The Issue of Mercenaries Case Study
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
1. Which dangers arise from the phenomenon of mercenarism? For the exercise of the right to self-determination? How do the UN Convention, Art. 47 of Protocol I, and the UN Special Rapporteur address these dangers?
2. (P I, Art. 47)
a. Why should only foreigners come within the definition of mercenaries? Do you agree with the Special Rapporteur that the notion should not be restricted to foreigners? (Part C, para. 43(k)) What was the reason for this limitation in Protocol I? Why should only those motivated by profit come within the definition?
1. Does Art. 47(1) of Protocol I mean that mercenaries are not protected by IHL? Or does it, on the contrary, mean that they are protected as civilians? Could mercenaries be neither combatants nor civilians? (GC III, Art. 4; GC IV, Art. 4)
b. Does Art. 47 of Protocol I prohibit the use of mercenaries? Is it a violation of Art. 47 or any other rule of IHL to be a mercenary? What are the consequences of Art. 47 for a mercenary? Does Art. 47(1) state the obvious, taking into account Art. 47(2)(e)?
c. What are the differences between the definition given by Art. 47 of Protocol I and that given by the UN Convention? Why was it deemed necessary by the drafters of the Convention to add the provisions of Art. 1(2)?
3.
a. Under IHL, may mercenaries be directly targeted? If they are not combatants, does it mean that they are entitled to the same protection as civilians directly participating in hostilities? May mercenaries be targeted at any time, or only when they are involved in hostilities? [See ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities]
b. Under IHL, are mercenaries detained by the enemy during an international armed conflict protected as civilians? Are they protected persons? May the ICRC visit them? (GC IV, Arts 4(1) and (4), 5 and 143; P I, Art. 47)
c. Under IHL, may a mercenary be prosecuted for the mere fact of being a mercenary? Under the UN Convention? Under IHL, may he be prosecuted only if he commits war crimes? Are those persons accused of being mercenaries and who fall into the hands of the enemy in an international armed conflict protected persons under IHL? Are they protected civilians or prisoners of war? Should the judicial guarantees provided for in international law be taken into account or must they be respected? (UN Convention, Art. 11) Are they applicable? (GC III, Arts 4, 5(2) and 82-108; GC IV, Arts 4(1), (4) and 5; P I, Arts 47 and 75)
4. Does the fact that Protocol I contains the definition of a mercenary reduce the possibilities of that provisions application, as only States party to Protocol I are bound by it? What is the status of a mercenary, as defined in Art. 47 of Protocol I, in the hands of a State not party to Protocol I? (GC III, Art. 4; GC IV, Art. 4)
5. Does the status of mercenary exist in non-international armed conflicts? Would it be useful to introduce a rule similar to Art. 47 into the law of non-international armed conflicts? Does the absence of such a rule make it more difficult to punish mercenaries?
6. What is the probability of a person falling under Art. 47 of Protocol I? Can a State ensure that anyone fighting for it does not fall under Art. 47?
7. Could an intervention by mercenaries in an armed conflict transform that conflict into an international armed conflict between the mercenaries State of origin and the State in which the mercenaries are about to fight?
8. If mercenarism was to be radically prevented, what should be done? Should not the prohibition on mercenaries activities have been based on a prohibition at State level and not, or not solely, at the individual level? Why does IHL not have any provision to that effect?
9. Does the prohibition of mercenarism imply that the general trend of outsourcing State tasks to private companies may not concern the defence and security sector? What risks does the privatization of defence, security and police activities entail? How could these activities be privatized while safeguarding the values of IHL and human rights?
10. (Part C, Report of the Special Rapporteur)
a. (Paras 43 and 47) What do you think of the amended articles of the UN Convention suggested by the Rapporteur? From the standpoint of IHL? From the perspective of combating the mercenary phenomenon?
b. (UN Convention, Art. 1(2); Part C, paras 43 and 47) May a person who meets the definition of a mercenary in the UN Convention, but who fights in favour of a peoples self-determination or a legitimate government, still be called a mercenary? What would be the status of such a person under the UN Convention? Protocol I? Would the UN Special Rapporteur consider that person to be a mercenary? Would he tolerate mercenaries who defend a legitimate government or the territorial integrity and basic territorial infrastructure of a State, or who fight against an illegitimate government? Would he consider that they are committing an international crime? Would you agree that a distinction should be made between mercenaries fighting against legitimate governments or against the self-determination of a people, and those fighting against illegitimate governments or in favour of self-determination? What would the risks of such a distinction be?
c. Are the suggested new Arts 1(2) and 3 dealing with a jus in bello or with a jus ad bellum issue?
d. Is the suggested Art. 1(2) applicable (only or equally) in armed conflicts? If it is applicable (as the terms conflict in subpara. (b) and armed conflict in subpara. (c) suggest), would it be admissible to deprive anyone of IHL protection because he or she is fighting for the aims mentioned in subpara. (a)?
e. May a person who has combatant status under IHL be prosecuted for some or all of the crimes mentioned under the suggested Art. 3? May a person who is protected by the IHL of non-international armed conflicts be prosecuted for such crimes?
f. (Paras 30 and 43) Why does the Special Rapporteur assume that mercenaries commit more war crimes and human rights violations than other participants in armed conflicts?
11. (Part D, Report of the Working Group)
a. What is the difference between traditional mercenaries and employees of PMSCs? Are the latter defined under IHL? May employees of PMSCs be considered as mercenaries as defined by Art. 47 of Protocol I? Under which conditions?
b. Under IHL, what, if any, activities in armed conflicts may a State not outsource to PMSCs? May a State outsource direct participation in hostilities to a PMSC that is not made up of combatants of that State?
c. (Paras 5 and 25) Do you agree with the ICRC representative that few PMSC employees are regular combatants and members of armed forces, and they are thus civilians and lose protection under international humanitarian law when taking direct part in hostilities? Do you agree with the Working Group that PMSC employees operate in grey zones and that it is difficult to determine whether they are combatants or civilians? Or do they rather act in a grey zone between direct participation in hostilities, self-defence and law enforcement?
d. When are PMSC employees combatants? When are they considered as civilians directly participating in hostilities? When are they considered, if ever, as only indirectly participating in hostilities? Do they lose their protection as civilians in such a case?
e. (Para. 29) What are the consequences of the diversification of the activities undertaken by PMSC employees? Do they enjoy a different protection under IHL according to their activities? When are activities mentioned in para. 29 covered by Art. 47 of Protocol I?
f. (Para. 29) When does the provision of convoy and transport security, the guarding of military bases or the guarding of government offices constitute direct participation in hostilities? If force is used in performing those tasks, when can it be classified as self-defence under criminal law rather than as direct participation in hostilities? Does it depend on against whom force is used? [See ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities]
g. (Para. 29) When does advice to and training of local forces constitute direct participation in hostilities? When does the provision of prison security? When does intelligence? When do covert operations? [See ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities]
h. (Paras 31 and 32) What are the consequences of the diversification of nationalities of persons recruited by PMSCs? Under IHL, are their employees protected according to their nationality? What status and protection would an Iraqi national employed by an American PMSC in Iraq have? An American employee of the same company? Any other foreign employee? Would any of them be considered a protected person under IHL? (GC IV, Art. 4)
i. Are PMSC employees operating in an armed conflict bound by IHL? Only by criminalized rules of IHL? Is there a higher risk of them, rather than combatants, violating IHL?
j. How can PMSC employees know whether a given activity constitutes direct participation in hostilities? Why does it matter for them? Must a State hiring them make sure that they can know? May a State hire them for activities in which they will not know when they are directly participating in hostilities?
12. (Part D, para. 28) What are the risks of having PMSCs ensuring the protection of humanitarian organizations? Does it become dangerous because the same company may simultaneously also be involved in the conduct of hostilities? Is it realistic to expect the enemy and the local population to distinguish between employees involved in hostilities and employees protecting humanitarian workers? Should PMSCs be prohibited from engaging in both activities at the same time?
13.
a. (Part D, paras 45 and 46) Who has an obligation and who has jurisdiction to prosecute violations of IHL committed by employees of PMSCs? The contracting State? The State on whose territory the violations were committed? The State(s) of nationality of the employee(s) concerned? All these States?
b. When is the international responsibility of a State engaged when violations of IHL are committed by employees of a PMSC that it has hired? Beyond that, has a State a due diligence obligation to ensure respect for IHL by PMSCs it hires? What is the legal basis for such an obligation?
c. (Part D, para. 33) Is the international responsibility of the State that hired the PMSC engaged for violations committed by employees of a company subcontracted by that PMSC?
14. (Part D, paras 45 and 46) Would immunity from prosecution for employees who have committed war crimes be lawful under IHL? May a State decide that violations committed by private contractors can be neither investigated nor judged? May a State agree to accord immunity to certain persons, even for war crimes? At least if another State has jurisdiction and undertakes to prosecute those persons? (GC IV, Arts 146 and 149; CIHL, Rule 158)
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!