[draft/idea] Private army legislation

[Caracasus]

Category - Human rights (Not quite military disarmament - more about ensuring that human and civil rights are maintained in a warzone)

An ambassador a couple of months ago started to draft a proposal outlawing private military contractors - Caracasus does not see how that would work but we believe that there are some unscrupulous nations that may well use private military contractors or mercenary forces to circumvent passed WA legislation regarding armed conflict.

Noting the rise in use of non-state military operatives in oversees and internal actions, and concerned that current legislation does not adequately define the responsibilities of nation states using military forces other than their own armed forces.

Noting that non-state military operatives are by their very nature, one step removed from the control of the nation state utilizing them compared to a nation's own armed forces.

Hoping to provide a set of guidelines regarding the use of non-state military operatives for nation states that clarifies their definition, use and responsibilities.

Hoping to ensure that
a)Non state military operatives are held to the same standards as state military actors and that:

b)Nations are not held accountable for the actions of non-state military operatives when they have done everything they could do to ensure that non-state military actors follow the rule of international law.



Defining Non-State Military Operatives as: Any group receiving money or remuneration from a nation state with a mission/mandate that could involve violent acts, including but not limited to: Privateers, private military contractors, mercenaries, security firms and paramilitary groups.

Requires that

1) That governments and corporations take all reasonable precautions to ensure that Non-State Military Operatives hired by them abide by international law.

2)That governments or corporations employing Non-State Military Operatives be held responsible for actions in breach of international law of NSMO groups, should it be proven that they did not reasonably ensure that said PMC would not commit breaches of international law.


Encourages nation states to research Non-state Military operative groups before hiring them to ensure that said group is not likely to break international law.

Further encourages nation states to provide clear and coherent mission objectives to any Non-State military operatives that outline the importance of upholding international law.

We realize that nations could not be held responsible for the actions of individual soldiers, be they private contractors or their own forces - however, we believe that governments and corporations should do their best to ensure that soldiers fighting in their employ follow international laws.

Obviously this needs some work. Any advice and constructive criticism would be appreciated. We have combed previous WA legislation, and found nothing that covers this specific area.

EDIT Log

#1 - Changed Private Military Contractor to Non-State military operatives. Defined Non-State military operatives.

#2 - removed illegal tribunal clause

#3 - added preamble

#4 - Hoping to ensure that and oversees and internal actions added to preamble

#5 added Noting that non-state military operatives are by their very nature, one step removed from the control of the nation state utilizing them compared to a nation's own armed forces. to preamble

# 6 added text requires that to introduce clauses

# 7 added encouragements to provide guidelines on reasonable precautions Encourages nation states to research Non-state Military operative groups before hiring them to ensure that said group is not likely to break international law.

Further encourages nation states to provide clear and coherent mission objectives to any Non-State military operatives that outline the importance of upholding international law.

#8 swapped two clauses to ensure logical sequencing.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: It's an idea that I've considered drafting about, but haven't got around too yet. Provisional support.

I suggest expanding it to cover all forces that member nations might employ in combat but that aren't intrinsic components of their own armed services, thus also including [for example] privateers, paramilitary associations, and groups of foreign volunteers, too.

[Caracasus]

OOC: It's an idea that I've considered drafting about, but haven't got around too yet. Provisional support.

I suggest expanding it to cover all forces that member nations might employ in combat but that aren't intrinsic components of their own armed services, thus also including [for example] privateers, paramilitary associations, and groups of foreign volunteers, too.

Hmm. I haven't yet defined Private Military Contractors. Perhaps the definition could be "Any armed group receiving money or remuneration from a nation state with a mission/mandate that could involve violent acts". That way you've got private security firms, mercenary groups, military contractors, privateers and paramilitary groups. Need to work on the wording though.....

[Caracasus]

OOC: Too soon for bump?

[Separatist Peoples]

"So, the WA can try non-state military actors who break international law, but not military actors, thanks to Universal Jurisdiction? Seems unfair. Also, how do the current laws exclude mercenary or private security forces from WA law, exactly?"

[Caracasus]

"So, the WA can try non-state military actors who break international law, but not military actors, thanks to Universal Jurisdiction? Seems unfair. Also, how do the current laws exclude mercenary or private security forces from WA law, exactly?"

We can remove the last section regarding the tribunal, we were a little unsure on that to be honest. As a long-standing WA ambassador, do you feel that such a tribunal would be needed? Essentially the idea here is to state the aim (To hold non-state military actors to the same level as state military actors) and figure out ways to get there. It's merely an attempt to stop member nations from using private armies etc. to circumvent international law.

It should also allow for more streamlined future international laws - if all non-state military actors are held to the same international laws as state military actors, then potential future WA legislation regarding military conflicts would not have to go into minute detail to ensure that non-state military actors would also be bound by legislation.

[Grays Harbor]

What of partisans, guerillas, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, or whatever other name there may be for non-state combatants? Or do they have free reign to act as they see fit, and it is only those working for the state who are to be held to standards.

[Caracasus]

What of partisans, guerillas, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, or whatever other name there may be for non-state combatants? Or do they have free reign to act as they see fit, and it is only those working for the state who are to be held to standards.

It would be only organisations given money or other remuneration to conduct potential military actions.

e.g.

1) We pay a bunch of revolutionaries with similar aims to ours to conduct military operations. We don't bother taking reasonable measures to ensure that they do not break international law (i.e. giving them strict instructions, and doing some basic fact finding research to ensure that to the best of our knowledge, they are not likely to break international law). We would be held accountable for atrocities they commit, given we gave them money, and a mission without checking that they'd stick to international law.

2) Another nation hires military contractors to conduct operations in another state. They give them a mission, and give them instructions regarding international law, and also do some basic research as to the nature of the military contractor, to ensure that they are not likely to the best of that nation's knowledge, to break international law. The military contractors commit an atrocity. The nation is not held to account as they undertook reasonable precautions to ensure that contractors would act within international law.

3) We get involved in a war. A revolutionary group is also acting within that nation state, though my nation has no official policy of financially supporting that particular group - they are merely another armed group within that region. We may share intelligence and troop movements, but they are operating independently from us. We are not responsible for their actions.

[Separatist Peoples]

"So, the WA can try non-state military actors who break international law, but not military actors, thanks to Universal Jurisdiction? Seems unfair. Also, how do the current laws exclude mercenary or private security forces from WA law, exactly?"

We can remove the last section regarding the tribunal, we were a little unsure on that to be honest. As a long-standing WA ambassador, do you feel that such a tribunal would be needed? Essentially the idea here is to state the aim (To hold non-state military actors to the same level as state military actors) and figure out ways to get there. It's merely an attempt to stop member nations from using private armies etc. to circumvent international law.

It should also allow for more streamlined future international laws - if all non-state military actors are held to the same international laws as state military actors, then potential future WA legislation regarding military conflicts would not have to go into minute detail to ensure that non-state military actors would also be bound by legislation.

"Such a tribunal is technically illegal under Universal Jurisdiction, so it must be removed. Apparently, to some ambassadors, WA involvement in trying breaches of international law is offensive.

"I don't believe it is a necessary law, ambassador. Most laws regarding the conduct of states at war were written deliberately so as to use language including mercenaries and private security forces. The terms "combatants" and "forces" ought to cover them sufficiently. As for the terms involving armed civilians, we have laws regarding terrorism on the books that, while in need of updating, do currently cover most unsavory activity of armed civilians."

[Grays Harbor]

What of partisans, guerillas, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, or whatever other name there may be for non-state combatants? Or do they have free reign to act as they see fit, and it is only those working for the state who are to be held to standards.

It would be only organisations given money or other remuneration to conduct potential military actions.

e.g.

1) We pay a bunch of revolutionaries with similar aims to ours to conduct military operations. We don't bother taking reasonable measures to ensure that they do not break international law (i.e. giving them strict instructions, and doing some basic fact finding research to ensure that to the best of our knowledge, they are not likely to break international law). We would be held accountable for atrocities they commit, given we gave them money, and a mission without checking that they'd stick to international law.

2) Another nation hires military contractors to conduct operations in another state. They give them a mission, and give them instructions regarding international law, and also do some basic research as to the nature of the military contractor, to ensure that they are not likely to the best of that nation's knowledge, to break international law. The military contractors commit an atrocity. The nation is not held to account as they undertook reasonable precautions to ensure that contractors would act within international law.

3) We get involved in a war. A revolutionary group is also acting within that nation state, though my nation has no official policy of financially supporting that particular group - they are merely another armed group within that region. We may share intelligence and troop movements, but they are operating independently from us. We are not responsible for their actions.

Right. So, whether an armed faction can act like thugs or whether they conduct themselves honourably depends solely on who signs their paycheck. Great policy there.

[Caracasus]

We have taken your comments into consideration ambassador, and have acted on your advice regarding a tribunal. Thank you for your input and consideration. We personally feel that, especially with the relative growth in private military actors who act on behalf of a nation without being directly under their control, legislation that clarifies the WA's position on military forces abiding by international law is useful. We also believe that this legislation makes nation states aware of their responsibilities, should they choose to hire private military contractors or other non-state military actors to achieve their aims.

[Caracasus]

It would be only organisations given money or other remuneration to conduct potential military actions.

e.g.

1) We pay a bunch of revolutionaries with similar aims to ours to conduct military operations. We don't bother taking reasonable measures to ensure that they do not break international law (i.e. giving them strict instructions, and doing some basic fact finding research to ensure that to the best of our knowledge, they are not likely to break international law). We would be held accountable for atrocities they commit, given we gave them money, and a mission without checking that they'd stick to international law.

2) Another nation hires military contractors to conduct operations in another state. They give them a mission, and give them instructions regarding international law, and also do some basic research as to the nature of the military contractor, to ensure that they are not likely to the best of that nation's knowledge, to break international law. The military contractors commit an atrocity. The nation is not held to account as they undertook reasonable precautions to ensure that contractors would act within international law.

3) We get involved in a war. A revolutionary group is also acting within that nation state, though my nation has no official policy of financially supporting that particular group - they are merely another armed group within that region. We may share intelligence and troop movements, but they are operating independently from us. We are not responsible for their actions.

Right. So, whether an armed faction can act like thugs or whether they conduct themselves honourably depends solely on who signs their paycheck. Great policy there.

This legislation could not cover the actions of armed groups not under the control of non-WA nation states. If it did so, it would be illegal. What it does is clarify the responsibilities of nation states to ensure that any armed forces acting under their control or mandate respect international law.

EDIT: Although you raise an interesting point here, ambassador. Do you believe that a clause encouraging member nations not to partake in military activity with armed groups that show a disregard for international law would be useful, or would this divert too far from the remit?

[Separatist Peoples]

We have taken your comments into consideration ambassador, and have acted on your advice regarding a tribunal. Thank you for your input and consideration. We personally feel that, especially with the relative growth in private military actors who act on behalf of a nation without being directly under their control, legislation that clarifies the WA's position on military forces abiding by international law is useful. We also believe that this legislation makes nation states aware of their responsibilities, should they choose to hire private military contractors or other non-state military actors to achieve their aims.

"Which means you're choosing to ignore the fact that this is covered. The difference between a mercenary force hired by Bigtopia and the Bigtopian Dystopic Marines isn't so great as separate them under the term "combatants", "forces", or "troops". It is instantly obvious which side a private force is on based on who they attack, and since mercenaries don't fight for free, it's doubly obvious who's orders they take. When they work for a state, they become state actors, regardless of the conflict, which cover them doubly."

[Caracasus]

We have taken your comments into consideration ambassador, and have acted on your advice regarding a tribunal. Thank you for your input and consideration. We personally feel that, especially with the relative growth in private military actors who act on behalf of a nation without being directly under their control, legislation that clarifies the WA's position on military forces abiding by international law is useful. We also believe that this legislation makes nation states aware of their responsibilities, should they choose to hire private military contractors or other non-state military actors to achieve their aims.

"Which means you're choosing to ignore the fact that this is covered. The difference between a mercenary force hired by Bigtopia and the Bigtopian Dystopic Marines isn't so great as separate them under the term "combatants", "forces", or "troops". It is instantly obvious which side a private force is on based on who they attack, and since mercenaries don't fight for free, it's doubly obvious who's orders they take. When they work for a state, they become state actors, regardless of the conflict, which cover them doubly."

This may be partially covered, yet we feel that current legislation surrounding the responsibilities of nation states to ensure that military groups under their remit do not break international law has not been covered. This gives clear guidelines to nations regarding their responsibilities.

In addition, you are quite correct in that the example you have given is fairly clear-cut. However, other, less clear cut situations may arise. A nation issuing letters of marque to privateers, for example, may not be as clear cut as the privateers are not seen as directly under the control of the nation state issuing the letter of marque.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Which means you're choosing to ignore the fact that this is covered. The difference between a mercenary force hired by Bigtopia and the Bigtopian Dystopic Marines isn't so great as separate them under the term "combatants", "forces", or "troops". It is instantly obvious which side a private force is on based on who they attack, and since mercenaries don't fight for free, it's doubly obvious who's orders they take. When they work for a state, they become state actors, regardless of the conflict, which cover them doubly."

This may be partially covered, yet we feel that current legislation surrounding the responsibilities of nation states to ensure that military groups under their remit do not break international law has not been covered. This gives clear guidelines to nations regarding their responsibilities.

In addition, you are quite correct in that the example you have given is fairly clear-cut. However, other, less clear cut situations may arise. A nation issuing letters of marque to privateers, for example, may not be as clear cut as the privateers are not seen as directly under the control of the nation state issuing the letter of marque.

"A letter of marquee would make corsairs no less government contractors than a more modern example of a security company being hired to acquire assets of opportunity in a land war. It is just as clear cut, as the letter of marquee is, in this context, an authorizing contract. Do you have any other examples that you can offer?"

[Caracasus]

This may be partially covered, yet we feel that current legislation surrounding the responsibilities of nation states to ensure that military groups under their remit do not break international law has not been covered. This gives clear guidelines to nations regarding their responsibilities.

In addition, you are quite correct in that the example you have given is fairly clear-cut. However, other, less clear cut situations may arise. A nation issuing letters of marque to privateers, for example, may not be as clear cut as the privateers are not seen as directly under the control of the nation state issuing the letter of marque.

"A letter of marquee would make corsairs no less government contractors than a more modern example of a security company being hired to acquire assets of opportunity in a land war. It is just as clear cut, as the letter of marquee is, in this context, an authorizing contract. Do you have any other examples that you can offer?"

We may have to disagree on this - as you remain unconvinced that the current wording is not open to interpretation, and we remain unconvinced that the current wording adequately covers non-state military actors. As for the other issue addressed - laying down guidelines as to the responsibilities of nation states regarding use of non-state military actors - what would you say?

[La Monte Vista]

The taking any precautions bullet should be "Take all reasonable precautions to the best of that country's ability, excluding violent force or inhumane acts."

[Separatist Peoples]

We may have to disagree on this - as you remain unconvinced that the current wording is not open to interpretation, and we remain unconvinced that the current wording adequately covers non-state military actors. As for the other issue addressed - laying down guidelines as to the responsibilities of nation states regarding use of non-state military actors - what would you say?

"So, you admit you have no examples with which you can defend your position? If you can't prove to me, who wrote some of those laws with exactly this in mind, that there exists a valid need for further PMC regulation, what makes you think you'll have a chance against the Orcs who will show up if you submit this?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

I have to agree with Ambassador Bell (CDSP). The legislation already on the books generally uses 'combatants', 'military entity', or other such vague terms which are easily interpretable as including non-state actors under the pay of states.

[Caracasus]

It may or may not have a chance - we are not sure. What we would like to do is merely clarify the duties of nation states in using non-state military actors. If the feeling is very much that this is not needed, then we will let it die a death.

We feel it is important that states are aware of, and know their responsibilities regarding use of private military firms.

[Separatist Peoples]

It may or may not have a chance - we are not sure. What we would like to do is merely clarify the duties of nation states in using non-state military actors. If the feeling is very much that this is not needed, then we will let it die a death.

We feel it is important that states are aware of, and know their responsibilities regarding use of private military firms.

"Any member state government that observes WA laws will be aware of those responsibilities. Drafting a redundancy for the sake of redundancy is a waste. As one delegation vehemently opposed to such redundancy, our opposition will be fierce until you can come up with a single realistic example that the current language of extant law leaves unquestionably open."

[Caracasus]

Very well. This may be relevant to some extent.

From resolution #225 Rights of neutral states

The obligations of neutral states are as follows:

The state shall not allow any belligerent’s forces to cross or remain within its lands, excepting as clause 5 of this resolution lists, to launch attacks from or through its territories, or to recruit therein, nor shall it be legal for its people to serve belligerents as mercenaries;

In this instance – how would said neutral state be able to realistically stop a mercenary group comprising of its citizens from joining the fight, and if said group did so, then who would be responsible? The neutral state in question could lose its status and be drawn into a war. In addition, the lines between a mercenary group and a rebel group receiving aid/weapons from a second, belligerent state are murky at best. With this resolution

1) Mercenary groups are more clearly defined

2) The responsibilities of nation states to ensure that military groups do not break international law (in this case a mercenary group belonging to neutral state 1) would only be responsible for breaking said law if they did not take reasonable precautions to ensure that said mercenary group did not break international law.
A belligerent state wanting to draw a neutral state into a war would not be able to hire a small company of mercenaries from the neutral state, or encourage civilians to take up arms and cross the border and then use said action as justification for removing the neutrality of said neutral nation, provided that the neutral nation had taken reasonable precautions to ensure this did not happen.

[Bears Armed]

What of partisans, guerillas, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, or whatever other name there may be for non-state combatants? Or do they have free reign to act as they see fit, and it is only those working for the state who are to be held to standards.

If they are recognised agents of a member nation's government then they should be held to the same basic standards as that government's regular troops... except that they might not wear uniforms, and circumstances might not allow them to keep POWs properly (but then, if they are captured, they themselves aren't legally guaranteed the same rights as POWsthat members of the nation's actual 'armed forces' would enjoy).

In this instance – how would said neutral state be able to realistically stop a mercenary group comprising of its citizens from joining the fight

It might be able to keep them from going abroad into the war, if its government discovers their intentions in time and its own laws allow it to block travel on that basis: Failing that, it can prosecute them for the offence if & when they return.


And in answer to the people asking what use this measure would be: Maybeso member nations governments would be aware that they were already expected to hold mercenaries and irregulars and so on to the same legal standards as their regular troops, as you say... but "aware", after all, doesn't mean "and not claiming that the rule doesn't apply that widely, so that they can exploit the 'loophole' by using those forces for jobs from which their own regular forces are more clearly barred under WA law" (maybeso even with a public denial that they actually ordered the actions concerned, using the fact that they don't control those personnel as thoroughly as they do their own regular forces as the basis for this "plausible deniability"...) does it? Better to close the potential loophole more clearly, I think.

[Caracasus]

What of partisans, guerillas, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, or whatever other name there may be for non-state combatants? Or do they have free reign to act as they see fit, and it is only those working for the state who are to be held to standards.

If they are recognised agents of a member nation's government then they should be held to the same basic standards as that government's regular troops... except that they might not wear uniforms, and circumstances might not allow them to keep POWs properly (but then, if they are captured, they themselves aren't legally guaranteed the same rights as POWsthat members of the nation's actual 'armed forces' would enjoy).

In this instance – how would said neutral state be able to realistically stop a mercenary group comprising of its citizens from joining the fight

It might be able to keep them from going abroad into the war, if its government discovers their intentions in time and its own laws allow it to block travel on that basis: Failing that, it can prosecute them for the offence if & when they return.


And in answer to the people asking what use this measure would be: Maybeso member nations governments would be aware that they were already expected to hold mercenaries and irregulars and so on to the same legal standards as their regular troops, as you say... but "aware", after all, doesn't mean "and not claiming that the rule doesn't apply that widely, so that they can exploit the 'loophole' by using those forces for jobs from which their own regular forces are more clearly barred under WA law" (maybeso even with a public denial that they actually ordered the actions concerned, using the fact that they don't control those personnel as thoroughly as they do their own regular forces as the basis for this "plausible deniability"...) does it? Better to close the potential loophole more clearly, I think.

Fair enough. Anything that needs to be covered in addition? Should there be something encouraging nation states to not partake in military action with armed groups that are likely to commit breaches of international law?

[Separatist Peoples]

What of partisans, guerillas, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, or whatever other name there may be for non-state combatants? Or do they have free reign to act as they see fit, and it is only those working for the state who are to be held to standards.

If they are recognised agents of a member nation's government then they should be held to the same basic standards as that government's regular troops... except that they might not wear uniforms, and circumstances might not allow them to keep POWs properly (but then, if they are captured, they themselves aren't legally guaranteed the same rights as POWsthat members of the nation's actual 'armed forces' would enjoy).

In this instance – how would said neutral state be able to realistically stop a mercenary group comprising of its citizens from joining the fight

It might be able to keep them from going abroad into the war, if its government discovers their intentions in time and its own laws allow it to block travel on that basis: Failing that, it can prosecute them for the offence if & when they return.


And in answer to the people asking what use this measure would be: Maybeso member nations governments would be aware that they were already expected to hold mercenaries and irregulars and so on to the same legal standards as their regular troops, as you say... but "aware", after all, doesn't mean "and not claiming that the rule doesn't apply that widely, so that they can exploit the 'loophole' by using those forces for jobs from which their own regular forces are more clearly barred under WA law" (maybeso even with a public denial that they actually ordered the actions concerned, using the fact that they don't control those personnel as thoroughly as they do their own regular forces as the basis for this "plausible deniability"...) does it? Better to close the potential loophole more clearly, I think.

Assuming this is OOC: the terms "armed forces" or, especially, "combatant" really should be incredibly apparent as including guns for hire, as they are still combatants and forces which are armed. It would take a special kind of dictionary wank to make that argument effectively. As in, the kind people ignore anyway.