Abstract
Private security and military services — so-called Private Military Companies (PMC) — were widely ignored as important actors in international politics. However, PMCs are of increasing interest both in light of the debate about new wars and, especially, in light of recent media reports on the role of such companies in the current war in Iraq (see Singer 2003a; Kümmel 2005). While a variety of actors, such as governments, transnational corporations, UN agencies, and NGOs hire PMCs to provide security in situations where states lack the capacity or willingness to do so, this article explores why democratic governments introduce private military companies as a foreign policy tool in civil conflicts. Drawing on constructivist and rationalist arguments, this article maintains that the contradictory effect of liberal norms and cost-benefit calculations can lead to the use of PMCs. When Western democracies are faced with internal wars in other countries, liberal norms foster support for intervention in humanitarian crises, while cost-benefit calculations often make these states reluctant to intervene in regions of little geo-strategic importance. This dilemma can lead to the use of PMCs in responding to the humanitarian impulse “to do something,” while also reducing the financial, military and political risk of intervening. This argument is illustrated by considering the introduction of the American private security firm MPRI in Bosnia and the British company Sandline International in Sierra Leone.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
An earlier version of this article was published in: Die Friedenswarte. Journal of International Peace and Organisation, 80:1–2 (2005), 131–151.
The casualties of the US company DynCorp during anti-drug flights over Columbia did not provoke any noteworthy reaction in the United States (Singer 2003a: 207–209). The same holds true for corporate casualties in Iraq.
For the use of PMCs in countries outside the OECD world see Duffield (1998) and Hibou (1999).
MPRI denies the provision of military training to the Croatian army and the violation of the UN arms embargo. According to spokesman Soyster, MPRI’s task was to transform the Croatian military from an “eastern style military to a western one with democratic values and methods” (Washington Post, 11 August 1995). However, given the Croats’ spectacular military successes as the war continued, many observers believed the contrary (for an overview see Singer 2003a: 126).
For an overview of the conflict see Reno (1998); Musah (2000); Abrahamsen/Williams: (2001); Williams (2001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Binder, M. (2007). Norms versus Rationality: Why Democracies Use Private Military Companies in Civil Wars. In: Jäger, T., Kümmel, G. (eds) Private Military and Security Companies. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90313-2_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90313-2_19
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
Print ISBN: 978-3-531-14901-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-531-90313-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)