Mercenaries

Should those labeled as mercenaries be afforded the same protections as uniformed combatants under the Geneva Convention?

White space for Wagner and Blackwater ads

Context?

Also are you talking about mercenaries or PMCs as there is a distinction between the two.

well doesn't that depend on which gov't is deciding? If legionnaires with the Ukraine are considered mercenaries, wouldn't that then be the same for the Legion Etrangere?

Who is setting the criteria for definition and is it "industry" wide?

PMCs engineer conflicts for profit. I wish them a very get a real job.

you extend to much credence to their capacity to influence geopolitical conflicts

No, not legally, but ethically, I would say yes.

I saw a documentary a while back about a PMC that fought on one side of a civil war in Africa and then engineered a resumption of hostilities so the other side would hire them, but I can't find it now. I want to say it was Executive Outcomes?

So what is your view of the Iron Lady's son involved in an attempted coup.

Just found out about it. From what I'm reading, he looks like a chip off the old block.

Well no, the legionnaires in Ukraine sign a contract with the Ukrainian government and fight under the branch of the Territorial Defense Force. For all intents and purposes, they are an extension of the Ukrainian Army just as French Foreign Legion is an extension of the French Army. Geneva convention applies.

PMCs while technically not in the armed forces of any country have contracts with governments and thus serve as the intermediary between the soldier and state. Geneva convention applies.

A true mercenary is someone who fights for money or personal gain and doesn't have any ties to a state. Geneva convention does not apply.

If you want to talk about definitions, there's a variety of legal frameworks which define a mercenary is.

huh? mercenaries are chill and cool! haha woo, murder for naked profit! yay!

i worry about anyone who actually outright likes state-sanctioned corporate death squads

Really? Historically, mercenaries are like the condottieri of Italy, contacting their armies out to various rulers in conflict.

Also doesn't a PMC fit your definition? Their tie to the state is a contract, and any individual fighting for personal gain would also be contracted to a state.

Well their tie is to their company rather than to the state directly. If you think that's me splitting hairs, I wouldn't fault you for that, but let me explain my position a bit more because I was too lazy to cite anything the first time.

I should have also included the fact that PMCs technically meet the criteria for being treated as POWs by Geneva Convention III of 1949.

"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

I also think how they are employed is a key distinction. Mercenaries tend to be front line combat units which are fungible for active duty soldiers where as PMCs in theory play more of a support role and do not take part in direct combat with weapons being prescribed for self defense only. This is sort of reflected in Protocol I of the Geneva Convention as well which lists the following, cumulative requirements:
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]
"A mercenary is any person who:

1. Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
2. Does, in fact, take a direct part in hostilities;
3. Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
4. Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
5. Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
6. Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces."

Subsections 2 and 4 are what are pointed to when differentiating between PMC and mercenary status.

That is not to say that there isn't a shit ton of grey area. It's also not to say that PMCs can't be mercenaries. At the end of the day, being a mercenary technically isn't a war crime; it just strips you of Geneva convention rights. It does not mean that a captured mercenary can be treated inhumanely.
[/background]

I think people should be treated with decency regardless of their status in conflicts.

If we are talking of Russian soldiers and Russian mercenaries and Russian PMC then f**k them with dynamite.

( I don't hate the Russian just those invading Ukraine and Europe ).