Advertisement

Legal and Political Analysis of Antipersonnel Landmines and Cluster Munitions Regimes

  • Nik HynekEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter tackles two humanitarian disarmament regimes and their related prohibition politics: the global prohibition regime banning antipersonnel landmines and the global prohibition regime that bans cluster munitions. It opens with a legally oriented analysis charting evolution from what could be considered a relationship between general regulatory qualities of international humanitarian law and lex specialis regulating “special aspects” of this general corpus, namely the areas of APLs and CMs (in CCW Protocol V as a part of ERW) towards more robust prohibition regimes established through the APL and CM Conventions. Subsequently, the universality and robustness of those regimes is put under microscope, including norm observance by those outside of the regimes. A set of similarities in typifications of security and legal reasoning is displayed, especially the emergence of human rights as an ethical force and its convergence with humanitarian law as displayed through a still widening scope of victim assistance.

Keywords

Prohibition regimes Humanitarianism Disarmament Landmines Cluster munitions NGOs Legal analysis 

References

  1. Borrie, J. (2009). Unacceptable Harm: A History of How the Treaty to Ban Cluster Munitions Was Won. New York and Geneva: United Nations Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Borrie, J. (2014). Humanitarian Reframing of Nuclear Weapons and the Logic of Ban. International Affairs, 90(3), 625–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breitegger, A. (2012). Cluster Munitions and International Law: Disarmament with a Human Face? New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, C., et al. (2014). Explaining the Advocacy Agenda: Insights from the Human Security Network. International Organization, 68(2), 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CCW Protocol. (1980). Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II), 1342 UNTS 168, adopted 10 October 1980 and entered into force 2 December 1983.Google Scholar
  6. CCW Protocol. (2003). Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V), adopted 28 November 2003, UN Doc. CCW/MSP/2003/2, entered into force 12 November 2006.Google Scholar
  7. Cluster Munition Coalition. (2016). Global Ban. http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/en-gb/the-treaty/global-ban.aspx. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  8. Convention. (1980). Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW), adopted 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 137, entered into force 2 December 1983.Google Scholar
  9. Convention. (1997). Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (APL Convention), adopted 18 September 1997, 2056 UNTS 211, entered into force 1 March 1999.Google Scholar
  10. Convention. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted 13 December 2006, G.A. Res. A/61/106, U.N. GAOR, 61st Sess., art. 1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/106 (2007) entered into force 3 May 2008.Google Scholar
  11. Convention. (2008). Convention on Cluster Munitions, adopted 30 May 2008, Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of a Convention on Cluster Munitions, CCM/77, entered into force 1 August 2010.Google Scholar
  12. Corsi, J. (2009). Towards Peace Through Legal Innovation: The Process and Promise of the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 22(1), 145–157.Google Scholar
  13. DFAIT, IDA Division. (1996). Canadian Action Plan to Reduce the Global Use of Land Mines. Internal Memo, Ottawa: DFAIT.Google Scholar
  14. Docherty, B. (2009). Breaking New Ground: The Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law. Human Rights Quarterly, 31(4), 943–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Docherty, B. (2010). Ending Civilian Suffering: The Purpose, Provisions, and Promise of Humanitarian Disarmament Law. Austrian Review of International and European Law, 15, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia, D. (2011). Disarmament Diplomacy and Human Security: Regimes, Norms and Moral Progress in International Relation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Garcia, D. (2015). Humanitarian Security Regimes. International Affairs, 91(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillespie, A. (2011). A History of the Laws of War: Volume 2: The Customs and Laws of War with Regards to Civilians in Times of Conflict. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Goldblat, J. (2002). Arms Control: The New Guide to Negotiations and Agreements. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Hayashi, M. (2012). The Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Clearance of Cluster Munition Remnants: Whose Responsibility and How to Ensure Effective Implementation. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 3(2), 322–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hudson, J. (2016, May 27). Exclusive: White House Blocks Transfer of Cluster Bombs to Saudi Arabia. Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/27/exclusive-white-house-blocks-transfer-of-cluster-bombs-to-saudi-arabia/. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  22. Human Rights Watch. (2014, October 3). United States Landmine Policy: Questions and Answers. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/03/united-states-landmine-policy-questions-and-answers. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  23. ICBL. (2012). Timeline of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. http://www.icbl.org/media/342067/icb009_chronology_a5_v4-pages.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  24. ICBL. (2014, April 8). Allegation of Russian Use of Landmines in Ukraine: ICBL Update. http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/news-and-events/news/2014/reports-of-russian-landmine-use-in-crimea-requires.aspx. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  25. ICBL. (2016a). Treaty Status. http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/the-treaty/treaty-status.aspx. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  26. ICBL. (2016b, March 1). The Mine Ban Treaty Turns 17. http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/news-and-events/news/2016/the-mine-ban-treaty-turns-17.aspx. Accessed 13 June 2016.
  27. ICRC. (2007, August 15). Overview of the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-personnel Mines. https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/legal-fact-sheet/landmines-factsheet-150807.htm. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  28. ICRC. (2016a). Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 CCW Convention). https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=22EFA0C23F4AAC69C1256E280052A81F&action=openDocument. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  29. ICRC. (2016b). Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 CCW Convention). https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=610. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  30. Kimball, D. (2012, November 4). Cluster Munitions at a Glance. Arms Control Association. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/clusterataglance. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  31. Kochin, I., & Jenzen-Jones, N. R. (2015, October 1). Russian PMN-4 Anti-personnel Landmines in Syria. Armament Research Services. http://armamentresearch.com/russian-pmn-4-anti-personnel-landmines-in-syria/. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  32. Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor. (2015). De Facto Monitoring Regime of the Mine Ban Treaty and Convention on Cluster Munitions. http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/home.aspx. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  33. Maresca, L. (2004). A New Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War: The History and Negotiation of Protocol V to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. International Review of the Red Cross, 86(856), 815–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maresca, L., & Maslen, S. (Eds.). (2009). The Banning of Anti-personnel Landmines: The Legal Contribution of the International Committee of the Red Cross, 1955–1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mathews, R. J. (2001). The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons: A Useful Framework Despite Earlier Disappointments. International Review of the Red Cross, 83(844), 991–1012.Google Scholar
  36. Nystuen, G., & Casey-Maslen, S. (Eds.). (2010). The Convention on Cluster Munitions: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Oslo Declaration. (2007, February 23). Final Declaration, Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions. Oslo: Norwegian Government. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/oslo-declaration-final-23-february-2007.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2016.
  38. Rutherford, K. R. (2011). Disarming States: The International Movement to Ban Landmines. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Short, N. (1999). The Role of NGOs in the Ottawa Process to Ban Landmines. International Negotiations, 4(3), 481–500.Google Scholar
  40. UN Statement. (2006, November 7). Secretary-General’s Message to the Third Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons [Delivered by Sergei Ordzhonikidze, Director-General, UN Office at Geneva]. http://www.un.org/sg/statements/?nid=2289.
  41. Williams, J. (2013). My Name Is Jody Williams: A Vermont Girl’s Winding Path to the Nobel Peace Prize. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wisotzki, S. (2013). Humanitarian Arms Control: The Anti-personnel Mine Ban Treaty, the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice (pp. 82–108). Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wurst, J. (1997, June 1). Closing in on a Landmine Ban: The Ottawa Process and U.S. Interests. Arms Control Association. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_06-07/wurst. Accessed June 13, 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Metropolitan University PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations