security on land, the use of lethal force by an actor other than the state always attracts
controversy.
35 There are differing views whether engaging private security undermines the security and sovereignty of individual states since the use of force is
traditionally viewed as an act requiring public accountability and prerogative of the
state.
36 While PMSCs are increasingly sanctioned by flag states in high risk areas far
away from their territories, coastal states are reluctant to allow these actors that
engage in potentially violent actions within their territory.
2 The Role of PMSCs in the International Maritime
Security Framework
The market response of the use of PMSCs, alters the accepted norm of the past two
centuries of keeping merchant vessels unarmed.
37 The focus of shipping industry
stakeholders has moved from whether PMSCs should be engaged in the fight against
maritime crime to working out ways to safely engage them.
38 This section considers
the legal framework within which these non-state actors operate before considering
the role they play within the international system.
2.1 The Legal Framework Governing PMSC Engagement
A complex legal environment currently governs PMSC engagement. Diverse legal
instruments collectively form the legal framework at three distinct yet interrelated
levels—international, national and industry (self) regulation.
39
2.1.1 International Legal Instruments
The current legal framework governing maritime security with respect to the threat
of piracy and armed robbery against ships in international law is found principally in
three conventions—UNCLOS; the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
classification that that caters for other forms of services that may arise in future as well as reflects the
operational distinctions of the services identified as conflicting with the state monopoly in the legal
provision of security. Furthermore, the Struwe classification can easily be subsumed under either of
Liss’ classification.
35 Kontos (2004), pp. 200–204; Avant (2004), pp. 154–157.
36 Kontos (2004), pp. 200–204; Avant (2004), p. 156.
37 Bürgin and Schneider (2015), p. 127.
38 Van Hespen (2014), p. 361.
39 Williams (2014), p. 347.
Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal. . .
181
controversy.
35 There are differing views whether engaging private security undermines the security and sovereignty of individual states since the use of force is
traditionally viewed as an act requiring public accountability and prerogative of the
state.
36 While PMSCs are increasingly sanctioned by flag states in high risk areas far
away from their territories, coastal states are reluctant to allow these actors that
engage in potentially violent actions within their territory.
2 The Role of PMSCs in the International Maritime
Security Framework
The market response of the use of PMSCs, alters the accepted norm of the past two
centuries of keeping merchant vessels unarmed.
37 The focus of shipping industry
stakeholders has moved from whether PMSCs should be engaged in the fight against
maritime crime to working out ways to safely engage them.
38 This section considers
the legal framework within which these non-state actors operate before considering
the role they play within the international system.
2.1 The Legal Framework Governing PMSC Engagement
A complex legal environment currently governs PMSC engagement. Diverse legal
instruments collectively form the legal framework at three distinct yet interrelated
levels—international, national and industry (self) regulation.
39
2.1.1 International Legal Instruments
The current legal framework governing maritime security with respect to the threat
of piracy and armed robbery against ships in international law is found principally in
three conventions—UNCLOS; the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
classification that that caters for other forms of services that may arise in future as well as reflects the
operational distinctions of the services identified as conflicting with the state monopoly in the legal
provision of security. Furthermore, the Struwe classification can easily be subsumed under either of
Liss’ classification.
35 Kontos (2004), pp. 200–204; Avant (2004), pp. 154–157.
36 Kontos (2004), pp. 200–204; Avant (2004), p. 156.
37 Bürgin and Schneider (2015), p. 127.
38 Van Hespen (2014), p. 361.
39 Williams (2014), p. 347.
Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal. . .
181