Editing Human security (section)

===Anti-personnel landmines===
{{main|Ottawa Convention}}
[[File:Ottawa Treaty members.svg|thumb|350px|{{legend|#0078ac|State Parties to the Ottawa Treaty}}]]In contrast to the traditional security discourse which sees security as focused on protecting state interests, human security proponents believe that [[Anti-personnel mine]]s could not be viable weapons of war due to the massive collateral damage they cause, their indiscriminate nature and persistence after conflict. In particular, they argue that anti-personnel mines differ from most weapons, which have to be aimed and fired since they have the potential to kill and maim long after the warring parties have ceased fighting. The [[United Nations]] has reckoned that landmines are at least ten times more likely to kill or injure a civilian after a conflict than a combatant during hostilities.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/C2951729922B4364C1256B6600599BF2 | title=International Committee of the Red Cross| date=2013-10-03}}</ref> The effects are also long-lasting. The [[ICBL]] estimates that anti-personnel mines were the cause of 5,751 casualties in 2006.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.icbl.org/lm/2007/es/introduction.html | title=404 &#124; Icbl}}</ref> Whereas traditionally, states would justify these negative impacts of mines due to the advantage they give on the battlefield, under the human security lens, this is untenable as the wide-ranging post-conflict impact on the day-to-day experience of individuals outweighs the military advantage.

The [[Ottawa Treaty|Ottawa Convention]], which led to the banning of anti-personnel landmines, is seen as a victory for the Human Security agenda. The Ottawa Convention has proved to be a huge step forward in the 'Freedom from Fear' approach. In Ottawa, the negotiations were moved outside traditional disarmament forums, thus avoiding the entrenched logic of traditional arms control measures.<ref name="Hubert, 2000">Don Hubert, "The Landmine Treaty: A Case Study in Humanitarian Advocacy" Watson Institute for International Studies, Occasional Paper #42, 2000.</ref>{{rp|36}}
According to Don Hubert, an advocate of Human Security from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, the main reason for its success was a multilateral focus. While [[INGO]]'s like the UN and the [[International Committee of the Red Cross|ICRC]] remain the key players along with [[middle power]] states like Norway and Canada, its actual power and push comes from the involvement of a host of [[civil society]] actors (NGOs) and the general public.<ref name="Hubert, 2000"/> Human Security proponents believe that this treaty has set new standards in humanitarian advocacy and has acted as a landmark in international lawmaking for a more secure world.

Critics of the treaty, however, caution against complacency on its success. Many states, they point out, have neither signed nor ratified this convention. They include China, Russia and the United States who are major contributors to the global weapons trade.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.icbl.org/lm/2007/ |title=Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor |publisher=Icbl.org |date=2009-05-12 |access-date=2012-04-16}}</ref> Second, even though there were a diverse group of civil society actors, the real influence on the treaty came from the ones in the 'global north'. Third, cynics may argue that the success of this campaign stems from the fact that these weapons were outdated and of limited military value and this treaty just helped to accelerate a process that would have happened anyway.<ref>Fen Osler Hampson, "Chap.5: Promoting the Safety of Peoples: Banning Anti-Personnel Landmines", from Madness in the Multitude: Human Security and World Disorder, Oxford University Press, 2002</ref>