The withdrawal of humanitarian missions creates gaps in conflict landscapes sparking discussion on the alternatives to traditional peacekeeping forces. In this article, Doug Brooks and Krista Hendry explore the opportunities for the increased and improved introduction of PSCs, adapting the protective and defensive mandates of these actors to stability operations.
I. Introduction
Private security companies (PSCs) could potentially play a larger role in international peace and stability operations, filling in gaps left by an international community that has largely abandoned complex humanitarian missions. PSCs already provide security for reconstruction contractors and NGOs by protecting personnel, warehouses, and cargo. They also guard governmental entities such as ambassadors, UN officials, and political leaders, with these activities largely considered uncontroversial. But what considerations arise, when it comes to playing a more central security role that would address personnel shortages, quality issues and rates of operational success?
Prior to founding what is now the International Stability Operations Association, the author’s experience conducting academic research in conflict prone Sierra Leone, suggests that properly contracted PSCs could be critical to international stability operations. A local pro-government militia leader in Sierra Leone complained that the tens of thousands of multinational UN peacekeeping troops were refusing to confront rebel spoilers that were little more than a lightly armed street gang. He would describe the huge UN peacekeeping mission as “an elephant without bones.” Properly contracted PSCs could be the bones that have been missing in international stability operations for far too many decades.
Without adequate security personnel willing to perform risky tasks, missions can fail with catastrophic humanitarian consequences. As a result, willing and effective security forces are vital for successful stability operations. At the same time, it is critical for the international community to clarify beforehand when and how to utilize PSCs in peacekeeping operations, rather than risk a haphazard deployment. With clear rules, laws, and guidelines to ensure humanitarian and legal concerns are properly addressed, the increased and improved utilization of PSCs into complex humanitarian conditions could be an invaluable instrument for success.
II. What do PSCs Bring to the Table?
PSCs offer attractive advantages over traditional peacekeeping forces. They ideally operate under contracts that specify operational procedures, establish rules for use of force as well as penalties for non-compliance. Furthermore, contracts can detail required equipment, both non-lethal—like radios and pepper spray—and permitted lethal weapons. Documents contracting the services of PSCs can specify uniforms, identification requirements, and minimum training standards. The contracting body retains audit rights and can establish consequences for non-conformance. Additionally, clauses should be included to address project duration, transparency requirements, and media relations protocols, creating binding agreements.
Comprehensive insurance requirements and rigorous vetting procedures are two essential criteria for PSCs operating in fragile environments. Reputable PSCs carry substantial liability insurance policies covering both third-party claims and employee incidents, which provides financial recourse for potential victims, incentivizes companies to limit the use of force, and demonstrates corporate responsibility. Background checks should include criminal history reviews, psychological evaluations, and verification of military or police credentials. Many leading PSCs now conduct continuous monitoring of personnel, including social media screening and periodic re-vetting to identify potential risks or changes in suitability.
Who they hire is critical to effective operations, building or breaking acceptance with surrounding communities. PSCs can recruit from outside conflict zones to ensure strategically advantageous neutrality. While this may avoid playing into hands of local elites, it also risks ostracizing local communities. Alternatively, they may hire locally, providing jobs and building local security capacity—as well as improving economic conditions—while adhering to international standards. It becomes a matter of organizational priority. Similar dilemmas arise in related areas. While personnel from developing countries are generally less expensive, former police officers from developed countries can bring valuable expertise. Despite higher salaries, they may still represent a cost-effective option, particularly when compared to the inefficiencies of standard multinational peacekeeping deployments. Companies competing for contracts often prioritize cost-effectiveness, seeking qualified international staff capable of following rules and use-of-force protocols.
III. PSCs and Strategic Viability
Equipped with these characteristics, PSCs already engage in stability operations, making their expansion to strategic roles feasible. Successful scaling of PSC operations requires engagement with local communities and cultural experts. When expanding from protecting individual facilities to securing entire villages, cities, or even entire regions, PSCs must seek to understand local power dynamics, cultural sensitivities, and community security concerns through engagement activities. This involves establishing community liaison positions and creating formal consultation mechanisms with traditional leaders, women’s groups, and civil society organizations. By providing essential information about security threats, building legitimacy and acceptance for PSC operations, and helping prevent misunderstandings that could escalate into conflicts, local involvement serves multiple purposes. Community members can identify potential troublemakers, explain local grievance patterns, and advise on culturally appropriate responses to security incidents. Moreover, transparent community engagement helps distinguish legitimate security providers from predatory armed groups. Regular town halls, community security committees, and accessible complaint mechanisms ensure that PSC operations remain responsive to local needs rather than imposing external security paradigms.
For private security, the basic rules are always grounded in protection and defense. Many contracts tend to authorize intervention when civilians face mortal threats. This basic protective mandate can be expanded to support larger peacekeeping missions. Adherence to international standards like the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (the Code) helps ensure professional conduct and accountability. The International Code of Conduction Association’s (ICoCA) certification requires companies to demonstrate robust management systems, including procedures for incident reporting, weapons management, and grievance mechanisms accessible to local populations. Additionally, the viability of PSC deployment should depend on establishing clear legal frameworks. This includes Status of Forces Agreements or other arrangements clarifying jurisdiction, immunity provisions, and relationships with local law enforcement. Without such frameworks, PSC personnel operate in legally grey areas that can undermine mission effectiveness, creating accountability gaps.
Studies show that refugees and IDPs prioritize security over food, housing, and other essentials when considering return. Ensuring secure environments, then, is the first step to effective reconstruction. Once reliable security exists, humanitarian actors can implement water, food, and infrastructure projects. Long-term security encourages community investment and economic growth.
IV. Monitoring Flexibility with Oversight
Security may be 90% of the problem, but only 10% of the solution in stability operations. Studies show refugees and IDPs prioritize security over food or housing when considering return. Reconstruction becomes more effective once reliable security exists. NGOs and international organizations can implement water, food, and infrastructure projects. Long-term security encourages community investment and economic growth.
Some of the worst PSC excesses in the Iraq conflict resulted from inadequate oversight and poorly designed mandates. Regular reviews and contractual modifications are essential when human rights and lives are at stake. While flexibility helps adapt to evolving situations, changes require careful review to prevent abuse. Modern best practices include establishing independent monitoring boards with representation from civil society, maintaining detailed incident logs subject to external review, and requiring body cameras or other technological solutions to ensure transparency.
Although PSCs have demonstrated their ability to address external threats like insurgents, terrorists, or gangs, with proper oversight they can act as force enhancers assisting public police under proper legal authority. These oversight mechanisms should include regular performance reviews, unannounced inspections, and a triage system for timely review of concerns or complaints. Clear command structures between contracting organizations and PSCs are essential to ensure compliance and prevent abuses.
Well-designed Requests for Proposals (RfPs) are also important to help PSCs protect their unique capabilities. It is critical to move away from the “lowest price, technically acceptable” procurement mindsets common to government clients. PSCs should be allowed to offer technological solutions—drone surveillance, biometric access control systems, or predictive analytics—that reduce costs, minimize risks, or improve effectiveness. Effective RfPs should also require PSCs to demonstrate partnerships with international NGOs and academic institutions that can provide contextual expertise and cultural intelligence. These partnerships ensure security strategies are informed by a deep understanding of local conflict dynamics, social structures, and community needs, rather than applying generic security templates
V. Can PSCs Replace Military Peacekeepers?
Generally, PSCs are only allowed to react defensively to violence rather than attacking potential threats.
But should they act pre-emptively?
In Iraq, PSCs encountered insurgents preparing weapons—mortars, IEDs, rockets—with clear violent intent. Should PSCs engage immediately or wait until self-defense is necessary?
PSCs follow contract stipulations for protecting populations but must also comply with local laws. Can they detain suspects, impound weapons, or control crowds? Even if contracts require these actions, are they legal in the operational area? These questions require careful consideration and clear answers. Some countries have developed specific legislation governing PSC operations, while others rely on general criminal law, and the Montreux Document offers some guidelines. International deployments must navigate these varying legal landscapes while maintaining operational effectiveness.
PSCs are available today for peacekeeping operations not requiring heavy military force. They effectively counter bandits, light militias, terrorists, and spoilers better than cumbersome military deployments, with less collateral damage. They protect communities, local leaders, and reconstruction projects. As civilians under contract, it is easy to ensure control over their behavior, accountability, and transparency.
On the other hand, peace enforcement settings requiring high-level kinetic operations may – or some say ought to – remain a military responsibility. If spoilers include regular militaries or heavily armed irregular forces, PSC capabilities and legal authorities would need significant scaling, raising legal and liability issues. On the other hand, peace enforcement settings requiring high-level kinetic operations ought to remain a military responsibility. If missions become too dangerous, finding appropriate personnel also becomes increasingly difficult. Although PSCs manage risk by nature, excessive risks can make projects commercially unviable regardless of any available funding.
The ICoCA framework offers the essential structure to ensure PSCs can serve effectively as the ‘bones’ of a stability operation. Clear standards for vetting, training, accountability, and community engagement can help transform private security from a controversial necessity into a legitimate and accountable force that international peacekeeping has been missing. Although PSCs can address the glaring security gaps in international stability operations, as a first step, it is critical to ensure they adhere to the highest professional and ethical standards. This in turn will encourage effective and responsible performance.
Doug Brooks is the founder and President Emeritus of the International Stability Operations Association, and currently Vice President for Government Relations at FGi Global Solutions. Krista Hendry is a consultant and specialist on security and human rights. This article reflects the personal views of the authors, which do not necessarily represent the positions of their employers or affiliated organizations.
The views and opinions presented in this article belong solely to the authors and do not necessarily represent the stance of the International Code of Conduct Association (ICoCA).
