Privatising War, Profiting from Pain: Dr. Jelena Aparac on the PMSC Boom and the Legal Vacuum It Exploits

Dr. Jelena Aparac is an internationally renowned expert with over 20 years of experience in international peace and security, transitional justice, and human rights, having shaped policy and practice through senior roles in academia, international organizations, and NGOs, including as former member and Chair-Rapporteur of the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries where she led investigations into the Wagner Group and private military companies, contributed to intergovernmental negotiations on business and human rights treaties and future PMSC regulation, helped draft the crime of ecocide as part of the UCLA-hosted International Expert Group on International Criminal Law and Climate Change, gained extensive field experience as a legal adviser with Doctors Without Borders in conflict zones such as South Sudan, Chad/Darfur, DRC, and CAR, began her career fostering intercultural dialogue in post-conflict Croatia, lectures globally, authored the seminal book Business et droits de l’homme dans les conflits armés and numerous other publications, serves on the editorial board of the Business and Human Rights Journal and co-edits the Armed Groups and International Law blog, holds a PhD from the University of Paris Nanterre and an LLM from the Geneva Academy, and was selected for the UN Senior Women Talent Pipeline.

This interview has been authorised for publication by Dr. Jelena Aparac.

We thank you, Dr. Jelena Aparac for accepting our interview with the Saint Pierre International Security Center.

SPCIS: How have Private Military and Security Companies influenced the nature of modern armed conflicts?

Dr. Jelena Aparac: Numerous reports highlight the growing activities of private military and security companies (PMSCs) and the grave risks they pose to human rights and international humanitarian law in modern warfare.

Over recent decades, PMSCs have significantly expanded their operations, areas of activity, and client base. They now operate not only in conflict zones but also in peacetime, across sectors such as extractive industries, cyber security, and maritime security. Their clients include states, multinational corporations, civil society organizations, and, at times, armed groups.

In conflict settings, PMSCs have become indispensable tools for various parties. Their profit-driven model often creates an inherent interest in prolonging conflicts, while concession-based compensation may further exacerbate disputes over land and natural resources. Their involvement is frequently linked to serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, often carried out with impunity.

More recently, PMSCs have also sought to present themselves as “humanitarian actors”. This dual role: operating as both combatants and “humanitarians”, is deeply problematic. It undermines humanitarian principles, blurs the lines between military and civilian actors, and allows PMSCs to profit from multiple aspects of armed conflict. Rather than being guided by people’s needs, their actions are driven by financial gain.

SPCIS: What legal and regulatory frameworks are most effective in ensuring PMSCs operate within international law?

Dr. Jelena Aparac: At present, there is no legally binding international instrument specifically regulating PMSCs. The existing frameworks, the Montreux Document (2008) and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICoC, 2010) are non-binding and limited in scope. With the rapid expansion of PMSCs’ operations and clients, the traditional doctrine of state responsibility has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to apply.

This underlines the urgent need for a binding international framework that would establish minimum standards, including transparency in all contractual arrangements, mechanisms for mutual legal assistance, clear human rights obligations, and a prohibition of direct use of armed force in hostilities. Such an instrument would strengthen accountability, reduce impunity, and ensure PMSCs operate in line with international humanitarian and human rights law.

Domestic legal frameworks, where they exist, are fragmented and inconsistent across jurisdictions. Significant gaps remain, particularly regarding transparency, the regulation of arms, the prohibition of certain services, and effective cross-border cooperation. Without comprehensive regulation, PMSCs will continue to operate in legal grey zones, exacerbating conflicts and posing serious risks to human rights and international peace and security.

SPCIS: What ethical challenges arise when private companies take on roles traditionally held by national armed forces?

Dr. Jelena Aparac: Traditional armed forces operate within a clear chain of command, with identifiable individuals responsible for decisions and actions. In cases of abuse or violations, accountability can be established, as demonstrated by proceedings before international criminal courts and domestic tribunals. Moreover, states can be held responsible under international law for the conduct of their armed forces.

By contrast, the involvement of PMSCs complicates accountability. When states or non-state actors rely on PMSCs, the use of intermediaries creates distance between clients and the conflict itself. This obscures the responsibilities of the intervening parties, making it more difficult to classify conflicts, determine applicable rules of international humanitarian law, and attribute responsibility for violations. PMSCs’ frequent engagement in indirect or remote support roles further increases both factual and legal complexity.

The ethical challenge also lies in the lack of transparency and oversight. Unlike state militaries, PMSCs are primarily driven by profit rather than public service or adherence to national defense obligations. To address these concerns, state and non-state clients should be legally required to publicly disclose all contracts, clearly identify responsible persons for breaches of national or international law, and ensure independent civilian monitoring of PMSC activities.

SPCIS: How do you see the role of PMSCs evolving in future peacekeeping or humanitarian operations?

Dr. Jelena Aparac: Unfortunately, we are witnessing an increase in armed conflicts, marked by asymmetry, growing complexity, and exponentially rising humanitarian needs. At the same time, traditional institutions and actors are struggling to respond effectively. This creates a critical gap that, regrettably, is likely to be filled by private actors such as PMSCs. Such a scenario appears almost inevitable.

Peacekeeping operations already contract private security providers. However, existing internal guidelines are limited and urgently require revision to align with international human rights and humanitarian law. Beyond security roles, PMSCs have also begun to offer so-called “humanitarian services,” including medical missions, functions that lie at the very heart of international humanitarian law. These activities have already been associated with serious human rights risks and alarming reports concerning civilian protection.

The expansion of PMSCs into peacekeeping and humanitarian spheres raises profound ethical, legal, and operational challenges. It is therefore of utmost importance to adopt a binding legal framework to regulate their activities, ensure transparency in contractual arrangements, and establish robust civilian oversight. In parallel, strengthening judicial cooperation and accountability mechanisms is essential to address human rights abuses and prevent impunity in these highly sensitive contexts.

This is where I see the greatest risks and challenges for international peace and security.