Overseas Civilian Contractors

News and issues relating to Civilian Contractors working Overseas

Code for security firms reins in violence, mercenaries

By Peter Capella (AFP)

A Blackhawk helicopter flies over Baghad

GENEVA — Officials said on Tuesday a landmark US and British-backed code of conduct signed by private security operators, including some operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, would stop the firms being used as mercenaries.

Britain announced at the signing that it intended to make the code, which is aimed at preventing abuse and reining in excess violence in lawless conflict zones, compulsory for security providers it contracts.

About 58 companies, including US firms Triple Canopy, Xe Services — formerly Blackwater — and Britain’s G4 Security signed up, while the code has the backing of 35 countries, said Swiss officials who brokered the deal.

“We are turning the page,” Swiss state secretary for foreign affairs Peter Maurer told journalists.

“You have to choose whether you are going to be a private security contractor or engaging in warfare,” he added, underlining that a pledge to restrict firearms to self defence only would rule out offensive operations or mercenaries.

“You are not allowed to be a mercenary and take part” in the international code, said Andrew Clapham, director of the Geneva academy of international humanitarian law, who helped draw it up.

The 15-page code, which took 14 months to negotiate, emerged amid concern about the “exponential growth” of contractors providing security in conflict areas and their role in guarding embassies, officials, company executives and aid agencies.

The UN working group on mercenaries this year pressed for stronger binding regulation of the private military security industry.

It warned that such firms, often run by ex-troops, were in a legal grey area that sometimes strayed from protection duty into “new forms of mercenary activities” with the “privatisation of war.”

Diplomats and company executives argued that the voluntary code would fill a gap by setting a minimum standard and marked a step towards greater accountability.

“This code has the potential to be a monumental step forward,” said Devon Chaffee of campaign group Human Rights First.

Maurer warned that it “will only be credible if it is followed by short, medium and long term change in behaviour.”

Michael Clarke, director of public affairs for G4S, which generates 11 billion dollars a year, acknowledged that security providers “didn’t always get it right” in highly insecure areas where staff worked under threat.

“Local institutions may not be strong enough to ensure that people operating there, including our people, are properly held to account. That is, as we see it, the rationale for this code,” he explained.

Blackwater became notorious in 2007 when its guards protecting a convoy opened fire in a busy Baghdad square, killing as many as 17 civilians.

Two former security guards also went on trial in the United States in September accused of the murder of two Afghan citizens in a 2009 shooting.

Afghanistan’s government has ordered private security firms to disband and leave the country amid anger among ordinary Afghans who regard them as private militias acting above the law.

Guy Pollard, a diplomat at the British mission in Geneva, acknowledged that the use of private security services on armed duty carried “significant risks.”

Pollard said the British government would incorporate the code “into each contract we have with a private security company.”

“We will only give contracts to companies that can show they meet the minimum standard we have set for this industry,” he added.

US State Department legal adviser Harold Koh welcomed the code as an opportunity to raise standards and “address gaps in oversight.”

The companies agreed to standards in recruitment, vetting personnel, training, control mechanisms, compliance with local and international laws and protection of human rights.

The code includes limits on the use of force and an assurance that staff cannot invoke contractual obligations or “superior orders” in a conflict zone to justify crimes, killings, torture, kidnappings, detentions.

Please go here for the rest of the story

November 9, 2010 Posted by | Civilian Contractors, Contractor Oversight, Private Military Contractors, Private Security Contractor, Safety and Security Issues | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can PMCs Find Their IHL Groove?

Fitting a Square PMC Into a Round IHL

David Isenberg at Huff Post

As I have noted previously, trying to apply International Humanitarian law (IHL) to private contractors is often extremely difficult.

There is, of course, much precedent for the presence on the battlefield of individuals who are not formally members of the belligerents’ armed forces. The 1949 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (POW) granted POW treatment to civilians who “accompany the armed forces without being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, and members of labor units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces.”

Civilians enjoyed protection against direct attack; however, it was well accepted by this time that if they took up arms they rendered themselves targetable. In a memorable event involving such individuals, over one-half of the American defenders at Wake Island were civilian contractors building a U.S. naval base when the Japanese attacked in December 1941.

Still, despite the fact that the latest wave of private contractors is now at least twenty years old, to give a conservative estimate, trying to decide their status is still enormously contentious.

To understand just how contention see this article by Michael Schmitt, professor of public international law at Durham University Law School.

Schmitt starts by noting that in 2003, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in cooperation with the T.M.C. Asser Institute, launched a major research effort to explore the concept of “direct participation by civilians in hostilities” (DPH Project). The goal was to provide greater clarity regarding the international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the loss of protection from attack when civilians involve themselves in armed conflict.

Although the planned output of the project was a consensus document, the proceedings proved highly contentious. As a result, the final product contains the express caveat that it is “an expression solely of the ICRC’s views”.

Aspects of the draft circulated to the experts were so controversial that a significant number of them asked that their names be deleted as participants, lest inclusion be misinterpreted as support for the Interpretive Guidance’s propositions. Eventually, the ICRC took the unusual step of publishing the Interpretive Guidance without identifying participants. Schmitt participated throughout the project, including presentation of one of the foundational papers around which discussion centered. He was also one of those who withdrew his name upon reviewing the final draft.

Although his article is not primarily on private contractors Schmitt notes:

At the outset of these conflicts, the activities and status of contractors were relatively unregulated in either law or policy. As a result of the public attention drawn by the scale of their presence and repeated incidents of misconduct, some states have endeavored to define the legal status of contractors and to create systems whereby they can be held accountable for abuses they commit. Additionally, states sending and those receiving contractors and civilian employees have negotiated status of forces agreements, which establish jurisdictional prerogatives; the agreement signed between the United States and Iraq in November 2008 is especially notable. States have also begun to adopt common “best practices” regarding private military companies, as exemplified by the ICRC/Swiss government sponsored 2009 Montreux ocument.

Follow David Isenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/vanidan

May 7, 2010 Posted by | Civilian Contractors, Contractor Oversight, Legal Jurisdictions, Private Military Contractors, Private Security Contractor | , , , , , | 1 Comment