| Issue Date | View | Title | Author(s) | Type of Publication | Series/Report no. | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2011
|
|
Working Paper
|
EUI AEL; 2010/08; PRIV-WAR project
|
View Abstract
This paper aims to address two questions at the centre of the PRIV-WAR project. Firstly, what
legislation and regulative frameworks for the regulation of private military and security companies
(PMCs/PSCs) providing services in combat zones exist in the European Union today? Secondly, what
options are there for improving these regulations in order to ensure the responsibility and
accountability of these companies and their compliance with international humanitarian and human
rights law? The EU has been one of the key promoters of improved regulation. However, current
controls within the EU apply only to a small range of services provided by PMCs/PSCs. The main
gaps in the existing regulatory framework at the national and EU levels concern the registration and
licensing of PMCs and the export of private military and security services outside the EU. To address
these gaps this paper outlines nine policy options which would singly or in combination improve the
transparency, accountability and control of PMCs/PSCs.
|
||
|
2011
|
|
Working Paper
|
EUI AEL; 2010/07; PRIV-WAR project
|
View Abstract
The increasing relevance of PMCs and PSCs is related to the progressive ‗privatization‘ of
war in all of its new expressions: the present scenarios of asymmetric warfare are
characterised by the actions of non-State armed groups, which reject the traditional military
and legally accepted methods of fighting The present analysis will first assess the type of
work performed by private contractors: the focus will be on the real capabilities of the private
sector and the challenges it poses. Then, it seeks the reasons for the recent growth of the
private sector both in war and in peace-support operations. The point is made that the
increased role of private companies in global security is undeniable and in many sectors
necessary. With a serious quality certification, security clearance and transparent tendering,
they should also be more reliable. Therefore, the issue is not what can be done and where can
it be done by the PMSCs or indeed at what price, but how and to whom they must be
responsible and accountable.
|
||
|
2010
|
|
Working Paper
|
EUI AEL; 2010/06; Distinguished Lectures of the Academy
|
View Abstract
This working paper examines the legal nature, interpretation and scope of application of fundamental rights in the European Union in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The authors review the sources of fundamental rights protection and confirm that this protection, as applied prior to the Charter coming into force, remains in effect. In spite of the Charter, due regard should continue to be given to the shared constitutional traditions and the case-law of the Strasbourg Court, in particular when it comes to the interpretation of the Charter. The paper also addresses issues that arise with regard to the future accession of the Union to the European Convention of Human Rights. Additionally, close examination of the position of EU fundamental rights in the legal order of the Union reveals that Member States are bound by these rights only when they act within the scope of application of EU law. The Charter does not alter this system either. Finally, following discussion of the opt-outs from the Charter, it is concluded that the overall impact of the Charter is likely to be anything but revolutionary. Moreover, the paper offers a special perspective on EU fundamental rights: it suggests that the Kücükdeveci case reaches beyond the Charter in that it introduces direct horizontal application of an EU fundamental right in cases of age discrimination. However, the authors also caution that this judgment should not be overrated, as it seems unlikely that the Court intended to systematically extend the effect of EU fundamental rights.
|
||
|
2010
|
|
Working Paper
|
EUI AEL; 2010/05; PRIV-WAR Project
|
View Abstract
This paper investigates whether and in which cases private military and security company employees can be considered mercenaries under international law, in the light of recent practice and academic debate. Firstly, it focuses on the definitions of ‘mercenary’ laid down in international treaties and explores whether they reflect customary international law. Secondly, this paper reviews the various conditions listed in the afore-mentioned definitions and tries to find out whether and to what degree private military and security company personnel meet them. It argues that none of the said definitions has achieved the status of customary international law and demonstrates that only a very limited number of employees fall within them.
|
||
|
2010
|
|
Working Paper
|
EUI AEL; 2010/04; PRIV-WAR project
|
View Abstract
The aim of this paper is to assess the potential impact of national-level or EU-level regulation on the
international activities of private military security companies (PMSCs). It will do this by first
examining the actual impact of national-level regulation of the domestic activities of PMSCs in the
UK. It will then build upon this analysis to make observations about the potential impact of nationallevel
and EU-level regulation on the international activities of PMSCs. Because there is a similarity
between the regulatory structures and private organisations in this comparison, the conclusions drawn
in this paper will, it is hoped, provide some insight into the potential impact of any internationallyfocused
PMSC regulation.
|