Private Military Companies (PMCs) frequently operate in complicated security and political settings. They do so as privatized firms, specialized in providing armed conflict or security strategies. This open market fosters muddy boundaries in terms of whose responsibility it is to adhere to international humanitarian law or engage ethically. For example, PMCs hired by states to change the internal politics of a country or by companies that aim to secure goods. The trends seen in the existing security literature are commonly strongly opposing or on behalf of PMC development. In this thesis, the respected work of Walzer’s Just and Unjust wars is compared to three well-documented interventions: Sierra Leone, Equatorial Guinea and Papua New Guinea. This is done alongside coup theories to create a critical view on interventions from PMCs and enable a more interdisciplinary debate about the role of these companies. The case of Sierra Leone has been selected to demonstrate a widely viewed ‘successful’ intervention by one PMC - Executive Outcomes (EO). Whereas, Equatorial Guinea and Papua New Guinea represent cases of disputed interventions by PMCs involving coup plots or threats to internal security. By looking at these cases through a critical lens in light of the existing theories of various domains, we can assess whether ‘successful’ or ‘disputed’ are righteous labels.
Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen