Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 it is stated: Art 47. Mercenaries 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) 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. It should be noted that many countries, including the United States, are not signatories to the Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77). So although it is the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, it is not definitive. According to the GC III, a captured soldier must be treated as a lawful combatant, and, therefore, is a Protected Person, with Prisoner of War (PoW) status until facing a competent tribunal (GC III Art 5). That tribunal may decide that the soldier is a mercenary using criteria in APGC77 or some equivalent domestic law. At that juncture, the mercenary soldier becomes an unlawful combatant, but still must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. The only exception to GC IV Art 5 is if he is a national of the authority imprisoning him, but, in which case, he would not be a mercenary soldier as defined in APGC77 Art 47.d. If after a regular trial, a captured soldier is found to be a mercenary, then he can expect treatment as a common criminal and may face execution. As mercenary soldiers are not PoWs they can not expect repatriation at war's end. The best known, post-World War II, example of this was on June 28, 1976 when at the end of the Luanda Trial an Angolan court sentenced three Britons and an American to death, and nine other mercenaries to prison terms ranging from 16 to 30 years. The four mercenaries sentenced to death were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976. The legal status of civilian contractors depends upon the nature of their work and their nationalities with respect to that of the combatants. If they have not in fact, taken a direct part in the hostilities (APGC77 Art 47.b) they are not mercenaries soldiers and are entitled to Geneva Convention protections. The situation during the Occupation of Iraq 2003 – shows the difficulty in defining what is a mercenary soldier. While the United States governed Iraq, any U.S. citizen working as an armed guard could not be defined a mercenary, because he was a national of a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d). With the hand-over of power to the interim Iraqi government effected, arguably, unless they declare themselves residents in Iraq, i.e. a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d), they are mercenary soldiers. If no trial of accused mercenaries occurs, allegations evaporate in the heat of accusations and counter-accusations and denials. It should be noted that Coalition soldiers in Iraq supporting the interim Iraqi government are not mercenaries, because they either are of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict or they have been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces (APGC77 Art 47.f). On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention. Critics have argued that the convention and APGC77 Art. 47 are designed to cover the activities of mercenaries in post colonial Africa, and do not address adequately the use of private military companies by sovereign states. See also privateer, Letter of marque, private military contractor. Mercenaries and municipal (domestic) law Some countries try to stop their citizens fighting in conflicts unless they are under the control of their own armed forces: * In 2003, France criminalized mercenary activities as defined by the protocol to the Geneva convention for French citizens, permanent residents and legal entities. (Penal Code, L436-1, L436-2, L436-3, L436-4, L436-5). * In 1998 South Africa passed the "Foreign Military Assistance Act" which banned citizens, or residents, from any involvement in foreign conflicts except in humanitarian operations unless a government committee gave its approval for a deployment. In 2005 the legislation was being reviewed by the government because of South African citizens working as security guards in Iraq during the Iraq occupation and the fallout of the case against Mark Thatcher for the "possible funding and logistical assistance in relation to an alleged attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea" organized by Simon Mann. * Under United States law (the "Neutrality Act"), an American citizen who participates in an armed conflict to which the United States is neutral may be subject to criminal penalties. (In actuality, the Neutrality Act only prohibits citizens from participating in conflicts, that the U.S. is involved in, on the side of states that the government has declared war against; also, it appears to have been repealed.) The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 USC 3108) prohibited the US Government from using employees of the Pinkerton Detective Agency or similar companies as strikebreakers. In 1977, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this statute to prohibit the U.S. Government's employment of companies that offer "mercenary, quasi-military forces as strikebreakers and armed guards" for hire. United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978). A DoD interim rule effective 16 June 2006 revises DoD Instruction 3020.41 to authorize contractor personnel other than private security contractor personnel to use deadly force against enemy armed forces only in self-defense. 71 Fed. Reg. 34826. According to the interim rule, private security contractor personnel are also authorized to use deadly force when necessary to execute their security mission to protect assets/persons, consistent with the mission statement contained in their contract. It is the responsibility of the combatant commander to ensure that private security contract mission statements do not authorize the performance of any inherently Governmental military functions, such as preemptive attacks, or any other types of attacks. Otherwise, civilians who accompany the U.S. Armed Forces lose their law of war protection from direct attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. On August 18, 2006, the U.S. Comptroller General rejected bid protest arguments that U.S. Army contracts violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act by calling for the contractor to provide armed convoy escort vehicles and labor, weapons, and equipment for internal security operations at Victory Base Complex, Iraq. The Comptroller General reasoned that the act was not violated because the contracts did not require the contractor to provide "quasi-military forces as strikebreakers." * Switzerland banned its nationals from serving as mercenaries in 1927 with the one exception being the Vatican Swiss Guards. * In Austria anyone who voluntarily serves in the armed forces of another nation automatically loses his Austrian citizenship. * Great Britain passed the Foreign Enlistment Act in the late 18th century, making it illegal for British subjects to join the armed forces of any state which was at war with another state at peace with Great Britain. During the Greek War of Independence a number of British volunteers fought with the Greek rebels, which could have been illegal; however it was unclear whether the Greek rebels were a "state" for the purposes of this Act, but the law was clarified to say that they were. There was some talk of using this Act against British people who fought for the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War and the FNLA in the Angolan Civil War (see above) but nothing happened. o Note the existence of the Atholl Highlanders, which appear to be Europe's only legal, private military force. By a quirk of history, this is a Scottish regiment, not part of the British Army, commanded by the Duke of Atholl. The regiment is primarily a ceremonial force. * In Italy it is illegal to recruit Italian citizens on Italian soil for fighting on behalf of a foreign government without approval by the Italian government. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary#Gurkhas_and_Foreign_Legionnaires --------------------------------------------- I have always found this trade facinating but this official law doctrine is starting to unravel. Read about that here:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599682-1,00.html Also, there seems to be a problem with public image as you can see by reading here: http://www.democracynow.org/static/Overkill.shtml

hmm yeah that would be the long version and it's not for us anyway. First off we are not mercenaries but private security contractors. And second we are only allowed to defend our lifes. meaning: we only shoot if we are beeing shot at or if our live is in imediate danger. So basicly we fall under the civil rights and not under the rules of engagement.