Entrapping Gulliver: the United States and the antipersonnel mine ban

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)
2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In 2014, the Obama administration announced that the United States would almost entirely adopt the global ban on antipersonnel (AP) mines, despite longstanding military and political opposition. To explain this puzzling outcome, I expand upon recent accounts of rhetorical entrapment in which norm-promoting actors seek to compel change in a target actor by exploiting tensions between the target’s words and actions. Tracing US policy change over the past 25 years, I show how transnational civil society and domestic political elites strategically deployed factual and normative claims to draw US officials into an iterative debate concerning the humanitarian harm of AP mines. Successive US administrations have sought to mitigate external critique by gradually conceding to the discursive framing of pro-ban advocates without endorsing the international treaty prohibiting the weapons. These rhetorical shifts stimulated a search for alternative technologies and incremental changes to military doctrine, tactics, and procurement that constrained US policy choices, culminating in the effective abandonment of AP mines despite ongoing military operations around the globe.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)128-161
JournalSecurity Studies
Volume29
Issue number1
Early online date29 Nov 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Feb 2020

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Entrapping Gulliver: the United States and the antipersonnel mine ban'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this