Abstract
This chapter examines some of the risks the UN is likely to countenance should it pay corporate agents to assist in peacekeeping and other operations on its behalf. In the business of conflict some private capabilities have outperformed public resources. Some have resulted in partial successes and there have been some failures. The expression ‘public-private security environment’ denotes a setting inhabited by providers who assess their merits to some degree against the performance of one another.1 This implies a certain friction accompanying the supply of private sector services to government, business and a widening niche in inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations.
Keywords
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Security Council Private Security Security Company East India Company
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 4.J.E. Thomson, ‘State Practices, International Norms and the Decline of Mercenarism’, International Studies Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 1 (March 1990) at p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.E. Krahmann, ‘Conceptualizing Security Governance’, Cooperation and Conflict Vol. 38 No. 1 (2003) pp. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 89.A. Bharadwaj, ‘Privatization of Security: The Mercenary — Market Mix’, Defence Studies Vol. 3 No. 2 (Summer 2003) p. 80.Google Scholar
- 111.S.P. Kinloch, ‘Utopian or Pragmatic? A UN Permanent Military Volunteer Force’, International Peacekeeping Vol. 3 No. 4 (1996). See note 58 at p. 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Malcolm Hugh Patterson 2009