Anatolia College
Model United
Nations 2012
TOPIC A: Privatization of
War- Regulating the use of
private military
companies (PMCs) and
mercenaries
Disarmament Committee
Christodoulos Hondrogiorgis
Anatolia College Model United Nations 2012 | Disarmament Committee
INTRODUCTORY LETTER OF STUDENT OFFICER
Dear delegates,
My name is Christodoulos Hondrogiorgis and I will be your expert chair on the topic of “Privatization of
War- Regulating the use of PMCs”. This guide has been written in order to help you and I hope it will be
much of assistance to you. If you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask me as my task is to be there
for you. I expect that we will have a great cooperation and we will achieve to create great resolutions
throughout a fruitful debate during the conference. See you all there!!!
Christodoulos Hondrogiorgis
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Mercenaries are not a novel phenomenon in world politics. Their use dates back to the era of empires
and kingdoms as antic emperors and medieval kings used to have mercenaries. Today, mercenaries are
back on the spotlight of world politics, as events like the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have
shown. The dominance of neoliberalism in world politics during the last decade is the main factor for the
growth of such companies, as they show how the state has been reinvented on financial terms. Taking
advantage of their close ties with diplomatic and intelligence services, PMCs are used widely in military
operations globally. Unlike state police and military forces, private companies are not subject to legal
terms and citizens are unaware of their operations. Through PMCs states are able to engage in military
operations, seize valuable natural resources, terrorize citizens and overthrow governments in public
ignorance. Therefore, it is critical to realize that mercenaries operate beyond public oversight.
HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM
The idea of paying fighters for their services at war is as old as the notion of war itself. Records witness
their existence at the time of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages. However, the
roots of the growth of PMCs are traced in Cold War—new threats and opportunities made weaker states
turn to private firms and companies to ensure their security. Thus, companies based in developed states
grabbed the chance to offer their services in countries of the Third World. For example, in Latin America
and the Caribbean, PMCs have been deployed by governments to fight drug-traffickers. In Somalia they
have been deployed to protect shipments transporting humanitarian aid and as a deterrent to
piracy. The most recent examples are Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan where they have played a major
role in operations of various US intelligence agencies fighting the global “War on Terrorism”. As for the
types of services they provide, we can divide PMCs into three ‘‘business sectors’’:
1. Military provider firms supplying ‘‘direct, tactical military assistance’’ that can include serving in
front-line combat
2. Military consulting firms that provide strategic advice and training
3. Military support forms that provide logistics, maintenance and intelligence services to armed
forces.
pg. 1
Anatolia College Model United Nations 2012 | Disarmament Committee
The expansion of the role of PMCs in armed conflict has been accountable for expanding or even
intensifying violent clashes. There is also evidence that suggests greater reliance on PMCs is responsible
for weakening state institutions in countries that already suffer from inadequate governance structures.
Rather than bringing stability to these areas as advertised, PMCs often destabilize situations by creating
an environment that is intensively militarized.
CURRENT SITUATION
Here are some of the most important aspects of the topic that we should delve into during the debate.
LACK OF LEGISLATION REGULATING PMCS
Since the UN Mercenary Convention adopts a definition of mercenaries similar to that established in
Article 47 of Protocol I, we shall use that definition as our starting point. Article 47.2 of Additional
Protocol I stipulates:
A mercenary is any person who:
a) Is specially recruited to fight in an armed conflict;
b) Takes an active part in the hostilities;
c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire of private gain and is
promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in
excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces
of that Party;
d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to
the conflict;
e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of
its armed forces.
Although there are a number of national and international laws that regulate the use of private armies,
existing legislation did not predict the current status of private security contractors. International efforts
to control the use of PMCs have failed to effectively deal with many of the issues related to their use.
The International Convention on the use of Mercenaries, ratified under the Geneva Convention, does
not appropriately address the issue at hand, mainly due to the fact that its definition of “mercenary” is
unworkable. The UN Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries
from 1989 has to deal with the same problem, as its definition of a mercenary is hardly applicable to
current situations. The Montreux Document created in 2008 is the most recent international effort to
regulate the private security industry, which was endorsed by 17 states with input from civil society
organizations. Despite the fact that it is more robust than previous attempts to rein in the industry, the
document has a non-binding character which means parties have no obligation to follow the set of
guiding principles it lays out.
pg. 2
Anatolia College Model United Nations 2012 | Disarmament Committee
These companies, since they’re private, do not account to their home governments. This problem is
more obvious at weak states since those states are depending on private armies for their safety and
they are unable to hold them accountable. Furthermore, these troops do not stick to the international
war code of conduct as they operate under financial and not military terms. It is therefore of crucial
importance to redefine private military companies under legal terms which will correspond to the
current situation. New legislation that will comprehend the particularities of private armies and it will
provide ways to regulate their use is needed.
COMMERCIALIZATION OF WAR
Nowadays, taking into consideration that hiring PMCs has become a global trend, a question on the
nature of war arises. It is common sense that in our age world politics is heavily depending on the
economy as the recent financial crisis has shown. War, “the continuation of politics by other means” (a
quotation taken from Von Clausewitz’s book “On War”) couldn’t be an exception to that trend. Today,
private companies tend to substitute national armies rendering war a work for professionals. With profit
being their only goal these armies operate completely detached from any kind of ideology or moral code
of conduct. Another major concern that has been raised is how PMCs potentially undermine state
institutions. In the aftermath of armed conflicts, the return to public order can only be achieved through
the restoration of the state’s legitimacy and thanks to its ability to maintain order and protect its
population. This seems unlikely when security provisions remains in the hands of private actors. In
Afghanistan, for instance, coalition forces have been paying off strongmen with private militias to
preserve stability, which inherently undermines the notion of the state. Although parts of Afghanistan
are less violent because of these security arrangements, a price for this stability is being paid. An
unintended consequence of using private security firms has been the creation of parallel structures of
government, blurring the lines between public and private interests and further eroding the economic
and political power of the fledgling Afghan government. Lastly, PMCs lead to a lack of democratic
accountability. Due to their very nature, private security firms undermine democratic institutions. The
use of PMCs has been integral to the US global “War on Terror.” Many of the clandestine operations
that these firms execute are unpopular with the US public tired of a constant state of global war.
Nevertheless, these firms continue to operate with little oversight and no accountability to the US
public.
UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS
Despite the fact that the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries has been disapproving of the
way private security contractors operate, the UN is increasingly turning to PMCs for its missions. These
private contractors have not played a role in combat, but the dependence of the UN on these firms is
growing as its personnel have become a common target in areas of conflict. In countries like Afghanistan
and Somalia, the UN is tired from relying on local security forces, and as a result resorts to private
contractors to protect its personnel and facilities. However, concerns have been raised that the use of
PMCs to protect UN staff may render personnel more vulnerable to attack. Nevertheless, this trend is
pg. 3
Anatolia College Model United Nations 2012 | Disarmament Committee
increasingly growing over recent years giving us with more reasons to be concerned that this trend
could eventually challenge the perceived neutrality of UN field operations.
VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
When operating in areas with little regulation and almost no accountability it is unavoidable to have
abuses of human rights. PMCs which operate completely independently from any kind of military
prohibition bounding national armies couldn’t be an exception to the rule. These operatives seem to be
responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians as recent examples show. In 2007, a PMC named
“Blackwater” (now “Xe”) was accountable for the death of 17 innocent civilians and the injury of dozens
more in Al-Nisour Square, central Baghdad. What’s more, such companies have been involved in cases
of drug, as well as human, trafficking. Last, but certainly not least, PMCs operating in Iraq and
Afghanistan are linked with cases of prostitution and women trafficking. Although not directly linked to
the duties of the Disarmament Committee, these violations are the most alarming aspects of PMCs’ and
should be taken into serious consideration during debate.
V. BLOC POSITIONS
COUNTRIES THAT ARE AGAINST THE USE OF PMC














Congo
Argentina
Brazil
Cameroon
China
DPRK
Germany
India
Iraq
Italy
Nigeria
Libya
Russia
Senegal
These countries are totally against the use PMCs as they have little interest from their use. Countries like
Iraq and Libya want to take away the burden of PMCs as they are trying to establish peaceful and stable
democratic regimes. On the other hand, countries like China, DPRK and Russia have no interest in using
PMCs as they have large national armies very close connected with the state. Despite their different
motives all the above countries are against the use of PMCs and they have a common goal: to eliminate
the use of PMCs.
pg. 4
Anatolia College Model United Nations 2012 | Disarmament Committee
COUNTRIES WITH PMC HEADQUARTERS











Afghanistan
Australia
Canada
Denmark
France
Japan
Peru
Republic of Korea
South Africa
United Kingdom
United States of America
The above countries host the offices of some of the most powerful PMCs. They have used such
companies to achieve many of their military goals with the war in Iraq being the most recent example.
They also have financial interests from the use of PMCs and it is not easy for them to stop hiring them.
QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER

How will PMCs be included in the UN’s Conventions concerning mercenaries?

How will weaker states be less dependent on PMCs?

Should PMCs be held responsible for their past war crimes?

To what extent can PMCs have a role in UN Peacekeeping Operations?

What should be the role of PMCs in armed conflicts in today’s world?

How can we control PMC actions in zones of conflict?

Which should be the underlying principle in the PMC-state relationship?

In which ways can we combat the economic exploitation of weaker states by PMCs?
CONCLUSION
Private Military Companies are a very opaque and rather unknown aspect of modern warfare. As they
operate beyond public oversight a lot of questions concerning their actions have been raised. However,
recent evidence concerning violations of human rights and other forms of power abuse has managed to
pg. 5
Anatolia College Model United Nations 2012 | Disarmament Committee
reach the public. Now that we are becoming more and more aware of their actions it is of the utmost
importance to deal with them. Therefore, we need to reconsider their role in today’s armed conflicts as
well as their role in the UN Peacekeeping Operations. And that is the duty of the Disarmament
Committee and my presonal expectation: the creation of a resolution providing with viable and longterm solutions to the problem.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/ SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gashc3991.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gashc4001.doc.htm

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/493/92/PDF/N1049392.pdf?OpenElement

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/489/82/PDF/N0748982.pdf?OpenElement

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3902.doc.htm

http://www.globlapolicy.org/nations-a-states/

http://www.bbcnews.com/

http://www.ciafactbook.com/

http://www.economist.com/
pg. 6