The process that led to the signing of the Mine Ban Treaty has been described as unorthodox, historic and unique. What was so different about it?
- The treaty bans antipersonnel weapons outright, rather than regulating their use – making it the only international treaty to do this with weapons that are in use.
- It was very quick – the treaty was negotiated within a year, which is unprecedented for an international agreement of this nature. Also it took only nine months for 40 states to ratify the treaty, thus facilitating its entry into force. In contrast, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) for example was adopted in 1980 and came into force in 1983.
- For the first time, small and medium sized powers (from Australia to Zimbabwe) came together and decided on a course of action. They took the lead and were not held back by some of the superpowers that had not yet agreed to ban landmines (such as US, China and Russia). Amongst the signatories are most former mine producers and many users, including Belgium, Cambodia, Italy, Mozambique and South Africa.
- The treaty was the product of an unusually cohesive and strategic partnership between NGOs and governments: the ICBL and international organizations like the ICRC and UN organizations worked closely with governments. The ICBL participated in and continues to participate in conferences about the treaty. In contrast, many other treaties either exclude NGOs altogether or grant them only observer status. Also the ICBL saw its role at these conferences as a dual one: inside it participated in discussions and negotiations and outside it worked with the media, installed exhibitions, ran public awareness events, networked with other NGOs and lobbied government representatives.
- The Ottawa process took place outside the UN system and the treaty negotiation conference relied on voting, rather than consensus procedures. Governments were also required to “opt in” – meaning that governments attending the treaty negotiation conference in Oslo, for example, had to agree on the text beforehand. This, together with strong leadership at the negotiating conferences, ensured that the treaty remained focused and strong and prevented a few governments from watering down the treaty or slowing down the negotiations.
- The Mine Ban Treaty has a flexible administrative structure to support implementation. Thus, its institutions have adapted as new needs arose and the Standing Committee system, Coordination Committee and the Implementation Support Unit have been established since the treaty's entry into force.