The monopoly of the use of force granted to modern States by its citizens is a relatively new phenomenon. Private armies have been operating in European States till the XIX century. The use of mercenaries has been historically a constant phenomenon till almost the end of the XX century, when their activities were criminalized by the international community. Parallel to that phenomenon during the European colonial expansion over all continents, governments had authorized two other forms of similar violence by non-state actors: the corsairs and the colonial merchant companies.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Introduction
New trends, modalities and manifestations of mercenarism
Outsourcing of Military Force
State Responsibility
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM/ RESEARCH PROBLEM
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
RESEARCH QUESTION OF THE STUDY
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
Definitions of PMCs
Functions of PMC
Risks Associated With Reliance on PMCs
Survey of literature
The expansion of the Post-Cold war” market for force”
New trends, modalities and manifestations of mercenarism
The “private contractors” or “private security guards”
Human security
The new wars
A transnational labyrinth of contracts and subcontracts operating with diffused responsibility and lacking transparency
Impact on the local populations and lack of accountability
Who are the Private Military and Security Companies?
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY/ MATERIALS/METHODS
LIMITATIONS OR ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS
CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
General rules of international organization’s responsibility
Breach of international obligation
Conduct ultra vires the competencies of the international organization
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this study is to examine the legal and institutional responsibilities of states and international organizations when outsourcing military and security tasks to Private Military Companies (PMCs). The research investigates how this privatization impacts the monopoly of force and state sovereignty, while seeking to identify regulatory gaps in international law.
- Legal accountability of states and international organizations regarding PMC conduct.
- The role of PMCs in modern conflict, stabilization, and reconstruction efforts.
- Challenges to state sovereignty and the traditional monopoly on the use of force.
- Regulatory frameworks and gaps within international law concerning non-state security actors.
- The impact of military privatization on human security and human rights.
Excerpt from the Book
Outsourcing of Military Force
The provision of military force by private individuals or groups is not new (Vernon, 2005). On the contrary, the state monopoly on the exercise of military force as is commonly perceived to be ‘’ normal’’ in modern states is quite a recent phenomenon. It was not before the emergence of the sovereign nation states following the peace of Westphalia in 1648, and the introduction of large standing armies in conjunction with the technological improvement of firearms around the end of the 18th century, that hired private troops started gradually to vanish from the battlefields, until, by the 1960’s, the once impressive private military market had become reduced to include only individuals offering their services informally, so called mercenaries or ‘’ guns for hire’’. Against this background, the state monopoly on the use of military force can rightly be termed a historical anomaly.
Also, the general change in warfare itself has offered business opportunities of private specialists (PMCs). The technology of modern weapons has become so sophisticated that states’ armies require specialists for training, maintenance and sometimes also operations. Such special knowledge is increasingly provided by PMCs which and this has to be stressed, operate also within the area of the actual armed operations. On the other hand, sophisticated technology today allows non-state groups to wield power that was unthinkable a decade ago. This development relates to the perceived criminalization of armed conflicts in two ways: criminal groups now have access to superior technology by contracting private experts and potential ‘’ victims’’ hire this expertise to protect themselves from criminal elements.
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY: This chapter provides an introduction to the historical evolution of private military force, outlining the rise of contemporary Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) and the shifting landscape of military privatization.
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL ANALYSIS: This section reviews existing literature, defines key terms such as PMCs and "human security," and analyzes the regulatory challenges and risks associated with relying on private entities for state security functions.
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY/ MATERIALS/METHODS: This chapter outlines the descriptive and exploratory research methodology, emphasizing the qualitative analysis of official documents, reports, and interviews to address the study's core research questions.
CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS: This section presents findings regarding the legal responsibilities of international organizations and states, focusing on attribution of conduct, breach of international obligations, and the challenges of "ultra vires" actions.
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The final chapter synthesizes the findings to argue for a nuanced understanding of state change rather than sovereignty erosion, providing recommendations for stronger regulatory frameworks to hold entities accountable.
Keywords
Private Military Companies, PMCs, International Law, State Responsibility, Privatization of Security, Mercenarism, Human Security, Armed Conflict, Accountability, Sovereignty, Outsourcing, International Organizations, Military Force, Regulation, Global Governance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The study primarily investigates the legal responsibilities of states and international organizations when they outsource military functions to Private Military Companies (PMCs) in conflict and post-conflict zones.
What are the central themes of the work?
The central themes include the privatization of security, the erosion of the state's traditional monopoly on the use of force, the legal "grey zones" in which PMCs operate, and the broader implications for human security and human rights.
What is the primary research question?
The research asks what responsibilities states and international organizations bear under international law when outsourcing force, what tasks are appropriate for PMCs, and how regulatory gaps can be filled to protect stabilization efforts.
Which scientific methods were employed?
The study utilizes a descriptive and exploratory research design, relying on qualitative analysis of secondary literature, official international reports, legal documents, and expert interviews.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body examines the historical background, theoretical frameworks (such as the "tip of the spear" typology), the risks of reliance on PMCs, the impact on local populations, and the complexities of international accountability.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Private Military Companies (PMCs), International Law, state sovereignty, human security, accountability, and the privatization of force.
How does the author define the "tip of the spear" typology?
The typology, developed by P.W. Singer, uses a spear metaphor to classify PMCs based on their proximity to the front line and the nature of their services: provider firms (combat), consulting firms (training/advising), and support firms (logistics/intelligence).
What is the significance of the "revolving door syndrome" mentioned in the text?
The term refers to the phenomenon where PMCs recruit high-ranking former military or intelligence officers for their executive boards, which many scholars argue facilitates the normalization of private military influence.
How are "new wars" described in the study?
The study describes "new wars" as intra-state conflicts rooted in underdevelopment, where civil populations are targeted, and national infrastructures are destroyed, often exacerbated by the involvement of private security actors.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Professor Nicholas Sunday (Autor:in), 2012, Outsorcing of Security to private Military Contractors: State Responsibilities, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/209930
