This research article concerns the difficult issue of holding Private Military Companies (PMCs) accountable for human rights. It considers the legal, moral and operational dilemmas that can arise when PMCs are held responsible for their human rights abuses with attention to international law and regulatory frameworks. The research is a comprehensive study of the literature on this subject and an examination of international conventions.

The massacre in Nissour Square, which happened in Baghdad, Iraq, in 2007 serves as a comprehensive case study. This example involved employees of Blackwater (now Academi), a PMC company, which highlights difficulties experienced while trying to bring PMC personnel to justice over crimes against humanity. In other words, litigation processes are being looked at in this case along with diplomatic constraints and other issues affecting PMC accountability.

The results reveal major lacunas in extant laws governing such cases and mechanisms employed in enforcement. The paper calls for more effective international instruments or treaties and stronger national laws towards better accountability mechanisms. The role of corporate responsibility and the potential for industry self-regulation to promote human rights compliance among PMCs is also discussed in the study.

Finally, recommendations for enhancing human rights accountability of PMCs are made by the article, including strengthening international oversight, improving transparency in PMC operations, and developing more effective legal mechanisms for prosecuting human rights violations relating to this case.

Introduction

In years the increasing presence of military and security companies (PMSCs) has sparked concerns regarding their accountability, for human rights violations. These firms, commonly known as PMCs are contracted by governments and private organizations to carry out a variety of security tasks such as protection, intelligence gathering and military training. (Singer, 2003)

Private military companies (PMCs) have become increasingly prominent in defence and security operations around the world. As these for-profit organizations take on roles typically reserved for state forces, questions of human rights accountability have come to the fore This article explores complex human rights legal and ethical challenges the types of violations committed by PMC employees and the processes—or lack thereof—of holding companies accountable.

The privatization of military services raises important issues concerning international humanitarian law, human rights law, and corporate accountability Although PMCs can provide valuable services, their users also carry the risk of creating an accountability gap, as they tend to operate in non-conflict areas and do not maintain strong accountability framework, as seen by the events in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Kinsey, 2006)

This study examines the existing legal regime governing PMC, assesses its effectiveness in protecting human rights, and examines possible reforms to strengthen accountability Questions to be addressed are: What legal obligations does the PMC have under international human rights law? What can victims of human rights abuse at the hands of PMCs do? How can mechanisms of monitoring and accountability be strengthened to protect human rights better? This article focuses on case studies and emerging legal models to examine various auditing approaches and propose policy recommendations. (Francioni & Ronztti, 2011)

A significant legal issue surrounding PMCs is defining their status and obligations according to law. Depending on their roles and operating conditions PMC personnel may be classified as civilians or mercenaries. This ambiguity can complicate the determination of the framework to them and the extent of their responsibilities in upholding human rights and laws of warfare. (Cameron & Chetail, 2013)

The outsourcing of functions has also raised questions about the liability of states that employ PMCs. States could be held answerable for the actions of these companies if they fail to supervise or control their activities. Additionally, the countries where PMCs are registered or operate may also share responsibility, in ensuring that these firms comply with standards set by rights and humanitarian laws. (Tonkin, 2011)

Various global initiatives have been established to address the accountability gaps linked with entities. Two important documents, in this regard are the Montreux Document (International Committee of The Red Cross, 2008) and the International Code of Conduct, for Private Security Service Providers. (International Code of Conduct Association, 2010)

Legal Frameworks

The legal landscape governing private military companies and their human rights obligations remains complex and evolving. While international humanitarian law and human rights treaties apply to states, their applicability to PMCs is less clear-cut. Codifying their powers and limitations becomes the sole source for keeping them in check; hence, detailed and unambiguous descriptions become crucial. Several key frameworks have emerged to address this gap: International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Specifically enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and its Other Conventions, IHL applies to PMCs operating in situations of armed conflict. It monitors the conduct of the war and protects individuals who are not involved in the war.

International Human Rights Law (IHRL): IHRL, including international treaties on civil and political rights, apply in peacetime and to some extent in war. It places a responsibility on states to respect and protect human rights. (De Schutter, 2016)
United Nations Principles on Trade and Human Rights: These principles, endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, provide the global standard for preventing human rights violations related to business activities and address and explain For PMCs, these principles emphasize the importance of adequate human rights assessments and impact assessments. (United Nations, 2011)
Montreux Document: This document, although not legally binding, reaffirms the existing legal obligations of States towards PMCs and provides best practices for their legislation. It clarifies the responsibilities of “contracting states” (where PMCs are assigned), “territorial states” (where PMCs operate), and “home states” (where PMCs are based). (International Committee of The Red Cross, 2008)
International Code of Conduct for the Provision of Private Security Services (ICoC): The ICoC is a multistakeholder body established in 2010. It establishes human rights-based principles and standards for the private security sector.

• Key features include:
• Commitment to work under IHL, IHRL, and relevant national law
• Regulations on energy consumption
• Prohibiting torture, trafficking and other human rights violations
• Specific guidelines for detention, identification and registration, personnel screening, and weapons use
• Grievance mechanisms for dealing with claims of infringement

ICoC Association (ICoCA): Established in 2013, ICoC is responsible for the implementation of ICoC. Presented here

• Certification of member companies
• Monitor compliance
• Complaint process for alleged violations
• ICoCA’s multi-stakeholder governance structure includes representatives from industry, civil society and government. (MacLeod, 2015)

Flexible legal instruments: Instruments such as the OECD Guidelines for MNCs and the UN Global Compact provide voluntary principles for responsible business activity, including respect for human rights. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011)

Industry Standards: Technical standards such as ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 and ISO 18788:2015 provide requirements for auditable operating systems for quality assurance in the personal protection industry. This standard incorporates human rights considerations and can be used in conjunction with ICoC.

Regional Frameworks: Some areas have evolved specific procedures to PMC regulation. The African Union has drafted a conference on PMCs, whilst the EU has guidelines on personal navy and security groups.

While the ICoC and different voluntary projects have made giant strides in promoting human rights responsibility, demanding situations stay in enforcement and last duty gaps, in particular in warfare zones with vulnerable governance. This elaborated framework gives a basis for studying the modern-day kingdom of human rights responsibility for PMCs and figuring out areas for ability reform and further development of felony and regulatory mechanisms.

Accountability Mechanisms

Accountability mechanisms for private military companies for human rights violations face major challenges. Unlike state forces, PMCs often operate in legal grey areas, complicating oversight and enforcement. Several approaches have been developed to address this statistical gap. Accountability mechanisms for human rights abuses by private military companies (PMCs) include statutory, operational, and voluntary measures.

Criminal prosecutions, conducted by international bodies such as the ICC and national courts, offer strong barriers but face challenges in jurisdiction and evidence gathering. (Weigend, 2013) Civil liability provides a mechanism for compensating victims, although it may be constrained by issues relating to the boundaries of enforcement. (Ryngaert, 2008) Administrative sanctions, such as contract termination or license revocation, can be applied swiftly but require political will. Corporate self-organization, exemplified by the ICoC Association, offers flexibility but may lack strict rules. (Tonkin, 2011)

International human rights mechanisms can highlight violations but often have no direct effect on individual actors. Home and host country laws provide greater oversight, while non-judicial grievance procedures provide alternative remedies. (United Nations, 2011) Contractual audits, through human rights clauses in government contracts, investor pressures and budgets add some accountability In terms of transparency and reputational risk further encouraged by media and NGO research to obey the law. (Cusumano, 2019)

Each instrument has strengths and limitations, and its effectiveness is often challenged by the complexity and international nature of PMC activities. Emerging technologies such as supply chain auditing and AI-powered compliance monitoring are driving the PMC audit trend (Radin, 2017). Ways to improve these mechanisms could include strengthening the international legal system, improving diplomacy, strengthening national judicial capacity, and supporting the role of civil society in investigations and advocacy the challenge remains.

Regulatory Approaches

The legal process of human rights auditing by private military companies (PMCs) has a complex network of industry-led national and international initiatives Domestically, the countries in which they reside using laws such as the U.S. The Armed Forces Military Zone Act applies to regulate their PMCs operating abroad, while host nations use licensing and employment regulations in the international Logistics policy also applies to the provision of military and security services. (Caparini, 2007)

International legal efforts include the UN Working Group on Mercenary Forces, which oversees PMC activities worldwide, and the Montreux Document, which reaffirms states’ existing legal obligations on PMCs The proposed UN convention on PMCs aims to provide binding international law, although it has not yet been ratified. (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner)

For private security service providers, various stakeholders such as the International Code of Conduct (ICoC) and the associated ICoC Group set voluntary standards and monitoring mechanisms.

Emerging trends in regulation focus on supply chain accountability, the use of technology for monitoring, and increased emphasis on preventive measures. There’s an ongoing debate about the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures, with many experts advocating for a complementary approach that combines robust national legislation, international standards, and industry self-regulation to create a comprehensive framework for PMC accountability in human rights.

Transparency, reporting mechanisms, mandatory and voluntary, and economic legislation requiring adequate human rights are additionally helpful for the legislature but these mechanisms face challenges such as regulatory challenges implementation issues, sovereignty issues and the need to balance security needs with the protection of human rights.

Emerging trends in regulation focus on supply chain audits, monitoring technologies, and increased emphasis on preventive measures (Ruggie, 2013). Debate continues over the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures, with many experts advocating an integrated approach that combines strong national legislation, international standards and entrepreneurs’ initiatives to create a go-to system beyond for PMC accountability in human rights. (De Nevers, 2010)

Jurisdictional Challenges

Challenges in governance pose major obstacles in ensuring human rights accountability for private military companies (PMCs). These issues arise from the transnational nature of PMC operations and the complex interactions between international and domestic regulatory systems. (Francioni & Ronzitti, 2011). State jurisdiction generally limits state courts, while restrictions on the extraterritorial application of domestic law narrow the scope for civil actions (Ryngaert, 2008). Protection agreements can protect PMCs from local litigation, and international tribunals like the ICC have little jurisdiction over companies (Dickinson, 2011). Conflicting legal issues create uncertainty when multiple legal provisions may apply, and private arbitration cases can lead to disputes in federal court The ambiguous legal status of some PMC employees further complicates matters.

All of these factors combine to create a responsibility gap, as host states may not be jurisdictional, while resident states have extraterritorial barriers suggested solutions create a clear international legal framework, increase international cooperation, expand international court orders to include corporate liability, strengthen domestic corporate law accountability, legal mutual aid agreements Reform exists and yet the necessary political will and international consensus are needed to implement comprehensive solutions. Removing these jurisdictional barriers is essential to ensure proper accountability for human rights in the private armed forces.

Case Study – The Nissour Square Massacre

The Nissour Square massacre in Baghdad, Iraq, on September 16, 2007, is an important case study in analyzing human rights audits by private military companies. The case involves employees from Blackwater Security Consulting (now Academi), a major American about PMC and there. On that day, the Blackwater employees assigned to guard the US State Department convoy opened fire in Nissour Square in busy traffic. The incident left 17 Iraqi civilians dead and 20 others wounded. While the contractors said they were responding to the attack, subsequent investigations found no evidence of enemy fire. (Scahill, 2007)

The sections of this article that apply to PMC liability are:

1. Litigation issues: Despite taking place in Iraq, the case was heard in the United States, highlighting the challenges of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
2. Legal issues: For more than a decade, the case went through several legal stages:
   • 2008: Six Blackwater guardsmen charged under the Military Extraterritorial Zones Act.
   • 2014: Four employees are convicted after a 10-week trial.
   • 2020: Granted presidential pardons for convicted workers.
3. Protection concerns: Blackwater initially operated under protection from Iraqi law due to Coalition Temporary Authorization Order 17, which complicated the efforts of local prosecutors
4. Evidentiary challenges: Gathering and preserving evidence in the area of ​​the conflict proved difficult, and affected the prosecution process.
5. Corporate and Individual Liability: While private contractors were indicted, questions of broader corporate accountability remained largely undecided.
6. International Impact: This incident caused U.S. relations with Iraq to be strained and underlined the complex role of the PMC in foreign policy.
7. Regulatory impact: This issue contributed to greater scrutiny of PMC roles and influenced the development of initiatives such as the International Code of Conduct for the provision of Private Protection Services

The Nissour Square massacre reveals several ongoing challenges to PMC accountability:

• There is a need for a clear international legal framework governing PMC activities
• Challenges in balancing national security interests with the protection of human rights
• The possibility of political interference in legal proceedings, as evidenced by presidential pardons
• The limitations of focusing solely on individual criminal responsibility without addressing policy issues within the PMC (De Schutter, 2016)

This case study highlights the complexity of ensuring human rights accountability for PMCs operating in conflict zones and the need for robust and consistent mechanisms to address violations emphasise the time of dealing with them.

Rights and Remedies of Victims

Victims of human rights abuses by private military companies (PMCs) face enormous challenges in finding accountability and remedies. The legal framework governing PMCs is complex and fragmented, and there is no comprehensive international framework specific to their activities. Instead, accountability mechanisms are based on national laws, international humanitarian law and a body of human rights law. This lack of clear rules often leaves victims struggling to find effective ways to deliver justice. (Francioni & Ronzitti, 2011)

The main barrier for victims is the transnational nature of PMC activities. These companies often operate across borders, making it difficult to determine which courts have jurisdiction over alleged abuse. The corporate structure of PMCs can also pose challenges, as the “corporate umbrella” can obscure liability and make it difficult to hold specific companies or individuals accountable, further complicating claims due to issues for the sake of sovereignty protection where states contract for PMCs. (Ryngaert, 2008)

Despite these challenges, there are many possible ways for victims to find solutions. Civil suits in domestic courts provide one possibility, allowing victims to sue PMC or its employees for damages. In some cases, gross violations of human rights or international humanitarian law may lead to criminal prosecution. Some companies have established their complaint mechanisms or participate in voluntary initiatives aimed at improving accountability. In addition, victims may seek asylum through international human rights bodies, although these bodies may have limited enforcement powers. (Dickinson, 2011)

In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the need for better regulation and accountability in the private military sector. Several international initiatives have emerged to address this issue. The Montreux Charter, adopted in 2008, sets out the international legal obligations of states to PMCs. Launched in 2010, the International Code of Conduct for the Provision of Private Protection Services sets industry standards for responsible business practices. The UN Guiding Principles on Labor and Human Rights, which it implemented in 2011, also apply to PMCs and provide a framework for corporate responsibility in human rights.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) plays a limited role in addressing human rights violations by private military companies (PMCs) and compensating victims Although the ICC has jurisdiction over individuals committing international crimes including war crimes and crimes against humanity Sanan and its complications (Weigend, 2013). The ICC’s Victims’ Trust Fund can provide compensation to victims under the jurisdiction of the court, but PMC cases face significant challenges including determining individual criminal responsibility within a complex corporate framework, the ICC’s jurisdiction be established in the PMC member states and consequently the accumulation of evidence While the ICC provides a viable mechanism for justice and compensation, as effective in holding PMCs accountable for human rights violations and compensation among victims are low.

Significant challenges remain in ensuring effective measures for PMC-related human rights violators. Many advocates argue for stronger international law and improved access to judges. The complexity of PMC operations, coupled with the often violent environments in which it operates, make evidence gathering and legal action more difficult As PMC’s role in global conflict and security operations evolves, the international community faces ongoing pressure to develop robust accounting systems capable of providing reasonable solutions.

Policy Recommendation

Policy recommendations to address human rights violations by private military companies (PMCs) focus on three main areas: strengthening the legal framework, improving monitoring and enforcement, and measures that increase transparency and accountability.

To strengthen the legal framework, a binding international treaty, which specifically applies to PMCs and establishes clear criteria for their roles and human rights responsibilities, should be concluded. At the same time, states should introduce or update domestic laws to regulate PMCs, including clear human rights policies and clear accountability policies.

The establishment of an independent international monitoring body with evaluation capacity is essential to strengthen evaluation and implementation. At the national level, special units should be established in the legislative and judicial systems to deal with issues related to PMC. Mandatory human rights impact assessments and ongoing reviews should be applied to all PMC contracts.

These recommendations aim to create a more robust system that protects human rights, ensures justice for victims, and holds PMCs accountable for their actions, ultimately contributing to improved human rights protection in conflict and post-conflict situations globally.

Victim-oriented mechanisms including access to complaints and compensation funds should include public disclosure of PMC contracts and performance, creation of a global register of PMCs and enforcement of safeguards for whistle-blowers to increase transparency and accountability. International cooperation should be strengthened through information sharing, joint investigations and mutual legal assistance in infringement proceedings.

In addition, the role of civil society and the media in monitoring PMC activities should be supported, human rights defenders and journalists working in this field should be funded and protected, and communities should be educated to take their opportunities and available options for public awareness campaigns.

These recommendations aim to create a robust framework that protects human rights, ensures justice for victims, holds PMCs accountable for their actions, and ultimately contributes to human rights enforcement to strengthen protection in post-conflict situations around the world.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has revealed significant differences in human rights accountability by private military companies (PMCs). Examining the legal framework, accountability mechanisms and jurisdictional challenges, we find a complex situation where violations are often overlooked The case study of The Nissour Square massacre highlights how difficult it is to prosecute PMC employees and seek justice for them they have been violated. Although some preventive measures are available, they are often inadequate or inaccessible. The interstate role of the PMC further complicates efforts to establish legal obligations and appropriate forums for adjudication. The proposed policy proposal aims to strengthen the regulatory framework, improve review and implementation, and increase transparency and accountability. These policies can significantly improve the protection of human rights in PMC operations. As the role of PMCs in global conflicts grows, decisive action by the international community is critical to closing the accountability gap. This requires legislative and regulatory reforms, as well as rethinking the role of private forces in contemporary conflicts. Future research will focus on the implementation of these changes and explore alternative ways of protecting human rights in privatized military operations. Continuous monitoring of PMC activities will be critical for informed policy development and recommendations. Finally, ensuring PMC accountability is essential to protecting individual rights, complying with international law, and promoting global security.

Title image courtesy: DW

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of India and Defence Research and Studies

References

1. Singer, P. W. (2003). Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Cornell University Press.
2. Kinsey, C. (2006). Corporate Soldiers and International Security: The Rise of Private Military Companies. Routledge.
3. Francioni, F., & Ronzitti, N. (Eds.). (2011). War by Contract: Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, and Private Contractors. Oxford University Press.
4. Cameron, L., & Chetail, V. (2013). Privatizing War: Private Military and Security Companies under Public International Law. Cambridge University Press.
5. Tonkin, H. (2011). State Control over Private Military and Security Companies in Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press.
6. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2008). The Montreux Document on Private Military and Security Companies.
7. International Code of Conduct Association. (2010). International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers.
8. De Schutter, O. (2016). Towards a New Treaty on Business and Human Rights. Business and Human Rights Journal, 1(1), 41-67.
9. United Nations. (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. HR/PUB/11/04.
10. MacLeod, S. (2015). Private Security Companies and Shared Responsibility: The Turn to Multistakeholder Standard-Setting and Monitoring through Self-Regulation-Plus’. Netherlands International Law Review, 62(1), 119-140.
11. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
12. Weigend, T. (2013). Societas delinquere non potest? A German Perspective. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 6(5), 927-945.
13. United Nations. (2010). Report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. A/HRC/15/25.
14. Cusumano, E. (2019). Migrant rescue as organized hypocrisy: EU maritime missions offshore Libya between humanitarianism and border control. Cooperation and Conflict, 54(1), 3-24.
15. Radin, S. (2017). Global Armed Conflict? The Threshold of Extraterritorial Non-International Armed Conflicts. International Law Studies, 89(1), 696-743.
16. Caparini, M. (2007). Domestic regulation: Licensing regimes for the export of military goods and services. In S. Chesterman & C. Lehnardt (Eds.), From Mercenaries to Market: The Rise and Regulation of Private Military Companies (pp. 158-178). Oxford University Press.
17. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (n.d.). Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.
18. Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. W. W. Norton & Company.
19. De Nevers, R. (2010). The Effectiveness of Self-Regulation by the Private Military and Security Industry. Journal of Public Policy, 30(2), 219-240.
20. Scahill, J. (2007). Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Nation Books.