Blackwater: mercenaries and international law Joana Abrisketa Professor of International Law, University of Deusto The government of Iraq suspended the private security fi rm Blackwater from operating in the country after some of its employees opened fi re on and killed 17 civilians in Baghdad in September 2007. The incident came against the backdrop of a confl ict in which between 25,000 and 50,000 mercenaries from several companies, the biggest of which is Blackwater, are employed by the US. These companies operate beyond the reach of international law, with little accountability to either the occupying force or the Iraqi government. This Comment asks should they be illegalised or regulated? Shortly after members of the private security fi rm Blackwater fi red on civilians in the Mansur district of Baghdad last September 12, the Iraqi government decided to suspend its licence to operate. According to the government, Blackwater employees have been involved in shootings that have injured or killed almost 20 Iraqi civilians since the beginning of the year. The suspension and possible revocation of licences for this company raises serious concerns for other such fi rms, as they employ approximately 50,000 staff in Iraq. Any signifi cant change to the status quo would aff ect the US government, which relies heavily on these forces to reduce offi cial fi gures for the military deployment in Iraq, and the issue is also a matter of concern for people everywhere because companies like Blackwater operate in a legal grey area where they are not accountable to anybody. It must also be recognised that mercenaries themselves do not have any rights, nor can they claim protection from anyone, even when they are military staff . The existence of private security companies and their expanding operations highlights the need to review existing international legislation and to examine other options, ranging from illegalisation to regulation. International Humanitarian Law, mainly comprising the 1949 Geneva Convention, the 1977 Additional Protocols and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, is still the most eff ective legal instrument in guaranteeing assistance and protection for the victims of armed confl ict. It also limits the use of certain methods of warfare. However, for International Law to be eff ective and applicable to current situations, it needs to adapt and evolve in the same way that the nature of armed confl icts changes. This does not mean that the progress made in international law over the last 100 years is not useful in the present day. In fact, the 1949 Geneva Conventions are completely valid in the vast majority of contemporary armed confl icts. However, new actors have appeared whose functions have made international humanitarian law partly obsolete, and among these new actors are private security contractors. The demand for private military security services is increasing and it is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. Soldiers can earn more by selling their military skills to foreign governments than in their own countries. Their transnational activity is dictated by commercial criteria, not by international law. The lack of specifi c regulation on the privatisation of security impacts on international security and warrants our attention. The prevailing thesis, especially among human rights groups, is that private security fi rms are the mercenaries of the 21st century, providing expedient solutions to social and political problems in contemporary armed confl icts1 . These groups are opposed to legalising private security contractors and question the use of armed force by non-state actors. They say that the legitimate use of force corresponds solely to the state. Governments should maintain their function as the sole providers of military security services. For the sake of the public interest, states should conserve their monopoly on the legitimate use of armed force. Fine as these sentiments may be, and they are indeed important, such arguments will not make private security companies go away. Their clients are there - states themselves, rebel groups and even, in certain cases, humanitarian agencies2 . Their services are in demand and making them illegal will not be eff ective because they will continue to exist, and their activity will continue to potentially infringe human rights laws. “Prohibition or regulation?” was the question posed in a United Nations information bulletin3 . From a strictly legal perspective, these companies operate in a grey area. They are not addressed, nor do they have any rights or obligations, under current international humanitarian4 law. The President of the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and of Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination declared that military and private security fi rms “enjoy an immunity that can easily become impunity, which could lead to some States recruiting these contractors to avoid direct legal responsibility”.5 While the number of private security agencies increases globally, legal debates about their status and functions are few and far between. As a result, private security companies operate in an ambiguous and poorly defi ned area of law6 . Consequently, if there no laws, or the laws are not clear, they are not complied with. Our goal is to ask if international law regulates the activity of private security companies, in other words to challenge international law and “test” its eff ectiveness. Defi ning mercenaries The term “mercenary” has been used to describe individuals who kill for economic gain, troops contracted by one country to work in another country, and private security companies providing military services in their own country. From the historical and social point of view, the fact that the term mercenary has been used to describe diff erent activities does not contribute to clarifying issues. And what is worse, international law does not solve the problem either. International legislation needs to be analysed to see how progress can be made on this issue. The fi rst set of international laws regulating war situations was the Hague Convention in the early 20th century. The 1907 Hague Convention on Neutral Powers established legal standards applicable to states and neutral persons in cases of war. However, it did not restrict the possibility for nationals of member states to work for hostile states. A national who is contracted by a 1 Musah, A.F., and Fayemi, J. (eds.), “Mercenaries”, Pluto Press, London, 2000, p.14. 2 In southwest Kosovo, the private military security company Armor Group (United States) operates as the lead agency in the coordination of demining activities. Demining is considered to be a humanitarian operation. In ArmorGroup, armormine-action 3 Offi ce of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Repercussions of mercenary operations on the rights of people to free determination”, Information bulletin n.28, Geneva, 2002, p.12 4 Rosemann, N., “The Privatization of Human Rights Violations – Business’ Impunity or Corporate Responsibility? The Case of Human Rights Abuses and Torture in Iraq”, in Non-State Actors and International Law, vol. 5, N. 1, 2005, pp.77-100. 5 Fourth period of the United Nations Human Rights Council sessions, 21 March 2007, Geneva, p.3 6 Kinsey, C., “Corporate Soldiers and International Security, The Rise of Private Military Companies”, Routledge, London, 2006, pp. 134 and following.
Posted on: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:46:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015