International relations: United Nations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Military history: National

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force

Untitled

and what, pray tell, is the CONTENT of this convention, aside from defining the term "Mercenary"?

Someone must have forgotten to write the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wefa (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turn list into map?

It would be helpful if all signatory countries were marked on a map. 79.241.79.158 (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military contractors

Question: how are American military contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq not mercenaries, when they meet all elements of the definition? If they are mercenaries, then what are the implications of the wholesale employment of mercenaries by the USA? I realize this is not a discussion page, so I suggest that there needs to be a section on this topic. It is the proverbial "elephant in the room" in this article.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American contractors do NOT meet the elements of the definition. Element (c) states: "Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict". America is obviously a party to the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So any American who goes there to fight or serve in the conflict is not simply some disinterested party fighting for nothing but financial gain. Their service enables their nation's war effort. Walterego (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Nations Mercenary Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209231529/http://www.wikipedia.org to http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side legal volley?

Under "See Also", this unexplained phrase is used in, from what I can tell, its only appearance on the internet. Anybody care to elaborate? Epsilon.Prota (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]