International organizations warn about the use of “private military corporations” in war

A recent United Nations report has revived the discussion on the “privatization of war” and the risks the phenomenon poses for international law and human rights. The views of experts and humanitarian organizations.

Amid a climate of wars and humanitarian crises in various parts of the world, the involvement of corporations and multinationals is a concern from a human rights perspective because of its nature as “covert privatization.” In seeking to advance their own interests, several private entities have alarmed experts and organizations with their capacity to overstep the limits of international law for profit. “Mercenaries,” sovereignty and law hang in the balance in the face of the wars and conflicts of the 21st century. 

This was the issue the United Nations (UN) put on the agenda last week by releasing an expert report analyzing the “destabilizing” role played by private military and security companies when they meddle in humanitarian conflicts. In the report, the UN highlights how these actors seek legal loopholes to insert their interests into state defense and security policies. 

The international body points to a series of risks that accompany these maneuvers, notably the vulnerability in which state sovereignty is placed, the intrusion of market logic into highly sensitive matters and human rights violations, among others. 

Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) are viewed with concern by the United Nations, which has therefore called on States to develop policies and strategies to regulate these corporate groups. It also underscores the danger that the use of “mercenaries” can pose in contexts such as the taking of prisoners, possible torture and war crimes, as well as regarding the legal frameworks for prosecuting these actions. 

Operations of this kind cover not only wars but also domestic security contexts in which governments introduce military action. This is the case of Erik Prince, the businessman in charge of the firm Blackwater (one of the most prominent private military companies), and his “alliance” this year with the government of Ecuador to confront “narco-terrorism” in that country.

Blackwater has a long history of providing private militarization services in connection with approximately 30 countries on different continents. Other firms that have gained international notoriety for their actions in armed conflicts include Defion Internacional, Triple Canopy and Garda World, among others. For example, the US company MPRI was engaged, through the United States government, to provide “advisory and training” services to Croatian forces in 1994, a maneuver that amounted to outsourcing a government action to a private company. 

Background on military privatization

The discussion is not new. For several years, various international organizations have warned about the idea of “privatizing” military forces in armed confrontations. In 2022, the organization Center for Civilians in Conflict released a report on “the impact” of private military companies on the “protection of civilians.” It cites examples such as the massacre of civilians perpetrated in Nisour, Baghdad, in 2007 by military contractors. This case was one of the major triggers for the start of civil mobilizations seeking redress for the actions of these companies.

The report sets out a series of problems linked to private militarization. One of them is the tendency of some States to turn to private military forces to “disguise” their participation in certain conflicts. It also highlights the difficulty of gathering accurate data on the conduct of these forces in military operations. Another major problem is the inability of civilians affected by these companies to take legal action, claim redress or demand information. 

As early as 2013, the International Committee of the Red Cross was focusing on this phenomenon, mainly because of the risk it posed to international humanitarian law. In a report that year, the Red Cross already noted that the responsibilities of these companies and their subordinates were never “clear,” especially when it came to whether or not they abided by international law. The organization raised the problem that employees of these companies were classified as civilians under international humanitarian law, even though they were de facto participants in military actions.

Measures to address the phenomenon

Following warnings such as the one issued at the time by the Red Cross, several initiatives have been developed at the international level to address the phenomenon. Among them is the well-known Montreux Document, promoted by the humanitarian organization itself and launched in Switzerland in 2008. It established new criteria of commitment and responsibility for States with regard to private military companies. Initially some 17 countries endorsed the document, a number that over time rose to more than 50.

Guillermo Whpei

President of Fundación para la Democracia