Addressing risks to human rights and the rule of law posed by mercenaries and private military and security companies: a call for comprehensive regulation
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Assembly
debate on 28 January 2025 (4th sitting) (see Doc. 16092, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights, rapporteur: Mr Andrea Orlando). Text
adopted by the Assembly on 28 January 2025 (4th sitting).See
also Recommendation 2289
(2025).
1. Since the beginning of the 21st
century, particularly in the context of the war on terrorism, non-state actors,
such as private military and security companies (PMSCs), mercenaries
and foreign fighters have become increasingly involved in military
operations. Although these entities are clearly distinct from one another,
and in particular the deployment of PMSCs can often serve legitimate
aims, the Parliamentary Assembly notes with concern the scarcity
of international regulation governing their operation, which negatively affects
the respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
2. Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian
Federation on 24 February 2022, Russian private military companies,
the very existence of which is prohibited under Russian law, such
as the Wagner Group and Redut, carried out numerous acts of torture
and extrajudicial executions, including mass executions, of Ukrainian
prisoners of war and civilians, and targeted attacks on civilian
infrastructure. In line with its previous resolutions, notably
Resolution 2556 (2024) “Legal
and human rights aspects of the Russian Federation’s aggression
against Ukraine”, the Assembly considers that the Russian Federation
bears full international responsibility for these actions because
of its acknowledged links and financial and operational support
extended to the Wagner Group during its participation in the war,
including the use of pardoned convicts as fighters and co-ordination
on the ground with the regular forces. It further notes that these
so-called “Russian private military companies” should be distinguished
from PMSCs, which are registered and operate within the legal framework
of their home States.
3. The Assembly firmly rejects statements made by senior representatives
of the Russian Federation describing members of the International
Legion for the Defence of Ukraine as “mercenaries”. The Assembly considers
that under international law and international humanitarian law,
members of the International Legion for the Defence of Ukraine are
clearly to be regarded as members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,
benefiting from full legal and humanitarian protection afforded
to lawful combatants. The Assembly reiterates its full support for
Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within
its internationally recognised borders.
4. The Assembly reiterates the concern it expressed in
Recommendation 1858 (2009) “Private
military and security firms and erosion of the state monopoly on
the use of force” about the erosion of States’ authority, loss of
democratic oversight and accountability, and impunity of perpetrators
of human rights violations resulting from the increased involvement
of PMSCs. It further pointed out possible conflicts of interest
when PMSCs stand to benefit from prolonging conflicts to increase
their profits.
5. Notwithstanding the adoption of 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, which sums up legal obligations under existing international
law and provides best practices related to PMSC activities, and
the establishment by the United Nations Human Rights Council of
the Open-ended intergovernmental working group to elaborate the
content of an international regulatory framework, without prejudging
the nature thereof, relating to the activities of private military
and security companies, the Assembly notes with concern that the
regulatory landscape on this matter remains scarce.
6. Despite repeated allegations of severe violations of human
rights or humanitarian law and crimes committed by PMSC personnel,
the existing regulatory gap often prevents victims from obtaining
redress or seeking justice. Some States are deliberately using PMSCs
to conceal their involvement in conflicts. Deployment of PMSCs allows
States to conduct military operations without the same level of
public scrutiny or approval processes required for deploying regular
armed forces, thus removing one of the essential democratic checks
on the use of force. Given the functioning of PMSCs as private corporations,
their activities are often exempted from public scrutiny and lack
the same chain of command and disciplinary procedures as regular armed
forces. Corporate interests thus risk prevailing over the public
good in sensitive policy areas.
7. In States with fragile institutions, deploying PMSCs can further
undermine State authority, contributing to the erosion of the rule
of law and democratic governance.
8. The Assembly shares the concern of the United Nations 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
that violations by mercenaries and mercenary-related actors are
escalating in scale and intensity while accountability remains mostly
absent.
9. The Assembly also acknowledges the increased involvement of
PMSCs in humanitarian missions, providing security for non-governmental
and international organisations. The growing security challenges
in conflict zones and the limited capacity of some States to provide
adequate protection for humanitarian workers increase the demand
for private military and security contractors, who offer their clients
access to specialised expertise, flexibility and rapid deployment.
Nevertheless, the involvement of PMSCs in humanitarian missions blurs
the lines between military and humanitarian actors. This may negatively
affect the perceived neutrality and independence of humanitarian
work and undermine the trust of local communities.
10. The Assembly notes that the existing rules of customary international
law of State responsibility, as codified in the International Law
Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts, establish a high threshold for attributing actions
of non-state actors to States themselves, requiring the exercise
by the State of “effective control” over the non-state actor.
11. Addressing these issues requires robust international and
domestic regulatory frameworks to ensure that PMSC activities align
with democratic principles and respect human rights. The Assembly
therefore reiterates that only a legally binding instrument could
adequately guide States in managing the PMSC industry and mitigate
risks of human rights violations and democratic erosion posed by
the unregulated operation of such companies. Pending the adoption
of such an instrument, the Assembly reminds States of their existing positive
obligations under international human rights law, associated with
licensing, contracting, operating and deploying PMSCs.
12. The Assembly considers that under international human rights
law, the following should be regarded as minimum requirements incumbent
on States whenever licensing, contracting, operating or deploying
PMSCs:
12.1 to enact legislation
regulating PMSCs, including criteria for their licensing and registration,
and oversight mechanisms, and establishing precise accountability
mechanisms for PMSCs and their personnel for human rights violations;
12.2 to require PMSCs to comply with international standards
applicable to business and human rights, such as the United Nations
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and ISO 26000:2010
(Guidance on social responsibility);
12.3 to vet, train, instruct and supervise PMSC personnel,
in particular when contracting services involving the use of coercive
measures, such as combat operations, guarding or transporting prisoners and
conducting interrogations;
12.4 to require a human rights impact assessment to be conducted
before authorising PMSC operations;
12.5 to establish an effective legal framework enabling swift,
transparent and impartial investigations of any allegations of human
rights violations committed by PMSCs where such PMSCs are registered
in the State, operate in its territory or in a territory under that
State’s jurisdiction or are employed by that State, and to provide
any victims with proper means of redress;
12.6 to take such measures as may be necessary to establish
jurisdiction over crimes committed by their nationals who are part
of PMSC personnel deployed in other States, irrespective of whether
such PMSCs are registered or employed by the State in question or
operate in a territory controlled by that State;
12.7 to require PMSCs to maintain insurance sufficient to provide
an adequate compensation to victims of human rights violations committed
by these companies;
12.8 to provide appropriate and regular training and instructions
to PMSC personnel on compliance with international human rights
law and international humanitarian law;
12.9 to require PMSCs to establish internal human rights protection
policies and compliance mechanisms;
12.10 to publish information on the public procurement of PMSC
services, allegations of human rights violations and their consequences,
thus facilitating external oversight;
12.11 to require PMSCs registered or operating within their
territory to adhere to the International Code of Conduct for Private
Security Service Providers and to endorse the Montreux Document.
13. The Assembly calls on the Council of Europe member and observer
States who have not yet done so to:
13.1 ratify the United Nations International Convention against
the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries;
13.2 endorse the Montreux Document.
14. The Assembly calls on the Council of Europe member and observer
States to:
14.1 actively lead and
co-ordinate with the United Nations open-ended intergovernmental
working group, proposing a concrete timeline and commitments to
expedite the development and adoption of an international regulatory
framework on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities
of PMSCs;
14.2 promote a human rights-oriented approach to the issue
of PMSCs;
14.3 prepare a binding instrument aimed at regulating the relations
of States with PMSCs and laying down minimum standards for the activity
of these companies, in line with this Resolution.
