Practice Relating to Rule 108. Mercenaries
Section B. Status of mercenaries
Quick navigation
Additional Protocol I
Article 47(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, CDDH, Article 47(1). Article 47 was adopted by consensus. Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 156.

Article 45(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 45(3). Article 45 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 155.

OAU Convention against Mercenarism
Article 3 of the 1977 OAU Convention against Mercenarism states: “Mercenaries shall not enjoy the status of combatants and shall not be entitled to prisoner of war status.” 
Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa, adopted by the OAU Council of Ministers at its 29th Session, Res. 817 (XXIX), Libreville, 3 July 1977, OAU Doc. CM/817 (XXIX) Annex II Rev.3, 1977), Article 3.

Article 11 of the 1977 OAU Convention against Mercenarism states that a mercenary “shall be entitled to all guarantees normally granted to any ordinary person by the State on whose territory he is being tried”. 
Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa, adopted by the OAU Council of Ministers at its 29th Session, Res. 817 (XXIX), Libreville, 3 July 1977, OAU Doc. CM/817 (XXIX) Annex II Rev.3, 1977), Article 11.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states: “A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 1.09(2).

Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states: “Mercenaries do not have the right to be combatants or PW [prisoner of war].” 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 708.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
Mercenaries are not entitled to be PW [prisoners of war], although their captors may afford them the protection of such status. Even if not treated as PW, captured mercenaries remain entitled to fundamental guarantees provided by G. P. I. [1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 10.6.

Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states: “Mercenaries do not have the right to be combatants or prisoners of war. They are therefore illegal combatants.” 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 23.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states: “Mercenaries who take part in military operations for private gain shall not be considered as combatants and consequently are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status.” 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 143; see also pp. 36, 60 and 77.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), under the heading “Non-Combatants”, states:
Mercenaries who engage in military actions for remuneration are not considered combatants and therefore cannot benefit from prisoner of war status. … [M]ercenaries must be treated humanely …; one must avoid … infringements of their physical or psychological integrity. These persons must be tried in accordance with the law of the State. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 21, § 112; see also p. 60, § 252, p. 86, § 342, p. 112, § 383, p. 153, § 443 and p. 180, § 491.A.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states:
Mercenaries are unlawful combatants and may be attacked for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. If captured, mercenaries are not entitled to PW [prisoner-of-war] status. They may be punished for being mercenaries but only following a fair trial affording all judicial guarantees. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 3-4, § 31.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Combatant Status”:
Mercenaries are unlawful combatants and may be attacked for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. If captured, mercenaries are not entitled to PW [prisoner-of-war] status. They may be punished for being mercenaries but only following a fair trial affording all judicial guarantees. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 319.2.

Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “Mercenaries who carry out military action in return for remuneration are not considered to be combatants and may therefore not enjoy prisoner-of-war status.” 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 42; see also pp. 55 and 65.

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) notes in Book I (Basic instruction): “Mercenaries and spies are not considered as combatants but benefit from humane treatment and must be tried in a manner consistent with national law.” 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 17.

I.7. Mercenaries

As in the case of spies, the protection of mercenaries according to the terms of the law is limited. If they are captured they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They must be punished for their activities in accordance with the national legislation. They must nevertheless be treated humanely and have the right to a fair trial. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 30; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 25.

Chapter 2. Combatants and objectives

I.4. Unlawful combatants

I.4.2. Mercenaries

Mercenaries are unlawful combatants and can be attacked during all the time they take a direct part in hostilities. If they are captured, mercenaries are not entitled to POW [prisoner-of-war] status. They can be punished for the fact of their work as mercenaries, but only after a fair trial provided with all judicial guarantees. …

NB: In case of doubt as to the status of persons captured during hostilities, these persons must be treated as POWs until a regularly constituted tribunal has determined their real status. If the tribunal determines that the captive is a lawful combatant, this captive is entitled to POW status. …

Chapter 5. Prisoners of war

I.2. Persons not entitled to POW status
If they are captured and detained, the following persons are not entitled to POW status, but they shall nevertheless be treated humanely:

- mercenaries;

I.2.3. POW status determination procedure
When one cannot determine whether a given prisoner is entitled to be treated as a POW, the prisoner is treated as such until his status has been determined by a regularly constituted tribunal …
Nationality has no effect on the right to POW status. That right depends on the country to which the armed forces belong, thus, even if the country of the prisoner is neutral, a national serving with a Party to the conflict becomes a POW if he is captured. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 17, 23, 24–25, 59 and 60.

France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) states: “Mercenaries are not combatants and therefore shall not have the right to prisoner-of-war status.” 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 2.

France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states: “Mercenaries shall not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 40; see also p. 81

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
Mercenaries shall be regarded as unlawful combatants [i.e.] persons who take a direct part in the hostilities without being entitled to do so and have to face penal consequences. They do not have the right to the status of a prisoner of war. [They] do, however, have a legitimate claim to certain fundamental guarantees (Art. 75 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]), including the right to humane treatment and a regular judicial procedure. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, §§ 302–303.

Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states: “Only combatants are entitled to take part in combat operations and cannot be punished for doing so. In contrast, other persons, e.g. mercenaries, can be punished.” 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 3.

Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states:
Another provision in the Additional Protocols is meant precisely to deny prisoner-of-war status to … mercenaries. This provision, which was adopted under pressure from African countries, is accepted as a customary rule and is therefore binding. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 51.

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
[A] provision in the Additional Protocols actually denies the status of prisoner-of-war from a different category of combatant, that of a mercenary. This provision, which was passed through pressure from the African nations, has been accepted as a customary provision and is therefore binding. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 33.

Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states: “In all cases, a mercenary who is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict shall not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status.” 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 6.

Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “Mercenaries are neither entitled to combatant nor to POW [prisoner-of-war] status … Nevertheless, a captured mercenary … cannot be deprived of his fundamental rights and may not be punished without trial.” 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, p. 9.

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1977 Additional Protocol I, states that “mercenaries, on the other hand, are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 259; see also § 255.

Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states: “A mercenary is not entitled to combatant or prisoner-of-war status.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. III-6, § 5.

The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “A mercenary is not entitled to combatant or prisoner-of-war status.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0323.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states:
807(1). While no distinction may be drawn between regular troops and volunteers, conscripts or members of the militia embodied in the armed forces, mercenaries as defined in [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] are denied the status of combatants and, if captured, are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war.
807(2). Prior to 1977 there was no restriction upon the use of mercenaries in armed conflict and, in accordance with the principles of humanitarian law, any form of discrimination among combatants was forbidden. By a series of resolutions in relation to specific anti-colonial conflicts in Africa, the United Nations recommended prohibition of the use of such personnel against national liberation movements. This did not affect their legal status, although the government of Angola instituted criminal proceedings against captured mercenaries. Insofar as countries accepting [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] are concerned mercenaries are not entitled to combatant rights, thus denying to this type of soldier the equal treatment otherwise prescribed by the Protocol. Nevertheless, they remain entitled to the provisions concerning humanitarian treatment contained in [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] Art. 75. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 807(1)–(2).

Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) states: “Foreign nationals on legitimate business will not be molested, but mercenaries will not be spared: they are the worst of enemies.” 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 4(l).

Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) states that “mercenaries are however not to be considered as prisoner[s] of war.” 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 8, § 9(c)(2).

Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that a mercenary “is not entitled to combatant status or, if captured by the enemy, to prisoner-of-war status.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, Annex 9, Glossary of Terms.

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states in its Glossary of Terms that a mercenary “is not entitled to combatant status or, if captured by the enemy, to prisoner-of-war status”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, p. 409.

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
When fallen into the power of the adversary, neither spies, nor mercenaries shall have the right to the prisoner-of-war status and shall be subject to punishment for their activities. However, sentences with respect to the above persons shall only be passed with previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court and the accused shall be provided with the generally recognized guarantees of court defence. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 1.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) included mercenaries in the section concerning persons not entitled to protection, stating:
They are neither considered civilians nor have the right to take a direct part in hostilities as combatants. The more important consequence is that to the extent that they take a direct part in hostilities, they shall not be entitled to prisoner-of-war status. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 1.4.b.

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that mercenaries “are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status if they are captured”. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 1.4.

Sweden
Sweden’s Military Manual (1991) states: “Mercenaries … are not entitled to combatant or prisoner-of-war status.” 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.4, p. 36.

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states: “Mercenaries shall not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 177

Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
1.2.25. … [M]ercenaries are unlawful participants of the hostilities.

1.2.25.2. … [M]ercenaries shall not have the right to be prisoners of war and are subject to punishment for their actions. However, their punishment may only be imposed by a competent tribunal. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.2.25 and 1.2.25.2.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The United Kingdom's LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states:
Mercenaries are neither combatants nor entitled to PW [prisoner-of-war] status. A mercenary is a person who takes part in the conflict for private gain, who is not a member of any organized armed forces and has no connection with the countries involved in the conflict. 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 3, p. 10, § 7.

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Mercenaries are not entitled to be prisoners of war unless their captors so decide. Even if not treated as prisoners of war, captured mercenaries remain entitled to the basic humanitarian guarantees provided by Additional Protocol I.”  
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 8.12; see also 4.10.

United States of America
The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980) states:
In recent years, many countries have claimed that “mercenaries” are unlawful combatants and subject to punishment upon capture …
a. The United States has long recognized that neutral nationals taking part in an armed conflict can encourage the escalation of that conflict, and US statutes place certain limits on the recruitment of mercenaries in this country. We have also, however, regarded mercenaries as lawful combatants entitled to PW status upon capture. The US government has always protested vigorously against any attempt by other nations to punish American citizens as mercenaries.
b. [The 1977 Additional Protocol I] provides that mercenaries do not have the right to be combatants or prisoners of war, but the definition of “mercenary” in this Protocol is so narrow that few persons would fit within it. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 5-3.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states: “Mercenaries shall not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 114.

Back to top
Armenia
Armenia’s Penal Code (2003) provides: “The participation of a mercenary in armed conflicts or military actions is punished with imprisonment for 3–7 years.” 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 395(3).

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides: “Participation of a mercenary in the armed conflict or in the hostilities, -is punished by deprivation of liberty for a period of 3 to 8 years.” 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 114(3).

Belarus
Under Belarus’s Criminal Code (2000), the participation of a mercenary in an armed conflict is punished with imprisonment for a term of three to seven years with (facultative) confiscation of goods. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 2000, Art. 133

Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states: “Whoever, with an aim to acquire material gain, directly participates as a mercenary in an armed conflict or a joint act of violence shall be punished by imprisonment for six months to five years.” 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 167b(2).

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

France
France’s Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2003, provides:
Chapter VI
Participation in mercenary action
Article 436-1. – Punished with five years of imprisonment and a fine of 75 000 EUR is the act:
1° by any person, specially recruited in order to fight in an armed conflict, who is neither a national of a State party to that conflict, nor a member of the armed forces of that State, nor has been sent on official duty as a member of its armed forces by a State which is not one of the parties to the conflict, of taking, or trying to take, a direct part in the hostilities, motivated by the desire for private gain or for a compensation substantially in excess of that paid or promised to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of the party for which the person is to fight;
2° by any person, specially recruited for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at overthrowing the institutions or undermining the territorial integrity of a State, who is neither a national of the State against which that act is directed, nor a member of the armed forces of that State, nor has been sent on official duty by a State, of taking, or trying to take, part in such an act, motivated by the desire for a significant private gain or compensation.
Article 436-2. – The act of directing or organizing a group having as object the recruitment, employment, compensation, equipment or military training of a person defined in article 436-1 is punished with seven years of imprisonment and a fine of 100 000 EUR.
Article 436-3. – If the acts mentioned in the present chapter are committed abroad by a French national or by a person habitually residing in the French territory, French law is applicable by derogation from paragraph two of article 113-6, and the provisions of the second sentence of article 113-8 are not applicable. 
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2003, Articles 436-1 to 436-3.

Georgia
Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999) provides: “Participation of a mercenary in armed conflict or hostilities shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for a term of three to seven years.” 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 410(3).

Ireland
Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 45(3), is a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).

Japan
Japan’s Law concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Detainees in Armed Attack Situations (2004) states that a “Person subject to internment” means a ‘foreigner’ who falls under certain specified categories, including: “Mercenary as prescribed in Article 47, paragraph 2, of the First Additional Protocol [1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Japan, Law concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Detainees in Armed Attack Situations, 2004, Article 3(iv)(k).

Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan’s Penal Code (1997) provides: “Participation of a mercenary in a military conflict or military actions shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of three to seven years.” 
Kazakhstan, Penal Code, 1997, Article 162(3).

Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).

Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Criminal Code (2002) punishes “[p]articipation of a mercenary in an armed conflict or hostilities … with imprisonment for a term of 5 to 15 years”. 
Republic of Moldova, Criminal Code, 2002, Article 141(1)

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Criminal Code (1996) provides: “Participation of a mercenary in an armed conflict or in hostilities shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three to seven years.” 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Article 359(3).

Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) provides: “Participation of a mercenary in armed conflict or hostilities shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for a term of 12 to 20 years.” 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 401(3).

Ukraine
Ukraine’s Criminal Code (2001) provides:
Participation, without permission of government bodies in charge, in armed conflicts of other States with the purpose of gaining financial profit shall be punishable with deprivation of liberty for a term of five to ten years. 
Ukraine, Criminal Code, 2001, Article 447(2).

Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code as amended (2001) provides that a mercenary “shall be punished with imprisonment for five to twelve years.” 
Uzbekistan, Criminal Code, 2001, as amended, Article 154.

Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1999) provides: “Those who work as mercenaries shall be sentenced to between five and fifteen years’ imprisonment.” 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1999, Article 344(2).

Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1999) provides: “Those who work as mercenaries shall be sentenced to between five and fifteen years’ imprisonment.” 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1999, § 344.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Australia
At the CDDH, Australia stated that it held the view that “mercenaries, who are in the hands of a Party to an armed conflict to which draft Protocol I applies, are entitled to the benefits of the treatment provided for by Article 65 [now Article 75] of that Protocol”. 
Australia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 175; see also p. 176.

Botswana
The Report on the Practice of Botswana asserts: “Mercenaries have no protection at all.”  
Report on the Practice of Botswana, 1998, Chapter 1.1.

Canada
At the CDDH, Canada stated that it “welcomed the recognition by the Nigerian representative that mercenaries were entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided in Article 65 [now Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Canada, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 160, § 98.

China
China considers that mercenaries should not benefit from the treatment reserved for POWs and that they may also be liable to punishment, depending upon the seriousness of the crimes committed. 
China, Address on the Convention on Suppressing the Activities of Mercenaries, Selected Documents of the Chinese Delegation to the United Nations, World Knowledge Press, Beijing, 1980, p. 173.

Colombia
At the CDDH, Colombia stated that it “would have liked some specific reference to be included [in Article 42 quater of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 47)] to the fundamental guarantees provided for in Article 65 [now Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Colombia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 161, § 105; see also p. 182.

Cyprus
At the CDDH, Cyprus stated that it “wished to express its appreciation for the clarification given by the Nigerian representative”. 
Cyprus, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 159, § 96.

Egypt
In 1982, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Egypt stated that mercenaries should benefit from humanitarian treatment according to human rights principles and established norms. 
Egypt, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/37/SR.10, 14 October 1982, § 10.

Holy See
At the CDDH, the Holy See stated that it
could not agree that mercenaries should not be expressly granted the minimum protection given to all men, whatever their faults and their moral destitution. Consequently, … the Holy See would have liked Article 42 quater [now Article 47 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] to refer explicitly to Article 65 on fundamental guarantees [now Article 75]. 
Holy See, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 158, §§ 87–88.

India
At the CDDH, India stated that it “welcomed the clarification given by the Nigerian representative”. 
India, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 159, § 90.

Iraq
With reference to a press conference by the Iraqi Minister of Defence in 1986, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states that mercenaries are not treated as prisoners of war. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 5.3, referring to Press conference by the Iraqi Minister of Defence, 4 October 1986.

Ireland
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Ireland declared: “Article 47 in no way prejudices the application of Articles 45(3) and 75 of Protocol I to mercenaries as defined in this Article.” 
Ireland, Declarations and reservations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 19 May 1999, § 8.

Italy
At the CDDH, Italy stated:
Mercenaries, though not entitled to prisoner-of-war status, were covered by Article 65 [now Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I], which contained the fundamental safeguards to be given to all persons not enjoying more favourable treatment, regardless of the gravity of the crimes with which they might be charged. 
Italy, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 159, § 92.

In 1981, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Italy stated that Article 47 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I should be interpreted in parallel to Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Italy, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/36/SR.18, 28 October 1981, § 36.

Mexico
At the CDDH, Mexico stated: “The guarantees contained in Article 65 [now Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] are implicitly applicable to the persons dealt with in Article 42 quater [now Article 47].” 
Mexico, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 192.

Netherlands
At the CDDH, the Netherlands reiterated “the applicability to a mercenary of the fundamental guarantees” embodied in Article 65 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 75). 
Netherlands, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 194; see also p. 195.

In 1980, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of the Netherlands stated that the status of mercenaries under Article 47 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I was less than the Dutch delegation found desirable. He added that, notwithstanding their reprehensible activities, the human rights of mercenaries should be respected, as with every other human being. 
Netherlands, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.23, 7 November 1980, § 76.

Nigeria
At the CDDH, Nigeria stated:
While recognizing the fundamental guarantees provided for in the new Article 65 of draft [Additional] Protocol I [now Article 75] and not denying the common humanity which mercenaries shared with the rest of mankind, [Nigeria] did not think that such considerations could serve as a pretext for giving mercenaries the rights of combatants or prisoners of war in any situation of armed conflict. 
Nigeria, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 157, § 81.

Portugal
At the CDDH, Portugal stated that according to its interpretation of Article 65 on fundamental guarantees and Article 42 quater on mercenaries of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Articles 75 and 47), “the latter were in a category covered by the fundamental guarantees set out in Article 65”. 
Portugal, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 160, § 97.

Russian Federation
The Report on the Practice of the Russian Federation states:
As far as mercenaries are concerned, it must be said that they participate in nearly all the conflicts in the CIS countries. In connection with various political considerations, however, their legal status is made equal to the status of “volunteers”. Once Georgians brought down a plane and captured a mercenary – an officer of the Russian armed forces who fought for Abkhazia. Georgia demonstrated goodwill: it released the man and handed him over to Russia. 
Report on the Practice of the Russian Federation, 1997, Chapter 5.3.

Rwanda
On the basis of replies by army officers to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Rwanda states that mercenaries are not considered as civilians. The report concludes, therefore, that mercenaries are liable to attack. 
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Replies by army officers to a questionnaire, Chapter 1.1.

Sweden
At the CDDH, Sweden stated that the text of Article 42 quater of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 47) “should be complemented with a sentence stating that mercenaries are entitled to the protection laid down in Article 65 [now Article 75] in Protocol I”. 
Sweden, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 198.

Switzerland
At the CDDH, Switzerland stated that it “regretted that there had been no reference in Article 42 quater [of the draft Additional Protocol I, now Article 47] to other provisions of the Protocol, in particular Article 65 [now Article 75]”. 
Switzerland, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 158, § 82.

United States of America
In 1980, in a memorandum concerning the international legal rights of captured mercenaries, the US Department of State stated:
The act of being a mercenary is not a crime under international law. An individual who is accused of being a mercenary and who is captured during an armed conflict is entitled to the basic humanitarian protections of the international law applicable in armed conflict, including those specified in the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The specific rights which such an individual would be entitled to vary depending on whether the conflict is an international conflict or an internal one and, in the case of international armed conflicts, on whether the person is entitled to prisoner-of-war status … The protections of [common] article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] would also apply to any captured individual accused of being a mercenary during a civil war. [Common Article 3] does not provide any immunity from prosecution to individuals for engaging in combatant acts. The provisions of the Geneva Conventions dealing with prisoners of war do not apply in civil wars, and combatants captured during civil wars are not prisoners of war within the meaning of international law. 
United States, International Legal Rights of Captured Mercenaries, Memorandum prepared by the Attorney-Adviser in the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for African Affairs, US Department of State, 17 October 1980, reprinted in Marian Nash (Leich), Cumulative Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1981-1988, Department of State Publication 10120, Washington, D.C., 1993–1995, pp. 3457 and 3463–3464.

In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed:
We do not favor the provisions of article 47 on mercenaries, which among other things introduce political factors that do not belong in international humanitarian law, and do not consider the provisions of article 47 to be part of current customary law. 
United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, pp. 426–427.

In 1987, the Legal Adviser of the US Department of State stated:
For a third example [of why the Joint Chiefs of Staff judged the 1977 Additional Protocol I too ambiguous and complicated to use as a practical guide for military operations], article 47 of Protocol I provides that “a mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.” This article was included in the Protocol not for humanitarian reasons, but purely to make the political point that mercenary activity in the Third World is unwelcome. In doing so, this article disregards one of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law by defining the right to combatant status, at least in part, on the basis of the personal or political motivations of the individual in question. This politicizing of the rules of warfare is contrary to Western interests and the interests of humanitarian law itself. 
United States, Remarks of Judge Abraham D. Sofaer, Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 469.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In 1980, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the UN Mercenary Convention, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia recalled that Article 47 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provided that mercenaries did not have a right to the status of combatant or prisoner of war and concluded that mercenaries could not enjoy any protection under international law. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.23, 17 October 1980, § 70.

Zimbabwe
The Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe states: “Spies and mercenaries are likely to be regarded as combatants in Zimbabwe for purposes of being military targets. They are, however, unlikely to be afforded prisoner-of-war status and related protection if captured.” 
Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, 1998, Chapter 1.1.

Back to top
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon the international community “in accordance with its obligations under international law, to cooperate with and assist the judicial prosecution of those accused of mercenary activities, in transparent, open and fair trials”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/2, 7 April 2005, § 10, voting record: 35-15-2.

UN Secretary-General
The mission dispatched by the UN Secretary-General in 1988 to investigate the situation of prisoners of war in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq reported that:
Some of the prisoners detained in [the Islamic Republic of Iran] are not Iraqi nationals but come from other countries … The Iranian authorities call them mercenaries and have argued that, under Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, they are not protected. The Iranian authorities contend that they could, according to custom, suffer capital punishment but have not been executed; on the contrary, they are treated as the other POWs. Since this seems to be the case, the legal argument about mercenaries has become redundant. (Otherwise, one would have to observe that [the Islamic Republic of Iran] is not a party to the Protocol mentioned, and in any event has not shown that the condition[s] of its article 47 have been fulfilled.) … The Iranian authorities … promised that the non-Iraqi prisoners also will be released after the cessation of hostilities. 
UN Secretary-General, Report of the mission dispatched by the Secretary-General on the situation of prisoners of war in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq, UN Doc. S/20147, Annex, 24 August 1988, § 65.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
The Rapporteur of Committee III at the CDDH stated with regard to Article 47 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
Although the proposed new article makes no reference to the fundamental protections of Article 65 [now Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I], it was understood by the Committee Group that mercenaries would be one of the groups entitled to the protections of that article which establishes minimum standards of treatment for persons not entitled to more favourable treatment under the Conventions and Protocol I. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/407/Rev.1, 17 March–10 June 1977, p. 455, § 27.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola (UNITA)
In an address to the nation in 1993, the President of UNITA stated: “Captured mercenaries will be summarily executed.” 
UNITA, Address to the Nation by Jonas Savimbi, President, relayed live from Huambo, 9 March 1993.