Privatising the military use of force

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

II. THE PMC INDUSTRY

1. Introduction

2. Categorisation of the industry

(a) Military provider firms

(b) Military consulting firms

(c) Military support firms

3. The impact of the industry

(a) The quantitative impact

(b) The qualitative impact

4. Are PMCs and/or their employees mercenaries?

(a) PMCs and their employees are not effectively covered by existing international anti-mercenary laws

(b) PMCs differ significantly from traditional mercenaries

(c) Summary

III. STATE RESPONSIBILITY

1. General rules of state responsibility

2. Categorisation of states

3. Breach of international obligation

(a) Law on the recourse of force (jus ad bellum)

(i) The prohibition on the use of force

(ii) The principle of non-intervention

(b) Laws of neutrality

(c) International humanitarian law (jus in bello)

(i) Introduction

(ii) Obligations of the occupying power

(iii) Obligations in connection with prisoners of war

(iv) Obligations in connection with the principle of distinction

(d) Other obligations

(i) International humanitarian law

(ii) International human rights law

(ii) Arms restriction and arms embargos

(iii) Principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources

(iv) Mercenary laws

4. Where PMC conduct is attributable to a state

(a) Introduction

(b) Article 4 DASR ‘state organ’

(c) Article 5 DASR ‘authorized by the law … to exercise governmental authority’

(d) Article 6 DASR ‘organ placed at the disposal of a State by another State’

(e) Article 8 DASR ‘instruction or direction and control’

(f) Conduct ultra vires

5. Where PMC conduct is not attributable to a state

(a) Introduction to the concept of due diligence

(b) Due diligence and international human rights law

(c) Due diligence and international humanitarian law

6. Preliminary summary

IV. INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS’ RESPONSIBILITY

1. Introduction: international organisations and their present and potential future use of PMCs

2. Preliminary remarks on the responsibility of international organisations for the commission of international delicts

3. General rules of international organisation’s responsibility

4. Breach of international obligation

(a) The capacity to bear international obligations: are international organisations vested with objective legal personality?

(b) Conduct ultra vires the competences of the international organisation

(c) International humanitarian law

(i) The applicability ratione personae

(ii) Applicability ratione materiae in situations of armed conflict

5. Where the PMC conduct is attributable to the international organisation

6. Where the PMC conduct is not attributable to the international organisation

7. Preliminary summary

V. CONCLUSION

1. Responsibility of states

2. Responsibility of international organisations

Objectives & Themes

This research dissertation explores the legal responsibilities arising under international law from the privatization of the military use of force, focusing specifically on the obligations and accountability of states and international organizations when employing Private Military Companies (PMCs).

• The categorization and operational impact of the private military industry on modern warfare.
• The applicability of existing international law, including anti-mercenary treaties and customary law, to PMC activities.
• Criteria for the attribution of PMC conduct to states and international organizations under the law of international responsibility.
• The concept of "due diligence" as a basis for state responsibility for private conduct.
• Challenges regarding command and control in the context of outsourced military functions.

Auszug aus dem Buch

Summary of Chapters

I. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the research focus on the legal responsibilities arising from the privatization of military force.

II. THE PMC INDUSTRY: Provides a categorization of the industry and analyzes its quantitative and qualitative impact on contemporary warfare.

III. STATE RESPONSIBILITY: Examines the legal framework for state responsibility, focusing on attribution rules and the doctrine of due diligence.

IV. INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS’ RESPONSIBILITY: Analyzes the unique legal challenges regarding the responsibility of international organizations for the use of PMCs.

V. CONCLUSION: Summarizes the key findings and addresses the legal gaps in the current international regime regarding privatized force.

Keywords

Private Military Companies, PMCs, International Law, State Responsibility, International Organizations, Due Diligence, Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Mercenaries, Attribution, Command and Control, International Humanitarian Law, Privatization of Force, Armed Conflict, Human Rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary focus of this research paper?

The paper examines the international legal responsibilities of states and international organizations that arise from the privatization of the military use of force, particularly through the use of Private Military Companies (PMCs).

What are the central thematic areas of the study?

The work covers industry categorization, the applicability of current anti-mercenary and international laws, the criteria for conduct attribution, and the application of due diligence standards.

What is the core research question or objective?

The objective is threefold: to explore existing legal responsibilities for states and organizations using PMCs, to determine if there are substantial gaps in international law, and to suggest solutions for these gaps.

Which scientific methods are utilized in the work?

The dissertation employs a legal analysis method, evaluating international treaty law, customary international law, draft articles of the International Law Commission (ILC), and judicial precedents from international courts.

What core topics are discussed in the main body?

The main body addresses state responsibility rules, the distinction between private entities and state organs, the definition of mercenaries versus PMCs, and the responsibility regimes for international organizations.

Which keywords best characterize this work?

Key terms include State Responsibility, Private Military Companies, International Humanitarian Law, Due Diligence, Attribution, and Privatization of Force.

How does the author characterize the "tip-of-the-spear" typology?

The author uses this typology as a conceptual framework to categorize PMCs based on their proximity to the frontline, distinguishing between Military Provider Firms, Military Consultant Firms, and Military Support Firms.

What is the author's conclusion regarding the legal status of PMCs?

The author concludes that PMCs operate within a complex legal environment rather than a "legal vacuum," though the existing mercenary-specific treaties are largely ineffective because they were drafted for individuals, not modern corporate entities.