View previous stories
	A humanitarian perspective on the privatization of warfare by Christine Beerli Vice-president of the ICRC   Sep 2012   35th round table on current issues of international humanitarian law, San Remo, 6-8 September 2012, Keynote address by Christine Beerli vice-president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).   The ICRC has not joined the debate about the legitimacy of using private military and security companies (PMSCs). Indeed, it is not for the ICRC to take a stance on this question. The ICRC is essentially concerned with whether and how international humanitarian law (IHL) applies to PMSCs operating in an armed conflict situation and about their compliance with IHL. It is about this issue and how to address it that I would like to talk to you today.   The presence of PMSCs in armed conflict, more than anything else, symbolizes for many people a fall back into private warfare.   Today"s private contractors operate on a scale that is unprecedented in contemporary armed conflict, performing functions that bring them so close to the battlefield that the traditional assumptions of modern IHL seem to come under strain.   One of these is that conflicts are fought between States or, at most, between States and organized armed groups, but not by business corporations.   A number of incidents involving PMSCs have recently caught the public eye. While they are not necessarily representative of the general behaviour of these companies, they were of sufficient gravity to draw attention to the lack of clarity about the rules governing their activities, to highlight deficiencies in terms of accountability and to raise questions about the work they are contracted to do.   To illustrate this, let me start with some examples:   There have been various reports about the excessive use of force by private contractors leading to civilian casualties – in particular during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also appears that the rules governing the use of force or the instructions given to contractors have sometimes been far from clear. Often, States and contractors have a poor understanding of the legal consequences of PMSCs activities. In a number of conflicts, PMSCs are employed by States to guard military facilities or to escort military vehicles, sometimes in the midst of ongoing hostilities, without being incorporated into the armed forces.   The fact that these types of activity are frequently referred to as "purely defensive," means that it is often overlooked that the protection of military personnel and facilities against opposing parties to a conflict amounts to direct participation in hostilities and makes the contractors legitimate targets of attack under IHL.   PMSC personnel have also been contracted by States to work in military detention facilities, including in interrogation roles. There have been reports of private contractors taking part in the ill-treatment of detainees.   States are not the only ones to use the services of PMSCs. Business enterprises active in conflict zones, especially those in the extractive sector, often resort to private contractors to ensure the safety of their personnel and facilities. Unfortunately, some of these companies have been involved in human-rights abuses, for instance in cases where they were associated with violent repression of local communities opposing their activities.   More recently, the maritime security sector has grown exponentially owing to the rise in piracy, in particular off the Horn of Africa and in Southeast Asia.   In these circumstances, private contractors might be called upon to provide armed protection on board merchant ships. Of course, the fate of persons held by pirates is a matter of great concern and acts of piracy must be countered with adequate protective measures. But the use of armed force at sea by private security guards, like any other use of force, must be strictly regulated in order to prevent abuses.   Humanitarian issues to be addressed.   In light of these examples, a number of humanitarian issues need to be addressed. I will mention only three, which are of particular concern to the ICRC.   The first is the need for a clear legal framework in terms of applicable international rules, but also appropriate domestic legislation and regulations covering the specific activities of PMSCs. There is no doubt that the personnel of PMSCs is bound by IHL. As we know, States have an obligation to ensure compliance with IHL including by PMSCs and their personnel. In order to do so and depending on the tasks PMSCs perform, clear rules must be established by States, including through domestic legislation, especially on the use of force. Contractors must as well receive adequate instructions and training in that respect.   Secondly, considering that many PMSCs act outside the military chain of command and that coordination of their operations with contracting States has frequently proven to be deficient, there is a need for accountability for wrongdoings. If PMSCs use excessive force, or if they are involved in abuses towards detainees, who is accountable? The person committing the act? The company? The State contracting the company? To avoid any abuses, it is important to clarify their respective responsibilities.   It also important to ensure that there are no gaps in jurisdiction especially in the domestic legislations of contracting and home States to ensure that employees of PMSCs or the PMSCs can be held accountable in case of wrongdoings.   This is particularly necessary as the judicial systems of States affected by conflict or post-conflict situations are often weak and lack the capacity to effectively address violations.   Thirdly, there is a need to restrict the direct participation of civilian contractors in hostilities: The presence of private contractors carrying out military tasks among the population diversifies and swells the ranks of arms carriers who pose a threat to civilians. It also contributes to blurring the essential line between civilians and combatants. The tasks that PMSC personnel perform, the equipment they use and wear, and the weapons they carry may easily lead them to be mistaken for combatants. Also, it is difficult to ensure compliance with IHL when contractors act outside the military chain of command, as they most often do. This leads the ICRC to believe that PMSC personnel should not be contracted to take a direct part in hostilities, even if IHL does not explicitly prohibit it.   Some of the situations described and the publicity surrounding a number of incidents have led to the common misconception that PMSCs operate in a legal vacuum. The issue today is not so much whether international law applies to PMSCs as how to ensure compliance with the applicable rules of that law by PMSCs and their staff.   Indeed, major problems of implementation and accountability remain owing to the unwillingness or the inability of States and other actors to uphold or enforce existing rules.   * Visit the link below to access the complete statement: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/statement/2012/privatization-war-statement-2012-09-06.htm Visit the related web page
	Addressing persistent cross-cultural tensions and divides by Jorge Sampaio UN Alliance of Civilizations   September 16, 2012   Statement from Jorge Sampaio, the High Representative of the UN Alliance of Civilizations on the recent Crisis.   The recent deadly tragic events in Benghazi, but also incidents in Cairo, Sanna’a, Tunis – and in other states – are of deep relevance to the Alliance’s core mission of addressing persistent cross-cultural tensions and divides.   Although the killings in Benghazi are a matter for criminal investigation and prosecution for the Libyan authorities, the protests around the world were triggered by a provocative video that denigrates Islam and insults the Prophet Muhammad, thus offending the religious feelings of believers.   As the same old inflammatory scene played out again and again, these events remind us of the political challenges ahead that all countries are faced with in order to oppose extremism, intolerance and advocacy of religious hatred, and tolerate political and ideological diversity in a world increasingly interdependent.   But in countries whose peoples have fought for freedom and democracy and that are now undergoing profound political and social transformations these challenges are even more acute. To confront them with success international dialogue and cooperation play an important role.   The UN Alliance of Civilizations is an appropriate platform for this kind of co-partnership and enhanced dialogue. A partnership developed in close connection with other UN agencies which would pave the way for working further with new ruling governments, new parliaments and public administration, with emerging civil society, youth, media and religious leaders on National Plans and Regional Strategies for intercultural dialogue, human rights, democracy, pluralism, tolerance and peace.   But there is more than that. New tools and mechanisms are needed to prevent tensions and conflicts, and foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect. We need to increase international efforts to enhance a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of respect for others, with tolerance and peace at all levels.   As we are living in globalizing times, we are all citizens of the world. A higher sense of responsible citizenship and responsible leadership has to be promoted because a conflict anywhere is a conflict everywhere, as these events clearly show.   At the coming ministerial meeting of the Group of Friends of the Alliance, to be held on 28 September, I will be proposing a set of concrete proposals to Ministers, and a special working meeting is convened on 18 October to discuss additional action in the euro-Mediterranean region. Furthermore, I will be consulting our civil society networks and youth in order to agree on how to enhance dialogue and cooperation on the ground.   In spite of the challenging and complex times we are going through, grass-roots, bottom-up initiatives, focused on reinforcing the sense of our common humanity make me think that there is definitely hope for a better common future. But as the wake-up call resonating from Benghazi to Cairo, Tunis, Sana’a and elsewhere clearly shows to transform hope into achievements, bold action in urgently needed. Visit the related web page
	View more stories