Norms, persuasion and practice: landmine monitor and civil society

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 09 December 2014, At: 03:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Third World QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctwq20

Norms, persuasion and practice: landminemonitor and civil societyKjell Erling Kjellman aa Kjell Erling Kjellman is in the Department of Sociology and HumanGeography at the University of Oslo, PO Box 1096 Blindern, NO-0317 Oslo,Norway. Email: [email protected] online: 03 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Kjell Erling Kjellman (2003) Norms, persuasion and practice: landmine monitor and civilsociety, Third World Quarterly, 24:5, 955-965, DOI: 10.1080/0143659032000132957

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0143659032000132957

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication arethe opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctwq20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0143659032000132957

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0143659032000132957

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ISSN 0143-6597 print/ISSN 1360-2241 online/03/050955-11 � 2003 Third World QuarterlyDOI: 10.1080/0143659032000132957 955

Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, No 5, pp 955–965, 2003

Landmine Monitor Report: Toward a Mine-Free WorldInternational Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)Human Rights Watch, 2002pp 922, available free of charge

Landmine Monitor Report: Toward a Mine-Free World ICBL

Human Rights Watch, 2001pp 1175, available free of charge





This article reviews the first four editions of the annual Landmine Monitor Report andexamines its role as a civil society-initiated tool for monitoring the implementation of the1997 Mine Ban Treaty.1 The passage of the Mine Ban Treaty has been hailed as one ofthe most momentous events in the annals of humanitarian assistance. The signing of theOttawa Treaty in December 1997 was the culmination of a process that was—andcontinues to be—unprecedented in many ways. Mobilising a unique partnership of civilsociety actors and governments, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)was instrumental in helping to establish the concept of human security—recastingsecurity in humanitarian rather than purely military terms—and in providing a legal andnormative framework for the eradication of anti-personnel landmines. The passage of the

FEATURE REVIEW

Norms, persuasion and practice:Landmine Monitor and civil society

KJELL ERLING KJELLMAN

Kjell Erling Kjellman is in the Department of Sociology and Human Geography at the University of Oslo,PO Box 1096 Blindern, NO-0317 Oslo, Norway. Email: [email protected].

BO

OK

S

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

FEATURE REVIEW

Mine Ban Treaty, however, represented merely one of the many challenges facing theglobal campaign to ban landmines. Following the signing of the treaty, one of theremaining dilemmas was to facilitate its successful implementation and ensure that stateswere in compliance with the terms of the treaty. In order to continue in the spirit of co-operation that had characterised the campaign, it was seen as crucial that one of themonitoring tools be based in civil society in order to hold governments accountable. Theannual Landmine Monitor, a comprehensive overview of mine-related activities invirtually all the nations of the world, has become that tool. Intended as a supplement tothe self-reporting of states parties, Landmine Monitor is currently the foremost source-book on the current global landmine situation for both governments and civil societyactors. Through an examination of the four current editions (1999–2002), this articleseeks to provide a review and assessment of Landmine Monitor, and to explore theimplications of such a publication for civil society-based initiatives in monitoring inter-national agreements.

In principle, the ICBL could have pursued a number of basic approaches to helpfacilitate monitoring the treaty’s implementation. The campaign could have opted for aframework that offered the possibility of formal sanctions against non-compliance, butthat would have been potentially unwieldy, complex and ultimately ineffective.Alternatively, it was also possible to devise a system that hinged on a set of informalmechanisms, such as the commitment by states parties to the normative assumptions onwhich the treaty is founded, but without the possibility of punishing parties in violation ofthe treaty. Significantly, the organisations comprising the ICBL made a conscious anddeliberate decision to adopt the latter approach.2 In keeping with the campaign’s frame-work of mutual trust and co-operation, the approach adopted contains no possibility ofimposing formal sanctions, has no real institutional framework to back it up and would inthis sense appear to be open to transgressions by parties that do not wish to comply.Aside from the contention that even states are subject to prevailing social norms, there islittle to compel states to comply with the treaty.3 And yet it is an approach that, by allaccounts, appears to be working. From the perspective of understanding the role of inter-national civil society actors in monitoring agreements and treaties, this framework raisesa number of fairly basic questions: What role has Landmine Monitor played in pushingstates to comply with the provisions of the treaty? Aside from issues directly related tothe implementation of the treaty, what role can be envisioned for an international civilsociety in a similar context in the future? What are the potentials and limitations of suchan approach?

Such considerations are important given the increasing significance of civil societyactors in international relations. In the wake of the various debates and discussionssurrounding increasing globalisation, one of the key concepts to emerge has been that ofinternational civil society, capturing the idea of an imagined community attempting toalter and shape some aspect of collective life.4 In the context of landmines, this is notablyimportant given the vital role played by international NGOs in mobilising support for theOttawa Process, an effort that underscored the potential inherent in a developed inter-national civil society.5 A central argument to be pursued in this review is that the viabilityof Landmine Monitor as a monitoring mechanism has been, at least in part, a product ofthe campaign’s positioning in a broader context of normative discourse that hasquestioned the legitimacy of landmines as a weapon of war. Through informationgathering and dissemination, Landmine Monitor has been able to draw on existing norms

956

KJELLMAN pages 13/10/03 1:15 pm Page 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

LANDMINE MONITOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY

and moral arguments that even states have been sensitised to, cementing the normativeunderpinnings upon which the treaty is founded in the view of states and the generalpublic alike. The article reviews this process, highlighting the distinction between thenorms-based approach to monitoring employed by the ICBL and that of sanctions-basedapproaches. The article concludes by offering some observations on the implications ofthis approach for the concept of international civil society, and its potential applicationsin other contexts.

What is Landmine Monitor?

One of the defining characteristics of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines hasbeen its ability to innovate. In order to make sure that the basic tenets of the Mine BanTreaty would be fulfilled, the ICBL recognised the necessity of a continued partnershipbetween civil society and governments, and thus the idea of Landmine Monitor wasconceived. Landmine Monitor came into being as a response to the realisation that theimplementation and monitoring of the treaty would require a multifaceted approach.Following a series of meetings, the ICBL established the annual Landmine Monitor Reportin June 1998 in Oslo. From a practical standpoint, one of the main challenges facing thecampaign was that it would be difficult—if not impossible—to devise a monitoringsystem based on the premise of punishing states that violated the terms of the treaty. Sucha system would not only be impractical and ineffective but also, from an idealisticperspective, it would be fraught with rules and regulations and undergirded by powerarrangements that would violate the very spirit of co-operation that brought the treatyabout in the first place. The solution agreed upon in Oslo was one that would draw uponthe ICBL’s already established position and network to issue an annual report on theprogress and challenges facing the Mine Ban Treaty. A core group consisting of HumanRights Watch, Handicap International-Belgium, Kenya Coalition Against Landmines,Mines Action Canada and Norwegian People’s Aid was set up to co-ordinate the threemain components of the Landmine Monitor system: a global reporting network, a centraldatabase and the annual publication Landmine Monitor. The guiding premise was thatLandmine Monitor should function as a supplement to self-reporting by states partiesthrough the collection, analysis and distribution of publicly available information. In thissense, Landmine Monitor is but one part of a multi-pronged effort, constituting a civilsociety-based initiative that relies on mutual collaboration and trust. Currently, theLandmine Monitor effort draws on a loosely structured network of some 115 researcherslocated in 90 countries, most of whom are affiliated with the ICBL and Landmine Monitoron an informal or ad hoc basis. What is significant about Landmine Monitor is that it isneither a technical verification system nor a formal inspection mechanism; rather, it is acivil society initiative designed to hold governments accountable and responsible.

Each annual edition of Landmine Monitor contains an overview of the basic tenets ofthe 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, including details of the countries that have or have not signedand ratified it, reporting procedures by states parties, areas of special concern and generalrecent developments. It is in this opening section of the Monitor that the reader ispresented with relatively up-to-date information, including both positive and negativepatterns and trends. The bulk of Landmine Monitor is structured in terms of states thathave both signed and ratified the treaty, those that have signed but not ratified, and non-signatories. For each country, there is a presentation of relevant aspects of mine action,

957


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

FEATURE REVIEW

such as the scope of the mine problem and mine clearance (where relevant), an overviewof mine action funding, and pertinent information on stockpile reduction, production andtransfer. Also included are details of numbers of victims from landmine accidents and ofvictim-assistance programmes.

At the time it was established, the initiative was unprecedented. Although informalmonitoring efforts have been used by international civil society in other contexts (egenvironmental agreements), the Landmine Monitor effort was in fact the first time thatnon-governmental organisations had come together in a concerted effort to monitor theimplementation of a humanitarian treaty or disarmament agreement, and systematically todocument its progress.6 This process, however, has not been without its difficulties. Oneof the central issues confronting the Landmine Monitor effort has been the transition froman activist network to that of a research-oriented network. The political activism thatdrove the campaign from its early beginnings is not necessarily compatible with theresearch and documentation demanded by a monitoring effort, and many activists havefound themselves cast in the role of professional researchers. In recognition of this newchallenge, one of the key changes within Landmine Monitor has been a conscious shiftfrom a network of advocates towards a network of in-country researchers. Nevertheless,the research network currently in place is still largely based on the activist network thatpredates the advent of Landmine Monitor. The inherent tension between politicalactivism and professional research has meant that the quality of information contained inLandmine Monitor varies somewhat, as the publication itself admits. The implications ofthis shift will be addressed below.

Assessing Landmine Monitor

One of the central questions arising from a discussion of Landmine Monitor concerns theefficacy of the publication in facilitating compliance with the treaty. Given that LandmineMonitor is only one of a number of mechanisms designed to facilitate the implementationprocess, it is difficult to make a clear pronouncement on this matter. In the context ofmonitoring, Landmine Monitor is just one part of a broader effort aimed at facilitating theterms of the treaty. States parties, states parties’ meetings and the Intersessional workingprogramme are the formal mechanisms for reporting on and ensuring implementation ofthe treaty. Landmine Monitor functions as an objective, supplementary civil society-based initiative for reporting on the progress of states parties, since civil society has avested interest in the ability and capacity of states parties to comply with the treaty. Anyassessment must thus be made with the understanding that the role of Landmine Monitoris difficult to separate from the broader process of which it is part and parcel. Combinedwith the fact that implementation of the treaty is bound to be uneven and complicateddepending on the country in question, this makes any discussion regarding the role andefficacy of Landmine Monitor difficult.

However, given that Landmine Monitor is currently in its fourth edition, and thusprovides the advantage of a five-year perspective, it is possible to make a few generalclaims as to how the overall monitoring process has worked. Since 1999 significantnumbers of new countries have joined the treaty, although the pace has slowed somewhatin recent years. In 2000 there were 19 new member nations; in 2001, the figure was 13;and in 2002, there were only three new members. However, this decline in new membersfor each year is fairly logical. Not only are there fewer and fewer non-states members,

958


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


but many of those that have not joined the treaty are difficult countries to get on board.Figures on the use, production and trade of landmines and numbers of new victims fromlandmine accidents are all down, while figures on stockpile destruction, mines lifted andsupport for the treaty are all up. One of the key findings in the 2002 report is that thenumber of states and non-state actors using landmines has gone down.7 Furthermore, ofthe countries that have ceased using landmines over the past few years, none has resumedtheir use.

While such facts and figures provide an indication of the efficacy of the entire process,it is also possible to assess Landmine Monitor in terms of its status as the definitivesource of information on the landmine situation today.8 Landmine Monitor has becomethe most widely accepted work on landmines, serving as a point of reference for virtuallyall states that have joined the treaty. As the instrument set up by the foremost advocatefor the eradication of landmines—the ICBL—it is somewhat logical that LandmineMonitor should also come to be seen as one of the most legitimate sources of informationon the landmine situation. It has been a force in pushing central actors within mine actionto act, including various non-governmental organisations and governments, and it worksto keep governments accountable to their commitment to eradicate anti-personnel mines.Aside from gaining legitimacy by virtue of being the official statement on landmines bythe ICBL, Landmine Monitor has also increased in stature as a result of its wide distribu-tion. Its printed editions are available at no cost and are distributed to governmentofficials and policy makers. In addition, the entire contents of Landmine Monitor areavailable online, thereby further increasing its availability—and consequently itspotential for influence.

The efficacy of such a system, however, is highly dependent on the quality of informa-tion and the ability to disseminate such information in a comprehensive and cohesivemanner. This, however, has also been one of the weaknesses of Landmine Monitor as apublication. Even by its own admission, there are gaps in the data presented, and caseswhere the presentation of information is unclear or lacking. In part this is a result ofdifficulties resulting from discrepancies in the availability of reliable information fromcountry to country. The relative shortcomings contained in individual country presenta-tions are also a reflection of the reliance on a comparatively inexperienced research staffand variations in the qualifications of researchers in different countries. To its creditLandmine Monitor has acknowledged these weaknesses, and the view taken is that theinitiative should be seen as a work in progress rather than a finalised system. Conse-quently, Landmine Monitor has undergone a number of transformations throughout itsfour editions. Initially there was some scepticism as to its viability, even within the ICBL.9

Among the central questions raised regarding the project were concern over the lack ofseasoned researchers within the ICBL network, the magnitude of the challenge such anendeavour would entail and whether or not it would be possible to mobilise the energythe project would demand. As noted in the previous section, Landmine Monitor has mademoves to strengthen its research network, a strategy that has paid dividends in terms ofquality of data and improved country-by-country reporting over the course of the foureditions. Although it is difficult to make any general claims, when comparing the 1999edition and the most recent one (2002) an increasing degree of professionalism in thebasic country presentations can be discerned as a general trend. Not only is the readerprovided with greater detail on the landmine situation in each country, but the structure ofindividual country overviews is improved, as is the quality of the writing. Compared to

959


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

FEATURE REVIEW

its three predecessors, the 2002 edition may be said to contain the most solid data andpresentation yet. If Landmine Monitor is to continue to be viable as a monitoring tool,persisting with such steps is of paramount importance.

The overriding issue in any discussion of Landmine Monitor is not necessarily whetheror not it can be declared a success or failure: the nature of the landmine issue—with itsinherent political and practical considerations—essentially precludes such definitiveassessments. States, even those that have joined the treaty, may well choose to violate itsprovisions if and when they perceive their national security to be at risk—an issue thatwill be returned to later. Moreover, since Landmine Monitor is but one tool in a broadereffort aimed at eradicating anti-personnel mines, it is difficult to isolate its independentcontribution. Nevertheless, on the aggregate level, there is much that suggests that statesare indeed complying with the treaty, even if there are occasional transgressions;Landmine Monitor has been able to position itself as the foremost authority on thelandmine issue; and states that are not already members see it as worthwhile to becomestates parties. Although it would obviously be difficult to attribute all these developmentsdirectly to Landmine Monitor, it is reasonable to assume that, as a monitoring tool,Landmine Monitor has contributed to the progress made in this area. This, then, calls fora broader examination of why such an approach might work, the underlying premise onwhich it is founded and the potential for similar civil society-based initiatives.

Sanctions and normative approaches to monitoring

In a very general sense, approaches to the monitoring of international agreements andtreaties may be said to fall into two broad categories: approaches governed by formalrules and the possibility of sanctions, and informal mechanisms based on prevailingsocial norms. Approaches based on sanctions are advantageous in that they are backed upby a legal framework that allows for the possibility of punishing those who are not incompliance with an agreement. This is a means of enforcement that, when utilised to itsfullest extent, constitutes a potentially powerful and effective means of enforcingcompliance. Unfortunately, though, such solutions are also frequently difficult tointerpret from a legal standpoint, cumbersome to implement and costly to enforce.Norms, on the other hand, offer no formal guarantees or possibilities of enforcement.Beyond shame or social ostracism, there is little that compels actors to comply withagreements. In this sense, norms are obviously far more tenuous than sanctions-basedapproaches, given that they contain no possibility for punishing non-compliers.

Yet, in the case of the Mine Ban Treaty, it is this seemingly fallible norms-basedapproach that appears to have worked. Why, then, can norms constitute such a powerfulmeans of ensuring compliance? Here, it is useful to examine the analysis of Jon Elster,who differentiates between three types of norm-guided action:10 First, actors may choosemere compliance with a norm. That is, actors will choose to comply with a norm in orderto avoid paying a penalty. Penalties can range from the possibility of formal sanctions tosocial ostracism. In the case of compliance, the behaviour is adopted not because there isa sense that the norm is somehow morally just, but because the actor wishes to avoid thepossibility of social sanctions. Second, and somewhat differently, identification with anorm comes as a result of the value of that norm having been emphasised by others. Inother words, one adheres to the norm because its intrinsic value has been highlighted byothers. As with compliance, identification does not necessarily result from the view that

960


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


the norm is ‘right’ on its own. Third, and finally, internalisation implies an adherence tothe norm because one has come to believe that the norm is morally right or just. When anorm is internalised, there is no calculation as to outcomes. The internalisation of a normis somewhat utopian in that actors are guided by a moral imperative. Not surprisingly,James Coleman argues that the most effective way in which to influence an action is bythe internalisation of a norm by an actor.11

In his analysis of the campaign to ban landmines, Richard Price contends that the MineBan Treaty came about precisely because states are not impervious to norms.12 Indeed,Price argues that a relatively underpowered international civil society was able tocombine information, persuasion and the potential for shame in order to persuade statesto support the ban. The campaign was able to draw on existing norms regarding thelegitimacy of certain weapons of war, grafting a new norm regarding landmines through aprocess of active persuasion. Crucially, the establishment of new norms is far moresuccessful when they resonate with already established norms. Beginning in the late1980s, and particularly by the early 1990s, there was already a considerable effort underway by international and domestic NGOs to focus on the effects of landmines on civilians,and serious questions as to the legitimacy of landmines as weapons of war were beingraised.13 A driving component of the process to ban landmines was the pressuring ofstates by demanding that they publicly justify their positions on the landmine issue. Bydoing this, the campaign was effectively able to reverse the burden of proof, placing itupon states, and thereby to define the boundaries of political legitimacy on the issue.14 Inessence, the ICBL’s ability to place and communicate the landmine issue in an alreadyestablished normative discourse was instrumental to the passage of the treaty.

The ability to draw on this established norm also greatly facilitates Landmine Monitorin its capacity as a civil society-based monitoring tool. One power wielded by the ICBL

during its effort to mobilise support for the treaty in the first place was its ability toestablish an international network for disseminating information—‘teaching’ states aboutthe landmine issue—thereby forcing states to support the campaign or face the risk ofinternational shame and humiliation.15 The same principles of information-gathering anddissemination, combined with the potential for political ostracism of states not fulfillingtheir part of the agreement, is what makes Landmine Monitor effective. To the extent thatstates are subject to norms, the information aspect of Landmine Monitor and its activitieshelps reinforce that process. Thus, many countries have expressed a genuine belief thatthe tenets of the treaty are morally and ethically just, and have come to believe that land-mines are an illegitimate instrument of war. Landmine Monitor functions in a ‘watchdog’capacity, constantly keeping the goals, progress and aims of the treaty in the spotlight.Given that landmines have effectively been redefined as illegitimate weapons of war,states that fail to adhere to the provisions of the treaty face the possibility of being placedin a politically untenable position. As Price argues, ‘the existence of a norm does notmean that it cannot be violated, only that the justification of unusual, even extraordinary,circumstances is required to engage in noncompliance’.16

Observers of international relations might be sceptical about the power of norms withregard to states, particularly in the context of disarmament agreements. That is, states willcalculate the potential costs and benefits of complying with an agreement. Such anargument reasons that states may choose to stop the production and use of landmines, aswell as instigate stockpile destruction, but will only do so when it is strategically advan-tageous for them. States thus engage in a process of rational calculation as to when it is to

961


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

FEATURE REVIEW

their advantage to position themselves in line with prevailing norms, but they do so onlybecause they stand to gain in international stature, and not because of some greater senseof moral duty. Thus it may seem that states are sensitive to moral persuasion and norms,while in reality they are more concerned with profiting from simply appearing to obeyprevailing norms. Such arguments are quite valid and have no easy answers. Never-theless, there is a growing body of literature that suggests that states, quite apart fromstrategic considerations, are in fact socialised to norms. This contention goes along withrecent studies that have demonstrated the vital role played by international NGOs inshaping global norms.17 For instance, most countries respect the provisions of the GenevaConvention primarily because they in fact believe that it is fundamentally just. Becausenorms develop over time, they eventually become quite robust, and the threshold forviolating them becomes higher. What remains to be seen, however, is whether the normagainst landmines will remain as robust as it appears to be if and when states areconfronted with situations perceived as threatening their national security.

Moral persuasion

In order for a norm to alter or shape behaviour, its imperative nature must be effectivelycommunicated. Issues must be constructed and communicated in a manner that evokesthe necessary outrage or concern needed to sustain a campaign, a process that can bedescribed as moral persuasion. As the framing literature on social movements points out,the ability to generate moral outrage is dependent on the extent to which groups andorganisations are able to generate so-called ‘injustice frames’, best understood as waysof viewing a situation or condition that generate moral outrage and identify thoseresponsible.18 The use of moral persuasion is far from new in the context of social move-ments, and numerous campaigns throughout history have drawn on moral arguments inorder to pressure states and sensitise the public. Examples of this abound, but some of therecent efforts of environmental groups with regard to global warming and HIV/AIDS

campaigns have led to a sense of moral obligation to take action. Injustice frames do notgenerate an issue where there is none; rather, injustice frames are means by which thepublic and states are made aware of a particular issue, and sensitised to its consequences,and where a remedy is often prescribed. Moral persuasion is unlikely to be successfulunless it is able to draw upon some already established principle or thought. That is, themore a campaign is able to draw on established norms, the higher its likelihood forsuccess.

Of course, not all issues have the potential to generate the same amount of moraloutrage, and certain issues tend to resonate more than others. In particular, Keck andSikkink contend that moral outrage is more likely to occur with issues where bodily harmto innocent persons is at stake.19 In this regard, one of the more effective means used bythe campaign to ban landmines was its presentation of information on the harm land-mines cause innocent civilians. The campaign was able to use injustice frames as a wayof emphasising that landmines harm innocent civilians, and thus was able to help createthe sufficient moral outrage required to sustain the campaign and garner support for thepassage of the Mine Ban Treaty.20 This same process of injustice-framing and moralpersuasion helps reinforce the continued belief that landmines are an unjust instrument ofwar. When Landmine Monitor reports on the progress that has been made to date, citesthe number of mines that have been lifted or destroyed, and relates this to the impact

962


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


mines have on civilians, it is recreating existing injustice frames, and the moral impera-tive against landmines is thus reinvigorated and reinforced. This helps cement the normthat landmines are not a legitimate weapon under any circumstance. The threshold forstates to violate the treaty is kept high, and any state that chooses non-compliance willcome to be seen as an international political rogue.

Looking through the past to the future

The experience of Landmine Monitor would suggest that informal approaches tomonitoring agreements have a number of potentially useful applications with regard toother issues. In part, a key to the efficacy of Landmine Monitor stems from the fact thatthe ban on anti-personnel mines is absolute. In the case of the ICBL, this was notcoincidental. Rather, it was the result of strategic decision making by the campaign.There was a realisation within the campaign from the outset that a partial ban would beambiguous, and thus open to violations. Absolutes raise the threshold for when states canjustify violation of agreements. Agreements that merely seek limitations on an issue aremore difficult to enforce through norms because they require less justification shouldstates wish to violate them. In an arms control context, it is easier to achieve compliancewith absolute bans on weapons (eg chemical, biological, landmines) through a norms-based approach than it is to regulate weapons that are permissible under certain circum-stances.

What, then, are some of the specific issues in which such an approach might work?Aside from the context of strategic weapons, norms-based approaches can be effective inareas such as regulation of the exploitation of Third World children as part of the wagelabour force,. since this resonates with established norms, is easily communicated as amoral message and can be absolute. Conversely, agreements banning the use of handgunsor similar weapons are more difficult. It has proven difficult to generate a normative andmoral imperative on guns since, unlike landmines, they can be said to have a legitimateuse, and any such legislation would merely seek to restrict, rather than impose anabsolute ban on, their usage. Importantly, the analysis here also suggests that norms havetheir limitations. Quite crucially, informal monitoring mechanisms must be able to drawon a set of already established norms in order to generate new norms. That is, the norm acampaign seeks to either generate or build upon must have a resonance with previouslyestablished norms. These norms must be communicated in such ways as to elicit publicoutrage in order to generate a general consensus as to the unacceptability of an issue.

In order to be successful, social movements such as the ICBL must touch upon someaspect of social conscience. They must have the power to appeal to an issue thatgenerates sympathy and support. Movements can achieve this either by bringing an issueto the fore or by drawing on existing discourses. One of the keys in making LandmineMonitor effective as a way of monitoring the implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty hasbeen the ICBL’s ability to draw on an existing discourse. Recent history is rife withexamples of moral outrage against certain weapons and practices. Among the mostobvious examples are the use of chemical and biological weapons, along with the fair andhumane treatment of prisoners of war. The success of Landmine Monitor in ensuringcompliance with the treaty has rested upon its ability to place itself in a broadermoral debate regarding the very legitimacy of landmines, and its capacity to draw onestablished norms and utilise moral persuasion as a way of enforcing compliance. The

963


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

FEATURE REVIEW

ICBL was able to draw upon established norms regarding the legitimacy of certainweapons, and was able effectively to position the issue of landmines within thisdiscourse. Similarly, Landmine Monitor has been able to draw upon and reinforce thissame normative discourse as a way of pressuring states to comply with the Mine BanTreaty. The mechanism that helps keep states in compliance with the treaty is a continua-tion and outgrowth of the process that helped establish the treaty in the first place.Effectively, this approach demands that states must go to extraordinary lengths in order tojustify non-compliance with the treaty, and thus risk being placed in a politicallyuntenable position. States may comply as a result of norm-internalisation or because of astrategic decision to avoid international ridicule and shame. It is thus entirely possiblethat some states have begun to view landmines as less useful as strategic weapons, andhave thus chosen to cease their production and use only for this reason. In this regard, itremains to be seen how states will choose to respond when faced with situations theydefine as questions of national security.

Observers of state–civil society relations have long been concerned with the powerwielded by an autonomous civil society against the sovereign nation-state. As the role ofnon-state actors in all facets of life becomes increasingly prevalent, the inherent potentialof an international civil society assumes a greater importance. Landmine Monitorrepresents the first attempt to use such an approach with regard to a disarmament agree-ment. The initiative, however, must be considered an experiment in progress, and mustthus strive to overcome a number of challenges. Perhaps the greatest obstacle forLandmine Monitor—and any similar effort—lies in understanding the particular demandssuch initiatives entail. For campaigns such as the ICBL, this means understanding the needto make the transition from advocacy and activism to professional research. It is not thatthese are necessarily mutually exclusive, but they often demand very different skills. Ifthe activist campaigns that comprise international civil society are to assume a greaterrole in monitoring treaties and agreements, it becomes even more imperative that they arealso willing to undertake the necessary organisational changes needed to be effective.As the analysis here of Landmine Monitor suggests, the capacity to collect reliable andaccurate information can be problematic. If not, the construction of new norms throughmoral persuasion and injustice-framing—the very premise upon which informalmonitoring arrangements are based—is placed in jeopardy. Information must be accurateand reliable in order to reinforce the foundation upon which existing norms are built.Such considerations are key if Landmine Monitor is to endure as a tool in monitoring theimplementation of the Mine Ban Treaty.

Notes

The author is grateful to Kristian Berg Harpviken and three anonymous reviewers for Third WorldQuarterly for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this article. Any errors,misinterpretations or omissions, however, are solely the responsibility of the author.1 All current editions of Landmine Monitor are available at http://www.icbl.org/lm/.2 See D C Atwood, ‘Implementing Ottawa: continuity and change in the role of NGOs’, Disarmament

Forum: Framework for a Mine-Free World, United Nations, 1999; and S Goose & M Wareham,‘Landmine Monitor: citizens’ verification in action’, Disarmament Forum: Framework for a Mine-Free World, United Nations, 1999.

3 In addressing this criticism, Richard Price has remarked that the contention that norms against the useof anti-personnel mines cannot prevent their usage is both as trivial as it is true. Even if there werelaws containing formal sanctions against their usage, there might still be actors willing to violate suchlaws, as with any law. In essence, argues Price, the norm against landmines should not be measured

964


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


against those who are most desperate to violate it. See R Price, ‘Compliance with international normsand the mines taboo’, in M A Cameron, R J Lawson & B W Tomlin (eds), To Walk Without Fear: TheGlobal Movement To Ban Landmines, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998, p 360.

4 See R Price, ‘Reversing the gun sights: transnational civil society targets land mines’, InternationalOrganization, 52 (3), 1998, pp 613–644. See also A Colàs, International Civil Society: SocialMovements in World Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.

5 See M Mekata, ‘Building partnerships toward a common goal: experiences of the InternationalCampaign To Ban Landmines’, in A M Florini (ed), The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational CivilSociety, Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, 2000; N Short, ‘The role of NGOs in theOttawa process to ban landmines’, International Negotiation, 4 (3), 1999, pp 481–500; and R JLawson, M Gwozdecky, J Sinclair & R Lysyshn, ‘The Ottawa Process and the internationalmovement to ban anti-personnel landmines’, in Cameron et al, To Walk Without Fear.

6 See, for instance, Jackie Smith’s analysis of the work by international environmental organisationEarthAction and affiliated NGOs to pressure states to reinforce the institutional framework surroundingAgenda 21. J Smith, ‘Building political will after UNCED: EarthAction International’, in J Smith,C Chatfield & R Pagnucco (eds), Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: SolidarityBeyond the State, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

7 There are, however, reports of some transgressions. The recent border skirmishes between Pakistanand India have reportedly included the laying of new mines. The transitional government in Somaliahas used mines, as have non-state groups in Burma. Russian troops and Chechnyan non-state actorshave used mines, while the government of Georgia laid mines along its border with Chechnya in2001. In Nepal, Maoist groups have reportedly used mines, and there appears to have been reneweduse of mines by warring parties in Afghanistan during 2001 and 2002.

8 This is not to imply that there are no other authoritative sources on the state of landmines today. ManyNGOs have attained a high degree of competence and recognition of their efforts in this area, and manyof these have published highly influential and important sources on landmines in recent years, as havethe various agencies that comprise the UN campaign against landmines. Another source has been theresearch community, including university departments and independent research institutes in variouscountries.

9 Notably, Jody Williams, the ICBL co-ordinator at the time that Landmine Monitor was initiated,doubted that the project would prove to be a viable endeavour. Verbal statement, Conference on theFuture of Humanitarian Mine Action on the Fifth Anniversary of the 1997 Mine Ban Convention, 13September 2002, Oslo.

10 J Elster, The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1989.

11 J S Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1990.12 Price, ‘Reversing the gun sights’.13 On the efforts of NGOs, see Short, ‘The role of NGOs in the Ottawa process’; and M Mekata, ‘Building

partnerships toward a common goal’. On the legitimacy of landmines as weapons of war, see K BHarpviken & M C Fixdal, ‘Anti-personnel landmines: a just means of war?’, Security Dialogue, 28(3), 1997, pp 271–285.

14 Price, ‘Reversing the gun sights’, p 617.15 Price, ‘Reversing the gun sights’..16 Ibid, p 641.17 See, for example, J Smith, ‘Framing the nonproliferation debate: transnational activism and inter-

national nuclear weapons negotiations’, in PG Coy (ed), Research in Social Movements, Conflicts andChange, Vol 22, Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1997; and M E Keck & K Sikkink, Activists BeyondBorders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

18 The concept of issue framing is widely elaborated in the literature on social movements, including theidea of injustice frames. One of the more thorough discussions of injustice framing is found in J MJasper, The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements, Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

19 Keck & Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders.20 At times, this discourse sacrificed facts for the sake of impact. For instance, women and children were

often depicted as the primary victims of landmines, when in reality they constitute a distinct minorityof all landmine victims. See M Larrinaga & C T Sjolander, ‘(Re)presenting landmines from protectorto enemy: the discursive framing of a new enemy’, in Cameron et al, To Walk Without Fear.

965


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Free Service

Over 750 journalsincluded

Pre-publicationcontents alerts intext or htmlformat

Links through tothe online article

Convenient andeasy to use

Keyword alertsnow available

For further information and to sign up, please visit

www.tandf.co.uk/saraScholarly Articles Research Alerting from Taylor & Francis


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

33 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Documents

Norms, persuasion and practice: landmine monitor and civil society