Last week, on Oct. 1, the U.N. Human Rights Council decided to establish a Working Group to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the regulation of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights
The Working Group will have the mandate to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the impact of the activities of private military and security companies on the enjoyment of human rights, on the basis of the principles, main elements and the draft text for a possible convention proposed by the United Nations Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination.
The vote on resolution A/HRC/15/L.22 regarding the open-ended intergovernmental working group was adopted by a vote of 32 in favor, 12 against, and 3 abstentions.
The intergovernmental open-ended working group shall meet every year until the fulfillment of its mandate, that it shall have a session of five working days a year and that the first session shall take place no later than May 2011.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favor (32): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay and Zambia.
Against (12): Belgium, France, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (3): Maldives, Norway, and Switzerland.
Below are some comments from various countries explaining their votes.
OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), introducing draft resolution L.22, said that they had the honour to introduce the draft text on behalf of the African Group. The draft resolution called for an international monitoring mechanism on the activities of private military and security companies. The draft resolution called for the establishment of an open-ended intergovernmental Working Group, which would make recommendations to the Council on how to proceed on this important issue. A legally binding instrument would be able to hold private military and security companies accountable to their international human rights obligations. The use of mercenaries remained a controversial issue and Nigeria felt that clear legal measures needed to be pursued. The open-ended intergovernmental Working Group would be able to help guide this process and make valuable suggestions in this regard. Nigeria also raised a number of oral amendments and concluded by saying that they hoped that this resolution would be adopted by a substantial majority of the Council's members.
EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the United States took seriously the issue of private military security companies and their accountability. The most effective way to address those concerns would be the better implementation of existing laws, including the international code of conduct, which would oblige the private military security companies to conduct themselves in respect of human rights. The United States was disappointed that their and other delegations' suggestions were not adequately addressed in the resolution. The United States said that the draft resolution would not produce an effective resolution of those issues and would divert resources, time and attention from more constructive approaches. Furthermore, the fundamental issues had not been sufficiently considered by the resolution, such as its implications on training and recruitment for private military security companies and even United Nations peacekeeping missions. The United States than called for the vote and said it would vote against the draft resolution.
ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said South Africa was to be thanked for its efforts to accommodate the concerns of all States. Nevertheless, the European Union was unable to support the resolution, as it did not consider that discussion of private military and security companies was appropriate in the Human Rights Council. It was not primarily a human rights question, and therefore went beyond the competence of the Council. The European Union did not support the proposal that a body established by the Human Rights Council should have the responsibility of establishing an international regulatory framework, nor a possible Convention. The European Union would therefore vote against the resolution.
PETER GOODERHAM (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that its objectives on private military and security companies was to reduce the risk that these companies might violate human rights. Taking into account various consultations, the Government of the United Kingdom had decided to implement robust codes of action for private military and security companies with which it worked and also to ensure adherence to those codes and the rules of international law. In light of these facts, the United Kingdom did not support the call for an international regulatory framework nor a legally binding document on the use of private military and security companies, which it did not consider to be a human rights issue. Furthermore, if the resolution was passed, the United Kingdom said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should find internal resources to pay for the activities of the intergovernmental Working Group. For these reasons, the United Kingdom would vote against the draft resolution.
BENTE ANGELL-HANSEN (Norway), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the growing trend of using private military security companies to implement various assignments was of a great concern. It was particularly so because their use for military purposes blurred the essential difference between combatant and non-combatant, thus undermining the protection of civilians and humanitarian workers. Norway believed that development of a new legal instrument in the international law was outside of the Human Rights Council's mandate and that the Council was not an appropriate forum for such discussion. Norway would therefore abstain from the vote.
ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Argentina would vote in favour of the resolution, since it supported inter-Governmental control on security companies, and hoped for a convention in this area. The Human Rights Council needed to look very carefully at the content and scope of such an undertaking, and the Working Group needed to be able to examine all possible inputs for such an aim, not just the documents of the Expert Group.
DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Switzerland was in favour of the better regulation of private military and security companies and their use in armed conflict. Switzerland added that it was not against a dialogue on the issue of establishing an international mechanism to monitor and oversee the activities of private military and security companies but this needed to be conducted in an inclusive and balanced manner. In summary, Switzerland regretted that the resolution was not adopted by consensus, which is why it had decided to abstain from the vote.
KENICHI SUGANUMA (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Japan was concerned that the Council had undertaken various new initiatives without taking into account their budgetary implications. In the future sessions of the Council, Japan asked that a way be found to provide members with the information on programme budgetary implications and the sufficient time to study them. Japan chose not to block consensus, but it hoped that additional budgetary needs would be met though savings and the prudent use of the current biennial budget.
What I find interesting about the comments from countries like Belgium, USA, Norway, and UK was that they do not consider the issue of private military and security contractors a human rights issue. Yes, of course, some shade their response by saying (Belgium) it is not "primarily" a human rights issue or (United States) that other existing laws are more appropriate for considering the issue.
But, at least with respect to private security, if not private military, contractors, where the salient issue is ensuring that people with guns don't do things they should not do, they are, as a definitional issue, no different from regular military forces. And all states agree (see Geneva Conventions for example) that the actual or potential use of deadly force by them is very much a human rights issue.
So judging from the state's objections listed above one might be forgiven for concluding that at least some countries think that when a state does something wrong it is a human rights concern. But when the private sector does it, it is, perhaps, just business as usual? I can't help but think of George Orwell's famed 1946 essay, "Politics and the English Language" which focused on the link between sloppy language and sloppy thinking.