Failure by the United Kingdom (UK) to regulate private military companies (PMCs) would result in a serious gap in the country’s ability to manage UK companies involved in regional conflicts worldwide. This paper, by Kevin O’Brien, examines options to regulate the activities of PMCs and recommends specific legislative intervention. The privatisation of peacekeeping may be the best option available to the developed world, which appears to be unwilling or unable to intervene in the increasing chaos of regional conflict.
Increased use of PMCs has generated a perception that they operate outside the laws of warfare and have little interest in the well-being of countries in which they operate. The failure of the international community to successfully intervene in conflicts has contributed to the reputation of PMCs as a band-aid solution in the absence of stabilisation and/or peace plans in conflict regions.
Emerging awareness of the impact of PMCs and the privatisation of security has generated international debate on the need for private security sector policies and regulation.
The range of private military activity includes:
- Mercenaries are hired soldiers involved in armed conflict and are currently used particularly in Africa. PMCs have been mistakenly characterised as mercenaries in the current debate on the use and regulation of the private military sector.
- Private Armies/Militias and Warlords are dominant in Africa, do not always have a national outlook to their conflict and can be supported by whatever country from which they can obtain funds and arms.
- Private Security Companies provide capabilities in transport, intelligence, combat-firepower and para-medical skills and engage in high-risk private security operations.
- Private Military Companies are organised along corporate lines, have contractual aims and obligations to clients and engage in military operations.
UK government discussion of regulatory options should consider:
- National regulatory options, including distinguishing between the act and actor, allowable and prohibited activities, and discussion of both combat services and privatised peacekeeping in conflict zones;
- Establishment of a regulatory authority;
- The issue of the transience of PMCs between domestic operations in the UK and external operations abroad; and
- The UK role in establishing international PMC regulation.
The following are recommended UK legislative regulatory actions:
- Licensing of PMCs, service capabilities and individual contracts for specific PMC activities.
- Prohibited activities, including PMC operations by individuals, combat services in conflict zones and arms brokering. The UK should continue to support traditional state monopoly over organised violence, i.e., war.
- PMCs licensed by the UK should be allowed to contract with the UK Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Such contracts would extend the limited resources of the current UK armed forces and continue the long-established UK tradition of contracting of PMCs for work in developing countries in transition.
- An industry regulatory authority established within the FCO.
- UK encouragement of similar regulatory approaches at European Union and international levels.
The UK is in a unique position to influence the international approach to regulating PMCs by leading the way through domestic legislation which will fairly but restrictively approach the regulation of the private security sector.
