Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- Preface
- 1 Non-state actors as standard setters: framing the issue in an interdisciplinary fashion
- PART I New actors and processes in contemporary standard setting
- 2 Local and regional non-state actors on the margins of public policy in Africa
- 3 Conceptualising the use of public–private partnerships as a regulatory arrangement in critical information infrastructure protection
- 4 Standard setting at the cutting edge: an evidence-based typology for multi-stakeholder initiatives
- 5 New standards for and by private military companies?
- 6 Governance matters VII: aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2007
- 7 Contending with illicit power structures: a typology
- PART II The legitimacy and accountability of actors and standards
- PART III The authority and effectiveness of actors and standards
- Index
- References
5 - New standards for and by private military companies?
from PART I - New actors and processes in contemporary standard setting
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- Preface
- 1 Non-state actors as standard setters: framing the issue in an interdisciplinary fashion
- PART I New actors and processes in contemporary standard setting
- 2 Local and regional non-state actors on the margins of public policy in Africa
- 3 Conceptualising the use of public–private partnerships as a regulatory arrangement in critical information infrastructure protection
- 4 Standard setting at the cutting edge: an evidence-based typology for multi-stakeholder initiatives
- 5 New standards for and by private military companies?
- 6 Governance matters VII: aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2007
- 7 Contending with illicit power structures: a typology
- PART II The legitimacy and accountability of actors and standards
- PART III The authority and effectiveness of actors and standards
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Private military companies (PMCs) are becoming a well-known phenomenon. The fact that the employees of private military companies, taken together, make up the second largest contingent in Iraq – now estimated to number at least 48,000, second only to the US armed forces – has sparked enormous debate among policy makers, military leaders, non-government organisations and academics on the role of these actors in situations of armed conflict. Observers and critics have especially expressed concerns regarding the responsibility of private actors for human rights violations and the wisdom of being able to rely only on a commercial contract to compel a person to remain in a war zone and carry out life-threatening tasks. For some, the privatisation of large-scale violence may signal the beginning of a massive change in the concept of the essential, necessary components of statehood. As for the companies, instead of hiding as shadowy mercenaries, they now hold international conferences attended by former dignitaries. For lawyers, governments and political scientists, the accountability and regulation of private military companies are the key issues that urgently need to be addressed, implying a tacit acceptance that these companies are here to stay and do not need to be outlawed.
Private military companies exploded onto the international scene in 2004 largely due to two incidents in Iraq, aside from their sheer numbers: first, the brutal execution of four employees of the PMC ‘Blackwater’ in Fallujah, which led to the US response in that city using overwhelming force and, second, the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison carried out with the involvement of PMC employees.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Non-State Actors as Standard Setters , pp. 113 - 145Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
1982, ‘Guerrilla Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status’, American University Law Review, vol. 31, 871–82.Google Scholar
2005, ‘Private Military Contractor Liability and Accountability after Abu Ghraib’, John Marshall Law Review, vol. 38, 1237–63.Google Scholar
2007, ‘Chief of Blackwater Defends His Employees’, New York Times, 3 October 2007.
2006, ‘Private Military Companies: Their Status under International Humanitarian Law and its Impact on their Regulation’, International Review Red Cross, vol. 88, 573–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2006, ‘Prosecuting the Lawless: Human Rights Abuses and Private Military Firms’, George Washington Law Review, vol. 74, 317–44.Google Scholar
2006, ‘Elements for Contracting and Regulating Private Security and Military Companies’, International Review Red Cross, vol. 88, 637–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005, ‘Government for Hire: Privatizing Foreign Affairs and the Problem of Accountability under International Law’, William and Mary Law Review, vol. 45, 135–237.Google Scholar
2003, ‘The Legal Situation of “Unlawful/Unprivileged Combatants”’, International Review Red Cross, vol. 85, 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2007, ‘Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues’, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 19.Google Scholar
1999/2000, ‘Deterring “Militarized Commerce”: The Prospect of Liability for “Privatized” Human Rights Abuses’, Ottawa Law Review, vol. 31, 171–211.Google Scholar
2005, ‘Private Military Firms in the New World Order: How Redefining “Mercenary” can Tame the “Dogs of War”’, Fordham Law Review, vol. 73, 2607–64.Google Scholar
2001, ‘Civilianizing the Force: Is the United States Crossing the Rubicon?’, Air Force Law Review, vol. 51, 111–42.Google Scholar
1991, ‘Mercenaries: Diagnosis before Proscription’, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol. 22, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005, ‘Civilians at War: Reexamining the Status of Civilians Accompanying the Armed Forces’, Air Force Law Review, vol. 57, 155–208.Google Scholar
2005, ‘Private Security Companies: The Case for Regulation’, SIPRI Policy Paper, no. 9.
1995, ‘Combatants and Non-Combatants’ in (ed.), Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Oxford University Press, 65–101.Google Scholar
2006, Eroding State Authority? Private Military Companies and the Legitimate Use of Force, Rome, Rubbetino.Google Scholar
, US Army 2004, ‘The Law of War and Civilians on the Battlefield: Are We Undermining Civilian Protections?’, Military Review, 17–25.Google Scholar
2003, ‘Overcoming Post-Colonial Myopia: A Call to Recognize and Regulate Private Military Companies’, Military Law Review, vol. 176, 1–95.Google Scholar
2002, 5th edn, Oxford University Press.
2006, ‘Promoting Compliance of Private Security and Military Companies with International Humanitarian Law’, International Review Red Cross, vol. 88, 613–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2004, ‘Military Uniforms and the Law of War’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 86, 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1952, The Geneva Conventions of 1949: Commentary, III Geneva Convention, Geneva, ICRC, 52 et seq.
2003, ‘Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law’, HPCR Working Paper, available at www.ihlresearch.org/portal/ihli/alabama.php.
, and 1987, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Geneva and Dordrecht, ICRC and Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
(forthcoming), ‘Combatants’ in , Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Heidelberg, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.
and 2006, ‘The Protection of Civilian Objects – Current State of the Law and Issues de lege ferenda’ in and (eds.), The Law of Air Warfare – Contemporary Issues, Utrecht, Eleven International Publishing, 35–74.Google Scholar
2005, ‘War, International Law and Sovereignty: Re-Evaluating the Rules of the Game in a New Century: Humanitarian Law and Direct Participation in Hostilities by Private Contractors or Civilian Employees’, Chicago Journal International Law, vol. 5, 511–46.Google Scholar
and 2005, Privatising Security: Law, Practice and Governance of Private Military and Security Companies, Geneva, DCAF, available at www.dcaf.ch.Google Scholar
2006, ‘UK: Blair Accused of Trying to “Privatise” War in Iraq’, The Independent, 30 October 2006.
2003, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
2004, ‘War, Profits and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law’, Columbia J Transnational Law, vol. 42, 521–49.Google Scholar
2001, USAF, Civilians at the Tip of the Spear: Civilian Issues Commanders Encounter During Deployments, Alabama, Maxwell Airforce Base.Google Scholar
and 2005, ‘Contracting out War? Private Military Companies, Law and Regulation in the United Kingdom’, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 54, 651–89.Google Scholar
2005, ‘Warriors Without Rights? Combatants, Unprivileged Belligerents, and the Struggle over Legitimacy’, HPCR, Occasional Paper Series, 25.Google Scholar
2005, ‘European Security and Private Military Companies: The Prospects for Privatized “Battlegroups”’, The Quarterly Journal, 107–26.Google Scholar
1998, ‘The Emergence of a New Dog of War: Private International Security Companies, International Law and the New World Disorder’, Stanford Journal of International Law, vol. 34, 75–162.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by