Harnessing change for continuity: The play of political and economic forces behind the Ottawa process

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti‐Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, generally portrayed as a practical application of the emerging discourse on “human security,” has been widely hailed as a triumph of an emerging global civil society, transcendent of the particularistic interests of states in the international system. Questions remain, however, as to whether the Convention represents significant changes in state understandings of what constitutes security and for whom, and whether elements of an emergent global civil society acted as agents of that change or served as a conduit through which broader military, political and economic forces could find new ways to realize old interests. From within a ‘human security” perspective, these questions are explored with regard to the interests involved in implementing the four pillars of the Convention ‐ the ban on the use of anti‐personnel landmines, the ban on their production, the obligation to demine the world's minefields, and the concomitant obligation to aid in the rehabilitation of mine victims and the reconstruction of their social and economic environments.