Geneva Convention equivalent

[AtlanticFriend]

How does a repatriation bond get put into effect? That’s the most ubiquitous combatants’ rights declaration I know of in the OTU.

It might go more smoothly than we think. Conflicts with organized mercs are a bit like war with allied nations : let's say A is at war with B, and hires C as mercenary reinforcements for one year of operations. For twelve months, C is thus a co-belligerent, whose interests align with A's but only for the duration of the contract.

After one year, C does not seek/accept a renewal of its contract. It obviously has to tell A in advance so A's forces can relieve the mercs. But it also has to tell B, because if it doesn't B might attack the mercs or hinder their repatriation, in which case C would have to fight and endure losses for free.

Now that is knows about the repatriation bond being called, nation B certainly won't complain too much - a part of the enemy's forces are giving up the fight willingly and in exchange of nothing beyong return of merc prisoners. Pretty good deal, victory seems closer than ever. Why waste men and weapons and energy on attacks on the C mercs, and risk them reconsider their decision to leave ?

A will be quite unhappy, but what can they do ? Preventing the evacuation or claiming the repatriation clause is null and void is not an option. B knows the mercs are leaving, and will not attack them. As for the merc company, what's to stop it from letting A know the full force of its displeasure by leaving B's forces pass through their positions, or provide them with critical info on A's forces ? After all, there's no deal between A and C anymore, and A is in breach of its contract.

For that same reason, I tend to think most organized merc units would have a code of conduct of their own (like no massive war crimes regardless of bonus), as it would only endanger "company assets" and force them to fight for free when the contract ends. At this stage, I see the merc unit as an enterprise providing corporate violence to would-be clients, and operating along lines of acceptable physical/legal risks (which means protecting its "privilege" of walking out of any war at the stipulated date or in case of a client abusing the contract).

 

[mike wightman]

LBB4:

Repatriation Bond: Occasionally, the party with which a mercenary organization
made its contract will cease to exist (for example, a government hires a
mercenary unit and in the course of the campaign is overthrown). To guard against
such an eventuality, a repatriation bond is generally posted in an escrow account in
a neutral bank with sufficient funds to provide low passage off-planet to the
personnel of the contingent. Upon the conditions of the repatriation clause becoming operant, mercenaries become non-combatants and are given free transit to
the nearest spaceport. Repatriation clauses are almost universally respected.

LD:N-Z:

Repatriation Bond: A document guaranteeing passage of an individual to a
specified location upon completion of contract work, or upon suspension of contract
work for any reason; Repatriation bonds are guarantees given as inducements
to workers who might otherwise be wary of leaving their own worlds with no
assurances that they could return. They are most commonly used by mercenary
units.
Repatriation bonds are usually administered by a large financial institution which
holds the necessary funds in escrow.

Within the OTU setting the bonds can be backed by megacorporation, the Traveller's Aid Society, even the Imperial government itself.
It is Imperial Law that they be honoured - so before you go ignoring the repatriation bond consider the consequences could be a swift visit from the Imperial Star Marines, or a megacorporation sponsored merc unit larger than your planets standing army, or even the household troops of the local subsector duke.

The Imperium has a vested interest in promoting the use of mercenaries and so will enforce the repatriation bond.

 

[Proneutron]

LBB4:

Within the OTU setting the bonds can be backed by megacorporation, the Traveller's Aid Society, even the Imperial government itself.
It is Imperial Law that they be honoured - so before you go ignoring the repatriation bond consider the consequences could be a swift visit from the Imperial Star Marines, or a megacorporation sponsored merc unit

Piffle. The Mercs when surrounded refused to surrender and were wiped out. Ask them yourself Mr. Bond manager.

And therein lies the thing that makes those bonds not worth much... Locals against whom Mercs are used will most likely hate them literally to death.

 

[mike wightman]

Piffle. The Mercs when surrounded refused to surrender and were wiped out. Ask them yourself Mr. Bond manager.

Highly unlikely a force of locals could wipe out an entire merc unit before it can communicate its surrender.

And therein lies the thing that makes those bonds not worth much... Locals against whom Mercs are used will most likely hate them literally to death.

Or more likely the Imperium would make an example of any planet that tried to use this excuse, the Imperium can be incredibly brutal when it comes to enforcing its rules...

 

[McPerth]

Why would a MegaCorp be upset? As the repatriation bonds were not used, they are not out any money. If the local forces defeated their mercenaries, are they likely to compound their losses by sponsoring more units? A planet could likely get a lot of off-world volunteers and assistance from those individuals and groups that actively dislike MegaCorps.

There are several rasons I can think about in a short time:

1. They are the guarants, and so their reputation is in stake (after all ,what whas the UK, at least officially, reaso nto enter WWI if not they were guarants of Beligum neutrality?)
2. They are main merc employers, and so they want the mercs to trust them. Otherwise they would have to rely on less picky (about their employers) units, that don't use to be the best ones.
3. They make profit on those bonds (as, after all, they are insurances, and so hoped not to be activated), and don't want to lose it by being seen as unreliable.
4. (related to 1 and 3) if they are seen as unreliable o nthis, why should they be trusted for insurance busines?
5. they are interested in maintaining the status quo, that in OTU includes the mercenaries business and IRW

And that is assuming they were not backing the unit's misión themselves...

 

[Condottiere]

1. Megacorporations would like to think that their word is their bond, and their mere mention should inspire fear; so disregarding their guaranteed warranties of safety would be a reflection of their perceived lack of power to either enforce them, or retaliate.

2. The Swiss sort of were a combination of the strengths and weaknesses of both the Greek and Roman city states, a communal ruthlessness that probably had a number of aims, but I suspect the primary one would be a short campaign season, where shock and awe ensured a short sharp war, and might actually cut down (their) casualties due to attrition from other causes, and maximize profit.

3. Pournelle probably covers most mercenary scenarios, including mercenaries preferring to surrender to other mercenaries, since the indigenous populations tend to take wars in their backyard personally.

 

[Proneutron]

Highly unlikely a force of locals could wipe out an entire merc unit before it can communicate its surrender.

Doesn't matter what they communicate. It is what you can PROVE. But even that doesn't matter when tempers and passion flare. "They started fighting again after they suckered us with a false surrender flag."...

Basically, if the locals are pissed (which most will be) and they win, Mercs are most likely toast if they are separated from a group that hasn't been captured. Numbers have a quality all their own. With enough lightly armed people who can shoot, a heavier armed but much smaller force can be wiped out to the man.

Or more likely the Imperium would make an example of any planet that tried to use this excuse, the Imperium can be incredibly brutal when it comes to enforcing its rules...

Nope the Imperial Gov't won't wipe out a bunch of locals for killing mercs. According to all data the 3I isn't going to dive that deep to kill native pop over a bunch of mercs. Talk about souring relations with hundreds of planets populations. Talk about a PR nightmare. The 3I knows it only maintains power over local people because of AGREEMENT to be ruled.

 

[McPerth]

Doesn't matter what they communicate. It is what you can PROVE. But even that doesn't matter when tempers and passion flare. "They started fighting again after they suckered us with a false surrender flag."...

Basically, if the locals are pissed (which most will be) and they win, Mercs are most likely toast if they are separated from a group that hasn't been captured. Numbers have a quality all their own. With enough lightly armed people who can shoot, a heavier armed but much smaller force can be wiped out to the man.

I guess most wars in OTU are being monitoried, be it by the Megacorporation that guarants the bond, by the imperium (to enforce IRW) or by other thirs parites. Whould the locals run the risk?

And see that it is likely both sides use mercs (again ,as in Purnelle writes). How would the other side mercs react , even if only for their own interests?

Nope the Imperial Gov't won't wipe out a bunch of locals for killing mercs. According to all data the 3I isn't going to dive that deep to kill native pop over a bunch of mercs. Talk about souring relations with hundreds of planets populations.

Probably not, but I guess the 3I has oher means to make them regreet it

 

[mike wightman]

Doesn't matter what they communicate. It is what you can PROVE. But even that doesn't matter when tempers and passion flare. "They started fighting again after they suckered us with a false surrender flag."...

Using and abusing surrender flags is a war crime...

Basically, if the locals are pissed (which most will be) and they win, Mercs are most likely toast if they are separated from a group that hasn't been captured. Numbers have a quality all their own. With enough lightly armed people who can shoot, a heavier armed but much smaller force can be wiped out to the man.

Not if the locals have learned the Imperial lesson - you will all be killed, but only after your family and friends have been put to death before you.

Nope the Imperial Gov't won't wipe out a bunch of locals for killing mercs. According to all data the 3I isn't going to dive that deep to kill native pop over a bunch of mercs. Talk about souring relations with hundreds of planets populations. Talk about a PR nightmare. The 3I knows it only maintains power over local people because of AGREEMENT to be ruled.

They are not going to kill them for killing the mercs, they are going to kill them for not honouring the Imperial Law that governs repatriation bonds, and if you don't think they would I would recommend you go read MWM Agent of the Imperium novel.

 

[Proneutron]

Using and abusing surrender flags is a war crime...

Right, which is why the offending mercs were killed by the locals.

 

[Condottiere]

Everyone has cellphones with integrated cameras.

Nowadays.

 

[McPerth]

Using and abusing surrender flags is a war crime...

According Geneva convention, it is, but the Vilani are said to see prisoneers as a hindrance and having no quals about it (according MT V&V).

Is it in OTU at large (not only about mercs ,which may be covered by ITW, but even wherew IRW don't apply as in Imerium vs others or other large entities wars)?

That's the main point of the thread, not intra Imperium rules, but exterior ones too...

 

[McPerth]

Everyone has cellphones with integrated cameras.

Nowadays.

This war may be at a TL 6 planet (like Aramanx)...

Only Superagent Smart¹ had a shoephone even a little latter (about TL 7, I guess)...

Note 1: before anyone else points out: yes, I'm getting old ... ​

 

[whartung]

It's in the Merc companies interest to follow the rules of "war", if for no other reason than to not have them turned against them at some time in the future.

Similarly, I don't think Merc companies will "fight to the death(tm)". They will hold out until the position is not viable and surrender. There's no profit in holding out. There's no King and Country. Ideally there's no threat of gross mistreatment should they concede. Small units, in critical positions of larger commands, perhaps. But not some kind of siege situation.

And customers need to understand the limits that merc companies will (or will not) go to.

I can't see a situation where they're "surrounded but don't surrender, so we wiped them out". It's not their land. They're here to work a dangerous job, but not to die for a cause.

 

[MThompson016]

In the Mercenary focused books, I remember reading about a distinction between Good Wars and Bad Wars.

Good Wars are pretty clear cut, and are between sides that have standards.

Bad Wars are not so clear cut, and the standards tend to go out the window.

Generally, in Good Wars, customary rules apply that are similar to the Imperial Rules of War, as in no or limited WMDs used, truces for POW exchange, and avoidance of civilian casualties.

Bad Wars lack customary rules or restraints.

I think it's noted, in GT: Star Mercs, that combat against the Zhos and Sword Worlders generally results in Good Wars, as they follow some rules, implying a sort of traditional Interstellar Law regarding the conduct of war.

If we look a Real World precedent, the Geneva and Hague Conventions were largely a result of looking to codify existing international law and give it definitions for explicit understanding. I'd say to some extent, there may be understandings that follow that kind of operation.

It's also mentioned, in Mongoose Alien Module 5: Solomani, that low-level warfare is tolerated as part of the Aslan-Solomani interface, in a way that would be unthinkable across the Imperial-Solomani Armistice Line. Because of the atomized nature of the Aslan society in the OTU, wars are easily limited, but the Imperium and Solomani Confederation are both set for unlimited war.

As an idea, a Merc unit would see the Anglophone experiences in World War II in Europe and Africa as a Good War, while the Pacific Campaigns would be closer to a Bad War (Changi, Bataan), and the Eastern Front and China as Bad Wars.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's in the Merc companies interest to follow the rules of "war", if for no other reason than to not have them turned against them at some time in the future.

Similarly, I don't think Merc companies will "fight to the death(tm)".

Traditionally, captured mercenaries are generally hired and used by their new employers.

Why kill experienced fighters with no loyalty to the other side?

 

[Enoki]

Traditionally, captured mercenaries are generally hired and used by their new employers.

Why kill experienced fighters with no loyalty to the other side?

Because of exactly that. Mercenaries that will switch sides or quit on you the second things go south aren't worth hiring to begin with. Having troops of dubious loyalty could become a major issue too.

 

[Proneutron]

I can't see a situation where they're "surrounded but don't surrender, so we wiped them out".

It isn't required that one see it. Only that it is reported thus.

 

[mike wightman]

It may be worth reminding people of the setting that LBB:4 imagines:

Conflicting local interests often settle their differences by force of arms, with lmperial forces looking quietly the other way, unable to effectively intervene as a police force in any but the most wide-spread of conflicts without jeopardizing their primary mission of the defense of the realm.
Only when local conflicts threateneither the security or the economy of the area do lmperial forces take an active hand, and then it is with speed and overwhelming force.

The combat environment of the frontier, then is one of small, short, limited wars. Both sides must carefully balance the considerations of how much force is required to win a conflict with how much force is likely to trigger lmperial intervention.

At the same time, both belligerents will generally be working with relatively small populations, with only a negligible number of combat experienced veterans. In this environment, the professional soldier will find constant employment.

Small, poor states faced with invasion or encroachment will hire professional soldiers as cadres to drill and lead their citizen militias. Larger states will be able to afford to hire and equip complete mercenary contingents as strikers, or spearhead troops. Small commando units will be in demand as industrial espionage is waged between mega-corporations virtually nations unto themselves.
In addition, the hired soldier will always be in demand as security or bodyguard troops, as force remains the only true protection against force.

The Golden Age of the Mercenary will have arrived.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Mercenaries that will switch sides or quit on you the second things go south aren't worth hiring to begin with. Having troops of dubious loyalty could become a major issue too.

Troops of dubious loyalty are better than no troops.

Experienced troops of dubious loyalty are much better than no troops.


Without a strong sense of nationalism or other ideology motivation most troops are of dubious loyalty. Plenty of wars have been (and are) fought by troops of dubious loyalty.