Jus ad Bellum principle: private Force
Jus ad Bellum are the principles that were set in the just war so as to determine those who are joining the war are permitted or whether they are taking the war just as any other war. The introduction of private military companies (PMCs) into the armed conflict has brought the problem to the ethics of war as the way we think as we look upon to the just war tradition. In the private military companies, there has been a growth that has been marked from the year 1990 after the number of the role of the traditional has been increasing. By the introduction of PMCs, the civilians were affected in such a way that human rights of the employees were abused but no one was prosecuted which outcome lack of effective legal accountability as a result of impunity hence PMCs being problematic to the ethics war (Oldrich 541).
With the introduction of private military companies into the ethics war, has brought a problem of financial motive. The financial motive has been brought by motivating private constructors by the gaining of finance thinking unjust causes that they were fighting for were unknowingly. Another problematic brought by the introducing PMCs in the ethics war is instrumental reason problem. Through the instrumental reason, obligations were lack leading the contrast and personnel of the military mission contribute profit motive to the overall objectives hence concern of instrumental of which is largely captured with focusing private constructors’ intentions. Lack of ability is another problematic brought by the introduction of private military companies to armed conflict. Private military companies hired employees who lacked proper experience where the employees were recruited and interviewed though the phone for just five minutes, therefore, ending hiring contractors who lack the ability (Oldrich 542).
The right intention is one of the principles are impacted by the use of private military companies. Right intention is the principle the aim to guard the motivation for going to war in such a way that it maintain peace, righting wrong and protecting the innocents hence excluding unjust for instance motivation national gain among others. The moral dilemma arises when trying to apply right intention to the use of private military companies in armed conflict. The moral dilemma that arises when the principle of right intention introduced is accordingly whereby morally permissible to support the security services of armed conflict of a certain state actor. Unjust war becomes more troops of available of hatred, revenge among others which is considered as problematic moral dilemma arise as right intention introduced in private military companies in armed conflict (Walzer & Lang 378).
Another jus ad Bellum principle which was impacted by the use of PMCs is the legitimate authority which use of force in order to regulate the warfare and also control the democratic. The dilemma arises when trying to apply legitimate authority principle to the use of PMCs in armed conflict is the legal dilemma. The legal dilemma arises is a public declaration of the war the actor struggle for freedom and independence by none legitimate hence legal dilemma arises. The legal dilemma arises awfulness welfare hence limiting frequency for the reason given that legitimate authority has private of military forces which could not fit into regulation of private military companies (Walzer & Lang 378).
Work Cited
Oldrich Bures, “Private Military Companies: A Second Best Peacekeeping Option?” International Peacekeeping (2005), 12 (4) 541–42.
Walzer Michael. & Lang, Gerald. Excuses for the Moral Equality of Combatants. Journal of Political Philosophy 2006. 14(4) 377-78.
