> Sadly, the Ottawa Treaty is a meaningless bit of political theater. [...] The main issue is that by nature, the convention only "punishes" responsible actors
Calling it "theatre" seems unnecessarily cynical. Couldn't you say the same about any legal/treaty constraints on state violence? E.g the Geneva Conventions or the Chemical Weapons Convention? Do you really think that all such agreements are futile?
Yes, irresponsible actors are not going to abide by by a landmine (or CW) ban, and yes there was an element of self-interest in creating them, but also I think a real recognition of the unnecessary suffering that they cause to civilians. I think thats something worth being a bit proud of.
Pretty much everybody has signed up to Geneva Conventions and the Chemical Weapons Convention, so while not quite perfect, they're effective. For example, it's virtually impossible to buy chemical weapons, you need to DIY.
But when the Ottawa Treaty was being negotiated, the big boys made it very clear from the outset that they would not accept the terms, so it's been a dead letter since day one.
Calling it "theatre" seems unnecessarily cynical. Couldn't you say the same about any legal/treaty constraints on state violence? E.g the Geneva Conventions or the Chemical Weapons Convention? Do you really think that all such agreements are futile?
Yes, irresponsible actors are not going to abide by by a landmine (or CW) ban, and yes there was an element of self-interest in creating them, but also I think a real recognition of the unnecessary suffering that they cause to civilians. I think thats something worth being a bit proud of.