PMC

Accountability as a Problem with PMCs

Private Military Companies (PMCs) can pose challenges when it comes to accountability. Here are some key points to understand:

• National armies are accountable domestically through the political process. This means that soldiers who commit war crimes, as well as their military commanders and political superiors who bear responsibility, can be prosecuted in national courts and the International Criminal Court (once it is in operation).
• The same liability under international humanitarian law would also apply to employees of PMCs who become involved in armed conflict.
• However, in practice, the extent of accountability by PMCs may vary depending on who is employing them.
• Some commentators argue that PMCs are different from freelance mercenaries because they have a continuing corporate existence and strive to maintain a respectable reputation as organizations.

It is important to note that accountability can be more challenging in certain situations:

• A weak government that relies on a PMC for its security may be in a poor position to hold the PMC accountable.
• The theoretical proposition of accountability under international humanitarian law may not always be practical in reality.

Overall, the level of accountability by PMCs can vary depending on the circumstances and the entities involved.

Historical Perspective

Historically, the use of mercenaries or hired soldiers was common. The term “soldier” comes from the word “Soltlc,” which means “pay.” Many commanders, including Alexander and Hannibal, employed mercenary forces. In Europe, mercenaries were preferred by commanders until the creation of national armies in the 19th century.

Transparency and Accountability

Transparency is a key issue when it comes to holding PMCs accountable. It can be challenging to know what PMCs are doing when they operate in a war zone. Sandline International has proposed the idea of monitoring PMCs, which they argue should be funded by the International Community. Shearer has also supported this idea. However, it is unclear how practical this would be in a war zone.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty is another important aspect to consider when it comes to PMCs. Sovereignty refers to the authority and power of a government to govern its own territory. The presence of PMCs in a country can raise questions about the sovereignty of that country.

Private Military Companies (PMCs) and Sovereignty

• Commentators view PMCs as a threat to sovereignty.
• The UN Rapporteur states that within the structure of the nation-state, it is unacceptable for any state to authorize mercenary activities.
• Mercenary activity is considered an international crime, even if legislation is lacking or deficient.
• Mercenary activity violates the right of peoples to self-determination and the sovereignty of states.
• The fact that a government recruits mercenaries or contracts companies that recruit mercenaries does not make these actions legal or legitimate.
• Governments are only authorized to operate under the Constitution and international law.

Arguments against PMCs and Sovereignty

• PMCs are seen as a threat to the sovereignty of states.
• The existence and activity of PMCs are considered illegal and illegitimate.
• Mercenary activities violate the right of peoples to self-determination.
• Governments should not be allowed to recruit mercenaries or contract companies that do so.

UN Rapporteur’s Report

• The UN Rapporteur reported to the Commission on Human Rights in January 1999.
• The report highlights the inadmissibility of any state authorizing mercenary activities.
• Mercenarism is considered an international crime, regardless of the form or objectives of the activities.
• The report emphasizes that mercenary activity arises in situations that violate the right of peoples to self-determination and the sovereignty of states.
• The report states that even if a government recruits mercenaries or contracts companies that do so, these actions remain illegal and illegitimate.
• Governments should only operate within the boundaries of the Constitution and international law.

Implications for Sovereignty

• PMCs pose a challenge to the sovereignty of states.
• Sovereignty refers to a state’s ability to govern itself without interference from external actors.
• The presence of PMCs can undermine a state’s control over its territory and resources.
• PMCs may operate independently of state authority, potentially leading to conflicts and power struggles.
• The use of PMCs by governments can be seen as a violation of the principles of sovereignty and self-determination.

Conclusion

• PMCs are viewed as a threat to sovereignty by commentators.
• The UN Rapporteur’s report highlights the illegality and illegitimacy of mercenary activities.
• Mercenary activities violate the right of peoples to self-determination and the sovereignty of states.
• Governments should not recruit mercenaries or contract companies that do so.

Mercenaries and Private Military Companies (PMCs)

UN Charter and the Use of Power

• Governments and PMCs should not use their power in a way that undermines the self-determination of peoples or jeopardizes the independence and sovereignty of a state.
• The extreme view mentioned does not consider all the principles of the UN Charter, including the right of self-defense (Article 51).

Threats to Legitimate Governments

• In the past, mercenaries were a threat to legitimacy and self-determination, often associated with preserving quasi-colonial structures and participating in attempted coups.
• However, PMCs in the 1990s have not been involved in such activities.
• There is still a theoretical risk that PMCs could become a threat to the governments that employ them.

Ways PMCs May Be a Threat

• PMCs can pose a threat to legitimate governments in several ways:
  • Involvement in illegal activities: PMCs may engage in illegal activities that undermine the stability and security of a country.
  • Lack of accountability: PMCs may operate without proper oversight and accountability, which can lead to abuses of power and human rights violations.
  • Influence on government decision-making: PMCs may have undue influence on government policies and decisions, potentially undermining the democratic process.
  • Dependency on PMCs: Governments that heavily rely on PMCs for their military operations may become dependent on them, which can weaken their own military capabilities and control.

Conclusion

• While the use of PMCs has evolved from the threat posed by mercenaries in the past, there are still concerns about their potential impact on legitimate governments.
• It is important for governments to carefully consider the risks and implications of employing PMCs and ensure proper oversight and accountability to mitigate any potential threats.

Perception of Monopoly on Violence

There is a perception that the monopoly on violence is essential to the concept of a state. This means that the state should have exclusive control over the use of force within its territory. The idea of a state relying on a foreign force for its security goes against this reasoning and our concept of citizenship.

Private or Foreign Control

However, just because a force is private or foreign does not mean it cannot be under the control of the state. While such arrangements may not be ideal, they may be less damaging to sovereignty than an unchecked rebel movement.

Economic Exploitation

One way in which PMCs could be considered is through the lens of economic exploitation. PMCs may be hired by corporations or governments to protect their economic interests in certain regions. This can involve securing resources, infrastructure, or personnel.

Regulation and Oversight

Due to the potential risks associated with PMCs, there is a need for regulation and oversight. This ensures that PMCs operate within legal and ethical boundaries. It also helps to prevent abuses of power and violations of human rights.

• Regulation and oversight are important to ensure that PMCs do not engage in illegal activities or violate human rights.
• Governments and international organizations play a role in establishing and enforcing regulations for PMCs.
• Transparency and accountability are crucial in the operations of PMCs to maintain public trust.

Conclusion

While there are concerns about the role and impact of PMCs, it is unlikely that they would try to take over control of a country. The monopoly on violence remains essential to the concept of a state, and relying on a foreign force for security goes against this principle. However, private or foreign control does not necessarily mean a loss of sovereignty, and regulation and oversight are important to ensure that PMCs operate within legal and ethical boundaries.

Threat to Sovereignty: Economic Exploitation

Introduction

Economic exploitation can pose a threat to a country’s sovereignty. This is particularly evident in countries in Africa that have abundant mineral resources. Some of these countries, such as Angola, Sierra Leone, and Zaire, have been associated with the use of mercenaries and private military companies (PMCs).

Link to Mineral Extraction

Observers have noted that there is a connection between these countries’ use of mercenaries and PMCs and their mineral resources. In particular, there have been concerns about the links between Executive Outcomes, a PMC, and extraction companies.

Government’s Dilemma

Some commentators argue that it is problematic for governments to pay for security by relying on future returns from mineral exploitation. They believe that this approach essentially mortgages the country’s resources. However, in some cases, governments may feel compelled to choose between mortgaging their mineral resources or leaving them entirely in the hands of rebels. In such situations, it may be seen as a legitimate choice to mortgage the resources to ensure security.

Positive Side of PMC-Mineral Extraction Association

On the other hand, some commentators have highlighted a positive aspect of the association between PMCs and mineral extraction. They argue that for PMCs, an interest in mineral extraction may be one of the few ways they can ensure payment for their services. Additionally, having a stake in mineral extraction can provide PMCs with a vested interest in maintaining stability and security in the region.

In summary, economic exploitation can pose a threat to a country’s sovereignty. In some cases, governments may resort to using mercenaries and PMCs to protect their mineral resources. While this approach may raise concerns about mortgaging the country’s future, it can also be seen as a legitimate choice in the face of rebel threats. The association between PMCs and mineral extraction can have both negative and positive implications, with some commentators criticizing the reliance on mineral resources for security and others highlighting the potential benefits of such an association.

Private Military Companies (PMCs) and Vested Interest

Private Military Companies (PMCs) are hired by various entities to deal with conflict situations. While some argue that PMCs have no interest in bringing conflict to an end, as they are paid to deal with conflict, others believe that PMCs can have a vested interest in peace and stability.

Vested Interest in Peace and Stability

• PMCs can have a vested interest in peace and stability if their contracts include performance clauses that incentivize them to complete their assigned tasks. By including clear incentives for completing tasks, the hiring parties can ensure that PMCs are motivated to work towards peace and stability.

• It is in the best interest of PMCs to maintain peace and stability because it allows them to operate in a secure environment. In a stable environment, PMCs can carry out their tasks effectively and efficiently, ensuring the safety of their personnel and the success of their missions.

• PMCs may also have a vested interest in peace and stability because it can lead to long-term contracts and future business opportunities. If PMCs are successful in resolving conflicts and promoting stability, they are more likely to be hired for future missions and projects.

Challenges and Potential Conflicts of Interest

• One challenge is that parties involved in the conflict may have reasons to prolong it. For example, they may want to exploit mineral resources illegally or gain political advantages. In such cases, PMCs may face difficulties in achieving peace and stability if the parties involved are not genuinely interested in resolving the conflict.

• Another concern is the potential for PMCs to switch sides and sell their services to the highest bidder. This can undermine the efforts towards peace and stability if PMCs prioritize financial gains over the resolution of conflicts. However, this can be mitigated by establishing strong contractual agreements and ethical guidelines that prohibit such behavior.

• It is important for the hiring parties to carefully select and monitor the actions of PMCs to ensure that they are aligned with the goal of peace and stability. By holding PMCs accountable and providing oversight, the hiring parties can minimize the risk of conflicts of interest.

Conclusion

While some argue that PMCs may have no interest in bringing conflict to an end, there are ways to align their interests with peace and stability. By including performance clauses in contracts, ensuring a secure operating environment, and promoting long-term partnerships, PMCs can be motivated to work towards resolving conflicts.

Reputation and Business Prospects

• PMCs need to maintain a good reputation in order to attract clients and secure future business.
• Engaging in unethical behavior or illegal activities can damage a PMC’s reputation and harm its business prospects.
• Examples of unethical behavior include offering services to rival companies or working for conflicting parties in a conflict zone.
• While it is possible for a PMC to engage in such behavior, it is not in their long-term interest as it can ruin their reputation.

Human Rights Concerns

• PMCs have been accused of human rights abuses, particularly in the past.
• In the 1960s and 1970s, mercenaries (a type of PMC) were involved in many abuses.
• The situation is less clear for PMCs in the 1990s.
• There have been reports of misconduct by certain PMCs, such as looting in Angola.
• Some PMCs have also been accused of using controversial weapons like cluster bombs and fuel air explosions.
• However, it is important to note that these weapons have also been used by Western armed forces.
• While there are concerns about human rights abuses by PMCs, it is important to consider the actions of all parties involved in a conflict.

Human Rights and Private Military Companies (PMCs)

Introduction

Private Military Companies (PMCs) have been involved in various conflicts around the world, including Sierra Leone. There have been accusations of human rights abuses by PMCs, but it is important to determine whether these abuses are inherent to the nature of PMCs or if they are isolated incidents.

Accusations of Abuses

• Limited accusations of abuses by Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone.
• These accusations are not always well substantiated.
• It is important to note that national armies, including those in UN peacekeeping roles, have also been accused of human rights abuses.

Are Abuses Inherent in the Nature of PMCs?

• The question is not whether abuses have been committed, but whether such abuses are inherent in the nature of PMCs.
• The UN Special Rapporteur argues that the participation of mercenaries in armed conflicts always hampers the enjoyment of human rights.
• Traditional mercenaries, who are free of any constraining system and seek opportunities to fight, may be prone to violence.
• With PMCs, there should be greater incentives for discipline.
• Companies have a continuous corporate existence and acquiring a bad reputation would be detrimental to their business.

Conclusion

• While there have been accusations of human rights abuses by PMCs, it is important to determine whether these abuses are inherent in the nature of PMCs or if they are isolated incidents.
• National armies and UN peacekeeping forces have also been accused of human rights abuses.
• The nature of PMCs may provide greater incentives for discipline compared to traditional mercenaries.
• Further examination is needed to fully understand the relationship between PMCs and human rights.

Private Military Companies and Human Rights Violations

Private military companies (PMCs) have been the subject of criticism due to their involvement in human rights violations. One such company is Executive Outcomes (EO), which faced allegations of misconduct in Angola. However, it is believed that EO decided to improve its behavior in Sierra Leone to avoid negative consequences for its business. Mr. Van der Berg, the former Chief Executive of EO, stated that human rights violations would be the fastest way to drive the company out of business.

Concerns about Private Military Companies

Despite their presence, some critics argue that PMCs are not a real solution to the problems of conflict. They believe that relying on a service company like EO creates an illusion of governability without addressing the underlying substantive problems. The UN Rapporteur highlights this issue, stating that the presence of a private company responsible for Sierra Leone’s security did not solve the core problems. Similarly, David Francis argues that the strategic impact of EO is often exaggerated and that the company cannot effectively address the complex issues of conflict.

Private Military Companies and Government Clients

Private military companies like MPRI and DynCorp often work for clients, including the US Government. These companies face even greater pressure to avoid human rights violations due to their association with government entities.

The Importance of Human Rights for Private Military Companies

Mr. Van der Berg, the former Chief Executive of EO, emphasized that human rights violations would have severe consequences for the company’s business. This statement applies not only to EO but also to other companies like MPRI and DynCorp. These companies understand that any involvement in human rights violations could lead to a loss of contracts and damage their reputation.

The Role of Private Military Companies in Conflict

Private military companies are often seen as a potential solution to conflict-related problems. However, critics argue that their impact is limited and that they cannot effectively address the underlying issues.

Illusion of Governability

The presence of a private military company, such as EO, may create an illusion of governability. This means that although the company provides security services, it does not address the substantive problems that contribute to conflict. As a result, the conflict persists, and the company’s role becomes limited to providing a temporary sense of security.