Negotiating in the Ottawa process: The new multilateralism

Abstract

The Ottawa Process is inexplicable in the context of conventional international relations. The process was driven by a nexus of NGO and state ‐ a ‘bottom up’ process compared to the Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) process and process represented by the Conference on Disarmament (CD). The states pushing the ban campaign were, for the most part, traditional followers rather than global leaders. According to Dolan and Hunt, a more sober assessment of the multilateral negotiation process reveals somewhat more ambiguity than supporters of the so‐called “multilateral innovative process” acknowledge. This ambiguity reflects the schizophrenic nature of multilateralism in the contemporary era. The authors examine the multilateralism underpinning the Ottawa Process and how the negotiations competed with the parallel, existing CCW process and the anti‐personnel mine discussions in the CD, in the months prior to the Oslo Diplomatic Conference in September 1997. Since the Ottawa Process could not have happened under conventional international relations, the authors examine not only how it did happen, but also the nature of the negotiation process itself. “Old” and “new” diplomacy are both examined and applied to the land mine negotiations and to the larger Ottawa Process.