Reply #5: Legalistically speaking, although I am not a lawyer.. [View All]

[htuttle]

...it DOES seem a little tricky.

Looking at the definition of 'mercenary', I'm assuming that all of the items under point 1 need to be true. In other words, there is an 'and' between them:

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of
territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

This would probably rule out most mercenaries who come from the US and Britain. Would it exclude citizens of any 'coalition' state? I'd have to look up the exact definition of 'party to the conflict' to be sure. It's used throughout the UN Charter, so there's a definition there.

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on
official duty as a member of its armed forces.

This would seem to exclude the tens of thousands of Central Americans they've recruited in exchanage for 'fast track' citizenship, since they are officially part of the US military.

However, it sounds like it would definitely cover citizens of New Zealand. It should also cover many, many contractors who aren't from 'coalition/party to the conflict' countries.

I'd argue that the point a) in the definition of 'mercenary' would cover more than just 'fighting troops':

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an
armed conflict;

What constitutes 'fighting in an armed conflict'? Sure, the guy firing the howizter is fighting, but what about the guy loading it? Now how about the guy bringing the ammunition to the guy loading it? Where do you draw the line? I'd say most support services for the US military would seem to be necessary for it to 'fight an armed conflict'. That means you, KB&R.

on edit:
Under point 2, the US government would be in violation of the Convention if ANY of the mercenaries in Iraq aren't excluded by the definition in point 1. And I'm sure there are many in Iraq who qualify as mercenaries under this Convention.