Search results

"This book -- one in the four-volume set, Global Governance and the Quest for Justice -- focuses on the role of corporations in an increasingly globalised world. Against the backcloth of perceived abuse of corporate power -- alleged violations of human rights, degradation of the environment, abuse of labour, Enron-style financial scandals, and the like -- the chapters in this collection examine the nature and function of the corporation as well as the way in which we should understand corporate governance and the power of transnational corporations. Central to the question is the issue of accountability, as well as the questions of social and environmental responsibility -- here the authors ask whether corporations should be more accountable relative to the broader public interest, and suggest that public law approaches to accountability may offer a way forward. Consideration is also given to the most appropriate regulatory locus (local, regional, or international) and the most effective form of response to the deficit in corporate responsibility and the abuse of corporate power. For example, are transnational corporations most effectively regulated internationally (e.g., by the United Nations), regionally (e.g., by the EU or NAFTA) or locally (e.g., through stringent reporting requirements and implementation of triple bottom line standards)?"--Bloomsbury Publishing

Abstract
The rapid and increasing outsourcing of security services by states to Private Security Companies (PSCs) in recent years and associated human rights violations have served as one of the catalysts for long overdue regulation of the global PSC industry. As part of an 'empirical stocktaking', this article focuses on current multistakeholder self-regulatory developments in relation to PSCs, in particular the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers and the PSC1 certification standard, and considers their likely impact on the responsibility of states in this area. What is clear is that the traditional conception of international responsibility is ineffectual when applied to PSCs because of its focus on the ex post facto responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. Furthermore, the fact that PSCs operate in high risk and complex environments and the fact that their clients are often non-state actors, means that an alternative prophylactic approach to responsibility for human rights violations by PSCs seems to be necessary. As it stands, however, the 'self-regulation-plus' approach adopted is not the definitive solution. While endeavouring to ensure that PSCs respect human rights, this approach may allow states to evade their own obligations to protect human rights.

There are no specific historical precedents for holding corporations responsible for violations of international law and human rights. This brief report, however, outlines some historical precedents which demonstrate that corporations and other business enterprises may be regarded as subjects of international law as opposed to objects. For that reason, it concludes that there are no grounds in international law for any corporation, including Private Military and Security Contractors (PMSCs), to avoid accountability for international law contraventions, in particular violations of human rights and, where applicable, international humanitarian law. Nevertheless, international law has not yet developed to a stage whereby PMSCs can be held responsible for internationally wrongful acts.

While there has been much focus elsewhere on PMSC-specific regulatory projects, as business actors, there is no reason to suggest that PMSCs are, or indeed ought to be, excluded from the scope of broader Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives. This report identifies and evaluates the international CSR initiatives which may encompass PMSC behaviour. It describes some historical CSR initiatives at the UN but focuses, in particular, on the recent work of the UN's Global Compact, the OECD and European Union. It concludes that both the Global Compact and OECD offer viable soft law options for regulating PSMC behaviour.

It is well documented that the private military and security industry has the capacity to do great gendered harms to both those it encounters and those it employs.1 Significantly, it is also a sector where a variety of human rights-based approaches, instruments and mechanisms have emerged beyond the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).2 The International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers (ICoC) addresses gender, and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), and explicitly requires private military and security companies (PMSCs) to integrate a gender perspective in their practices.3 Through an examination of publicly available documents and policies required for PMSCs certified as complying with the ICoC, this piece evaluates whether PMSCs do in fact integrate a gender perspective into their human rights policies and grievance procedures (see Table 1).4 Our study of certified PMSCs demonstrates that despite increased attention to the potential for negative gender impacts in the sector, companies have not developed gender-responsive policies and procedures. It can be said, therefore, that gender is not addressed in any meaningful way by PMSCs. More specifically, we conclude that PMSCs have not yet shown the required holistic understanding of gendered impacts and barriers that is required to respect human rights, and that further efforts are needed in the sector.

It is well known that the private military and security sector is an overwhelmingly male-dominated industry. This is partially a result of the 'revolving door phenomenon' whereby former members of armed forces and police services are employed by Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC) and traditional notions of masculinity that prevail in the armed forces and police are thus replicated in the private sector. Perception of the industry as male plus other barriers also play a role in limiting women's access to the sector. Consequently, these lead to specific gendered human rights impacts for employees of private security providers, as well as significant and gendered human rights violations perpetrated against local communities in the areas in which they operate. In addition, the private security sector is one that has experienced significant public attention and resultant human rights regulation in the past decade. Nevertheless, the focus given to gender is limited, non-intersectional, and restricted largely to human trafficking and discrimination. This paper explores: (1) the gendered nature of PMSC human rights impacts; and (2) the gender gaps in the regulatory frameworks at international and national levels, including National Action Plans (NAP) on business and human rights and the efforts of the UN Open-ended Inter-Governmental Working Group on PMSCs (OEIGWG) to establish an international regulatory framework. It concludes that the private military and security industry has the potential to cause disproportionately gendered impacts due to its composition and nature, amplified by the power-imbalance between PMSCs and local communities, and their deployment in fragile contexts. Despite this potential for negative impacts, there are considerable gaps in regulation concerning gender which demand urgent attention.

The European Union has developed its security competence since 1992, thus putting pressure on its Member States to provide troops for the increasing number of EU peace operations being deployed to different areas of the globe. But with national militaries being rationalized and contracted the EU will inevitably follow the lead of the US, the UK, and the UN and start to use Private Military Contractors to undertake some of the functions of peace operations. This article explores the consequences of this trend from the perspective of the accountability and responsibility of both the corporation and the institution when the employees of PMCs commit violations of human rights law and, if applicable, international humanitarian law. ; The 'Regulating Privatisation of "War": The Role of the EU in Assuring the Compliance with International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights" (PRIV-WAR) project is funded by the European Community's 7th Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 217405.