I know that this is a little old, but I still thought it was important to mention. So why is a document about clarifying the rules for private military and security companies important? My answer is because it helps to legitimize the industry and gives us all a framework of rules to operate by in the various war zones out there. Wether or not this document is effective in keeping the companies in line is up for debate, but it is a start. And I think what this document is really useful for, is getting the various companies and countries and agencies talking about the subject and consolidating the rules that apply to the industry. In essence, to make everyone happy so they can talk about the next step of utilizing the services of these companies. So talking is good for everyone.
There is no question that the industry would like to be more involved in Africa, and especially with the advent of AFRICOM(US Africa Command). But Africa has some history with shady mercenary operations. The international community has had some resistance to allowing anything that resembles a mercenary force to operate in Africa because of this history, and that is what the industry is up against now.
But really, this same international community is screaming for someone to protect ships from pirates off the shore of Somalia and screaming for someone to protect the people or convoys in places like the Sudan and the Congo. And because the UN has been so incredibly inefficient and ineffectual in these regions, and are such a complete waste of money, that actually paying a professional security company to do these kinds of peace keeping duties or protective duties has been entertained.
I guess another way to look at it, is we are an industry ready and willing to be the protector in this dangerous world, and we are not bloodthirsty ‘mercenaries’ out to steal your diamonds through offensive assaults on villages and towns. I know that sounds extreme, but this is the perception that the industry has to fight if it wants to continue to do business outside of Iraq or Afghanistan. We will get there, and the Montreux Document is just one sign of the steps being taken to get there.
All I know is that I think these companies could do an excellent job in these countries, if given the task and the correct oversight. A part of that oversight is having some rules that we play by, that give everyone out there a warm and fuzzy about what we can or can’t do. Although the Montreux Document is not a legally binding document at this time, it is a start. It is a step towards legitimizing this industry and changing the view of this industry. –Head Jundi
————————————————————————————–
States clarify rules for security contractors
Wed 17 Sep 2008, 15:48 GMT
By Jonathan Lynn
GENEVA, Sept 17 (Reuters) – Seventeen countries have agreed on rules to ensure that private military companies operating in war zones do not break international humanitarian law or abuse human rights, a senior Swiss diplomat said on Wednesday.
The document brings together current laws and obligations to dispel the notion that private military and security companies operate in a legal void, said Paul Seger, head of international law at the Swiss foreign ministry.
“The main advantage of this document is to assemble the essential legal norms that do exist and put them in one document,” Seger told Reuters in an interview after government experts approved the paper, the result of an initiative launched in late 2005 by the Swiss government and the Red Cross.
Participants include states employing private military firms or where they are based, such as the United States and Britain, and where they operate, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
It emphasises that even if states contract out military and security services they retain their obligations under international law, and must prevent violations, Seger said.
And it confirms private military firms have obligations.
Besides compiling existing law to reaffirm and clarify the obligations of states, the document also catalogues 73 good practices, defining criteria for vetting companies and monitoring and supervising them, Seger said.
Security companies and non-governmental organisations participated in the meetings leading up to the document. “The ‘good’ members of this sector would really like to see this document which defines what their obligations are,” Seger said.
SECURITY FUNCTIONS
Governments have increasingly outsourced security functions such as guarding embassies and providing escorts to private companies, which are also employed by media and aid organisations and businesses operating in insecure areas.
The United States is one of the biggest users of security contractors, but it does not employ private military firms, U.S. State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger said.
In Iraq, the State Department has 1,300 security contractors protecting diplomats and aid workers. And the U.S. Defense Department has about 7,000 contractors protecting civilian staff, he told a news conference.
Bellinger said the use of these contractors had led governments to want to codify rules for them. And Washington was extending the extra-territorial reach of U.S. law.
“We believe that individuals who commit offences need to be held accountable. To the extent that our laws are not broad enough to cover their activities we support expansion of our laws,” he said.
One of the best known contractors is Blackwater Worldwide, which guards U.S. government personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. It faced heavy criticism and an FBI investigation over the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in a crowded Baghdad square a year ago.
Bellinger said the individuals concerned were now in the United States and had not been subject to Iraqi jurisdiction. So any prosecution would take place under U.S. law. (Editing by Richard Balmforth)
Story Link Here
And a Copy of the Montreux Document