Private security and international law

The report analyzes the intersection of private security services and international law, specifically focusing on the definition of mercenaries under Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions and the legal obligations of states where such companies are based. It explores the legitimacy of providing military support to governments versus dissident parties, the risks of privatizing security for corporations in weak states, and the ethical and legal dilemmas humanitarian organisations face when considering armed escorts. The text concludes that the rise of 'new mercenaries' requires a coordinated UN response to prevent the erosion of national sovereignty and ensure adherence to humanitarian principles.

• International humanitarian law distinguishes between the justification for using force and the conduct of military actions, focusing on the latter to preserve humanity during war.
• Under Article 47 of Protocol I, a mercenary is defined by five cumulative criteria, including being specially recruited to fight, motivated by private gain with remuneration exceeding that of regular forces, and not being a national or resident of a party to the conflict.
• The legality of private security services provided to a public entity depends on the legitimacy of that entity; providing support to a dissident party is generally a violation of sovereignty unless the UN acknowledges the government's illegitimacy.
• Military advisors and technicians are not considered mercenaries as long as they do not take a 'direct part in the hostilities,' which requires a direct causal relationship between their activity and harm done to the enemy.
• In states with disintegrating structures, private security companies protecting corporate interests (such as mining or oil installations) may assume state responsibilities, raising questions about accountability for humanitarian law violations.
• States are not directly responsible for the conduct of private companies unless the company acts on behalf of the state, but they may be liable for a lack of 'due diligence' or for breaching neutrality laws by allowing the recruitment of combatants on their territory.
• South Africa's Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act of 1998 employs a broad definition of assistance, covering not only combat but also advice, training, logistics, and even medical services.
• The use of private armed escorts by humanitarian organisations is discouraged by the ICRC because it risks compromising impartiality, tarnishing the organisation's image, and creating dangerous dependencies.
• The ICRC acts as the 'guardian of international humanitarian law,' which includes the potential for establishing a dialogue with private security companies to ensure their staff abide by humanitarian rules.

APA

Sandoz, Y. (n.d.). Private security and international law. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/PEACECHAP10.PDF

Chicago

Sandoz, Yves. Private security and international law. Institute for Security Studies, n.d. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/PEACECHAP10.PDF.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Sandoz |first1=Yves |title=Private security and international law |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/PEACECHAP10.PDF |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{sandozndprivate, author = {Sandoz, Yves}, title = {{Private security and international law}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/PEACECHAP10.PDF}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }