Private security beyond private military and security companies: exploring diversity within private-public collaborations and its consequences for security governance

Abstract

The aim of this special issue is to widen the existing debates on security privatization by looking at how and why an increasing number of private actors beyond private military and/or security companies (PMSCs) have come to perform various security related functions. While PMSCs produce security for profit, most other private sector actors make profit by selling goods and services that were originally not connected with security in the traditional understanding of the term. However, due to the continuous introduction of new legal and technical regulations by public authorities, many non-security related private businesses nowadays have to perform at least some security functions. Little research, however, has been done thus far, both in terms of security practices of non-security related private businesses and their impact on security governance. This introduction explains how this special issue contributes to closing this glaring gap by 1) extending the conceptual and theoretical arguments in the existing body of literature; and 2) offering a range of original case studies on the specific roles of non-security related private companies of all sizes, areas of businesses, and geographic origin.

Determinants of effective outsourced private security services by commercial banks in Nairobi, Kenya

“…These findings indicate that relationship with stakeholders in the security industry include the commercial banks, police, other security companies, labour unions, media and the public was key in enabling the security companies to offer effective security services. These findings concur with the results by Bures and Carrapico (2017) that though private security companies provided security services for profit, the government need to effectively regulate the sector by continuously introducing technical and legal regulations to make the sector more effective. Moreover, other stakeholders including the public, labour unions, current clients and potential clients need to participate and collaborate with private security companies to make them more effective on providing quality security services.…”

Private military and security companies in international law

“…-Upholding peace is an inherent obligation that a State cannot delegate; 1 -As they progress and develop, private military companies may create a real threat to the governments; 2 -Outsourcing state functions to private companies will limit state sovereignty. 3 As a result of the study, the Special Rapporteur suggested that such companies be prohibited, as they encourage mercenary activities.…”

“…January 13, 1999, E/CN.4/1999/11. URL: https://ap.ohchr.org/ documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=105 (accessed: 09.09.2020) 2. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of the use of mercenaries.…”

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides, intersections, and opportunities

“…It should also pay more attention to the punitive capacity of a fuller range of private and informal “sanctions,” including professional bans, media “naming and shaming” campaigns (van Erp ), social media accountability (Grabosky ), and systems of civil penalties, that contribute to the practice of corporate social control (Black ). The growing recognition of private security (closed‐circuit TV, private policing) and administrative sanctioning (such as anti‐social behavior orders in the UK) within mainstream criminology, along with the increasing use made of corporate policing to enable secrecy and control, and to limit reputational damage (Meerts ; van Erp ), suggests that there is a pressing need for corporate criminology scholarship to expand its focus to account for these variations (Bures & Carrapico ).…”