steps into that fold. We are also aware of the Turkish-headquartered SADAT increasing its presence across the continent of Africa. It has been operating since at least 2013, including in Libya and Sudan.[1]
76. The UK Government does not wish to disincentivise the use of PMCs in general, as their activity as “not necessarily illegal or harmful”.[2] Other contributors emphasised the need to recognise that such companies can make a positive contribution to security.[3] However, the Government recognised that the “malign use of PMCs as proxies of States increasingly forms part of an intensified competition over norms and values”.[4] The Government appears to think it can manage these risks. We disagree. The Ministry of Defence has a “policy framework to understand where and how the use and activities of PMCs threatens UK interests and values”.[5] As the Government has not provided this to us, however, we do not know which PMCs it considers a threat or why, nor are we aware of what the Government does with this information. Overall, we perceived the coordination of analysis across Government to be poor.
77. The Government has underlined that the rules of international law governing state relations with PMCs are “well-established”.[6] If true, this would make it considerably easier to challenge states whose malign use of PMCs falls foul of these rules. However, other evidence disputes the clarity of international rules. There is no widely agreed international legal definition of a Private Military Company,[7] and there are ambiguities over the status of PMC employees under international humanitarian law.[8] We were also told that the legal tests to meet the term ‘mercenary’ are “near impossible” to fulfil, due to
- ↑ Grey Dynamics, ‘SADAT: Turkey’s Paramilitary Wings Take Flight in Africa’, 16 April 2021 (accessed 18 July 2023)
- ↑ Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (WGN0025) section 4
- ↑ International Code of Conduct Association (WWGN0015) paras 16, 25; Sean McFate, The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and what they mean for World Order (OUP, 2014), xv; Mr D White (WGNO0001). Relatedly, data suggests that PMSCs are not on average associated with greater harm to civilians, even if PMSCs headquartered in non-democracies are. Dr Ulrich Petersohn (Senior Lecturer at University of Liverpool) (VWWGNO0004)
- ↑ Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (WWGN0025) section 4
- ↑ Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (WGN0025) section 4
- ↑ Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (WWGN0025) section 6
- ↑ Q4 [Sorcha MacLeod]; Q5 [Sean McFate]; Proelium Law (VWVWGNO0016) para 5.1. There is, however, a draft Convention on Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs}, which defines a Private Military and/or Security Company as a corporate entity which provides on a compensatory basis military and/or security services by physical persons and/or legal entities. There is a similar definition in the Montreux Document, although this goes further in that it defines military and security services as including armed guarding and protection of persons and objects; maintenance and operation of weapons systems: prisoner detection and advice to or training of local forces and security personnel. See Report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, A/HRC/15/25, 2 July 2010
- ↑ Their status as civilians or direct participants in hostilities relates to the nature and circumstances of their functions. Some PMC employees have also tried to benefit from combatant status. ICRC, ‘International humanitarian law and private military/security companies - FAQ’, 10 December 2013 (accessed 16 July 2023); Lindsey Cameron, ‘Private military companies: their status under international humanitarian law and its impact on their regulation’ International Review of the Red Cross, vol 88 (2006), pp 573-598
