states.
2 Apart from the nation-state, private non-state security entities operating on
land and at sea have emerged as actors in the international landscape.
3
This chapter examines the involvement of the private maritime security companies (PMSCs),
4 in the conduct of anti-piracy operations. Specifically, the chapter
critiques the role and status of PMSCs as part of the transnational interaction pattern
in maritime security. There is wide divergence in the literature on the perceptions of
the significance of private actors in international (security) governance. A number of
scholars believe that the emergence of private actors diverts attention from the state
as the sole reference point and source of authority
5 in terms of the legal application
of force and violence. This perspective contends that the participation of non-state
actors in the dynamics of the international arena—such as the establishment of
practices or norms for law-making or law enforcement activities and the provision
of security—accords them legitimate authority and at least, a quasi-formal recognition in international law.
6 The contrary view asserts that their significance is an
exaggeration because law, including international law, is centred around the state.
As such, states are and remain the dominant actors in security governance.
7
By examining the activities of PMSCs in three global strategic waterways, this
chapter argues that these actors have become relevant stakeholders in the maritime
security regime. Their engagement in these three strategic waterways occurs as a
result of the unfortunate reality that many states in these maritime jurisdictions do
not have adequate means to tackle the threat of piracy and armed robbery against
ships at sea. The central argument of this chapter is that the legitimacy of PMSCs in
contributing to international maritime security governance through anti-piracy measures occurs within the framework of the existing system made up of a plurality of
states and other non-state actors. Despite this participation through roles that are
similar to those of the state, there is no contradiction to the control that states have
over international law and consequently the involvement of PMSCs.
The first section of this chapter discusses the emergence and status of PMSCs as
non-state actors through a brief overview of the shifting response to the transnational
2 Hassan (2006), p. 62.
3 Liss (2015), p. 85.
4 The literature on the use of private companies in providing security in the maritime domain is sated
with debates as to the nature and scope of the companies that the industry covers. This gives rise to
the use of several terms and acronyms. See Struwe (2012), p. 590; Liss and Schneider (2015),
pp. 81–83. In this chapter, Private maritime security companies (PMSCs) denote private for-profit
actors engaged in security services in the maritime sector. On meaning of maritime security
services, see ISO 28007-1: 2015(en), 3.7. Cf with IMO Cir 1405 Rev. 2, and ISO 28007:1-2015
(en), 3.1 which defines PMSCs as ‘private contractors employed to provide security personnel, both
armed and unarmed, on board for protection against piracy.’ This definition appears to limit the
PMSC to only armed and unarmed services. However, the perceived restriction can arguably be
attributed to the fact that the documents address particular types of security service provided by the
private organisation for anti-piracy services.
5 Avant (2004), p. 156; Liss (2015), p. 86.
6 Hall and Biersteker (2002), pp. 4–5; Liss (2015), p. 86.
7 Hall and Biersteker (2002), p. 4; Liss (2015), p. 86.
176
O. A. Eruaga
2 Apart from the nation-state, private non-state security entities operating on
land and at sea have emerged as actors in the international landscape.
3
This chapter examines the involvement of the private maritime security companies (PMSCs),
4 in the conduct of anti-piracy operations. Specifically, the chapter
critiques the role and status of PMSCs as part of the transnational interaction pattern
in maritime security. There is wide divergence in the literature on the perceptions of
the significance of private actors in international (security) governance. A number of
scholars believe that the emergence of private actors diverts attention from the state
as the sole reference point and source of authority
5 in terms of the legal application
of force and violence. This perspective contends that the participation of non-state
actors in the dynamics of the international arena—such as the establishment of
practices or norms for law-making or law enforcement activities and the provision
of security—accords them legitimate authority and at least, a quasi-formal recognition in international law.
6 The contrary view asserts that their significance is an
exaggeration because law, including international law, is centred around the state.
As such, states are and remain the dominant actors in security governance.
7
By examining the activities of PMSCs in three global strategic waterways, this
chapter argues that these actors have become relevant stakeholders in the maritime
security regime. Their engagement in these three strategic waterways occurs as a
result of the unfortunate reality that many states in these maritime jurisdictions do
not have adequate means to tackle the threat of piracy and armed robbery against
ships at sea. The central argument of this chapter is that the legitimacy of PMSCs in
contributing to international maritime security governance through anti-piracy measures occurs within the framework of the existing system made up of a plurality of
states and other non-state actors. Despite this participation through roles that are
similar to those of the state, there is no contradiction to the control that states have
over international law and consequently the involvement of PMSCs.
The first section of this chapter discusses the emergence and status of PMSCs as
non-state actors through a brief overview of the shifting response to the transnational
2 Hassan (2006), p. 62.
3 Liss (2015), p. 85.
4 The literature on the use of private companies in providing security in the maritime domain is sated
with debates as to the nature and scope of the companies that the industry covers. This gives rise to
the use of several terms and acronyms. See Struwe (2012), p. 590; Liss and Schneider (2015),
pp. 81–83. In this chapter, Private maritime security companies (PMSCs) denote private for-profit
actors engaged in security services in the maritime sector. On meaning of maritime security
services, see ISO 28007-1: 2015(en), 3.7. Cf with IMO Cir 1405 Rev. 2, and ISO 28007:1-2015
(en), 3.1 which defines PMSCs as ‘private contractors employed to provide security personnel, both
armed and unarmed, on board for protection against piracy.’ This definition appears to limit the
PMSC to only armed and unarmed services. However, the perceived restriction can arguably be
attributed to the fact that the documents address particular types of security service provided by the
private organisation for anti-piracy services.
5 Avant (2004), p. 156; Liss (2015), p. 86.
6 Hall and Biersteker (2002), pp. 4–5; Liss (2015), p. 86.
7 Hall and Biersteker (2002), p. 4; Liss (2015), p. 86.
176
O. A. Eruaga