their participation in the provision of armed security to vessels were sparse.
162
Equally, international law on their engagement was virtually non-existent. States
subjected these non-state actors to legislation that were introduced to ensure that
operations were legally sanctioned with permits or under government oversight. A
similar process is discernable from their employment in the Gulf of Aden, with the
creation of appropriate regulation by prominent states, as well as regulations
addressing specific operational standards by the IMO and various industry
stakeholders.
From this perspective, PMSC do not usurp or bypass the states as the lawful
holders of the monopoly of legitimate force in their respective jurisdictions. They
rather operate under the authority of states. In reality, however, states may fail in
asserting control over PMSCs for various reasons such as the lack of appropriate
national regulation or the lack of capacity on the part of the state for monitoring,
compliance, and enforcement. In some cases, authorised non-state use of force may
give rise to unauthorised forms, thereby validating concerns that the existence of
PMSCs challenge the state monopoly over force. Be that as it may, operations
conducted within strict legal frameworks imply state authority over these private
actors and their activities.
4 Conclusion
An examination of the engagement of PMSCs in anti-piracy measures from the Strait
of Malacca, their presence in the Gulf of Aden up until their current struggles to
penetrate the security market in the Gulf of Guinea, makes it clear that complex
transformations both at national and international levels have continued to take place
in maritime security governance. One of the most apparent effects is the diffusion of
control to a broader variety of actors within the international system.
PMSCs as actors within the international system are governed by a legal framework that reflects the multi-jurisdictional nature of the maritime domain that necessitates the distribution of power to balance interests. The existing overarching
framework consisting of international instruments, state regulations, and
supplemented by soft law instruments as well as industry regulations is undoubtedly
complex. The plurality of state laws raises the suggestion that international law
specifically addressing the use of PMSC services may best regulate their utilisation.
However, in the absence of such an international legal instrument, re-addressing
regulatory and oversight mechanisms within the current complex framework would
improve and enhance PMSC engagement.
In spite of the legal complexity in regulating the use of PMSCs activities, these
entities have played significant roles in the development of maritime security
governance. There are variations in the extent to which PMSCs in anti-piracy
162 Liss (2013), p. 202.
Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal. . .
201
162
Equally, international law on their engagement was virtually non-existent. States
subjected these non-state actors to legislation that were introduced to ensure that
operations were legally sanctioned with permits or under government oversight. A
similar process is discernable from their employment in the Gulf of Aden, with the
creation of appropriate regulation by prominent states, as well as regulations
addressing specific operational standards by the IMO and various industry
stakeholders.
From this perspective, PMSC do not usurp or bypass the states as the lawful
holders of the monopoly of legitimate force in their respective jurisdictions. They
rather operate under the authority of states. In reality, however, states may fail in
asserting control over PMSCs for various reasons such as the lack of appropriate
national regulation or the lack of capacity on the part of the state for monitoring,
compliance, and enforcement. In some cases, authorised non-state use of force may
give rise to unauthorised forms, thereby validating concerns that the existence of
PMSCs challenge the state monopoly over force. Be that as it may, operations
conducted within strict legal frameworks imply state authority over these private
actors and their activities.
4 Conclusion
An examination of the engagement of PMSCs in anti-piracy measures from the Strait
of Malacca, their presence in the Gulf of Aden up until their current struggles to
penetrate the security market in the Gulf of Guinea, makes it clear that complex
transformations both at national and international levels have continued to take place
in maritime security governance. One of the most apparent effects is the diffusion of
control to a broader variety of actors within the international system.
PMSCs as actors within the international system are governed by a legal framework that reflects the multi-jurisdictional nature of the maritime domain that necessitates the distribution of power to balance interests. The existing overarching
framework consisting of international instruments, state regulations, and
supplemented by soft law instruments as well as industry regulations is undoubtedly
complex. The plurality of state laws raises the suggestion that international law
specifically addressing the use of PMSC services may best regulate their utilisation.
However, in the absence of such an international legal instrument, re-addressing
regulatory and oversight mechanisms within the current complex framework would
improve and enhance PMSC engagement.
In spite of the legal complexity in regulating the use of PMSCs activities, these
entities have played significant roles in the development of maritime security
governance. There are variations in the extent to which PMSCs in anti-piracy
162 Liss (2013), p. 202.
Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal. . .
201