Accountability for Private Military and Security Contractors in the International Legal Regime

Abstract

The rapidly growing presence of private military and security contractors (PMSCs) in armed conflict and post-conflict situations in the last decade brought corresponding incidents of serious misconduct by PMSC personnel. The two most infamous events—one involving the firm formerly known as Blackwater and the other involving Titan and CACI—engendered scrutiny of available mechanisms for criminal and civil accountability of the individuals whose misconduct caused the harm. Along a parallel track, scholars and policymakers began examining the responsibility of states and international organizations for the harm that occurred. Both approaches have primarily focused on post-conduct accountability—of the individuals who caused the harm, of the state in which the harm occurred, or of the state or organization that hired the PMSC whose personnel caused the harm. Less attention, however, has been paid to the idea of pre-conduct accountability for PMSCs and their personnel. A broad understanding of “accountability for” PMSCs and their personnel encompasses not only responsibility for harm caused by conduct, but responsibility for hiring, hosting, and monitoring these entities, as well as responsibility to the victims of the harm. This article provides a comprehensive approach for analyzing the existing international legal regime, and whether and to what extent the legal regime provides “accountability for” PMSCs and their personnel. It does so by proposing a practical construct of three phases based on PMSC operations—Contracting, In-the-Field, and Post-Conduct—with which to assess the various bodies of international law.     

Revisiting the Role of Private Military and Security Companies

Abstract

This essay addresses the role of private military and security companies (PMSCs) in security governance. In this context, it offers a historical overview of some of the main developments in the evolution of private warfare and critically discusses some of the key challenges confronting the quest for holding PMSCs accountable in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian norms.     

论国际统一实体私法与国际私法的关系

国际统一实体私法与国际私法之间的关系问题是一个涉及这两个学科各自发展的重要问题，不同国家的学者在这一问题上见解各不相同。两者在调整对象、调整方法、法律性质、法律效力、价值取向等方面既存在联系的一面，也存在显著的区别。但从总体上看，上述领域的区别表现为一种差异性和排斥性，这种差异性和排斥性作为两者之间关系的主流，体现和规定了这一关系的性质和发展趋向。     

Unaccountable: The Current State of Private Military and Security Companies

Abstract

The current accountability system for private military and security contractors (PMSCs) is woefully inadequate, and mere enhancements in oversight cannot hope to remedy that failing. I contend that once we recognize the kind of accountability required of PMSCs, we will realize that radical changes in the foundational relationship between PMSCs and the state are required. More specifically, in order to be appropriately accountable, members of PMSCs must become a part of or, at the very least, directly responsible to the legitimate authoritative military or police structures, and there must be a clear and precise delineation of responsibility among public officials for holding individual members of PMSCs criminally liable.     

Private Military and Security Companies and the Liberal Conception of Violence

Abstract

The institution of war is the broad framework of rules, norms, and organizations dedicated to the prevention, prosecution, and resolution of violent conflict between political entities. Important parts of that institution consist of the accountability arrangements that hold between armed forces, the political leaders who oversee and direct the use of those forces, and the people in whose name the leaders act and from whose ranks the members of the armed forces are drawn. Like other parts of the institution, these arrangements are responsive to changes in military technology and needs, to geopolitical facts, and to moral and political norms. In particular, they are sensitive to the forms that military organization takes. Since the emergence of modern states in Europe some 500 years ago, there have been three main such forms: private providers—in the form of mercenaries, in early modern Europe—then professional standing armies, which in turn developed into citizen armies. Although elements of the three organizations have coexisted in many armies, the citizen army model has dominated until recently. That model brought with it a particular conception of the accountability relations between the army, the state, and the people. The state had authority over and directed the army, which was accountable to it. In turn the state was accountable for its use of the army to the people, on whose behalf it acted.

The dominance of state authority over the military is now under strain, with the professional and private elements—in the form of private military and security companies (PMSCs)—having increasing importance. As those elements increase in power and presence, so it becomes more difficult to make the state accountable to the people for its use of the military, and more difficult for the people to act as a restraining force on the way in which the military used.

In this essay, I outline and assess these developments—with particular emphasis on the emergence of PMSCs—in the light of a liberal view of (political) violence. The essay focuses on the situation in the United States, which possesses by far the most important military force in the world today, and in which the use of PMSCs is most developed. The paper has three main sections and a brief conclusion: the first section sketches the liberal view of violence and its implications for organizations dedicated to its use; the second outlines the salient characteristics of the three historically dominant forms of armies; and the third looks at the current situation in which the three forms coexist uneasily.     

"大国际私法观"辩正

大国际私法观缺乏学科学理论的支持,对其所负任务的认识也不够清晰科学.国际私法的范围应当根据实际的需要来加以确定.当前,国际私法的主要目的是解决在涉外民商事交往中或在处理涉外民商事争议时所出现的法律问题,因此,它的范围应当从处理涉外民商事案件的过程加以判断和确定.我国传统大国际私法观所包含的内容也应据此作出相应的修正.     

国际私法与国际经济法的关系问题探讨

从国际私法与国际经济法在不同的时间和不同的历史背景下产生与发展的历史进程看,由国际私法与国际经济法两者间的联系与区别而形成两个独立的专门法学部门。学术界对两者关系的不同主张及不同认识的结果预测为国际私法是国际经济法的基础法,而又是并行发展的两个专门法学学科。     

International Law and the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: Actual Problems and Challenges

Cultural property may be under serious threat in the event of armed conflict. In the twentieth century, there were clear developments in international law aimed at preventing and punishing war crimes against cultural property. Despite this, the destruction of cultural property during armed conflict has continued. This article questions whether the existing international law standards with regard to the protection of cultural property during armed conflict are satisfactory, and whether or not a new instrument could be valuable. Although considerable shortcomings remain, instead of pleading for a new instrument, this article advocates raising ratification rates, the enhancement of the implementation of existing instruments, and monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms.     

我国涉外继承公证若干国际私法问题反思

我国涉外继承公证涉及的国际私法问题包括涉外继承公证的受理范围、审查内容和法律适用、效力以及救济问题。我国对涉外继承公证的法律规定仍然存在若干模糊甚至冲突之处。要解决这一冲突,一方面要进一步完善有关我国涉外继承公证的立法,另一方面要对涉外继承公证进行法律救济,即对公证事项发生争议时的救济和对公证书异议时的救济。     

法理学视野中的法律冲突与国际私法

从法理学的角度审视法律冲突在国际私法发展过程中的作用可以看出,国际私法尽管是与法律冲突相伴而生,但它的任务却并不是要解决法律冲突,而且事实上也解决不了法律冲突。法律冲突的解决只能依赖于各国“应然法律”的趋同,而国际私法的任务则是通过确定涉外关系当事人的权利义务,去建立并维护一个合理的、正当的国际民商事交往秩序。     

国际私法中法律规避问题的再思考

法律规避行为,应指涉外民商事法律关系的当事人利用某一冲突规范,故意改变构成冲突规范连结点的事实因素,以避开本应适用的强制性法律规范,从而使另一种对其有利的法律得以适用的行为.在构成要件上,它实质上是在一个动机的驱使下两个行为的结合.并且法律规避行为不属于法律行为的范畴,其法律效力也无从谈起.目前的禁止法律规避制度由于其自身不可改良的缺陷使它无法稳定而趋向消亡.在取消禁止法律规避制度后,依托公共秩序保留制度即可使一国的法律系统维持自身的稳定.     

21世纪中国国际私法的发展与展望

二十世纪国际私法的立法和学说的发展历史值得借鉴,二十一世纪世界经济一体化的发展,使得整个国际社会的国际私法呈现出多种多样的发展趋势;结合中国国情,我国国际私法未来发展,必须理论联系实践,建立中国特色的国际私法学,制定颁布中国的国际私法法典,使二十一世纪中国国际私法的发展具有广阔的前景。     

评西蒙尼德斯《20世纪末的国际私法——进步还是退步？》——兼议李双元教授的评论

以西蒙尼德斯教授在第15次国际比较法大会上的总报告和李双元教授就这篇总报告而撰写的评论为对象,针对两文中所涉及的问题提出一些个人的见解和看法,主要包含以下五个方面的评论判断标准和讨论范围,多边方法、单边方法和实体方法之间的对立与共存,法律的确定性目标和灵活性目标之间的张力,管辖权选择规则和内容定向规则的对立与共存,国际一致性目标和保护国家利益之间的冲突.     

国际私法的主体性建构与国际私法立法——理想和现实之间的紧张与疏解

国际私法主体性可以在本体论意义、认识论意义和价值论意义等三个层面上进行界说,它不仅包含对中国国际私法理论和实践现状的反思,也隐含了对中国国际私法理论和实践现状理想状态的勾勒,以及对理想与现状之间的紧张关系的疏解。主体性缺位正是造成国际私法在立法期未能取得突破的重要原因之一。     

武装冲突情况下文化遗产国际法律保护的历史演进

武装冲突情况下文化遗产国际法律保护是文化遗产国际法律保护的重要组成部分。从“拿破仑战争”到“一战”,再到“二战”,文化遗产所遭受的严重毁损和流失客观上导致了武装冲突情况下文化遗产国际法律保护的萌芽、形成与发展。武装冲突情况下文化遗产国际法律保护在历史演进中,以禁止战时掠夺为基本原则,不断完善法律规范、扩大保护范围、加重保护责任、加强保护措施,从而得以迅速发展。     

国际私法功能演进之研究

以国际民商事关系作为调整对象的国际私法的传统功能是法律选择,实现这种功能的载体是冲突法制度。随着国际民商事关系的蓬勃发展和国际私法呈现出的统一化趋势,加之冲突法制度的固有缺陷,使得国际私法的功能必然要逐渐演进为法律协调。与法律协调功能相适应,国际私法的范围除了包括冲突法外,还应涵纳国际统一实体法,两类规范相辅相成,互为补充,共同完成对国际民商事关系的调整。     

在我国建立国际私法判例制度的构想

判例在国际私法中,具有独特的重要地位.在我国,判例不是国际私法的渊源,但随着两大法系的日益融合,法、德、日等国纷纷以判例作为国际私法的补充,我国应该建立国际私法判例制度,对此项建立的理论基础及现实基础进行分析,提出若干建议.     

人文关怀与国际私法中弱者利益保护

现代国际私法在弱者利益保护方面充分表现出人文关怀和实质公平价值取向。人文关怀是人文精神的集中体现 ,而人文精神是国际私法的永恒主题 ,国际私法的构建应贯穿人文精神。现代国际私法对弱者的人文关怀不但表现在有利原则、强制性规范和公共秩序保留等原则和制度层面 ,而且还反映在具体的法律适用规范之中     

伊拉克战争涉及的国际法和国际刑法问题

战争行为是人类历史上最为残暴的行为之一,在国际犯罪种类中也属于最为严重的罪行之一。近代第一次和第二次世界大战的爆发,不仅没有达到战争发动者所欲追求的结果,反而进一步暴露了战争的残酷性,也发展了涉及战争行为的国际法律文件。1949年的四个《日内瓦公约》及两个《附加议定书》确立了战争行为采用的规章和规则,并进一步确认了战争罪行违反国际人道主义法和习惯国际法的基本模式。因此战争,尤其是国际性的伊拉克战争不可避免地涉及国际法和国际刑法的问题。     

比照适用抑或特别规定:从国际商事仲裁的法律适用谈起——兼及中国国际私法立法及研究的“诉讼中心主义“

国际私法传统上以诉讼为当然的视角,形成"诉讼中心主义",忽视了国际商事仲裁法律适用的特殊性.中国国际私法承继这一特点,阻碍了中国国际商事仲裁的国际化.为此,<中华人民共和国民法(草案)>第九编应对国际商事仲裁问题作出特别规定.限于该草案的体例和宗旨,作者仅建议对仲裁协议和国际商事仲裁实体问题的法律适用作出规定.