In November 2010, close to 60 security companies in Iraq signed
an international code of conduct that committed them to ‘respecting human
rights and humanitarian law in their operations’ (FDFA, 2010).
The International Code of Conduct for Private Security
Providers (ICoC) sets out standards in areas such as the use of force, vetting
of private security personnel, and reporting of incidents. It emerged in
response to alleged human rights abuses by private security contractors in
conflict zones, and its creation reflects the growing scrutiny of private
security companies IRAQ (PSCs),
particularly those employed by governments.
Another expressed aim of the ICoC is for PSC clients—‘be
they states, extractive industries or humanitarian organizations’—to embed the
code in their contracts (FDFA, 2010). Ideally, this goal should apply to
multinational corporations (MNCs) in general, extractive and otherwise, as they
are major consumers of private security, particularly in countries where the
rule of law is weak and state-provided security is inadequate or non-existent. Even
where the rule of law is well established, MNCs often employ PSCs to protect
assets, personnel, and property. And yet, despite the heightened attention to
PSCs, and the frequency with which MNCs turn to private security, research on
MNC use of PSCs is scarce. While MNCs clearly rely on private security
providers to play an important role in protecting their operations, this
relationship is not always straightforward. In conflict or post-conflict areas,
MNCs may face difficulty in finding disciplined, well-trained private security
personnel who have not been linked to hostilities. In other cases, the lack of
a distinction between public and private security forces can affect MNC control
over their security operations and hamper efforts to establish liability with
respect to the misuse of force. In some cases, particularly in the extractive
industries, companies’ PSC personnel are alleged to have killed, injured, or
intimidated local community members, protesters, and others through excessive
or improper use of force or arms.
1.
The absence of global data on armed
violence involving PSCs makes it difficult to assess the incidence of such
abuses. No international legal framework governs PSCs or MNCs, and national
regulation of private security companies is weak or non-existent in many
countries.
2.
It is difficult to hold MNCs
accountable in their home states for incidents of weapons misuse associated
with their operations abroad (including abuses committed by their private
security providers). Research for this study indicates that host states
generally have limited legislation regulating MNC use of private security. The
consequence is often a lack of accountability for MNC use of private security,
particularly overseas and in countries with weak governance. This chapter
focuses on some of the problems surrounding MNC use of private security and
associated misuse of force or arms. In so doing, it focuses on the extractive
industries and on selected key issues:
a.
Under what conditions do MNCs use
private security and what are some of the variations in these arrangements?
b.
How do governmental restrictions or
local conditions affect private security arrangements of MNCs? 5 136 SMALL ARMS
SURVEY 2011
c.
Under what conditions do PSCs misuse
force or firearms while in the employ of MNCs?
d.
What mechanisms exist, both legal and
otherwise, for holding MNCs accountable regarding their use of PSCs?
Key findings include:
·
Contrary to what may be expected, risks
associated with in-house security point to the need for companies that opt for
such an arrangement to engage in a high level of due diligence.
·
6 The progressive blurring of
distinctions between private and public security forces challenges the
assumption that MNCs can turn to PSCs to bypass public security forces with a
poor human rights record.
·
Weaknesses in the regulation of PSCs
and MNCs at the domestic and international levels, as well as gaps in oversight
at the company level, may create conditions for violence, including excessive
use of armed force, by private security contractors working for MNCs.
·
While legal and non-binding mechanisms
exist to hold MNCs accountable for their use of private security, significant
obstacles to using them remain in place.
·
Standards of good practice regarding
MNC use of private security have begun to emerge, primarily through the
Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPs).
Doing business in Iraq? You need to have a strong
security team backing you. How do
you hire the perfect Security Company for Bodyguards in Iraq?
In a conflict zone in the Middle East and Africa, the most
difficult task for any company in hiring the perfect security company in Iraq is
the demonstrable experience in managing local security services as well as offshore
security situations and the ability to liaise and coordinate with local
resources.
One of the most important you require to know when you are
looking for hire a Security companies in Iraq.
1.
They need to be experience in the art
of security and protection of life and property Experience in hostile environments handling infrastructure security, Oil Field Security, or even have Medics
and paramedics as a part of their
team.
3.
They need to have the human assets to
be able to provide you with the right amount of private security in Iraq
Youneed to make sure they have experience in hostile environments handling Infrastructure security, Oil Field Security, or even have Medics
and paramedics as a part of their
team.
So whether you are looking for a private security company,
maritime security or for convoy security youneed to make sure they have
experience in hostile environments handling infrastructure security, Oil Field
Security, or even have Medics and paramedics as a part of their team.
