By Alexander Perepechko

Published on April 9, 2016

Illicit activities authorized by powers: contractors vs. mercenaries

Private military and security companies have been operating in a legal vacuum for decades. In doing so, they pose a considerable threat to civilians and to international human rights law. Confusion begins with the subject matter definition.

According to The Montreux Document. On Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Armed Conflict (hereafter, The Montreux Document) (2009: 9), private military and security companies are private business entities that provide military and/or security services, irrespective of how they describe themselves. Military and security services include armed guarding and protection of persons and objects, such as convoys, buildings and other places; maintenance and operation of weapons systems; prisoner detention; and advice to or training of local forces and security personnel.

In accordance with the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICoC) (2013: 18), private security companies and private security service providers include any company whose business activities include the provision of security services either on its own behalf or on behalf of another, irrespective of how such a company describes itself. Security services guard and protect persons and objects, such as convoys, facilities, designated sites, property or other places (whether armed or unarmed), or any other activity for which personnel are required to carry or operate a weapon in performance of their duties.

So, what is similar in these definitions? And what is the difference between them?
Continue reading Securitization of post-heroic America. From organized crime to low intensity conflict and from the liberal state to the “post-modern” state? (part 5) →