framework further raise the question of the status accorded to PMSCs and their
relationship with states in international law.
3 PMSCs as Participants in the International Maritime
Security Governance Framework: Are PMSCs Usurping
the Powers of the State?
Scholarly attention on the engagement of PMSCs as a market response to the
problem of piracy and armed robbery against ships in various waters reveal that
the involvement of PMSCs shed new light on the workings of contemporary
international law. Aspermont points to the roles played by non-state actors as
indicative of the notion that their emergence tones down state centrism in the legal
order.
157 This explains why international legal scholars argue that non-state actors
are extremely relevant. The status of PMSCs in relation to the authority of the state
thus forms a crucial point, as discussions about these non-state actors intensify.
Generally, international law relies on domestic legislation to give teeth to its
provision. States regulate diverse globally related issues such as business relationships, private activities and even specification of an act as a crime.
158 This means
that international law as a normative system hinges states as quasi-exclusive subjects. PMSCs operate within an international set-up controlled by the consensus of a
community of states. Contrary to the views of attention diversion by the emergence
of non-state actors, there is no conflict between the unprecedented influence of non
state actors and the continued dominance by states in the international system.
159 In
the first instance, the ability of PMSCs to influence or operate within the international system do not arise ex nihilo; they are granted by states.
160 The private security
sector, even though existing as a market response, draws legitimacy from their
connection with the state.
161 This explains why the political culture of the respective
state predominantly determines whether the commercialisation of security (flowing
from the existence of the threat of piracy and armed robbery) is allowed or not.
The changes which PMSCs cause to both national and international community
principles creates a modification of how states exercise control over the use of force
within their territories. Increased involvement by non-state actors in the international
sphere is simultaneously fuelling increased reaction by states through law and
regulation. PMSCs are now subject to tighter regulations, reflecting a continuous
state dominance over their involvement. At the time PMSCs began active participation in the Strait of Malacca in the late 1990s, national laws that clearly regulated
157 D’Aspremont (2011b), pp. 430–431.
158 Jakobi (2013), p. 140.
159 D’Aspremont (2011a), p. 5.
160 Ryngaert (2016), p. 192.
161 Liss (2012), p. 52.
200
O. A. Eruaga
relationship with states in international law.
3 PMSCs as Participants in the International Maritime
Security Governance Framework: Are PMSCs Usurping
the Powers of the State?
Scholarly attention on the engagement of PMSCs as a market response to the
problem of piracy and armed robbery against ships in various waters reveal that
the involvement of PMSCs shed new light on the workings of contemporary
international law. Aspermont points to the roles played by non-state actors as
indicative of the notion that their emergence tones down state centrism in the legal
order.
157 This explains why international legal scholars argue that non-state actors
are extremely relevant. The status of PMSCs in relation to the authority of the state
thus forms a crucial point, as discussions about these non-state actors intensify.
Generally, international law relies on domestic legislation to give teeth to its
provision. States regulate diverse globally related issues such as business relationships, private activities and even specification of an act as a crime.
158 This means
that international law as a normative system hinges states as quasi-exclusive subjects. PMSCs operate within an international set-up controlled by the consensus of a
community of states. Contrary to the views of attention diversion by the emergence
of non-state actors, there is no conflict between the unprecedented influence of non
state actors and the continued dominance by states in the international system.
159 In
the first instance, the ability of PMSCs to influence or operate within the international system do not arise ex nihilo; they are granted by states.
160 The private security
sector, even though existing as a market response, draws legitimacy from their
connection with the state.
161 This explains why the political culture of the respective
state predominantly determines whether the commercialisation of security (flowing
from the existence of the threat of piracy and armed robbery) is allowed or not.
The changes which PMSCs cause to both national and international community
principles creates a modification of how states exercise control over the use of force
within their territories. Increased involvement by non-state actors in the international
sphere is simultaneously fuelling increased reaction by states through law and
regulation. PMSCs are now subject to tighter regulations, reflecting a continuous
state dominance over their involvement. At the time PMSCs began active participation in the Strait of Malacca in the late 1990s, national laws that clearly regulated
157 D’Aspremont (2011b), pp. 430–431.
158 Jakobi (2013), p. 140.
159 D’Aspremont (2011a), p. 5.
160 Ryngaert (2016), p. 192.
161 Liss (2012), p. 52.
200
O. A. Eruaga