What do pmcs do

Nevertheless, cases like that of Blackwater rightfully rise concerns regarding the lack of appropriate regulations to classify PMCs in conflict zones. Seeing that PMCs status as civilians is rather ambiguous, could they be classified as combatants?

Not exactly. They do not comply with the definition of combatant presented above, which can be considered the most minimal definition allowed within the IHL framework. First, because they are not formally considered part of the U. It is true, however, that since the Blackwater incident, the U.

State Department requires U. Because of their fluidity, thus, they still hold an unclear status within the current IHL framework. Lastly, PMSCs have enraged and horrified the world because of alleged misconduct and gross human rights violations.

While this point is inherently intertwined with their unclear status under IHL, I believe it deserve a sub-section in its own rights. The allegations are not limited to this event. Prior to the incident, PMCs were involved in torturing Iraqis — both civilians and combatants — within the closed walls of the Abu Ghraid prison, in Iraq.

Analysts and scholars believe that it is unclear to what extent the practice has stopped since it surfaced in the news. Thus, such measures would not apply to all PMCs employed by the U. Lastly, in , Congress passed more comprehensive laws, in the form of an amendment to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to subject PMCs to the system of court-martials. The international community has also contributed to the regulatory effort, with mixed results. In , the Montreux document was created as part of a joint initiative between the Swiss government and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The document was meant to establish standards for best practises and behaviours; yet, not only did it not envision any enforcement mechanisms but it also failed to garner significant international support, as it was only signed by forty-nine countries. However, their efforts have been hindered by a lack of engagement by the whole international community, as well as by inherent problems in monitoring PMCs.

Similarly, as shown in Section IV, it can be argued that states like the U. Thus far, this paper has analyzed the rise of PMSCs as well as the negative impacts and inherent issues. Based on the evidence presented in Section I and II, it is clear that, while many issues relevant to PMSCs predated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these two conflicts not only saw an unprecedented reliance by the U.

Because of this, it would be expected by the subsequent administrations, namely the Obama Administration, to sever or at least loosen their connection with PMSCs. That is not the case. In , the U. As such, it is important to remember that PMCs, were and still are used in several different Departments, both at home and abroad.

Furthermore, the net amount of dollars that the U. Lastly, a report uncovered how the Department of Defense, under Obama, hired warlords to provide security services. As such, the Obama Administration, the first distinct administration that took office after the negative impact of PMCs were uncovered in Iraq and Afghanistan, did not disentangle itself this global industry; on the contrary, it seemed to increase its reliance of PMSCs.

What can explain that? Thus far this paper has provided an account of the rise of PMSCs in the modern context and, most importantly, justifications as per way they are deemed to be a problematic industry. Section III explored the recent political context and established that, despite the negative impacts and inherent issues, the Obama Administration still made ample use of PMSCs. This section is dedicated to uncovering why, despite the issues mentioned in Section II, the U.

As explored in Section I, the disintegration of the Soviet Union marked the cessation of a perceived ongoing threat to U.

The debate around the legitimacy of combat operations by PMSCs is especially poignant because it is this very feature that still makes them appealing to Washington and problematic as a military measure. In fact, establishing whether PMCs are deployed in a combat capacity is significant because such mission can be — and have been — authorised without the oversight of Congress.

In the case of the Iraq war, the political elite capitalised on the fact that total transparency and direct authorisation from Congress were not necessary to authorise a surge in private militias. Bush also benefitted from the fact that little to no information was disclosed to the public at the time of the surge. President Obama, who inherited the wars, in a sense, had no choice but to reply of PMCs to try achieving military objectives while still respecting the wishes of his electorate.

The use the U. The cases presented, in fact, point to the fact that avoiding accountability and authorisation from Congress could be reasons why the Obama administration continued to increase the number of contracted personnel on the ground despite the issues that surfaced prior to his election.

Before delving further into this topic, I would like to clarify that making normative considerations regarding the ethics of this connections is beyond the scope of this paper. As such, this paper merely explores industry-government ties as an explanation for the persistence of PMSCs and refrains from incorporating moral considerations.

For one, cross over from the public to the private sector is rather prevalent. The transition of former civilian and military officers into the public sector is called the revolving door effect. The political ties that companies have, coupled with effective lobbying efforts can, in turn, explain the lack of effective legislation.

Lobbying has been a powerful instrument for many industries, including the private military one, to prevent the government from, quite literally, interfering in their business. For example, in , DynCorp, through two of its subsidiary firms, was able to prevent the passing of a bill that would require federal agencies to justify the use of PMSCs on the basis of cost-saving calculations. While strong ties between the political establishment and industry leaders, and the ability to avoid congressional oversight are valid reasons to continue to rely on PMSC, it is important to note that the Obama administration might have also taken into consideration the potential positive effects of outsourcing certain aspects of their military operations.

The reasons presented hereafter mostly apply to deployment of troops for humanitarian purposes and, thus, fail to explain in full what would induce their continued reliance in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brooks, Doug, and Gaurav Laroia.

New York: The United Nations, Dokubo, Charles. Fredland, Eric J. Hedahl, Marcus. Isenberg, David. Accessed February 24, Grand Strategy.

Joachim, Jutta, and Andrea Schneiker. Jones, Clive. Leander, Anna. Eroding State Authority? Roma: Centro Militare di Studi Strategici, Muritsama, Tirta N. Musah, Abdel-Fatau. Thomas X. Hammes Ret. Percy, Sarah. Renou, Xavier. Scahill, Jeremy. Shaughnessy, Larry. February 28, Accessed February 23, Singer, Peter W. New York: Cornell University Press, Spearin, Christopher. Ulam Weiner, Rebecca. United Nations, General Assembly. Christine Cheng Date written: March Thus, it is impossible to know how many people are recruited in this sector.

Even though PMCs are bound by the laws of the country out of which their operations are based, the legality of their actions comes into question when they operate in territories outside their parent country. For example American contractors in Iraq would not be bound by local laws and they might not necessarily be subject to US laws either since the jurisdiction might not apply.

This results in a lack of accountability as compared to regular soldiers who can be court-martialled if any of their respective military laws are violated. McFate underlines enormous accountability and transparency concern of PMCs.

Blackwater , now called Academi, has one of the most chequered histories among private contractors. In September , some Blackwater soldiers allegedly opened fire on civilians in Baghdad; 17 civilians were killed and many others were wounded in this incident. But, the passengers of the targeted vehicle included a couple and their child, according to investigations and witnesses. Mercenaries can offer more secrecy than government spies or special forces.

The Americans came from Delta Force, Rangers, Green Berets, Marines; they called in Bs, Fs, Fs, AC gunships, Apache helicopters and drones, and it still took them four hours — four hours — to beat back the mercenaries. It begs the question, what happens when non-elite troops not backed by the US Air Force have to fight 1, or 5, mercenaries?

What happens to countries that are not military superpowers? Subscribe to our Youtube channel for all latest in-depth, on the ground reporting from around the world. News Americas Are private military contractors any different from mercenaries? Alican Tekingunduz 16 Oct What would you like to learn more about? Six things you should know about modern mercenaries of war. Twelve times the UN has failed the world. Trump vows to build wall, warns against investigations.