Об наемников
В контексте разговора про бугенвильский референдум всплыл сюжет о "наемниках" и о том, как они определяются в международном праве.
Итак, международная правовая конструкция относительно "наемников" такова.
Во-первых, это статья 47 Первого протокола к Женевским конвенциям.
То есть существует Женевская конвенция 1949 года (точнее, "Женевские конвенции" - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreaties1949.xsp), позже были согласованы дополнительные протоколы к ней. Конкретно, в 1977 году был принят Первый дополнительный протокол (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) - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079
Официальные языки конвенций и протокола - английский и французский, но на сайте Красного креста есть и их русский перевод - https://www.icrc.org/ru/doc/assets/files/2013/ap_i_rus.pdf
В протоколе имеется целый раздел из нескольких взаимоувязанных статей, посвященных определению того, кого следует считать "комбатантом", то есть имеющим права военнопленного.
Конкретно, в статьях с 43 по 46 определяются военнослужащие и их права, а в статье 47 дается определение "наемника".
Вот статьи 43-46:
Art 43. Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities .
6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.
7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.
8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 of this Protocol, shall be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in other waters.
Art 45. Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.
3. 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. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.
Art 46. Spies
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.
2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.
3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather information of military value within that territory shall not be considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in espionage.
4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.
А вот ключевая статья 47:
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.
Но особенно интересен комментарий 1987 года к протоколу, выложенный на том же сайте. В комментарии есть раздел, где очень детально рассказывается об истории появления этой злосчастной статьи 47, о том как ее согласовывали и о том, как она соотносится с остальной частью документа. В комментарии очень прямо признается, что статья о наемниках, по сути, противоречит общей идеологии протокола и содержит ряд противоречий. Наконец, там буквально по словам разбирается определение "наемника".
Очень характерно, что само появление темы "наемников" и связанной с ними несколько иррациональной фобии напрямую проистекает из истории войны в Конго 1960-х годов. Сейчас эта война почти забыта, но в свое время была важнейшей осью мировой политики. Думаю, не будет очень сильным преувеличением сказать, что эта война, да и вообще новейшая история Конго, представляет собой едва ли не самый мифологизированный кусок современного исторического сознания - по крайней мере, в англоязычном мире (возможно, что франкоязычная литература лучше, но мне она недоступна). Во всяком случае, чтобы найти более или менее адекватное описание событий, не искаженное явными нестыковками, мне пришлось искать литературу 60-х годов.
Вот линк на этот комментарий - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=FFC84B7639B26F93C12563CD00434156
Кстати, вот послание Рейгана сенату с объяснением, почему он решил отказаться от ратификации этого протокола - https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/research/speeches/012987b
**********
Во-вторых, в 1989 году наемнико-фобия достигла кульминации - генеральная ассамблея ООН приняла конвенцию о запрете найма, использования и т.д. наемников - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mercenary_Convention
Текст конвенции: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/530 (одним файлом - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/D5EDD61038ECF47FC12563CD002D6E50/FULLTEXT/IHL-85-EN.pdf)
Определение "наемника" содержится в статье 1:
Article 1
For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) 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.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Тут интересно, что часть первая статьи ПОЧТИ дословно повторяет определение статьи 47 Протокола - за одним исключением. Конкретно, опущен пункт (b), который предусматривает что "наемник" does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities. Как объяснялось в комментарии 1987 года, этот пункт был записан для того, чтобы исключить из определения "наемников" иностранных военных советников и технических специалистов по обслуживанию систем вооружения. По логике конвенции ООН, теперь они тоже оказываются "наемниками", но, согласно статье 3, пока они не принимают непосредственного участия в боевых действиях, их наемничество не является преступлением (при этом, согласно статье 2, их найм, подготовка, финансирование и использование - преступлениями являются).
Часть вторая статьи, очевидно, служит целью описать "наемников", участвующих в гражданских войнах, восстаниях и т.д. Здесь из определения выпало еще одно условие - а именно, чтобы вознаграждение "наемникам" существенно превышало вознаграждение военнослужащих на соответствующих должностях.
Еще интеерсно, что в этой статье говорится про "undermining the territorial integrity of a State", причем параллельно с подрывом конституционной власти, то есть с явным оттенком осуждения, но в соседней статье 5 конвенция торжественно запрещает привлечение наемников "for the purpose of opposing the legitimate exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination".
Каким образом авторы бумаги предлагают различать предосудительное "undermining the territorial integrity" от "legitimate exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination" - мне совершенно непонятно.
В любом случае эта конвенция ратифицирована только 39 странами, разномастный список которых включает Бельгию, Украину, Сирию, Италию и т.д. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=530), плюс еще девять стран, включая Германию, ее подписали, но не ратифицировали (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesSign&xp_treatySelected=530). США, Россия, Англия, Франция, Китай, Индия и много-много других стран к ней не присоединились.
Итак, международная правовая конструкция относительно "наемников" такова.
Во-первых, это статья 47 Первого протокола к Женевским конвенциям.
То есть существует Женевская конвенция 1949 года (точнее, "Женевские конвенции" - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreaties1949.xsp), позже были согласованы дополнительные протоколы к ней. Конкретно, в 1977 году был принят Первый дополнительный протокол (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) - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079
Официальные языки конвенций и протокола - английский и французский, но на сайте Красного креста есть и их русский перевод - https://www.icrc.org/ru/doc/assets/files/2013/ap_i_rus.pdf
В протоколе имеется целый раздел из нескольких взаимоувязанных статей, посвященных определению того, кого следует считать "комбатантом", то есть имеющим права военнопленного.
Конкретно, в статьях с 43 по 46 определяются военнослужащие и их права, а в статье 47 дается определение "наемника".
Вот статьи 43-46:
Art 43. Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities .
6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.
7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.
8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 of this Protocol, shall be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in other waters.
Art 45. Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.
3. 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. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.
Art 46. Spies
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.
2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.
3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather information of military value within that territory shall not be considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in espionage.
4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.
А вот ключевая статья 47:
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.
Но особенно интересен комментарий 1987 года к протоколу, выложенный на том же сайте. В комментарии есть раздел, где очень детально рассказывается об истории появления этой злосчастной статьи 47, о том как ее согласовывали и о том, как она соотносится с остальной частью документа. В комментарии очень прямо признается, что статья о наемниках, по сути, противоречит общей идеологии протокола и содержит ряд противоречий. Наконец, там буквально по словам разбирается определение "наемника".
Очень характерно, что само появление темы "наемников" и связанной с ними несколько иррациональной фобии напрямую проистекает из истории войны в Конго 1960-х годов. Сейчас эта война почти забыта, но в свое время была важнейшей осью мировой политики. Думаю, не будет очень сильным преувеличением сказать, что эта война, да и вообще новейшая история Конго, представляет собой едва ли не самый мифологизированный кусок современного исторического сознания - по крайней мере, в англоязычном мире (возможно, что франкоязычная литература лучше, но мне она недоступна). Во всяком случае, чтобы найти более или менее адекватное описание событий, не искаженное явными нестыковками, мне пришлось искать литературу 60-х годов.
Вот линк на этот комментарий - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=FFC84B7639B26F93C12563CD00434156
Кстати, вот послание Рейгана сенату с объяснением, почему он решил отказаться от ратификации этого протокола - https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/research/speeches/012987b
**********
Во-вторых, в 1989 году наемнико-фобия достигла кульминации - генеральная ассамблея ООН приняла конвенцию о запрете найма, использования и т.д. наемников - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mercenary_Convention
Текст конвенции: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/530 (одним файлом - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/D5EDD61038ECF47FC12563CD002D6E50/FULLTEXT/IHL-85-EN.pdf)
Определение "наемника" содержится в статье 1:
Article 1
For the purposes of the present Convention,
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) 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.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Тут интересно, что часть первая статьи ПОЧТИ дословно повторяет определение статьи 47 Протокола - за одним исключением. Конкретно, опущен пункт (b), который предусматривает что "наемник" does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities. Как объяснялось в комментарии 1987 года, этот пункт был записан для того, чтобы исключить из определения "наемников" иностранных военных советников и технических специалистов по обслуживанию систем вооружения. По логике конвенции ООН, теперь они тоже оказываются "наемниками", но, согласно статье 3, пока они не принимают непосредственного участия в боевых действиях, их наемничество не является преступлением (при этом, согласно статье 2, их найм, подготовка, финансирование и использование - преступлениями являются).
Часть вторая статьи, очевидно, служит целью описать "наемников", участвующих в гражданских войнах, восстаниях и т.д. Здесь из определения выпало еще одно условие - а именно, чтобы вознаграждение "наемникам" существенно превышало вознаграждение военнослужащих на соответствующих должностях.
Еще интеерсно, что в этой статье говорится про "undermining the territorial integrity of a State", причем параллельно с подрывом конституционной власти, то есть с явным оттенком осуждения, но в соседней статье 5 конвенция торжественно запрещает привлечение наемников "for the purpose of opposing the legitimate exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination".
Каким образом авторы бумаги предлагают различать предосудительное "undermining the territorial integrity" от "legitimate exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination" - мне совершенно непонятно.
В любом случае эта конвенция ратифицирована только 39 странами, разномастный список которых включает Бельгию, Украину, Сирию, Италию и т.д. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=530), плюс еще девять стран, включая Германию, ее подписали, но не ратифицировали (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp?xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesSign&xp_treatySelected=530). США, Россия, Англия, Франция, Китай, Индия и много-много других стран к ней не присоединились.