New report highlights violations by private security companies in maritime

According to the report, private military and security companies, in particular, have increasingly been deployed at sea in recent years as a direct response to the challenge of piracy in multiple geographical regions, and often in conjunction with public security actors.

The isolated nature of the marine environment and non-existent or weak regulatory frameworks create a situation where the lack of monitoring and oversight enable human rights abuses of seafarers perpetrated by private security personnel to flourish

Similarly, labour rights of private security personnel themselves are also at substantial risk. Nevertheless, accountability for violations is absent, the report warns.

The proliferation and weak regulation and management of weapons at sea are also of concern.

Taking the above into consideration, the Working Group “urges States to ensure proper oversight and regulation of private military and security companies operating in the maritime context and to ensure that victims of abuses at sea perpetrated by such actors can gain access to justice and effective remedy.”

Recommendations

The Working Group recommends that States:

• Adopt legislation to effectively regulate the maritime activities of private military and security companies, in particular in the areas of licensing; registration; vetting of personnel; the scope of permissible and prohibited activities; the use of force; and the management, transfer and use of firearms and other weapons (especially in the context of floating armouries), taking into account the jurisdictional complexities of the maritime environment; 
• Ensure effective monitoring and oversight of hybrid security operations at sea, as well as accountability. In particular, it should be made clear who exercises overall authority on board a vessel, specifically in relation to the use of force and arrest and detention;  
• Investigate, prosecute and sanction human rights violations committed by private military and security companies at sea and ensure effective access to justice, accountability and remedy for victims;  
• Ensure the creation of a comprehensive system to provide remedies for violations perpetrated by private military and security companies at sea, in which administrative, legislative and other non-judicial mechanisms complement and support judicial mechanisms; 
• Consider mutual cooperation in order to facilitate investigations and prosecution, including through legal assistance and extradition agreements, to ensure effective remedies; 
• Adopt an international legally binding instrument on the activities of private military and security companies, that addresses the provision of both land-based and maritime security, to ensure consistent regulation at the national level, including standards on adequate prevention of human rights violations, protection of victims, accountability and effective remedies;  
• Ensure that private military and security companies and their personnel are subject to civil liability and penal accountability for violations of human rights at sea; such civil and criminal accountability must be judicially enforceable and not subject to State or other immunities; 
• Consider adopting existing standards developed by multi-stakeholder initiatives on the provision of private military and security at sea, such as the reference document of the Montreux Document Forum Working Group on the use of private military and security companies in maritime security, entitled “Elements for a Maritime Interpretation of the Montreux Document”, in which that Working Group sets out good practices relating to the hiring of maritime private military and security companies;  
• Include human rights standards in maritime policies, registration and related documentation, including, for example, flag State registration and memorandums of understanding; 
• When authorizing or licensing the use of private military and security companies at sea, take the steps necessary to ensure that such companies are certified members of the International Code of Conduct Association and/or certified to ISO/PAS 28007-1:2015. 

The Working Group recommends that private military and security companies operating at sea: 

• Adopt clear policies and procedures regarding the use of force at sea, setting out the parameters for the proportionate use of force;  
• Adopt clear policies and procedures on the management, transfer, storage and use of firearms and other weapons, especially in the context of floating armouries; 
• Adopt clear policies and procedures on the vetting and training of personnel, including training in the use of force, weapons use and human rights and labour standards;  
• Adopt clear policies and procedures that ensure respect for human rights and labour standards; 
• Ensure that publicly accessible, transparent, effective and human rights compatible corporate-level grievance mechanisms are in place;  
• Undertake the steps necessary to become certified members of the International Code of Conduct Association and/or certified to ISO/PAS 28007- 1:2015. 

The Working Group makes the following recommendations to other actors: 

• When contracting for the use of private military and security companies at sea, shipowners should ensure that the security company has in place clear policies and procedures on vetting and training; the use of force; the management, transfer, use and storage of weapons, especially floating armouries; and human rights and labour standards;  
• Shipowners should take the steps necessary to ensure that private military and security companies are certified members of the International Code of Conduct Association and/or certified to ISO/PAS 28007-1:2015;  
• Regulators, multi-stakeholder initiatives and relevant industry associations should take the steps necessary to consider the specificities of the provision of private security in the maritime context by effectively addressing vetting and training; the use of force; the management, transfer, use and storage of weapons, especially floating armouries; and human rights and labour standards. 

EXPLORE MORE AT the report on maritime mercenaries