“Şirket Savaşçılarının” Statü Sorununa Ilişkin Uluslararası Insancıl Hukukun Getirdiği Çözümler

Year 2020, Issue: 69, 61 - 86, 31.12.2020

Deniz Baran

Abstract

Geçtiğimiz on yıl içerisinde özel askeri ve güvenlik şirketlerinin, Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika bölgesindeki devletler başta olmak üzere, devletler tarafından kullanımı kaydadeğer derecede artmıştır. Bu şirketlerin gitgide daha fazla kullanılmasıyla birlikte önemli bir soru ortaya çıkmaktadır: Neden birçok devlet, sahip oldukları meşru kuvvet kullanımı tekeline rağmen böylesi temel bir işlevlerini dışarıya aktarmaktadır? Açıktır ki maliyet verimliliği, siyasi sorumsuzluk, daha hızlı ve nitelikli askeri hizmet temini gibi bazı iyi sebepler bulunmaktadır. Fakat “savaş alanının” gitgide daha yaygın hâle gelen bu yeni aktörleriyle birlikte savaşa ilişkin geleneksel kurallar değişmekte, ayrıca bu yeni aktörlerin statülerinin ve sıklıkla uluslararası insancıl hukukun ilke ve kurallarına uyum göstermeyebilen faaliyetlerinin nasıl düzenleneceğine ilişkin bazı belirsizlikler hâlâ sürmektedir. Bu makalede, söz konusu belirsizliklere bir çözüm bulabilmek amacıyla özel askeri ve askeri şirketlerine ilişkin yasal çerçeve incelenecektir. Ancak bu inceleme özel olarak uluslararası insancıl hukuk perspektifinden yapılacaktır. Böylelikle, uluslararası hukukun bu alanının özel askeri ve güvenlik şirketlerinin hukuk statü sorununa ilişkin ortaya koyduğu çözümler tespit edilmeye çalışılacaktır.

Keywords

Özel askeri ve güvenlik şirketleri, Modern paralı askerler, Savaşların özelleşmesi, Şirket savaşçıları

Supporting Institution

Yazar bu çalışma için finansal destek almadığını beyan etmiştir.

IHL’s Remedies for the Legal Status Problem of the “Corporate Warriors”

Abstract

The use of private military and security companies by states, particularly by those in the Middle East and Africa (MENA) region, has remarkably increased in the last decade. With the exponentially increasing use of private military and security companies, an important question arises: Why have many states started to prefer outsourcing one of their essential functions which is the monopoly on the use of force? Apparently, they have some good reasons such as cost efficiency, political non-liability or quicker and more qualified military service procurement. However, with the exponential proliferation of the private military and security companies (PMSCs) as the new actors of the “battlefield”, the accustomed rules of war have been changing, and still there are some uncertainties about how to regulate these new actors’ status and activities, which may often not be in compliance with the principles and norms of the international humanitarian law. To address these uncertainties, in this paper, the legal framework regarding the PMSCs will be examined. However, the examination will specifically be through the prism of international humanitarian law (IHL). By doing so, it is aimed to identify some remedies for the legal status problem of the PMSCs in this field of international law.

Keywords

Private military and security companies, Modern mercenaries, Privatization of war, Corporate warriors

References

• Avant D D, The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security (Cambridge University Press 2005) 36, 159.
• Baade H W, ‘The Legal Effects of Codes of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises’ (1979) 22(11) German Yearbook of International Law 11, 16.
• Baez C and others, ‘Multinational Enterprises and Human Rights’ (2000) 8 U Miami Int’l & Comp L Rev 183, 254.
• Bleda R Kurtarcan, Muharebe Alanının Yeni Aktörleri: Askeri Yükleniciler (Beta 2017) 119-128.
• Brooks D, ‘Messiahs or Mercenaries? The Future Of International Private Military Services’ (2007) 7(4) International Peacekeeping 129, 135.
• Calaguas M, ‘Military Privatization: Efficiency or Anarchy?’ (2006) 6(1) Chicago-Kent Journal of International and Comparative Law 58, 59-60.
• Cameron L, ‘Private military companies and their status under international humanitarian law and its impact on their regulation’ (2006) (863) International Review of the Red Cross 573, 578.
• Chesterman S and Lehnardt C, ‘Introductions’ in Simon Chesterman and Chia Lehnardt (eds), From Mercenaries to Market: The Rise and Regulation of Private Military Companies (OUP 2007).
• Chetail V, ‘The Legal Personality of Multinational Corporations, State Responsibility and Due Diligence: The Way Forward’ in Denis Alland and others (eds), Unity and Diversity of International Law: Essays in Honour of Prof. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, (Martinus Nijhoff 2014).
• Clapham A, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (Oxford University Press 2006).
• Doswald-Beck L, ‘Private Military Companies Under International Humanitarian Law’ in Simon Chesterman and Chia Lehnardt (eds), From Mercenaries to Market: The Rise and Regulation of Private Military Companies (OUP, 2007).
• Dupuy P M, ‘Retour Sur La Théorie Des Sujets Du Droit International’ in Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz (ed), Studi Di Diritto Internazionale In Onore Di Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz (Editoriale Scientifica 2004) 74 and 84.
• Editorial, ‘Accountability on the Battlefield’ The New York Times (New York 8 October 2007) <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/opinion/08mon2.html> accessed 17 December 2019.
• F Schreier and M Caparini, ‘Privatising Security: Law, Practice and Governance of Private Military and Security Companies’ (2005) (6) Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces Occasional Paper.
• Faite A, ‘Involvement of Private Contractors in Armed Conflict: Implications under International Humanitarian Law’ (2004) 4(2) 1, 7.
• Friedmann W, The Changing Structure of International Law (Stevens and Sons 1964) 223.
• Frye E, ‘Private Military Firms In The New World Order: How Redefining ‘Mercenary’ Can Tame The ‘Dogs Of War’ (2005) 73(6) Fordham Law Review 2607.
• Galston EL, ‘Mercenarism 2.0? The Rise of the Modern Private Security Industry and Its Implications For International Humanitarian Law Enforcement’ (2008) 49(1) Harvard International Law Journal 221, 225.
• Ghafour H, ‘Afghans Are Fed Up with Security Firms’ (LA Times, 27 September 2004) <https:// www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-27-fg-mercs27-story.html> accessed 18 December 2019.
• Gillard E-C, ‘Business Goes to War: Private Military/ Security Companies and International Humanitarian Law’ (2006) 88(863) International Review of the Red Cross 525, 539.
• Gülşen H, ‘Rusya’nın Suriye Müdahalesinde Özel Askeri Şirketlerin Rolü’ (ORSAM, July 2017), <http://orsam.org.tr/d_hbanaliz/64TR.pdf> accessed 13 December.
• Hauer N, ‘Russia’s Mercenary Debacle in Syria’ (2018) Foreign Affairs <https://www. foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2018-02-26/russias-mercenary-debacle-syria?cid=nlc-fa_ fatoday-20180226> accessed 1 January 2020.
• Holmqvist C, ‘Private Security Companies: The Case for Regulation’(2005) (9) Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Policy Paper.
• Horn N ‘International Rules for Multinational Enterprises: The ICC, OECD, and ILO Initiatives’ (1981) 30 American University Law Review 923.
• House of Commons Private Military Companies: Options for Regulations (Cm 577, 2002) <https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/228598/0577.pdf> accessed 21 November 2019.
• ICoCA “The Association” <https://www.icoca.ch/en/association> accessed 14 December 2019.
• ICoCA, ‘The International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers’ (9 November 2010) <www.icoca.ch/en/the_icoc> accessed 12 December 2019.
• ICRC ‘Montreaux Document’ (17 September 2008) <www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/ icrc_002_0996.pdf> accessed 13 December 2019.
• ICRC ‘Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)’ (8 June 1977) <https://ihldatabases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470> accessed 18 December 2019.
• Ijalaye DA, The Extension of Corporate Personality in International Law (Oceana, 1978) 221– 246.
• Josephides M, ‘Sierra Leone then and now: The case of private military companies’ (Polity October 1 2014) <https://www.polity.org.za/article/sierra-leone-then-and-now-the-case-of-privatemilitary-companies-2014-10-01> accessed 2 January 2020.
• Kabel S, ‘Our Business Is People (Even If It Kills Them)’ (2004) 12 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 461, 476-480.
• Karska E, ‘Human Rights Violations Committed By Private Military And Security Companies: An International Law Analysis’ (2016) 17(3) Espaço Juridico: Journal of Law <http://psm.du.edu/ media/documents/reports_and_stats/journal_articles/reports_journal_author_k_karska_human_ rights_violations_private_military.pdf> accessed 14 November 2019.
• Kaya S Y, ‘Private contractors in war from the 1990s to the present: A review essay’ in ErikJan Zürcher (eds) Fighting for a Living: A Comparative Study of Military Labour 1500-2000 (Amsterdam University Press 2013).
• Kinsey C, Corporate Soldiers And International Security: The Rise Of Private Military Companies (Routledge 2006), 50-51; David Shearer, Private Armies And Military Intervention Adelphi Paper (Routledge 1998).
• Kramer A E and Glanz J, ‘U.S. Guards Kill 2 Iraqi Women in New Shooting’ The New York Times (New York 10 October 2007) < https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/world/middleeast/10iraq. html> accessed 10 March 2018.
• Lauterpacht H, ‘The Subjects of international Law’ in E Lauterpacht (ed), International Law: Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht vol. 1: The General Works, (Cambridge University Press 1970) 147
• Loesche D, ‘Contracted Security’ (Statista, 2 March 2016) <https://www.statista.com/chart/4440/ private-military-and-security-company-sector/> accessed 27 December 2019.
• Mabee B, ‘Pirates, privateers and the political economy of private violence’ (2009) 21(2) Global Change, Peace & Security 139, 140.
• McIntyre A and Weiss T, ‘Weak Governments in Search of Strength: Africa’s Experience of Mercenaries and Private Military Companies’ in Simon Chesterman and Chia Lehnardt (eds), From Mercenaries to Market: The Rise and Regulation of Private Military Companies (OUP 2007).
• Melzer N, ‘Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law’ (ICRC, December 2009) 51 <www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/ contemporary-challenges-for-ihl/participation-hostilities.> accessed 12 November 2019.
• Menon PK, ‘The Subjects of Modern International Law’ (1990) 3 Hague Yearbook of International Law 30,84; C Okeke, Con- troversial Subjects of Contemporary International Law (Rotterdam University Press1974).
• Milliard T, ‘Overcoming Post-Colonial Myopia: A Call To Recognize And Regulate Private Military Companies’ (2003) 176 Military Law Review 1, 1ff
• Orakhelashvili A, ‘The Position Of The Individual in International Law’ (2001) 31 California Western International Law Journal 241, 256.
• Organization of African Unity, OAU Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa (3 July 1977) CM/817 (XXIX) Annex II Rev.1 <https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/7768treaty-0009_-_oau_convention_for_the_elimination_of_mercenarism_in_africa_e.pdf.> accessed 19 December 2019.
• Parry R and Boswell J ‘American Mercenaries are torturing Saudi elite rounded up by new crown prince’ Daily Mail (London 24 November 2017) <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-5108651/American-mercenaries-torturing-Saudi-princes.html> accessed 23 November 2019.
• Perlo-Freeman S and Sköns E, ‘The Private Military Service Industry’ (2008) SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security No 1, 3 < https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/files/insight/SIPRIInsight0801. pdf >
• accessed 22 December 2019. Ratner S, ‘Corporations and Human Rights’ (2001) 111(3) Yale Law Journal 443, 497.
• Reynolds N, ‘Putin’s Not-So-Secret Mercenaries: Patronage, Geopolitics, and the Wagner Group’ (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 8 July 2019) 3 <https://carnegieendowment. org/2019/07/08/putin-s-not-so-secret-mercenaries-patronage-geopolitics-and-wagner-grouppub-79442> accessed 8 December 2019.
• Rigaux F, ‘Transnational Corporations’ in M. Bedjaoui (eds) International Law: Achievements and Propects (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1991) 129; L Henkin, “international Law: Politics, Values and Functions”, Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international, 126, 1989, 199; Antonio Cassese, International Law in a Divided World (Oxford University Press 1986).
• Rosen F, Contract Warriors: How Mercenaries Changed History and the War On Terrorism (Alpha Books 2005).
• Sandoz Y and others (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (ICRC, 1987), 1057.
• Scheimer M, ‘Separating Private Military Companies From Illegal Mercenaries in International Law: Proposing an International Convention for Legitimate Military and Security Support the Reflects Customary International Law’ (2009) 24(3) American University International Law Review 611, 626.
• Schmitt M N, ‘Humanitarian Law and Direct Participation in Hostilities by Private Contractors or Civilian Employees’ (2005) 5(2) Chicago Journal of International Law 511, 527ff.
• Schreier F and Caparini M ‘Privatising Security: Law, Practice and Governance of Private Military and Security Companies’ (2005) Geneva Center For the Democratic Control of Armed Forces Occasional Paper 6 <http://iskran.ru/cd_data/disk2/rr/003.pdf> accessed 17 November 2019.
• Singer P W ‘War, profits, and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law’ (2004) 42 Col JTL 521, 535.
• Singer P W, ‘The Private Military Industry and Iraq: What Have We Learned and Where to Next?’ (2004) Geneva Center For the Democratic Control of Armed Forces Policy Paper, 15<https:// gsdrc.org/document-library/the-private-military-industry-and-iraq-what-have-we-learned-andwhere-to-next/> accessed 14 November 2019.
• Singer P, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Cornell University Press 2003) 9.
• Spear J, ‘Market Forces the Political Economy of Private Military Companies Economies of Conflict: Private Sector Activity in Armed Conflict’ (2006) FAFO-Report 531, 14–16 <https:// www.fafo.no/index.php/zoo-publikasjoner/fafo-rapporter/item/market-forces > accessed 21 December 2019.
• Talmon S A G, ‘The Various Control Tests in the Law of State Responsibility and the Responsibility of Outside Powers for Acts of Secessionist Entities’ (2009) 58 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 493.
• The initial US Department of State ‘spot report’ on the incident ‘SAF attack on COM team’ (2018) <http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/10/01/blackwater.report.pdf.> accessed 5 April 2019.
• Thomson J E, Mercenaries, Pirates, And Sovereigns: State-Building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe (Princeton University Press 1994) 31-32.
• Tomkin H, State Control over Private Military and Security Companies in Armed Conflict (Cambridge University Press 2011) 54-260.
• Topal A H, ‘Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Özel Askerî Şirketler ve Şirket Çalışanlarının Statüsü’ (2011) 60(4) AUHFD 963, 994.
• Walker C and Whyte D, ‘Contracting Out War?: Private Military Companies, Law and Regulation in the United Kingdom’(2005) 54(3) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 651.
• Weigl A, ‘Passaro Will Serve 8 Years for Beating’ (News&Observer, 1 February 2017) <https:// www.newsobserver.com/497/story/543038.html.> accessed 13 November 2019. Wulf H, Internationalizing and Privatizing War and Peace (Palgrave Macmillan 2005).
• Zarate J.-C., ‘The Emergence of a New Dog of War: Private International Security Companies, International Law, and the New World Disorder’ (1998) 34(1) Stanford Journal of International Law 75, 124.
• Legislations and Other Sources
• Articles 4, 5 and 8 of the articles on State responsibility: ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-third Session’, (10 August 2001 UN Doc) A/56/10.
• First Geneva Convention (22 August 1864) art 2.
• Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention) (12 August 1949) 75 UNTS 135 art 4(A)(1), (2), (3) and (6).
• ICRC Commentary on P I Article 51.3 (1987) para 1944 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (8 June 1977) 1125 UNTS 3 art 43 and44(1).
• Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, 2011, p. 13.
• UN ECOSOC ‘Report of the Third Meeting of Experts on traditional and new forms of mercenary activity’ (18 January 2005) UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/23.
• UNCHR (7 April 2005) E/CN_4/RES/2005/2.
• UNCHR ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Principle’ (6 July 2011) UN Doc A/ HRC/17/4 Principle 11.
• UNCHR Res (6 July 2011) UN Doc A/HRC/17/4.
• UNGA ‘ICC Draft Statute’ (1998) A/Conf.183/2/Add.1 art 23.
• UNGA ‘The International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries’ (4 December 1989) A/RES/44/34.
• Table of Cases
• ICTR in Prosecutor v Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T, T Ch I (2 September 1998) para 444.
• Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 1996 para 25.
• Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) [1984] ICJ Rep 392.
• Reparation for Injuries Suffered in The Service of the Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1949] ICJ Rep 174 178.
• Prosecutor v Mucic et al (Appeals Chamber) IT-96-21 (20 February 2001) para 192-194.