Syria Accedes to the UN Mercenary Convention
H. E. Mr. Bashar Ja’afari, Syrian Arab Republic Ambassador to UN
23 October 2008, New York, UN Headquarters
Image linked from the United Nations.
On 23 October 2008, Syria acceded to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, becoming the 32nd state party. It is the only international treaty applicable to mercenaries and private military and security companies. Previously, only a small number of private security employees would be considered mercenaries subject to international humanitarian law under article 47 of the optional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Under the Convention, Syria must prohibit and criminalize the recruitment, financing, training and use of mercenaries.
The treaty, also referred to as the UN Mercenary Convention, entered into force in 2001 after more than a decade of negotiations in response to increasing concern over the accountability of private military companies providing security capabilities traditionally performed by state actors, including intelligence, military training, security services, logistical support, and prison operations. The top countries with private security companies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, are not parties to the Convention and thus are not legally bound by its provisions. The Convention’s critics highlight the inadequate definition of “mercenary,” the lack of monitoring mechanisms, and the lackluster support for it by the majority of the world’s countries.
In August 2008, the UN Commission on Human Rights Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of people to self-determination concluded that the Convention is effective only at regulating “traditional” mercenary activities, not private military companies. The Working Group recommended a new international legal instrument and the development of a model law on private military and security companies.
Thus, the question lingers: Why, at this time, did Syria accede to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries?
The instrument for accession would have been submitted to the United Nations in September 2008, 30 days prior to the date of accession on October 23. At the time, Syria was accused of amassing troops along the Lebanon border and of deliberately hiding evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Syria also was seeking US$20 million in international aid to address a severe drought affecting nearly one million people. Further, on 17 September, 17 countries reaffirmed their commitments to voluntary rules for private military contractors in war zones: Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Austria, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, Iraq, Poland, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United States.
Was this treaty action intended to bolster Syria’s international reputation? Was it to pressure the 17 countries to do more than agree to voluntary and non-binding rules for PMCs? Was it as a bargaining outcome to receive international aid? Or was it part of a national security strategy to criminalize the potential actions in Syria by more than 48,000 personnel employed by more than 180 private military and security companies operating in post-conflict Iraq?
Was it to create criminal prosecution options and to defend such prosecutions of private military contractors acting on Syrian soil as not only legitimate, but also required, under international law?
International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries
- Full Text in English
- Ratification Status: State Parties and Signatories
- General Assembly Resolution 44/34, A/RES/44/34 (4 December 1989)
UN Agencies