international laws-of-war mercenary
Has &quot;ideological payment&quot; or &quot;emotional payment&quot; qualified someone as a mercenary in a Western or international court of law?
<p>According to a certain <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/73681/18373">rendition</a> of the Russian viewpoints:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The persons were motivated entirely by private gain, in this case the &quot;feel-good&quot; emotion that comes with killing Russians [...]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, while &quot;killing Russians&quot; may not be exactly a high-minded reason to take up arms, have Western or international courts of law ever held that this kind of &quot;ideological/emotional payment&quot; qualifies someone as a mercenary?</p>

<h2>If your motivation isn’t material, you aren’t a mercenary</h2>
<p>Under the <a href="https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/issue-mercenaries" rel="nofollow noreferrer">International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries</a>, 4 December 1989:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A mercenary is any person who:</p>
<p>a  Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;</p>
<p><strong>b</strong>  <strong>Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;</strong></p>
<p>c  Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;</p>
<p>d  Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and</p>
<p>e  Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, if these people were serving <em>in</em> the Ukrainian military, even In dedicated foreign units, they aren’t mercenaries.</p>
