Known by the short title as the United Nations Mercenary Convention, it was proposed in 1989 and took force on 20/10/2001.
Given the events of the past few days, it may surprise some that there is such a convention. Those who know it exists may not realize that Libya is a signatory state. I’m surprised that Iceland is not, because for the life of me I don’t know why they wouldn’t. None of us should be surprised that the US and the UK have not signed. It might be a good time though to at least embarrass a few world leaders and send them through an awkward explanation of why they think they should not sign.
First the annex:
The States Parties to the present Convention,
Reaffirming the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
Being aware of the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries for activities which violate principles of international law, such as those of sovereign equality, political independence, territorial integrity of States and self-determination of peoples,
Affirming that the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries should be considered as offences of grave concern to all States and that any person committing any of these-offences should be either prosecuted or extradited,
Convinced of the necessity to develop and enhance international co-operation among States for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of such offences,
Expressing concern at new unlawful international activities linking drug traffickers and mercenaries in the perpetration of violent actions which undermine the constitutional order of States,
Also convinced that the adoption of a convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries would contribute to the eradication of these nefarious activities and thereby to the observance of the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter,
Cognizant that matters not regulated by such a convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of international law,
Have agreed as follows :
I won’t post the lengthy articles, because I know how tedious that can be sometimes. I would like to cite this one though:
Article 5
1. States Parties shall note recruit, use, finance or train mercenaries and shall prohibit such activities in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention.
2. States Parties shall not recruit, use, finance or train mercenaries for the purpose of opposing the legitimate exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, as recognized by international law, and shall take, in conformity with international law, the appropriate measures to prevent the recruitment, use, financing or training of mercenaries for that purpose.
3. They shall make the offences set forth in the present Convention punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of those offences.
Complete text of the Convention:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htmOr perhaps a better site, at the ICRC:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/530?OpenDocumentIt’s really not a bad read. I do recommend it.
So who did sign it?
First the signatories:
Angola, Congo (Dem. Rep.), Congo, Germany, Montenegro (Republic of), Morocco, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Serbia (Republic of).
And the State Parties:
Azerbaijan, Barbados. Belarus. Belgium, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Italy, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova (Republic of), New Zealand, Peru, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
That’s 42 out of 192 members of the U.N., and the pattern is pretty clear: the big, arms dealing countries don’t sign.
So why would Cuba sign, but not Canada? New Zealand, but not Australia? Why not other members of the EU? I haven’t a clue, but it might be good to ask. Since though we have no influence whatsoever over those sovereign nations, we can at least ask the State Department and the Senate, why won’t we ratify this convention?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
