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.
