Abstract
The global use of Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) has grown steadily in recent years but a universally acknowledged regulatory system to monitor their compliance with international laws remains elusive. The two main proposals for an oversight system include voluntary self-regulation versus a treaty that would bind States to regulate and control PMSC conduct. Both approaches place responsibilities on States that hire PMSCs, act as their home bases, and on whose territories the PMSCs facilitate military operations. A fourth category is made up of States that may not fall under any of the preceding three categories but whose citizens are employed by foreign PMSCs. Many such ‘Nationality States’ have ratified multiple international humanitarian law (IHL) commitments, including disarmament treaties. While these States ensure that their military personnel respect their ratified IHL treaties wherever they act, the same assurance cannot always be given for their civilians working as contractors in foreign conflicts. Hence, if a State’s civilians deliberately and regularly expose themselves to prohibited acts and munitions in foreign conflict zones, should they be required to observe some of the same restrictions that are placed on their national militaries? None of the current approaches to regulate PMSCs adequately addresses this issue. This paper will argue that Nationality States should regulate and licence their citizens who work for PMSCs, and enforce applicable IHL restrictions upon such civilians when they act in extra-territorial conflict zones.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call