Should commercial security companies be used in humanitarian and post-conflict settings? This study, by the International Peace Institute, describes the decentralised and unsystematic use of commercial security. The UN has even considered using commercial security providers to free up peacekeeping troops. Yet using commercial security raises ethical, operational and strategic questions. Senior managers of organisations operating in humanitarian and post-conflict settings may not understand the legal, reputational, operational and strategic risks associated with using commercial security.
There are three types of commercial security providers operating in humanitarian and post-conflict settings: international private security companies; local and informal security services and moonlighting state security forces.
The key role of commercial security is in guarding residential and office compounds and property. Some of the United Nations’ (UN) experiences demonstrate how commercial security providers can foster local public security and accountable governmental authority. However, it is unlikely that commercial troops will be used on the frontlines in UN-led peace operations. Nevertheless, private security companies may increasingly be used for installation guarding, logistics, evacuation support, and security sector reform (SSR) work.
Users turn to commercial security because it is seen as more efficient and responsive, particularly when states provide no acceptable alternative security sources. It has been found that:
- Reliance on commercial security reduces administrative costs because it reduces administrative control.
- Arrangements for hiring a commercial security provider are unsystematic. Choices are made on technical grounds, with little sharing of information between users about providers’ performance histories or negative impacts on human rights or local public security.
- Many users rely on local authorities to vet providers, despite their incapacity to conduct effective, impartial assessments.
- Hiring policies do not refer to international standards or broader social impacts.
- Using commercial security to protect against crime can fan conflict. Foreign guards reduce the risk of exacerbating local conflicts but are less likely to be accepted by the people.
- Poorly managed use of local providers can reinforce the economic, social, military and political power of specific groups at the expense of the local public.
- Many users are unaware of, and unable to control, their impact on state-building. In Afghanistan, reliance on local warlords for security for foreign personnel has helped empower them at the expense of the central government.
Users of commercial security in humanitarian and post-conflict settings need a better understanding of the cumulative impact of that use. Headquarters usually have little control over which providers their organisations become associated with. Users should:
- share their information;
- develop policies within their own organisations to ensure that they do not hire criminals, terrorists or other groups with negative social impacts;
- favour commercial security providers that are accountable to local communities or foreign regulators, that foster public security and include capacity-building components in their service packages;
- improve controls on providers by incorporating international standards into their contracts, establishing mechanisms for monitoring performance, requiring disclosure of provider affiliations and creating industry frameworks;
- recognise that donors are uniquely positioned to influence security decisions, monitor performance and discipline providers; and
- establish donor maintained registers of commercial security providers and their performance, implement baseline security standards and reward socially responsible security providers through preferential treatment
