Private Military and Security Companies and the Liberal Conception of Violence

Abstract

The institution of war is the broad framework of rules, norms, and organizations dedicated to the prevention, prosecution, and resolution of violent conflict between political entities. Important parts of that institution consist of the accountability arrangements that hold between armed forces, the political leaders who oversee and direct the use of those forces, and the people in whose name the leaders act and from whose ranks the members of the armed forces are drawn. Like other parts of the institution, these arrangements are responsive to changes in military technology and needs, to geopolitical facts, and to moral and political norms. In particular, they are sensitive to the forms that military organization takes. Since the emergence of modern states in Europe some 500 years ago, there have been three main such forms: private providers—in the form of mercenaries, in early modern Europe—then professional standing armies, which in turn developed into citizen armies. Although elements of the three organizations have coexisted in many armies, the citizen army model has dominated until recently. That model brought with it a particular conception of the accountability relations between the army, the state, and the people. The state had authority over and directed the army, which was accountable to it. In turn the state was accountable for its use of the army to the people, on whose behalf it acted.

The dominance of state authority over the military is now under strain, with the professional and private elements—in the form of private military and security companies (PMSCs)—having increasing importance. As those elements increase in power and presence, so it becomes more difficult to make the state accountable to the people for its use of the military, and more difficult for the people to act as a restraining force on the way in which the military used.

In this essay, I outline and assess these developments—with particular emphasis on the emergence of PMSCs—in the light of a liberal view of (political) violence. The essay focuses on the situation in the United States, which possesses by far the most important military force in the world today, and in which the use of PMSCs is most developed. The paper has three main sections and a brief conclusion: the first section sketches the liberal view of violence and its implications for organizations dedicated to its use; the second outlines the salient characteristics of the three historically dominant forms of armies; and the third looks at the current situation in which the three forms coexist uneasily.     

Revisiting the Role of Private Military and Security Companies

Abstract

This essay addresses the role of private military and security companies (PMSCs) in security governance. In this context, it offers a historical overview of some of the main developments in the evolution of private warfare and critically discusses some of the key challenges confronting the quest for holding PMSCs accountable in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian norms.     

Accountability for Private Military and Security Contractors in the International Legal Regime

Abstract

The rapidly growing presence of private military and security contractors (PMSCs) in armed conflict and post-conflict situations in the last decade brought corresponding incidents of serious misconduct by PMSC personnel. The two most infamous events—one involving the firm formerly known as Blackwater and the other involving Titan and CACI—engendered scrutiny of available mechanisms for criminal and civil accountability of the individuals whose misconduct caused the harm. Along a parallel track, scholars and policymakers began examining the responsibility of states and international organizations for the harm that occurred. Both approaches have primarily focused on post-conduct accountability—of the individuals who caused the harm, of the state in which the harm occurred, or of the state or organization that hired the PMSC whose personnel caused the harm. Less attention, however, has been paid to the idea of pre-conduct accountability for PMSCs and their personnel. A broad understanding of “accountability for” PMSCs and their personnel encompasses not only responsibility for harm caused by conduct, but responsibility for hiring, hosting, and monitoring these entities, as well as responsibility to the victims of the harm. This article provides a comprehensive approach for analyzing the existing international legal regime, and whether and to what extent the legal regime provides “accountability for” PMSCs and their personnel. It does so by proposing a practical construct of three phases based on PMSC operations—Contracting, In-the-Field, and Post-Conduct—with which to assess the various bodies of international law.     

Mind the Gap: Lacunae in the International Legal Framework Governing Private Military and Security Companies

Abstract

This article examines the common claim that there are gaps in international law that undermine accountability of private military and security companies. A multi-actor analysis examines this question in relation to the commission of international crimes, violations of fundamental human rights, and ordinary crimes. Without this critical first step of identifying specific deficiencies in international law, the debate about how to enhance accountability within this sector is likely to be misguided at best.     

Private Security: Enforcing Corporate Security Policy Using Private Investigators

This article focuses on the use of private investigators as external agents, commissioned to enforce internal corporate security policy. After describing the sorts of services private investigators provide to industry and commerce and the legal contexts within which they operate, it considers private investigators as a form of secret police within private justice systems defined by companies. It considers the relationship between notions of public good and commercial expediency and raises important questions about the problem of controlling activities which are purposefully kept from legal scrutiny.     

Outlaw Private Security Firms: Criminal and Terrorist Agendas Undermine Private Security Alternatives

The thousands of large and small private security establishments operating around the world today continue to expand in number, diversity, and capability. Government oversight is often lacking, and the impact on local, national and regional security and stability may be substantial. In the most troubled areas, the pockets of security provided by private security regimens provide may mean the difference between a failed state and one that is at least faltering. However, the advantages of “private security firm cover” quickly became evident to criminals and groups with terrorist agendas as well. This assessment addresses numerous cases from around the world of private security establishments that were either formed for—or otherwise turned to—the pursuit of criminal or terrorist purposes. The stated jihadist intent to infiltrate such companies underscores the need for law enforcement and intelligence attention to the recruiting, affiliations and activities of these security enterprises.     

The Criminalisation of Russian State Security

While the Russian authorities may seek to talk up the role their security apparatus plays in combating organised crime, in fact, they are to a large extent falling prey to criminalisation. A culture of corruption and a decade of neglect have combined to create a situation in which not only do police, army, and security officers provide services to ‘civilian’ criminals but organised crime groupings have actually formed within them. These gangs tend to be defined by their location and legal powers, both of which can be abused for criminal ends, and they include police and military officers at the very apex of their respective command structures. There are grounds for hope now that President Putin is beginning to become aware of the practical dangers this poses for Russian national security, not least given the haemorrhage of weapons to criminal and insurgent hands, but, for the immediate future, the security apparatus will remain corrupted and criminalised.     

Transparency as a Core Public Value and Mechanism of Compliance

Abstract

Private security contractors are just the tip of an outsourcing iceberg. Across the three Ds of defense, diplomacy, and development, American foreign policy has been privatized. The Obama administration inherited a government that had been hollowed out to an unprecedented extent, and in many realms it had and has no choice but to depend on contractors to conduct what used to be state business. This essay examines the reasons for and unintended negative consequences of this outsourcing of American power. It argues that turning the clock back and returning everything to in-house assignments is both undesirable and impossible. Instead, government must pursue contracting in ways that do not undermine the public interest. It can do this by identifying the things that should never be outsourced and ensuring that the letter and spirit of the Federal Funding Transparency and Accountability Act is upheld. Greater transparency in contractor–government relations will foster private security contractor compliance with ethical norms while bolstering our capacity for self-government. Transparency is thus both an end in itself and a means to sustainable democratic deliberation. While tension can exist between national security and open government, that tension is often overestimated.     

Powers and Accountability of Private Police

Substantial growth in private policing has been documented in countries throughout the world, and the division of responsibilities for policing between public and private authorities has become increasingly blurred and contested during the last three decades. Because private policing is so frequently assessed on the basis of criteria established with respect to the public police, substantial myths have developed about the powers and accountability of private police; specifically, it is commonly asserted that private police have no significant power(s), and are essentially not accountable, in comparison with the public police. The author argues that such assertions misrepresent the very substantial coercive power of private police as well as the variety of mechanisms through which they may be held accountable, and also commonly exaggerate the effective accountability of the public police. The author concludes that a greater appreciation of the actual power and accountability of private police will provide an improved basis for the development of sound public policy with respect to both private and public policing, and with respect to appropriate relationships between private and public policing organisations.     

国家安全的概念与维护国家安全的内容

“国家安全”概念是侦查保卫理论中的一个十分重要的基本概念,不同国家有着不同的解释;国家安全的概念和内容又是随着形势的发展而不断变化的,但其实质是维护国家政权和社会政治稳定。     

Urban Change and Policing: Mass Private Property Re-considered

This article examines a key explanation for the growth of private policing in North America and Western Europe - the influential mass private property thesis (Shearing and Stenning 1981). The discussion of private policing in Western Europe still tends to be heavily influenced by theories developed in the North American context, theories which may be problematic in the contrasting legal, social and economic contexts of Western European nations. The development of more Eurocentric theories has to date been inhibited by the relative paucity of empirical data on the rise of private policing in European countries. Recent research in Britain (Jones and Newburn 1998b) has begun to address this problem, and to map out some important contrasts with the North American experience. By considering these contrasts, it is possible to identify some key areas for future research on private policing in European countries and thus provide a more contextually-grounded series of explanations for what is happening to policing.Joseph Rowntree Foundation Professor of Urban Social Policy     

军事法与军事伦理关系初探

军事伦理和军事法作为上层建筑的成分,都是对军事行为加以规范、控制,并通过规范、控制军事行为来调整军事社会关系。虽然二者之间存在诸多区别,但并非各自属于相互排斥的独立系统,而是客观地存在着一种相互依存、互相渗透的关系。军事法对军事伦理道德起着保护的作用,并促进其发展;军事伦理规范对军事法律制度则是一种重要的补充力量,对军事法的实施起着辅助的作用,对培养和影响军事主体对其现行军事法律制度采取什么态度有着重要的意义。     

论公共利益与私有财产权保护

公共利益需要构成限制私有财产权的理由。保护私有财产权,必须防止公共利益的无限扩张及公共利益的误用与滥用。要正确认识和处理公共利益与个人利益的关系,遵循利益衡量原则、比例原则和信赖保护原则,协调好公共利益与个人利益的冲突,并借助于宪法解释制度明确公共利益的涵义,通过具体立法界定公共利益的范围,建立违宪审查制度,保障公共利益设定的合宪性。     

社会保障国家:法治国家的新蓝图

现代社会是风险社会,社会风险只能经由社会化途径解决,国家经由立法、行政与司法体系对社会进行干预使现代国家逐渐成为社会保障国家。社会保障的发展产生了社会保障权等社会基本权,这些权利的实现需要经历从宪法到法律的途径,社会保障等给付行政应当适用法律保留原则,将社会保障国家逐渐地纳入到法治国家的新蓝图。     

投资人与上市公司证券纠纷可仲裁性探讨

证券市场上因虚假陈述、操纵股价、内幕交易、欺诈客户等违法行为导致投资者利益受损,在我国目前通过司法救济不仅尚不完全且困难重重,而快捷便利的仲裁在这方面亦未发挥应有的作用。无论从证券仲裁的价值理念,还是国外的仲裁实践抑或我国的立法状况,仲裁机构受理投资者与上市公司及相关当事人之间的证券纠纷应当不存在障碍。我国的仲裁机构应当敢为人先,率先制定自己的证券仲裁规则,尽早将投资者与上市公司及相关当事人之间的证券纠纷纳入到仲裁范围。     

美国保安服务业的特点及其借鉴

美国是保安服务业发展最早的国家,也是当今世界保安业最发达的国家之一。而我国保安服务业起步较晚,专业化程度和服务质量都处于较低层次。研究美国保安服务业的特点,借鉴其发展经验,将有利于发展和壮大我国保安服务业。     

根据军事战略进行军事立法因果预测

因果预测是军事立法预测中的重要方法,对军事立法未来状况和发展趋势影响最大。根据军事战略进行的因果预测,可从国防战略、武装力量建设方略和战争策略等方面进行。     

公共惩罚与私人惩罚的互动——一个解读法律制度的新视角

公共惩罚与私人惩罚既相互排斥又相互补充,公共惩罚与私人惩罚的互动可以作为一个解读法律制度的视角。国家为维持法律实施的垄断,通常会对私人惩罚手段(尤其是私人暴力)进行限制,但为节省公共惩罚资源的支出,法律又必须在某些场合容忍甚至利用私人之间的监控与惩罚,公共惩罚资源的有限性迫使国家把私人之间的监控和惩罚视为一项重要的社会控制资源。法律制度的设计应当充分发挥公共惩罚和私人惩罚的比较优势,合理划分公共控制区域和私人控制区域,并努力追求社会控制总成本(即公共控制成本和私人控制成本之和)的最小化。西方近代政治的古典自由主义、中国古代政治的消极无为主义以及公法与私法的区分都在一定程度上体现了这一原则。     

私法原则、规则的二元结构与法益的侵权法保护

私法是由原则与规则组成的。侵权法对法益的保护途径有如下两种 :1.通过规则实现法益保护即以保护权利之名保护法益 ;2 .通过原则实现法益保护即以一般的立法条文制裁故意违反公序良俗行为。我们应该分析两种途径的利弊 ,确定我国侵权法对法益的保护方法。