Landmine Action's target

Landmine Action’s report, Explosive Violence: the Problem of Explosive Weapons, explicitly “calls for states, international organisations, NGOs and wider civil society to work to strengthen further an underlying presumption that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is unacceptable.” That is to say, this norm entrepreneur seeks to influence a wide range of target audiences. 

However, given the scope of the frame posed by Landmine Action, and the actual recognition by UNIDIR of such a frame as a baseline for approaching the issue, it is possible to infer that the main target is the UN system, for it seeks that binding international laws are established. This does not deny the fact that Landmine Action is aiming at building a broader coalition, which then explains the broader call for actors to work on the idea of stigmatizing and rejecting the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

As mentioned before, the very frame of Landmine Action, both in diagnostic and prognostic terms, reduces the possible set of targets. It seeks a transformation of humanitarian standards applicable to all states, to the extent that “the humanitarian standards states apply to their own populations, they should aspire to apply to the populations of others.” In other words, it is International Humanitarian Law as such which is to be transformed.

The chosen target in this case limits further refining of the frame itself. In fact interactions with UNIDIR, as an institution within the UN system that “conducts research on disarmament and security with the aim of assisting the international community in their disarmament thinking, decisions and efforts”, emphasizes technical aspects of the frame. An advantage for Landmine Action is that this organization is stronger in this terrain.

The raise of standards for assessing the acceptability of explosive weapons could be interpreted as a challenge for the definition of boundaries between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, which might generate great polarization. Landmine Action, however, could further develop the posed frame in terms of how it is not a change of the current definition of those boundaries, but a logical consequence of them, in as much as the ultimate objective of International Humanitarian Law is to “limit the suffering and destruction caused during armed conflicts”, with a great emphasis on the protection of civilians.

Framing the problem of explosive violence and the correspondent solution

In August 2009, Landmine Action issued the report Explosive Violence: The Problem of Explosive Weapons. This document provides a very complete frame about explosive violence and the correspondent solution that has to follow, given certain contextual features and evidence collected, especially from ongoing conflicts. Although this frame has not automatically been appropriated by relevant global institutions, neither has it been translated into international law yet and further research has to be undertaken (UNIDIR, 2010), Landmine Action’s framing provides a coherent body of concepts and recommendations that are going to determine to a high degree any future position and action on this issue. Here, it is important to say that UNIDIR has already embarked on a framing task, explicitly acknowledging Landmine Action’s inputs as a baseline for carrying it out.

Three main points compose Landmine Action’s frame on explosive violence:

1.            Explosive violence causes harm over civilians in three ways: 1) immediate deaths and injuries derived from the use of explosive weapons, which affect a blast area rather than a point of detonation, and exert pressure over health facilities; 2) immediate damage of social and economic infrastructure, which causes “direct humanitarian problems and necessitate high levels of reconstruction expenditure”, and 3) contamination of affected areas with unexploded ordnance, which results in risk of further future harm and damage, in turn generating fear and a consequent refraining from use of existing resources (Landmine Action, 2010).

Under these considerations, not only the value of life is at stake, but also the developmental consequences of using explosive weapons, which clearly affect civilians.

2.            According to the available empirical evidence, there is a high risk for the use of explosive violence to be indiscriminate (Landmine Action, 2010).

3.            There are neither ethical nor rational grounds for accepting the use of explosive violence in populated areas. On one hand, “Under an increasingly coherent international legal framework of binding agreements affirming the universality of fundamental entitlements and rights of each person”, double standards held by states are not legitimate: it is not coherent that whereas states refrain from using explosive violence for domestic policing, they do use it for military operations or armed conflict.

On other hand, “States are particularly vulnerable to the use of explosive weapons by non-state actors”, although states’ monopoly over it is claimed. However, “the unacceptability of non-state use of explosive weapons is diminished by the failure of states to enact appropriate categorical controls on the use of these weapons in populated areas, or to attend to the relationships of diminished local accountability that such use articulates.”

That is to say, it is not only ethically questionable for states to keep these double standards. States might benefit “from the progressive stigmatization of the use of explosive weapons in certain contexts, and have much to lose from their continued proliferation and expanded acceptability” (Landmine Action, 2010).

If we now look at the solution, Landmine Action proposes to build upon a common language among states, international institutions and civil society, and to regard explosive violence as a category of its own, insofar as it entails consistent particular patterns of harm and damage over civilians. The solution to this issue is the stigmatization and prohibition of the use of explosive weapons on populated areas, and the rise of standards for judging the acceptability of the use of explosive violence. Landmine Action poses the need for transparency and accountability. States would have to justify the use of explosive violence, regardless of the relationship with the specific group people over which explosive violence is used. For this to be possible, states need to provide data and to keep accountable in more global terms. Likewise, they have to commit themselves with ensuring the rights of victims.

Location of explosive violence within the Norm Life Cycle

Explosive violence is already an issue that has been taken into consideration by gatekeepers in the UN.

In particular, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, UNIDIR, held the seminar "Explosive Weapons and Civilians: Framing the Problem" in Geneva, Switzerland this year. For this purposes, UNIDIR developed both a background paper and a summary report.

Moreover, the UN Under-Secretary General (USG) for Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes recently called for action on the problem of explosive weapon in populated areas. In his statement to the Security Council debate on the protection of civilians on 7 July 2010, he highlighted the fact that this phenomenon was one of five main issues regarding the protection of civilians in armed conflict. (See the correspondent statement).

Therefore, a long way has this issue undergo, and likelihood of further success appears to be high.

Information about the norm entrepreneur

Landmine Action is an organization working on a variety of issues related to safety and security by means of research and policy influencing at the global level.

Having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, it has supported the development of knowledge and new legislation on anti-personnel mines, anti-vehicle mines, cluster munitions, explosive remnants of war, forgotten conflicts, guns, human security, incendiary weapons and less lethal weapons.

With respect to explosive violence, Landmine Action has promoted to approach explosive weapons as a category of their own; stigmatized the use of explosive weapons by states, even under the conditions of an armed conflict, and argued that users of explosive violence should keep accountable and justify the use of it.

Moreover, Landmine Action has sought to raise standards for defining an acceptable use of explosive violence, and is particularly committed to the elimination of such a use in populated areas.

The problem

As posed by Landmine Action, explosive violence is global issue of major importance due to the harm that it causes on civilians. Regardless of the actor that makes use of explosive violence, be it a state or an unaccountable entity, it entails harming people or damaging physical assets, thus being a threat in both humanitarian and development terms.

This becomes problematic because, however lethal explosive weapons might be, they do not have a precise target. They affect an area rather than a point as such, because they have a blast radius and certain degree of fragmentation that goes beyond the point of detonation.

This issue is then regarded as a security threat an as an international public health phenomenon that deserves more attention, research and, over all, international policy and legal analysis.