PMC

Mercenary Activity Legislation in Different Countries

Norway

• The Norwegian government passed the Foreign Enlistment Act in 1938 to prevent Norwegians from participating in the Spanish civil war.
• The Act grants the King the authority to prohibit citizens from engaging in mercenary activities.
• However, the King has never used this authority.
• Currently, there are no plans to extend the existing legislation or for Norway to become a party to the 1989 UN Convention.

Portugal

• The Portuguese Criminal Code prohibits Portuguese nationals from engaging in mercenary activities abroad.
• This ban covers combat activities but does not include advice or technical assistance to foreign military forces.
• No prosecutions have been made under this legislation.

Russia

• Article 359 of the Russian Criminal Code criminalizes the recruitment, training, financing, and participation of mercenaries in armed conflicts.
• The punishment for recruitment is imprisonment for 4 to 8 years, while participation in armed conflict as a mercenary carries a sentence of 3 to 7 years.

Spain

• Spain does not have any legislation or regulation in place to prevent private citizens from working abroad as mercenaries.
• However, the Code of Military Law does make it a punishable offense for serving members of the military to engage in mercenary activities.
• There are no plans to introduce laws in this field or for Spain to become a party to the 1989 UN Convention.

Sweden

• The concept of a mercenary is not known in Swedish law.
• The Swedish Penal Code does not explicitly prohibit a Swedish citizen from serving as a mercenary or engaging in activities such as training and financing mercenaries.
• However, Section 12 of Chapter 19 of the Code states that recruiting people for foreign military service or inducing people to leave the country unlawfully to enter such service without government permission is considered unlawful recruiting.
• The punishment for unlawful recruiting can be a fine or a maximum imprisonment of six months. If the country is at war, the maximum imprisonment can be two years.
• Sweden has not become a party to the 1989 UN Convention, as some aspects of the convention are not compatible with Swedish law.

Switzerland

• The Penal Code in Switzerland prohibits Swiss nationals from joining a force that is designed for military operations against a foreign state or an organized armed group.
• Joining a force that is involved in an armed conflict that is not considered an international or non-international armed conflict is not explicitly prohibited.
• However, Swiss nationals who join such forces may still face legal consequences under other provisions of Swiss law, such as participating in a criminal organization or committing war crimes.
• Switzerland has not become a party to the 1989 UN Convention, which regulates the activities of mercenaries.

United Kingdom

• The United Kingdom has legislation in place to control and regulate private military companies operating within its jurisdiction.
• The Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 prohibits British citizens from enlisting in foreign armed forces without the permission of the British government.
• The UK government has the authority to prosecute individuals who engage in mercenary activities.

United States

• The United States also has laws that regulate mercenary activities.
• The Neutrality Act of 1794 prohibits US citizens from participating in foreign military activities without the approval of the US government.
• The US government can prosecute individuals who violate this law.

Ukraine

• In Ukraine, mercenary activities are covered under Article 63 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code.
• Engaging in mercenary activities can result in a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
• Ukrainian legislation allows for prosecution even in cases of non-combatant support, such as medical assistance, to a mercenary force.
• Ukraine ratified the 1989 UN Convention on Mercenaries in 1993.

Regulatory Impact Assessment

• The UK government has responded to the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee to publish a Green Paper on the control of private military companies operating from the UK, its dependencies, and the British Islands.
• The purpose of this paper is to gather public input and opinions on the issue of mercenary activities and private military companies.
• The paper does not make any specific recommendations but serves as a consultative document for further discussion and consideration. # Regulation of Private Military Companies (PMCs), Private Security Companies (PSCs), and Mercenaries

Regulation of PMCs, PSCs, and mercenaries is being considered due to several reasons:

1. Implications of Security Actions:
   • Actions in the security field can have consequences beyond normal commercial transactions.
   • They may involve the use of force, taking lives, or impacting the stability of a country or region.
   • These actions can potentially cut across British foreign policy objectives.
2. Impact on British Reputation:
   • Activity by individuals or companies in this field can reflect on Britain’s reputation.
   • British forces may find themselves confronting forces that have been assisted by a British company.

However, it is important to note that the administrative burden and the number of affected companies cannot be accurately predicted at this stage.

Regulating these activities would have both administrative and financial implications for the government and the companies involved.

Impact of Imposing Controls on the Private Sector

Difficulties in Estimating the Impact

• Both the government and industry face challenges in accurately estimating the impact of imposing controls.
• Limited availability of hard data on the potential impact on export businesses.

Options for Debate

• The options presented in the paper are not exhaustive but are meant to stimulate discussion.
• A comprehensive regulatory impact assessment cannot be conducted at this stage.
• The government welcomes comments on the impact and cost to businesses of implementing any of these options.

Risks of Regulation

• One major challenge of regulation is the difficulty in prosecuting suspected offenses that occur overseas.
• Private Military Companies (PMCs) can easily move from one jurisdiction to another to avoid inconvenient regulatory environments.
• PMCs often have few fixed assets or permanent employees, making it harder to hold them accountable.

Benefits of Regulation

• Establishing a reputation for British companies in this sector as reliable and responsible partners.
• Making it easier for British companies to win business, for example from international organizations.
• Creating a fair and reasonable regulatory regime that is viewed positively by the industry.

Consequences for Non-Compliance:

• Companies that choose to place themselves outside the regulatory regime by going offshore would be putting themselves on the margins of the sector.
• Their reputations would suffer accordingly.

Options for Regulation:

1. Ban on Military Activity Abroad:
   • Prohibiting private sector companies or individuals from engaging in any military activities outside of Britain.
   • This would ensure that British companies do not participate in conflicts or activities that could undermine Britain’s interests.
2. Ban on Recruitment for Military Activity Abroad:
   • Prohibiting the recruitment of individuals for military activities outside of Britain.
   • This would prevent British citizens from being involved in conflicts or activities that could go against Britain’s policies.
3. Licensing Regime for Military Services:
   • Implementing a licensing system that regulates the provision of military services by private sector companies.
   • This would ensure that companies meet certain standards and adhere to guidelines set by the regulatory body.

It is important to carefully consider the potential impact and effectiveness of each option before making a decision on the regulatory approach. # Registration and Notification for PMCs/PSCs

• PMCs/PSCs (Private Military Companies/Private Security Companies) may be required to register and notify relevant authorities.
• This registration and notification process is a form of regulation for these companies.
• It may involve providing information about their activities, personnel, and locations.

Issues of Equity and Fairness

• It is challenging to assess the impact of new controls on every business that may be affected.
• Depending on the services covered by the regulation, some companies may already be familiar with licensing processes for the supply of goods, technology, or trafficking and brokering.
• For these companies, the burden of additional licensing requirements may not be significant.
• However, there may be other companies that are not involved in such business activities.
• For them, the licensing process could significantly increase their costs. # Impact of a Ban on Provision of Military Services

Loss of Contracts for British Defence Exporters

• An outright ban on the provision of all military services would result in the loss of contracts for British defence exporters.
• This would include the loss of contracts for services of considerable value.
• Export of defence equipment often depends on the supplier being able to provide a service package.
• As a result, a large volume of defence export sales would be lost, in addition to the value of the services themselves.
• The exact amount of loss is difficult to estimate, but it is clear that the cost to British industry would be significant.

Impact on Defence Industrial Base

• Significant losses in defence export sales could also have a negative impact on the defence industrial base.
• This could be detrimental to the overall defence capability of the country.

Censoring Regime for Military Services

Regulatory Impact

The regulatory impact of implementing new controls for military and security services abroad would require companies to obtain a license for these contracts and maintain records for inspection. This would ensure compliance with the regulations.

Burden on Companies

• Companies would need to allocate staff time to prepare and support license applications.
• Delays in obtaining a license could be costly if they result in the loss of contracts.
• The cost impact of these new regulations on companies is difficult to determine due to the lack of available data.

Administrative Burden on Government

• Implementing a licensing regime would require significant staff resources and IT investment for the government.
• It may also increase the workload for those operating the existing export licensing system.

Export Control Bill - Estimated Costs

The Export Control Bill proposes the implementation of controls on the export of certain goods. While the exact details and scope of these controls are yet to be determined, it is important to consider the potential costs associated with processing licenses and ensuring compliance.

Estimated Costs for Processing Licenses

• In the scenario proposed for the Export Control Bill, it was estimated that processing 200 to 400 additional licenses for the entire UK government (HMG) would cost between £700,000 and £800,000 in the first year.
• For subsequent years, the estimated cost for processing these licenses would range from £470,000 to £570,000.

Factors Contributing to Costs

1. Licensing Authority Costs:
   • The department responsible for acting as the licensing authority would incur additional costs.
   • These costs would include recurrent staff and IT expenses.
   • One-off IT investments may also be necessary.
2. Consultation Costs:
   • Other government departments consulted about license applications would also face additional costs.
   • These costs would be related to staff and IT expenses.
3. Compliance and Enforcement Costs:
   • Agencies designated to ensure compliance and enforce the export controls would also incur costs.
   • The exact sum involved would depend on the extent of the licensing regime sought.