The Privatized Military Industry (PMI) definitely is on the rise as P.W. Singer argued in 2004. In international relations scholarship, numerous research is available on this topic since the PMI started its rise during the 1990s. After having identified a rather “new” phenomenon in world politics, the process of the politicization and analytical analysis follows, drawing a comparison to a policy-analysis approach.
Doing research on private actors in world politics, offering services falling within the military domain, from a postinternational perspective is a rather new thing. Most researchers analyze the PMI as such, their institutional design, their organization and classify them according to the services they offer. This research is based on a different approach. It analyzes the implications of the PMI to the Westphalian state and state system by referring to postinternationalism as a worldview. What constitutes the postinternational worldview – and what indicators I will use based on this worldview – is explained in part II dealing with theory. Theory in this paper in principle can be summed up with the phrase that “the Westphalian state as such is declining in power and that private actors (in our case private military actors) such as TNCs or NGOs are becoming more important and powerful.” Some gain and some lose. From this perspective it is the states that lose and the private actors that gain.
Table of Contents
I Introduction
1.1 Object of research and structure
1.2 Main questions
1.3 Method
II Theory: a postinternational worldview
III The Privatized Military Industry in theory
3.1 Mercenaries in evolution
3.2 What makes a mercenary a mercenary?
3.2.1 Private security and military companies
3.2.2 Mercenaries and ‘corporate warriors’
3.3 A new mediaevalism: A Hobbesian or a Lockeian world?
3.4 PMCs classified
3.5 Implications of ‘modern’ mercenaries to the Westphalian state
3.5.1 Rogue firms
3.5.2 The responsibility gap
IV Regulating the industry or ‘losing control’
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines the rise of the Privatized Military Industry (PMI) through the lens of postinternationalism. The central research question investigates whether the reemergence of private military interests serves as an indicator of a shift away from Westphalian state-centric structures, analyzing whether the state's traditional monopoly on the use of force is eroding as private actors gain significant influence and power in the security domain.
- The theoretical shift from a state-centric Westphalian model to a postinternational worldview.
- Classification of private military actors, including PMCs, PSCs, and "corporate warriors."
- The implications of modern mercenaries on state sovereignty and the emergence of a "new mediaevalism."
- Analysis of "rogue firms" and the resulting responsibility and accountability gaps in international law.
- The necessity and challenges of democratic control and regulation of the privatized military industry.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Mercenaries in evolution
“Traditionally, the ultimate symbol of sovereignty is a state’s ability to monopolise the means of violence, and use military forces.” Indeed, it seems that the monopoly of violence of the ‘modern’ or Westphalian state was traditionally based on the incorporation of private actors in state business. Not going further into the historical background and the evolution of “traditional” mercenaries, what we call mercenaries have existed since war in the definition of large-scale armed hostilities existed. During the European Middle Ages, Griffith dates them from 1100 to 1500, mercenaries were frequently used and many rulers hired warriors to protect their states or pre-Westphalian polities.
Especially city states such as Florence frequently used private warriors or mercenaries to protect the then extremely rich city state. One of Niccolo Machiavelli’s traumatizing events in his political career as a civil servant working for the city state of Florence had to do with the involvement of mercenary forces. Florence at that time had no access to the sea, Pisa did. The Florence city government decided to conquer Pisa by hiring mercenaries. The people of Florence already enjoyed life in a high living standard and were not willing to die for the state by fighting. During the siege of Pisa in 1499, mercenary forces left overnight and disappeared. The government of Pisa made a deal with them and paid them more money than Florence has done. Machiavelli’s conclusion was that mercenaries cannot be trusted. Their interest is primary monetary and secondary in keeping their body uninjured because it is their capital. This was a real lesson for Machiavelli and his future ideas of organizing a state, namely to create a national, compulsory and permanent army. In search for a moral justification, religion became a necessary good for him in order to establish a civil society. The people should know what, why and for whom they are fighting. People directly involved in warfare at home will protect their city longer than mercenaries do.
Summary of Chapters
I Introduction: Defines the research object regarding the PMI and outlines the methodological approach based on IR theory and postinternationalism.
II Theory: a postinternational worldview: Explores the decline of Westphalian sovereignty and the transition toward a postinternational system where private actors influence world politics.
III The Privatized Military Industry in theory: Analyzes the evolution, classification, and implications of private military actors, focusing on the "new mediaevalism" and the "responsibility gap."
IV Regulating the industry or ‘losing control’: Discusses the urgent need for international and domestic legal frameworks to ensure democratic control over the privatized military industry.
Keywords
Privatized Military Industry, PMCs, Postinternationalism, Westphalian State, Sovereignty, Mercenaries, Corporate Warriors, Monopoly of Force, Rogue Firms, Responsibility Gap, New Mediaevalism, International Law, Democratic Control, Global Security, Outsourcing War
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The paper explores the rise of private military companies from a postinternational perspective, questioning how these actors challenge the traditional power and sovereignty of the Westphalian state.
What are the primary themes discussed in the book?
Key themes include the historical evolution of mercenaries, the classification of modern military firms, the erosion of the state's monopoly on violence, and the challenges of creating effective legal regulations for private military entities.
What is the main objective of the paper?
The objective is to determine if the growth of private military actors indicates a backlash against the Westphalian state system, where private interests gain power at the expense of national authorities.
What research methodology is employed?
The author utilizes a theoretical approach based on academic political science literature, drawing on international relations theories, legal documents, and historical case studies to pattern the global security landscape.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body covers the transition from traditional mercenaries to modern corporate warriors, the classification of firms, the legal and moral implications of rogue firms, and the critical issue of holding private actors accountable.
Which keywords best describe the work?
Essential keywords include Privatized Military Industry, Sovereignty, Postinternationalism, Monopoly of Force, Corporate Warriors, and Responsibility Gap.
What is the "responsibility gap" mentioned in the text?
The responsibility gap refers to the legal and political dilemma where private military firms operate in combat zones without clear-cut accountability, making it difficult to hold them or their home states liable for misconduct or war crimes.
How does the author view the potential for future regulation?
The author argues that democratic states must establish binding international and domestic regulations, including monitoring mechanisms, to restore accountability and ensure that private industry does not undermine international law.
- Citation du texte
- Harald Löberbauer (Auteur), 2007, The Privatized Military Industry from a postinternational perspective, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/71957
