Abstract
The employment of private military companies (PMCs) in armed conflicts — often called the ‘modern mercenarism’ — enjoys a relatively negative image because of the legally ambiguous theaters of war in which they operate, the lack of transparency and the large number of open legal questions surrounding their use. Additionally, scandals such as the rapes committed by DynCorp contractors in Bosnia (Singer 2004e: 525) and the involvement of CACI and Titan members in the torture and inhuman interrogation techniques in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq shocked the world (Makki 2004: 22ff; Der Spiegel, 3 May 2004: 132ff.). Scholars therefore often lament about the presence of a “gap in international law” (Stinnet 2005: 211) or a “legal vacuum” (Singer 2004e: 521, 532). Should states have the possibility to outsource their ‘dirty jobs’, thus avoiding criticism at home and abroad, while distancing themselves not only from the body bags, but also from the actions undertaken? (Walker/Whyte 2005: 689) Does the privatization of military and security functions imply an outsourcing not only of these tasks, but also of the international responsibilities arising from International Humanitarian Law (IHL) by allowing states to “hid [e] behind the corporate veil”? (Coleman 2004: 1493) Due to the increasing deployment of PMCs in the security sector the need for clear legal norms increases. The questions about legal responsibility and accountability are the most pressing ones: Who can be held responsible under international law for human rights abuses or war crimes committed by PMCs: the contracting state, the PMC, or the individual contractor?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Human Rights Treaties as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms have third-party effects by directly granting rights for individuals (Council of Europe 1950).
Given the case a PMC actually is formally incorporated into the state’s armed forces, to qualify for combatant status in the light of Art. 4 A § 1 GC III, it has to meet the four criteria mentioned in Art. 4 A § 2 GC III (for a detailed view see Schmitt 2005: 525f).
This is why PMCs “are running their prisons in the first place” (Singer 2004a).
The courts did not discuss explicitly the liability of corporations, but we agree with Seibert-Fohr/ Wolfrum (2005: 166) that the courts implicitly recognized their liability.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weigelt, K., Märker, F. (2007). Who is Responsible? The Use of PMCs in Armed Conflict and International Law. In: Jäger, T., Kümmel, G. (eds) Private Military and Security Companies. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90313-2_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90313-2_24
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-14901-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-531-90313-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)