Prohibition of mercenary activities in country of armed conflict act no. 27 of 2006 south africa8/28/2023 ![]() To this end, we first draw from an extensive political science literature to illustrate the rise of the PMSCs and concomitant evolution of the security sector, while noting a new trend that points to the need for moving from the macrosocial to the microsocial level of inquiry. In this article, we focus on the critical case of the United States armed services and argue that two broad developments have been converging that both point to the need for new, microlevel sociological research on the people who are involved in the global PMSC industry. Though private military and security companies (PMSCs) have been addressed extensively in the literature, little research has been done on the contractors themselves, leaving us in the dark as to who these individuals are. 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. ![]() 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. 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. Many such ‘Nationality States’ have ratified multiple international humanitarian law (IHL) commitments, including disarmament treaties. 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. ![]() ![]() Both approaches place responsibilities on the States that hire PMSCs, act as their home bases, and on whose territories the PMSCs facilitate military operations. 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. 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. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |