"I see little difference between those who use them and those who produce them," says Sadako Ogata, UN High Commissioner for Refugees. "Whatever the present legality of manufacturing such weapons, the toll they take on innocent civilians amounts to a crime against mankind."

Efforts to limit the use of mines have been included in most international conventional weapons treaties. Moreover, restrictions on their employment were included in the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions signed in 1977. Regardless, a comprehensive ban on mines was elusive, and several attempts to do so, including the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons were unsuccessful or the process too slow.

Recently, a grass root movement led by the Vietnam Veterans' Association in the United States was successful in creating the international political will required to ban anti-personnel mines. Led by Canada, the Ottawa Process paved the way to the Oslo Accord earlier this year that produced the Global Treaty to Ban Land Mines. 120 countries, rivaling the Convention on the Rights of the Child as the most widely signed international agreement are signing this international treaty in Ottawa.

Images of children lying in their own blood dying from the effects of a mine are obviously terrible and go far in explaining why people and organizations strongly supported efforts to ban mines. Such tragedies however do not adequately explain why so many governments have worked diligently to support the ban. In modern military arsenals, several weapon systems and tools exist whose effects are far more horrific than land mines. This paper will seek to outline the problems caused by mines, the scope of the 'scourge', and previous efforts to limit or ban their use. Finally, it will explore why a concerted and successful effort was executed in an attempt to rid ourselves of land mines.

There are currently 110 million mines deployed in 64 countries. The United Nations is comprised of 185 countries. Therefore, mines plague one third of the world's countries. Relatively cheap to obtain ($3-10) they are expensive to clear ($300-1000). A quick calculation demonstrates that the monetary cost of ridding ourselves of land mines is $33 - 100 billion dollars.

Beyond the monetary reality of the land mine scourge however lies the human cost. One hundred people a day are casualties of land mines. These figures however, are generally agreed to be low, since many victims, especially those living in rural areas, die before government or international organizations can register them. The number of children who are victims of these weapons compounds the tragedy. In Afghanistan for example, 30% of the victims are children, in Angola the figure is 50%.

Between eight and ten thousand children, fall prey to landmines each year. These weapons violate numerous provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child including a child's inherent right to life, health, protection and a safe environment for work and leisure. The effects on children are especially horrific for a number of reasons. Weapons designed to injure grown men have a devastating effect on children. Their stature, natural inquisitiveness, and inability to withstand trauma make them especially vulnerable. Moreover, children are often desensitized to munitions that have become an integral part of their lives. Some mines resemble toys and are attractive to young people. Furthermore, rapid growth spurts that characterize child development often necessitate two or three additional amputations and prosthetics each year.

The burden that land mines place on developing countries is especially trying. Struggling to emerge from war, governments are often challenged to find the resources to deal with clearance operations, and to care for the victims. Mines hamper development. The effects however are even more far reaching. Arable land, critical for sustainable development is not cultivated, and a country's communication infrastructure is often rendered unusable. The safe repatriation of refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) is jeopardized or made impossible. Aid cannot be safely delivered to those in need, prolonging the suffering of entire populations. The environmental impact of mines is devastating; soil shattered or displaced by mines falls easy prey to erosion, further reducing the arable land base.

Secondly, Canada has actively pursued ways to ban the use of mines, both through the Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol II), and by brokering the Global Treaty to Ban Land Mines which culminated the first week of December 1997 with the signing of the international treaty to ban land mines. This treaty is significant insofar as it provides for verification provisions that the CCW did not. Moreover, it adopts a cooperative multilateral approach to demining technology sharing and funding. This approach is referred to by DFAIT as 'Norm Building.'^'

Internationally, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Human Rights Watch, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Association were all early leaders in the efforts to ban mines. ICRC's concern is promoting a respect for international humanitarian law. The indiscriminate use of land mines violates the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols which prohibit indiscriminate means and methods of warfare and the deliberate endangering of the lives or health of civilians.

Most governments support the efforts to ban the use of land mines on legal, moral, and fiscal grounds. They are also responding to domestic pressure to do something about these weapons after the successful public awareness campaign waged by the ICBL, and the notoriety afforded mines by international celebrities.

The history of the law of warfare in the West is characterized by two major concepts: those conflicts fought against other Christians; and those fought outside of the Western Community. Jus ad bellum were conflicts sanctioned by the Church and allowed Christians to go to war with a clear conscience. Within this context, jus in bello were those laws that pertained to conflict. The concepts of constraints on war fighting however have universally been accepted across civilizations. The ancient Greeks for example had laws that protected women and children in times of conflict. In modern times, the concept of guerrre mortelle, or bellum romanum, the idea that unrestricted warfare against entire populations has been abandoned in favour of tight restrictions on the conduct of war.

The reasons for abandoning bellum romanum probably had less to do with Christian sensibility, than with military and political expediency. Armies used to forage for provisions, a task made easier with a friendly or at least benign population. Regardless, modern developed states accept that bellum romanum is unacceptable and generally act accordingly. War needs legal sanction. For example, even the United States often seeks Security Council endorsement of its actions (the Gulf War and Haiti). Weapons of mass destruction are the subject of limitation and reduction bi-lateral and multi-lateral treaties. There is therefore an understanding that some weapons are unacceptable in the larger sense, even if they are militarily useful. This is almost universally accepted as a goal in the prosecution of war, however, in practice, it is often elusive. Nevertheless, international legal instruments are useful as tools for providing a framework against which actions may be judged or affected.

The moral, legal, and economic factors affecting the use of certain weapons should be seen as an interrelated triad of factors. The social choice of law is driven by moral considerations that are likely to be supported by economic necessity or expediency. What comes first is a 'chicken and egg' argument. Governments want to be seen to be acting morally and within the law because it offers them legitimacy and prestige. This in turn pays off in terms of domestic politics, diplomacy, and economic benefits reaped from trade with the developing world.

The effects of anti-personnel land mines constitute a direct attack on the fabric of the society in which they are used. Their effects on children, (national treasure), and development are horrendous, and unacceptable from a moral, legal, political, and economic perspective. Developing countries support the ban because they are living with the effects of their indiscriminate use. Donor countries support the ban because of domestic political considerations, and a sense that the value of development aid would be increased if it mines could be eliminated.

Noam Chomsky writing in the Boston Review examines the role of states as moral agents. His rather cynical treatment of the issue centres on the premise that the West, and the United States in particular value self-interest over the higher ideals of the human condition. Mr. Chomsky feels that governments work towards these issues because they are of instrumental value in the political culture by providing a useful tool for propaganda, nothing more. This argument would indicate that all governments, especially the most powerful ones, are inherently evil, and uncaring, and fails to acknowledge the courageous work that is done in the interests of international peace and security.

Governments care about these issues because improving the human condition is progressive, and most governments are in the business of moving forward. Their incentive may be political and economic, but ultimately, the citizens, and by default the governments of the peoples of the world, want to live in peace and security. Land mines are a direct threat to the future of thirty percent of the world countries, and this, ultimately, is the incentive to ban their use and production