Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Legal Regime Applicable to Private Military and Security Company Personnel in Armed Conflicts pp 151–193Cite as

Applicability of International Law to Private Military and Security Companies and Their Personnel

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 534 Accesses

Abstract

The international regulation of PMSCs is another important subject that this book covers. This chapter tries to determine which legal rules should apply to PMSCs and their personnel. Such a determination links to the other question, which concerns the legal status of PMSC personnel. The reasoning behind clarifying whether PMSC personnel are “mercenaries”, “combatants” or “civilians” is to decide which rules of international law apply to them. As was mentioned earlier, concerns relating to the international regulation of PMSCs stem from the lack of an international treaty regulating these companies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lenzerini and Francioni (2011).

  2. 2.

    ICRC. International Humanitarian Law: Answers to your questions. http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0703.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2015, ‘International Humanitarian Law: Answers to your Questions’. http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0703.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2015; Byers (2005), p. 115; Rogers (2004).

  3. 3.

    Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 1949 classifies wars of national liberation movements as international armed conflicts.

  4. 4.

    Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 November 1978) 1125 UNTS 3.

  5. 5.

    Černič (2010), p. 356.

  6. 6.

    Gillard (2006), p. 530.

  7. 7.

    Doswald-Beck (2007).

  8. 8.

    Gillard (2006), p. 525; Liu (2010) 141.

  9. 9.

    See Sect. 2.3.3.2 ante.

  10. 10.

    Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609 (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December1978) art 51.

  11. 11.

    Additional Protocol I; Additional Protocol II art13.

  12. 12.

    Additional Protocol I art 51; Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2010).

  13. 13.

    Additional Protocol I art 51 (3).

  14. 14.

    Melzer (2009), p. 70.

  15. 15.

    Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 (3) of Additional Protocol II stipulate that ‘[c]ivilians shall enjoy the protection …unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities’.

  16. 16.

    Ibid, p. 77.

  17. 17.

    Article 35 (1) of Additional Protocol I stipulates that ‘[i]n any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited’.

  18. 18.

    Melzer (2009), p. 77; Sossai (2011), p. 214.

  19. 19.

    Additional Protocol I art 35 (2).

  20. 20.

    ibid art 35 (3).

  21. 21.

    Kees (2011), p. 206.

  22. 22.

    Additional Protocol I arts 86 & 87; Kees (2011), p. 206.

  23. 23.

    Pictet (1958), p. 16.

  24. 24.

    ICRC, rule 144.

  25. 25.

    The Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda on the Status of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (adopted 5 November 1993) UNTS, Vol. 1748 para 7 (a).

  26. 26.

    ibid. See also SOFAs to create UNCRO (Croatia 1995), UNIFIL (Lebanon 1995), MONUC (Uganda 2003) and ONUB (Burundi 2005).

  27. 27.

    Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions provides:

    In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

  28. 28.

    See Sect. 2.3.2.

  29. 29.

    Bartolini (2011).

  30. 30.

    Sossai (2011).

  31. 31.

    Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 UNTS 287 (adopted 12 August, entered into force 21 October 1950) art 5.

  32. 32.

    ibid.

  33. 33.

    See Sect. 2.2.

  34. 34.

    ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 53 Session’ (November 2001) UN Doc A/56/10 2001 art 4. See also Cameron and Chetail (2013), p. 313.

  35. 35.

    A person hors de combat is: (a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party; (b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or (c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender. See Additional Protocol I arts 41 (1) & 85 (3) (e). See also Common Article 3 to Geneva Conventions.

  36. 36.

    Doswald-Beck (2007), p. 116.

  37. 37.

    Geneva Convention III relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 135, (GC III) art 4.

  38. 38.

    Additional Protocol I, art 44 (2).

  39. 39.

    ibid art 44 (3).

  40. 40.

    ibid art 44 (4).

  41. 41.

    See Sect. 2.1.3.

  42. 42.

    Additional Protocol I art 47; International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries UNTS 2163 (adopted 4 December 1989, entered into force 20 October 2001).

  43. 43.

    Mancini (2010).

  44. 44.

    Additional Protocol I art 47 (2) b.

  45. 45.

    See Sect. 2.1.2.

  46. 46.

    Fallah (2006), p. 606.

  47. 47.

    Additional Protocol I art 75 (1). It was expressed explicitly by the delegations to the Diplomatic Conference 1977 that Article 75 should be read as affording mercenaries the right to be protected. See Fallah (2006), p. 606.

  48. 48.

    UN Mercenary Convention, art 11.

  49. 49.

    See Sect. 5.4.

  50. 50.

    Article 3 Common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions; See also Cameron and Chetail (2013), p. 314; Cassese (1981); Pictet (1958), p. 51; Sivakumaran and Binding Armed Opposition Groups (2006), p. 369.

  51. 51.

    The main reason behind omitting the expression “party to the conflict” is the willingness of States to avoid international recognition and legal standing of the armed groups. See Cassese (1981), p. 421.

  52. 52.

    Cameron and Chetail (2013), p. 314.

  53. 53.

    Melzer (2009), p. 39; Cameron and Chetail (2013), p. 315.

  54. 54.

    According to the Geneva Conventions, grave breaches shall be those involving [among others] any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by one of the Conventions: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. In addition, grave breaches include the following acts: (a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack; (b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii) [AP I]; (c) launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii); (d) making non-defended localities and demilitarised zones the object of attack; (e) making a person the object of attack in the knowledge that he is hors de combat; (f) the perfidious use, in violation of Article 37 [AP I], of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other protective signs recognized by the Conventions or this Protocol[AP I]. For more information, see Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field(adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31, (GC I) art 50; Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 85 art 51; Geneva Convention III art 130; Geneva Convention IV 147; Additional Protocol I arts 11 & 85.

  55. 55.

    Cameron and Chetail (2013), p. 598.

  56. 56.

    Lehnardt (2008), p. 1015; Weigelt and Marker (2007), p. 377.

  57. 57.

    Prosecutor v. Musema (2000) ICTR-96-13, Judgment, para 270.

  58. 58.

    Gillard (2006), p. 542.

  59. 59.

    Geneva Convention I, art 49; Geneva Convention II art 50; Geneva Convention III art 129; Geneva Convention IV art 142.

  60. 60.

    Geneva Convention I, art 49; Geneva Convention II art 50; Geneva Convention III art 129; Geneva Convention IV art 146; Additional Protocol I art 85.

  61. 61.

    O’Keefe (2009), p. 811; Janaby and Bashir (2012), p. 175; Ferdinandusse (2009), p. 723; Dormann and Geiss (2009), p. 703; Roberts (2009), p. 743. Many States explicitly provide for the universal jurisdiction of their courts over grave breaches of IHL. The examples of these States are Australia via Australia’s Commanders’ Guide 1994; Belgium via Law of War Manual 1983; France via LOAC Note 2000; Germany via Military Manual 1992 and IHL Manual 1996; Italy via IHL Manual 1991; Netherlands via the Military Manual 1993, the Military Handbook 1995 and the Military Manual 2005; Russian Federation via The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) and the internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation 2007; Spain via Spain’s LOAC Manual 1996 and Spain’s LOAC Manual 2007; Sweden via Sweden’s IHL Manual 1991; Switzerland via Basic Military Manual 1987; UK via The UK Military Manual 1958 and The UK LOAC Manual 2004; and US via The US Air Force Pamphlet 1976, The US Soldier’s Manual 1984, The US Instructor’s Guide 1985 and The US Naval Handbook 1995. For more information see ICRC, Rule 158.

  62. 62.

    Rome Statute of the ICC, UN Doc A/CONF.183/2/ADD.1 (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002), art 5.

  63. 63.

    Cameron and Chetail (2013), p. 598.

  64. 64.

    Rome Statute art 13 (b).

  65. 65.

    ibid art 13 (c) & 15.

  66. 66.

    Lenzerini and Francioni (2011), p. 55.

  67. 67.

    United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, International Legal Protection of Human Rights in Armed Conflicts (2011). http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HR_in_armed_conflict.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2015 6. See also Crowe and Weston-Scheuber (2013), p. 115; Dinstein (2010), p. 19.

  68. 68.

    United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2011).

  69. 69.

    Hathaway et al. (2012), p. 1883.

  70. 70.

    United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2011).

  71. 71.

    Brigety (2004).

  72. 72.

    United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2011).

  73. 73.

    UNCHR ‘General Comment no. 31’ ‘The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant’ (26 May 2004) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13; UNCHR, ‘General Comment 29’ in ‘States of Emergency’ (2001) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 para 3.

  74. 74.

    UNCHR Res 63 UN Doc E/CN.4/RES/2005/63 (2005).

  75. 75.

    UNHRC Res 9/9 ‘Protection of Human Rights of Civilians in Armed Conflicts’ (18 September 2008) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/9/9.

  76. 76.

    ibid.

  77. 77.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) 1996. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2015.

  78. 78.

    Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) 2004. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2015.

  79. 79.

    Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Reports 2005, No. 116.

  80. 80.

    Nairn (2012).

  81. 81.

    Common Article 3 (1) to Geneva Conventions.

  82. 82.

    Case Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v USA) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 195 para 218. See also Corfu Channel Case (UK V Albania) (Merits) [1949] (ICJ) 22.

  83. 83.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171 (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976); Additional Protocol I art 75.

  84. 84.

    Hathaway et al. (2012), p. 1894.

  85. 85.

    Ibid, p. 1895.

  86. 86.

    ibid.

  87. 87.

    Coard v. United States (1999) Case 10.951, Inter-Am. C.H.R. Report No. 109/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, doc.6.

  88. 88.

    Hathaway et al. (2012), p. 1902.

  89. 89.

    ILC, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 58th Session 1 May-9 June and 3 July 2006, UN Doc A/61/10.

  90. 90.

    ibid.

  91. 91.

    Hathaway et al (2012), p. 1906.

  92. 92.

    Ibid, p. 1909.

  93. 93.

    Droege (2008), p. 524.

  94. 94.

    Hathaway et al. (2012), p. 1911.

  95. 95.

    Amnesty International, ‘Violence Against Civilians’. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/business-and-human-rights/private-military-and-security-companies/violence-against-civilians. Accessed 18 June 2015.

  96. 96.

    Simpson (2005).

  97. 97.

    Reinisch (2005), p. 53.

  98. 98.

    Černič (2010), p. 34. For more information see Heyns and Viljoen (2001), p. 483.

  99. 99.

    Černič (2010), p. 34.

  100. 100.

    The Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are all documents issued within States and represent precursors to majority of today’s human rights documents.

  101. 101.

    McCorquodale (2009).

  102. 102.

    Schutter (2005), p. 234.

  103. 103.

    Černič (2010), p. 16.

  104. 104.

    McCorquodale (2009).

  105. 105.

    International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, (adopted 7 March 1966 entered into force 4 January 1969) UNTS 660, (ICEFRD) art 2 (1) d.

  106. 106.

    ibid art 4 (b).

  107. 107.

    Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 112, (Torture Convention).

  108. 108.

    Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS, (CEDAW).

  109. 109.

    Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) UNTS 1577.

  110. 110.

    UNCHR ‘General Comment no. 31’, 243.

  111. 111.

    UNHRC, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework (21 March 2011) A/HRC/17/31.

  112. 112.

    Lenzerini and Francioni (2011), p. 56.

  113. 113.

    ibid.

  114. 114.

    The Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Armed Conflict, Letter dated 2 October 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (17 September 2008) UN Doc A/63/467, S/2008/636.

  115. 115.

    ibid.

  116. 116.

    Buzatu (2008), p. 13.

  117. 117.

    ibid., p. 27.

  118. 118.

    O’Connell (2005), p. 438.

  119. 119.

    The Montreux Document, Part 1 (A) 1.

  120. 120.

    ibid Part I A (4).

  121. 121.

    ibid Part I (B) 10.

  122. 122.

    UNGA ‘Report of the Human Rights Committee’ UNGA Official Records (1 November 2003) 58 Session Supp No. 40 (A/58/40) Vol II para 7.2, 357.

  123. 123.

    Černič (2010); Clapham (2014), p. 536.

  124. 124.

    Černič (2010), p. 34.

  125. 125.

    Ibid, p. 35.

  126. 126.

    Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, chapter 2, section 8 (2).

  127. 127.

    Article 5 of the Constitution provides that ‘[t]he fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in this Chapter shall be respected and upheld by the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary and all organs of the Government and its agencies and, where applicable to them, by all natural and legal persons in Namibia, and shall be enforceable by the Courts in the manner hereinafter prescribed’. See The Constitution of the Republic of Namibia 1990.

  128. 128.

    The Constitution of Japan 1946 art 11.

  129. 129.

    Article 12 (2) of the Portuguese Constitution states that ‘[b]odies corporate shall enjoy such rights and be subject to such duties [Fundamental rights and duties] as are compatible with their nature’. The Constitution of Portugal 1976. For more information about similar provisions in other constitutions see Černič (2010), p. 36.

  130. 130.

    Ibid, p. 37.

  131. 131.

    Paust (2002), p. 801.

  132. 132.

    UNGA Res 62/145 (4 March 2008) UN Doc A/RES/62/145 para 6.

  133. 133.

    Černič (2010), p. 37.

  134. 134.

    The Montreux Document para 22.

  135. 135.

    Buzatu (2008), p. 21.

  136. 136.

    Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1789).

  137. 137.

    Wiwa v Royal Dutch Petroleum (2002) LEXIS 3293 (United States District Court For The Southern District Of New York). See also Clapham (2014), p. 536.

  138. 138.

    Al Rawi v. Titan Corp. et al. 04-cv-1143, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, [2004] (SD Ca); Ibrahim, et al. v. Titan Corp. et al. 1:04-CV-01248-JR, [2004] (DDC).

  139. 139.

    Al Rawi v. Titan Corp. et al.

  140. 140.

    Adamski (2011), p. 1503. See also Henner (2009).

  141. 141.

    Deva (2012), p. 66.

  142. 142.

    Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc. 142 F.Supp.2d 534, [2001] (United States District Court, SD New York).

  143. 143.

    Abdullabi v. Pfizer (2009) LEXIS 1768 (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

  144. 144.

    Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation (2003) 343 F.3d 140 (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit). See also Johnson (2004).

  145. 145.

    The Presbyterian Church of Sudan et al. v. Talisman Energy Inc, Republic of the Sudan Civil Action 01 CIV.9882 (AGS). [2003] (US District Court for the Southern District of New York).

  146. 146.

    Abrams v Societe National Des Chemins de fer francais (2003) 332 F.3d 173 (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

  147. 147.

    Khulumani v Barclay National Bank Ltd. (2007) 504 F. 3d 254 (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

  148. 148.

    Doe v Unocal (2001) CV 96-6959-RAP (BQRx) (United States District Court for the Central District of California).

  149. 149.

    Wiwa v Royal Dutch Petroleum.

  150. 150.

    Paust (2002), p. 803.

  151. 151.

    Schutter (2005), p. 231.

  152. 152.

    Aust (2010), p. 79.

  153. 153.

    Al Rawi v. Titan Corp. et al., para 60 (b).

  154. 154.

    Reinisch (2005), p. 46; Černič (2010), p. 43.

  155. 155.

    Černič (2010), p. 44.

  156. 156.

    British Association of Private Security Companies, ‘Charter’. http://www.bapsc.org.uk/?keydocuments=charter. Accessed 4 July 2015.

  157. 157.

    Cottier (2006), p. 642; Dickinson (2007), p. 12.

  158. 158.

    US Department of Defense, Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces, Instruction no 3020.41 (2005) 6.1.

  159. 159.

    Alston (2005); Andreopolis et al. (2007); Clapham (2006b); Hessbruegge (2005); Obokata (2005), p. 394.

  160. 160.

    Reinisch (2005), p. 62.

  161. 161.

    Declaration of Christopher Greenwood, Presbyterian Church of Sudan et al. v. Talisman, Energy Inc, Republic of the Sudan Civil Action, 374 F. Supp. 2d 331 (S.D.N.Y.2005), No. 01 CV 9882 (AGS).

  162. 162.

    Declaration of James Crawford, Presbyterian Church of Sudan et al. v. Talisman Energy Inc, Republic of the Sudan Civil Action, 374 F. Supp. 2d 331 (S.D.N.Y.2005), No. 01 CV 9882 (AGS).

  163. 163.

    Reinisch (2005); Clapham (2006b); Černič (2010); Herik and Černič (2010), p. 725; Duruigbo (2008), p. 222; Hessbruegge (2005), p. 159); Vandenhole (2015).

  164. 164.

    Koh (2004), p. 264.

  165. 165.

    International Labor Organisation (1977).

  166. 166.

    Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (adopted 29 July 1960, entered into force 1 April 1968) UNTS 251.

  167. 167.

    International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (adopted 29 November 1969, entered into force 19 June 1975) 973 UNTS 3, 9 ILM 45 art 3 (1).

  168. 168.

    Council of Europe Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment of the Council of Europe (adopted 21 June 1993, not in force) ILM, Vol. 32, art 6 (1).

  169. 169.

    Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (adopted 22 March 1989, entered into force 5 May 1992) UNTS 1673.

  170. 170.

    OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (adopted 17 December 1997, entered into force 15 February 1999) 37 I.L.M. 1, art 3.

  171. 171.

    Černič (2015), p. 77.

  172. 172.

    Norway Draft Model BIT 2007, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration, Draft Version 191207’, art 32. http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2873. Accessed 12 July 2015.

  173. 173.

    Černič (2015), p. 77.

  174. 174.

    Koh (2004), p. 265.

  175. 175.

    ibid.

  176. 176.

    European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted 4 November 1950, entry into force 3 September 1953) 213 UNTS 222 art 17.

  177. 177.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res 217/(III) A (10 December 1948) (adopted by 48 votes to none; 9 abstentions).

  178. 178.

    ibid art 30.

  179. 179.

    Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UNGA Res 53/144 (8 March 1999) (adopted without vote).

  180. 180.

    Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts (adopted 25 May 2000, entered into force 12 February 2002) 2170 UNTS art 4.

  181. 181.

    CESCR ‘General Comment 14’ in ‘the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health’ (2000) UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4 para 42. In relation to the right of adequate food, CESCR provided that ‘[A]ll members of society, individuals, families, local communities, non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, as well as the private business sector, have responsibilities in the realization of the right to adequate food…. The private business sector – national and transnational - should pursue its activities within the framework of a code of conduct conducive to respect of the right to adequate food, agreed upon jointly with the Government and civil society’. See CESCR ‘General Comment 12’ in ‘Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11)’ (1999) UN Doc E/C.12/1999/5.

  182. 182.

    Institute of International Law (1999).

  183. 183.

    The Presbyterian Church of Sudan et al. v. Talisman Energy Inc, Republic of the Sudan Civil Action, para 319 (c).

  184. 184.

    UNCHR (Sub-Commission), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2.

  185. 185.

    UNCHR (3 March 2006) UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/11/Add.1 para 28.

  186. 186.

    UNHRC, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework 3.

  187. 187.

    UNCHR Res 69 (2005) UN Doc E/CN.4/RES/2005/69. John Ruggie from the US was appointed by the UN Secretary General to be a holder of this mandate.

  188. 188.

    UNHRC, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework.

  189. 189.

    Ibid, para 11.

  190. 190.

    ibid.

  191. 191.

    Ibid, para 12.

  192. 192.

    UNHRC Res 8/7 (2008) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/8/7.

  193. 193.

    UNHRC, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, para 25.

  194. 194.

    Ibid, para 29.

  195. 195.

    UNHRC Res 8/7 (2008).

  196. 196.

    Deva (2012), p. 18.

  197. 197.

    Černič (2010), p. 54.

  198. 198.

    UNHRC, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework.

  199. 199.

    Černič (2010).

  200. 200.

    Ibid, p. 58. Deva (2012), p. 19.

  201. 201.

    Joseph (2003), p. 430. See also Deva (2012), p. 19.

  202. 202.

    These mechanisms are similar to those established by many human rights treaties to allow individuals to complain against their States before quasi-judicial bodies. For more information, see Janaby and Bashir (2012), p. 170.

  203. 203.

    Vázquez (2005), p. 940.

  204. 204.

    Černič (2010), p. 40.

  205. 205.

    Ratner (2001), p. 481; Černič (2010), p. 40.

  206. 206.

    Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17 (Revised), Status of the Coalition Provisional Authority Certain Missions And Personnel in Iraq, CPA/ORD/27 June 2004/17.

  207. 207.

    According to personal or nationality-based jurisdiction, a State tries its nationals for crimes even if they were committed elsewhere and have no other connection to the State of nationality. See Bantekas (2010), p. 338; Janaby and Bashir (2012), p. 174.

  208. 208.

    Al Rawi v. Titan Corp. et al.

  209. 209.

    For more information about the universal jurisdiction see O’Keefe (2009).

  210. 210.

    Council of European Union (2009).

  211. 211.

    Convention against Torture, art 5 (2).

  212. 212.

    Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) Judgement, ICJ reports 2012, 31, para 91.

  213. 213.

    Geneva Convention III art 4 (A) 1. See also Sect. 2.2 ante.

  214. 214.

    ibid art 4 (A) 2. See also Sect. 2.2 ante.

  215. 215.

    The University Centre for International Humanitarian Law, ‘Expert Meeting on Private Military Contractors: Status and State Responsibility for their Actions’ (2005).

  216. 216.

    Ratner (2001), p. 499.

  217. 217.

    ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 53 Session’ (2001) art 4.

  218. 218.

    ibid art 5.

  219. 219.

    ibid art 8.

  220. 220.

    The University Centre for International Humanitarian Law (2005).

  221. 221.

    See Sect. 5.4 ante.

  222. 222.

    Ronen (2013), p. 26.

  223. 223.

    Ronen (2013), p. 26; Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (2011) 55721/07 (European Court of Human Rights).

  224. 224.

    UNCHR ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Philip Alston Addendum, Mission to Sri Lanka’ (2006) UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5 para 26.

  225. 225.

    Ibid, para 25.

  226. 226.

    Clapham (2006a), p. 491.

  227. 227.

    UNSC Res 1216 (21 December 1998) UN Doc S/RES/1216.

  228. 228.

    UN SC Res 2139 (22 February 2014) UN Doc S/RES/2139.

  229. 229.

    UNHRC ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ (22 February 2012) UN Doc A/HRC/19/69 para 106-7.

  230. 230.

    UNHRC ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ (5 February 2013) UN Doc A/HRC/22/59 para 85.

  231. 231.

    Clapham (2006a), p. 546.

  232. 232.

    UNHRC ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ 2.

  233. 233.

    Sect. 4.4 ante.

  234. 234.

    Cameron and Chetail (2013), p. 136.

  235. 235.

    UNCHR ‘General Comment no. 31’.

  236. 236.

    The University Centre for International Humanitarian Law (2005), p. 31.

  237. 237.

    Maus (2011).

  238. 238.

    ILC ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 63th Session’ (26 April–3 June and 4 July 2011) UN Doc A/66/10 art 6 (1).

  239. 239.

    Verdirame (2002), p. 265.

  240. 240.

    Maus (2011).

  241. 241.

    Mégret and Hoffmann (2003), p. 314; Maus (2011); Simma and Alston (1989), p. 82.

  242. 242.

    Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt (Advisory Opinion) 1980. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/65/6303.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2014 [89]–[90].

  243. 243.

    Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) 1949. http://www.icj-cijorg/docket/files/4/1835.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2015 178–179.

  244. 244.

    Mégret and Hoffmann (2003).

  245. 245.

    Thallinger (2007), p. 1015; Paust (2010), p. 301.

  246. 246.

    Dannenbaum (2009), p. 324.

  247. 247.

    Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (Advisory Opinion) 1971. http://www.icj-cijorg/docket/files/53/5595.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2015 para 131.

  248. 248.

    UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations & Department of Field Support (2010), p. 14.

  249. 249.

    UNSC Res 1244 (10 June 1999) UN Doc S/RES/1244 para 11 (j).

  250. 250.

    UNOCI was required by the Security Council to ‘[t]o protect United Nations personnel, installations and equipment, provide the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of National Reconciliation, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence, within its capabilities and its areas of deployment’. See UNSC Res 1528 (27 February 2004) UN Doc S/RES/1528.

  251. 251.

    The Security Council asked MINURCAT to ‘[t]o contribute to the monitoring and to the promotion and protection of human rights, with particular attention to sexual and gender-based violence, and to recommend action to the competent authorities, with a view to fighting impunity’. UNSC Res 1778 (25 September 2007) UN Doc S/RES/1373.

References

  • Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Reports 2005, No. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v USA) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) UNTS 1577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Declaration of Christopher Greenwood, Presbyterian Church of Sudan et al. v. Talisman, Energy Inc, Republic of the Sudan Civil Action, 374 F. Supp. 2d 331 (S.D.N.Y.2005), No. 01 CV 9882 (AGS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Declaration of James Crawford, Presbyterian Church of Sudan et al. v. Talisman Energy Inc, Republic of the Sudan Civil Action, 374 F. Supp. 2d 331 (S.D.N.Y.2005), No. 01 CV 9882 (AGS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt (Advisory Opinion) 1980. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/65/6303.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2014.

  • Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (Advisory Opinion) 1971. http://www.icj-cijorg/docket/files/53/5595.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2015.

  • Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) 2004. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2015.

  • Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) 1996. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2015.

  • Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) Judgement, ICJ reports 2012, 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) 1949. http://www.icj-cijorg/docket/files/4/1835.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2015.

  • UNSC Res 1216 (21 December 1998) UN Doc S/RES/1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1789).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Constitution of Japan 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res 217/(III)A (10 December 1948) (adopted by 48 votes to none; 9 abstentions).

    Google Scholar 

  • Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609 (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 November 1978) 1125 UNTS 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31, (GC I).

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneva Convention III relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 135, (GC III).

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 UNTS 287 (adopted 12 August, entered into force 21 October 1950).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted 4 November 1950, entry into force 3 September 1953) 213 UNTS 222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (adopted 29 July 1960, entered into force 1 April 1968) UNTS 251.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, (adopted 7 March 1966 entered into force 4 January 1969) UNTS 660, (ICEFRD).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171 (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (adopted 29 November 1969, entered into force 19 June 1975) 973 UNTS 3, 9 ILM 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Constitution of Portugal 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS, (CEDAW).

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 112, (Torture Convention).

    Google Scholar 

  • Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (adopted 22 March 1989, entered into force 5 May 1992) UNTS 1673.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries UNTS 2163 (adopted 4 December 1989, entered into force 20 October 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Constitution of the Republic of Namibia 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment of the Council of Europe (adopted 21 June 1993, not in force) ILM, Vol. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda on the Status of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (adopted 5 November 1993) UNTS, Vol. 1748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (adopted 17 December 1997, entered into force 15 February 1999) 37 I.L.M. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rome Statute of the ICC, UN Doc A/CONF.183/2/ADD.1 (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • CESCR ‘General Comment 12’ in ‘Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Right to Adequate Food (Art.11)’ (1999) UN Doc E/C.12/1999/5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UNGA Res 53/144 (8 March 1999) (adopted without vote).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC Res 1244 (10 June 1999) UN Doc S/RES/1244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coard v. United States (1999) Case 10.951, Inter-Am. C.H.R. Report No. 109/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, doc.6.

    Google Scholar 

  • CESCR ‘General Comment 14’ in ‘the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health’ (2000) UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Musema (2000) ICTR-96-13, Judgment

    Google Scholar 

  • Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts (adopted 25 May 2000, entered into force 12 February 2002) 2170 UNTS.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCHR, ‘General Comment 29’ in ‘States of Emergency’ (2001) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 53 Session’ (November 2001) UN Doc A/56/10 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGA ‘Report of the Human Rights Committee’ UNGA Official Records (1 November 2003) 58 Session Supp No. 40 (A/58/40) Voll II.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCHR (Sub-Commission), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC Res 1528 (27 February 2004) UN Doc S/RES/1528.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCHR ‘General Comment no. 31’ ‘The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant’ (26 May 2004) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17 (Revised), Status of the Coalition Provisional Authority Certain Missions And Personnel in Iraq, CPA/ORD/27 June 2004/17.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCHR Res 63 UN Doc E/CN.4/RES/2005/63 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCHR Res 69 (2005) UN Doc E/CN.4/RES/2005/69.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Defense, Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces, Instruction no 3020.41 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCHR ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Philip Alston Addendum, Mission to Sri Lanka’ (2006) UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCHR (3 March 2006) UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/11/Add.1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 58th Session 1 May-9 June and 3 July 2006, UN Doc A/61/10.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC Res 1778 (25 September 2007) UN Doc S/RES/1373.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC Res 8/7 (2008) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/8/7.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGA Res 62/145 (4 March 2008) UN Doc A/RES/62/145.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC Res 9/9 ‘Protection of Human Rights of Civilians in Armed Conflicts’ (18 September 2008) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/9/9.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Armed Conflict, Letter dated 2 October 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (17 September 2008) UN Doc A/63/467, S/2008/636.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, International Legal Protection of Human Rights in Armed Conflicts (2011). http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HR_in_armed_conflict.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2015.

  • UNHRC, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework (21 March 2011) A/HRC/17/31.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 63th Session’ (26 April–3 June and 4 July 2011) UN Doc A/66/10.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ (22 February 2012) UN Doc A/HRC/19/69.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ (5 February 2013) UN Doc A/HRC/22/59.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN SC Res 2139 (22 February 2014) UN Doc S/RES/2139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamski, T. (2011). The Alien Tort Claims Act and Corporate Liability: A threat to the United States’ international relations. Fordham International Law Journal, 34(6), 1503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston, P. (2005). The ‘Not-a-Cat’ syndrome: Can the international human rights regime accommodate non-state actors? In P. Alston (Ed.), Non-state actors and human rights. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International. Violence against civilians. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/business-and-human-rights/private-military-and-security-companies/violence-against-civilians. Accessed 18 June 2015.

  • Andreopolis, G., Arat, Z., & Juviler, P. (Eds.). (2007). Non-state actors in the human rights universe. Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust, A. (2010). Handbook of international law (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantekas, I. (2010). International criminal law. Hart Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini, G. (2011). Private military and security contractors as ‘Persons Who Accompany the Armed Force’. In F. Francioni & N. Ronzitti (Eds.), War by contract: Human rights, humanitarian law, and private contractors. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigety, R. E. (2004). Human rights in armed conflict. http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~heiwa/chs/HP/Reuben%20Brigety.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2015.

  • British Association of Private Security Companies. Charter. http://www.bapsc.org.uk/?keydocuments=charter. Accessed 4 July 2015.

  • Buzatu, A. (2008). European practices of regulation of PMSCs and recommendations for regulation of PMSCs through international legal instruments. http://psm.du.edu/media/documents/reports_and_stats/think_tanks/dcaf_buzatu_european-practices.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2015.

  • Byers, M. (2005). War law: International law and armed conflict. Atlantic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, L., & Chetail, V. (2013). Privatizing war: Private military and security companies under public international law. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, A. (1981). The status of rebels under the 1977 Geneva Protocol on non-international armed conflicts. ICLQ, 30(02), 416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Černič, J. L. (2010) Human rights law and business: Corporate responsibility for fundamental human rights. Europa Law Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Černič, J. L. (2015). Corporate responsibility for human rights. In W. Vandenhole (Ed.), Challenging territoriality in human rights law: Building blocks for a plural and diverse duty-bearer regime. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, A. (2006a). Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, A. (2006b). Human rights obligations of non-state actors in conflict situations. IRRC, 88(863), 491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, A. (2014). Non-state actors. In D. Moeckli, et al. (Eds.), International human rights law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottier, M. (2006). Elements for contracting and regulating private security and military companies. IRRC, 88, 637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of European Union. (2009). The AU-EU expert report on the principle of universal jurisdiction. http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/troika_ua_ue_rapport_competence_universelle_EN.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2015.

  • Crowe, J., & Weston-Scheuber, K. (2013). Principles of international humanitarian law. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, et al. v. Titan Corp. et al. 1:04-CV-01248-JR, [2004] (DDC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannenbaum, T. (2009). Translating the standard of effective control into a system of effective accountability: How liability should be apportioned for violations of human rights by member state troop contingents serving as United Nations peackeepers. Harvard International Law Journal, 51(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Deva, S. (2012). Regulating corporate human rights violations: Humanizing business. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, L. A. (2007). Contract as a tool for regulating private military companies. In S. Chesterman & C. Lehnardt (Eds.), From mercenaries to market: The rise and regulation of private military companies. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein, Y. (2010). The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dormann, K., & Geiss, R. (2009). The implementation of grave breaches into domestic legal orders. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 7(4), 703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doswald-Beck, L. (2007). Private military companies under international humanitarian law. In S. Chesterman & C. Lehnardt (Eds.), From mercenaries to market: The rise and regulation of private military companies. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droege, C. (2008). Elective affinities? Human rights and humanitarian law. IRRC, 90, 501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duruigbo, E. (2008). Corporate accountability and liability for international human rights abuses: Recent changes and recurring challenges. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 6(2), 222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (2011) 55721/07 (European Court of Human Rights).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallah, K. (2006). Corporate actors: The legal status of mercenaries in armed conflict. IRRC, 88, 599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferdinandusse, W. (2009). The prosecution of grave breaches in national courts. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 7(4), 723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (2010). UK government strategy on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32950/ukstrategy-protect-cvilians-arms-conflict.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2015.

  • Gillard, E. (2006). Business goes to war: Private military/security companies and international humanitarian law. IRRC, 88, 525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, O. A., et al. (2012). The relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in armed conflicts. Minnesota Law Review, 96, 1883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henner, P. (2009). Human rights and the Alien Tort Statute: Law, history, and analysis. American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herik, L. v. d., & Černič, J. L. (2010). Regulating corporations under international law. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 8(3), 725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hessbruegge, J. A. (2005). Human rights violations arising from conduct of non-state actors. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyns, C., & Viljoen, F. (2001). The impact of the United Nations human rights treaties on the domestic level. Human Rights Quarterly, 23, 483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corfu Channel Case (UK V Albania) (Merits) [1949] (ICJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • ICRC. Customary IHL database. https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home. Accessed 10 February 2015.

  • ICRC. International Humanitarian Law: Answers to your questions. http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0703.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2015.

  • Institute of International Law. (1999). Application of international humanitarian law and fundamental human rights in armed conflicts (Session of Berlin - 1999). http://www.idi-iil.org/idiE/resolutionsE/1999_ber_03_en.PDF. Accessed 3 February 2015.

  • International Labor Organisation. (1977). Tripartite declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_101234.pdf. accessed 6 July 2015.

  • Janaby, M., & Bashir, K. (2012). The right of individuals to take judicial action against international persons: The case of NATO’s intervention in Libya. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1, 162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. D. (2004). Title Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation: The second circuit fails to set a threshold for corporate Alien Tort Claim Act Liability. Scholarly Works, 404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, S. (2003). Pharmaceutical corporations and access to drugs: The “Fourth Wave” of corporate human rights scrutiny. Human Rights Quarterly, 25(2), 425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kees, A. (2011). Regulation of private military companies. Goettingen Journal of International Law, 3, 199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, H. H. (2004). Separating myth from reality about corporate responsibility litigation. Journal of International Economic Law, 7(2), 263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehnardt, C. (2008). Individual liability of private military personnel under international criminal law. European Journal of International Law, 19(5), 1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzerini, F., & Francioni, F. (2011). The role of human rights in the regulations of private military security companies. In F. Francioni & N. Ronzitti (Eds.), War by contract: Human rights, humanitarian law, and private contractors. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. Y. (2010). Leasing the corporate dogs of war: The legal implications of the modern private military companies. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 15, 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancini, M. (2010). Private military and security company employees: Are they the mercenaries of the twenty-first century? AEl 2010/5 Academy of European Law Priv-War Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maus, S. (2011). Human rights in UN peacekeeping missions: A framework for humanitarian obligations? In H.-J. Heintze & A. Zwitter (Eds.), International law and humanitarian assistance: A crosscut through legal issues pertaining to humanitarianism. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorquodale, R. (2009). Non-state actors and international human rights law. In S. Joseph & A. McBeth (Eds.), International human rights law. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mégret, F., & Hoffmann, F. (2003). The UN as a human rights violator? Some reflections on the United Nations changing human rights responsibilities. Human Rights Quarterly, 25(2), 314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melzer, N. (2009). Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2015.

  • Nairn, F. (2012). The relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law: Parallel application or norm conflict? http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2021839. Accessed 30 July 2015.

  • Norway Draft Model BIT 2007. Investment Treaty Arbitration, Draft Version 191207. http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2873. Accessed 12 July 2015.

  • O’Connell, M. E. (2005). Enhancing the status of non-state actors through a global war on terror? Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43, 435.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, R. (2009). The grave breaches regime and universal jurisdiction. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 7, 811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obokata, T. (2005). Smuggling of human beings from a human rights perspective: Obligations of non-state and state actors under international human rights law. International Journal of Refugee Law, 17(2), 394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paust, J. J. (2002). Human rights responsibilities of private corporations. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 35, 801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paust, J. J. (2010). The U.N. is bound by human rights: Understanding the full reach of human rights, remedies, and nonimmunity. Harvard International Law Journal, 51, 301 (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pictet, J. S. (1958). Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, S. R. (2001). Corporations and human rights: A theory of legal responsibility. The Yale Law Journal, 111, 443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch, A. (2005). The changing international legal framework for dealing with non-state actors. In P. Alston (Ed.), Non-state actors and human rights. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. (2009). The contribution of the ICTY to the grave breaches regime. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 7(4), 743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, A. P. V. (2004). Law on the battlefield. Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, Y. (2013). Human rights obligations of territorial non-state actors. Cornell International Law Journal, 46, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al Rawi v. Titan Corp. et al. 04-cv-1143, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, [2004] (SD Ca).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutter, O. D. (2005). The accountability of multinationals for human rights violations in European Law. In P. Alston (Ed.), Non-state actors and human rights. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma, B., & Alston, P. (1989). The sources of human rights law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and general principles. Australian Year Book of International Law, 12, 82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, C. (2005). U.S. stalls on human trafficking. http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-0512270176dec27,0,6797771.story. Accessed 28 July 2015.

  • Sivakumaran, S., Binding Armed Opposition Groups. (2006). ICLQ, 55(02), 369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sossai, M. (2011). Status of private military and security company personnel in the law of international armed conflict. In F. Francioni & N. Ronzitti (Eds.), War by contract: Human rights, humanitarian law, and private contractors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thallinger, G. (2007). Sense and sensibility of the human rights obligations of the United Nations Security Council. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 67(4), 1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • The University Centre for International Humanitarian Law. (2005). Expert meeting on private military contractors: Status and state responsibility for their actions. http://www.geneva-academy.ch/docs/expert-meetings/2005/2rapport_compagnies_privees.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2015.

  • Abrams v Societe National Des Chemins de fer francais (2003) 332 F.3d 173 (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation (2003) 343 F.3d 140 (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

    Google Scholar 

  • Khulumani v Barclay National Bank Ltd. (2007) 504 F. 3d 254 (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdullabi v. Pfizer (2009) LEXIS 1768 (US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations & Department of Field Support (2010) United Nations peacekeeping operations principles and guidelines. http://pbpu.unlb.org/pbps/Library/Capstone_Doctrine_ENG.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2015.

  • Doe v Unocal (2001) CV 96-6959-RAP (BQRx) (United States District Court for the Central District of California).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiwa v Royal Dutch Petroleum (2002) LEXIS 3293 (United States District Court For The Southern District Of New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc. 142 F.Supp.2d 534, [2001] (United States District Court, SD New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Presbyterian Church of Sudan et al. v. Talisman Energy Inc, Republic of the Sudan Civil Action 01 CIV.9882 (AGS). [2003] (US District Court for the Southern District of New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenhole, W. (Ed.). (2015) Challenging territoriality in human rights law: Building blocks for a plural and diverse duty-bearer regime. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez, C. M. (2005). Direct vs. indirect obligations of corporations under international law. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43, 927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdirame, G. (2002). Compliance with human rights in UN operations. Human Rights Law Review, 2, 265–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt, K., & Marker, F. (2007). Who is responsible? The use of PMCs in armed conflict and international law. In T. Jäger & G. Kümmel (Eds.), Private military and security companies: Chances, problems, pitfalls and prospects. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Law, University of Babylon, Babylon, Iraq

    Mohamad Ghazi Janaby

Authors
  1. Mohamad Ghazi Janaby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Janaby, M.G. (2016). Applicability of International Law to Private Military and Security Companies and Their Personnel. In: The Legal Regime Applicable to Private Military and Security Company Personnel in Armed Conflicts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42231-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42231-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42230-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42231-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation