Anti-Weapons Activism and Arms Bans: Why Brazil Banned Anti-Personnel Mines but Not Cluster Munitions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The transnational campaign against anti-personnel mines (APMs) succeeded in prompting their widespread ban, formalized in the 1997 Ottawa Convention. However, other anti-weapons campaigns have been less successful. What explains this difference? This article examines why Brazil banned APMs but not cluster munitions, drawing on archival sources from Brazil's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and semi-structured interviews. Adjustment costs—as perceived by coalitions of diplomats and senior military personnel—were critical in shaping Brazil's positions. They considered the costs of banning APMs negligible but perceived substantial costs of banning cluster munitions. The article also presents a decision-making model of how the relative importance of material and normative factors may vary across different stages of a decision-making process. For activists, middle powers, and small states advocating arms bans or stricter arms control norms, this study underscores the primacy of material factors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it