The global campaign to ban landmines is a dynamic case of the multilateral search for a negotiated solution to an international problem. It includes middle- and great-power states, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and coalitions, as well as, empowered individuals. The primary research question this study seeks to answer is "why did the United States and pro-ban advocates fail to reach an agreement in solving the global landmines problem?" I argue that the competitive, distributive negotiation strategies and tactics used by the United States and pro-ban advocates during the campaign ensured that a negotiated agreement was not reached between these participants—even though the participants in the campaign, for the most part, had similar interests and issues, especially in reference to the protection of the civilian, non-combatant, populations. With these common interests and issues evident, I suggest that employing more cooperative, integrative negotiation strategies and tactics would have ensured a negotiated agreement between these two groups of negotiators.