Why do private military contractors stay in politically-unstable places?

last named spelled Balor, for those looking,

You should post this as an answer to that question -- summarize the relevant parts, maybe throw in a few quotes, and add a citation at the bottom. It'd be a great contribution. At the very least, you should post a comment on the question with the book's title and author, so interested people can see it.

You should add this as a comment on the actual post, so people like me who frequent WB.SE but not HN can benefit.

Is it possible that the cost of moving (both for techies and for mercenaries) helps create a signalling equilibrium?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)#Job-mar...

In the context of getting a degree: 'Spence discovered that even if education did not contribute anything to an employee's productivity, it could still have value to both the employer and employee. If the appropriate cost/benefit structure exists (or is created), "good" employees will buy more education in order to signal their higher productivity.'

E.g. if communication costs were really zero, then everyone would try to get a job by applying, which lowers the average applicant quality.

But if the cost of applying is high, then only highly committed, self-selected applicants who think they will eventually get the job will apply.

Wow. Not only an interesting perspective from experience so far removed from my own, but also just really well written.

My favorite quote:

"Why do gravitate to the eye of the storm? Because in a world with no job security you have to make your own luck."

Really resonates and seems like good advice to apply to many endeavors.

Why do lawyers hang around ambulances?

I think it mainly boils down to "don't get caught".

In most of the places where operators are required, the law is so fluid that there is little recourse save a select few. It is almost guaranteed It is not going to be some random Canadian on holiday and if they are out on contract themselves well then those are the risks. Contractors and operators outside of diplomatic channels have little protection or recourse for when stuff goes bad. Many times the laws of a particular town change when the next local gang takes power and short of major genocide once the peace is restored no one is really interested in digging up a missing person her and there. Unless you carry a charter or are flagged, you are pretty much on your own in most of these zones.

I think one answer might be that unstable regions tend to be relatively lawless, so there's no worry about prosecution (particularly crossborder), and any risks that do attach in that situation may be manageable via other means.

The stuff contractors got away with in Iraq was ridic, some of that within eyesight of American military. I can only imagine what you could get away with in a worse shithole.

The general presumption, at least in the Anglo tradition, is that laws are territorial. So while Congress in theory has the power to punish conduct that takes place overseas, it must explicitly say so in the enactment and only occasionally exercises that power.

In your hypothetical, if an American killed an American in Angola, he could be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1119. But the fact there is a special statute for murder overseas tells you something--generally, there is no recourse for these violations when they happen abroad. For example, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the Supreme Court held that citizens of Nigeria could not sue British, Dutch, and Nigerian corporations for brutally putting down a peaceful resistance in Nigeria in the 1990s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiobel_v._Royal_Dutch_Petroleu....

Although some circuits have declined to extend Kiobel to situations where the tortfeasor is American: https://uclawreview.org/2014/12/04/are-american-companies-li.... So potentially in your hypothetical the Canadian might have recourse in American courts.

I remember reading in a credible source, I believe the NY Times, about a private contractor threatening the life of a U.S. State Department official in order to make something happen, and getting their way. Look at all the things Blackwater (most famously) and other did, with (almost?) complete impunity.

I have no expertise in the matter, but my impression is that the law isn't a consideration in combat zones. Perhaps someone with actual experience can comment.

I feel like any area that is already so unstable that a handful of ex-Marines have a real shot at knocking it over is probably about to fall over on its own regardless, so why would they bother hurrying the inevitable?

That's pretty unrealistic. Your average ex-sergeant-current-mercenary isn't fiddling around in Congolese politics trying to drum up trouble.

why go through all the hassle of destabilising when it'll do that by itself, they are just there because that's where the steady work comes from.

It's not a subreddit - it's the world building stack exchange, for people creating worlds for novels and games. I was surprised to see an answer by an actual mercenary, and thought it might be of general interest. It's a part of the world I know very little about.

That guys blog is also worth a read (the link is in his profile).