ÇáãÓÇÚÏ ÇáÔÎÕí ÇáÑÞãí

ãÔÇåÏÉ ÇáäÓÎÉ ßÇãáÉ : Regulating Private Military Companies



ÞÇäæäíÉ
03-24-2011, 09:22 PM
Regulating Private Military Companies
(a report)

Introduction

The 1998 ‘arms to Africa’ affair in which the British based private military company, Sandline
International, signed a contract with the then exiled President of Sierra Leone,Ahmed Tejah
Kabbah, to supply a 35 tonne shipment of arms, in contravention of a UN embargo, clearly
demonstrates the serious implications private military company activities can have on UK
foreign policy. The subsequent independent inquiry into the affair, conducted by Sir Thomas
Legg, recommended that guidelines be established for UK Government officials when dealing
with representatives of private military companies.5 The Second Report of the Foreign Affairs
Select Committee into Sierra Leone went further by calling upon the UK Government to seek
amendment of the International Convention against Mercenaries and to consider legislation for
controlling private military companies operating out of the UK.6 As a result, the then British
Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, announced in April 1999 that the UK Government would
produce a Green Paper (policy consultation document) on mercenary activity by the end of
November 2000.7
As part of this pro c e s s , the government has said that it is considering options for the re g u l a t i o n
of private military companies that will undoubtedly feature in the Green Paper. The Foreign
Enlistment Act, the only UK law of any relevance to the activities of private military companies,
has never been enforced since it was enacted in 1870. In late November 2000,however, it
became apparent, according to the Financial Times, that the publication of the Green Paper had
been delayed for fears that it would re-ignite the controversy surrounding the ‘arms to Africa’
affair and cause the government further embarrassment before the impending UK general
election.8 In April 2001, the UN Special Rapporteur on mercenaries, Sr. Enrique Bernales
Ballesteros, said that the failure to publish the Green Paper was a “serious and deplorable
backward step by the British Government.”9
This report puts forth a reasoned argument as to why the UK Government should take steps
to control the activities of mercenaries and private military companies operating out of the
UK.10 The absence of any meaningful laws to control the activities of these individuals and
companies not only potentially undermines the achievement of UK foreign policy objectives,
but also presents a serious risk to the prevention of violent conflict and the promotion of
human rights and humanitarian law in the regions where they continue to operate. The legal
framework within which national legislation should be formulated is outlined by way of
reference to UK obligations under international law including: international humanitarian law,
the laws of neutrality; the prohibition on the use of force , and the international instruments
that have been developed to control mercenary activities.
The existing legal instruments to control merc e n a ry activities do not go far enough to
a dd ress the current problem howeve r, as they we re developed as a response to the
m e rc e n a ry phenomenon in Africa during the independence movements of the 1960s and
1 9 7 0 s . The dynamics have changed immensely since the end of the Cold War and although
m e rcenaries are still active in most ongoing confli c t s ,1 1 the 1990s witnessed the rapid grow t h
of their modern counterpart s , private military companies. E xe c u t i ve Outcomes, S a n d l i n e
I n t e r n a t i o n a l , M i l i t a ry Pro fessional Resources Inc. and Defence Systems Ltd, a re a few
examples of companies offering military services on the world marke t . These companies show
a resemblance to mercenaries since they too pro fit from war and often employ merc e n a r i e s .
But distinctions need to be made between private military companies and old style
m e rc e n a r i e s . International law has not yet considered the actions of these new players on the
international stage, and their activities often fall outside its scope. S u p p l e m e n t a ry measure s
a re called for in terms of national legislation and are outlined in the recommendations made
to the UK government in this re p o rt .