Legal Status Of Private Military And Security Companies' Employees

Since the Afghan war in 2001 and the Iraq war in 2003,Private Military and Security Companies have increasingly become the focus of the international community.Blackwater Worldwide's retaliatory attacks on Fallujah and the involvement of Private Military and Security Companies' employees(Hereinafter referred to as employees)in the Abu Ghraib “Prisoner Abuse” scandal have deepened the international community's concerns about the legality of employees' behavior,people are also enthusiastically discussing the relationship between Private Military and Security Companies and the military and political circles,the nature of private military and security contracts,and whether these employees have the right to participate in combat operations directly and whether they are responsible for human rights violations.As a result of the post-production results,few employees are responsible,which can't help making people worry whether these employees are in a “legal vacuum”.To regulate such kind of people effectively,we need to explore whether the existing system of International Humanitarian Law can determine their legal status in armed conflict and clarify the connotation of “Direct Participation in Hostilities” closely related to the establishment of employee status.By this way can we effectively regulate the actions of these employees,and it also lays a theoretical foundation for establishing the legal liability of illegal employees.Studies have shown that in the absence of a specific international convention for Private Military and Security Companies,the existing system of International Humanitarian Law has a system of rules that can determine the legal status of their employees,but because the rules lag behind the reality and the legislative provisions are vague,it is difficult for employees to be defined as mercenaries,combatants in international armed conflicts or armed forces members in non-international armed conflicts.In general,they can only be defined as civilians and enjoy the legal status of civilians.But it is not to say that employees can act without any scruples,whether or not “Direct participation in Hostilities” can still affect the change of status.Unfortunately,although this theory exists in the rules of International Humanitarian Law,it has long-term vague connotation.The ICRC's “Interpretative Guide to the Definition of Direct Participation in the Hostilities in International Humanitarian Law”(Hereinafter referred to as The Interpretative Guide)published in 2009,systematically studied the theory for the first time and reached its own conclusions.Although there are still many flaws in the guide,its publication is conducive to the international community to speed up the clarification of the meaning of “Direct Participation in Hostilities”,so it is of great significance.Through the analysis and argumentation of this paper,it is confirmed that the existing International Humanitarian Law system can determine the legal status of employees,and The Interpretative Guide provides us experience and assistance to clarify the connotation of “Direct Participation in Hostilities” early for accurately determine the legal status of employees.The innovation of this paper is to supplement domestic scholars' research on the legal status of employees in non-international armed conflicts,and to comment on the elements of “Direct Participation in Hostilities” based on The Interpretative Guide.A comparative study of the legal status of employees in different types of armed conflicts helps us to show the legal status of employees fully and allows us to understand their connections and differences more intuitively.The clarification of the connotation of “Direct Participation in Hostilities” is useful for clearly defining whether these employees are protected civilians or unprotected civilians.After determining the identity of the employees,we can know their specific legal status.