National Regulatory Regimes for PSMCs and their Activities: Benefits and Shortcomings

Abstract

In a world where we even regulate the size of tractor seats and the fat content of milk, it is striking that the private military and security industry, an increasingly important and powerful actor in the field of national and international security, remains almost unregulated. Neither the implementation of nor the debate about regulatory mechanisms has yet kept pace with the development of private security and military companies (PSMCs). As a consequence, no adequate international legislation exists. The same goes for regional legislation too. National legislation is little better. The majority of laws ignore the existence of PSMCs and deal with traditional mercenary activities at best, i.e. active engagement in combat (Table 1). These legislations mostly prohibit the recruitment of mercenaries within the national territory and the participation of national citizens in foreign armed forces, like the US New Neutrality Act of 1939, the British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 and the Australian Foreign Incursion and Recruitment Act of 1978. A recent example of such ‘mercenary legislation’ is a French law adopted in 2003 which criminalizes mercenary activity, but does not consider military services carried out by PSMCs (République Française 2003). South Africa and the United States, home of many PSMCs, are among the few countries that have established a national legislative regulatory scheme to oversee the activities of PSMCs that are registered in or operate from within their national territories.