Use Of Private Military Companies Research Articles

The Russian approach to peacekeeping

Abstract Peacekeeping is a central element of Russian foreign policy. The country has been deploying peacekeeping troops under highly controversial circumstances for more than three decades. A major power and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Russia obviously plays an important role in defining the standards by which peacekeeping is and may be done. When Russian troops invaded Ukraine in an unprovoked aggression on 24 February 2022, Russian politicians initially referred to them as ‘peacekeeping troops’. This led UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to declare his concern about ‘the perversion of the concept of peacekeeping’. This article offers a discussion of the Russian approach to peacekeeping as this has been and is being expressed in both recent conceptual thinking and implementation. Relying on a large pool of Russian policy documents and scholarly works, the article finds that Russia is likely to execute more operations with a lowered threshold for intervention and under conditions of greater flexibility. It is a more pragmatic approach. Operations will increasingly be designed comprehensively across the physical, cyber and cognitive domains and will include the use of private military companies. This will almost inevitably bring Russian interests to clash even more with the interests of western states.

Propagating a permanent war economy? U.S. FDI in warring host countries

PurposeConventional wisdom suggests that war in the host country makes it unattractive for foreign firms to invest. To see if this is true for US firms on the aggregate, this paper aims to examine the veracity of a “permanent war economy” hypothesis, that foreign direct investment (FDI) may, in fact, increase in the host country not despite, but because of, war, i.e. one that lends credence to the idea that, in the USA, “defense [has] become one of constant preparation for future wars and foreign interventions rather than an exercise in response to one-off threats.”Design/methodology/approachThe authors test the hypotheses using Generalized Method of Moments estimation, with Heckman Selection, on US FDI data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and war data from the Correlates of War2 Project, the Uppsala Conflict Data Program/International Peace Research Institute data set, the International Crisis Behavior Project and the Center for Systemic Peace Major Episodes of Political Violence data set. The final sample consists of 351 country-year observations in 55 host countries from 1982 to 2006.FindingsThe findings indicate that overall US FDI in a host country in a given year decreases if the host country is engaged in wars with multiple countries and if the US Government is involved in the war. Most notably, the results show that US involvement in multiple host country wars is actually correlated with increased US FDI into the host country, providing empirical support for the “permanent war economy” hypothesis.Originality/valueWhile other studies have focused on war and FDI, the authors have sought to show the impact of the involvement of arguably the most influential country, i.e. the USA, in the sovereign matters of a focal host country. By studying FDI from the USA as a function of US involvement in wars overseas, over the years with the greatest use of private military companies by the USA and the largest portion of global FDI accounted for by the USA, this work motivates a research agenda on home-host-"other” relations in the context of war and FDI, with the “other” being the supranational “elephant in the room.”

Rosyjskie prywatne firmy wojskowe i ich rola w polityce wewnętrznej i zagranicznej

Russia’s use of private military companies has strengthened in recent years, reflecting lessons learned from past actions, an expansive mindset and a desire for economic, geopolitical and military benefits. Military operations in Ukraine, starting from 2014, were one of the first tests for PMC. Since then, the Russians have perfected their model of operation. Even though the activities of private contractors are illegal under the Russian Constitution, they play an important role in pursuing Russian interests, mainly abroad. They weaken US influence and support Russia’s geopolitical, military and economic interests. They are present in as many as 30 countries on four continents. The purpose of this article is to define the role of Russian private military companies in the internal and external policy of the Russian Federation.

СВІТОВИЙ ДОСВІД СТВОРЕННЯ ТА РОЗВИТКУ ПРИВАТНИХ ВІЙСЬКОВИХ КОМПАНІЙ ЯК ІНСТРУМЕНТА РЕАЛІЗАЦІЇ НАЦІОНАЛЬНИХ ІНТЕРЕСІВ

У статті коротко надаються історичні факти використання приватних військових компаній у світі: за часів Риму і Карфагену; часів занепаду Римської імперії; в епоху Середньовіччя; укладання Вестфальського миру; Великої Французської революції; в ХІХ столітті; в період 1940-1970 років ХХ століття. Визначаються передумови виникнення і розвитку приватних військових компаній у світі в ХХстолітті. Описується досвід США щодо нормативно – правового регулювання діяльності приватних військових компаній. Характеризуються фактори, які посилили активність розвитку приватно – військових компаній. Окреслюється перелік функцій, які можуть виконувати приватні військові компанії, а саме: воєнізована охорона людей і об’єктів, зокрема посольств або нафтопроводів; охорона гуманітарних місій; участь у миротворчих цілях, в т.ч., під егідою ООН; розмінування; розвідувальна діяльність і оцінка ситуації безпеки в регіоні; технічне обслуговування та використання бойових комплексів і техніки; боротьба з піратством; евакуація населення з територій, де точаться збройні конфлікти; професійна підготовка сил місцевої поліції або військових; здійснення функцій поліції там, де не працюють правоохоронні органи; утримання під вартою і конвоювання затриманих або ув’язнених; підготовка цивільних осіб до роботи в надзвичайній обстановці; повноцінну участь в бойових операціях – спільно з кадровими частинами або окремо. Наголошується на широкому спектрі використання приватних військових компаній у різних регіонах світу. Аналізується правова база діяльності приватних військових компаній у США, Південно – Африканській республіці, Швейцарії, Китаї. Надається перелік іноземних приватних військових компаній, які приймають найбільш активну участь сьогодні в міжнародних конфліктах. Висвітлюються факти участі Російської Федерації у конфліктах, в яких їй доводиться активно використовувати приватні військові компанії.

Private Military Companies in the Russian Federation Foreign and Security Policies in 2014–2019

The aim of the scientific article is to reveal motives and features of using private military companies in Russian Federation foreign and security policy in 2014-2019. In order to do so, qualitative research method is applied, using case analysis method. From the analysis of the motives for the use of private military companies and conventional forces, it can be said that they are similar, as the use of both military structures allows to achieve more or less the same interests. However, it was observed that in terms of the specifics of the forces and the diversity scheme of social deviations, private military and security companies are more similar to regular forces. Nevertheless, both types of private companies help Russia avoid direct liability for various violations of the law. Considering the case of Russia analyzed in the study, the factors explained in the microtheory are adjusted, supplemented and interrelated. The analysis found that not all regions that are far from Russia are financially beneficial, but strategically, all give Russia an advantage over the United States. This work is beneficial for researchers doing study cases on Russian Federation foreign and security policy. Due to the novelty and relevance of the research object, a new microtheory in political science has been applied. Research is carried out using principal-agent theory which was only used analyzing US case.

ПІДТРИМКА СЕЦЕСІОНІСТСЬКИХ РУХІВ РОСІЙСЬКОЮ ФЕДЕРАЦІЄЮ НА СХОДІ УКРАЇНИ ТА ЇЇ ВПЛИВ НА БЕЗПЕКУ ЄВРОПИ

The end of the Cold War caused the liquidation of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 and a significant intensification of secessionist movements. For our country, this process had not become painless and has taken the form of fighting the former center. Because according to research commissioned by NATO in 2004 by scientists around the world, countries that are on the verge of breaking geopolitical platforms are not able to choose their future on their own because they are in multiple areas of influence. The article shows the support of the secessionist sentiment in the East of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. Using different tools, the aggressor country influences the activity and practically all spheres of life of Ukrainian society, including the economic sphere, which is shown to be the interest of all participants of armed conflicts. Those wars that were driven by the ideology have came to naught, however, the number of armed conflicts and internal hostilities increased. The quantity of conflicts perpetrated by numerous armed groups within the state borders has increased. Ukraine couldn’t insulate itself from the trend.The armed conflict started by the eastern neighbor-aggressor has set new challenges for the Ukrainian people, which consisted not only of repelling the aggression, but also of maintaining and restoring order in the conflict zone. This permanent source of instability in the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions is of high intensity, characterized by considerable political violence and an extreme number of casualties. Secessionism in the East of Ukraine is substantially combined with separatism and terrorism. As a result, this led to the formation of quasi-entities: the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. The Russian Federation, as a third party, has proven to be not only a direct aggressor but also a leading actor in supporting the separatist movement in the east of our country. For this purpose, the aggressor country, in addition to the generally accepted, used hybrid methods of conducting warfare, in particular, economic and geopolitical factors, the use of private military companies and other methods are disclosed in this article.

Феномен частных военных компаний в военно-силовой политике государств в XXI веке

Two main issues are considered in this article. The first is the changing historical and legal status of private military companies (PMCs). Emerging after the end of World War II, the PMC phenomenon became well-established by the mid-1990s. In the first decade of the 21st century, PMCs not only engaged in military activity in different regions of the world but also participated as independent economic actors capable of occupying a certain niche in the military segment of the world economy. Following this review, the article examines the practical activities of PMCs drawing on the example of the conflict in Ukraine during the civil war that began there after the coup d’etat of February 2014 and which saw the removal of the legally elected president V. Yanukovych and the rise of nationalist radicals to power. It should be noted that the Ukrainian crisis is only one of many examples of the use of PMCs. Moreover, as demonstrated in this study, the most powerful PMCs in the world are represented in the territory of Ukraine, pointing to the extreme importance of the processes occurring in Ukraine from the view point of the interests of the dominant actors in the modern international system involved in Ukrainian affairs.

Private Military Companies (PMCs) and International Criminal Law: Are PMCs the New Perpetrators of International Crimes?

The extensive use of private military companies (PMCs) in conflict areas the last 30 years has raised concern in the academic community regarding the participation of private companies in the conduct of war. For example, academics incite issues of legitimacy, the role of the state and the legal status of PMCs especially when they take a direct part in the hostilities. In this context, PMCs have been often accused of committing serious crimes during their involvement in the hostilities. The important question regarding their possible criminal activity is whether these serious crimes fall into the category of international law and more specifically international criminal law. This article examines firstly, whether PMCs actually commit serious crimes and secondly, if these crimes constitute violations of international law, namely, international crimes.

Use of private military companies in international conflicts: Ethical controversies

Use of private military companies in international conflicts: Ethical controversies

The Commodification of War: Political, Legal and Moral Issues

There are genuine arguments in favor of why and under what conditions the use of private military companies has become necessary (Kruck, 2014), but there is also a feeling of skepticism about the increasing commodification of war given the nature of force and violence in war, and the context of war itself. This paper argues that there are reasons to be worried. It argues that the use of PMC’s for the purpose of war raises significant political, legal and moral issues that we should really be worried about. It does not argue that these issues are novel, given that most of the issues confront the use of national armies also, but posits that the commodification of war amplifies these issues. It adopts the definition of PMCs, by Chesterman and Lehnardt (2007:3) as those firms that ‘provide services outside their home states with the potential use of lethal force, as well as training and advice to militaries that substantially affects their war-fighting capacities.’ DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n27p1467

Komparace využití služeb soukromých vojenských společností administrativami George W. Bushe a Baracka Obamy

The article deals with the phenomenon of Private Military Companies (PMCs) and their utilization by the United States of America (US). Its objective is the comparison of the use of PMC services by the administrations of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, respectively. It specifically focuses on the following four areas: capacity (numbers of PMCs deployed and the number of their employees), funding (costs of PMC services), regulation (its forms and laws covering PMCs), control and monitoring (supervision of PMCs and their staff by relevant public bodies). The main finding is that there have been few major changes in the use of PMCs' services, which contradicts president Obama's rhetoric both before and after he assumed office.

Legal Issues Arising from the Possible Inclusion of Private Military Companies in UN Peacekeeping

The main aim of this research is to explore the legal issues arising from the possible inclusion of Private Military Companies (PMC) as a military component of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping. It takes a step forward and explores the legal implications, consequences and limitations if such a policy option were to be chosen, but it does not expressly argue in favour or against such an option.The organization of the research is the following: First, main concepts used here, namely, peacekeeping and a private military company, are clarified. Secondly, the legal framework applicable to PMC-peacekeeping is then outlined in detail: the two scenarios for PMC-inclusion are defined, the legal subjects involved are identified and the applicable substantive rules of international law are surveyed. Emphasis is placed on the rules related to UN-peacekeeping and applied in analogy at the end of each section regarding either private contractors or the two hypothetical scenarios. Next, the two scenarios are tested with rules of international responsibility for wrongful acts.The conclusion outlines the major finding and legal limitations accompanying the possible use of PMCs in UN peacekeeping. First, one can conclude with confidence that there exists a certain detachment between the current use and status of private contractors in UN operations and the modalities which would be required for the implementation of the two hypothetical scenarios presented, namely the utilisation of PMCs as security-providing and combat forces under UN control and command. Second, both core parts of the analysis indicated that there currently exists a firmer case for the implementation of the first scenario that assumes an active role of states as providers of PMC-peacekeepers as seconded entities, similar to that of the national peacekeeping contingents. Third, the international responsibility debate is insufficient and needs to be supplemented by the individual criminal responsibility debate when exploring the option of PMC inclusion in UN peacekeeping.

The Role of Private Military Companies in US-Africa Policy

This article discusses the increasing use of private military companies (PMCs) in United States’ security policy in Africa, and examines this phenomenon in relation to the US’ various military training programmes on the continent. We argue that the increasing use of PMCs in US security policy has evolved due to two critical and mutually dependent developments; African state weakness and resource stringency on the one hand, and the US's overwhelming security commitments around the world, combined with military downsizing, on the other. The article further argues that the involvement of PMCs is to a large extent informed by US concerns about access to African resources, especially oil, in the face of stiff competition from China. We conclude that the increasing US engagement in Africa is highly militaristic and state-centric, and that it is primarily conditioned by US strategic interests and does not necessarily reflect African security concerns: human security for development.

Just War Theory and the Privatization of Military Force

The use of private military companies (PMCs) has become increasingly prevalent, with such firms as Blackwater, MPRI, and DynCorp taking over a growing number of roles traditionally performed by the regular military. This article uses the framework of just war theory (JWT) to consider the central normative issues raised by this privatization of military force. In particular, I first examine the claim that private contractors are inappropriate actors to wage war because they contravene the JWT principle of right intention. The next section asserts that the use of PMCs is largely consistent with the application of the principle of legitimate authority but undermines two of its central rationales. In the third section, I apply the jus in bello principle of discrimination to PMC personnel. Overall, I argue that JWT needs to be updated and extended to respond to the issues raised by the privatization of military force.

Conservative Economics and Globalisation

Since 1979, modern Conservatism has been torn between a traditional regard for the nation state and a powerful, internationalising, global capitalism. Increasingly, radical free marketeers in the party reject the diffuse and patriotic political economy of big government. Instead, they prefer the consumption ethic of radical supply side reform and privatisation. However, in a country in which private healthcare is expanding, in which private schools and home education are booming, and in which for every one state policeman there are now at least two private security guards, how far will this process go? When a Labour government issues a green paper highlighting the scope for the greater use of private military companies and it accepts the commodification of public space through the use of road pricing, what room is left for Conservatives who believe that 'the people should be big and the state small'?

Gender and the globalisation of violence: the treacherous terrain of privatised peacekeeping

abstract This article examines how globalisation has transformed the state's security functions and monopoly over violence. The expansion of the global arms dynamic and privatisation indicate increased (re)militarisation which threatens a norm-driven and people-centred global security order. A feminist conceptualisation of globalised security is necessary to remind us not to overestimate the extent to which power has become removed from the state and to offer theoretical and practical insights on how a fusion of masculine and feminine values may assist human and state security. Progress has recently been made in mainstreaming gender in peacekeeping operations, but much still needs to be done regarding implementation. Progress is also threatened by the increased use of private military companies which operate outside of generally acceptable accountability norms. Regulating these companies through international law is a possible solution which could also serve gender mainstreaming objectives. This option may be costly since it entrenches using force in conflict resolution. This could only prove detrimental to the fostering of comprehensive security based on gender justice.