PMC Regulation Act

[Seth Abaddon]

Unfortunately I dont have time to continue this draft, if anyone would like to use the material please contact me first

PMC Regulation Act

Category: International Security | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Seth Abaddon

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZES that Private Military Companies (PMCs) are a valuable part of many nation's security arrangements. However concerned that said companies are difficult to hold accountable and prosecute for war crimes or other offenses committed contrary to the laws of their home or contracting nations.

DEFINES a PMC as a legally established international firm offering services which may include and are limited to risk advisory, training of local forces, armed site security, cash transport, intelligence services, workplace and building security, war zone security needs, weapons procurement, personnel and budget vetting, armed support, air support, logistical support, maritime security, cyber security, weapons destruction, prison operations, surveillance, psychological warfare, propaganda tactics, covert operations, close protection and investigations by military or paramilitary means, as well as the enhancement, the transfer, the facilitation, the deterrence, or the defusing of this potential, or the knowledge required to implement it, to clients

HEREBY,

REQUIRES the governing entity of any nation to create legislation relating to the licensing of PMCs operating from their nation. Such legislation must include, but is not limited to, all articles contained within this resolution.

CLARIFIES that companies may meet the defination of a PMC and yet choose not to obtain a PMC licence or are rejected as a licenced PMC as per the licencing standards of the governing entity of any nation.

REQUIRES the governing entity of any nation to issue to legally licensed PMCs in its nation with a list of all companies, organizations, entities or nations (automatically including all all companies, organizations and entities located within said nation) from whom it may not accept contracts.

RECOGNIZES the right of the governing entity of the contracting nation to exercise jurisdiction over PMC employees or to extradite an offender to the nation their company is licensed in.

MANDATES that PMCs and their employees be held accountable to the same standards set forth by their contracting nation, or licensing nation in the event of extradition, with regards to all military laws, codes of conduct and rules of engagement in addition to all international laws.

REQUIRES the governing entity of nations to furnish all licensed PMCs within their nation with a list of weapons which they may not utilize.

PROHIBITS PMC's from utilizing any weapon prohibited under international law.

FORBIDS a PMC or its employees from undertaking operations outside of an approved legal contract.

DEMANDS the revocation of the PMC status of any company that operates without such a contract or utilizes the aforementioned banned weapons.

MANDATES that if the PMC status of a company is revoked, its employees will be punishable under the nonmilitary laws of the concerned nation. This is not retroactive and any actions undertaken before the PMC license was revoked will remain covered under the laws governing PMCs.

REQUIRES all PMCs to establish a clear chain of command within their organization based off the regular armed forces of their licensing nation should such a force exist. This must be submitted as part of the licensing process for review by the governing entity of the concerned nation and may be rejected.

CALLS FOR PMC employees to be paid a salary appropriate for their position, responsibilities and experience within the established chain of command of the concerned PMC. Said salary should be comparable with the average salary within the licensing nation of an individual of similar standing.

[Cylarn]

Will this also apply to Private Military Contractors and civilian employees of military organizations?

[Krjder]

I support this

[Neu Engollon]

Will this also apply to Private Military Contractors and civilian employees of military organizations?

'Mercenary' is such a loosely defined term that it could apply to anyone not in the regular armed forces of a nation.

This will never fly. In an OOC sense, PMCs are very popular on both II and GE&T and in an IC sense, it's a very good way to get involved in II conflicts without the political repercussions and the ravages of war directly effecting ones NS Nation. PMCs are a very accepted institution both on NS and RL and won't be going away any time soon. I could go on, but those are my initial impressions.
The only reason I could see you proposing this is you were directly and negatively effected by a PMC here on NS. Sorry, but them's the breaks.

[Grays Harbor]

I do not quite understand why you feel "mercenaries" should be banned, other than your opinion that 'Mercs R Ebul".

[Seth Abaddon]

I do not quite understand why you feel "mercenaries" should be banned, other than your opinion that 'Mercs R Ebul".

Mercenaries are difficult if not impossible to try or hold accountable for war crimes and their actions while engaged in employment.

If nation x and y are at war then the armed forces of each side will be held accountable to their national governments and international community for their actions. If nation x now hires a mercenary force they are not citizens of nation x nor part of the armed forces and subject to military laws or codes. Furthermore they will not be treated as enemy combatants as they are not part of nations x forces. Since they are not enemy combatants they should be tried in civil courts but to quote “The battlefield is not a place that lends itself to the preservation of evidence.” Witness the lack of prosecution against mercenary forces in recent conflicts.

Furthermore, many states, especially less developed ones, do not have the necessary resources to control the movements and actions of their nationals while others lack the motivation to do so.

This also leads to the possibility of a PMC legal status being challenged and the nation of origin held responsible for their actions. It also risks the status of the mercenaries themselves.

This in turn challenges their right to exist and hence this proposal.

By the way thanks for posting, you are one of those few who inspired me to try and get involved in the WA.

[Seth Abaddon]

'Mercenary' is such a loosely defined term that it could apply to anyone not in the regular armed forces of a nation.

This will never fly. In an OOC sense, PMCs are very popular on both II and GE&T and in an IC sense, it's a very good way to get involved in II conflicts without the political repercussions and the ravages of war directly effecting ones NS Nation. PMCs are a very accepted institution both on NS and RL and won't be going away any time soon. I could go on, but those are my initial impressions.
The only reason I could see you proposing this is you were directly and negatively effected by a PMC here on NS. Sorry, but them's the breaks.

A quick glance at GE&T show we have a sex trader, a slave trader and a seller of WMD all in the first few pages. They dont seem to be too effected by any WA resolutions Primarily because they are not part of the WA. Looking at the main PMC nations and almost all are also not going to be effected by this resolution. I am sure there might be one or two i missed.

You have also made my point for me. A PMC faces no political repercussions and the ravages of war and as I stated in the last post as almost immune from prosecution. Please read my reply to Grays Harbor above.

And nope, never been in touch or role played with the PMC operators.

[Seth Abaddon]

Will this also apply to Private Military Contractors and civilian employees of military organizations?

Definitions

A mercenary shall be defined as an individual or group thereof who are hired to actively participate in an military conflict or an act of violence aimed at overthrowing or undermining a Government, the laws of said nation or its territorial integrity and is motivated to take part in said conflict by promise of personal gain or material remuneration. Said mercenaries are neither part of the regular armed forces of any party to the conflict or those of a neutral third party on prearranged official duties.

Articles

The following will be recognized as offenses under this resolution;

(a) Any individual, corporate entity or nation who recruits, utilizes in any capacity, finances or trains mercenaries.

(b) An individual or group thereof who actively engages in acts of hostility or violence so as to met the stipulated definition of mercenary.


This was what i felt an appropriate defination so yes but this is drafting so changes can be made.

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant in big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We cannot agree with this proposal at all. As we have no armed forces of our own and have no intention to raise an army of our own, we have to rely on external protection contracts. If someone should declare a war on us, these protectors of ours would then be termed mercenaries by your definitions."

[Seth Abaddon]

A large potted plant in big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We cannot agree with this proposal at all. As we have no armed forces of our own and have no intention to raise an army of our own, we have to rely on external protection contracts. If someone should declare a war on us, these protectors of ours would then be termed mercenaries by your definitions."

Thank you Mr. emmm Potted Plant

We understand your concerns and have heard this before however

If your entire defense is based on Mercenaries which on average cost 5-10 times more in salary then enlisted soldiers then we can only assume that either your force may be very small (perhaps too small for defense) or your budget for defense is immense (cutting funding to other sectors) Perhaps we are incorrect and if so and you can enlighten me I would be delighted.

Secondly and certainly more importantly your defense is completely outside your control. Relying on mercenaries places your nation at great risk as these soldiers of fortune are as likely to switch sides to your enemy as fight for you or to otherwise betray you since they are motivated solely by material or financial gain. We thank you for allowing us to address this issue which is another reason for the creation of this draft.

[Frisbeeteria]

Already said this once this week, no need to retype it.

Some of us don't have "government" hands to run the military. Frisbeeterian services are contracted out by and from native corporations on an as-needed basis. We have no tax base. We have no 'government', except as a somewhat informal discussion between the heads of all the major corporations. We could not possibly have a "government" military.

As it happens, the CEO of Military Specialist Defense Industries, Inc, (MilSpec), G. Winston Riegle, is currently Chairman of the Board of the Corporate States of Frisbeeteria, and as such, the closest thing we have to a Head of State. He, like almost all our past Chairs, has kept us out of the World Assembly precisely because do-gooders like Krjder keep proposing these pointless one-size-fits-all proposals. Thank Goodness.

Just pointing this out to indicate that not everyone follows the same path. Do what you want in your nation, but don't imagine that your ideas are necessarily best for everyone else.

M. J. Donovan, CEO Emeritus
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States

[Seth Abaddon]

Already said this once this week, no need to retype it.

Some of us don't have "government" hands to run the military. Frisbeeterian services are contracted out by and from native corporations on an as-needed basis. We have no tax base. We have no 'government', except as a somewhat informal discussion between the heads of all the major corporations. We could not possibly have a "government" military.

As it happens, the CEO of Military Specialist Defense Industries, Inc, (MilSpec), G. Winston Riegle, is currently Chairman of the Board of the Corporate States of Frisbeeteria, and as such, the closest thing we have to a Head of State. He, like almost all our past Chairs, has kept us out of the World Assembly precisely because do-gooders like Krjder keep proposing these pointless one-size-fits-all proposals. Thank Goodness.

Just pointing this out to indicate that not everyone follows the same path. Do what you want in your nation, but don't imagine that your ideas are necessarily best for everyone else.

M. J. Donovan, CEO Emeritus
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States

First of all thank you for posting and to try and address your concerns.

1) To claim proposals are one size fits all it a slightly redundant argument, as is the suggestion that we should do what we like in our nation but not to impose our ideas (that our ideas are best for everyone) falls foul of the same. The WA is an organization with voluntary participation however should you join you are expect to abide by the resolutions of said body which all impose some law/restriction on participating nations. These are by necessity one size fits all as optionality defeats the purposes of a proposal (and you would probably deem it illegal ) We are not imposing our opinions but suggesting them to the international body for deliberation and should they see fit resolution, If the WA did not impose resolutions that the body itself would be without purpose.

To argue against one size fits all proposals or the fact that the WA issues them at all is to argue against the very premise of the WA.

2) Given you have no central authority in a commonly defined manner, with with to participate in the WA and our noting that you are not a member means that this nor any proposal would not apply. Nations which do not wish to have laws imposed on them are free to take said route but not to challenge the right of the WA to impose said laws on voluntarily participating nations.

3) Without knowledge of the functioning of your government I apologize for any errors however with zero tax base i assume the traditional roles of a government have been devolved to the private sector. This may or may not depending on the definition used make your nation a failed state in a traditional sense. In either case I assume your defensive needs are in the hands of the private sector. As mentioned to Mr Potted Plant above

If your entire defense is based on Mercenaries which on average cost 5-10 times more in salary then enlisted soldiers then we can only assume that either your force may be very small (perhaps too small for defense?) or your budget for defense is immense (cutting funding to other sectors) Perhaps we are incorrect and if so and you can enlighten me I would be delighted.

Secondly and certainly more importantly your defense is completely outside your control. Relying on mercenaries places your nation at great risk as these soldiers of fortune are as likely to switch sides to your enemy as fight for you or to otherwise betray you since they are motivated solely by material or financial gain. We thank you for allowing us to address this issue which is another reason for the creation of this draft.

It would appear from what you posted that in your case your private corporations contract military services on an ad hoc basis meaning your nation has no force projection capabilities and limited defensive options with each corporation concerned solely for their defense and not that of the nation or competitor companies. Again perhaps I am wrong, however regardless, this reliance on mercenaries would seem counter productive for those reasons listed above.

Now in the hope I have not angered a Moderator I leave gifts of cookies and run away behind my standing army as fast as I can.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

In addition to the problem of privatization of defensive industries - which we ourselves enjoy extensively as public competition makes defence a lot cheaper - we can't help but feel that this would also stop nations from offering useful commercial contracts/trade deals to other nations in exchange for mutual defence deals, which would curtail international security as opposed to improving it.

We would suggest a better approach would be to regulate Mercenaries to ensure the aims of this proposal - presumably, stopping unreasonably irresponsible uncontrolled mercenaries from running amok. Which would be an improvement over destroying an entire business sector and ruining international protection agreements.

[Seth Abaddon]

In addition to the problem of privatization of defensive industries - which we ourselves enjoy extensively as public competition makes defence a lot cheaper - we can't help but feel that this would also stop nations from offering useful commercial contracts/trade deals to other nations in exchange for mutual defence deals, which would curtail international security as opposed to improving it.

Public competition does not make defense cheaper, witness the salary of a PMC contractor compared to a similar level armed forces regular

As for the point on limiting mutual defense pacts, can you please clarify this?

Nowhere does this draft suggest an impact on the regular security forces of a nation or its ability to trade or arrange defensive pacts. In any case a nation could not in any way trade PMC defensive deals since PMC are not controlled my any government and could simply be hired by any other nation.

A limitation/ban on PMCs would stop the risk of them operating out of a nation and inadvertently engaging national citizens of that nation in a third party war. Thus improving security and as I mentioned in the other points making combatants responsible for their actions.

If the wording is unclear though I am more then happy to take any suggestions or advise.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

As we are the "mercenaries" in question, I think it should be clarified, that:
1) Potted Plants United consists, 99%, of plants that, as per their name, live in plantpots in and around the WA headquarters. Chances are that if you have a potted plant in your office, it's a PPU citizen. As such, they don't have vast land areas to defend, nor need for such. The ACME nullifier renders all weapons ineffective in WA HQ anyway.
2) PPU and Araraukar are official allies. They help us and we help them - currently their help to us is classified information, but our help for them is very visibly to protect them and their "territory" from hostile forces, be those individuals or nations. If someone declares a war on them, it will count as war declared on Araraukar.

Now, if you have further comments to vilify the "mercenaries" of such an arrangement, please address your comments at us, so we can react appropriately. I'm sure the PPU is not the only small nation to have a similar agreement with a larger nation.

[Araraukar]

OP, you might benefit from reading through the debate (yes, all of it) of these threads that have tried to address mercenaries before:

World Mercenary Convention.

On Mercenaries.

Mercenary Regulation Act.

The Mercenary Accord.

Mercenary's Profession Act.

[Liberated Counties]

I don't support this, GOVCON isn't an official government and therefore its army is entirely mercenaries. Even though they're practically, and in every way, the same as a regular soldier, they don't serve a sovereign government and can't be considered a soldier.

[Araraukar]

Public competition does not make defense cheaper, witness the salary of a PMC contractor compared to a similar level armed forces regular

OOC: What happens in real life doesn't always mean it happens that way in NationStates. NS =/= RL. So you can't say "it can't happen this way" - only thing you can say is "it doesn't happen this way in my nation".

[Neu Engollon]

A quick glance at GE&T show we have a sex trader, a slave trader and a seller of WMD all in the first few pages. They don't seem to be too effected by any WA resolutions Primarily because they are not part of the WA. Looking at the main PMC nations and almost all are also not going to be effected by this resolution. I am sure there might be one or two i missed...

I think you bring up a marvelous point. One, this resolution, if passed, won't amount to a hill of beans anyway to those that it hopes to effect. Two, with all the human traffickers, sex, slave, etc. plus all the Nazis and everyone else that starts a dumb bait thread in II by killing off a minority or someone 'different' in their country, why would this particular set deserve your wrath over all that? Ridiculous. Three, I don't think you looked hard enough about who is both a WA member and retains a PMC. I for one am in both categories (check my sig) and I totally plan to abide by this if it's passed.
because these WA measures are usually so relevant to how I RP.

...And nope, never been in touch or role played with the PMC operators.

Still don't understand the loathing of PMCs and mercenaries, then. Second oldest profession, bud. How many soldiers that are actually in the employ of their national armed forces aren't doing it for money primarily? Maybe they're just suckers because they didn't take the same type of job that offered more money.

There are some nations that do regulate PMC use in RL, especially UK and South Africa, who had rampant problems with it in past history - maybe you need to do your research and see what they did and how they legislated it.

[Neu Engollon]

OP, you might benefit from reading through the debate (yes, all of it) of these threads that have tried to address mercenaries before:

World Mercenary Convention.

On Mercenaries.

Mercenary Regulation Act.

The Mercenary Accord.

Mercenary's Profession Act.

Thank you for putting that post together, I am extremely interested in reading that.


EDIT: One last point >

Nowhere does this draft suggest an impact on the regular security forces of a nation or its ability to trade or arrange defensive pacts. In any case a nation could not in any way trade PMC defensive deals since PMC are not controlled my any government and could simply be hired by any other nation.

Nations exert influence on PMCs businesses registered in their country all the time and guide them in who they can and cannot take contracts from. Even if they don't, usually the top leadership has certain standards and morals on who they will take on as a client and for what reasons. If they don't, they stand out from the pack because they are an aberration on the trade.

[Paper Flowers]

As with previous drafts on this subject we are in principle supportive of legislation that ensures certain standards are met when employing mercenary forces, however we remain unconvinced that a case has been made for an outright ban on such forces.

As such we are opposed to the proposal currently presented by the author and would encourage him to approach this matter from a point of regulation rather than outright banning.

Ambassador Saunders

[Gullud]

Ambassador Ema Planta, The WA Ambassador for the Most Serene Nation of Gullud steps up for a comment:

While we in Gullud understand that many nations, particularly the nations with a more capitalist system of economics than we, do not have their own militaries and/or have a supplemental, privately operated military force, no one has need for mercenaries. Mercenaries, which can be defined as an individual or group of individuals who conduct military style actions for profit without a larger command structure, tend to take action for the purpose of profit and not the good of a national or international body. These types of soldiers are an international menace for they will work for almost anyone, even terrorist organizations, if the price is right. While we in Gullud believe in a very large, strong military (complete with a universal draft), we understand that there are nations who rely on private military forces. I am not of the opinion that the author of this proposal is talking of your private military, but those individuals willing to work for anyone.

We in Gullud would like, for the good of the international community which uses a private military, that there is some exemption written in for those governments; however, Gullud is in support of the proposal as it is currently written.

[Neu Engollon]

Ambassador Ema Planta, The WA Ambassador for the Most Serene Nation of Gullud steps up for a comment:

While we in Gullud understand that many nations, particularly the nations with a more capitalist system of economics than we, do not have their own militaries and/or have a supplemental, privately operated military force, no one has need for mercenaries. Mercenaries, which can be defined as an individual or group of individuals who conduct military style actions for profit without a larger command structure, tend to take action for the purpose of profit and not the good of a national or international body. These types of soldiers are an international menace for they will work for almost anyone, even terrorist organizations, if the price is right. While we in Gullud believe in a very large, strong military (complete with a universal draft), we understand that there are nations who rely on private military forces. I am not of the opinion that the author of this proposal is talking of your private military, but those individuals willing to work for anyone.

We in Gullud would like, for the good of the international community which uses a private military, that there is some exemption written in for those governments; however, Gullud is in support of the proposal as it is currently written.

General Nelson Tell, Commander and CEO of the Uli-Schwyz-Galien Security Corporation steps up to the mike:
"The proposal as brought forth by Seth Abbadon is severely flawed, and not well researched. We are all for a little more regulation of our trade, as there are always some unsavory elements attracted to the profession, as is human nature. It is a broad generalization to claim that private soldiers have little to no motivation other than money, or that they don't respect national interests, maybe not your interests, but...anyway, to also lump them in the same category as common criminals is ludicrous.

The WA Ambassador from Gullud is very biased and opinionated, but operating off of almost no basis on fact. Many professional soldiers, even commercial, operate with a larger command structure. Again, as stated previously, many have morals and will not aid those that are deemed terrorists in most everyone's eyes. From a pure, cold business standpoint, it makes for a poor portfolio to have such clients if you wish to woo future clients.
But as they say, isn't one man''s terrorist another man's freedom fighter? That is a very subjective term for another debate. PMCs by most standards of today, and even of yesteryear, have no success or successive clients if they cannot operate well integrated with a national force or allied forces. It is too bad that the conversation is being swayed by those who seem to have little military background or knowledge and can't acknowledge such simple facts. Thank you."

[Dooom35796821595]

So assuming this includes bounty hunters, you would be condemning Samus Aran. To shame.

[Liberated Counties]

Ambassador Ema Planta, The WA Ambassador for the Most Serene Nation of Gullud steps up for a comment:

While we in Gullud understand that many nations, particularly the nations with a more capitalist system of economics than we, do not have their own militaries and/or have a supplemental, privately operated military force, no one has need for mercenaries. Mercenaries, which can be defined as an individual or group of individuals who conduct military style actions for profit without a larger command structure, tend to take action for the purpose of profit and not the good of a national or international body. These types of soldiers are an international menace for they will work for almost anyone, even terrorist organizations, if the price is right. While we in Gullud believe in a very large, strong military (complete with a universal draft), we understand that there are nations who rely on private military forces. I am not of the opinion that the author of this proposal is talking of your private military, but those individuals willing to work for anyone.

We in Gullud would like, for the good of the international community which uses a private military, that there is some exemption written in for those governments; however, Gullud is in support of the proposal as it is currently written.

General Nelson Tell, Commander and CEO of the Uli-Schwyz-Galien Security Corporation steps up to the mike:
"The proposal as brought forth by Seth Abbadon is severely flawed, and not well researched. We are all for a little more regulation of our trade, as there are always some unsavory elements attracted to the profession, as is human nature. It is a broad generalization to claim that private soldiers have little to no motivation other than money, or that they don't respect national interests, maybe not your interests, but...anyway, to also lump them in the same category as common criminals is ludicrous.

The WA Ambassador from Gullud is very biased and opinionated, but operating off of almost no basis on fact. Many professional soldiers, even commercial, operate with a larger command structure. Again, as stated previously, many have morals and will not aid those that are deemed terrorists in most everyone's eyes. From a pure, cold business standpoint, it makes for a poor portfolio to have such clients if you wish to woo future clients.
But as they say, isn't one man''s terrorist another man's freedom fighter? That is a very subjective term for another debate. PMCs by most standards of today, and even of yesteryear, have no success or successive clients if they cannot operate well integrated with a national force or allied forces. It is too bad that the conversation is being swayed by those who seem to have little military background or knowledge and can't acknowledge such simple facts. Thank you."

GOVCON Ambassador David Trent steps up to the mike, he glances over his notes before clearing his throat and standing tall before the crowd.

"We will actively battle this proposal, GOVCON is reliant on mercenaries since international law states that a soldier essentially fights on behalf of a sovereign government, and since GOVCON isn't a true Goverment, we can't have 'soldiers' in our ranks. To pass this law would leave the Liberated Counties without an army."