Table Of ContentLAW, CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
International Law, Politics and
Inhumane Weapons
The effectiveness of global landmine
regimes
Alan Bryden
International Law, Politics and
Inhumane Weapons
This book contributes to contemporary debates on the effectiveness of interna-
tional humanitarian law (IHL) in regulating or prohibiting inhumane weapons,
such as landmines.
Two treaties have emerged under IHL in response to the humanitarian
scourge of landmines. However, despite a considerable body of related literature,
clear understandings have not been established on the effectiveness of these
international legal frameworks in meeting the challenges that prompted their
creation.
This book seeks to address this lacuna. An analytical framework grounded in
regime theory helps move beyond the limitations in the current literature through
a structured focus on principles, norms, rules, procedures, actors and issue areas.
On the one hand, this clarifies how political considerations determine opportun-
ities and constraints in designing and implementing IHL regimes. On the other,
it enables us to explore how, and why, ‘ideal’ policy prescriptions are threatened
when faced with complex challenges in post-c onflict contexts.
This book will be of much interest to students of international humanitarian
law, global governance, human security and International Relations in general.
Alan Bryden is Deputy Head of Research, Geneva Centre for the Democratic
Control of Armed Forces (DCAF ), and has a Phd in International Relations from
the University of Bradford, UK.
Law, Conflict and International Relations
Series Editors:
Chandra Lekha Sriram
SOAS
Julie Mertus
American University
Karin Aggestam
University of Lund
and
Lorraine Elliott
Australian National University
This series will bring together cutting-e dge, interdisciplinary scholarship on law,
conflict, and international politics, encompassing the fields of international crim-
inal law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law, law
relating to the use of force, and conflict prevention, resolution, peacemaking, and
peacebuilding, and resort to the use of force.
International Law, Politics and Inhumane Weapons
The effectiveness of global landmine regimes
Alan Bryden
International Law, Politics and
Inhumane Weapons
The effectiveness of global landmine
regimes
Alan Bryden
First published 2013
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2013 Alan Bryden
The right of Alan Bryden to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging- in-Publication Data
Bryden, Alan.
International law, politics, and inhumane weapons: the effectiveness of
global landmine regimes/Alan Bryden.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Land mines (International law) 2. Mines (Military explosives)
(International law). 3. Humanitarian law. I. Title.
KZ5645.B79 2013
341.7′3–dc23 2012010832
ISBN: 978-0-415-62205-9 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-09680-2 (ebk)
Typeset in Times
by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear
Contents
List of tables vi
Preface vii
Acknowledgements x
List of abbreviations xi
1 The design, implementation and effectiveness of global
landmine regimes 1
2 Regimes prohibiting the use in war of poison gas and dum
dum bullets 17
3 The emergence of the landmine regimes 41
4 Implementing the landmine regimes 64
5 Humanitarian demining 87
6 Stockpile destruction 106
7 The effectiveness of global landmine regimes 123
Notes 139
Bibliography 158
Index 170
Tables
3.1 Alignment of states within the CDDH 42
3.2 US negotiating red lines in Oslo 46
3.3 Key features of APII and the mine ban treaty 47
4.1 Landmine regime implementation mechanisms 67
Preface
‘Bloody NGOs’ was a fairly common expression when I was desk officer for
international humanitarian law (IHL) at the Ministry of Defence. It was 1998
and my personal gripe was that the targeted letter-w riting campaign to the
Defence Secretary had not abated with the UK signature of the mine ban treaty.
As a consequence, on top of providing policy advice on IHL, I was required to
draft Ministerial responses to literally hundreds of letters from concerned
members of the public. Frustratingly, ‘cut and paste’ was not an option since
they were all slightly differently worded and asked hard (i.e. politically sensi-
tive) questions on the scope and meaning of UK commitments relating to land-
mines. The more difficult ones somehow found their way into Parliamentary
Questions, which had to be even more carefully answered. In short, from a very
humble position I was on the receiving end of an extremely well- organized and
well- informed advocacy campaign.
Beyond my own travails, there was wider unease around Whitehall. Within
defence circles there was a feeling that having been involved in lengthy negoti-
ations about regulation, the UK had suddenly been railroaded through pressure
from non- governmental organizations (NGOs) into banning anti- personnel
mines. Among concerned diplomats there was a less vocal, but no less real,
sense that this was not business as usual. Most uncomfortably, in supporting the
landmine ban as well as the creation of an International Criminal Court, the UK
had within a relatively short period taken the highly unusual step of going
against the Americans on two major security policy issues. Again, a large part
of the blame seemed to reside with an NGO coalition that did not play by the
accepted rules of the game – co-o pting states and naming and shaming those
out of step with the movement were two particularly unsporting practices
adopted by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). This sense
of ‘them and us’ was only reinforced by the substance, tone (and effectiveness)
of interventions by ICBL representatives at any number of conferences and
workshops.
In 2000 I was seconded to the Department for International Development to
help manage the portfolio of UK- supported projects conducted by the recently
created Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. This was my
first real exposure to the mine action community. During two years at the centre,
viii Preface
I worked with a wide range of professionals involved in establishing and running
mine action programmes, or on specific activities from landmine awareness
training to the use of dogs or technology to detect landmines. At the same time,
Geneva was becoming the hub for implementation efforts under the mine ban
treaty. Yet there did not seem to be much of a connection between treaty imple-
menters and mine action experts. Cooperation was not pursued by either side.
One reason expressed by some within mine action was that the proliferation of
treaty-r elated meetings offered little more than a talking shop for advocacy
groups and well-m eaning diplomats rather than contributing meaningfully to
their work.
These very different work experiences in London and Geneva drove me to
consider, in more depth, efforts under IHL to regulate or prohibit landmines. The
stereotypes that different stakeholders assigned to each other felt unsatisfactory.
Beginning in late 2000, I went beyond my own experience to examine what had
been said and written about these treaties. This brought me to the conclusion that
simplistic views had resulted in simplistic assumptions: the Ottawa Process is
unique and unprecedented; a ‘ban’ renders regulation meaningless; actors central
to regime creation can make an equally important contribution to implementa-
tion. But the most striking assumption was the following: widespread adherence
to and observance of treaty provisions will generate mine action payoffs that
improve the lives of people living with landmines.
The issues involved, and the people with a stake in them, are too important
not to ask hard questions of the landmine treaties. This book certainly does not
claim to have all the answers, but it does try to move the debate forward in three
ways. First, it provides some historical context and perspective to IHL treaties
that remain relatively young and untried. Second, it looks beyond partisan lines
that seem particularly sharply drawn in this field: an analytical approach
grounded in regime theory unpacks treaty design, implementation and effective-
ness through a structured focus on principles, norms, rules, procedures and
issues. Finally, this book represents an attempt to build bridges between know-
ledge communities. It seeks to demonstrate that for the landmine regimes to be
effective, they need to engage with mine action expertise in the implementation
phase where ideal treaty provisions come face to face with complex realities in
challenging environments. At the same time, the mine action community needs
to open up and actively develop synergies with related fields.
Since the two landmine treaties were agreed, governments and civil society
actors have learned to partner in ways that advance common humanitarian,
security and development goals. In this respect, the Ottawa Process is rightly
regarded as having provided a truly catalyzing effect. Success in developing new
IHL obligations on cluster munitions is just one more recent example of the effi-
cacy of civil society-c ommitted state coalitions. Yet lessons from the landmines
experience should also provide a cautionary note moving forward. Once we look
beyond quantitative measures of success – numbers of states parties, weapons
destroyed etc. – the hard questions still need to be asked. Is the conduct of weak
or authoritarian governments being influenced? Are the roles of armed non- state
Preface ix
groups acknowledged and addressed? Can we demonstrate that international
treaty regimes tangibly improve the security of individuals and communities?
Answers to this kind of question make all the difference between implementa-
tion and effectiveness.
Alan Bryden
