The controversial nature of private military contractors: the (un)just nature and the implications of the privatization of military - Amelia

Max Weber famously stated that the state is a "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." The proliferation of Private Military Contractors (PMCs) is challenging that claim and also creating debates on the controversiality of PMCs. Not the least of which is if PMCs can be considered just warriors and the implications of privatizing the military.

One of the major problems that PMCs have is that they do not have democratic and legal accountability, and as the examples below will show, this lack of accountability enables them to violate Just War Theory (see also the video). It is my opinion that it is the lack of accountability that means that PMCs are not considered just warriors. 

PMCs enable the circumvention of democratic accountability by both the companies and the government. Private military companies do this because they undermine governmental institutions through negating one of the core governmental roles, which is “to maintain security, which includes democratic control over the use of force.” By not being beholden to the citizens, they have no restrictions on the contracts they accept or seek out, which can have a debilitating impact on national or international security á la Executive Outcomes (EO) attempting to seek out contracts to fight for the genocidal Rwandan government. EO’s attempt shows the near violation of the jus ad bellum principles of just cause and right intention. As Robert Young Pelton said, "it is a myth to assume that contractors are aligned with governments, that they synchronize."

The government’s use of PMCs undermines democratic accountability because it circumvents the legislative assembly’s input into the decision to intervene and the subsequent decisions. In those cases, would there be just cause to invade the country if it is likely that the public or the legislative assembly would disapprove? Also, PMCs removes the morality of the engagement in war as the use of national military forces the governments to use force as a last resort because it is their citizens that they are putting in danger. But by outsourcing military force, the government would be able to engage at will. One important side effect of this is losing control over how that force is used during the intervention. This loss of control relates to jus in bello (JIB) in its entirety because it concerns the conduct of war by PMCs.

In general, there is a huge difference between a state military and private military in that while the government has control over their soldier’s actions, they don’t have control over the contractor actions. When soldiers break the law, they are court-martialed but when contractors break the law, what happens? The PMCs lack of legal accountability is exacerbated because their corporate status makes them virtually immune from international treaties, and military law only applies to civilians when there has been a formal declaration of war, which does not happen a lot these days.

This means that the contractors can violate, with impunity, the JIB principles because while the military has to ensure that soldiers are acting in accordance to JIB, PMCs are not under any obligation to do so. Cases in point, the Sierra Leonean government terminated the contract with EO after the company was subjected to allegations of human rights abuses; CACI and Titan Corp. were implicated in 36% of the incidents in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and there were 6 individuals that were directly culpable; and there is a video implicating Aegis Defense services in the random shooting at Iraqi civilians during a street patrol and shows that they not only violate military necessity, but also proportionality and distinction. These are just a few examples, but what they have in common is that the contractors involved weren’t persecuted. 
Furthermore, PMCs are ultimately accountable to their employers rather than the state, which means that they follow the orders of senior management, whose goals are often in line with profit maximization rather than upholding JIB. The goal of profit maximization run the risk of hiring unsuitable employees or not providing adequate training, amongst other things (video).

Another reason for not considering PMCs just warriors is that private military companies do attract a certain type of people. Singer argues that many former members of the most notorious and ruthless units of the Soviet and apartheid regimes have found employment in the industry. Looking at EO, a significant portion of their contractors was derived from Koevoet and 32 Battalion, units that were notorious for their human rights violations during the Apartheid. Although it is possible that people can change, the fact that the disbandment of Koevoet took a long time as those operatives were considered unsuitable for work in law enforcement suggests otherwise. This is evidence that PMCs do not discriminate against their potential employees, which creates problems when taking into account the lack of democratic and legal accountability.

My opinion is that while I don’t believe that PMCs are inherently unjust, the current lack of regulation and democratic and legal accountability means that PMCs are not considered just warriors is because unlike the state military where there are checks and balances in place to ensure JIB is upheld, there is none for PMCs. 

Implications of the privatization of the military

National and international security are being increasingly threatened by the proliferation of PMCS. The UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries wrote that PMCs fill power vacuum in unstable countries. When those governments are not functioning and are not able to control the actions of the PMCs, those contractors would have the freedom to act however they want. Bearing in mind the type of people PMCs normally attract and the emphasis on the bottom line, there could be the proliferation of human rights abuses and this would impact on national security because the citizens would not feel secure within their own state. It could also spill over into international security due to a possible exodus of refugees.

With regards to international security, borrowing an example from pop culture because I wasn’t able to find real life examples, The Expendables are a group of ex-soldiers that banded together and are in the employ of the CIA. In Expendables 3, the group comes up against an ex-Expendable that had left the group and became an illegal arms trader. Although this is fictional, this is one real way that PMCs can impact international security. While this is not saying that national soldiers don’t do this, but a combination of globalization, increased usage of weapons and the lack of regulation of the industry increases the chance of illegal arms trade by PMCs. Moreover, in the environments that they are working in, they would probably get to know people, which facilitate the ease of changing jobs, as seen in Expendables 3.

Another way that PMCs threaten international security is through the increasing demand of their services. This is because PMCs create a cycle of self-perpetuating supply due to the creation of more security experts which then leads to a demand on their services that are only limited by the number of actors that can pay for them and lastly, weakening existing security institutions due to draining of resources, that is talented personnel, and worsening the security coverage. This cycle enables the dependence of the poorer African nations because they end up needing more and more services from the PMC due to the PMCs’ recruitment of the state’s talent. The consequence is that security infrastructure and governmental organizations remain woefully underdeveloped which impedes the reconstruction of society and adds to existing international problems.

Lastly, there is a brain drain in the military because private security pays much more compared to governmental pay, although there is a difference depending on the contractor's country of origin. Military morale is also affected because soldiers are working alongside someone that is being paid at least 3 times they are. This brain drain is causing the military to lose talent, which means that all that’s left will be the incompetent ones. States should not be protected by those who aren’t able to, and there is no need for all countries to have the jokes about their military causing worldwide disasters because of lack of basic army discipline. Just the Russians.