This is a legal fiction created by Russia, since even Russian law does not allow for the existence of Wagner, yet clearly they do exist.
Yes and no. Pigghozin cleary isn't friendly towards ruzzkie ministry of defence, they have own supply chains (poor and shitty, but have), only connections to ruzzkie gov. are recruiting prisioners and president's parole for members.
But the important thing about being a militia branch of army is to cooperate with army and at least take orders from it. And PMC isn't cooperating in such way with army, according to statements of ruzzian MoD.
There is a chain command that leads back to the organized Russian Military, even if that chain skips literally every soldier in uniform.
That point is talking more about 'leaders in field' than 'somewhere in the world is a guy who decided you are here' - to be a VCorps or militia they must have any guy who can talk to them in field 'do that' or 'don't do that' and has right to discipline them. As far as I know wagnetards have flat hierarchic.
Bald P would not dare do shit unless Putin let him.
In practice yes, but can it be proved? Putin will confirm that or just say in the end 'I just don't read parols, this is a ceremony and who is parolled is decided in some legal procedure by judges/my subordinates/someone else. I just must to sign it if certain circumstances appers'? We don't know. It is some reason why PMC Wagner is used in Ukraine and why they aren't part of army.
Nah, this would apply more to the traitor Ukrainians in the DPR and LPR armies.
Yes and no. This would apply to everyone who decides to fight in war but didn't have time to enlist to army do to time.
Militas from peoples republic most go into point 3) - rulers of peoples republics claim their are type of gov., but Ukraine didn't recognize them. This point is for any revolters/freedom fighters/insurgents of unrecognized states/states that aren't recognized and so one.
But this will ot help them when they will be facing criminal law.
So this person will be treated like everyone else staying in a given territory in a similar situation. And unfortunately, some European countries allow killing someone caught committing a crime - one of the big problems in relations between the EU and Poland was the change in the Polish Penal Code, which in practice decriminalized killing someone caught while committing a crime. As far as I understood the analysis of the problem, Poles changed their penal code in such a way that if:
a) we caught someone doing something illegal and it was a serious offence,
b) we are not a police officer or in police-like services,
c) we were strongly indignant at the act committed by the caught person,
then if we kill or mutilate him, even after capturing and binding him, we will not be convicted. The scandal lasted a short while, because as it turned out, laws with a similar effect (i.e. we killed someone who committed a serious crime but at the time of killing him was not a threat or did not resist) exist in several EU countries and no one gives a fuck about it.
Human rights issues are a separate, gigantic topic. In principle, according to them, the state or its officials cannot kill someone without a reason (and on regional level sometimes death penalty is banned - e.g. in most european countries ban for capital penalty is required due to international acts on european level, called in some cases 'european law' that is a separete level of law between country/local law and international law), but in principle this does not mean that states have to introduce any specific criminal provisions in the scope when an ordinary man kills another ordinary man. In principle, the point is so obvious that there has never been a need for a treaty to punish murderers, but here we are entering a world of legal magic, and not every killing of a human being by a common man is murder (just as not all forced sexual intercourse will be rape in some countries). As far as I know, the US basically has a simpler naming scheme for crimes, but in Europe it's a bit different and there are inventions such as "fatal beating" - a situation where, yes, we killed someone, but we just wanted to beat him up. The sentence will be as long as for the murder, the trial will be similar, but no one makes a fuss because this particular act in a particular country is not called murder.
====
But all above doesn't mean that every human must either be capable of becoming a PoW or be a mercenary. There is no law that says 'anyone who is not a mercenary can be a POW' or 'anyone who is not part of a group that can be a POW is a mercenary'.
A separate issue is whether PMCs should be considered in the context of international law at all. In my opinion, there is no need - Geneva III describes who MUST be treated as a prisoner of war, the additional protocol who MUST NOT be treated as such. We don't consider tourists in a combat zone in this context, so why should we consider PMC members?
PMCs are forbidden by Russian law, but there are several operated by friends & lackies of the rich and powerful.
But what this means?
Prostitution is illegal in many countries. But in some this means that a prostitute will go to jail, in some others only means that she cannot legalize money from this work. And in some others this only means she cannot pay social contribution and will not have state pension based on this activity.
So, Big Bald P should go to jail according to ruzzian law or just cannot sign his guys for pension insurance? I don't know anything of ruzzian law about tha
nypost.com
r were in a basic resource conflict, Russia wants to double the size of it's agricultural plant and Europe wants to keep its supply chains on the same continent run by white Europeans vs Africans.
