Ethics and Regulation of the Private Military Companies.
Privatized military corporations (PMCs) are a more apparent phenomenon in modern warfare. No longer considered a fringe group that worked in gray areas of the law, now PMCs offer logistics, security, training, and at times direct combat support to both states and corporations. Their emergence is indicative of more fundamental changes in the exercise of power in the international system; privatization, globalization and outsourcing of key state functions. But there are also some basic questions about morality, responsibility and control of the force in this growth.
The Corporate Contractors of the Mercenaries.
Hired fighters are as old as war. The difference between the modern PMC and the historical mercenaries is an organizational corporate aspect and the magnitude of their activities. Other companies like Blackwater (since renamed Academy), Wagner Group and Executive Outcomes have been doing business in conflict zones like Iraq up to Ukraine and have provided services such as convoy protection as well as intelligence gathering and even combat. In contrast to the traditional mercenaries, these firms are frequently registered as lawful businesses, enter into the contract with states, and promote themselves as the sellers of security solutions instead of the recruited guns.
The forces behind this trend are multidimensional. The reduction in the size of national armies in the post-Cold War period provided a source of skilled wartime veterans who needed to be employed. Outsourcing was attractive to governments under budgetary constraints and political sensitivity in regard to the deployment of the troops. Meanwhile, international firms operating in insecure countries – oil companies, mining firms, humanitarian agencies, etc. – required security that could not be assured by local authorities.
Ethical issues and Accountability Lapses.
PMCs continue to interfere with ethical dilemmas despite their corporate veil. Monopoly of legitimate violence is an old traditional state characteristic. In cases where lethal force is outsourced to non-governmental actors, the chain of command, rules of engagement and means of accountability may be clouded.
The following are some of the most publicized controversies of PMCs demonstrating such risks. The killing of 17 civilians in the Nisour Square in Baghdad in 2007 by Blackwater contractors brought to light the possibilities of abuses when contractors are left to work with ambiguous legal systems. Equally, the emergence of the Wagner Group in Syria, Libya, and Africa and the frequent inability to distinguish between government and non-state operations highlights the geopolitical fluidity the PMCs can bring.
PMCs are not formally members of national armed forces, so they frequently do not become a subject of the military justice systems. Local authorities might have the capacity or the political will to prosecute crimes, and the international humanitarian law, which was developed to apply to states and uniformed combatants, is not applicable everywhere. This may develop a culture of impunity that undermines civilian protection norms and the law of war.
The Business of Security
In addition to ethical issues, PMCs have led to the security situation in the global market being a market. Functions that were once monopolized by states such as security and defense have become the highest bidder. This may produce perverse incentives. Profit motive of a company can go against humanitarian or long-term stability. PMCs may develop an interest in the continuance of insecurity in conflict zones as it prolongs their contracts.
Besides, their presence may alter power equilibrium at the ground. Stately or well-endowed corporations may employ more equipped private armies than national armies, and this may weaken sovereignty. PMCs may end up as de facto determiners of security in weak states and shape political processes in a manner that is not subject to democratic control.
Efforts to International Regulation.
The emergence of PMCs has led to the call to increase the regulation at both the national and the international levels. There are a number of initiatives, but not binding. An example is the 1989 U.N. Convention on Mercenaries, which was modeled on the fieldwork of traditional mercenary activity and is almost never ratified or followed up. Perhaps of more general applicability to PMCs is the Montreux Document (2008), a non-binding document between states that details the legal requirements and best practices to be followed by the private security providers in armed conflicts. The International Code of Conduct of Private Security Service Providers (ICoC) also establishes voluntary standards of accountability and human rights.
On the national level there are licensing regimes and vetting of PMCs in some countries. Department of State and Department of Defense of the U.S. introduce contract clauses that presuppose compliance with the rules of engagement and humanitarian law. South Africa, being a victim of Executive Outcomes itself, passed some of the strictest laws that limited the ability of citizens to work with foreign PMCs. Nevertheless, there are still loopholes particularly in cross-border operations in which more than one jurisdiction is implicated.
Practical Ethical and Legal Norms.
Controlling cannot work without the political willingness and capability. It is important to determine transparent lines of responsibility: the contractors must fall under the jurisdiction of criminal prosecution of either the hiring state or the jurisdiction of the host state. Abuses can be prevented with transparency in contracting, publicity about the activities of PMCs, and independent monitoring.
PMCs should be provided with the same standards applied to regular armed forces, especially in their ethical aspect by the states and corporations that employ them. Accountability gap can be bridged by training on international humanitarian law, clear rules of engagement and the mechanisms that allow the victims to seek redress. There are those who advocate formal inculcation of PMCs in the military systems of the state as a way of checking them, and those who fear that it shall only naturalize privatized violence.
PMCs and Geopolitics
In addition to isolated instances of bad behavior, PMCs make the geopolitical environment more complex. In the case of private actors as proxies of state interests, which are probably deniable but closely associated with the state policy, the boundary between war and peace is obscured. This may culminate the conflicts, destabilization of weak states and undermine collective security arrangements.
Meanwhile, there are those that claim that PMCs can be positively involved under proper regulation. They can offer specialized capabilities, humanitarian crisis surge capacity, or defenseless groups in the absence of state authority or the presence of state aggression. Whether or not PMCs exist is not the most important question but the way these governance roles are exercised.
Toward a Balanced Framework
It is important to strike a compromise between three imperatives: state sovereignty, market realities and ethical norms to craft an effective framework of PMCs. Complete prohibition is not possible, much less preferable, because security services are needed. But the unchecked privatization of force threatens to undermine the bases of international law.
One of the most realistic directions is to tighten national licensing and oversight, convert international standards into binding treaties, and to raise the level of transparency in the work of PMCs. Watchdog roles can be played by civil society, the media and international organizations so that the private force is not free of scrutiny by the people.
Conclusion
The growth of privatization of state roles in the globalized world is symbolic of the private military companies. They are flexible, professional and efficient, and they also question norms on the use of force. Devoid of strong ethics and regulatory laws, PMCs may turn into the tool of abuse, impunity, and destabilization. They, however, with proper management can be incorporated into a valid security structure that honors human rights and rule of law.
The discussion of PMCs is eventually not about corporate actors as conflicts are becoming more sophisticated and the boundaries between the private and the public are becoming blurred. It concerns the ways in which societies delineate the limits of war, responsibility and state power in the twenty-first century.
