The Ethics of Asymmetric Warfare

With the rise of terrorism after the events of 9/11, and considering the conflicts and aftermath of the global war on terror, the international community has seen a surge in the use of nonstate actors (NSAs), mercenaries, private military companies (PMCs), and asymmetric warfare tactics, at the hands of both weak/victim states and powerful/aggressor states. In modern times, for example, NSAs and mercenaries are being used in the Syrian war, the Yemeni conflict, Afghanistan, and Iraq, in the form of rebel groups, insurgencies, terrorist organizations, and so on. So why has there been a sudden surge in the use of NSAs? Is it due to their efficiency during armed conflicts?

Or is it something else entirely? Terrorists and weak states, for example, use asymmetric warfare because it equalizes the battlefield between the strong and the weak. But why do strong Western states use NSAs or mercenaries? Typically, powerful governments use NSAs because it is cheaper to employ NSAs on a contractual basis rather than use conventional armed forces.

They also use NSAs because in internationalaw, if an aggressive state uses NSAs to attack another victim state, the victim state cannot act in self-defense, until it proves the effective control of the aggressive state over the NSA. This lacuna in the international legal system is exploited by aggressive and powerful states to destabilize target states in pursuit of their national political interests, while avoiding attribution and retribution. Accordingly, aside from legality in international law and the reasons for employing NSAs, this article intends to explore the morality inherent in the use of NSAs, mercenaries, and PMCs, to discuss and ascertain whether their use is morally right and acceptable. To determine this, the paper will undertake a scrutiny of the foremost moral arguments in favor of or against the use of NSAs, including mercenaries and PMCs during international armed conflicts.