An International Ban on Anti-personnel Mines: History and Negotiation of the ‘Ottawa Treaty’, article by S.Maslen and P.Herby
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Published in the International Review of the Red Cross , 325 December 1998 The background to the Ottawa process As the First Review Conference of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (1) (CCW) closed in Geneva on 3 May 1996, there was widespread dismay at the failure of the States Parties to reach consensus on effective ways to combat the global scourge of landmines. The CCW Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996 (2) (Protocol II as amended) introduced a number of changes that were widely welcomed, but it fell far short of totally prohibiting these weapons, a move already supported by more than 40 States. Keen to sustain the international momentum that might otherwise have slackened, the Canadian delegation announced that Canada would host a meeting of pro-ban States later in the year to develop a strategy to move the international community towards a global ban on anti-personnel mines. That meeting, the “International strategy conference: Towards a global ban on anti-personnel mines” (usually referred to as “the 1996 or the first Ottawa Conference”), was held in the Canadian capital from 3 to 5 October 1996; it set the scene for what would become known as the “Ottawa process” – a fast-track negotiation of a convention banning anti-personnel mines. At the closing session of the Conference the host country's Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, ended his address with an appeal to all governments to return to Ottawa before the end of 1997 to sign such a treaty. This bold initiative was immediately supported by ICRC President Cornelio Sommaruga, who was attending the Conference, by the UN Secretary-General and by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), but it came as a surprise to the governments taking part, and it was by no means certain that…
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".