The end of the ‘new world order’? security governance and US imperialism after 9/11

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

The UN guidelines on the use of armed guards: Recommendations for improvement

In 2012, the United Nations approved new Guidelines on the Use of Armed Private Security Companies by its agencies, funds and programmes. The Guidelines hold the potential to not only enhance the quality of armed security services contracted by the UN, but also raise professional standards within the military and security industry more generally by serving as a model for other consumers and companies. Nevertheless, a close reading of the Guidelines indicates that there is still room for improvements. Drawing on best practices identified by industry associations, major clients and academic research, this article makes six recommendations for revision. Specifically, the article contends that expanding the scope, content and enforcement of the Guidelines would contribute to strengthening the control over private security contractors

American hegemony or global governance? Competing visions of international security

An overview is given of two competing visions of contemporary international security: United States hegemony and security governance. According to these perspectives, the current generation is either witnessing the return to classical balance-of-power politics, in which the US as the sole surviving superpower can impose hegemonic or imperialist policies upon other nations, or the continuation of a new era of security governance that began after the end of the Cold War. To better understand these two visions, an attempt is made to clarify the concepts of hegemony and security governance and the hypotheses linked to these two approaches. Specifically, it is illustrated why the policies of the US since September 11 might not only be perceived as hegemonic, but also as imperialist within the context of neorealist theorizing

Private military and security companies, territoriality and the transformation of western security governance

The field of security governance holds a special place within the context of the debate over the diffusion of power from state to non-state actors, from national to international authorities and from governments to markets in Western democracies. Not only has the provision of the ‘public good’ security been considered one of the main functions of government, but also has it played a major role in justifying the centralization of power and authority within and by the nation-state (Krahmann, 2010; Leander 2006). The contemporary proliferation of private military and security companies, i.e. companies that sell armed and non-armed security services to public and private customers, poses a particular challenge to state-centric notions of national and global governance. This chapter seeks to examine the consequences of the diffusion of security governance functions among military and security companies in Europe and North America

Beck and beyond: Selling security in the world risk society

©2010 British International Studies AssociationExpanding on the works of Beck and others on the growing business of risk, this article examines the role of the private security industry in the creation, management and perpetuation of the world risk society. It observes that the replacement of the concept of security with risk over the past decades has permitted private firms to identify a growing range of unknown and unknown-unknown dangers which cannot be eliminated, but require permanent risk management. Using the discourse of risk and its strategies of commercialised, individualised and reactive risk management, the private risk industry thus has contributed to the rise of a world risk society in which the demand for security can never be satisfied and guarantees continuous profits

Regulating private military companies: What role for the EU?

Following allegations that private security guards were involved in the torture of Iraqi prisoners and in the wake an attempted coup by private mercenaries in Equatorial Guinea, the proliferation of so-called ‘private military companies’ (PMCs) is receiving considerable attention. Of particular concern is the lack of effective national and international controls of the industry. This article argues that much of the current debate about PMCs underestimates the extent of regulation that directly or indirectly applies to the industry. Especially in Europe, private military services are increasingly controlled by national and international legislation. The European Union (EU) plays a crucial role in this development because of two factors. First, the EU's free internal market in goods and services is putting pressure on the EU to harmonize national regulations on private security and policing and thus regulate the ‘soft’ end of the private military industry. Second, the growing role of the EU in foreign and defence issues is leading the EU to act as a driving force in assuring the implementation of non-proliferation policies among its member states. Following an examination of national and EU policies on the provision and export of specific private military services, this article concludes that, as the overlap and tensions between national and international policies grows, the EU is coming under increasing pressures to create common controls which subsume both

Regulating military and security services in the European Union

In recent years, there has been a growing disillusionment with the lack of national and international regulation of private military and security services. While the expansion of the industry after the end of the Cold War has led to an increasing number of incidents – such as private soldiers accused of shooting at civilians on the streets of Baghdad,1 torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib,2 trying to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea,3 training the Croatian army which committed human rights atrocities in the Krajina,4 and circumventing the arms embargo against Sierra Leone5 – only the United States and South Africa currently have separate laws concerning the export of private military and security services. Moreover, regional and international efforts such as the United Nations and African Union conventions on mercenaries have proven ineffective

Private military services in the UK and Germany: Between partnership and regulation1

Controversial cases such as the aborted coup in Equatorial Guinea and the employment of private contractors in the Abu Ghraib prison have brought the proliferation of private ‘mercenaries’ to worldwide attention. However, the privatization of military security is more diverse and complex than generally suggested. Specifically, one needs to distinguish between the use of private mercenaries in developing countries and the privatization of military services in Europe. Focussing on the latter, this article proposes that the privatization of military services in industrialized countries can be understood in terms of a shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. As a consequence, the emergence of a private military industry in Europe is not only characterized by distinct forms of governance failure; European governments have also developed new modes of governance to control the industry. Using the United Kingdom and Germany as examples, this article examines two modes in particular: public private partnerships and governmental regulation

Private security companies and the state monopoly on violence: A case of norm change?

The proliferation of private security companies has received increasing public and academic attention in recent years. From the involvement of private security firms in Sierra Leone and Angola to the capture and killing of Blackwater security contractors in Iraq, the emergence of an international private security industry raises new questions with regard to the legitimacy of the private use of armed force. One aspect often missed in the public debate has been the pervasiveness of private security contractors. While most reports focus on the controversial actions of private security firms in international interventions, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq, domestic private security sectors in Europe and North America have been expanding since the 1970s. The emergence of a global private security industry thus appears to be part of a broader trend that suggests the growing acceptance and use of commercial security firms at the national and international levels. The recent signing of the Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies during Armed Conflict has been a further expression of the increased legitimacy of private security contractors. In the document, seventeen states - Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Austria, Canada, China, France, Germany, Iraq, Poland, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States - have resisted pressures to strengthen the international regulation of private security firms by reiterating the applicability of existing international humanitarian and human rights law and by recommending that firms adopt a voluntary code of good practice