[DRAFT]Mercenary Regulation Act

[Dizyntk]

"This is a continuation of a topic that started with the Ambassador from Dilange. They are the co-author for this one since the basic idea was theirs."

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that many WA nations employ mercenary units,

REALIZING that there is a need for such units in many parts of the international community,

CONCERNED, however, that mercenary units may not be as properly regulated as national military units,

DEFINING a mercenary unit as an individual or group that serves in a military capacity, in exchange for compensation, for a nation of which they are not citizens,

The World Assembly hereby,

MANDATES that all mercenary units employed by a WA nation be held to the same standards of conduct as national military units, in regards to international law.

REQUIRES that WA nations which have mercenary units operating for them be held accountable for any breaches of international law commited by any mercenary unit in their employ.

RECOMMENDS that WA nations assign oficers of their own military to oversee mercenary units that are employed by their nation to ensure proper conduct.

Co-Author Dilange

[Latanii]

So what would happen if the mercinaries were citizens of my nation, would this law not apply to them?

[Dizyntk]

So what would happen if the mercinaries were citizens of my nation, would this law not apply to them?

"They would be considered part of your military as they are citizens of your nation. They might be professional soldiers, but they would not be mercenaries under the traditional definition."

[Soviet Canuckistan]

What mercenaries contracted out to individuals as this only regulates use by nations why don't you add a clause for that governments have to regulate all mercenaries working for an individual or company in their nation also since a loophole is: An individual who receives government money could hire mercenaries for "themselves" but could actually be receiving orders form the government and since they aren't being used by a WA nation don't have he regulations apply to them.

[Dizyntk]

What mercenaries contracted out to individuals as this only regulates use by nations why don't you add a clause for that governments have to regulate all mercenaries working for an individual or company in their nation also since a loophole is: An individual who receives government money could hire mercenaries for "themselves" but could actually be receiving orders form the government and since they aren't being used by a WA nation don't have he regulations apply to them.

"An excellent point, Ambassador. I will Attempt to make adjustments to the proposal."

[Dizyntk]

"I believe that the additions to the mandates and requires lines should cover the concern raised."

[Soviet Canuckistan]

"I believe that the additions to the mandates and requires lines should cover the concern raised."

That should be sufficient

[Weed]

We'd be opposed to this on principle, but we are curious... Why pursue this when the immediate and obvious reaction of any government wanting to ignore international rules of war with mercenaries is to have their contract with important non-citizens that have been made non-citizens specifically for this purpose? It's too easy to route the money through a third party not accountable to the WA for this plan to ever be effective, in our opinion.

[Terra Dulcis]

"This is all very confusing... I suppose we're still getting used to how the Assembly works. Am I reading this correctly?"

Lord Thomas removed his glasses and rubbed them on a cloth.

"WA nations which have mercenary units operating for them, or any of their citizens, be held accountable for any breaches of international law commited by any mercenary unit in their employ? So the state is responsible for everything any one of its citizens do? Would it not be more prudent to only prosecute the nation if a link could be drawn between the individual and the nation? It seems... well, silly to automatically hold a nation responsible for everything one crazy rich citizen may do with his personal security force. It is, however, entirely possible that I'm misreading the proposal altogether. I'm afraid my secretary hasn't quite got the hang of the coffee maker yet."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"WA nations which have mercenary units operating for them, or any of their citizens, be held accountable for any breaches of international law commited by any mercenary unit in their employ? So the state is responsible for everything any one of its citizens do? "

Hear hear! Surely the correct course of action is to hold whoever is responsible for breaches in law responsible?

Other than this potential problem, we are in general support of this proposal, assuming that this issue isn't covered under other proposals already?

[Paper Flowers]

well, silly to automatically hold a nation responsible for everything one crazy rich citizen may do with his personal security force.

I would suggest that in most cases like the one you describe personal security forces would not be acting in a "military capacity" but in a security or enforcement capacity which would not bring them under the jurisdiction of this proposal.

Possibly if you have individual citizens raising their own forces to act in a military capacity then you should be rather concerned about their existence in the first place?

Edit: Having said that, we do agree with the two ambassadors above that responsibility for the actions of these forces should lie with the individual / organisation responsible for their contract, not automatically with the state.

[Bears Armed]

Possibly if you have individual citizens raising their own forces to act in a military capacity then you should be rather concerned about their existence in the first place?

Have you never heard of Feudalism?

[Dizyntk]

"I initially thought that the individual citizen was not going to be a problem in this regard. However the concern was raised about a nation using a proxy to get around the regulations. Perhaps I can try to word it better."

[Dizyntk]

"There, I have modified the wording in the two clauses concerned. I will wait for feedback before I completely erase the old wording."

[Sionis Prioratus]

DEFINING a mercenary unit as an individual or group that serves in a military capacity, in exchange for compensation, for a nation of which they are not citizens,

[...]

REQUIRES that WA nations which have mercenary units operating for them, or any of their citizensproxy representing them, be held accountable for any breaches of international law commited by any mercenary unit in their employ.

Your Excellency, I must say I do harbor serious doubts about if it is even legal for the WA to legislate over actions of non-WA citizens that happen outside World Assembly territory. There is a fundamental question of jurisdiction here, I suppose.

Yours in headaches over reading so many footnotes,

[Paper Flowers]

Your Excellency, I must say I do harbor serious doubts about if it is even legal for the WA to legislate over actions of non-WA citizens that happen outside World Assembly territory. There is a fundamental question of jurisdiction here, I suppose.

Yours in headaches over reading so many footnotes,

Might I suggest that the person(s) being legislated are the WA nations themselves. As the employer of the mercenaries, they would be responsible for ensuring that all their employees are behaving in a legal fashion. While action may not be able to be taken against the mercenaries themselves, you could still hold the employer to account to discourage future issues.

The same could be said of the second clause you quoted, if it can be shown that a WA nation is giving funds specifically for the purpose of hiring mercenaries, is it not reasonable that the nation be held to account for what that money is then used for? The argument would be that if the WA nation had not funded the purchase of these mercenaries contract then the illegal actions could not have taken place.

[Dizyntk]

Feyalisa extends a claw and taps it irritably on the desk as she considers the wording of the proposal.

"I hate to say it, but I must agree with you, Ambassador Saint-Clair. It does make the proposal seem as if it could affect non-WA members. I also do not think that most nations are going to go through the trouble of giving an individual enough money to hire a large group of mercenaries just to circumvent international law. I could be wrong about this, of course. I think I will just revert the proposal back to its original form. There will be a loophole, true, but one that would be difficult to close without violating the rules of the Assembly."

[Halastan]

Halastan is opposed when we hire mercenaries we do not intend to monitor them we just expect them to do their job wether that be wipe out a town of people in a rival country or just use them to collect extortion money from are citizens.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Even though you're not meant to grave-dig (or probably continue grave-digging) is this proposal going to come to anything? We hope that some progress is being made? With the outstanding issue maybe we could change:

REQUIRES that WA nations which have mercenary units operating for them be held accountable...

to:

REQUIRES that mercenary units operating for WA nations be held accountable...

[Nullarni]

I don't like your definition of mercenary. It is too broad and lacks depth. You see, many nations allow foreign citizens to join their military in an official capacity. And mercenaries are sometimes hired by the nation they are a citizen of. I would suggest you change your definition to something along the lines of: "DEFINING a mercenary unit as an individual or group that engages in combat in a conflict which they hold no direct stake aside from private gain,"

[Anglomaria]

DEFINING a mercenary unit as an individual or group that serves in a military capacity, in exchange for compensation, for a nation of which they are not citizens,

I think this should be changed to;
'DEFINING a mercenary unit as an individual or group that serves in a military capacity, in exchange for compensation, for any nation,'

This would allow mercenaries to fight for their own countries as mercenaries. Fighting for your own country does not necessarily make you a soldier/part of a government ran military.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Glen-Rhodes has serious concerns about the use of mercenaries in war. These are people who are motivated purely by the prospect of profiting from war. They are not soldiers and are not deserving of the protection granted to people who volunteer their service in national or regional militias. We could not support a proposal on mercenaries that does not distinguish between lawful and unlawful combatants.

Mercenaries are tried as common criminals in the courts of Glen-Rhodes, rather than given the protections of a prisoner of war as established under international law. We would like to see that this practice is ensured legal.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: For some guidance on how to define a mercenary, perhaps real-life international law might help? Search for Art. 47: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument

[Moronist Decisions]

Mercenaries are tried as common criminals in the courts of Glen-Rhodes, rather than given the protections of a prisoner of war as established under international law. We would like to see that this practice is ensured legal

Quoting the Prisoners of War Accord:

DEFINES a "Prisoner of War", henceforth “PoW”, as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform or where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation

How is this practice of Glen-Rhodes legal in any event?!

--

That said, we agree with this resolution as it stands.

Dr. Jane Crick
Alternate Member of the Council of Morons
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Chief Representative to the World Assembly

[Glen-Rhodes]

How is this practice of Glen-Rhodes legal in any event?!

We are well aware of what the World Assembly has said on these matters. The World Assembly's definition of a prisoner of war does not include mercenaries. 'Member of a belligerent armed force ... found in uniform' is the opposite of a mercenary. There is also no 'good reason to believe [a mercenary] belongs to an opposing armed force.' Lectures about our perceived violations of the laws of war are misconceived.

Why should mercenaries be offered the same protection as legitimate soldiers? The single purpose of a mercenary is to profit from death and destruction. If there were any other purpose, then they would volunteer their time in a military for the purpose of defending their homeland. There are significant moral issues with rewarding war profiteers that the author and proponents need to address.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Moronist Decisions]

I request a clarification. I understand if they were not in uniform, but if they were in uniform (OOC examples: the Gurkhas or the French Foreign Legion), then how would they not classify as "belligerent" and "in uniform"?