Stirling also founded KAS International (aka KAS Enterprises) and was involved in working with WWF to forcibly reduce illegal poaching and smuggling of elephant tusks in various southern African countries. [9] Other groups formed by former SAS soldiers were formed in the 1970s and 80s, including Control Risks Group and Defence Systems, which provide military advice and training. The use and recruitment of mercenaries is prohibited by law by the 1989 International Convention against the Recruitment, Deployment, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. Second, U.S. courts may gain jurisdiction over U.S. corporations where SGIs can be sued for alleged tort wrongdoing. Nordan v. Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC., 460 F.3d 576 (4. Cir., 2006) was an attempt by survivors of deceased Blackwater employees to appeal the company. [xxi] In another attempt to seek redress against the PMCs in U.S. courts, the Center for Constitutional Rights is suing Blackwater for alleged wrongs committed in Iraq. [xxii] On October 17, 2006, the National Defence Authorization Act of 2007 entered into force as Public Law No.
109-364. [xxxvii] It contained a single section that made an apparently minor change: “Section (10) of Section 802(a) of Title 10, United States Code (Section 2(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), will be amended by deleting “war” and inserting “declared war or emergency operation.” [xxxviii] The amendment was added to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. Graham explained that he tried to make the administration of justice more efficient and give more control to commanders by placing contractors under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. [xxxix] This small change has big implications for the military and PMC industry. Unfortunately, this change raises even more problems, as Army Lawyer describes: “There is no legislative history to explain this change. In the absence of published guidelines, it is unclear how this change will be implemented and what impact it will have exactly. [xl] 10 U.S.C. 802(a)(10) can now subject U.S. civilians to military justice in the absence of declared war, while U.S. courts can remain open and hear such cases.
This development is particularly troubling given the way the UCMJ criminalizes conduct that may not be illegal in civilian life, and the particularly broad way in which federal courts have interpreted the language of this law. From the above perspective, the PMC regulatory vacuum looks more like a state-sponsored election than an inevitable legal vacuum. As the main sponsor and user of GSP, the United States of America has updated its national regulations to fill a legal gap. Since 2004 and under the Contractor Accountability Bill, SMPs based in the United States must obtain a license from the Defense Trade Control Office. Instruction No. 3020/41, adopted on 3 October 2005, entitled “Contract personnel authorized to accompany the armed forces of the United States”, supplements this regulation. This instruction did not resolve the debate on the threshold required to qualify as direct participation in hostilities for PMC activities under the Geneva Conventions and Protocols. But he clarified at least some elements regarding their liability and prosecution. In this statement, the U.S. Government establishes policy and assigns responsibilities to contract personnel authorized to escort U.S. armed forces, known as Force Service Contractors (CDFs). However, this instruction applies only to contractors employed by the U.S.
Armed Forces and does not apply to contractors employed by other U.S. government agencies or U.S. reconstruction companies for security missions. The specific rights and obligations of CCP personnel authorized to accompany U.S. forces have been clarified as follows: From 2006 to 2008, the Swiss government and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) began a working process with government experts from seventeen countries most affected by or relying on CHP activities: Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Germany, France, Iraq, Poland, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States. Representatives of civil society and military and security companies were also consulted. The result of this process was the Montreux document, published by the ICRC and the Swiss government in September 2008. The objective of this document is to promote respect for international humanitarian law and human rights in the field of private security. It is not legally binding as such; Rather, it contains a compilation of best practices to assist States in taking national measures to fulfil their obligations under these new activities. While it is widely accepted that private military contractors (PMCs) in the service of the United States operate outside of a legal framework, such an understanding is based on a perceived rather than actual flaw in the jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, in 2006, the United States Congress expanded the scope of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include members of private military companies under military jurisdiction. The jurisdictional status is too broad and the law can now subject the civilian population of the United States to military jurisdiction in situations where there is no declared war. In 2008, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Swiss government and contributors from private security companies and the civil society sector and NGOs developed and proposed the Montreux Document on Private Military and Security Companies. The document lists international legal obligations and specific recommendations regarding procurement practices for SPC services and operational oversight, and clarifies States` obligations with regard to the cessation of such facilities during armed conflict. [56] Even if PMCs are bound by the laws of the country from which they operate, the legality of their actions is questioned when they operate in territories other than their home country.
