The U.N. Weighs in on Private Armies

http://www.truth-out.org/beyond-wiki...ation-war66239
"... Under the United Nations, a convention was adopted which outlaws and criminalizes their activities. Additionally, Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions also contains a definition of mercenary. These non-state entities of the 21st century operate in extremely blurred situations, where the frontiers are difficult to separate. The new security industry of private companies moves large quantities of weapons and military equipment. It provides services for military operations, recruiting former military as civilians to carry out passive or defensive security.
However, these individuals cannot be considered civilians, given that they often carry and use weapons, interrogate prisoners, load bombs, drive military trucks and fulfill other essential military functions. Those who are armed can easily switch from a passive-defensive to an active-offensive role and can commit human rights violations and even destabilize governments. They cannot be considered soldiers or supporting militias under international humanitarian law, either, since they are not part of the army or in the armed forces chain of command, and often belong to a large number of different nationalities.
PMSC personnel cannot usually be considered to be mercenaries, for the definition of mercenaries as stipulated in the international conventions dealing with this issue does not generally apply to the personnel of PMSCs, which are legally operating in foreign countries under contracts of legally registered companies.
Private military and security companies operate in a legal vacuum: they pose a threat to civilians and to international human rights law..."

W's answer to U.S. unemployment. Ain't it great to be a PMSC personnel person.

The UN is a private military force. They answer to ..........

Ah, the U.N. A large gathering of mostly useless windbags living the high life in New York. Eating at the finest resturants, banging the best callgirls, not obeying any laws under diplomatic immunity. Passing resolutions left and right that are meaningless. Meanwhile, the people they are supposed to represent and protect continue to suffer, sometimes by the so called peacekeepers they send. They probably heat the building with all the hot air they expel making speeches. Sometimes they get it right but not often.

.... the UN is only as powerful as the major nations of the world allow it to be... since no country seems to answer to them... they're pretty much powerless in a lot of areas...

The U.N. is right about the legal position of these private armies which are hired presently mostly by the U.S.. Blackwater troops had the American flag on their uniforms even though they didn't answer to the U.S. brass. How many atrocities did they commit before they were caught? How much damage did they do to Iraqi perception of America? Not that our own army did much better digging up an archaeological site to fill their sand bags. An army's main mission is to kill and destroy. That's a really lousy career to me.

the UN would have more teeth if the sponsor nations and the big three allowed them to operate as designed... You cant have three or four countries expecting a rubber stamp from third world nations shaking off their own history of colonialism and oppression... just becuase some small nation votes against the US or its allies doesnt render the concept useless. These paid armies are a major problem since they rarely answer to anyone but a corporate structure...and when they go wrong the nation sponsor gets the blame.