UN experts warn technology transforming mercenary activity

The UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries warned Tuesday that rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies are making it harder to determine who is responsible for human rights abuses linked to mercenary and private military and security operations.

In a report presented during the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council, the Working Group examined the growing use of technology by mercenaries, mercenary-related actors, and private military and security companies (PMSCs). It described the emerging phenomenon as “technology-enabled mercenarism” and warned that technological capabilities are developing faster than systems for legal oversight and accountability.

Technology is allowing private actors to provide increasingly sophisticated military and security capabilities, including surveillance, intelligence gathering, cyber operations, and battlefield analysis. These capabilities can be provided for profit to state and non-state clients and, in some circumstances, can rival functions traditionally associated with states.

Tools such as commercial spyware, for example, can extract communications, location information, and biometric data from targeted devices. Social media and AI are similarly used for information operations, including manipulating political narratives, creating deepfakes, and operating automated accounts. The Working Group said these technologies can also facilitate recruitment into armed activities, including of children and young people.

The growing use of technology also creates what the Working Group calls a “responsibility gap.” Complex supply chains can involve technology developers, contractors, intermediaries, and end users operating across different jurisdictions, which makes it more difficult to establish who developed, supplied, operated, or authorized a particular operation.

Opaque corporate structures, shell companies, encrypted communications, cloud infrastructure, and cryptocurrency transactions can further obscure the actors involved. Proprietary AI systems present additional challenges when investigators cannot access information about how a system was developed or operates, including its training data or model architecture.

These challenges can make it difficult to determine which actor may bear legal responsibility when a technology-enabled operation results in human rights abuses or violations of international humanitarian law. The Working Group emphasized, however, that existing international law remains applicable, including international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. The Working Group said the challenge is ensuring that existing legal frameworks can be effectively implemented and enforced as technological capabilities evolve.

The Working Group called for improved oversight of PMSCs and greater human rights safeguards for companies and other actors involved in emerging technologies. It recommended measures to improve transparency and accountability across technology supply chains, strengthen monitoring of private military and security activities, and ensure that states maintain human control over military systems, particularly those involved in targeting and the use of force. It also stressed the need for effective remedies for people whose rights are violated through technology-enabled operations.