National laws governing the use and operations of private military and security companies vary widely in scope and complexity. The United States has the most complex regulatory system in place. In a few (but growing) number of national systems, companies and personnel delivering military and/or security services are subject to licensing requirements and vetting procedures; in other states the commercial provision of these services is criminalized as a form of mercenarism. In most states, however, the commercial provision of military and security services is not specifically regulated except by contract law that applies to the agreement struck between a client and security company.
The national regulations that appear below were collected by DCAF and the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries. In May 2012, the Working Group issued a request to all UN member states for their laws, rules and regulations relating to the provision of private security services. As responses are received they are posted on the Working Group's website.
Drawing from these resources, the Private Security Monitor compiles and annotates the available legislation onto this page, and if necessary, dedicated country pages. Countries with relevant reports from DCAF, the Working Group, Priv-War, or other groups contain brief cross-references to those additional source materials.
Angola was an early proving ground for mercenaries and private security services. The extended civil war in the 1990s attracted private military firms, most famously South African firm Executive Outcomes, to assist government or rebel forces in the conflict. As a result, Angola was an early adopter of legislation regulating PMSC activity in the country. However, the implementation of these laws has been "limited and selective", according to a report by Swisspeace. Multiple reports from the UN Working Group on Mercenaries in the 1990s also devote large sections to PMC activity in Angola (e.g. E/CN.4/1995/29).
Private security services are a burgeoning industry in Burkina Faso, but have not been involved in any major conflicts. Burkina is not a headquarters to any transnational firms, although several operate in the country. Few reports exist about Burkina's private security industry or regulations, a DCAF report on West Africa security governance briefly covers the topic.
In 2004, a number of mercenaries including Simon Man and Nick du Toit were allegedly involved in an attempted coup against President Obiang of Equatorial Guinea. The UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries visited Equatorial Guinea in 2010 and reported on the ongoing investigations and prosecutions related to the coup attempt. The WG noted that there are no laws in Equatorial Guinea dealing specifically with mercenaries, and mercenary activities are prosecuted under the existing law dealing with 'state security'.
Between 2008-2011, there were over 300 piracy attacks on commercial vessels in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean region. As the second largest Flag State for merchant shipping in the world, Liberia issued guidance for safely hiring and utilizing private security on the high seas. This document, Piracy Guidance for Liberian Flagged Vessels Regarding 3rd Party Security Teams informed the International Maritime Organization's recommendations on private maritime security.
Senegal has undergone a boom in private security corporations recently, despite being a secure state with a low crime rate. In 2008, 150+ companies employed over 25,000 people. The stability of the Senegalese economy attracts significant foreign investment and business, and foreign firms are the primary employers of private security. As a result, Senegalese legislation primarily focuses on guidelines for the utilization of domestic private security guards.
In 1995 Sierra Leone was the site of one of the most famous modern uses of a mercenary force. Executive Outcomes, a South African private military company, engaged in direct military activity to save the government of Sierra Leone from the Revolutionary United Front (for a profile of Executive Outcomes and the Sierra Leone conflict, see Chapter 5 and Chapter 9 of this book by the Institute for Security Studies). Since the stabilization of Sierra Leone, the National Security and Intelligence Act of 2002 has provided the basis for regulation of the private security industry.
Visit the South Africa section of the Private Security Monitor website. This section contains a collection of the core laws and regulations that have been put in place in South Africa. As the central supplier of private security forces on the African continent and abroad, South Africa has enacted stringent laws to oversee and govern the use of private security companies operating in its territory.
Swaziland
There was a problem returning the records.
Uganda
There was a problem returning the records.
Zimbabwe
There was a problem returning the records.
Americas
Antigua and Barbuda
There was a problem returning the records.
Argentina
There was a problem returning the records.
Bahamas
There was a problem returning the records.
Barbados
There was a problem returning the records.
Belize
There was a problem returning the records.
Bolivia
There was a problem returning the records.
Brazil
Endemic urban violence and criminality in Brazil has created a large market for private security. While the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 legislates that public security lies in the domain of the state, Law 7,102 and Law 10,826 allow for the hire of private security companies and the supply of their services to individuals and public organs. A noteworthy feature of Law 7,102, as highlighted by a PRIV-WAR report in 2009, is the proscription on the foreign ownership and management of PMCs in Brazil. Brazil provided a response to the 2011 IMO questionnaire on private maritime security services.
Canada is home to a number of private military and security companies, though it is not among the leading contributors to the global private security sector. According to a PRIV-WAR report, Canada does not have legislation specifically designed to regulate the services provided by Canadian PMSCs operating outside of Canada or the conduct of Canadian citizens working for foreign PMCs. There are, however, a number of national provisions and policies that affect the domestic activities performed by Canadian private security companies.
The Chilean private security sector has grown rapidly over the last decade. Controversially, a number of former Chilean military and police personnel were recruited by domestic firms to work for American private security companies in Iraq. In addition, these personnel signed contracts that were subject to Uruguayan law. The UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries visited Chile in 2007 and issued a report in which it expressed concern over the recruitment and treatment of Chileans working in Iraq. The Working Group recommended the government complete its study of PMSCs in Chile and establish a high-level body to monitor their activities. In 2012, Chile provided a response to the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries National Legislation Survey.
The growth of the private security and military services in Colombia can be traced back to the protracted Colombian civil war, which has lasted for over sixty years. A 2009 PRIV-WAR report lists two reasons for why this might be the case. First, the Colombia armed forces had only limited capability to control the country's internal and domestic security. Second, PMCs in Colombia offer technological advantages in arms and procedures that generate a more competitive, specialized, and attractive response to the demand in comparison with the traditional public authorities. In terms of national regulation, Decree 356 of 1994 allows for the outsourcing of security functions under the supervision of the state.
In 2006, the UN Working Group on Mercenaries visited Ecuador. The WG investigated the security firm Epi Security and Investigations, private security companies in the oil sector, the status of Ecuadorian nationals working in Manta, and PMSCs involved in counter-narcotics. Ecuador does have limited regulation on PMSCs, namely the 2003 Bill on Private Security. The legislation has not stopped the proliferation of PMSCs in Ecuador, and foreign companies continue to operate in a gray area.
The private military and security industry in Haiti has long functioned without effective regulation. According to a June 2012 SSR paper on the private security industry, there are approximately 41 PSCs licensed to operate in the country. These companies are regulated under a series of presidential decrees. The first two, passed in 1988 and 1989, provide general guidelines on the role of PSCs, the requirements they must meet to be authorized, and the kinds of weapons they may use. A third decree, passed in 1994, gives the Haitian National Police (HNP) the legal authority to enforce regulations governing the industry. Attempts were made to strengthen these decrees by following them up with national regulations, however, political turbulence and natural disasters has slowed this process.
Under the terms of Decree No. 156-98 And Agreement No. 0771-2005 private security companies in Honduras are deemed as for-profit commercial legal entities and not as private military and security companies. In August 2006, the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries visited Honduras to examine the state of mercenary activity in the country. The Working Group commended the Honduran government for measures taken to provide oversight of PMSCs, but noted that the regulatory framework needed to be strengthened. The Working Group also expressed concern over the training of Chilean nationals in Honduras and the recruitment of Honduran nationals for private security work in Iraq.
According to a report by the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries, the absence of national legislation, regulation, and effective monitoring has created a legal vacuum in Peru that benefits domestic private security companies operating in the international market. This vacuum also encourages these PSCs to recruit nationals of other countries as security guards in armed conflict zones. Nevertheless, there are a number of acts that have attempted to regulate the work of PMSCs. Act No. 28806 (Labour Inspection Act) strengthens police powers to inspect employment agencies, such as PMSCs, while under Act No. 28879 of 2006, the Ministry of the Interior is deemed responsible for the regulation, control and oversight of private security services.
Click here to visit the U.S. section of the Private Security Monitor website. This section contains a comprehensive collection of laws and regulations that direct the U.S. government's overseas use of private military and security contractors, and the audits, hearings, and reports concerning PMSCs issued by U.S. government agencies and committees. Also included in the "Federal Laws" section are U.S. statutes that establish the legal liability of overseas government contractors and their personnel for criminal and tortuous acts committed outside the United States. The United States is the world's largest consumer of private military and security services and has a long history of contracting with the private sector. Because of the widespread use of private military and security contractors within the U.S. government, regulation and oversight is diffuse, split among Congress, federal agencies, and specially-created oversight commissions. Private military and security contractors are subject to a complex set of laws and regulations, and their activities are reviewed and reported on by more than 20 federal oversight bodies and committees. The US reliance on contractors ballooned after 9/11 as the US Military experienced increased manpower strain. This phenomenon is examined in the US PRIV-WAR report. The US was also the subject of a UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries Country Visit in 2009, and responded to the IMO questionnaire on maritime private security regulations.
Visit the Afghanistan section of the Private Security Monitor website. This section contains a collection of the core laws and regulations that have been put in place in Afghanistan. As one of the largest theatre of operations for PMSCs since the arrival of foreign troops in 2001, the country has been a focus of domestic and international efforts to regulate private security companies.
Australia
The private military and security sector in Australia is relatively small in comparison to some of its major military allies. The government has been somewhat reluctant to contract out direct military services. According to a recent report by PRIV-WAR, Australia has been reviewing its procurement contracting process to ensure that it is abiding by the provisions of the Montreux Document, and had been waiting to enact further legislation based on Montreux. The current legislative framework is limited in scope, and rests largely on the recently amended Crimes (Overseas) Act of 1964. Australia provided a response to the 2011 IMO Questionnaire on private maritime security regulations.
The overall characterization of private guarding system in Azerbaijan Republic can be summarized as follows: the government has strong control over private guarding activities, it requires the obtainment of licenses, requires private guardians go through state owned guardian schools only, and requires all guardians to be citizens of Azerbaijan Republic. There are also strict regulations regarding the use of physical power and special equipment.
The country of Fiji is a large contributor of private security employees to transnational PMSCs, but the nation has no significant private security companies of its own. The 2008 UN Working Group on Mercenaries report on Fijian regulation in 2008 commented that Fiji lacked any specific regulations for private security services. Since then, Fiji issued the 2010 Security Industry Decree, a framework for oversight of the industry.
In 2012, Hong Kong provided a response to the IMO Questionnaire on private maritime security regulations. The primary legislation governing the regulation of PMSCs in Hong Kong is the 1994 Security and Guarding Services Ordinance, which provides for the establishment of a Security and Guarding Services Industry Authority, the issuing of permits to individuals doing security work, and the licensing of security companies. This Ordinance was amended in 2002.
The private security sector in India is governed by the 2005 Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act. The Act makes provisions for the licensing of companies, it outlines the eligibility requirements of security guards, and it details the nature of sanctions against companies that violate the rules. In 2012, India provided a response to the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries National Legislation Survey, and also responded to the IMO Questionnaire on private maritime security regulations.
Belgium has been involved in the private military and security industry since the mid-20th century. According to a PRIV-WAR report, mercenaries were provided by Belgium during the period of crisis that followed the independence of the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1960s. They have been used on a number of occasions since then, including by the Congolese government for military support against the rebels in 1996. The principal law regulating the use of private security companies in Belgium was enacted in 1991. It was simplified in 2005 and renamed the Law Regulating Private Security.
While the private security industry in Bulgaria was initially associated with organized crime, a series of regulatory changes introduced by the government over the last eight years have helped to change this perception. A 2005 SEESAC report on private security companies operating in South Eastern Europe notes that the industry has advanced to a stage where international companies are operating in Bulgaria and Bulgarian firms are starting to export their services abroad, including to Iraq. In 2012, Bulgaria provided a response to the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries National Legislation Survey.
The private security sector in Croatia is expanding at a rate of 10% per year according to a 2005 SEESAC report on private security companies operating in South Eastern Europe. The report states that although a cross-industry code of conduct has not yet been agreed, the nature and strength of state regulation has alleviated some of the concerns surrounding the regulation of the private security sector. However, there are enduring worries regarding the industry's links with organized crime and its affiliation with some political parties.
According to a PRIV-WAR report on Estonia, the rules governing the regulation of private military companies and security services are stipulated in the Estonian Constitution. However, no laws specifically proscribe provision of services by Estonian PMCs operating abroad. Therefore, the report focuses on issues that would be relevant if Estonian private military and private security contractors operated abroad.
The PMSC sector in Finland is relatively small. A 2009 PRIV-WAR report lists a number of reasons for why this might be the case, including a belief against outsourcing defense, constitutional limits on delegating tasks to private authorities, and the limited role of Finland armed forces abroad. As Finland lacks specific legislation on private military and security companies, the PRIV-WAR report consequently examines the regulation of domestic security services and various legal fields that might be applicable to the industry.
France considers the use of armed force to be an inherently state function. It is reluctant to contract out security and military services abroad, although it has robust legislation governing its domestic private security law. As the government does not believe that security will be contracted out overseas, the domestic legislation is considered "distinct" and separate from private security abroad.
The private military and security sector in France has been described as "Etatist" by a PRIV-WAR report on France. This implies that the government has sought to align the behavior of PMSCs with the state's own security and foreign policy interests. According to the report, the French government often gave tacit authorization to activities conducted by French mercenaries between the 1960s and the 1980s in Africa. The regulation of private security services in France has evolved since the enactment of the 1983 law regulating private security activities. This law remains key to the regulatory framework of PMSCs in France. Information on France's regulations on maritime private security can be found in its response to the IMO's questionnaire on national private security regulations.
German military companies primarily provide support services to the German Armed Forces. A PRIV-WAR report on private military and security companies in Germany notes that these companies mostly function in the field of logistics and protection of persons and buildings. A number of German PMSCs also provide backup services for foreign armed services including waste disposal and laundry services. While there appear to be no specific pieces of legislation concerning the activities of German PMSCs abroad, the right to pursue commercial activities is constitutionally protected. The operation of a security or surveillance service business, however, necessitates prior authorization by a governmental authority. In 2012, Germany provided a response to the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries National Legislation Survey.
There are no specific regulations governing the private military sector in Italy. However, a 2009 PRIV-WAR report on Italy suggests that there are norms that govern the work of and use of domestic private security companies. For instance, a PSC cannot operate without the authorization of the principle governing authority and it must first obtain a license from the Prefetto. The conditions of this license must be respected and if a company fails to respect its terms, then the license can be revoked.
In Latvia, the Security Guard Activities Law regulates the conduct of private security services. This law states that private security services can be performed either by natural persons or legal persons that have obtained a special permit issued by the Minister of Interior. Though private security services such as guards are regulated, a 2009 PRIV-WAR Report notes that Latvian law does not regulate the provision of private military services. Furthermore, the Latvian government has released no official policy statements regarding the use of private military and security services during Latvian missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo.
The Law on the Security of the Person and Property regulates the provision of private security services in Lithuania. This law also regulates the operation of foreign private security companies in the country. If a company is registered to a country belonging to the European Union, it can operate in Lithuania for up to 3 months without a licence. Otherwise, providing security services without a license is prohibited. Furthermore, as noted in a PRIV-WAR report, the Lithuanian Parliament has sole authority to decide on the use of armed forces in the zone of armed conflict and prospective use of PSCs and PMCs abroad.
There are no specific laws that regulate the activities of private security and military companies in the Netherlands. In order to provide such services, a company must obtain a license from the Ministry of Justice. According to a 2008 PRIV-WAR Report, the Dutch government has hired private contractors to protect officials and diplomats abroad.
Following a steady increase in violent acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia and in the Indian Ocean, the Norwegian Government has taken a number of steps to ensure that ships registered in Norway are able to protect themselves adequately. A Security Association for the Maritime Industry Report on the use of armed guards on board Norwegian ships notes that this process has involved making changes to standing regulations such as Regulations of 22 June 2004 No. 972 and the Provisional Regulations of 25 June 2009. In 2012, Norway provided a response to the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries National Legislation Survey.
Portuguese Law does not provide for the specific regulation of private military companies. However, private security services are regulated by the Decree-Law governing Private Security Activity 2004, which was amended in 2008. According to a 2009 PRIV-WAR report, personnel hired by PSCs are subject to the general regulation of possession and use of weapons as established by the Law on Weapons and Ammunitions. In 2009, there were 400 PSCs registered at the Portuguese Central File of Legal Persons. In 2012, Portugal provided a response to the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries National Legislation Survey.
In the Russian Federation, there are no laws specifically regulating the conduct of private military companies. According to a 2009 PRIV-WAR report, due to the lack of specific regulation, it is technically possible for a Russian private military company to be hired by a foreign employer and sent abroad. On the other hand, private security and investigation services are regulated by Federal Law No 2487, which was adopted on 11 March 1992. In 2012, Russia provided a response to the UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries National Legislation Survey.
Slovenia has employed significantly more private security personnel alongside the development of its law enforcement sectors in recent years. The foundation of Slovenian regulation on private security is found in the 2003 Law on Private Security Services, and the 2002 Law on Private Detective Services. Slovenian private security corporations engage in a broad range of security operations ranging from diplomatic and personal security to maritime security operations.
Spanish law maintains that it is the sole obligation of the state to provide for security. However, to accomplish this end, the law leaves open the possibility that Spanish security forces can be complimented by the activity of private security companies. According to the PRIV-WAR report on Spain, this legal foundation for Spanish private security is derived primarily from the Spanish Constitution, the Organic Law on the Protection of Citizens' Security of 21 February 1992 the Law on Private Security of 30 July 1992 and the Organic Law on National Defence of 17 November 2005. Most Spanish use of private security is domestic, with contractors providing support to the Spanish military primarily in a logistical capacity. Contractors may be used abroad to protect military bases, but there is restrictions on the amount of risk they may undertake. In addition, Spain responded to the IMO's questionnaire on maritime private security.
Swedish legislation does not provide any specific rules aiming at regulating private military and security companies offering their services abroad. Despite this, the Swedish military has utilized local national, and Swedish national private security to assist in the guarding of installations and personnel abroad. According to the PRIV-WAR report on Sweden, such use of private security is likely to expand. A lack of specific regulation does not leave a regulatory void however, as existing national legislation in different fields may be relevant for such business.
Visit the Switzerland page for more information on Switzerland's national regulations and reports. As a principal supporter of multi-stakeholder initiatives to regulate PMSC companies, Switzerland is deeply involved in efforts to establish a governance framework for PMSC activity globally.
Ukraine
There was a problem returning the records.
United Kingdom
Visit the United Kingdom section on national regulations. The U.K. is home to a large number of private security companies operating both domestically and abroad. The country is relatively light on legislation on the issue, with the majority of the regulation falling to the guidance provided by a green paper issued upon the subject of private security services. The UK government and UK-based companies are large clients of private security services. The Government's policy is threefold: raising standards of the UK industry through a Code of Conduct agreed with and monitored by the Government; using its leverage as a key buyer to raise standards; and working towards an international agreement on standards covering all aspects of PMSC operation and organization worldwide. The UK regulatory attempts are analyzed in the UK PRIV-WAR report. The recent rise in British private security companies offering maritime security services has added another element to the complex regulatory discussion in the UK, and as of yet the government has not established specific guidelines for the maritime industry. The UK was subject to a UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries Country Visit in May of 2008.
Middle East and North Africa
Algeria
There was a problem returning the records.
Bahrain
There was a problem returning the records.
Djibouti
There was a problem returning the records.
Iraq
Visit the Iraq section on national regulations. Another major theater for PMSC operations, Iraq has developed some legislation to regulate their activity within its borders. Most of that legislation was enacted by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and not the Iraq government itself.
Israel
According to a 2010 PRIV-WAR Report, over the last decade the government of Israel has increasingly begun to privatize and civilianize its security forces. Private security contractors in Israel carry out a number of functions including, day-to-day management of the crossings between Israel and the West Bank and guarding the construction of the separation barrier in the West Bank since 2003. The 2005 Powers for Maintaining Public Security Law provided private security companies with the authority to demand that individuals identify themselves, to search personal property, or to detain a person. In 2012, Israel provided a response to the IMO questionnaire on private maritime security regulations.
This North African country's regulations on private security are primarily related to security guards tasked with transporting valuable goods. Tunisia does, however, have some provisions on the protection of persons as well. Tunisia has no PRIV-WAR or UN Working Group Country Visit. Tunisia is a respondent to the OHCHR Working Group on Mercenaries request for national regulatory frameworks.
