PRIVATIZATION OF WAR
SIKANDER ZAFAR
SZABIST

Abstract:
It is believed that the fate of United States of America had been on the hands of mercenaries now what we call the modern-day private military companies. Since the start till the American Revolution in 1776, the American lands had been owned and controlled by mercenaries and private contractors. Christopher Columbus, the man who got backing from Spain's Queen Isabella and king Ferdinand to launch the voyage and discover the new world relater effectively became a private military contractor or a PMC. This shows that the history of contracting private military -previously by the royal offices and now by the democratically elected governments- have been practiced; Historians claims that mercenaries existed in ancient Egypt to safeguard the Egyptian sovereignty by the rebels of that time. Indeed, mercenaries have transformed into private military contractors after the downfall of Soviet Union in 1991 and the characteristics of a PMC and ancient mercenaries are rather similar. However, under The Hague Convention no. 5 mercenaries are illegal organizations but the role and responsibility of private military organizations is unknown in the international law which gives them free reins to operate in a way which fulfills their greed to make abnormal profits. The operations of private military companies is controversial, their contracts with the governments and other non-state actors is discreet in nature which confines the mass media to focus on their operations. The lack of information and lack of oversight under international law makes people all around the world unaware of private military industries. The war on terror executed by the United States empowered PMCs and for profit maximization motives these organization get the job done over the cost of innocent civilian lives.
Introduction:
The questions below are guiding the paper: * What are the characteristics and functionality of PMCs. * Why private military market lacks legal oversight and regulatory mechanism. * What are the humanitarian implications of privatization of war.
The downfall of Soviet Union in 1991 welcomed the concept of private military companies. There was a rise in conflicts on the bases of race, ethnicity, and division of political ideologies; specifically the weak nation-states were vulnerable to tackle these conflicts. Weak states lacked man power and skills required for development. Due to the arms trade amongst non-state actors, there was a need for security strategies and protection. As a result the need for contracting PMCs emerged and its development and expansion have indeed numerous advantages in fighting modern wars and providing efficient security control. Nation-states which were able to afford hired guns executed the delivering of their defense personnel and empowered private military industry [1]. The military market is no different than any other private market exchanging good and services; there were greater efficiency of small specialized military companies then long standing armies. And they assisted the nations' armies in fighting complex wars i.e. civil wars.
The role of the state is decreasing because of the increased reliance on private ownership and free market; there is decreased trust on public institutions. The process of privatization has led to transfer the public responsibility to private agencies. In the realm of globalization, free market and association to capitalism has developed economies; economic power is now the greatest weapon and most influential factor a nation-state can have. The international theatre now have multitude of actors working together to achieve selective goals. For Instance, now multinational companies operate efficiently, creating effective trading techniques and cost-effective production to fulfill the demand of people all around the world. Private military companies now operate all around the world and they are no different than any other privately owned and globally operated organizations: They have a properly thought out business plan; they have an official organizational structure; their operations are divided into different department i.e. marketing and finance department. Unlike any other multinational companies, private military companies are secretive in nature and their operations are not disclosed amongst the general public. They might be secretive in nature because their policy is to protect their clientele but protection while violating humanitarian laws is no protection at all. The PMC's soldiers are apathetic about civilian deaths when it comes to their greed for profit maximization. And the fact that the international law is unable to define the nature of private military companies and the distinction between PMCs and mercenaries gives them the opportunity to operate freely.
Economically powerful nation-states have started to spend less on the state defense. Instead, they are now investing the saved amounts on hiring and contracting PMCs which makes the governments' job of promoting security in other weaker states i.e. American boots in Iraqi soil. Today PMCs are operating in weak but resourceful nation-states and their operations have negative implications on the humanitarian rights of the civilians in those weak nation-states. The home-state governments of these companies leave them to operate under the international law; the international law is unable to have some oversight and regulatory mechanism for the operations of PMCs. Private military companies are operating as private entities all around the globe executing public operations. The usage of PMCs is elevating; international organizations like the United Nations contract private military organizations for the peace keeping missions. Moreover, different regional organizations like the European Union have been outsourcing their security their securities to PMCs. As the operating mechanism of PMCs is complex and they avoid enlisting their clientele it is difficult to bring this organization under legal framework. To accuse private military firms or their personnel accountable for the violation of humanitarian rights or legal rights, it is highly complicated and ambiguous to determine their status under international law.
Private military companies engage in all sorts of operations starting from intelligence assistance and detention, interrogation and technical support, combating to provide security and protection. Four Geneva Convention, additional protocols, and Hague convention defines only three categories of people in combat situation as combatants, mercenary, and civilians. These categories of people are responsible for armed combats [2]. The existing guidance and principles do not determine or define the role of private military companies and its personnel. Moreover, these principles ignore the distinctive quality of PMCs and its operations. This proves the fact that PMCs leaves the question of how legal their operations are; this further means that there is lack of oversight and regulation of PMCs' operations as a result it is nearly impossible to prosecute their personnel over the violation of humanitarian rights. The clouded laws make it difficult to determine the fact that against whom the responsibility should lie: Either against the entire company or against personnel held accountable for hostilities; or against the government –home state- which hired and contracted prosecuted private military company. The lack of coherence and no fine line between a company which is involved in arms conflict as their business activity and a company involved in production of basic goods and services grants protection to the PMCs under clouded international law.
Research Methodology:
The purpose of research
The purpose of selecting this topic was that there are loop holes in the international law specifically to the laws of war and combat; it have its implications on humanitarian rights which costs the world with more civilian casualties. Moreover, the secretive nature of private military industry is complex in nature and their operations behind public's back is making them make abnormal profits as these companies worth billions of dollars i.e. Blackwater, DyrnCorp, and Lockheed Martin. The main focus of this research is to determine the lack of oversight and regulation of military industry and this research will prove that PMCs and its personnel are not defined by the international laws. Moreover, the similarities between mercenaries and private military companies will be highlighted. PMCs are just like other multinational companies in the international theatre hence this research will define their characteristics and the types of Private military companies currently operating all around the world satisfying their clientele; there will be focus on the motives their clients have by the usage of private military companies i.e. The pentagon or non-state actors contracting PMCs for combats against their enemies. This study focuses on three main questions by the usage of PMCs: The question of control; the question of legitimacy; the question of decision making. Finally this research discusses the violation of humanitarian rights in weak nations by private military companies and the personnel they employ; their human resource department.
Research design * Philosophy: The philosophy of this research is on realistic and pragmatic basis as its main focus is on the legitimacy of private military companies. Moreover, it bases on the philosophy of law hence it is more inclined towards interpretivism. * Approach adopted: This research adopts inductive approach as tentative propositions were formulated by the patterns of previous cases and research. * Strategies: The strategies executed in this paper are descriptive and exploratory because number of factors will be explored and taken into consideration. * Choice: The research is based on qualitative research techniques. Most of the data is collected from the internet and archival research: A number of books and papers are taken as references.
Measurements and Instruments
The research is based on secondary and qualitative research techniques. No surveys or questionnaires are conducted because it is not possible. The research is based on archival material, couple of books on mercenaries and recent books on PMCs are taken into consideration. Not only has that but desk research also given considerable amount of information for data collection. Internet sources provided with news reports and documentaries of personnel associated to PMCs, hence, this research have been able to transform and formulate all the news reports, research papers, and documentaries to make a connection to prove or refute the propositions and the research questions.
Themes/ Constructs
Private military companies, private military industry, European Union, United states of America, United Nations, Core Nations, Weak Nations, Violation of human right, International court of justice, Geneva Convention, Combatants, Civilians Globalization, Multinationals, Terrorists groups, Mercenaries, Non-state actors.
Literature review:
After the downfall of Soviet Russia there were numerous important changes in the international theatre which ignited the privatization of security (Eekellen, 2002; Mandel, 2002;Avant, 2005;Singer, 2003). The development of PMCs does have at least some potential benefits in the short-run to fight modern war and controlling security in regions they are assigned to operate in (Mandel,2002). Non-state actors are mostly well organized and financially stronger than that of weak nation-states, hence they make a target market for PMC's personnel (Singer,2003). For a client hiring a PMC, the most influential benefit they can gain is that a PMC will always have principles defining their efficiency and determination to their operations(Dangerfield, 2002)
Some argue that PMCs not only protect their clients but also the vulnerable local civilians and refugees. The ones who doubt that they don’t execute peace keeping with the locals they just need to go through the company's mission statement i.e. International Executive corporation (IESC), a PMC which states that 'we strive to bring harmony and stability to regions under conflict, quickly and with the minimum disruption of local population' (Hellinger, 2004). According to Mr. prince the owner of former Blackwater PMC 'in areas with instability, where there is UN, sending long standing armies is politically unpalatable; it is diplomatically difficult and highly expensive. We had put together a multinational which is a mixer of war professionals, supply it, lead it, and professionally manage it; then put under UN, NATO, or US control. However it would be the best option to stabilize the situation (Prince, 2005).
The experiences in Sierra Leone of Executive Outcomes and UN's peace keeping operations is the proof of promises kept by PMCs. They defeated RUF (Revolutionary Front) allowing government of Sierra Leone to have its first elections (Singer, 2003). The security Iraq Accountability found that PMCs have given humanitarian workers CD-ROM of training procedures to follow ranging from threat awareness to driver training in war zones (Hellinger, 2004). PMCs have been in every kind of military operations, ranging from logistical and intelligence support to war-gaming and field training of how to react to an invasion [3].
However the potential drawbacks which are attached to the use of PMCs overweigh its benefits. These includes how contracts will be managed; question of control; question of legitimacy; and the humanitarian implications which can emerge in the long run (Traynor, 2010). Firms come in with their own expectations and they are mostly shaped with military backgrounds; they have trouble understanding NGOs and humanitarian workers, as one humanitarian said it bluntly 'they don’t understand our community' period! And there comes the danger to our community' (Traynor, 2010). PMCs work for profit maximizing motives: cost savings can come at a price of innocent civilians as human shields i.e. Abu Ghraib abuses in Iraq. In Iraq, this problem has been magnified with the gold rush effect, multiples firms which where newly formed and rapidly emerged entered this market to meet the rising demand. The rush for profit and to meet the large demand for more troops made them employ personnel with lesser skills (Finer, 2005).
Untrained and uninterested in peacekeeping missions, PMCs are ill-equipped to align with the peacekeeping culture. As some of the lobbyist claims that PMCs going to work the mandate of UN peacekeeping; if that is true then their speed of development should’ve been dictated by UN Security Council. The reality is that PMCs ignore the most fundamental declaration of UN charter (Dangerfield et al. 2002). There are no international control regulating that that controls the PMCs and who they work for. The firms make judgments on the basis of their domestic laws, best business practice and greed to maximize profits (Singer, 2004). PMCs have worked for governments, the United Nations, the European Union, and other humanitarian groups. But they have also been found to have its links with dictatorships, drug cartels, rebel groups, and pre-9/11 two of the al-Qaeda linked groups (Kelly, 2002). Moreover, there is no industrial database, and the only listing mechanisms found was 'word of mouth' [4].
The final issue attached with PMCs is the most important to consider, if the PMC employee commits a crime then the international humanitarian laws fail to declare it illegal; the PMCs under the law are ambiguous in nature (Simons, 2004). Allowing private military companies to operate in ambiguous legality is an invitation to abuse; the lack of regulation of PMCs can be a problem for military as well as human right groups (Human Rights Watch, 2004). US military commander claims that ' These PMCs' guys run loose in Iraq and do the stupidest stuff. There is no authority over them, they shoot people for pleasure and someone else have to deal with the aftermath' (Charlotte Observer, 2005). DynCorp employees were found to be involved in sex and arms trade in Balkans and Haiti when they were hired by the US and the UN to provide international police. As a result no DynCorp employee was ever prosecuted (Barnett et al, 2003). Armrogroup hired a British soldier who spent four years in prison for cooperating with Irish terrorists, this shows that the firms that are guided by strict regulatory system can also deviate in this domain just because of the lack of legal oversight [5].
Data Analysis: * Analytical Induction: Analytical induction is the finest instrument of data analysis in this study, the main purpose of this study is to cover all possible justification and explanation which claims that private military market is highly unregulated and it is ambiguous under international law; the usage of PMCs have brought forward fierce humanitarian implications. * Logical Analysis: A fairly different approach is adopted in logical analysis compared to almost every qualitative data analysis tools and it will be informative. The research paper will focus on the identification of the ambiguity of PMCs under international humanitarian law giving a deeper picture of the research topic. * Hermeneutical Analysis: An in-depth understanding of the characteristics of private military firms and the laws which are applied to their operations is necessary to formulate arguments based on their legality and draw out a conclusion to this paper. * Content Analysis: Data collection has been possible with the help of secondary research; a number of articles, news reports, and books are taken in to consideration for the formulation of rational arguments in this paper.
Discussion & Analysis:
Privatization of warfare basically means contracting third party non-state actors on battlefield. This concept is new in the international security. It has evolved over the years: From mercenaries in the medieval time to private military companies in modern times. PMCs are organizations which provide armed personnel to private corporations and non-state actors, moreover, they have been providing military assistance to the governments in war zones and they are capable to afford their services. They provide services ranging from armed men, security, detention centers and torturing techniques to logistical support and intelligence consultations. PMCs can be termed as modern-day mercenaries and according to UN convention, mercenaries are explicitly banned.
The private military industry experienced huge expansion in this market and there was a rise in the demand of their services by their clientele. United States of America is said to have empowered this sector of the business the most. According to a report by the GAO, the US have used contractors on an increasing level in major military operations mainly in the middle east since the gulf war in 1991. The USA had number of factors to depend more on PMCs for combats: 1. US downsized and delayer their military after the Gulf Wars. 2. They supported the latest weapons hence they relied on contractors which provided lifetime support to the system. 3. The US DOD (department of defense) invested more on privatized firms keeping in mind their efficiency and modernized programs. 4. To increase the pace of operations.
These were the main factors which led towards the expansion of PMCs. Globally; the economic globalization has also led to the increase in PMCs: Maximum efficiency is demanded; reduced state control to empower private companies; Competitive nature of Global market has influenced Private military organizations to grow.
The oil and gas facilities are working in the areas with increasing conflicts. For Instance, in Colombia the militants attacked oil industry facilities and pipelines. And post 9/11 scenario have caused political and security turmoil in the Arabian Peninsula. Many multinational corporations gain high profits by operating in that part of the world hence they employ PMCs to provide them with security in the dangerous regions i.e. an oil company in Angola have spent 9% of their entire operational cost on military type security and in Colombia multinationals have spent 6% in security related services.
Characteristics, Functions, and contracting of PMCs
Every registered and expanding organization has basic characteristics and they function according to them. Private military companies, in papers, are the same like any multinational corporations. Hence, they have diverse characteristics. 1. Organization: They are well organized as proper business unites and they have clear executive hierarchy with shareholders. Also, they take full benefits of global markets. 2. Motives: Just like any other private company, a PMC also targets maximization of profits. They function on market places overtly and are registered trade unites. They are in the business for a long time span and these organizations use corporate financing. 3. Open Market: PMCs operate in legal frame work (under the laws of their home government) PMCs are in competition on the global stage. 4. Services: The PMCs execute business agreements with those who can afford; whether state governments or Non-state actors. They have a proper marketing department advertizing their services i.e. on websites. 5. Recruitment: PMCs are known to be efficient while employing people. They advertize their recruitment to employ military personnel. Moreover, they rationalize the skills and assigns missions to those who are capable of doing it.
However, it is hard to identify PMCs because of their interlocking behavior with the civil industrial sphere and defuse character operating secretively. Some analysts argue that ALCOA a multinational aluminum is constructing a highly advanced aluminum plant in Iceland, and it can be classified as a PMC; this shows how secretive in nature PMCs are in general. Private military firms usually perform under extreme conditions and in war-like situations combating the enemies and defending what they are assigned to defend i.e. Iraq has been the most demanding and profit making market them. There can be three types of PMCs which are all distinctive in nature.
The military provider firms can be the most controversial in nature as their operations are associated to actual fights and battle spaces. These firms are secretive in nature and they deny of their operations due to their promises with their clientele. As long as there is demand for PMCs, these firms will operate like this regardless of new amendments in the international humanitarian law. Second kinds of PMCs are known as military consultant firms, they provide training services to their clientele i.e. training of local police in Afghanistan by the USA. Also, they provide military advices and intelligence to their clients. Their knowledge and expertise help their clientele to reshape their armed forces i.e. Blackwater provided difficult shooting ranges to the navy SEAL personnel. Moreover, firms like MPRI has thousands of ex officers working including 4-star generals, half of them have actual combat experiences. Third kind of PMCs can be the military support firms, this sector of PMI is largest of the three in both revenue generation and size it is also most diverse in nature. They provide services ranging from transportation and logistics to technical support and intelligence.
However, focusing on PMCs contracts and agreements is of high importance. PMCs these days perform complicated operations like counter terrorism and insurgency. The three main complex services provided by PMCs in Iraq are protecting key installation facilities; protection of key leaders and important individuals to save them from possible ambush i.e. former US ambassador, Paul Bremer was protected personally by the CEO of blackwater PMC. Also, they provide with convey escorts. All these activities did result in the exchange of firepower and ambush.
The PMCs expanded and were empowered in the Bush administration and further privatization took place. In 2008, the USA spent 647 billion dollars on military and it was the highest spending on military after the WW2. The growth of Pentagon contracting elevated 103% from 2001 to 2006. The US president stated that forces are to be shaped in the future with further improvement and reasonable costs. According to GAO the US have used private contractors on an increasing level and aligned with peace keeping missions and humanitarian assistance missions in Haiti, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq. PMCs have different agendas and plans then that of the DOD i.e. they can get the job done on the cost of innocent civilians. Moreover, the military companies provide various types of services to the deployed forces: Ranging from communication and weapon maintenance services to intelligence analysis and even oversight of other contractors.
Implications of privatization of war
The main issue resulting from the usage of PMCs is the lack of oversight and this market is highly unregulated which frees the reins of these entities and they operate however they want to generate more profits. As mentioned before that the nature of PMCs is highly complex and difficult to identify. Their operations can be traced by analyzing their clientele. There are five different actors who can be known as PMC's clientele: Nations who can afford their services; foreign nationals; multinationals; private (for profit) and private (not for profit).
Today there are new dynamics of warfare, the Nation-states has given up on one of its main characteristics i.e. having monopoly on defense. The non-state actors are the new players in the international theatre. The private military contractors take advantage of changed dynamics of warfare and execute human rights violation in conflicting zones. Eric Prince, the former CEO of black water wrote in his book that blackwater personnel shoot and didn’t check the pulse which clearly shows that the PMC personnel are apathetic to consider human rights violation, for example, the Abu Garieb abuse is one of the case still unregulated by the law enforcement agencies. Moreover, these firms have economic influence on the governments of weak states. For instance, 1000s of deadly mines in Iraq were removed by private contractors in 1999 and then that became the international law. Moreover, in Balkans, the Croatian armed forces, who are trained by the US based PMC, are highlighted to join ethnic cleansing campaigns; this violates international vales and respect of international law. The ambiguous nature of PMCs have caused their personnel to be a civilian and at the same time the can be combatants and act like mercenaries.
Who makes the decision?
The hiring and the contracting of the PMCs is decided by the executive body of the governments, representative bodies have little to say about these matters and are not empowered to influence the decision making process. By this, the human rights, the democracy, and the rule of law is highly priced. The more we look for cost effective techniques the less will be the protection for those who need it the most but are incapable to afford it. The trust of privatization of military is based on commercial gains by private entities benefiting the affluent rather than real gains of the masses. The privatization of forces system have moved out of the democratic hands to profit making system and PMCs have the power to make their clients highly dependent on the services they provide and they are answerable to shareholder and not the parliament. PMCs are likely to respond to market trends rather than policy formulated by the democratic control.
It becomes unnecessary to involve the representatives on national assembly in the foreign policy by the usage of PMCs; governments tend to avoid complex diplomacy hence they employ PMCs to do their dirty operations in the weak nations. Privatization of war is not only providing cost effective solutions but it is also avoiding political issues such as military needs and humanitarian consequences of war. The usage of PMCs is like 'political cost savings'; civilian leader should be the ones to decide where to draw the line for military to use PMCs.
Now the important decisions are made in boardrooms rather than parliaments. One of the main problems of outsourcing military assistance is the lack of over sight and unclear outcomes of privately executed military operations. PMCs have the potential to be the "wild card" for the government to use it against its enemies in the "game of war". These corporations work in weak nation-states who are unable to afford their services; they ask for mining concessions and oil contracts and in return they provide their services. This proves the claim that PMCs incentive is to maintain the weak condition of the state they are operating in.
What laws applied?
The inefficiency of the system to implement laws and policies indicates a failing legitimacy, international legal frame work, and diplomacy. Many of the PMCs operate in gray zones and areas of uncertainty with no parliamentary oversight. These firms are outside the law framework of home country. Private military companies tend violate the humanitarian laws and international legal obligations; basically, there are no international legal obligations which declares the legality of private military companies. Over 20,000 privately contracted personnel in Iraq are not prosecuted for war crimes unlike hundreds of US soldiers, which shows that there are grievous flaws in the system.
So the international humanitarian law have still not explained and defined the roles, actions, and characteristics of PMCs. Four of the Geneva conventions with the additional protocol are hasn't distinguished between PMCs and combatants, civilians, and mercenaries. These laws have explicitly defined the circumstances under who can be called a combatant and a prisoner of war; who can be called a civilian, and who can be declared as a mercenary.
Mercenaries are hired armed personnel who execute hostilities for profit gains without another connection to the combatant parties. The article number 47 (2) of the additional protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention of 1977 defines mercenaries as a person who is recruited to take part in armed conflict. And that person should’ve direct engagement to the hostilities. They should not be the members of the parties involved in the armed conflict or the nationals of where ever they are operating in. This shows the essence of modern-day private contractors but still unable to explain PMCs under mercenaries' legal definition: Personnel who are not related directly in combat situations are not considered as mercenaries. In practice there are PMC personnel who are only linked to providing security, logistical support, intelligence, and training. Basically, they are involved in non-hostile activities. Hence, civilian contractors cannot be prosecuted under additional protocol 1. UN convention against the recruitment, use, finance, and training of mercenaries 1989 define mercenaries similar to additional protocol 1 but expands the definition of who is a mercenary. Article 1 or Para 2 declares that personnel who are specifically employed to overthrow the sovereign government or to violate the territorial integration of a state is a mercenary or that is known as mercenarism. This shows that PMCs are not mercenaries until or unless they directly take part in combat situations without being a party to the combat situations. The concept of mercenaries does not define private military companies under these international humanitarian laws.
Combatant is a person who takes direct part in combat situations and he/she is legally entitled to associate themselves to hostilities. Article 43 of additional protocol 1 determines combatants by the reference of the membership in the armed forces; Article 4 of the Geneva Convention 3 defines reference to the membership entitled for prisoners of war status. When parties' contract civilians to fight on their behalf can be easily determined as combatants only if they fulfill the criteria mentioned in these articles: 1. The corporation or other militias should belong to one of the two parties in the armed conflict; 2. They should be commanded by the person responsible for their subordinates having a fixed sign, carrying weapons openly, and execute operations under the law and customs of war.
The purpose of humanitarian law itself is to protect the civilians and civilian objects in conflict situations. There is a clear distinction between civilians and civilian objects which should not be attacked in any circumstances. Only the military objects are legitimate targets of attack. The principle is to have a clear distinction between combatants and civilians. Article 50 of additional protocol 1 defines civilians rather negatively and not clearly: Civilians are those who do not come under the category of combatants such as in article 4A 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the third Geneva Convention and in article 43 of additional protocol 1. This approach creates difficulty in determining civilians in armed combats. It is possible that even the mercenaries can fall under the categories of civilians. The nature of PMCs is not defined by the international humanitarian laws; hence they can fall under all three categories of mercenaries, combatants, and civilians depending on their activities and their operations. When PMC personnel are integrated into armed combats, they will be considered as combatants; when they will provide logistical support, they will be considered as civilians; and those who are associated to combat situations but not being a part of a party to the conflict, they will be recognized as mercenaries.
In absence of clear legal laws, a person can pretend to be a civilian and engage in combat against enemies or may use innocent civilians as human shields in armed conflicts making their own path clearer. The purpose of humanitarian law is to protect civilians; its lack of clarity makes civilian protection difficult. However PMCs are not outside the scope of international humanitarian law. Though, they might fall under civilians, combatants of mercenaries depending on their activities and operations.
Conclusion:
The nature of private military companies is ambiguous in the light of international law. They can fall under the category of civilians, combatants, or mercenaries depending of their actions in the work place. This cause the lack on oversight and law frame work is unregulated when it comes to PMC's operations. The ultimate cost of this is barred by the vulnerable civilians of states where these PMCs work in. The proposition which claims that private military contractors are a form of mercenaries is refuted. It can be a form of mercenaries under humanitarian laws but that is not always possible regardless the ambiguity in the law itself. However, the international criminal law goes a step further which states that to hold any individual held accountable of the violation of humanitarian law. This assures remedies for victims in armed conflict; no matter a person is a combatant or a PMC personnel, he/she will be prosecuted if there is any violation of human rights performed by them. As far as activities of PMC personnel are concerned, the international criminal court is a forum which holds individuals accountable for genocide, war crimes, and humanitarian crimes. However, the role of PMCs should be defined to have no loop holes in the international humanitarian laws only for the betterment of humanitarian rights. The private military concept is still new and there is a lot to debate about it hence a direct conclusion cannot be drawn.
Validity & reliability:
The purpose of this study was to find the connection between the private military companies and the international laws. The international humanitarian laws have been taken into consideration to find a linkage between PMCs and mercenaries. Moreover, the characteristics and functionality of private military companies are formulated by the analysis of numerous private military firms. Other independent studies were re-checked by various sources through the internet. Invalid information was discarded from the research on the bases on its lack of sources.
Limitation to study:
This research is conducted via secondary means of research; hence no interviews or questionnaires were involved, Most of the information in extracted from the internet which can be flawed and quack information most of the times. Moreover, privatization of warfare is a new emerging concept in the international arena which is still a matter of concern to the diplomats, lawyers, and internationalists. There has been really less development in this matter that PMCs does violate humanitarian rights, hence its ambiguity prevails. This research required clear evidences in that matter which were not possible as they are either hidden or still not formulated by the international investigation agencies or teams.

References: * [1] Asmundsson, 2007. Privatization of war, University of akureyri * [2] P.R Khalidaas, 2014. Determining the status of private military companies under international law: A quest to solve accountability issues, Amsterdam law forum. * [3] The complex is operated by Combat Support Associates, http://csakuwaut.com * [4] Interview with humanitarian organization officials, 2005 * [5] Glantz; Hellinger, 2004. http://armogroup.com * Jordi &Armendariz, 2011. The privatization of warfare, violence, and private military & security companies: A factual and legal approach to human rights violation. * Conference of private security companies in Latin America, 2008. http://havenscenter.org * Lilly, 2000. The privatization of security and peace building. * General assembly; third committee, 2007. Outsourcing military functions to private contractors leads to privatization of war. http://un.org * P.W singer, 2006. Humanitarian principles private military agents: some implications of the privatized military industry for humanitarian community. * E. Prince, 2014. Civilians' warriors. * Kharmann & Leander, 2012. Private military security companies: Transforming security governance? * Dunigan, 2013. A lesson from Iraq war: How to outsource war to private contractors. * SophieCo, 2014. Mercenaries do a better job than US Army- blackwater founder Eric Prince. http://rt.com * Isenberg, 2012. Contractors in war zones: Not exactly contracting http://nation.time.com * Kelly, 2012. Confession of private security contractor http://security.blogs.cnn.com * Robson, 2014. In place of boots on ground, 'US seek contractors for Iraq. http://stripes.com * Bennet, 2010, Private military contractors experiencing industry boom in Iraq. http://oilprice.com