What are the opportunities and risks associated with the increasing use of private military companies (PMCs) and private security companies (PSCs)? How might national and international institutions mitigate the hazards presented by these privatised activities? This paper from the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces surveys the legal, governance and policy implications of military and security contracting. It argues that, while private companies can offer important support to national armies, their inadequate accountability creates significant security risks, which should be offset by improved regulation.
PMCs are private companies specialising in military activities, including combat, intelligence, training, logistics and arms procurement. These activities are then placed, for a price, at the service of various groups including governments, international agencies and criminals. PSCs focus on providing protection for personnel and property, including humanitarian and industrial assets.
The rapid re-emergence of PMCs and PSCs in the 1990s was due to various factors. Downsizing in national forces, a focus on cost-effective armies, the proliferation of regional conflicts, public support for foreign intervention, the greater technical sophistication of war, and the Afghan and Iraqi wars have all contributed to the growth in contracting-out.
There are both benefits and hazards in the use of PMCs and PSCs.
Major benefits are evident in:
- the ability to reduce public spending and increase efficiency as contractors are only paid when needed, reducing the costs of a standing army. They can be deployed quickly and offer a cheaper, more flexible option for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions; and
- avoiding the political costs of deploying national armies and freeing army resources to focus on fighting wars rather than engaging in civilian operations. Private forces can also fill security gaps in “failed states”, resolving conflicts in areas that would otherwise be ignored.
However, private companies lack accountability and often fail to cooperate, in that:
- forces owe allegiance to their employer rather than the state and companies may face no punishment for defecting from contractual obligations;
- companies may jeopardise human rights and self-determination in the commercial pursuit of operational efficiency;
- the use of private companies can bypass the requirement for parliamentary or international support for missions, while hiding the costs of war given that PMCs’ dead are not included in official body counts; and
- their independence from the military prevents effective operational oversight or coordination with national armies, and their limited expertise hinders commanders’ flexibility in confronting unexpected circumstances.
Regulatory frameworks need to be instituted at national and international levels to improve the control and oversight of PMCs and PSCs. This can be done by governments:
- establishing licensing systems for companies, prohibiting activities in sensitive areas and monitoring permitted operations;
- defining minimum standards of accountability and transparency in financial, recruitment and operational activities, underpinned by legislation and parliamentary oversight;
- monitoring and vetting companies’ activities and personnel, and instituting systems of sanctions and awards to encourage adherence to legislative provisions;
- clarifying international and national law to target companies that move between countries to avoid regulation;
- creating an interministerial committee to address the relevance of international obligations – including non-proliferation and export controls – to PSCs and PMCs;
- excluding underbidding, lobbying and political influence from the bidding process; and
- prohibiting government employees from regulating or contracting companies that have previously employed them.
