In Sum: A Changing View of International Security 313niary self- interest? Or are they pragmatically solving prob lems that a state’s military
could not other wise solve? Are they cost effective? Where do their loyalties lie? To
what state or what ideology do they belong? What is their relationship with the or ga-
nized military? Can they be held accountable for actions they take in war? In other
words, do standard of ethics and morals in war apply to these forces? Should the inter-
national community employ them for UN- mandated peacekeeping? As regards robots
such as drones, what safeguards exist to prevent their arbitrary or irresponsible use? As
more and more states acquire this technology, how will they be regulated? Certain of its
rectitude, the United States has already set dangerous pre ce dents, reserving the right,
for example, to target and kill terrorists— even U.S. citizens—on the sovereign terri-
tory of other states. How should the United States react if, say, China used a drone to
target and kill a person in Nebraska it considered a dangerous terrorist?
In the waning years of the twentieth century, ideas among theorists have changed
concerning who or what should be protected. Changing notions about what security
is and who should be protected have been a key topic in constructivist discourse. Should
only states be protected? Or should individuals be protected as well, not only from
Private security contractors, such as these Blackwater employees, were hired by the U.S.
government after the start of the 2003 Iraq war to perform tasks such as protecting high-
profile officials, transporting troops and materials, and engaging in occasional combat
operations. The role of private contractors in international security has provoked troubling
questions about accountability, lines of authority, and the rule of law.