Search

Appendix to the article Elke Krahmann (2020) "Everyday visuality and risk management: Representing (in)security in UN peacekeeping", Contemporary Security Policy, prepublished online.

"Auch Deutschland vergibt zunehmend Aufträge an private Sicherheitsfirmen bei zivilen, polizeilichen und militärischen Auslandseinsätzen. Die Bundesregierung will damit Kosten sparen, die Effektivität von Auslandseinsätzen steigern und die Bundeswehr entlasten. Doch diese Praxis ist riskant. Die Autoren zeigen anhand vieler Beispiele, dass die Privatisierung von Sicherheitsdienstleistungen nicht ausreichend demokratisch kontrolliert ist, in Einsatzländern zu mehr Unsicherheit führen und die Legitimität internationaler Vertreter und Institutionen des Gastlandes gefährden kann. Sie fordern eine öffentliche Debatte über Vor- und Nachteile des Einsatzes von Sicherheitsfirmen sowie neue Gesetze, um Firmen zu kontrollieren und Rechtssicherheit zu schaffen." (Autorenreferat)

This paper aims to address two questions at the centre of the PRIV-WAR project. Firstly, what legislation and regulative frameworks for the regulation of private military and security companies (PMCs/PSCs) providing services in combat zones exist in the European Union today? Secondly, what options are there for improving these regulations in order to ensure the responsibility and accountability of these companies and their compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law? The EU has been one of the key promoters of improved regulation. However, current controls within the EU apply only to a small range of services provided by PMCs/PSCs. The main gaps in the existing regulatory framework at the national and EU levels concern the registration and licensing of PMCs and the export of private military and security services outside the EU. To address these gaps this paper outlines nine policy options which would singly or in combination improve the transparency, accountability and control of PMCs/PSCs.

Private Sicherheitsfirmen verzeichnen seit vielen Jahren enorme Zuwachsraten. Sie übernehmen unterschiedliche Schutz- und Sicherheitsaufgaben im Inland, werden aber auch vermehrt in internationalen Interventionen eingesetzt. Ist das staatliche Gewaltmonopol durch die Zunahme privater Sicherheitsanbieter gefährdet? In dem vorliegenden Beitrag stellt die Autorin einen Normenwandel in der Versorgung mit Sicherheit fest und fordert eine öffentliche Debatte darüber, ob der nicht-staatliche Gebrauch von Waffengewalt legitim und politisch erwünscht ist. Zunächst wird die Bedeutung des staatlichen Gewaltmonopols im Kontext nationaler und internationaler Sicherheit dargestellt. Im Anschluss daran wird die Theorie des Normwandels vorgestellt und Probleme, die sich bei dessen ergeben, diskutiert. Der nächste Abschnitt untersucht die empirische Bedeutung dieses Normwandels für das staatliche Gewaltenmonopol und das Aufkommen kommerzieller Anwendung von Gewalt durch private Sicherheitsfirmen. Abschließend werden die Konsequenzen anhand einiger ausgewählter Beispiele dargestellt. (ICD)

The concept of global governance has emerged as a key theoretical approach since the 1990s. Applied to the transformation of international security, it has suggested a shift from the state-dominated bipolar system of the Cold War era to a new multipolar and multilateral security architecture in which state, non-state and international actors collaborate in the making and implementation of security policies. Then came September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq. Today we appear to be more likely to discuss the nature of American hegemony and the stability of a unipolar international system. Observing the clash between these two competing perspectives of international security, the aims of this paper are threefold. First, this paper seeks to examine the respective theoretical assumptions underlying the concepts of hegemony and governance. Second, it examines the competing hypotheses proposed by these two theories with regard to international security. Third, it discusses in how far the empirical evidence since September 11, can be taken as indication of either a hegemonic strategy by the United States and balancing or bandwagoning behaviour by other major powers, or the continuation of security governance.

"Since the end of the Cold War, the broadening notion of security and new security threats have facilitated the growing role of non-state actors, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), private military companies and armaments corporations in security governance. This paper suggests that the increased importance of non-state actors can be understood as part of a shift from government to governance in North American and European security policy making. Characteristic of the emergence of a system of security governance is the fragmentation of political authority among public and private actors in seven dimensions: geography, function, resources, interests, norms, decision-making and implementation. Building on a theoretical model which distinguishes between government and governance as ideal types, this paper addresses three questions: how can we understand the growing role of private actors in international security, what problems arise from this transformation of security policy making and why, and how can these problems be addressed." (author's abstract)