Private Military and Security Companies and the lack of national legislation -hired help or the way to the future?
Translated title
Private Militære Sikkerhedsfirmaer og manglen på national lovgivning
Author
Karlshøj Christiansen, Solvej
Term
4. term
Publication year
2010
Submitted on
2010-06-30
Pages
67
Abstract
This thesis examines why national legislation governing Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) in the United Kingdom and the United States remains limited by mapping key viewpoints within and around the sector. Using a constructivist framework, it analyzes four actors—the U.S.-based trade association IPOA, the Danish firm Shield Risk Consulting, and the UK and US governments—to show how their ideas, motives, and perceptions shape policy outcomes. Drawing on literature and interviews, the study situates PMSCs in their evolution since the end of the Cold War and their post-2001 expansion, during which weak national rules have left some contractor crimes unpunished. The findings indicate that the United States, despite an overall pro-regulatory stance, is constrained by fiscal considerations, departmental structures, and delayed attention to the issue; in the UK, limited regulation primarily reflects a lack of political will and concerns about the state’s monopoly on the use of force. Within the industry, IPOA advocates stronger regulation and transparency but is constrained by existing laws and business practices, while Shield represents a commercial, market-driven view favoring contractual accountability over national legislation. Together, these perspectives highlight the challenges policymakers and industry must address to improve accountability and design more effective national regulation.
Afhandlingen undersøger, hvorfor national lovgivning om Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) i Storbritannien og USA er begrænset, ved at kortlægge centrale perspektiver i og omkring branchen. Med et konstruktivistisk udgangspunkt analyseres fire aktører – brancheforeningen IPOA, den danske virksomhed Shield Risk Consulting samt regeringerne i UK og USA – for at belyse, hvordan deres idéer, motiver og opfattelser former den politiske virkelighed. Undersøgelsen, der bygger på litteratur og interviews, sætter PMSCs ind i deres historiske udvikling fra efter Den Kolde Krig og den markante vækst efter 2001, hvor utilstrækkelig national regulering har betydet, at kontraktørers lovovertrædelser ofte er forblevet ustraffede. Resultaterne peger på, at USA trods en grundlæggende pro-regulatorisk linje hæmmes af budgetmæssige hensyn, ministerielle strukturer og sen politisk opmærksomhed; i UK skyldes den begrænsede regulering især manglende politisk vilje og bekymring for statens traditionelle voldsmonopol. I branchen arbejder IPOA for mere regulering og gennemsigtighed, men begrænses af gældende regler og forretningspraksisser, mens Shield repræsenterer et kommercielt, markedsbaseret standpunkt, der foretrækker kontraktligt ansvar frem for national lovgivning. Samlet viser analysen, at disse forskelligartede synspunkter udgør centrale udfordringer for at forbedre branchens legitimitet og udforme mere effektiv national lovgivning.
[This apstract has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project full text]