options for such companies.[1] The report recognised the benefits of PMCs and stated that a new regime for regulation should not undermine these.[2] However, the report concluded that:
a voluntary code is insufficient to regulate the private military industry, because it would not enable the Government to prevent the activities of disreputable companies which were detrimental to the United Kingdom’s interests[3]
The report recommended that the UK Government (with others) develop a new international convention to regulate PMCs, which might replace the UN Mercenaries Convention. It also made recommendations to balance the benefits and costs of new regulation and proposed a distinction between combat and non-combat activities when regulating PMCs (even if difficult to determine). It is worth noting that a draft UN Convention on Regulating PMSC Activities has been the subject of international debate since 2011.[4]That no meaningful progress has been made on these issues is disappointing
81. International crimes abroad may be prosecuted before the UK courts when there is a connection between the perpetrator and the UK.[5] However—as explained above (paragraph 19)—there are many practical obstacles to holding Wagner fighters to account. These obstacles apply to other, if not all, PMCs. In February, the Government told us that it is “spending more time and focus on accountability” than it was a “few months ago”.[6] The UK has provided significant support to the Ukrainian legal system and to the International Criminal Court, to enable accountability for crimes in the Russia-Ukraine war.[7] This assistance is likely to support the prosecution of offences committed by Wagner fighters in Ukraine. The UK is “not specifically” pursuing accountability for crimes committed within the context of Wagner’s operations in other countries.[8] The FCDO told us that:
- ↑ Foreign Affairs Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2001–02, Private Military Companies, HC 922.
- ↑ Foreign Affairs Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2001–02, Private Military Companies, HC 922, para 163
- ↑ Foreign Affairs Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2001–02, Private Military Companies, HC 922, para 137
- ↑ RUSI, ‘Private Military and Security Companies: Views from the UK and Russia on Regulation and Accountability’, 22 April 2020 (accessed 16 July 2023)
- ↑ For the domestic courts to have jurisdiction to prosecute international crimes, there must be a nexus with the domestic jurisdiction. The nature of the nexus depends on the specific offence. For offences covered by the International Criminal Court Act 2001, domestic courts can exercise jurisdiction over any person who is, or was, a UK national or UK resident at the time of the offence, or who became a UK national/resident after the offence was committed but still resides in the UK, or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction (see s54 and s67 ICCA). Other international crimes, such as torture and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, can be prosecuted on the basis of universal jurisdiction (i.e. torture or grave breaches which have been committed on a foreign territory by a perpetrator of any nationality can be prosecuted in the UK courts). International crimes in this context refers to those set out within the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, including genocide and crimes against humanity.
- ↑ Q200 [Ben Fender]
- ↑ For example, the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group (founded with US and EU) is “the way in which we co-ordinate our support to the Ukrainian domestic system”. The UK has put £2.5 million towards this. Actions include: “funding mobile evidence-gathering teams and providing training in international humanitarian law to the Ukrainian judiciary.” The UK has also supported the ICC by providing extra £1 million to the court. Q194 [Hazel Cameron]
- ↑ Q196 [Hazel Cameron]
