A Ban for All Seasons

Abstract

The Ottawa ProcessOn 3-5 December 1997 in Ottawa, representatives from 122 countries signed a convention to eliminate the manufacture, use, and export of anti-personnel landmines. Witnessing them were the secretary-general of the United Nations, Canada's prime minister, delegates from some twenty other observer countries, and a host of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and humanitarian groups.As the number of signatories mounted to unprecedented levels, many other countries indicated that, even if they were not able to sign, they would honour the protocols set out in the convention. A new norm in international disarmament had emerged. In addition, the governments and organizations gathered in Ottawa made commitments of close to half a billion dollars U.S. towards implementing the convention in areas such as destruction of stockpiles, de-mining, and assistance to victims.The signature of the convention was the culmination of intensive campaigning by civil society and national governments. The campaign was exceptional in terms of process, speed, and final goals. A unique coalition of governments, civil society, and international groups worked closely together to bring the convention into being. Dialogue, lobbying, and outreach between governments and civil society on international issues are not new. In what became known as the Ottawa process, however, governments and civil society worked directly together as members of a team. That in itself is rare; the success of the approach in this instance was without parallel.Building on well-established previous efforts, it took only 14 months to go from the initial proposal for a convention banning antipersonnel mines outright to formal signature by 122 countries -- a number that far exceeded the most optimistic forecasts at the start of the process. Moreover, the convention was a first in the field of disarmament in that it banned a weapon in widespread, active use around the world. Thus it is a major step forward by the international community towards ending a severe, on-going humanitarian crisis. The goal of the convention is ultimately to eliminate a weapons system that every year kills or maims some 25,000 people, mainly civilians, and handicaps the economic and social development of many countries, primarily poor ones.(f.1)The International Context: Human Security, Soft Power, and Humanitarian LawThe convention stands on its own merits as a major accomplishment, but it also has broader significance. The Ottawa process clearly illustrates the changing nature of international politics, in terms of issues, relationships, and outcomes. In particular it reflects three major, related trends in international relations: the growing focus on human security; the growing importance of 'soft power'; and the growing need for a new framework of international humanitarian law. Thus it is worth examining the Ottawa process more closely, to draw out insights and lessons for determining future international behaviour.Traditionally, the focus within international security was on the nation-state. Foreign ministers worried about the security of national borders; the welfare of individual citizens was the purview of interior ministers. As borders become increasingly porous, however, and as cold war threats fade, international decision-makers find themselves called upon to deal with issues directly affecting the daily lives of individuals: crime, drugs, terrorism, pollution, human rights abuses, epidemics, and the like. The basic unit of analysis and concern has shrunk from the state to the community and even the individual. At the same time, to tackle effectively problems that ignore state boundaries, the field of action has expanded from the state to the region and even the globe.In response to these developments, the notion of 'human security' has emerged: the premise that security goals should be primarily formulated and achieved in terms of human, rather than state, needs. …