Mercenary: Battlefields of Strategy and Survival

By Fouad Sabry

What is Mercenary

A private individual who joins an armed battle for the purpose of making personal profit, is otherwise an outsider to the fight, and is not a member of any other official military is referred to as a mercenary. Other names for a mercenary include a soldier of fortune, a hired gun, soldier of fortune, and hired gun. Rather than fighting for political reasons, mercenaries fight for the purpose of obtaining money or other types of recompense.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: Mercenary

Chapter 2: Army

Chapter 3: Bob Denard

Chapter 4: Private military company

Chapter 5: Hessian (soldier)

Chapter 6: Swiss mercenaries

Chapter 7: Executive Outcomes

Chapter 8: Costas Georgiou

Chapter 9: Irregular military

Chapter 10: Colonial troops

(II) Answering the public top questions about mercenary.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of Mercenary.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: Jun 24, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: Mercenary

A private individual who joins a military conflict for the purpose of personal profit, is otherwise an outsider to the fight, and is not a member of any other official military is referred to as a mercenary, or mercs. This individual is also sometimes referred to as a soldier of fortune, hired gun, or, archaically, sellsword. Instead of fighting for political reasons, mercenaries fight for financial gain or other forms of recompense outside money.

Beginning in the 20th century, there has been a growing perception that mercenaries are less entitled to protection under the rules of war than soldiers who are not employed by the military. According to the Geneva Conventions, mercenaries are not regarded as legitimate combatants and are not required to be provided the same legal rights as captured service personnel of the armed forces. There is no requirement that they be granted these protections. Due to the fact that a person's financial and political interests may overlap, it is possible that the degree to which a person actually is a mercenary is a matter of degree.

APGC77, which stands for Protocol Additional GC 1977, is an amendment protocol that was added to the Geneva Conventions in 1977. The definition of a mercenary that is provided in Article 47 of the treaty is the one that is most frequently acknowledged on an international level; nevertheless, certain nations, including the United States, do not support this term. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which relates to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Protocol I, which was issued on June 8, 1977, stipulates that:

The Mercenaries, by Art 47

It is not permissible for a mercenary to serve in the military or to assume the role of a prisoner of war.

Any person who engages in the practice of:

(a) is typically recruited from inside the country or from outside the country in order to participate in armed conflict; In point of fact, (b) is directly involved in the conflict that is taking place; (c) is primarily motivated to participate in the hostilities by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation that is substantially greater than that which is promised or paid to combatants of comparable ranks and functions in the armed forces represented by that Party; is not a citizen of a country that is a party to the conflict, nor is he or she a resident of a region that is under the jurisdiction of a party during the conflict; the individual in question does not serve in the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

is not a member of the armed forces of a state that is not a party to the conflict and has not been dispatched by that state on formal duty as a member of its armed forces.

In accordance with the Geneva Convention, in order for a combatant to be classified as a mercenary, it is necessary for them to fulfill all of the requirements (a–f).

Back on December 4th, 1989, It was decided by the United Nations that resolution 44/34, the International Convention for the Prohibition of Recruitment, Use, The Provision of Financial Support and Instruction for Mercenaries.

As of the 20th of October in 2001, it became legally binding and is commonly referred to as the United Nations Mercenary Convention.

The definition of a mercenary can be found right here in Article 1.

There are parallels between Article 1.1 and Article 47 of Protocol I, Article 1.2, on the other hand, expands the concept to encompass a non-national who is recruited to overturn a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State.; or undermine the state's ability to maintain its territorial integrity; and Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation"—under Article 1.2 a person does not have to take a direct part in the hostilities in a planned coup d'état to be a mercenary.

Unless they are under the command of their own national armed forces, people of certain nations are prohibited from participating in wars that are fought in other countries under the laws of those nations.

If it is established that a person has served as a mercenary for any other nation while maintaining their Austrian citizenship, then that individual's Austrian citizenship will be revoked.

Mercenary actions were made illegal in France in 2003, according to the protocol to the Geneva convention, which applies to French citizens, permanent residents, and legal entities (Penal Code, L436-1, L436-2, L436-3, L436-4, and L436-5). There is no restriction on the ability of French citizens to serve as volunteers in foreign forces because of this statute. Activities carried out by the military that have a mercenary motivation or that are compensated at a mercenary level are subject to the law. Nevertheless, as a result of legal loopholes, a number of French companies offer mercenary services.

The French state also owns 50% of Défense conseil international, which was established by it, a private military company (PMC) that engages in the export of military training services but does not provide any fighters.

It also realised a profit of €222 million in 2019.

It is an offence to recruit German citizens for military duty in a military or military-like facility in support of a foreign power (§ 109h StGB).

Furthermore, a German who enlists in the armed forces of a state they are also a citizen of risks the loss of their citizenship (§ 28 StAG).

In 1998, South Africa implemented a law called the Foreign Military Assistance Act, which prohibited its citizens and residents from participating in any kind of combat outside of the country, with the exception of humanitarian operations, unless a government committee gave its approval for their participation. As a result of South African citizens working as security guards in Iraq during the American occupation of Iraq and the consequences of the mercenary soldier sponsorship case against Mark Thatcher for the possible funding and logistical assistance in relation to an alleged attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea organized by Simon Mann, the legislation was reviewed by the government in 2005. This was done because of the circumstances surrounding the case.

Both the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 and the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 in the United Kingdom make it illegal for British nationals to join the armed forces of any state that is at war with another state that is at peace with Britain. According to the Foreign Enlistment Act, it was possible that British volunteers who fought alongside Greek rebels during the Greek War of Independence were engaging in activities that were illegal. At the time, it was not entirely apparent whether or not the Greek rebels were considered a state. However, the law was amended to make it plain that the rebels were.

It was contemplated by the British government to use the Act against British people who were fighting for the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War and the FNLA in the Angolan Civil War; however, in the end, it decided not to use the Act against either of these groups.

1893's Anti-Pinkerton Act, which is codified as 5 U.S.C.

§ 3108) forbade the U.S.

preventing the government from employing workers of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, Alternatively, comparable private police agencies.

In 1977, In its interpretation of this provision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that it prohibits the United States from.

prevent the government from hiring businesses that provide mercenary services, The United States of America ex rel. quasi-military forces for hire.

Weinberger v.

Equifax, No. 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir.).

1977), cert.

denied, 434 United States.

In the year 1978, 1035.

Regarding the question of whether or not this prohibition is restricted to the use of such troops as strikebreakers, there is a disagreement prevailing, because this is how it is stated:

According to the aim of the Act and the legislative history, the only way for an organization to be considered similar to the Pinkerton Detective Agency was if it provided mercenary and quasi-military forces for hire, such as strikebreakers and armed guards. The additional effect was that it discouraged any other organization from providing services of this nature for fear of being labeled as a similar organization. Only this viewpoint is supported by the legislative history; none of the others.

— United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Weinberger v.

Equifax, 1977

This decision was read by the Comptroller General in a manner that created an exemption for Guard and Protective Services in the letter that was sent to the heads of federal departments and agencies on June 7, 1978.

DoD Instruction 3020.41 has been revised by an interim rule issued by the United States Department of Defense (effective June 16, 2006). This regulation authorises contractors, other than private security contractors, to use lethal action against enemy armed forces only in the event that they are acting in self-defense (71 Fed. Reg. 34826). According to that interim rule, private security contractors are permitted to use lethal force in order to safeguard their client's assets and persons. This is in accordance with the mission statement that is included in their contract. This could be interpreted in a number of ways, one of which is that it gives contractors permission to participate in combat on behalf of the State Department. It is the obligation of the combatant commander to make certain that the mission statements of private security contracts do not authorize the conduct of military responsibilities that are fundamentally associated with the government. This includes tasks such as preemptive attacks, assaults, raids, and other similar operations.

Other than that, civilians who are members of the United States Armed Forces lose their protection from direct assault under the law of war if and for the duration of the time that they directly participate in hostilities. Arguments that U.S. Army contracts violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act by requiring contractors to provide armed convoy escort vehicles and labor, weapons, and equipment for internal security operations at Victory Base Complex, Iraq, were rejected by the United States Comptroller General on August 18, 2006. This decision was made in response to bid protests. Due to the fact that the contracts did not compel contractors to furnish quasi-military forces as strikebreakers, the Comptroller General came to the