Private military companies in International Law: The state monopoly of the use of force and the legal status of private military companies in Law of International Armed Conflicts in the light of the practices adopted by the United States in the recent military operations

Today when the United States goes to war, contractors go with it. Contractors have become especially an enduring feature of modern American conflicts, and the United States cannot now engage in hostilities or in reconstruc¬tion and stabilization operations without them. Before a sound analysis of the norms of the law of armed conflict can be made in order to find for contractors the right status which will accommodate the interests of the states and humanitarian exigencies on the one hand, and which will preserve the delicate equilibrium on which law of armed conflicts is founded on the other, it is important to demonstrate that contracting out military services (with few exceptions) is compatible with principle of state sovereignty. The core of the monopoly of the use of force implied by the principle of sovereignty is being the final decision authority on use of coercion. Consequently, although modern nation state acquired monopoly in every aspects of use of force, i.e. in being decision making authority, in allocation and ownership of coercive capabilities, because of the exigencies of industrial total war, nothing prevents state sovereignty from shrinking to its core and let the private sector play a role in military matters if the paradigm of war changes. The dilemma created by the United States by giving these contractors tasks which can be considered as direct participation in hostilities on the one hand and by recognizing them civilian accompanying armed forces status on the other, can only be solved by reinterpreting this civilian accompanying armed forces status in the light of hundreds of years of state practices.