The regulation of private military and security companies: Analyzing power in multi-stakeholder initiatives

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Contemporary Security Policy Pub Date : 2021-03-05 DOI:10.1080/13523260.2021.1897225
B. Prem
{"title":"The regulation of private military and security companies: Analyzing power in multi-stakeholder initiatives","authors":"B. Prem","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1897225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article studies the limitations of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) relating to Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs). It draws attention to three distinct ways in which power operates in and around MSIs: rules, structural positions, and discourses. Based on an analysis of two MSIs, it shows that these governance initiatives strengthen the perspectives of stakeholders that consider PMSCs as normal and legitimate security actors. Western governments and like-minded actors have used the Swiss Initiative and the International Code of Conduct for Security Service Providers to bypass the less privatization-friendly process in the United Nations. MSIs equally perform an important legitimizing function for PMSCs through their discourses and practices. Finally, participants of the MSIs have relegated critical voices, weakening their ability to partake in governing the PMSC industry. By studying the limitations of MSIs through a power-analytical lens, this article therefore points at an important but overlooked dimension.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"345 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1897225","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Security Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1897225","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article studies the limitations of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) relating to Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs). It draws attention to three distinct ways in which power operates in and around MSIs: rules, structural positions, and discourses. Based on an analysis of two MSIs, it shows that these governance initiatives strengthen the perspectives of stakeholders that consider PMSCs as normal and legitimate security actors. Western governments and like-minded actors have used the Swiss Initiative and the International Code of Conduct for Security Service Providers to bypass the less privatization-friendly process in the United Nations. MSIs equally perform an important legitimizing function for PMSCs through their discourses and practices. Finally, participants of the MSIs have relegated critical voices, weakening their ability to partake in governing the PMSC industry. By studying the limitations of MSIs through a power-analytical lens, this article therefore points at an important but overlooked dimension.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
私营军事和安保公司的监管:多利益相关者倡议中的权力分析
本文研究了与私营军事和安全公司(PMSCs)相关的多利益相关者倡议(msi)的局限性。它让人们注意到权力在msi内部和周围运作的三种不同方式:规则、结构位置和话语。基于对两个msi的分析,本文表明,这些治理举措加强了将PMSCs视为正常和合法安全行为者的利益相关者的观点。西方政府和志同道合的行动者利用《瑞士倡议》和《安全服务提供者国际行为准则》绕过了联合国对私有化不那么友好的程序。msi同样通过其话语和实践为PMSCs发挥重要的合法化功能。最后,msi的参与者降低了批评的声音,削弱了他们参与管理PMSC行业的能力。通过从功率分析的角度研究msi的局限性,本文指出了一个重要但被忽视的维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: One of the oldest peer-reviewed journals in international conflict and security, Contemporary Security Policy promotes theoretically-based research on policy problems of armed conflict, intervention and conflict resolution. Since it first appeared in 1980, CSP has established its unique place as a meeting ground for research at the nexus of theory and policy. Spanning the gap between academic and policy approaches, CSP offers policy analysts a place to pursue fundamental issues, and academic writers a venue for addressing policy. Major fields of concern include: War and armed conflict Peacekeeping Conflict resolution Arms control and disarmament Defense policy Strategic culture International institutions. CSP is committed to a broad range of intellectual perspectives. Articles promote new analytical approaches, iconoclastic interpretations and previously overlooked perspectives. Its pages encourage novel contributions and outlooks, not particular methodologies or policy goals. Its geographical scope is worldwide and includes security challenges in Europe, Africa, the Middle-East and Asia. Authors are encouraged to examine established priorities in innovative ways and to apply traditional methods to new problems.
期刊最新文献
The last atomic Waltz: China’s nuclear expansion and the persisting relevance of the theory of the nuclear revolution The 2024 Bernard Brodie Prize The pervasive informality of the international cybersecurity regime: Geopolitics, non-state actors and diplomacy Message from the incoming editors Crypto-Atlanticism: The untold preferences of policy elites in neutral and non-aligned states
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1