PMC Regulation Act

[Lucian De Mundo]

I won't try to make this a proposal until I see wear this goes. That would just be of bad character on my behalf. You have nothing to worry about. Also I'm campaigned out right now after getting my last proposal to reach quorum.

[Araraukar]

snip

Thanks for the comments, i will amke the changes you suggest, a trird draft should be up soon.

I still don't like the contents of the proposal, but then that's never stopped me from suggesting better formatting. It reads much better now. I'll tackle content at a later point (in couple days' time).

[Neu Engollon]

SUGGESTED EDITS:

PMC & Mercenary Regulation Act

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

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that Private Military Companies are a valuable part of many nations 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 Private Military Firm (PMC) as one which is registered and has received licensing from the recognized government of a nation in accordance with with their individual laws, to engage in activities which have the potential to exercise force or provide provide armed security services,

FURTHER DEFINES a mercenary as an individual who engages in an armed conflict and is motivated to take part in said conflict primarily by promise of personal gain. They are not in a PMC or part of the regular armed forces or any party to the conflict.

HEREBY,

REQUIRES all PMCs to be legally licensed by the recognized government of of a nation in accordance with their national laws.

MANDATES that a PMC may only engage in employment with the officially recognized government of a nation as decided by the Government of their licencing nation.

RECOGNIZING the right of the contracting nation to exercise jurisdiction over PMC employees or to extradite an offender to the nation their corporation is registered to.

CLARIFYING that PMCs should be held accountable to the same standards set forth by their contracting nation, or licensing nation in the event of extradition, with regards to military codes of conduct and rules of engagement and be treated no differently from members of the regular armed forces of either such nation. Such laws should include as a minimum, the body of relevant World Assembly Resolutions.

MANDATING that PMC employees must be treated as any other other captured member of an armed force of a political entity.

DECLARES that a mercenary, not licensed and bonded with a registered company, shall be considered an illegal combatant and should not be treated as a captured enemy but prosecuted under civil laws and subject to all civil punishments and rights of the concerned nation.

RECOGNIZING the right of the nation to extradite a suspected mercenary to their nation of origin in which case they will be subject to the laws of said nation.

CALLING FOR nations to fully cooperate in an extradition process including making available all evidence at their disposal, if doing so does not beach their national laws.

[Araraukar]

DECLARES that a mercenary, not licensed and bonded with a registered company, shall be considered an illegal combatant and should not be treated as a captured enemy but prosecuted under civil laws and subject to all civil punishments and rights of the concerned nation.

Now this I could agree with.

CALLING FOR nations to fully cooperate in an extradition process including making available all evidence at their disposal, if doing so does not beach breach their national laws.

Fixed it for you.

[Neu Engollon]

DECLARES that a mercenary, not licensed and bonded with a registered company, shall be considered an illegal combatant and should not be treated as a captured enemy but prosecuted under civil laws and subject to all civil punishments and rights of the concerned nation.

Now this I could agree with.

CALLING FOR nations to fully cooperate in an extradition process including making available all evidence at their disposal, if doing so does not beach breach their national laws.

Fixed it for you.

Thanks, I'm sure I missed a few other grammatical things, this is what I could catch at first review.

[Seth Abaddon]

DECLARES that a mercenary, not licensed and bonded with a registered company, shall be considered an illegal combatant and should not be treated as a captured enemy but prosecuted under civil laws and subject to all civil punishments and rights of the concerned nation.

snip

Thank you both, most of that is small changes which i have already made (I am sure there are more but will get to them tomorrow). The last point I am not so sure on,

The defination of a mercenary already states that they are not a PMC employee, as such who are you suggesting the merceneries are bonded and registered with? If its for clarification purposes it is slightly confusing as I have not mentioned bonding anywhere or registration for merceneries.

[Neu Engollon]

DECLARES that a mercenary, not licensed and bonded with a registered company, shall be considered an illegal combatant and should not be treated as a captured enemy but prosecuted under civil laws and subject to all civil punishments and rights of the concerned nation.

snip

Thank you both, most of that is small changes which i have already made (I am sure there are more but will get to them tomorrow). The last point I am not so sure on,

The definition of a mercenary already states that they are not a PMC employee, as such who are you suggesting the mercenaries are bonded and registered with? If its for clarification purposes it is slightly confusing as I have not mentioned bonding anywhere or registration for mercenaries.

You should. Non-registered companies would not bother with bonding and licensing. The two go hand in hand. Plus, it would cover the bounty hunter overlap issue. Also, an individual could be tagged or claim erroneously to be a 'mercenary', and be licensed and bonded with a real, nationally registered company, in which case, they would also be a professional regulated soldier; hence they would not be liable to prosecution for violating conventional warfare laws.

Somewhat side note:
I may use this to start an RP mercenary guild, in which case, a PMC on GE&T or II forum would lose their credibility and legitimacy and be kicked out of the guild if they were proven to be in violation of this WA resolution. So it would actually have some application to RP, unlike the bulk of WA legislation.

Also, PMCs using WMDs, such as gas, bio or tactical nuclear weapons has not been covered. It is a very real possibility of transgression.

[Anacasppia]

Thank you both, most of that is small changes which i have already made (I am sure there are more but will get to them tomorrow). The last point I am not so sure on,

The definition of a mercenary already states that they are not a PMC employee, as such who are you suggesting the mercenaries are bonded and registered with? If its for clarification purposes it is slightly confusing as I have not mentioned bonding anywhere or registration for mercenaries.

You should. Non-registered companies would not bother with bonding and licensing. The two go hand in hand. Plus, it would cover the bounty hunter overlap issue. Also, an individual could be tagged or claim erroneously to be a 'mercenary', and be licensed and bonded with a real, nationally registered company, in which case, they would also be a professional regulated soldier; hence they would not be liable to prosecution for violating conventional warfare laws.

Somewhat side note:
I may use this to start an RP mercenary guild, in which case, a PMC on GE&T or II forum would lose their credibility and legitimacy and be kicked out of the guild if they were proven to be in violation of this WA resolution. So it would actually have some application to RP, unlike the bulk of WA legislation.

Also, PMCs using WMDs, such as gas, bio or tactical nuclear weapons has not been covered. It is a very real possibility of transgression.

If my memory serves me well, there is either an attempt to legislate on that or a previously passed piece of legislation on that which forbids private entities from possessing WMDs (or something along those lines).

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

If my memory serves me well, there is either an attempt to legislate on that or a previously passed piece of legislation on that which forbids private entities from possessing WMDs (or something along those lines).

We seem to recognize that. Let us see... it's one of ours...:

Defining:
[...]
b) Non-state actors as any parties or persons which are not fully owned by, operated by, or responsible to a sovereign nation or to sovereign nations
[...]
[The WA Hereby]
Bans the possession of nuclear weapons by any non-state actor in all member nations and directs all member nations to rigorously enforce this rule as directed by the NWMC [Nuclear Weapons Management Commission],

But it only covers nuclear weapons, and we're delaying it a bit because there's been so much nuclear stuff around recently that we think people are sick and tired of it...

Iff Seth Abaddon wishes to use this precise wording to provide a general ban on the use and possession of all WMDs by mercenaries, we grant our full permission and support.

[Seth Abaddon]

snip

I think its a good ideas but the list could be huge of what was or not banned, maybe something like

REQUIRES licensing nations to submit to all registered PMCs in their nation a list of acceptable weapons which they may utilize in accordance with their national laws. This list must not include any weapons banned under World Assembly resolutions. In the event such weapons are in violation of any contracting nations laws they may not be used in the fulfillment of said contract.

FORBIDS a PMC or its employees from undertaking operations outside of the approved contract issued by the contracting Government or utilizing weapons in any role other then that explicitly specified in said contract. Failure to follow said restrictions will result in the revoking of the PMC status of the company or their employees.

MANDATING that should the PMC status of a company be revoked, its employees will be considered mercenaries and punishable under civil laws of the nation they are present in. This is not retrospective and any actions undertaken before the PMC license was revoked will remain covered under the laws governing PMCs.

Thoughts?

You should. Non-registered companies would not bother with bonding and licensing. The two go hand in hand. Plus, it would cover the bounty hunter overlap issue. Also, an individual could be tagged or claim erroneously to be a 'mercenary', and be licensed and bonded with a real, nationally registered company, in which case, they would also be a professional regulated soldier; hence they would not be liable to prosecution for violating conventional warfare laws.

Regarding the licensing and bonding of mercenaries? Who are you licensing them with? One of the big complaints in the first draft was that PMCs and Mercenaries were not properly separated given their differing motives and codes of practices. So we have PMC and its employees registered and licenced while mercenaries are those who are unlicensed. A mercenary/bounty hunter or whatever can register as a PMC sole trader and receive the proper license from their national government.

I dont mind adding a line to this end. If I misunderstood this point though I can go back on it.

[Seth Abaddon]

This has now been submitted for your consideration, the support of delegates would be highly appreciated in helping this reach quorum.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far, it was really great to get your help and suggestions.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Where to start...

DEFINES a Private Military Firm (PMC) as one which is registered and has received licensing from the recognized government of a nation in accordance with with their individual laws, to engage in activities which have the potential to exercise force or provide armed security services,

Alright first problem is that PMC is not right for Private Military Firm. I'm assuming you meant to put contractor. That's just sloppy.

MANDATES that a PMC may only engage in employment with the officially recognized government of a nation as decided by the Government of their licensing nation.

What about in cases of civil war? What about cases of Anarchy?

MANDATING that PMC employees must be treated as any other captured member of an armed force of a political entity.

Even those of nonmember states? They are not required to abide by these regulations, and while it is all good and noble to hold irregulars as we would regular military personnel, that is not likely to be reciprocated.

REQUIRES nations to furnish all PMCs they license with a list of weapons which they may utilize. This list may not include any weapons banned under World Assembly resolutions. In the event such weapons are in violation of any contracting nations laws they may not be used in the fulfillment of said contract.

Grammar, you should have an apostrophe on "nations" for "nations' laws".

Overall it still needs work. Good topic, but you failed to appropriately proofread.

[Seth Abaddon]

Where to start...

DEFINES a Private Military Firm (PMC) as one which is registered and has received licensing from the recognized government of a nation in accordance with with their individual laws, to engage in activities which have the potential to exercise force or provide armed security services,

Alright first problem is that PMC is not right for Private Military Firm. I'm assuming you meant to put contractor. That's just sloppy.

The wording is correct on the submitted version, i must have forgotton to change it on the last version here, apologies but the one submitted is fine and now so is the one at the start.

MANDATES that a PMC may only engage in employment with the officially recognized government of a nation as decided by the Government of their licensing nation.

What about in cases of civil war? What about cases of Anarchy?

It is the government of the licencing nation who decides, they may choose one side in a civil war and recognize them in which case they would be the recognized government. Which body, person, company, potted plant or otherwise your government chooses to recognize is a national matter.

MANDATING that PMC employees must be treated as any other captured member of an armed force of a political entity.

Even those of nonmember states? They are not required to abide by these regulations, and while it is all good and noble to hold irregulars as we would regular military personnel, that is not likely to be reciprocated.

If a PMC are fighting with nation x and nation y capturers several members they must be treated as any regular soilder would, prisioners of war if this exists in that nation but no worse that any other captured regular soilder. We cant licence for non WA nations who can do as they choose both in terms of captured regular soilders and PMCs.

REQUIRES nations to furnish all PMCs they license with a list of weapons which they may utilize. This list may not include any weapons banned under World Assembly resolutions. In the event such weapons are in violation of any contracting nations laws they may not be used in the fulfillment of said contract.

Grammar, you should have an apostrophe on "nations" for "nations' laws".

Ok, that one i can see, i missed that apostrophe but hopefully one apostrophe wont put you off!!!

Overall it still needs work. Good topic, but you failed to appropriately proofread.

Apart from that one apostrophe the rest is fine!

[Mallorea and Riva]

What about in cases of civil war? What about cases of Anarchy?

It is the government of the licencing nation who decides, they may choose one side in a civil war and recognize them in which case they would be the recognized government. Which body, person, company, potted plant or otherwise your government chooses to recognize is a national matter.

You misunderstood my question, if a nation in a Civil War seeks to hire PMCs then can the PMCs take the contract? What if the revolutionary party attempts to hire them?

Even those of nonmember states? They are not required to abide by these regulations, and while it is all good and noble to hold irregulars as we would regular military personnel, that is not likely to be reciprocated.

If a PMC are fighting with nation x and nation y capturers several members they must be treated as any regular soilder would, prisioners of war if this exists in that nation but no worse that any other captured regular soilder. We cant licence for non WA nations who can do as they choose both in terms of captured regular soilders and PMCs.

You can, however, legislate how we treat non WA nations' captured PMCs.

Grammar, you should have an apostrophe on "nations" for "nations' laws".

Ok, that one i can see, i missed that apostrophe but hopefully one apostrophe wont put you off!!!

All grammar errors put me off. There is no excuse for them, they indicate a failure to properly draft.

Overall it still needs work. Good topic, but you failed to appropriately proofread.

Apart from that one apostrophe the rest is fine!

I still have questions regarding the above sections, but the apostrophe is truly disappointing.

[Araraukar]

Please tell me you submitted by accident and are intending to ask the mods to pull this off the queue? Because it was nowhere near ready. As the age-old adage goes, "resolution writing is a marathon, not a sprint". Which means you shouldn't submit in a hurry - the recommended time is at least a month of drafting process. Many proposals take several months to be perfected. Even if an unripe proposal got voted into a resolution, it would most likely get repealed rightaway, since the glaring errors tend to be glaring.

[Seth Abaddon]

You misunderstood my question, if a nation in a Civil War seeks to hire PMCs then can the PMCs take the contract? What if the revolutionary party attempts to hire them?

This is up to your national government, if your government recognizes the revolutionary party as the government then yes, if they recognize the other side then no. Failure to regulate in this way could see in an extreme case a PMC contracted by a terror group and still protected by law.

You can, however, legislate how we treat non WA nations' captured PMCs.

It is in there that they should be treated as any other captured enemy combatant as per your laws. If your laws for non WA nations are different from WA nations that is your right. Whatever law you have for the treatment of captured enemy combatants from a given nation must apply also to PMCs contracted to that nation but this is in no way stating what that law should be.

[Point Breeze]

OOC. I've been following this debate and, boy, has it been entertaining. I'm sure the imaginary GA chamber was in an imaginary uproar at some points.

You misunderstood my question, if a nation in a Civil War seeks to hire PMCs then can the PMCs take the contract? What if the revolutionary party attempts to hire them?

This is up to your national government

Wait a minute. What if one nation recognizes the old government and another nation recognizes the revolutionary element? Now I may be confused, but this seems to contradict your earlier statements. The issue of a special, transitional, corporate, or non-state government hiring PMC's has been settled, has it not? I believe this situation would fall under those same rules.

[Seth Abaddon]

OOC. I've been following this debate and, boy, has it been entertaining. I'm sure the imaginary GA chamber was in an imaginary uproar at some points.

Wait a minute. What if one nation recognizes the old government and another nation recognizes the revolutionary element? Now I may be confused, but this seems to contradict your earlier statements.

The national government of the licencing authrity is responsible for this.

In your example one nation recognizes one side, any PMCs licenced by that government would be able to obtain contacts from that side and the government recognizing the other side could seek conracts from that side only.

This is not an attempt to standarize who the various national governments recognize as legimite governmnets, that is completely at their own discression.

[Araraukar]

Well, if this passes, nothing's really going to change for Araraukar, since we are a non-WA nation, and PPU can feign ignorance to any of our actions - we can just call it military alliance or mutual defence deal instead of "hired protection". I'm sure other WA nations can strike similar deals with non-WA nations.

[Christian Democrats]

I never thought this proposal would reach quorum.

I have multiple concerns regarding this proposal, but here is my main one.

MANDATING that if PMC status of a company is revoked, its employees will be considered mercenaries and punishable under civil laws.

. . .

DECLARES that an unregistered mercenary shall be considered an illegal combatant and should not be treated as a captured enemy but prosecuted under civil laws and subject to all civil punishments and rights of the nation in which they are located.

Why should unlawful combatants be subject to civil penalties instead of criminal punishments?

[Hallensbane]

OOC. I've been following this debate and, boy, has it been entertaining. I'm sure the imaginary GA chamber was in an imaginary uproar at some points.

Wait a minute. What if one nation recognizes the old government and another nation recognizes the revolutionary element? Now I may be confused, but this seems to contradict your earlier statements.

The national government of the licencing authrity is responsible for this.

In your example one nation recognizes one side, any PMCs licenced by that government would be able to obtain contacts from that side and the government recognizing the other side could seek conracts from that side only.

This is not an attempt to standarize who the various national governments recognize as legimite governmnets, that is completely at their own discression.

I see a huge issue. What is to be done if the revolutionary element licenses a PMC? If my nation doesn't recognize them, do I have to follow this? I don't think I would have to, and that's a big loophole. After all, if it's not a nation then they can't be legitimately licensed. Do PMC's now have to worry about certain sides declaring the side they backed as valid before they get these rights? That all seems very, very messy. And, what if my nation doesn't care what side the two go to help? Do we have to declare both of them valid? That would be a royal pain in our rear, and could cause diplomatic issues.

You've rushed this to quorum before making sure the issues where hammered out. I'd advise pulling it back so you can try and get more input.

[Common Territories]

As the owner and founder of the largest PMC on NationStates, Commoner League Inc., I cannot support this piece of Regulatory resolutions. My entire corporation including my storefront and my subsidiaries, Akuma Defense and Vordic Suns, do not approve of this resolution of pure intolerable regulations. Others in our line of work have also voiced their opinions but I felt my corporation should voice its strong disapproval of this law that will only harm the business as well as subjugate millions of my own employees, who are hard working good people, as enemy combatants. Many others above, including the people above my very own post, have already voiced my opinions but let me say again that we do not support this hunk of regulations at all and do not propose any alternatives other than halting these regulatory acts.

[Ius]

These PMCs, how can our nation's government trust them not to stage a coup. They are private right? therefore controlled by private citizens who can doe what ever they please.

[Point Breeze]

These PMCs, how can our nation's government trust them not to stage a coup. They are private right? therefore controlled by private citizens who can doe what ever they please.

Their license and your contract with them limits their actions. Should they break them, they're subject to prosecution.

Besides, what mercenary organization would overthrow the government that pays their salaries? That's bad for business. Nobody is going to want to hire a PMC that likes to attack its contractors.

[Common Territories]

These PMCs, how can our nation's government trust them not to stage a coup. They are private right? therefore controlled by private citizens who can doe what ever they please.

I assure you that I do not doe anyone. I don't know how I can female deer anyone but I certainly do not do such a heinous thing!