Law
Applying Human Rights Law to Private Military and Security Companies
Quick fact
Although traditionally human rights law only binds states, private military and security companies (PMSCs) can face direct obligations under international law, and states are increasingly held responsible for their actions under treaties like the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
Why this is interesting
When a state outsources war to a private company, who answers for the bloodshed? The law is scrambling to catch up, and the answer might surprise you—it’s not just the mercenary with the gun.
Read the full explanation
Understanding Applying Human Rights Law to Private Military and Security Companies
Imagine human rights law as a contract between states and their citizens: it's the state's duty to protect your rights, and it's the state that can violate them. PMSCs blur this line. They are hired by states (or other actors) to do security work—guarding bases, escorting convoys, even interrogating prisoners—in places where the state's power is stretched thin. When a PMSC employee abuses a detainee, the state might argue: 'That's not me, that's a private company.' But human rights law is adapting. The key is to think of the state as having a positive duty to ensure that anyone acting on its behalf, or within its jurisdiction, respects human rights. So, if a state hires a PMSC and those PMSC employees commit abuses, the state can be held responsible for failing to prevent or punish it. This is called 'state responsibility'—but it's not the only way. Some international instruments now impose obligations directly on PMSCs, because they are powerful enough to cause real harm. For beginners, picture it like a chain of responsibility: the state is at the top, but the PMSC is a link that can't be ignored.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism by which human rights law applies to PMSCs operates through several overlapping pathways. The primary route is state responsibility. Under international law, a state is responsible for the conduct of private actors if they are empowered to exercise governmental authority (like policing or detention) or if the state directs, controls, or effectively adopts the conduct. In the context of PMSCs, this means that if a PMSC is contracted to run a prison and abuses prisoners, the state is likely responsible because the PMSC is exercising elements of state authority. Even if the conduct is not formally attributable, the state has a due diligence obligation: it must take reasonable steps to prevent, investigate, and punish human rights violations committed by private actors within its jurisdiction. This obligation is rooted in the state's own human rights treaties (e.g., ICCPR, ECHR). The second pathway is direct corporate responsibility. While international human rights treaties bind only states, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) assert that all businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights, regardless of where they operate. This is not legally binding in the same way, but it creates a soft-law standard that PMSCs are expected to meet. Additionally, the Montreux Document (2008) and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (2010) were specifically designed for PMSCs, setting standards for their conduct and providing a framework for oversight. Finally, there is a growing trend towards direct criminal accountability for individual PMSC employees under international criminal law (e.g., for war crimes). The result is a complex, layered legal regime that aims to close the accountability gap, but it remains complicated by issues of jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, and the difficulty of regulating a global industry.