy in International Politics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

11 Price (fn. 6).

12 Sikkink, Kathryn, “Transnational Politics, International Relations Theory, and Human Rights,” Political Science and Politics 31 (September 1998), 519CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Takeshita, Toshio, “Exploring the Media's Roles in Defining Reality: From Issue-Agenda Setting to Attribute—Agenda Setting,” in McCombs, Maxwell, Shaw, Donald L., and Weaver, David, eds., Communication and Democracy: Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory (London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997), 20Google Scholar.

14 Rutherford (fn. 3), 38–39, 45.

15 For an evaluation of the potential effectiveness of the Ottawa Treaty, see Richard Price, “Compliance with International Norms and the Mines Taboo,” in Cameron, Lawson, and Tomlin, eds. (fn. 6).

16 Cappella, Joseph N. and Kathleen Jamieson, Hall, Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar, Kerbel, Matthew Robert, Remote and Controlled: Media Politics in a Cynical Age (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1995)Google Scholar; McCombs, Shaw, and Weaver (fn. 13).

17 McCombs, Shaw, and Weaver (fn. 13).

18 Entman, R., Democracy without Citizens: Media and the Decay of American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar, quoted in Salma Ghanem, “Filling in the Tapestry: The Second Level of Agenda Setting,” in McCombs, Shaw, and Weaver (fn. 13), 6.

19 Ibid., 8.

20 D. Graber, Mass Media in American Politics, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press), quoted in Ghanem (fn. 18), 8.

21 J. McLeond, S. Sun, H. Chi, and Z. Pan, “Metaphor and the Media: What Shapes Public Understanding of the ‘War’ against Drugs” (Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Minneapolis, Minn., August 1990), quoted in Ghanem (fn. 18), 9.

22 This article does not address neoliberalism because the neoliberalists have very little to say about security. Specifically, neoliberal scholars argue that international regimes change state behavior in low political issues, such as economics and the environment. Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 49–109Google Scholar; Krasner, Stephen D., “Sovereignty, Regimes, and Human Rights,” in Rittberger, Völker, ed., Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

23 Statement made by Mark Gwozdecky, coordinator of the Mine Action Team in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, at the Ottawa Process Forum, Ottawa, Canada, on December 5,1997. Author's notes.

24 Croll, Mike, The History of Landmines (Barnsley, U.K.: Leo Cooper, 1998), x–xiGoogle Scholar.

25 U.S. Department of the Air Force, The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, pamphlet no. 110–31,1976, quoted in Lieutenant Colonel Carnahan, Burris M., “The Law of Land Mine Warfare: Protocol II to the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons,” Military Law Review 105 (Summer 1984), 73Google Scholar.

26 Ariane Sand-Trigo, ICRC Delegation to the UN, letter to the author, March 3,1997.

27 The Landmines Protocol is attached to the CCW as Protocol II and is officially known as the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices. The two other Protocols were Non-detectable Fragments (Protocol I) and Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III).The CCW Review held in Vienna in September 1996 adopted Protocol IV, which called for restrictions on the use of laser weapons, while the landmines protocol was amended at the third and final CCW review held in Geneva. The four protocols are regulated by the provisions of the Weapons Convention.

28 Arms Project of Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Rights, Human, Landmines: A Deadly Legacy (New York: Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, 1993), 9Google Scholar.

29 The U.S. State Department has estimated that Afghanistan, Angola, and Cambodia host the largest numbers of landmines in the world. U.S. Department of State, 1994 Hidden Killers: The Global Landmine Crisis, pub. no. 10225, December 1994,1.

30 1998 Hidden Killers (fn. 9) 9. In 1994 Hidden Killers the U.S. Department of State estimated that there were 80 to 110 landmines in sixty-four countries; 1994 Hidden Killers (fn. 29), v. U.S. Department of State, 1993 Hidden Killers: The Global Problem with Uncleared Landmines, July 1993,2.

31 1998 Hidden Killers (fn. 9), 8–9,11.

32 International Committee for the Red Cross, Landmines Must Be Stopped (Geneva: ICRC, 1998), 16Google Scholar. 1998 Hidden Killers (fn. 9), 1.

33 International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Landmine Monitor Report 1999: Towarda Mine-Free World (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1999), 3Google Scholar.

34 Chechnya: Olivia Ward, “Empire of Ruin: The Corrupt Russian Army Can't Think of Giving Up Its Mines,” New Internationalist (September 1997), 16–17; and Daniel Williams,” Brutal Retreat from Grozny Led to a Killing Field,” Washington Post, February 12, 2000, p. A1, A17. Dagestan: “Islamic Extremists in Dagestan Are Also Using Landmines,” ICBL press release, Geneva, September 13,1999; and “Russian Troops Clearing Dagestan Rebel-Planted Mines,” FBIS transcribed text, Moscow Inter-fax, no. LD2508105399, August 25, 1999. Georgia: In November 1999, Russian military forces dropped mines in northern Georgia hoping to block potential escape routes of Chechen militants, “Russians Drop Mines in Georgia,” Washington Post, November 18,1999, p. A36. Ethiopia: It should be noted that the Ethiopian defense forces claim not to have used anti-personnel landmines in the conflict. According to the ICBL, “there is no evidence to the contrary.” Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33), 147,196–97.

35 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan (UNOCHA), Mine Action Programme:Afghanistan (New York: United Nations, 1999), 10Google Scholar. Robert Eaton, Chris Horwood, and Norah Niland, Cambodia: The Development ofIndigenous Mine Action Capabilities, report to the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs (New York: United Nations, n.d.), 6.

36 1998 Hidden Killers (fn. 9), 58; Eaton, Horwood, and Niland (fn. 35), 38.

37 Carnahan (fn. 25), 74.

38 Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33), 14.

39 One is example is the United Kingdom's “Ranger” that “can fire 1296 mines in one minute.” Lt. Col. Sloan, C. E. E., Mine Warfare on Land, (Washington, D.C.: Brassey's Defense Publishers, 1986), 38Google Scholar. quoted in Roberts, Shawn and Williams, Jody, After the Guns Fall Silent: The Enduring Legacy of Landmines (Washington, D.C.: Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation 1995), 7Google Scholar. Another example would be the Italian SO-AT system that allows a helicopter to drop 2496 landmines. This is in contrast to minefield laying, which “only a few years ago … might have required up to eight hours work by a full company of troops.” Quoted in Carnahan (fn. 25), 79.

40 Ekberg, Peter J., “Remotely Delivered Land Mines and International Law,” Columbia Journal of TransnationalLaw 33, no. 1 (1995), 151Google Scholar; Carnahan (fn. 25), 74.

41 Ekberg (fn. 40), 153.

42 Michael Dobbs, “A War-Torn Reporter Reflects,” Washington Post, July 11,1999, Bl.

43 Ekberg (fn 40), 156.

44 Statement by Captain Michael Doubleday, U.S. Department of Defense, press regular briefing, August 19,1997.

45 Landmines:A Deadly Legacy (fn. 28). The “mixed mine” systems are one of the major obstacles to the United States signing the Ottawa Convention.

46 The majority of today's deployed landmines were laid by hand and not delivered aerially. Ekberg claims that remotely delivered landmines are significant contributors to “the landmine crisis.” Ekberg (fn. 40), 149.

47 United States Campaign to Ban Landmines, “When Is an Antipersonnel Landmine Not a Mine?—When It Is American,” press release, September 9,1997.

48 Waltz, Kenneth N., “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” in Betts, Richard K., ed., Conflict after the Cold War: Arguments on Causes of Peace (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994), 92–95Google Scholar.

49 Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979), 71Google Scholar.

50 Pre-1997 NATO states that signed the Ottawa Treaty were Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom; NATO states that did not sign were Turkey and the U.S. Ex-Warsaw Pact states that signed the treaty were Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia (both the Czech and Slovak Republics), Hungary, Poland, Romania; the only Ex-Warsaw Pact state that did not sign was Russia.

51 Willliams and Goose (fn. 6), 21.

52 Christopher S. Wren, “U.N.-Backed Drive to Restrict Land Mines Fails at Talks,” New York Times, October 13,1995.

53 The six NGOs were Handicap International (France), Human Rights Watch (United States), Medico International (Germany), Mines Advisory Group (United Kingdon), Physicians for Human Rights (United States), and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (United States) in Williams and Goose (fn. 6), 22.

54 Statement by Kenneth Anderson, director, Arms Project, Human Rights Watch, Global Landmine Crisis Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, May 13,1994.

55 Williams and Goose (fn. 9), 20–21.

56 Kingdon, John W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1984), 20–21Google Scholar, 96.

57 Gino Strada, “The Horror of Land Mines,” Scientific American (May 1996), 42. Most landmine victims are women and children. Donovan Webster, “One Leg, One Life at a Time,” New York Times Magazine, January 23,1994, p. 33.

58 Patrick M. Blagden, UN demining expert, estimates that there may be more than 200 million landmines. Blagden, , “Summary of United Nations Demining,” Symposium on Anti-personnel Mines (Geneva: ICRC, 1993), 117Google Scholar. 1993 Hidden Killers (fn. 30), 2.

59 Eric Stover and Dan Charles, “The Killing Minefields of Cambodia,” New Scientist, October 19, 1991, p. 27.

60 Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33), 405.

61 Blagden, Patrick, “The Use of Mines and the Impact of Technology,” in Cahill, Kevin M., ed., Clearing the Fields: Solutions to the Global Land Mines Crisis (New York: Basic Books and Council of Foreign Relations, 1995), 114–15Google Scholar.

62 Webster (fn. 57).

63 America's Defense Monitor, PBS-TV, Spring 1994.

64 Laurie H. Boulden, “A Mine Field, Statistically Speaking: The Dangers of Inflating the Problem,” Washington Post, February 8,1998, C2.

65 Croll (fn. 24), 131.

66 Christina Lamb, “Number of Land Mines Challenged: Report Calls U.N. Global Estimate of 110 Million Exaggerated,” Washington Times, November 30,1998, A1.

67 ICRC, Anti-personnel Landmines Friend or Foe? A Study of the Military Use and Effectiveness of Anti-Personnel Mines (Geneva: ICRC, March 1996), 37Google Scholar.

68 Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33), 15.

69 Bernard Shaw, CNN's WorldNews Tonight, September 6,1999.

70 Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33), 3.

71 See Rutherford, Kenneth R., “Internet Activism: NGOs and the Mine Ban Treaty,” International Journal on Grey Literature 1, no. 3 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Croll (fn. 24), 151.

73 Ibid., 35.

74 Rautio, J. and Paavolainen, P., “Afghan War Wounded: Experience with 200 Cases” Journal of Trauma 28 (April 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Johnson, D., Crum, J., and Lumjiak, S., “Medical Consequences of the Various Weapons Systems Used in Combat in Thailand,” Military Medicine 146 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; quoted in Chris Giannou, and J.Jack Geiger, “The Medical Lessons of Land Mine Injuries,” in Cahill (fn. 61), 141.

75 Eshaya-Chauvin, B. and Coupland, R. M., “Transfusion Requirements for the Management of War Injured: The Experience of the International Committee of the Red Cross,” British Journal of Anesthesia 68 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted in Giannou and Geiger (fn. 74), 140.

76 For example, see Davies, Paul, War ofthe Mines: Cambodia, Landmines and the Impoverishment of a Nation (Boulder, Colo.: Pluto Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Roberts and Williams (fn. 39); Winslow, Phillip C., Sowing the Dragon's Teeth: Land Mines and the Global Legacy of War (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

77 For examples, see International Committee for the Red Cross, ICRC Overview 1998: Landmines Must Be Stopped; International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33); ICBL brochures.

78 Williams and Goose (fn. 6), 23.

79 McGrath, Rae, Landmines: Legacy of Conflict: A Manual for Development Workers (Oxford: Oxfam, 1994), 2Google Scholar.

80 Croll (fn. 24), 129.

81 1977 Additional Protocol 1, Geneva Convention, Article 51 (4), 1949.

82 Ekberg (fn. 40), 166.; “The Arms Project,” quoted in Roberts and Williams (fn. 39) 490–91.

83 Robert Sherman, “Banning Anti-Personnel Land Mines: The Ottawa Process and Beyond,” Disarmament: The Future of Disarmament, April 16,1997,106.

84 Croll (fn. 24), xi, 151.

85 NGO Committee on Disarmament, UN forums, April 10, September 23, and October 21–23, 1997 (Edited transcripts, 1998).

86 Croll (fn. 24), xi.

87 NGO Committee on Disarmament, (fn. 85).

88 Statement byJody Williams, Duke University Conference on Land Mines, May 1,1998. USCBL, “Statement of the United States Campaign to Ban Landmines Condemning Yugoslav Landmine Aggression in Kosovo,” April 15,1999.

89 Williams (fn. 88).

90 The Conference on Disarmament (CD) was created by the United Nations to negotiate arms-control agreements. The CD usually discusses weapons of mass destruction rather than conventional weapons, which is why the UN created the CD outside the auspices of the CCW.

91 Robert J. Lawson, Mark Gwozdecky, Jill Sinclair, and Ralph Lysyshyn, in Cameron, Lawson, and Tomlin, eds. (fn. 6), 165. For an explanation of the negative consequences of consensus-based negotiating for weapon issues, see Stephen D. Goose, “Antipersonnel Landmines and the Conference on Disarmament,” http://www.icbl.org, Home>Resources>Documents; Rutherford (fn. 3).

92 Philippe Naughton, “Landmine Pact to Go Ahead after Pakistan Backs Down,” Reuters, May 3, 1996.

93 ICRC (fn. 67).

94 Williams and Goose (fn. 6), 45.

95 Statement by Lloyd Axworthy, International Strategy Conference, “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines,” Ottawa, Canada, October 5,1996.

96 Susan Benesch, Glenn McGory, Christina Rodriguez, and Robert Sloane, “International Customary Law and Antipersonnel Landmines: Emergence of a New Customary Norm,” Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33), 1032.

97 Korey (fn. 8), 16.

98 Price (fn. 6), 627–31.

99 Williams and Goose (fn. 6), 23.

100 The U.S. demands were presented in a take-it-or-leave-it package and consisted of five interlocking components: exception for landmine use in Korea, deferral of the date when the treaty would enter in force, changes in the definition of an antipersonnel landmine, more intensive verification measures, and a withdrawal clause from the treaty in cases of national emergency.

101 Lineuvid Gollust, “Clinton/Canada/Landmines,” PKre ofAmerica, November 23,1997.

102 Schattschneider argues that the expansion of conflict signifies a healthy democracy because it allows for increased public participation, usually through “responsible leaders and organizations,” in the policy process. Schattschneider, , The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976), 142Google Scholar.

103 William S. Cohen, “Necessary and Right,” Washington Post, September 19,1997, p. A23.

104 Patrick Leahy, “The Global Landmine Crisis,” Subcommittee of the Committee of Appropriations, U.S. Senate, May 13,1994, 66–67.

105 “The Scourge of Landmines,” Vermont's U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, http://www.senate.gov/~leahy.

106 Leahy (fn. 104). The author provided testimony along with representatives from international NGOs, domestic interest groups, and the Department of State. The DOD declined Leahy's invitation to attend.

107 Senator Patrick Leahy letter to Handicap International encouraging the French government to call for a review of the landmines protocol to the CCW, January 18,1993. Handicap International, For the Banning of Massacres of Civilians in Time of Peace: Facts and Chronologies, 2d ed. (Lyon, France: Impression MEDCOM, June 1997)Google Scholar.

108 Patrick Leahy, “Seize the Moment,” ICBL Ban Treaty News, September 9, 1997, 1, quoted in Robert J. Lawson, Mark Gwozdecky, Jill Sinclair, and Ralph Lysyshyn, “The Ottawa Process,” in Cameron, Lawson, and Tomlin, eds. (fn. 6), 178.

109 Fred Barbash, “Royal Spin” Washington Post, February 14,1997, A23.

110 Robert Hardman, “Princess Calls for Greater Efforts to Clear Landmines,” Daily Telegraph, June 13,1997,10.

111 Tim Butcher, “Labour Bans Landmines from 2005,” Electronic Telegraph, May 22,1997.

112 Cameron, Lawson, and Tomlin (fn. 6), 172.

113 In addition to encouraging other African states to join the treaty, South Africa's position on banning landmines was significant for two other reasons. First, it was the major producer of arms, including landmines, in Africa, which is the most heavily mined continent in the world. Second, South Africa used mines extensively in neighboring states, helping the southern African region to become the most mined-infested region in the world.

114 Noel Stott, “The South African Campaign,” in Cameron, Lawson, and Tomlin, eds. (fn. 6), 68, 72, 74.

115 Joe Modise, interview with the author, Northern Cape Province, South Africa, May 21,1997.

116 Canadian Government of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “Canada in the World: Government Statement,” 1995, 48–49, quoted in Maxwell A. Cameron, “Democratization of Foreign Policy: The Ottawa Process as a Model,” in Cameron, Lawson, and Tomlin, eds. (fn. 6), 433; Valerie Warmington and Celina Tuttle, “The Canadian Campaign,” in Cameron, Lawson, and Tomlin, eds. (fn. 6), 49.

117 Warmington and Tuttle (fn. 116), 49.

118 Ibid., 51, 54.

119 Capella and Jamieson (fn. 16); Kerbel (fn. 16).

120 Williams and Goose (fn. 6), 31.

121 Richard Price and Daniel Hope, “Media Coverage of Landmines,” in Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33), 1048.

122 Nadelmann, Ethan, “Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society,” International Organization 44 (Autumn 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

123 “Ban of Use Land Mines in Favour or Against,” Gallup International Opinion Research, Spring 1996.

124 Mearsheimer, John, “The False Promise of Institutions,” in Brown, Michael E., Jones, Sean M. Lynn, and Miller, Steven, eds., The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995), 334Google Scholar.

125 Price implies the same. Price (fn. 6), 614.

126 Mearsheimer (fn. 124), 346–51.

127 Five major states did not sign the Ottawa Treaty for the following reasons—China: to prevent foreign military interference, to maintain national unity, and to protect the well-being of its people; India: to maintain security; Pakistan: to maintain security; Russia: to protect nuclear plants and borders; and U.S.: to preserve security in Korea and to maintain mixed landmine systems. The sources for each respective country are: China: “The Issue of Anti-Personnel Landmines,” China National Defense White Paper, Information Office of the States Council, Peoples Republic of China, July 27, 1998, quoted in Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33), 455; India: “India Calls for International Consensus on Banning Landmines,” Xinhua English Newswire, November 15, 1998; Pakistan: BBC Worldwide Monitoring Source, Radio Pakistan, external source, March 17, 1999; Russia: Timothy Heritage, “Russia Rebuffs Calls to Sign Landmine Treaty, Reuters, May 27,1998, and Michelle Kelemen, “Russia/Landmines,” Voice of America, May 27, 1998; U.S.: President Bill Clinton, letter to Marissa A. Vitagliano, acting coordinator, U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines, August 31,1998.

128 Waltz (fn. 49), 73, 94.

129 Ibid., 94–95.

130 Landmine Monitor Report 1999 (fn. 33), 5.

131 Five major states changed their landmine policies since the founding of the ICBL in 1991: China instituted a unilateral landmine export moratorium; India supports a ban on all landmine transfers; Pakistan carefully regulates landmine use; Russia instituted a unilateral landmine export moratorium; and the U.S. instituted a unilateral landmine export moratorium, put a cap on landmine stockpiles, and will cease to use landmines in 2006 if alternatives to APLs and mixed munitions are identified and fielded. The sources for each respective country are: China: China National Defense White Paper (fn. 127); India: Xinhua English Newswire (fn. 127); Pakistan: Radio Pakistan (fn. 127); Russia: “Yeltsin Affirms Support for Ban on Mines,” Reuters, October 29,1997; and U.S.: “Suspension of Transfers of Anti-Personnel Mines,” U.S. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, U.S. Federal Register, vol. 57 November 25,1992, p. 228, and Clinton to Vitagliano (fn. 127).

132 Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Lain and How We Use It (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 252CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

133 Article 8 of the Ottawa Convention addresses “facilitation and clarification of compliance,” but its verification provisions are minimal. Setting aside the arguments that Article 8 may actually entail verification provisions, this essay takes the ICBL point of view regarding the lack of verification in the convention. Jody Williams, “Talk to America,” Voice ofAmerica Radio Service, December 4,1998.

134 ibid.

135 Best, Geoffrey, War and Law since 1945 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 308Google Scholar.

136 Kingdon (fn. 56), 21.

137 Schattschneider argues that the expansion of conflict signals a healthy democracy because it allows for increased public participation, usually through “responsible leaders and organizations,” into the policy process. Schattschneider (fn. 102), 142.

138 While victims were the main framing issue in the Ottawa Landmine Treaty, for biological, nuclear, and chemical weapons, the central framing issues were repugnance, proliferation, and environmental threat, respectively. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, 1972, preamble; Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1968; Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Chemical Weapons: Basic Facts (The Hague: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons), 5; Ottawa Treaty (fn. 1), preamble.

139 Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (fn. 138), 2,5. The 1925 Geneva Protocol is officially known as the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.

140 There are currently three efforts by NGOS to ban nuclear weapons: (1) Abolition 2000: A Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons, c/o Waging Peace, www.napf.org/abohtion2000; (2) Middle Powers Initiative (MPI)—Fast track to Zero Nuclear Weapons, www.napf.org/mpi; and (3) IALANA—Nuclear Weapons: Dismantling by Law, www.ddh.nl/org/ialana.

141 Ottawa Convention (fn. 1), article 6, para. 3.

142 While the Ottawa Landmine Treaty contained provisions for victim assistance, arms control treaties for biological, nuclear, and chemical weapons did not.

143 Jerry White and Ken Rutherford, “The Role of the Landmine Survivors Network,” in Cameron, Lawson, andTomlin (fn. 6), 113.

144 U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, http://www.us-childsoldiers.org>U.S. Policy.

145 Wessells, Mike, “Child Soldiers,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 53 (November-December 1997), 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

146 Clegg, Liz, “NGOs Take Aim,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 55 (January-February 1999), 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.