A comparative analysis of the domestic regulatory systems aimed at eradicating the practice of mercenarism without criminalising the legitimate private military and security industry.

Abstract

There is general consensus that mercenarism is and should remain prohibited. The difficulty that has arisen is firstly one of defining the exact nature of mercenarism, and more specifically what actions constitute mercenary actions. A further difficulty arises in that much of the legislation intended to outlaw mercenarism is impacting on the legal activity of private military and security contractors, who fall short of the definitional requirements of mercenarism. The two groups being so closely linked that they are often mistakenly conflated . There is currently a need to develop a response to the private military security industry, which is better suited to effectively regulate their activities, whilst also effectively criminalising the activities of those who actions amount to mercenarism. The dissertation therefore sets about analysing how these two distinct sectors: mercenaries and private military security companies, are regulated at an international and domestic level. It then uses the lessons learnt from these regulator attempts, and the various policy considerations which countries have to make, to propose a way forward in creating an effective regulatory system for mercenaries and private military companies at an international and domestic level.