Editors note: Hannah Tonkin is currently a Law Clerk to President Judge Kirsch in the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court. She is also writing a DPhil at the University of Oxford on States’ International Obligations to Control Private Military and Security Companies.
Carsten Hoppe’s article highlights the regulatory “gap” arising from the application of the traditional rules of attribution to modern private military and security companies (PMSCs) hired by a state in armed conflict or occupation. According to Hoppe, states that hire PMSC personnel “will always face less responsibility for acts of those persons than for acts of soldiers, and its responsibility will be harder to prove.” Hoppe points to two main situations in which this accountability gap may arise:
- Where the private contractor is “empowered by the law of that state to exercise elements of the governmental authority” within Article 5 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (ILC Articles), but is not in fact “acting in that capacity in the particular instance” when he/she engages in the relevant conduct; and
- Where the contractor does not fall within Article 5 and is not in fact acting under state orders, direction or control sufficient to satisfy Article 8 of the ILC Articles.
Hoppe argues that the second category is particularly pertinent to guarding and protective services, since these activities do not conclusively fall within Article 5. Certainly, in many cases it will be impossible to establish the requisite degree of state control over these PMSC activities to satisfy Article 8 of the ILC Articles, especially if one applies the stringent threshold of “effective control” established by the ICJ in Nicaragua and reaffirmed in the Genocide case.
Yet before placing all reliance on the hiring state’s positive obligations, we should first consider whether the majority of guarding and protective services might in fact fall within Article 5.
There are three requirements for the attribution of PMSC conduct to the hiring state pursuant to Article 5. First, the PMSC operation must constitute an exercise of governmental authority. Second, the PMSC must be “empowered by the law of the state” to exercise that authority. Third, the contractor must in fact be acting in the exercise of governmental authority, rather than in a purely private capacity, in the particular instance when he/she engages in the conduct.
There is no international consensus as to the precise scope of’ “governmental authority”. The very concept requires value judgments, which themselves rest on political assumptions about the proper sphere of state activity. Read the rest of this entry…