2 ms·
The number of states ratifying these agreements can be misleading, and the simple majority of states agreeing to do something doesn’t always mean the powerful h
by docdeek 3y ago
The number of states ratifying these agreements can be misleading, and the simple majority of states agreeing to do something doesn’t always mean the powerful have stepped up, too. States representing nearly half the world (47/48% of global population) have not signed the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel landmines. More than half (+55%) of the world’s population lives in a country that is not covered by the cluster munitions convention. One of the keys to making these treaties useful is to have the most powerful states aligned on their aims and objectives - it matters a lot more to have (as you suggest) the US, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan signing on than it does many other smaller states.
- ricardobeat 3y agoNotably most of Europe is a signatory of both treaties.
- docdeek 3y agoIndeed, though also notably Finland was a hold out on the landmine treaty for a long time, and is still not a signatory to the cluster munitions agreement. Having a border with Russia and a history of conflict with Russia is part of the reason why.
- ethbr0 3y agoThe realpolitik of warfare treaties tends to be much more about "What will blunt my potential enemy's strength more than mine?" than ethics.