DISEC
Topic B: The roles and regulation of Private Military Companies
I. Definition of the Topic
Private Military Company(PMC), officially Private Military and Security Company (PMSC) refers to private section that provides armed security service. Ever since the end of the Cold War, the development of PMCs has been increasing rapidly, especially in the last two decades. However, more and more states and organizations have discovered many questions of this international trend. The major problem of PMC lies in the lack of regulations or laws, both domestically and internationally, which creates much vague spaces while addressing the PMCs issue: private military contractor is not the ”mercenary” that we define traditionally, so the current international law cannot be used directly on PMC; these contractors are only regarded as “armed civilians”.
Furthermore, PMCs violate the monopoly of countries to organize force. Without essential public scrutiny, it is hard to clarify responsibility while national interests or human rights are harmed. Also, PMCs are commercial-oriented, which means they do business for anybody who could afford to hire them. It might cause the cause a war more easily, which indirectly aids the development of anti-nation actions such as terrorist attacks. The development of PMCs has met a cross intersection, and an intergovernmental consensus is needed to step on a new way.
Private Military Company(PMC), officially Private Military and Security Company (PMSC) refers to private section that provides armed security service. Ever since the end of the Cold War, the development of PMCs has been increasing rapidly, especially in the last two decades. However, more and more states and organizations have discovered many questions of this international trend. The major problem of PMC lies in the lack of regulations or laws, both domestically and internationally, which creates much vague spaces while addressing the PMCs issue: private military contractor is not the ”mercenary” that we define traditionally, so the current international law cannot be used directly on PMC; these contractors are only regarded as “armed civilians”.
Furthermore, PMCs violate the monopoly of countries to organize force. Without essential public scrutiny, it is hard to clarify responsibility while national interests or human rights are harmed. Also, PMCs are commercial-oriented, which means they do business for anybody who could afford to hire them. It might cause the cause a war more easily, which indirectly aids the development of anti-nation actions such as terrorist attacks. The development of PMCs has met a cross intersection, and an intergovernmental consensus is needed to step on a new way.
II. Statement of the Problems
i. History and background
The origin of Private Military Company can be traced back to World War II, when British Captain David Stirling founded the Special Air Service (SAS) to fight Germans. The unconventional way of SAS made it part of the Government. The members of SAS founded several new private companies to provide military service later in 1960-1970s.
After the end of the Cold War, the atmosphere of the global political changed. With cutting national defense budget, countries started relying on private military companies to improve the efficiency of armies, which resulted in the dramatic growth of PMCs in both size and numbers.
During the Iraq war in 2003, USA successfully cooperated with Blackwater Worldwide. It represented the new ground of private military industry; it generated much discussion and criticism, and what is the next step of this emerging industry is still misty.
ii. Services of PMC
Nowadays, as patterns of war become more and more complicated, the services that PMSC provide diverse as well:
(a) Base support: maintaining the grounds, running dining facilities, performing laundry
services, transportation, etc.
(b) Military Training and Consultant
(c) Security guard:Protection of diplomats, officials, and military facilities.
(d) Maritime security
(e) Peace industry:Peacekeeping operations, where they are either engaged by States that are unwilling or unable to send their own military personnel to support peacekeeping efforts or by the United Nations.
iii. Controversy
Despite the success of cooperation between USA and PMCs, it also aroused some criticism:
(a) Monopoly of legitimate use of force
In modern democracy, civilians give government the authority to manage the country. With the sole right to found force, government guarantees its power and creditability. Laws and regulations set by state are valid only if when they are enforced. Instead, if state loses control of its monopoly, then its necessary task for country to survive like tax collecting will be challenged. Since that the willing to obey the obligation is low, the country is unable to operate, which results in vacuum for non-state actor to take control.
Nonetheless, after the blossom of PMCs, the idea that country should maintain monopoly is challenged. Some states are trying to outsource part task of their military, such as intelligence gathering and logistics, for the purpose of saving the military budget. The trend of PMCs brings in two argument:First of all, tasks like information collecting will increase the dependency on PMCs. When intelligence gathering jobs are handled by the powerful minority, the benefit of peculiar group will be overemphasize. Also, if important information is leaked, it may threaten the national security. Second, without essential democracy scrutiny, PMCs are hard to supervise which could cause abuses.
(b) Violation of human rights
On 16 September 2007 in Baghdad, Iraq, employees of US-based company Blackwater were involved in a shooting incident in Nisoor Square in which 17 civilians were killed and more than 20 other persons were wounded, including women and children. Local eyewitness accounts indicate the use of arms from vehicles and rocket fire from a helicopter belonging to this company. Ever since this incident, the problems of human rights violation have been spotlighted.
Furthermore, PMCs are accused of involving many torture:Arbitrary detention, health damage, and trafficking in persons. Take Blackwater for instance. According to a congressional report on the behavior of Blackwater in Iraq, Blackwater guards were found to have been involved in nearly 200 escalation-of-force incidents that involved the firing of shots from 2005 to 2010. These disordered behaviors of private contractors during war show the lack of adequate regulations, and the connivance of government.
In addition to the violation of citizens, human rights of PMCs’ employees should be noticed, too. PMCs often put their contractors’ life at risk. On March 31, 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah ambushed two SUVs, killing four-armed Blackwater contractors inside. Local residents hung the charred bodies above a bridge across the Euphrates. PMCs neglect the safety of employees and did not provide necessary means in order to carry out the mission.
(c) Harm of state sovereignty
Since PMC is a private firm, it relies on commerce institutions. In other words, PMCs could do many things in the grey area of international laws.
States or terrorists can take advantage of PMCs so as to influence other countries’ position and policies.
One major example is Colombia. PMCs aid US corporations to maintain influence by planting informants within locals, and intervene in the humanitarian assistance program funds. With help of PMCs, one can interfere with operation of a state, even the head of a country. The worst circumstance is that if terrorists or anti-government activists work together with PMCs, it would lead to even more conflicts than before.
iv. Current situation
Realizing the importance of managing PMCs, national-level efforts have been made to better regulate actions and activities of PMCs. Nevertheless, countries declare branching positions on PMC issue until now. Meanwhile, the attitude toward PMC differs due to the regional factors. Two major methods now are used on this issue:One is to regulate PMCs by harnessing the industry, for instance, USA, UK, and increasing number of European countries; the other is to outlaw the PMCs, like South Africa and Switzerland.
(a) Afghanistan
The Afghan government is trying very hard in solving the chaotic context on its land. Cooperating with other states, the Afghan government is working with US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) so as to reform its military, called Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF). The government expects to reverse the disordered and split circumstance into a stable situation. In 2010, Presidential Decree No. 62 claimed the gradual elimination of PMCs from the state. Afghanistan set 2014 as the deadline for assuming responsibility for its own security.
But the difficulties may not be solved so easily. Although Afghan government took efforts to carry out a series of projects such as Afghan Local Police (ALP), the problems lies in the fact that less than half the territory of the country are under the control of the Government. Moreover, according to an estimate of Ministry of the Interior (MOI), no fewer than 2,500 unauthorized armed groups were operating in those provinces under governmental control. It shows the crisis that security is not a public good, but a limited service to foreigners and wealthy Afghans.
(b) Somalia
Somalia is a country located in eastern Africa, near Gulf of Aden. Because of the breakdown of Somali government and the prosperous transportation, local fishers, merchants, and anti-government activists found they could profit from piracy. With well-trained sailors, organized system, and heavy firepower, piracy in Somalia has been a thorn in the eyes of many states.
Aside from maritime security by national force, now many PMCs started providing private security service for vessels that fear pirate attacks. Ships pay about $5,000 per day for a four-man armed team, on duty for 4 to 20 days. Tremendous commercial profits attract firms from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen to enter the new ground. By December 2013, the US Office of Naval Intelligence reported that only 9 vessels had been attacked during the year by the pirates, with zero successful hijackings.
(c) South Africa
After the abolishment of apartheid laws in 1992, many personnel jump from government military to private sector. Accordingly, the relationship between South Africa government and PMCs is undoubtedly good and close. In May, 1998, the Congress enacted Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, which was announced to “regulate the rendering of foreign military assistance by South African juristic persons, citizens, persons permanently resident in the Republic, and foreign citizens who render such assistance from within the borders of the Republic.” The special connection between South African government and PMCs began to decay. In 2001, the Private Security Industry Regulation Act was legislated, and 2006, the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Act.
In 2012, the Cabinet approved the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill. If passed, only company with at least 51 percent of the ownership and control exercised by citizens would be permitted to register. Also the authority requested companies provide information monthly, with recruitment, training, hiring out, sending or deploying security services outside South Africa.
(d) Switzerland
Many multinational enterprises register in Switzerland due to its low businesses taxes, political stability, and neutral image, so do PMCs. Until 2013, 20 PMCs have registered in Switzerland. Swiss government is not willing to see this, “Switzerland would no longer serve as a base for activities that violate human rights.” said Simonetta Sommaruga, Swiss Justice Minster. As a result, Switzerland announced a draft law in 2013, which forbids firms or holding companies based in Switzerland to “directly take part in hostilities within an armed conflict abroad.” The government of Switzerland is trying to step on the road of banning PMCs.
(e) United Kingdom
United Kingdom joined the Iraq war in 2003. Cooperating with the US government, the UK government is also a main promoter of the PMC trend.
Similar to USA, the UK relies on PMC to aid the operation of national military. In preparation for 2012 London Olympics Games, the Government signed a £284 million contract with a UK-based company, G4S, in which G4S promised to supply 13,700 private security guards during the event. However, G4S eventually failed to recruit and train enough staff for the Games. The British government had to deploy 3,500 troops of its own force at last. This incident shows that the UK starts to outsource some parts of its military work. Moreover, it motivates the Government to fasten the pace of managing PMCs.
Shortly after the Olympics, in December, 2012, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced that it had endorsed a voluntary regulatory scheme for PMCs operating in armed conflict zones, adopting the U.S. national standard for private security providers. This standard was developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), in purpose of guiding PMCs in providing services that “respect human rights”. The UK government expects to promote the establishment of an international standard in the future.
(f) United States of America
The growth of PMC industry has been most obvious in the USA. Currently, US government spends about $138 billion per year. In 2012, the US Department of Defense’s annual expenditure on overseas services accounted for $44 billion, approximately 60% in Iraq and Afghanistan. Until March, 2013, US Department of Defense has 108 thousand contractors in Afghanistan. In the future, the USA plans to keep increasing the number of private security contractors. PMCs have become more important in the national defense of the USA.
Regarding managing PMC, PMCs are subject to a complicated set of laws and regulations, and their activities are inspected and reported on by more than 20 federal oversight bodies and committees. With complex supervising mechanisms, the Congress may rapidly respond to US government’s use of PMCs.
i. History and background
The origin of Private Military Company can be traced back to World War II, when British Captain David Stirling founded the Special Air Service (SAS) to fight Germans. The unconventional way of SAS made it part of the Government. The members of SAS founded several new private companies to provide military service later in 1960-1970s.
After the end of the Cold War, the atmosphere of the global political changed. With cutting national defense budget, countries started relying on private military companies to improve the efficiency of armies, which resulted in the dramatic growth of PMCs in both size and numbers.
During the Iraq war in 2003, USA successfully cooperated with Blackwater Worldwide. It represented the new ground of private military industry; it generated much discussion and criticism, and what is the next step of this emerging industry is still misty.
ii. Services of PMC
Nowadays, as patterns of war become more and more complicated, the services that PMSC provide diverse as well:
(a) Base support: maintaining the grounds, running dining facilities, performing laundry
services, transportation, etc.
(b) Military Training and Consultant
(c) Security guard:Protection of diplomats, officials, and military facilities.
(d) Maritime security
(e) Peace industry:Peacekeeping operations, where they are either engaged by States that are unwilling or unable to send their own military personnel to support peacekeeping efforts or by the United Nations.
iii. Controversy
Despite the success of cooperation between USA and PMCs, it also aroused some criticism:
(a) Monopoly of legitimate use of force
In modern democracy, civilians give government the authority to manage the country. With the sole right to found force, government guarantees its power and creditability. Laws and regulations set by state are valid only if when they are enforced. Instead, if state loses control of its monopoly, then its necessary task for country to survive like tax collecting will be challenged. Since that the willing to obey the obligation is low, the country is unable to operate, which results in vacuum for non-state actor to take control.
Nonetheless, after the blossom of PMCs, the idea that country should maintain monopoly is challenged. Some states are trying to outsource part task of their military, such as intelligence gathering and logistics, for the purpose of saving the military budget. The trend of PMCs brings in two argument:First of all, tasks like information collecting will increase the dependency on PMCs. When intelligence gathering jobs are handled by the powerful minority, the benefit of peculiar group will be overemphasize. Also, if important information is leaked, it may threaten the national security. Second, without essential democracy scrutiny, PMCs are hard to supervise which could cause abuses.
(b) Violation of human rights
On 16 September 2007 in Baghdad, Iraq, employees of US-based company Blackwater were involved in a shooting incident in Nisoor Square in which 17 civilians were killed and more than 20 other persons were wounded, including women and children. Local eyewitness accounts indicate the use of arms from vehicles and rocket fire from a helicopter belonging to this company. Ever since this incident, the problems of human rights violation have been spotlighted.
Furthermore, PMCs are accused of involving many torture:Arbitrary detention, health damage, and trafficking in persons. Take Blackwater for instance. According to a congressional report on the behavior of Blackwater in Iraq, Blackwater guards were found to have been involved in nearly 200 escalation-of-force incidents that involved the firing of shots from 2005 to 2010. These disordered behaviors of private contractors during war show the lack of adequate regulations, and the connivance of government.
In addition to the violation of citizens, human rights of PMCs’ employees should be noticed, too. PMCs often put their contractors’ life at risk. On March 31, 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah ambushed two SUVs, killing four-armed Blackwater contractors inside. Local residents hung the charred bodies above a bridge across the Euphrates. PMCs neglect the safety of employees and did not provide necessary means in order to carry out the mission.
(c) Harm of state sovereignty
Since PMC is a private firm, it relies on commerce institutions. In other words, PMCs could do many things in the grey area of international laws.
States or terrorists can take advantage of PMCs so as to influence other countries’ position and policies.
One major example is Colombia. PMCs aid US corporations to maintain influence by planting informants within locals, and intervene in the humanitarian assistance program funds. With help of PMCs, one can interfere with operation of a state, even the head of a country. The worst circumstance is that if terrorists or anti-government activists work together with PMCs, it would lead to even more conflicts than before.
iv. Current situation
Realizing the importance of managing PMCs, national-level efforts have been made to better regulate actions and activities of PMCs. Nevertheless, countries declare branching positions on PMC issue until now. Meanwhile, the attitude toward PMC differs due to the regional factors. Two major methods now are used on this issue:One is to regulate PMCs by harnessing the industry, for instance, USA, UK, and increasing number of European countries; the other is to outlaw the PMCs, like South Africa and Switzerland.
(a) Afghanistan
The Afghan government is trying very hard in solving the chaotic context on its land. Cooperating with other states, the Afghan government is working with US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) so as to reform its military, called Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF). The government expects to reverse the disordered and split circumstance into a stable situation. In 2010, Presidential Decree No. 62 claimed the gradual elimination of PMCs from the state. Afghanistan set 2014 as the deadline for assuming responsibility for its own security.
But the difficulties may not be solved so easily. Although Afghan government took efforts to carry out a series of projects such as Afghan Local Police (ALP), the problems lies in the fact that less than half the territory of the country are under the control of the Government. Moreover, according to an estimate of Ministry of the Interior (MOI), no fewer than 2,500 unauthorized armed groups were operating in those provinces under governmental control. It shows the crisis that security is not a public good, but a limited service to foreigners and wealthy Afghans.
(b) Somalia
Somalia is a country located in eastern Africa, near Gulf of Aden. Because of the breakdown of Somali government and the prosperous transportation, local fishers, merchants, and anti-government activists found they could profit from piracy. With well-trained sailors, organized system, and heavy firepower, piracy in Somalia has been a thorn in the eyes of many states.
Aside from maritime security by national force, now many PMCs started providing private security service for vessels that fear pirate attacks. Ships pay about $5,000 per day for a four-man armed team, on duty for 4 to 20 days. Tremendous commercial profits attract firms from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen to enter the new ground. By December 2013, the US Office of Naval Intelligence reported that only 9 vessels had been attacked during the year by the pirates, with zero successful hijackings.
(c) South Africa
After the abolishment of apartheid laws in 1992, many personnel jump from government military to private sector. Accordingly, the relationship between South Africa government and PMCs is undoubtedly good and close. In May, 1998, the Congress enacted Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, which was announced to “regulate the rendering of foreign military assistance by South African juristic persons, citizens, persons permanently resident in the Republic, and foreign citizens who render such assistance from within the borders of the Republic.” The special connection between South African government and PMCs began to decay. In 2001, the Private Security Industry Regulation Act was legislated, and 2006, the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Act.
In 2012, the Cabinet approved the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill. If passed, only company with at least 51 percent of the ownership and control exercised by citizens would be permitted to register. Also the authority requested companies provide information monthly, with recruitment, training, hiring out, sending or deploying security services outside South Africa.
(d) Switzerland
Many multinational enterprises register in Switzerland due to its low businesses taxes, political stability, and neutral image, so do PMCs. Until 2013, 20 PMCs have registered in Switzerland. Swiss government is not willing to see this, “Switzerland would no longer serve as a base for activities that violate human rights.” said Simonetta Sommaruga, Swiss Justice Minster. As a result, Switzerland announced a draft law in 2013, which forbids firms or holding companies based in Switzerland to “directly take part in hostilities within an armed conflict abroad.” The government of Switzerland is trying to step on the road of banning PMCs.
(e) United Kingdom
United Kingdom joined the Iraq war in 2003. Cooperating with the US government, the UK government is also a main promoter of the PMC trend.
Similar to USA, the UK relies on PMC to aid the operation of national military. In preparation for 2012 London Olympics Games, the Government signed a £284 million contract with a UK-based company, G4S, in which G4S promised to supply 13,700 private security guards during the event. However, G4S eventually failed to recruit and train enough staff for the Games. The British government had to deploy 3,500 troops of its own force at last. This incident shows that the UK starts to outsource some parts of its military work. Moreover, it motivates the Government to fasten the pace of managing PMCs.
Shortly after the Olympics, in December, 2012, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced that it had endorsed a voluntary regulatory scheme for PMCs operating in armed conflict zones, adopting the U.S. national standard for private security providers. This standard was developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), in purpose of guiding PMCs in providing services that “respect human rights”. The UK government expects to promote the establishment of an international standard in the future.
(f) United States of America
The growth of PMC industry has been most obvious in the USA. Currently, US government spends about $138 billion per year. In 2012, the US Department of Defense’s annual expenditure on overseas services accounted for $44 billion, approximately 60% in Iraq and Afghanistan. Until March, 2013, US Department of Defense has 108 thousand contractors in Afghanistan. In the future, the USA plans to keep increasing the number of private security contractors. PMCs have become more important in the national defense of the USA.
Regarding managing PMC, PMCs are subject to a complicated set of laws and regulations, and their activities are inspected and reported on by more than 20 federal oversight bodies and committees. With complex supervising mechanisms, the Congress may rapidly respond to US government’s use of PMCs.
III. Past Actions
i. UN Convention against the Use of Mercenaries (1989)
The United Nations Mercenary Convention, officially International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, is a treaty which limits the activities of mercenaries. The convention was adopted at the 72nd plenary meeting on 4 December, 1989; the United Nations General Assembly concluded it as resolution 44/34. The convention entered into force on 20 October 2001.
The issue of PMCs was involved into the problems caused by mercenaries initially. Faced with the mercenary dispute, UN realized its violation of rules of international laws such as state sovereignty, political neutrality, and self-determination of civilians. Therefore, UN endorsed this convention.
However, until now only 33 states have ratified this convention; most countries that contract PMCs didn’t sign the convention. Also, according to the convention, mercenary is “specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict, and motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain……” the service of PMCs excess the narrow definition of the convention. Not only the less number of signatory country, but the incomplete of context make convention not enough to regulate PMCs.
ii. Working Group (2005)
In July, 2005, The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination was established, pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/2. In resolution 7/21, Human Right Council required the working group to monitor and report on activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services on the international market.
In March, 2013, the working group published a study on the use of PMCs and intends to report its research and proposals on PMCs problems to the General Assembly in 2014. As we can see, a working group that specially studies PMCs issue does not exist currently.
iii. Montreux Document (2008)
Switzerland has worked with International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) concerning the problems of PMCs since 2006. The result of this cooperation bloomed on September 17th, 2008, with 17 states reaching an understanding on this topic and announcing the Montreux Document. This document elaborates a set of over 70 practices developed by experts from 17 countries, also regulate the differences and obligations of contracting States, territorial States and home States.
The Montreux Document roughly clarifies the standards and responsibilities of PMCs. The only and the biggest problems of this document is that it is not a legal binding instrument, which means that it does not affect or limit any current obligations of states and PMCs. An international law on PMCs is still under discussion.
iv. International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (2010)
On November 9th, 2010, 58 PMCs from 15 countries in Geneva signed the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers. This instrument is a non-state mechanism developed by Swiss government, building on the basis of Montreux Document. It recognizes the well-established rules of international law applied to States in their relations with PMCs and provides for good practices relating to PMCs. The Signatory Companies are committed to the responsible provision of Security Services so as to support the rule of law, respect the human rights of all persons, and protect the interests of their clients. Until September, 2013, 708 companies have signed the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers.
The announcement of instrument represents self-consciousness of PMCs, recognizing the dispute brought by PMCs such as torture, inadequate use of force, human trafficking, and sexual assault. We can see these companies are trying to solve problems by protecting human rights of both personnel and civilians. Undoubtedly, this is a milestone for the development of PMCs industry.
v. Use of PMCs
United Nations have cooperated with a few PMCs in some specialized service such as advice, training, demining, logistics, etc. Currently the troops in charge of front-line peacekeeping do not substitute by PMCs. It remains controversial and leaves much room for discussion whether the use of PMCs should be extended to the first-line missions.
i. UN Convention against the Use of Mercenaries (1989)
The United Nations Mercenary Convention, officially International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, is a treaty which limits the activities of mercenaries. The convention was adopted at the 72nd plenary meeting on 4 December, 1989; the United Nations General Assembly concluded it as resolution 44/34. The convention entered into force on 20 October 2001.
The issue of PMCs was involved into the problems caused by mercenaries initially. Faced with the mercenary dispute, UN realized its violation of rules of international laws such as state sovereignty, political neutrality, and self-determination of civilians. Therefore, UN endorsed this convention.
However, until now only 33 states have ratified this convention; most countries that contract PMCs didn’t sign the convention. Also, according to the convention, mercenary is “specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict, and motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain……” the service of PMCs excess the narrow definition of the convention. Not only the less number of signatory country, but the incomplete of context make convention not enough to regulate PMCs.
ii. Working Group (2005)
In July, 2005, The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination was established, pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/2. In resolution 7/21, Human Right Council required the working group to monitor and report on activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services on the international market.
In March, 2013, the working group published a study on the use of PMCs and intends to report its research and proposals on PMCs problems to the General Assembly in 2014. As we can see, a working group that specially studies PMCs issue does not exist currently.
iii. Montreux Document (2008)
Switzerland has worked with International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) concerning the problems of PMCs since 2006. The result of this cooperation bloomed on September 17th, 2008, with 17 states reaching an understanding on this topic and announcing the Montreux Document. This document elaborates a set of over 70 practices developed by experts from 17 countries, also regulate the differences and obligations of contracting States, territorial States and home States.
The Montreux Document roughly clarifies the standards and responsibilities of PMCs. The only and the biggest problems of this document is that it is not a legal binding instrument, which means that it does not affect or limit any current obligations of states and PMCs. An international law on PMCs is still under discussion.
iv. International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (2010)
On November 9th, 2010, 58 PMCs from 15 countries in Geneva signed the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers. This instrument is a non-state mechanism developed by Swiss government, building on the basis of Montreux Document. It recognizes the well-established rules of international law applied to States in their relations with PMCs and provides for good practices relating to PMCs. The Signatory Companies are committed to the responsible provision of Security Services so as to support the rule of law, respect the human rights of all persons, and protect the interests of their clients. Until September, 2013, 708 companies have signed the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers.
The announcement of instrument represents self-consciousness of PMCs, recognizing the dispute brought by PMCs such as torture, inadequate use of force, human trafficking, and sexual assault. We can see these companies are trying to solve problems by protecting human rights of both personnel and civilians. Undoubtedly, this is a milestone for the development of PMCs industry.
v. Use of PMCs
United Nations have cooperated with a few PMCs in some specialized service such as advice, training, demining, logistics, etc. Currently the troops in charge of front-line peacekeeping do not substitute by PMCs. It remains controversial and leaves much room for discussion whether the use of PMCs should be extended to the first-line missions.
IV. Questions
1. What is the difference between mercenaries and private military companies?
2. Should PMCs be used in the front-line missions? Should PMCs be limited to
defensive attack?
3. How to monitor the activities of PMCs?
4. What kinds of methods should be adopted to regulate the PMCs?
Harness, Prohibition or others?
5. Should United Nations use PMCs on peacekeeping?
1. What is the difference between mercenaries and private military companies?
2. Should PMCs be used in the front-line missions? Should PMCs be limited to
defensive attack?
3. How to monitor the activities of PMCs?
4. What kinds of methods should be adopted to regulate the PMCs?
Harness, Prohibition or others?
5. Should United Nations use PMCs on peacekeeping?
V. References
1. United Nations, General Assembly, 44/34:
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/547/93/IMG/NR054793.pdf?OpenElement
2. Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Mercenaries/WGMercenaries/Pages/WGMercenariesIndex.aspx
3. United Nations, Human Rights Council, Resolution 7/21:
Mandate of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_21.pdf
4. United Nations. General Assembly, A/67/340:
Report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/476/27/PDF/N1247627.pdf?OpenElement
5. United Nations, General Assembly, Security Council, A/63/467–S/2008/636:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/droi/dv/801_emontreux_/801_emontreux_en.pdf
6. United Nations, General Assembly, A/67/340:
Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/476/27/PDF/N1247627.pdf?OpenElement
7. International Committee of Red Cross, International humanitarian law and private military/security companies
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/pmsc-faq-150908.htm
8. University of Denver, Private Security Monitor
http://psm.du.edu/national_regulation/
9. Control PMSC
http://controlpmsc.org/
10. The Privatization of War: Mercenaries, Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-privatization-of-war-mercenaries-private-military-and-security-companies-pmsc/21826
11. FCO endorses ASIS standard for regulation of private military companies
http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2012/12/19/fco-endorses-asis-standard-for-regulation-of-private-military-companies/
12. 2012 LONDON OLYMPICS- George Galloway
http://www.privatesecuritycorp.com/tag/olympics/
13. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has today taken further steps to implement robust national standards for the regulation of the UK based Private Military and Security Company (PMSC) industry.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/promoting-high-standards-in-the-uk-pmsc-industry
14. UK Adopts the ANSI Standard
http://ihrib.org/site/jupgrade/blog/pmsc/
15. Switzerland Checks Mercenaries, Partially
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/switzerland-checks-mercenaries-partially/
16. The Swiss initiative on private military and security companies
http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/M139CHAP10.PDF
17. European practices of regulation of PMSCs and recommendations for regulation of PMSCs through international legal instruments
http://psm.du.edu/media/documents/reports_and_stats/think_tanks/dcaf_buzatu_european-practices.pdf
18. The rise of private maritime security companies
http://www.somaliareport.com/index.php/post/3380/The_Rise_of_Private_Maritime_Security_Companies
19. Somalia and the PMSC Market
http://iissonline.net/somalia-and-the-pmsc-market/
20. Somali piracy is down 90 per cent from last year
http://www.thejournal.ie/piracy-somalia-down-on-last-year-1219326-Dec2013/
21. Governance Dynamics and Regulation in the Global Private Security Market http://www.socsci.uci.edu/files/internationalstudies/docs/avant_01272011.pdf
22. Warlords, Inc.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/pmscs/52053-warlords-inc.html?itemid=id#50109
23. Hardly an Unalloyed Virtue: PMSC in Afghanistan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-isenberg/hardly-an-unalloyed-virtu_b_694888.html
24. UN Use of Private Military and Security Companies: Practices and Policies
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1010017
25. Republic of South Africa, Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Mercenaries/WG/Law/SouthAfrica4.pdf
1. United Nations, General Assembly, 44/34:
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/547/93/IMG/NR054793.pdf?OpenElement
2. Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Mercenaries/WGMercenaries/Pages/WGMercenariesIndex.aspx
3. United Nations, Human Rights Council, Resolution 7/21:
Mandate of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_21.pdf
4. United Nations. General Assembly, A/67/340:
Report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/476/27/PDF/N1247627.pdf?OpenElement
5. United Nations, General Assembly, Security Council, A/63/467–S/2008/636:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/droi/dv/801_emontreux_/801_emontreux_en.pdf
6. United Nations, General Assembly, A/67/340:
Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/476/27/PDF/N1247627.pdf?OpenElement
7. International Committee of Red Cross, International humanitarian law and private military/security companies
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/pmsc-faq-150908.htm
8. University of Denver, Private Security Monitor
http://psm.du.edu/national_regulation/
9. Control PMSC
http://controlpmsc.org/
10. The Privatization of War: Mercenaries, Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-privatization-of-war-mercenaries-private-military-and-security-companies-pmsc/21826
11. FCO endorses ASIS standard for regulation of private military companies
http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2012/12/19/fco-endorses-asis-standard-for-regulation-of-private-military-companies/
12. 2012 LONDON OLYMPICS- George Galloway
http://www.privatesecuritycorp.com/tag/olympics/
13. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has today taken further steps to implement robust national standards for the regulation of the UK based Private Military and Security Company (PMSC) industry.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/promoting-high-standards-in-the-uk-pmsc-industry
14. UK Adopts the ANSI Standard
http://ihrib.org/site/jupgrade/blog/pmsc/
15. Switzerland Checks Mercenaries, Partially
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/switzerland-checks-mercenaries-partially/
16. The Swiss initiative on private military and security companies
http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/M139CHAP10.PDF
17. European practices of regulation of PMSCs and recommendations for regulation of PMSCs through international legal instruments
http://psm.du.edu/media/documents/reports_and_stats/think_tanks/dcaf_buzatu_european-practices.pdf
18. The rise of private maritime security companies
http://www.somaliareport.com/index.php/post/3380/The_Rise_of_Private_Maritime_Security_Companies
19. Somalia and the PMSC Market
http://iissonline.net/somalia-and-the-pmsc-market/
20. Somali piracy is down 90 per cent from last year
http://www.thejournal.ie/piracy-somalia-down-on-last-year-1219326-Dec2013/
21. Governance Dynamics and Regulation in the Global Private Security Market http://www.socsci.uci.edu/files/internationalstudies/docs/avant_01272011.pdf
22. Warlords, Inc.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/pmscs/52053-warlords-inc.html?itemid=id#50109
23. Hardly an Unalloyed Virtue: PMSC in Afghanistan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-isenberg/hardly-an-unalloyed-virtu_b_694888.html
24. UN Use of Private Military and Security Companies: Practices and Policies
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1010017
25. Republic of South Africa, Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Mercenaries/WG/Law/SouthAfrica4.pdf