Are private military companies (PMCs) conducting support, training and combat activities a legitimate application of force for the modern state? This paper, authored by S Goddard, analyses the post-Cold War evolution of PMCs, their international legal status and the effects and ramifications of their use. The legitimacy of PMCs is both de facto and amoral, since they operate within a vacuum of regulation and accountability at both national and international levels.
Armed force previously vested wholly in the military of nation states is now being exercised by PMCs as commercial entities, specifically for financial profit. The recent proliferation of PMCs is attributable to four factors:
- The end of the Cold War resulted in localised responsibility for peace and security, rather than security based on the presence of a world power;
- Less powerful states who could not guarantee their own security created a demand for private military resources to produce that security;
- The Cold War superpowers downsized their standing armies. By 1994, the United States had reduced its forces by approximately 30 percent; and
- The collapse of the Soviet Union triggered depressed economic conditions in its former client states. In order to obtain foreign currency to rebuild their states, these states sold lucrative former Soviet assets, including military equipment, to non-aligned western nations and commercial interests.
Research conducted for this paper is based on an examination of contract operations of three PMCs: Executive Outcomes (Republic of South Africa), Sandline International (United Kingdom) and Military Professional Resources Incorporated (United States).
An analysis of the current scope of international legitimacy of PMCs yields the following findings:
- Because international legislation controlling military activity conducted by non-state forces predates the emergence of PMCs and only defines mercenaries, it is inapplicable to contemporary PMCs.
- The legitimacy of PMCs can only be defined as de facto and amoral, in the sense that they currently operate without external oversight and monitoring.
- PMCs are not effectively or consistently regulated, or held accountable at either international or national levels.
- The legitimacy of PMCs will only be altered by national and international leadership that challenges the current inappropriate status quo of PMCs.
- A minority of western PMCs, labelled ‘predator capitalists’, are reported to be linked to a network of mineral and resource corporate interests that seek contracts with developing nations and negotiate mineral and resource concessions as part of their remuneration.
Recommended additional areas of research on issues of international and national legitimacy and regulation and accountability of PMCs are:
- The legality, viability and capacity of PMCs to be contracted by the United Nations to conduct selective peace enforcement and peacekeeping operations;
- Confirmation of the existence of ‘predator capitalist’ PMCs and discussion of whether combining PMC operations with delivery of mineral and resource rights as remuneration is acceptable;
- Investigation of the applicability of the current framework of United States’ legislation to PMCs; and
- Investigation of the most suitable formats and structures for effective oversight and accountability of PMCs.
