Reframing the anti-mercenary norm: Private military and security companies and mercenarism

Since the nineteenth century, the anti-mercenary norm has prohibited violent market actors from participating in combat. Today, however, private military and security companies (PMSCs) are widely perceived as legitimate. How did they achieve that legitimacy? This article argues that PMSCs initially resembled mercenaries. Previously, mercenaries were defined as fighters participating in combat for pay, be it offensive or defensive. PMSC advocates aimed to alter the combat component of the anti-mercenary norm. By arguing that PMSCs' use of force was not combat, but rather individual self-defence, they created an alternative interpretation that established the practice as appropriate. As critical actors like the US, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations adopted their interpretation, the regulatory scope of the norm changed. In short, PMSCs are perceived to be legitimate because they are no longer implicated in the anti-mercenary norm.