the strong drive for the recognition of the use of PMSCs in combating piracy.
Additionally, the absence of adequate sector-specific recommendations or state
regulation necessitated the creation of industry self-regulation to fill regulatory
gaps.
150
2.2.3 The Impact of the Role of PMSCs on International
and Domestic Law
The presence of PMSCs brings about changes to the structure of the international
and domestic law framework as it relates to the protection of potential victims from
the threat of piracy. Their involvement in norm making and law enforcement-like
activities, affirm the view that roles classically identified as the exclusive preserve of
the state now involve an aggregation of complex procedures involving non-state
actors.
151 Furthermore, in spite of the absence of specific international law on the
subject, the recognition by several maritime nations of these private actors as being
able to employ violence translates to an alteration to the norm that reserves the right
of the state to monopolise security services
152 and challenges conventional notions
in the development of international law. The phenomenon speaks to the reality of
pluralism where territorial and non-territorial actors exercise power, opening up the
space for new forms of representation and participation.
153 Scholars associated with
the New Haven school and transnational law theory characterise international law as
a process of decision making rather than one founded on formal notions of subjects
of the system, to accommodate the role of non-state actors.
154 Ryngaert argues that
the notion of international law presents the possibility of plurality where national
state norms exist alongside non-state norms.
155
A positive effect of the change is that globally PMSCs can, as a new tool,
contribute to securing business investments. Their contribution arguably only serves
as a temporary fix or palliative since they do not address the root causes of the
threat.
156 The negative consequences of the privatization of security in the maritime
domain include the possibility of proliferation of arms at sea where they are not
properly regulated, and the possibility of undermining the public and national
security of sovereign states. The changes to international and domestic governance
(2014), p. 373. The author asserts that no open registry explicitly prohibits the use of PMSCs while
almost all European Flag states accept the use of PMSC services on board vessels.
150 Interview with Maritime Security Expert, 12 April 2017; Carreira Da Cruz (2017), p. 64. See also
Richemond-Barak (2014), p. 779; Percy (2012), p. 954.
151 D’Aspremont (2011a), p. 4.
152 Avant (2004), p. 155.
153 Ryngaert (2016), p. 185.
154 Ryngaert (2016), p. 188; D’Aspremont (2011a), p. 2.
155 Ryngaert (2016), p. 185.
156 Skaanild (2013), p. 26.
Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal. . .
199
Additionally, the absence of adequate sector-specific recommendations or state
regulation necessitated the creation of industry self-regulation to fill regulatory
gaps.
150
2.2.3 The Impact of the Role of PMSCs on International
and Domestic Law
The presence of PMSCs brings about changes to the structure of the international
and domestic law framework as it relates to the protection of potential victims from
the threat of piracy. Their involvement in norm making and law enforcement-like
activities, affirm the view that roles classically identified as the exclusive preserve of
the state now involve an aggregation of complex procedures involving non-state
actors.
151 Furthermore, in spite of the absence of specific international law on the
subject, the recognition by several maritime nations of these private actors as being
able to employ violence translates to an alteration to the norm that reserves the right
of the state to monopolise security services
152 and challenges conventional notions
in the development of international law. The phenomenon speaks to the reality of
pluralism where territorial and non-territorial actors exercise power, opening up the
space for new forms of representation and participation.
153 Scholars associated with
the New Haven school and transnational law theory characterise international law as
a process of decision making rather than one founded on formal notions of subjects
of the system, to accommodate the role of non-state actors.
154 Ryngaert argues that
the notion of international law presents the possibility of plurality where national
state norms exist alongside non-state norms.
155
A positive effect of the change is that globally PMSCs can, as a new tool,
contribute to securing business investments. Their contribution arguably only serves
as a temporary fix or palliative since they do not address the root causes of the
threat.
156 The negative consequences of the privatization of security in the maritime
domain include the possibility of proliferation of arms at sea where they are not
properly regulated, and the possibility of undermining the public and national
security of sovereign states. The changes to international and domestic governance
(2014), p. 373. The author asserts that no open registry explicitly prohibits the use of PMSCs while
almost all European Flag states accept the use of PMSC services on board vessels.
150 Interview with Maritime Security Expert, 12 April 2017; Carreira Da Cruz (2017), p. 64. See also
Richemond-Barak (2014), p. 779; Percy (2012), p. 954.
151 D’Aspremont (2011a), p. 4.
152 Avant (2004), p. 155.
153 Ryngaert (2016), p. 185.
154 Ryngaert (2016), p. 188; D’Aspremont (2011a), p. 2.
155 Ryngaert (2016), p. 185.
156 Skaanild (2013), p. 26.
Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal. . .
199