Delimitation and Presence of PMSCs: Impact on Human Rights

  • Felipe Daza


Today, private military and security companies (PMSCs) can be found in various operational contexts and provide a wide range of services for public and private clients. It is increasingly common to see PMSCs patrolling borders, providing security in airports, protecting extractive industry projects, or providing military services in areas affected by conflict.

The demand for PMSCs’ services has grown considerably in the last decade, reflecting the process of privatization of security in areas in which it was traditionally provided by public security forces. The outsourcing of these services, which in many cases involve the use of force, has a vast impact on human rights.

This chapter delimits the presence and services provided by PMSCs at the international level and analyzes how their operations impact human rights. The author identifies and systematizes types of human rights’ violations according the services provided by PMSC and their operational contexts with the aim of providing more evidence and factors to open a public debate on which security areas should remain under the management of public institutions and which PMSC activities should be regulated.


  1. Aikins M (2012) Contracting the commanders: transition and the political economy of Afghanistan’s private security industry. Center on International Cooperation, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkerman M (2016) Border wars: the arms dealers profiting from Europe’s refugee tragedy. Transnational Institute and Stop WapenhandelGoogle Scholar
  3. Allawi A (2007) The occupation of Iraq: winning the war, losing the peace. Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Quaishi, et al. v. Nakhla and L-3 Services, Center for Constitutional Rights. Available at Accessed 2 Aug 2014
  5. Apps S (2016) G4S leaving Israel shows that the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is winning. The Independent. Available at Accessed 21 Oct 2016
  6. Armendáriz L (2013) Corporate private armies in Afghanistan: regulating private military and security companies (PMSCs) in a ‘Territorial State’. NOVACTGoogle Scholar
  7. Armendáriz L (2015) The privatization of security in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 2015Google Scholar
  8. Armendáriz L, Palou-Loverdos J (eds) (2011) The privatization of warfare, violence and private military & security companies: a factual and legal approach to human rights abuses by PMSC in Iraq. NOVAGoogle Scholar
  9. Buzatu A (2008) European practices of regulation of PMSCs and recommendations for regulation of PMSCs through international legal instruments. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. Control Risks (2015) RiskMap 2015. Available at Accessed 9 Oct 2016
  11. CORE (2015) The bottom line: UK corporate abuses overseasGoogle Scholar
  12. Delsol R (2008) Ethnic profiling, ID cards and European experience. Open Society Justice Initiative. Available at Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  13. DeWinter-Schmitt R (ed) (2013) Montreux five years on: an analysis of state efforts to implement Montreux document and legal obligations and good practices. Washington College of Law and NOVACT, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Elsea JK, Schwartz M, Nakamura KH (2008) Private security contractors in Iraq: background, legal status, and other issues, Congressional Research Service (CRS), RL 32419. Available at Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  15. Fontaine R, Nagl J (2010) Contracting in conflicts: the path to reform. Center for a New American Security. Available at Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  16. Hammes TX (2011) “Private contractors in conflict zones: the good, the bad and the strategic impact”, JFQ, no. 60. Available at Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  17. Harvard University (2008) Private security companies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT): an international Humanitarian Law Perspective, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict. Available at: Accessed 07 June 2017
  18. Hayes B (2009) NeoConOpticon: the EU security-industrial complex. Transnational InstituteGoogle Scholar
  19. Hopkings R (2015) G4S accused of torturing inmates to death in South Africa. The TelegraphGoogle Scholar
  20. Human Rights Watch (2016) Honduras: no justice for wave of killings over land. Available at Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  21. Isenberg D (1997) Soldier of Fortune Ltd: a profile today’s private sector corporate mercenary firms. Center for Defense Monograph, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim S, Jamie Leigh Jones ordered to pay $145,000 in court costs after failed rape claim. ABC News. Available at Accessed 21 Oct 2016
  23. Klein N (2007) The shock doctrine. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Kwok J (2006) Armed entrepreneurs. Harv Int Rev 28(1)Google Scholar
  25. Lazare S (2016) Reckless security firm hired to protect Dakota Pipeline Company has dark past in Palestine, global research. Available at Accessed 21 Oct 2016
  26. NATO (2008) Towards a grand strategy for an uncertain worldGoogle Scholar
  27. NOVACT (2016) The invisible force. A comparative analysis of the use of private military and security companies in Iraq, Occupied Palestinian Territories and Colombia. Lessons for regulation. Available at Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  28. Observatory on Human Rights and Business in Middle East and North Africa (2016) magal s3: El negocio de las fronteras. Available at Accessed 1 Oct 2016
  29. Pingeot L (2012) Dangerous partnership: private military & security companies and the UN. Global Policy Forum and Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, New York. Available at:
  30. Rimli L, Schmeidl S (2007) Private security companies and local populations: an exploratory study of Afghanistan and Angola. SwissPeace, BernGoogle Scholar
  31. Ronen Y (2012) Israel going private: “The use and regulation of private military and security companies in situations of armed conflict”. In: Bakker C, Mirko S (eds) Multilevel regulation of military and security contractors. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Sherwood H (2012) The Palestinian children – alone and bewildered – in Israel’s Al Jalame jail. The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  33. Stoddard A, Harmer A, Didomenico V (2008) The use of private security providers and services in humanitarian operations. Humanitarian Policy Group Report 27Google Scholar
  34. Townsend M (2013) Sexual abuses allegation corroborated at Yarl’s Wood inmigration center. The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  35. UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (2007) “Human Rights Report”, no. 27. Available at Accessed in 2014
  36. UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (2010a) Addendum: Mission to Afghanistan A/HRC/15/25/Add.2. Available at Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  37. UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (2010b) Report to the 68th session of the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/65/325. Available at Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  38. UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (2011) Addendum: Mission to Iraq A/HRC/18/32/Add.4. Available at: Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  39. UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (2013) Report to the 68th session of the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/68/339. Available at: Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  40. Waked A (2007) Separation fence guards shoot at journalists. Ynet NewsGoogle Scholar
  41. Who Profits Research Center (2014) Proven effective: crowd control weapons in the Occupied Palestinian TerritoriesGoogle Scholar
  42. Yesh Din (2014) The lawless zones: the transfer of policing and security powers to the civilian security coordinators in the settlements and outpostsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute for Nonviolent Action (NOVACT)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations