Defending Human Rights Against Private Military Companies in the International Sphere

Öz

This study examines the human rights violations caused by Private Military Companies (PMCs), which are becoming increasingly visible within the international security architecture, as well as the ambiguous legal status of these companies under international law. The study proceeds on the premise that the rise of PMCs is not simply the result of a coincidental legal vacuum. Rather, this rise is a deliberate consequence of neoliberal state logic and governance paradigms extending into the security sphere. By relaxing the Weberian monopoly on violence, states transfer costs and domestic political risks to the private sector; thereby evade international accountability to a certain extent. The study first examines the historical development and legal nature of PMCs. It then focuses on how these actors’ profit-driven activities lead to human rights violations, both against their own employees and civilian victims. The final section discusses why existing norms of international humanitarian law and human rights law fall short in regulating PMCs and evaluates the issue of accountability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mercenaries
• Private Military Companies
• Human Rights Violations
• Neoliberalism
• International Humanitarian Law

ULUSLARARASI ALANDA ÖZEL ASKERİ ŞİRKETLERE KARŞI İNSAN HAKLARINI SAVUNMAK

Öz

Bu çalışma, uluslararası güvenlik mimarisi içinde giderek daha görünür hale gelen Özel Askeri Şirketler’in (ÖAŞ) yol açtığı insan hakları ihlallerini ve bu şirketlerin uluslararası hukuktaki muğlak statüsünü ele almaktadır. Çalışma, ÖAŞ’lerin yükselişinin tesadüfi bir hukuki boşluğun ürünü olmadığı üzerinden hareket etmektedir. Aksine, bu yükseliş, neoliberal devlet aklının ve yönetişim anlayışının güvenlik alanına yansıyan bilinçli bir sonucudur. Devletler, Weberci anlamda şiddet tekelini esneterek maliyetleri ve politik riskleri özel sektöre devretmekte; böylece uluslararası sorumluluktan da belirli ölçülerde kaçabilmektedir. Çalışma, önce ÖAŞ’lerin tarihsel gelişimini ve hukuki niteliğini incelemektedir. Ardından, bu aktörlerin kâr odaklı faaliyetlerinin hem kendi çalışanları hem de sivil mağdurlar bakımından nasıl insan hakları ihlallerine yol açtığına odaklanmaktadır. Son bölümde ise mevcut uluslararası insancıl hukuk ve insan hakları hukuku normlarının ÖAŞ’leri denetleme konusunda neden yetersiz kaldığı tartışılmakta ve hesap verebilirlik sorunu değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Paralı asker
• Özel Askeri Şirketler
• İnsan Hakları İhlalleri
• Neoliberalizm
• Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukuk

Kaynakça

1. Adams, Thomas K. “Private Military Companies: Mercenaries for the 21st Century.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 13/2 (2002): 54-67.
2. Adams, Thomas K. “The New Mercenaries and the Privatization of Conflict.” The US Army War College Quarterly 29/2 (1999): 103-116.
3. Alexandra, Andrew. “Mercenaries.” İçinde The Encyclopedia of War, ed. Gordon Martel, 1-11. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2011.
4. Altıntaş, Kadir Murat. “Özel Askeri Şirketlerin Fonksiyonel Analizi ve Örgütsel Modellenmesi.” Güvenlik ve İstihbarat Çalışmaları Der-gisi 2/1 (2024): 20-50.
5. Arbitration Tribunal. Sandline International Inc. v. Independent State of Papua New Guinea, 117 I.L.R. 552 (1998).
6. Aslan, Ahmet Salih. “Çatışma Bölgelerinin Yeni Aktörü Özel Askeri Şirketler,” TAAD 13/49 (Ocak 2022): 115-140.
7. Avant, Deborah D. The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
8. Avant, Deborah. “Private Security Companies.” New Political Economy 10/1 (2005): 123-126.

9. Aybay, Rona ve Elif Oral. Kamusal Uluslararası Hukuk. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2016.
10. Beydüz, Büşra ve Bülent Algan. “Ulusötesi Şirketlerin Sınırötesi İnsan Hakları İhlalleri: Menşe Devlet Düzenlemeleri.” İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 15/2 (2024): 293-308.
11. Birleşmiş Milletler Eski Yugoslavya Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi. Tadić Case: the Judgement of the Appeals Chamber. 15.07.1999. (Eri-şim Tarihi 10.12.2025), https://www.icty.org/en/sid/7749.
12. Brayton, Steven. “Outsourcing War: Mercenaries and the Privatization of Peacekeeping.” Journal of International Affairs 55/2 (2002): 304-324.
13. Carney, Heather. “Prosecuting the Lawless: Human Rights Abuses and Private Military Firms.” George Washington Law Review 74/2 (2006): 317-344.
14. Congressional Budget Office. Contractors’ Support of U.S. Operations in Iraq. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, August 2008. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41728.
15. Coşkun, Başak. Neoliberal İktidar ve Özne: Foucault’nun İzinde Güncel Bir İnceleme. İstanbul: Notabene Yayınları, 2019.
16. Cronogue, Graham. “Rebels, Negligent Support, and State Acco-untability: Holding States Accountable for the Human Rights Violations of Non-State Actors.” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 23 (2013): 365-388.
17. Çebi, Sezgin Seymen. Anayasalcılık ve “Politik Olan”. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi, 2021.
18. De Nevers, Renée. “Private Security Companies and the Laws of War.” Security Dialogue 40/2 (2009): 169-171.
19. De Wolf, Antenor Hallo. “Modern Condottieri in Iraq: Privatizing War from the Perspective of International and Human Rights Law.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 13/2 (2006): 315-356.
20. Del Prado, José L. Gomez. “Impact on Human Rights of a New Non-State Actor: Private Military and Security Companies.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs 18/1 (2011): 151-169.
21. Del Prado, José L. Gomez. “The Privatization of War: Mercenaries, Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC).” 8.10.2010, (Erişim Tarihi 14.06.2026), http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21826.
22. Dülger, Kenan. Devletin Uluslararası İnsancıl Hukukun İhlalinden Doğan Sorumluluğu. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları, 2015.
23. Faulkner, Christopher. “Undermining Democracy and Exploiting Clients: The Wagner Group’s Nefarious Activities in Africa.” CTC Sen-tinel 15/6 (2022): 28-37.
24. France, John. “Introduction.” İçinde Mercenaries and Paid Men: The Mercenary Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. John France, 1-14. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
25. Geyik, Hatice. “Devletlerin İnsancıl Hukuk Kurallarının İhlâli Ne-deniyle Sorumluluğu.” Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 24/2 (2016): 57-91.
26. Giddens, Anthony. Modernliğin Sonuçları. Çeviren Ersin Kuşdil. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2004.
27. International Committee of the Red Cross ve Swiss Federal De-partment of Foreign Affairs. The Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Ar-med Conflict. 17.09.2008.
28. Jessop, Bob. “On the Originality, Legacy, and Actuality of Nicos Poulantzas.” Studies in Political Economy 34/1 (1991): 75-107.
29. Kälin, Walter ve Jörg Künzli. The Law of International Human Rights Protection. Oxford University Press, 2019.
30. Kuçuradi, Ionna. İnsan Hakları: Kavramları ve Sorunları. Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu, 2016.
31. Law, John E. “The Da Varano Lords of Camerino as Condottiere Princes.” İçinde Mercenaries and Paid Men: The Mercenary Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. John France, 89-105. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
32. Leander, Anna. “The Market for Force and Public Security: The Destabilizing Consequences of Private Military Companies.” Journal of Peace Research 42/5 (2005): 605-622.
33. Macdonald, Peter. Soldiers of Fortune: The Twentieth Century Mercenary (Milano: Gallery Books, 1986).
34. Machiavelli, Niccolo. Askerlik Sanatı. Çeviren Nazım Güvenç. İstanbul: Anahtar Kitaplar, 2003.
35. Marten, Kimberly. “Russia’s Use of Semi-State Security Forces: The Case of the Wagner Group.” Post Soviet Affairs 35/3 (2019): 181-204.
36. Marx, Sebastian. “Privatization in the European Security Politics-The Sector of Military Services,” Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (2007).
37. McCormack, Tim. “The ‘Sandline Affair’: Papua New Guinea Re-sorts to Mercenarism to End the Bougainville Conflict,” Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 1 (1998): 292-300.
38. O’Meara, Kelly Patricia. “US: DynCorp Disgrace.” Corpwatch. 14.01.2002, (Erişim Tarihi 01.06.2026), https://www.corpwatch.org/article/us-dyncorp-disgrace.
39. OECD. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. (OECD Publishing, 2011).
40. Pakbeşe, Buğra. Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Koruma Mekanizmalarının Etkililiği Çerçevesinde Avrupa Konseyi Örneği. Ankara: Lykeion Yayınları, 2023.
41. Pazarcı, Hüseyin. Uluslararası Hukuk. Ankara: Turhan Yayınları, 2018.
42. Peters, Anne vd. Business and Human Rights: Making the Legally Binding Instrument Work in Public, Private and Criminal Law. MPIL Research Paper Series, Haziran 2020.
43. Pettersson, Therese, Peter Wallensteen. “Armed Conflicts, 1946-2014.” Journal of Peace Research 52/4 (2015): 536-550.
44. Poulantzas, Nicos. Devlet, İktidar, Sosyalizm. Çeviren Turhan Ilgaz. Ankara: Epos Yayınları, 2006.
45. Rondeaux, Candace. Decoding the Wagner Group: Analyzing the Role of Private Military Security Contractors in Russian Proxy Warfare. New America, 2019.
46. Schabas, William A. “Punishment of Non-State Actors in Non-International Armed Conflict,” Fordham International Law Journal 26/4 (2003): 907-933.
47. Singer, Peter W. “Corporate Warriors: The Rise and Ramifications of The Privatized Military Industry.” International Security 26/3 (2001/2002): 186-220.
48. Singer, Peter W. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008.
49. Singer, Peter. Kiralık Ordular: Özel Askeri Şirketler. Çeviren Gözde Aral ve İsmail Yaman. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2009.
50. Stinnett, Nathaniel. “Regulating the Privatization of War: How to Stop Private Military Firms from Committing Human Rights Abuses.” Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 28/1 (2005): 212-224.
51. Sur, Melda. Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları, 2022.
52. Taşdemir, Fatma. “İnsan Hakları Hukuku, İnsancıl Hukuk ve Dev-let Dışı Silahlı Aktörlerin Uluslararası Sorumluluğu.” Akademik Hassasiyetler 4/7 (2017): 1-22.
53. Taulbee, James L. “Myths, Mercenaries and Contemporary International Law.” California Western International Law Journal 15/2 (1985): 339-363.
54. Tezcan, Durmuş, Mustafa Ruhan Erdem ve R. Murat Önok. Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2019.
55. Topal, Ahmet Hamdi. “Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Özel Askeri Şirketler ve Şirket Çalışanlarının Statüsü.” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 60/4 (2011): 963-1021.
56. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina/Serbia and Montenegro). 26 Şubat 2007.
57. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits. Judgment, 27.06.1986.
58. UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. New York / Geneva: UN, 2011.
59. United Nations Economic and Social Council, Use of mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination; report submitted by Mr. Enrique Bernales Ballesteros, Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/2004/15, 2004).
60. United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the question of the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (UN document A/HRC/4/42, 2007).
61. United Nations Human Rights Council. “7th Session of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Regulatory Framework of Activities of Private Military and Security Companies.” (Erişim Ta-rihi 26.08.2026), https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/pms-cs/igwg-index/7th-session-igwg-military.
62. United Nations Human Rights Council. “Report of the Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Libya.” A/HRC/52/83, 20.03.2023.
63. United Nations Human Rights Council. Mandate of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group to Elaborate the Content of an International Regulatory Framework on the Regulation, Monitoring and Oversight of the Activities of Private Military and Security Companies. A/HRC/RES/54/11. 11.10.2023. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4025110.
64. United Nations Human Rights Council. Report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (A/HRC/51/25, 2022), 05.07.2022.
65. United Nations Human Rights Council. Report on the role of private military and security companies in immigration and border mana-gement and the impact on the protection of the rights of all migrants (A/HRC/45/9, 2020), (Erişim Tarihi 01.06.2026), https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc459-impact-use-private-military-and-security-services-inimmigration.
66. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. “Working Group on Business and Human Rights,” United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (Erişim Tarihi 01.06.2026), https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/.
67. United Nations, Report of the Working Group on the use of mer-cenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exerci-se of the right of peoples to self-determination (UN document A/HRC/10/14/Add.l, 27 Şubat 2009).
68. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc., 170 F.4th 162, No. 25-1043 (12.03.2026).
69. Weber, Max. “Politics as a Vocation.” İçinde From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth ve C. Wright Mills, 77-128. Oxford University Press, 1946.
70. Zabcı, Filiz Çulha. “Yeni Savaşların Gizli Yüzü: Özel Askeri Şirketler.” Mülkiye Dergisi 28/243 (2013): 21-48.
71. Zarate, Juan Carlos. “The Emergence of a New Dog of War: Private International Security Companies, International Law, and the New World Disorder.” Stanford Journal of International Law 34/1 (1998): 75-162.
72. Zegveld, Liesbeth. Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.