The Business of Security: New Frontiers and Old Challenges in Private Military and Security Companies Regulation – Introduction to the Symposium

[Gabriella Citroni is an adjunct professor of international human rights law at the University of Milano-Bicocca and senior legal advisor atTRIAL International.

Chiara Gabriele is head of program for the Accountability for Private Military and Security Actors Program at TRIAL International.

Danaé van der Straten Ponthoz is head of international advocacy and policy at Global Survivors Fund.

Julie Bardèche is a senior legal advisor at REDRESS.]

Old Challenges

Private military and security companies (PMSCs) play an increasingly significant role in global conflicts and a range of high-risk sectors, operating on behalf of States, international organisations and corporate actors. Their activities – whether through direct contracts, in-house security arrangements, or outsourcing military and law enforcement functions – span from the agricultural and extractive industries to the management of migrant detention centres, the distribution of humanitarian aid and deployment in conflict zones.

In this context, the direct and indirect perpetration of human rights abuses – in some cases so severe to amount to crimes under international law, including – among others – war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and enforced disappearance – has been consistently reported, along with significant difficulties in holding those responsible accountable and in granting adequate redress and reparation to victims.

In response to the growing concerns about the operations and other activities of PMSCs, their personnel and sub-contractors, and the referred corresponding impunity gap, regulatory attempts have been undertaken through initiatives such as the Montreux Document on pertinent international obligations and good practices for States relating to operations of PMSCs during armed conflict and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers.

Nevertheless, for more than a decade, the international community has acknowledged the existence of protection gaps, and has been discussing the possibility of elaborating a new legal instrument aiming at the regulation, monitoring of, and oversight over, the activities of PMSCs. Discussions to date have not yielded consensus, reflecting varying levels of engagement among stakeholders and the ongoing challenges in reaching agreement on the potential scope, format, and added value of a prospective instrument.

Ongoing Attempts at Regulation

In October 2010, through resolution 15/26, the UN Human Rights Council established an open-ended intergovernmental working group (IGWG) to consider the possibility of elaborating an international legal framework on the regulation, monitoring of, and oversight over the activities of PMSCs. The IGWG held six sessions between 2010 and 2017, but did not manage to finalise and adopt the text of this new legal instrument.

In 2017, through resolution 36/11, the Human Rights Council established a new IGWG for a period of three years, with a mandate to elaborate the content of an international legal framework to protect human rights and ensure accountability for violations and abuses relating to the activities of PMSCs. It did not determine whether the new legal instrument should be binding. The mandate was subsequently renewed in resolutions 45/16, of October 2020, and 54/11 of October 2023. The latter extends the mandate of the IGWG for three more years (until October 2026), recognising the ongoing need to protect human rights and ensure accountability for violations and abuses relating to the activities of PMSCs by adopting a victim-centred approach.

Between May 2019 and April 2025, the IGWG held six sessions and a number of inter-sessional consultations, but no decision has yet been taken on the legal nature of the prospective new instrument and major discrepancies remain on the meaning and interpretation of key issues, including some relating to jurisdiction and accountability – that are key for victims to access justice and redress.

New Challenges and Stocktaking

While the new regulatory instrument struggles to take off, the employment of PMSCs is on the rise, including in new fields, such as the digital domain, the distribution of humanitarian aid, weapons procurement and transfer, or the management of natural resources extraction sites. Other emerging trends, such as the use of recruitment strategies exploiting vulnerable populations – particularly in the Global South, or the impact of their activities on the environment pose unprecedented challenges, which show the potential shortcomings of the existing regulatory frameworks. Maritime security presents another pressing frontier as PMSCs operating in international waters have taken on expanded roles in anti-piracy and counterterrorism, often filling gaps in State capacity. In some cases, especially in situations of armed conflict, the line between private entities and the State is increasingly blurred. This is even more challenging as PMSCs now operate across a broad and evolving spectrum of activities: from drone warfare and AI-enhanced surveillance to cyber operations and biometric data collection. This increases the risks to civilian populations and broadens the array of rights affected by PMSCs’ operations.

As the private military and security sector undergoes rapid transformation, including technological, existing international regulatory frameworks — largely built around traditional, physical security threats — are struggling to remain relevant.

The persistent failure to hold PMSCs and their personnel accountable for violations — despite well-documented abuses, including in conflict zones — reveals deep-rooted weaknesses in the international system. As countries like Ukraine consider new legislation on PMSCs, they have a unique opportunity to set a precedent for responsible regulation by filling legal gaps and aligning domestic laws with international humanitarian and human rights standards.

An additional risk generated by the gaps in the existing legal framework is that of corruption in the global PMSCs industry. In this scenario, the current international efforts to draft a new regulatory instrument represent a crucial attempt and opportunity to strengthen the regulation framework as the current accountability architecture is both fractured and ineffective.

It is paramount that the current draft instrument fully reflects the evolving landscape of PMSCs, including the new sectors they increasingly operate in. As the use of PMSCs expands, so do the challenges they present, exposing critical gaps in existing regulatory frameworks.

Against this backdrop, the Symposium serves as a timely space for stocktaking, offering a platform to critically assess the current regulatory regime, identify its shortcomings, and explore concrete avenues to strengthen accountability and guarantee access to justice and reparation for victims of crimes under international law.

The Way Ahead – Stronger Frameworks for Accountability and Effective Protection of Victims’ Rights

In reviewing the current draft instrument on PMSCs, we recommend a series of substantive improvements to better address accountability, justice, and victims’ rights.

Preliminarily, the instrument should clearly delineate three forms of responsibility — individuals (natural persons), corporate (legal persons), and States — while including criminal, civil, and administrative liability provisions across both legal and natural persons.

As for criminal prosecution, it is essential that the draft affirms States’ authority to prosecute and sanction legal and natural persons independently, and that all modes of criminal responsibility, beyond mere commission and ordering, are explicitly recognized and regulated. The responsibility of commanders and superiors, particularly in cases involving crimes under international law, must be established, alongside clarified grounds for jurisdiction that include both territorial and extraterritorial bases. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is key to allow victims to obtain justice, especially when PMSCs and their personnel operate in States with weak legal and judicial frameworks, and can take advantage of the lack of effective oversight mechanisms to escape accountability.

Although those are effective tools to combat impunity, very few cases have been litigated so far against economic actors – whether companies or individuals. This is partially due to weak domestic legal frameworks that need to be strengthened and complemented, and for which the draft instrument represents a unique occasion.

Furthermore, the establishment of extraterritorial civil jurisdiction is also essential to guarantee victims’ right to an effective remedy and reparation and complements criminal jurisdiction. It allows victims to bring civil lawsuits in countries where companies are headquartered, even if this is not where the crimes were committed, increasing their chances of obtaining remedy and reparation. Recent cases (see for instance the Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc and Doe v. Chiquita Brands International) represent examples of victims’ attempts to seek reparation for human rights abuses committed by PMSCs and paramilitary actors.

Finally, the definition of victims contained in the instrument must be expanded. The scope of protection must be broadened to safeguard all individuals involved in, or cooperating with, investigative and judicial processes. Provisions for psychosocial support and legal aid for victims, along with special measures for those in vulnerable situations, should be explicitly outlined. Victims must be meaningfully involved in justice and reparation processes, supported by specific mechanisms to ensure their participation and right to information. The future instrument should also enshrine comprehensive reparative measures, including compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition, alongside tailored reparation for environmental harm. Finally, effective enforcement of reparation judgments and mechanisms for the identification, freezing, and confiscation of perpetrators’ assets should be detailed, with an emphasis on enhanced international cooperation to secure justice and redress for victims.

Ultimately, strengthening accountability provisions is the most effective way to ensure that victims can access redress, while also reinforcing the legitimacy and enforceability of the future legal instrument. For this reason, it is important that States move forward with a strong text, legally binding and adequately addressing the evolving landscape of private military and security operations. Between old challenges and new frontiers, the time is ripe to rethink how we regulate private security, to catch up with the present, and effectively prepare for a fast-approaching future.

The views expressed in this symposium are solely those of the individual authors and do not represent the positions or opinions of the sponsoring organizations and individuals.

We are deeply grateful to Pamela Capizzi and Laura-Lou Moreau as well as Kevin Jon Heller and the Opinio Juris team for their generous help in editing the symposium contributions. Their keen eye for detail and insightful input significantly elevated the quality of the final content.