1. UN GA 1st Committee – Disarmament and
International Security:
Regulation and Control of
Private Military Companies
KCL Model United Nations Chairing Training Program 2011

2. Definitions
The legal definition of a mercenary is unique to a particular political epoch and is
narrowly drawn, so as to make comparisons problematic. Modern PMCs display a
closer resemblance to the private armies used throughout much of military history
before the rise of the modern nation state.
Mercenary in The Oxford English Dictionary: “a professional soldier serving a foreign
power”
But vague, could include many people engaged in legitimate activities, e.g. Gurkha
troops in the British Army, the French Foreign Legion and the Swiss Guard in the
Vatican
term ‘private military company‘ does not exist within any current international
legislation or convention

3. Definitions/2
Mercenaries:
individual combatants fighting in foreign conflicts for financial gain
most attention to mercenaries was drawn by their use against national liberation movements during the early post-colonial Africa
period, and they are still prevalent today in many conflicts
Private military companies:
corporate entities offering a range of military services to clients
predominantly used by governments to make a military impact on a given conflict
Private security companies
similar to private military companies but provide defensive security services to protect individuals and property
used by multinational companies in the mining and resource sector, and by international and humanitarian agencies in conflict and
unstable areas
in theory distinct from private military companies in that they are usually unarmed and are concerned with the protection of
property and personnel, rather than having a military impact on a conflict in a given situation. However, some companies display
characteristics of both kinds of companies by being involved in both security and PMC-related activities.
Private logistical companies
provide combat support functions, such as intelligence gathering, logistical support and supplies. However, this distinction
between combat and combat support is spurious at best
Difference Mercenaries –PMCs
PMCs, in the majority of cases so far, have worked for governments, mercenaries of the post-colonial Africa era on the other hand
mostly worked for non-state armed groups attempting to destabilize governments or national liberation movements
mercenary forces covert in nature, PMCs have generally been registered companies that pay taxes and display many characteristics
of corporations in other industries. However, the use of offshore tax havens and other financial arrangements –not always
transparent about their operations

4. History of PMCs
The existence of private military entities dates back to the 13th century
became well established over the centuries but found themselves overridden by the creation of modern state
which centralized monopoly of legitimate use of violence into its hands, thus putting control and strains on
mercenary “profession”
From the Middle Ages up to the 1980s mercenaries a recognizable group of fortune hunters associated with
vicious actions
association of many with the apartheid regime in South Africa and other regimes responsible for flagrant
violations of human rights
PMCs have shown a willingness to intervene in many of the hostile environments of little strategic interest to
the key global powers, while appearing not to suffer the same political constraints as governments in incurring
casualties
In the 1990s, governments and UN agencies increasingly turned to PMCs for security support in humanitarian
relief missions
PMCs have been involved in escorts for the transfer of emergency relief to war- affected communities. Armed
escorts are used extensively in large logistical operations, such as those run by CARE and World Food Program.
Insecurity in places such as Chechnya, Somalia and Colombia has highlighted the security risks to aid workers. In
addition, PMCs have also been used for logistical support to UN Peacekeeping Missions.
On a national level, little is understood about the links between local PMCs and state military
forces, government officials or even criminal elements of societies.
On a global level, PMCs thrive where the state may be weak in terms of governance.
PMCs most active in countries afflicted by ’resource wars‘ in which the state is competing with an opposing
force over natural resources
Increasing use of such companies by humanitarian agencies
If PMC personnel are armed or are from a military background then aid agencies might be perceived as being
part of the conflict rather than good humanitarians assisting its victims – challenge to the notion of impartiality
and neutrality of humanitarian action.

5. The legal status of PMCs
Customary International Law
There seems to be very little evidence to indicate that mercenaries or the use of
mercenaries is illegal in customary international law before the UN came into being
states lax in enforcing any of the international and regional regimes against individual
mercenaries
The Geneva Conventions and the UN
1949 Geneva Conventions: conditions of fair treatment of prisoners of war (PWs) and
proper activities in armed conflict. As long as mercenaries were part of a legally defined
armed force, they were entitled to PW protection (special protection and
treatment, including immunity from prosecution for normal acts of war)
In response to events in Africa in the 1950s and 1960s, international law sought to bring
the practice of mercenarism under greater control.
1968 UN resolution condemning the use of mercenaries against movements of national
liberation, later codified in the 1970 ‘Declaration of Principles of International Law
Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States‘. The 1970 Declaration
represented an important transition in international law, as mercenaries became
‘outlaws‘, but the burden of enforcement remained exclusively on state regimes

6. The legal status of PMCs
In 1987 the UN Commission on Human Rights appointed a
Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries as a means of
violating human rights and impeding the right of peoples to self-
determination.
In 1989 the UN adoption of an ‘International Convention against
the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training of Mercenaries’.
September 2001, Convention adopted en 1989 came into force,
when Costa Rica became the twenty-second signatory.

7. Case Studies
Afghanistan
The United States is said to own about 2/3 of Afghanistan and employs 100,000
personnel from mercenaries to protect convoys, military bases and the
transportation of high value targets. Firms like Dyn Corp entered into 2.2 billion
contracts for transportation of defense equipment to more than 100 bases all
over Afghanistan.
Iraq
With the invasion of Iraq, by coalition forces, the United States Department of
State and Defense collaborated to allow the involvement of mercenaries. The
United States allowed the mercenaries complete autonomy and immunity from
Iraqi law when the Coalition Provisional Authority. Therefore, the UN, could do
little to stop their usage. With complete immunity firms, like the famous
Blackwater Worldwide, that are playing a prominent role in the occupation of
Iraq. In fact there are more private contractors in Iraq than US troops.

8. Regulation of PMCs: Case studies
South Africa
The South African ‘Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act‘ introduced in 1998 attempts to address
both mercenary activities and those services provided by private security and military companies. The
legislation makes a clear distinction between ‘mercenary activity‘ and the export of ‘foreign military
assistance‘. The rendering of foreign military assistance is not proscribed under the Act but instead
controlled by a licensing and authorization procedure under the competence of the National
Conventional Arms Control Committee. Approval for a contract is not granted if it contravenes criteria
based on international law. The Act includes extraterritorial application and punitive powers for those
that do not abide by it.
United Kingdom
Although successive governments have deplored the activities of mercenaries, no effective legislation
exists to prevent either their recruitment or their participation in conflict. The 1870 Foreign Enlistment
Act makes it an offence to enlist in the armed forces of a foreign state at war with another foreign state,
which is at peace with the UK without permission for Her Majesty; or for any person in Her Majesty‘s
Dominions to recruit any person for such service. The section dealing with ‘expeditions‘ was invoked in
1896 against the organizers of a raid on the Transvaal (South Africa) but never formally pursued.
After the ‘Arms to Africa‘ affair, in 2002 the UK Government produced a consultative paper that set down
a number of regulatory options for discussion with regards to PMCs and mercenaries. These have yet to
have been progressed since tabled in 2002.

9. Block Positions
Countries from where PMCs originate
The USA, UK, South Africa and other such countries where PMCs originate from or have their primary
bases, receive monetary and economic benefits from letting PMCs run in their countries. Hence, it is fairly
obvious that they do not favor regulation of PMCs. It is important to note that none of these countries are
signatories of the Mercenary Convention that calls for control and regulation of PMCs
Countries where PMCs operate
PMCs are found in two distinct regions – the Middle East and Africa. Here they have both positive and
negative effects on the countries wherein they operate. On occasion they side with rebel forces, support
coups or pillage and loot. Unfortunately there is a lack of monitoring and international guidelines for the
control of PMC activities in these countries.
Countries which have signed the 1989 convention
Signatories of the ‘Mercenary‘ Convention, though far and few, would definitely be in support of regulation
and control of PMCs by an internationally recognized instrument. Currently, most signatories are those that
do not have PMCs operating in or from them. However many of them neighbor PMC ridden countries, and in
the interest of both their national security and international peace, they seek the enforcement of the
Mercenary Convention

10. Main Issues
What is the legal, universally accepted definition of a PMC? What is the
future of PMCs‘ legal status in relation to the UN? Is regulation of PMCs a
must for today‘s day and age?
What are the guidelines on establishing and running a PMC? How can the
Mercenary Convention be made more effective?
Should the international community pressure non-signatories of the UN
Convention of Mercenaries to sign it?
How can the international community make these privately owned firms
accountable for their actions across borders?
Can PMCs replace peacekeeping missions?
Should the UN peacekeeping forces and these corporations come under
the same category?
Should PMCs become UN owned, and should their method of
accountability be contrasting or diversified?
Under whose jurisdiction to PMCs fall under?