Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-hsbzg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-10-01T19:03:10.337Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mercenaries: Strong Norm, Weak Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2007

Sarah V. Percy
Sarah V. Percy
Affiliation:
Nuffield College, Oxford, E-mail: sarah.percy@politics.ox.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

In this article I examine how a weak international law can be created despite the presence of a strong norm, and I use weak law to probe the relationship between social and legal norms. International law dealing with mercenaries is notoriously flawed. These flaws have been attributed to the idea that state interest (or lack of interest) led to the development of intentionally weak law. In fact, ineffective anti-mercenary law is the result of the influence of norms. A strong norm against mercenary use has led states to devise a definition that indicated what they found problematic about mercenaries, and differentiated mercenaries from other actors. This definition followed the anti-mercenary norm but created a number of loopholes, which were made worse by the fact that commitment to the norm was so strong that states were unable to make adjustments necessary to create more effective law. The development of the law against mercenaries was further undermined by the pressures of a competing norm. During the 1980s, creation of a UN Convention to deal with mercenaries was stymied by the fact that many states were seeking to protect the norm of state responsibility, and the conflict between this norm and the anti-mercenary norm delayed the Convention to such a degree it was superseded by events. Weak anti-mercenary law, created in the presence of a strong anti-mercenary norm, can demonstrate four things about the relationship between social and legal norms: that states advocate the creation of law because of what it is rather than what it does; that legal institutionalization is not necessarily good for the further development of a norm; that strong commitment to a norm can lead to the creation of weak law; and that social and legal norms might not differ because the latter is more effective.The author would like to thank Audrey Kurth Cronin, Guy Goodwin-Gill, Henry Shue, Adam Roberts, Henry Shue, Christine Whelan, Dominik Zaum, and the two anonymous referees, for their comments. Helpful comments were made by Joanna Harrington and Neil MacFarlane on an earlier version of this piece.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 367 - 397
Copyright
© 2007 The IO Foundation and Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, Kenneth W., Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Duncan Snidal. 2000. The Concept of Legalization. International Organization 54 (3):401–19.Google Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 2000. Hard and Soft Law and International Governance. International Organization 54 (3):421–56.Google Scholar
Adams, Thomas K. 1999. The New Mercenaries and the Privatization of Conflict. Parameters 29 (2):103–16.Google Scholar
Avant, Deborah. 2000. From Mercenary to Citizen Armies: Explaining Change in the Practice of War. International Organization 54 (1):41–72.Google Scholar
Avant, Deborah. 2005. The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beshir, Mohed Omer. 1972. The Mercenaries and Africa. Khartoum, Sudan: Khartoum University Press.
Best, Geoffrey. 1980. Humanity in Warfare: The Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflicts. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Brunée, Jutta, and Stephen J. Toope. 2000. International Law and Constructivism: Elements of an Interactional Theory of International Law. Colombia Journal of Transnational Law 39 (1):19–74.Google Scholar
Burmester, H. C. 1978. The Recruitment and Use of Mercenaries in Armed Conflict. American Journal of International Law 72 (1):37–56.Google Scholar
Cassese, Antonio. 1980. Mercenaries: Lawful Combatants or War Criminals? Zeitschriftfür ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 40 (1):1–30.Google Scholar
Cesner, Robert E., and John W. Brant. 1977. Law of the Mercenary: An International Dilemma. Capital University Law Review 6 (3):339–70.Google Scholar
Chayes, Abram, and Antonia Handler Chayes. 1993. On Compliance. International Organization 47 (2):175–205.Google Scholar
de St. Jorre, John. 1972. The Nigerian Civil War. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Downs, George W. 2000. Constructing Effective Environmental Regimes. Annual Review of Political Science 3:25–42.Google Scholar
Downs, George W., David M. Rocke, and Peter N. Barsoom. 1996. Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation? International Organization 50 (3):379–406.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2000. Are Legal Norms Distinctive? Journal of International Law & Politics 32:699–705.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52 (4):887–917.Google Scholar
Gasser, Hans-Peter. 1987. An Appeal for Ratification by the United States. American Journal of International Law 81 (4):912–25.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith, Miles Kahler, Robert O. Keohane, and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 2000. Introduction: Legalization and World Politics. International Organization 54 (3):385–99.Google Scholar
Green, Leslie C. 1979. The Status of Mercenaries in International Law. Manitoba Law Journal 9 (3):201–46.Google Scholar
Hampson, Françoise. 1991. Mercenaries: Diagnosis Before Prescription. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 3 (1):4–37.Google Scholar
Hansard. 1976. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Higgins, Rosalyn. 1994. Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Holmqvist, Caroline. 2005. Private Security Companies: The Case for Regulation. SIPRI Policy Paper 9. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hoover, Mike J. 1977. The Laws of War and the Angolan Trial of Mercenaries: Death to the Dogs of War. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 9:323–406.Google Scholar
Hurrell, Andrew. 2000. Conclusion: International Law and the Changing Constitution of International Society. In The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law, edited by Michael Byers, 327–47. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
International Committee of the Red Cross. 1987. Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Geneva: Martinus Nijhoff.
International Court of Justice. 1949. Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania). ICJ Reports. Leiden, Netherlands: Sijthoff.
Kahler, Miles. 2000. Conclusion: The Causes and Consequences of Legalization. International Organization 54 (3):661–83.Google Scholar
Kassebaum, David. 2000. A Question of Facts—The Legal Use of Private Security Firms in Bosnia. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 38 (3):581–602.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. 1996. Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security. In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Peter J. Katzenstein, 1–6. New York: Columbia University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Krasner, Stephen D. 1989. Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective. In The Elusive State: International and Comparative Perspectives, edited by J. A. Caporaso, 227–54. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, Norms and Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich V., and John G. Ruggie. 1986. International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State. International Organization 40 (4):753–75.Google Scholar
Kritsiotis, Dino. 1998. Mercenaries and the Privatization of Warfare. Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 22 (2):11–26.Google Scholar
Kwakwa, Edward. 1990. The Current Status of Mercenaries in Armed Conflict. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 14:67–92.Google Scholar
Layeb, Allaoua. 1989. The Need for an International Convention Against Mercenaries and Mercenarism. African Journal of International and Comparative Law 1 (1):466–83.Google Scholar
Legro, Jeffrey W. 1997. Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the “Failure” of Internationalism. International Organization 51 (1):31–63.Google Scholar
Lockwood, George H. 1977. Report on the Trial of Mercenaries: Luanda, Angola, June 1976. Manitoba Law Journal 7 (3):183–202.Google Scholar
Lowe, Vaughan. 2001. The Politics of Law-Making: Are the Method and Character of Norm Creation Changing? In The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law, edited by Michael Byers, 207–26. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Lutz, Ellen J., and Kathryn Sikkink. 2000. International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America. International Organization 54 (3):633–59.Google Scholar
Marston, Geoffrey, ed. 1982. United Kingdom Materials on International Law. British Yearbook of International Law 53:337–569.Google Scholar
McCormack, Timothy L. H., and Gerry J. Simpson. 1994. The International Law Commission's Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind: An Appraisal of the Substantive Provisions. Criminal Law Forum 5 (1):1–55.Google Scholar
Mourning, Paul W. 1982. Leashing the Dogs of War: Outlawing the Recruitment and Use of Mercenaries. Virginia Journal of International Law 22 (3):589–612.Google Scholar
Nadelmann, Ethan A. 1990. Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society. International Organization 44 (4):479–526.Google Scholar
Nossal, Kim Richard. 1998. Roland Goes Corporate: Mercenaries and Transnational Security Corporations in the Post-Cold War Era. Civil Wars 1 (1):16–35.Google Scholar
Nossal, Kim Richard. 2001. Global Governance and National Interests: Regulating Transnational Security Corporations in the Post–Cold War Era. Melbourne Journal of International Law 2:459–76.Google Scholar
Percy, Sarah V. 2003. This Gun's for Hire: A New Look at an Old Issue. International Journal 58 (4):721–36.Google Scholar
Percy, Sarah V. Forthcoming. Mercenaries: The History of a Norm in International Relations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Philpott, Daniel. 2001. Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Price, Richard. 1995. A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo. International Organization 49 (1):73–103.Google Scholar
Price, Richard. 1997a. The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Price, Richard. 1997b. Moral Norms in World Politics. Pacifica Review 9 (1):45–72.Google Scholar
Price, Richard. 2004. Emerging Customary Norms and Anti-Personnel Landmines. In The Politics of International Law, edited by Christian Reus-Smit, 106–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Price, Richard, and Nina Tannenwald. 1996. Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo. In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Peter J. Katzenstein, 114–52. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ratner, Steven R. 2000. Does International Law Matter in Preventing Ethnic Conflict? New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 32:591–698.Google Scholar
Reisman, Michael W. 2000. Unilateral Action and the Transformations of the World Constitutive Process: The Special Problem of Humanitarian Intervention. European Journal of International Law 11 (1):3–18.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2004. The Politics of International Law. In The Politics of International Law, edited by Christian Reus-Smit, 14–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenne, Shabtai. ed. 1991. The International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility. Part 1, Articles 1–35. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Sandoz, Yves. 1999. Private Security and International Law. In Peace, Profit or Plunder? The Privatization of Security in War-Torn African Societies, edited by Jakkie Cilliers and Peggy Mason, 201–26. Pretoria, South Africa: Institute for Security Studies.
Schmitt, Michael N. 2005. Humanitarian Law and Direct Participation in Hostilities by Private Contractors or Civilian Employees. Chicago Journal of International Law 5 (2):511–46.Google Scholar
Schreier, Fred, and Marina Caparini. 2005. Privatising Security: Law, Practice and Governance of Private Military and Security Companies. GCDCAF Occasional Paper 6. Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.
Shearer, David. 1998a. Outsourcing War. Foreign Policy 112:68–81.Google Scholar
Shearer, David. 1998b. Private Armies and Military Intervention. IISS Adelphi Paper 318. London: International Institute of Strategic Studies.
Singer, P.W. 2003. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Singer, P.W. 2004. War, Profits and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law. Colombia Journal of Transnational Law 42 (2):521–49.Google Scholar
Taulbee, James Larry. 1985. Myths, Mercenaries and Contemporary International Law. California Western International Law Journal 15 (2):339–63.Google Scholar
Thomson, Janice E. 1994. Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns: State-Building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
United Kingdom. 1976. Report of the Committee of Privy Counsellors Appointed to Inquire into the Recruitment of Mercenaries. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
U.S. Congress Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on International Relations. 1976. Mercenaries in Africa: Hearing Before the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on International Relations. 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 9 August.
Van Deventer, Henry W. 1976. Mercenaries at Geneva. American Journal of International Law 70 (4):811–16.Google Scholar
Walker, Clive, and Dave Whyte. 2005. Contracting Out War? Private Military Companies, Law and Regulation in the United Kingdom. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 54 (3):651–90.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Nicholas J. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Yusuf, Abdulqawi A. 1979. Mercenaries in the Law of Armed Conflict. In The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, edited by Antonio Cassese, 113–27. Naples, Italy: Editoriale Scientifica.
Zarate, Juan Carlos. 1998. 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):75–162.Google Scholar