The Battle Of The War On The State, And Post Cold War

3796 Words16 Pages
Introduction: Ever since the Napoleonic Wars, war was a concept that was considered to be under the purview of the State, however this belief is inherently wrong. In all of history, warfare has been engaged by private actors as opposed to the State. In fact, the State as the dominant actor in warfare should be understood as the exception, rather than the norm. Even though the State has not been the dominant actor in warfare, there were certainly multiple attempts by the State to control, or have governance over warfare as a whole. For the purposes of understanding governance over privatized warfare, there are three major time periods that should be reviewed: The Middle Ages, the Rise of the State, and Post-Cold-War society. In an…show more content…
Even though there has not been global governance over the Private Military Corporation, there were some attempts at global governance over privatized violence as a whole. Two major international documents which contribute to the discussion on global governance over privatized war happen to be: The United Nation’s International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Montreux Document. The creation of these documents have also been impacted by non-state actors such as committees or regional groups. Governance of the Mercenary Mercenaries have existed for years before the Middle Ages, and have continued well into the 20th century. During the Middle Ages, the political system of feudalism, and the economies contributed greatly to the prominence and strength of Mercenaries. It is also worth noting that because of the strength and prominence of Mercenaries, it was hard to have governance over these entities. The rise of the State fundamentally shifted the way privatized war was looked at. With the rise of the State, warfare shifted from the private sector into the hands
Open Document