the Use of Force, IAMSP-2011-01-UOF-001 v2.0 (IAMSP Rules)
121 and a voluntary
‘Code of Practice’ which members commit to follow.
122 The IAMSP Rules
addresses key points in the use of force standards for protection of vessels such as
the need for management oversight of rules,
123 relevance of risk assessment,
124
determination of the choice to use force through a chain of event procedure.
125
Notably, the various industry regulation on PMSC standards are ordinarily not
averse to each other. In fact, The ISO/287001-1 makes reference to several of the
standards and recommendations contained in some of the industry codes of conducts
and guidelines. As stated earlier, industry self regulation are ordinarily not legally
binding. Hence, the relevance and capacity of industry self regulation to generate
significant legal consequences hinges on stakeholder’s acceptance and usage.
126
2.2 The Role of PMSCS in International Maritime Security
Traditionally, rights and obligations within the international system are addressed to
states as the main subjects of international law since the Peace of Westphalia.
127 This
position of states as the principal actors in the international arena stems from the
authority over subjects within their respective national boundaries, which gives them
the authority to interact with other states in the international system.
128 Equally,
purists in international legal scholarship consider norm making and law enforcement
as falling under the exclusive preserve and authority of the state. Following this
school of thought, combating security threats, including piracy and sea robbery, is
viewed within the exclusive ambit of state responsibility.
129
However, contemporary dynamics reveal that a growing number of actors,
associated with the phenomenon of globalisation appear to have taken up roles
and functions simultaneously with the state within the international maritime system.
121 International Association of Maritime Security Professionals (2011).
122 Maritime Security Professionals Voluntary Professional Code of Practice (MarSecPro).
123 IAMSP Rules, Clause 36.
124 IAMSP Rules, Clause 63.
125 IAMSP Rules, Appendix B-D.
126 Williams (2014), pp. 350–351; Carreira Da Cruz (2017). Contrast with Petrig (2016a), pp. 1–19;
Petrig (2016b) Paper delivered at the 5th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council
Intergovernmental Working Group on Private Military and Security Companies.
127 Hall and Biersteker (2002), pp. 3–4; Ryngaert (2016), p. 185; Dickinson (2006), p. 385.
128 This authority over citizens hinges on theoretical bases highlighted by scholars firmly established
as far back as the seventeenth century. See Calvin’s Case/Postnanti (1572)(77 ER 377)/(1932) 2KB
210 where Lord Cook expands on the common law tradition and original contract based on a natural
bond of allegiance between king and subject. See also Krahmann (2009), p. 2 where the author
refers to the social contract theory; Heyman (1991), p. 507.
129 Liss (2013), p. 200; Kontos (2004), p. 200; Chintoan-Uta and Silva (2017), p. 37.
Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal. . .
195
121 and a voluntary
‘Code of Practice’ which members commit to follow.
122 The IAMSP Rules
addresses key points in the use of force standards for protection of vessels such as
the need for management oversight of rules,
123 relevance of risk assessment,
124
determination of the choice to use force through a chain of event procedure.
125
Notably, the various industry regulation on PMSC standards are ordinarily not
averse to each other. In fact, The ISO/287001-1 makes reference to several of the
standards and recommendations contained in some of the industry codes of conducts
and guidelines. As stated earlier, industry self regulation are ordinarily not legally
binding. Hence, the relevance and capacity of industry self regulation to generate
significant legal consequences hinges on stakeholder’s acceptance and usage.
126
2.2 The Role of PMSCS in International Maritime Security
Traditionally, rights and obligations within the international system are addressed to
states as the main subjects of international law since the Peace of Westphalia.
127 This
position of states as the principal actors in the international arena stems from the
authority over subjects within their respective national boundaries, which gives them
the authority to interact with other states in the international system.
128 Equally,
purists in international legal scholarship consider norm making and law enforcement
as falling under the exclusive preserve and authority of the state. Following this
school of thought, combating security threats, including piracy and sea robbery, is
viewed within the exclusive ambit of state responsibility.
129
However, contemporary dynamics reveal that a growing number of actors,
associated with the phenomenon of globalisation appear to have taken up roles
and functions simultaneously with the state within the international maritime system.
121 International Association of Maritime Security Professionals (2011).
122 Maritime Security Professionals Voluntary Professional Code of Practice (MarSecPro).
123 IAMSP Rules, Clause 36.
124 IAMSP Rules, Clause 63.
125 IAMSP Rules, Appendix B-D.
126 Williams (2014), pp. 350–351; Carreira Da Cruz (2017). Contrast with Petrig (2016a), pp. 1–19;
Petrig (2016b) Paper delivered at the 5th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council
Intergovernmental Working Group on Private Military and Security Companies.
127 Hall and Biersteker (2002), pp. 3–4; Ryngaert (2016), p. 185; Dickinson (2006), p. 385.
128 This authority over citizens hinges on theoretical bases highlighted by scholars firmly established
as far back as the seventeenth century. See Calvin’s Case/Postnanti (1572)(77 ER 377)/(1932) 2KB
210 where Lord Cook expands on the common law tradition and original contract based on a natural
bond of allegiance between king and subject. See also Krahmann (2009), p. 2 where the author
refers to the social contract theory; Heyman (1991), p. 507.
129 Liss (2013), p. 200; Kontos (2004), p. 200; Chintoan-Uta and Silva (2017), p. 37.
Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal. . .
195