The Role of Private Military Companies in International Conflict
Introduction to the committee:
The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the principal policy-making body of the UN. As all member states are part of this committee and have an equal vote, it provides a unique setting for multilateral discussions on issues that the international community faces. The General Assembly meets in regular sessions from September to December every year. The General Assembly is divided into committees, which discuss particular issues. We will be meeting as the Disarmament and Security Committee (DiSec), which deals with matters relating to disarmament, global security, and international threats.
Definitions and Introductions:
A mercenary is a professional soldier who fights for hire, with the goal of personal profit rather than some ideological or political cause, such as loyalty to a particular nation. Mercenaries have likely existed for practically as long as there has been war, and have enjoyed prominence at various points throughout history. The prominence decreased somewhat, at least in the industrialized world, with the birth of the modern nation-state, which gave governments a new means of mass mobilization that did not require mercenaries.
Private Military Companies (PMCs) are a somewhat newer phenomenon, though clearly an evolution of the same concept. The term refers to for-profit entities which fulfil roles traditionally done by national militaries. These may range from training and bodyguard services, to serving as advisors, to fully taking over military fronts. They may be employed by nations as supplements for their militaries, or by private companies, employing them for security, in particular in conflict areas. The first PMC in the modern sense was WatchGuard International, which was founded in 1965 by some of the founders of SAS, and was employed in a variety of conflicts throughout the following decades. Throughout the coming decades, PMCs would be employed in more and more conflicts, employed by many countries and entities.
From the perspective of national militaries, PMCs have a number of advantages over conventional forces. Their operations are often cheaper than standard militaries, and they may have specialized skills or knowledge which a particular military lacks. However, there are also somewhat more questionable reasons. PMCs, not technically part of a country’s military, often take on roles whose legality is less clear, and are often not bound by treaties or rules agreed upon by states. These advantages have proven appealing to many governments, and estimates for the size of the PMC industry run into the hundreds of billions. PMCs are also sometimes employed by rebel groups seeking to overthrow existing governments, or may attempt to overthrow a government themselves, something which has happened a surprising number of times, though usually without success.
Examples:
Executive Outcomes
Executive Outcomes was formed in South Africa 1989, as cracks were beginning to show within the country’s Apartheid regime. The founders were former members of an infamous government death squad, and most of its members were drawn from former government military or security personnel. It would be involved in a number of conflicts throughout Africa, most prominently contracted by governments of Angola and Sierra Leone to fight against rebel forces in their respective civil wars. It was also employed by a number of private companies, particularly those in the mining industry, to provide security and guard sites. The South African government would ultimately force its dissolution in 1998, citing concerns about corporate militarization, but many drew inspiration from the company in forming future PMCs.
2. Blackwater
This company has gone through many names, most recently Constellis, over the course of its existence, but is best known by its original name. It was formed in 1996 by a pair of former Navy SEALs, initially with the goal of providing to US Armed Forces. However, it rapidly grew in scope, providing security to both government and corporate clients. They are however, most famous for their role throughout the Iraq War, where they were extensively employed by the US and allied governments through their occupation. The company was involved in many alleged incidents of human rights abuses and war crimes, most infamously the Nisour Square massacre, in which 17 Iraqi civilians were killed in an incident most regard as unprovoked. Several employees of Blackwater were found guilty of murder and manslaughter as a result of the incident, but most were later pardoned by president Trump. Blackwater continues to operate, allegedly being employed in operations in Yemen, alongside continued training and security work.
3. The Wagner Group
PMC Wagner was founded by Yevgeny Prighozin and Dmitri Utkin in 2014, with close ties to the Russian state. It was best known for its involvement in the war in Donbass, and later the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but had operations throughout the world, prominently in civil wars in Mali, the Central African Republic, and Syria, in each case fighting for a government friendly to Russia. It was accused of widespread human rights abuses, and was widely regarded as a means for the Russian government to covertly conduct international operations. However, over the course of the Ukrainian war, there were increasing disagreements between Prighozin and Putin about the running of the war, which culminated in Wagner’s attempt to overthrow the Russian government through a rebellion in June 2023. An agreement to end the rebellion was brokered by Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko, and two months later Prighozin and Utkin died in a crash of their private jet widely assumed not to have been accidental. In the wake of this, the Russian government took de facto control of Wagner, but they continue to operate in many theaters throughout the world.
Issues:
One of the major international concerns regarding PMCs is their ambiguous legal status and lack of accountability. Unlike traditional state militaries, PMCs exist in a legal gray zone, often operating across multiple jurisdictions where oversight and enforcement mechanisms are weak or nonexistent. International humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, applies primarily to state actors and recognized combatants, leaving many PMC activities outside clear legal frameworks. While the 1989 UN Mercenary Convention explicitly bans the recruitment and use of mercenaries, its applicability to PMCs remains contested, as PMCs are often classified as security contractors rather than mercenaries.
The lack of accountability for PMCs is another pressing issue. Many PMCs have been implicated in human rights violations, including unlawful killings, torture, and excessive use of force. However, prosecution is rare, as these companies often operate in conflict zones where host governments may lack the capacity or willingness to investigate. In some cases, PMCs are protected by agreements granting them immunity from local laws, as seen with Blackwater in Iraq. Even when legal action is pursued, convictions are uncommon, and as demonstrated by the pardoning of Blackwater personnel involved in the Nisour Square massacre, justice can be undermined by political considerations.
The rise of PMCs poses significant challenges for international stability. Without clear regulations and enforcement mechanisms, PMCs risk exacerbating conflicts rather than resolving them. Efforts to regulate them, such as the Montreux Document, provide non-binding guidelines, but without stronger international legal frameworks, PMCs will likely continue to operate with impunity, complicating global efforts to maintain peace and security.
What has been done:
Several international efforts have attempted to regulate Private Military Companies (PMCs) and mercenaries, though with limited success. The most notable is the 1989 UN International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training of Mercenaries, commonly known as the Mercenary Convention. This treaty explicitly bans the use of mercenaries in armed conflict and criminalizes their recruitment. However, the convention has only been ratified by 41 states, excluding most major military powers, such as the United States, Russia, and China. Furthermore, the convention does not clearly define or regulate PMCs, allowing many companies to operate legally despite engaging in activities similar to mercenary work.
A more targeted effort is the Montreux Document, a non-binding agreement signed in 2008 that outlines best practices and legal obligations for states employing PMCs. While it provides guidelines for accountability and human rights compliance, it lacks enforcement mechanisms, making it dependent on voluntary compliance.
To strengthen regulation, the international community could work toward binding agreements that hold PMCs accountable under international law, potentially through an expansion of the Montreux Document into a legally enforceable treaty. Additionally, increased transparency requirements, international licensing systems, and independent monitoring bodies could help ensure that PMCs operate within the bounds of international law and human rights standards
While the GA lacks enforcement powers, it could push for a legally binding framework that extends the principles of the Montreux Document into enforceable international law. The GA could also advocate for a global licensing and registration system, ensuring that only vetted companies operate in conflict zones. Additionally, the creation of a UN oversight body to investigate PMC misconduct and report on violations of international law could improve transparency and accountability. By working through existing UN mechanisms, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and peacekeeping operations, the UNGA could enhance monitoring efforts and encourage greater state responsibility for the actions of PMCs.
Key Questions when researching your country’s position:
Does my country employ PMCs in a significant capacity?
Has my country stated opposition or support to the use of PMCs in General?
Has my country ratified the mercenary convention and/or the Montreux document?
Is my country involved in any significant international conflict, potentially with countries that do use such forces?
Is my country closely allied with any countries which use PMCs in a significant way?
Questions a resolution should answer:
How can the international community create a clear and enforceable legal framework to regulate PMCs?
What measures can be taken to hold PMCs accountable for human rights violations and breaches of international law?
Should the UN create a dedicated body to monitor and regulate PMC activities, and if so, what powers should it have?
How can the UNGA encourage member states to implement national laws that prevent the misuse of PMCs while respecting state sovereignty?
In the long term, should PMCs continue to be used in conflict?
Country Suggestions:
Australia
Central African Republic
China
France
Iraq
Mali
Mozambique
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
Syria
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
