BETA

Activities of Jean-Luc SCHAFFHAUSER related to 2016/2238(INI)

Shadow reports (1)

REPORT on private security companies PDF (453 KB) DOC (66 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: AFET
Dossiers: 2016/2238(INI)
Documents: PDF(453 KB) DOC(66 KB)

Amendments (21)

Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas security and defence do not depend only on financial resources, but also on knowledge; whereas public authorities do not always possess both in abundancemilitary matters primarily fall within the sphere of the sovereign powers of each Member State; whereas security and defence do not depend only on financial resources and the experience gained by national armies;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
B. whereas Eurobarometer polls show that the EU’s citizens want the EU to be more active in the field of security and defence, which cannot be verified without holding a referendum in all Member States; whereas the concept of European defence is vague and non-operational, as Europe is merely an international organisation bringing together States with divergent international interests; whereas moreover in the field of security and defence only experienced armies with know-how and a mastery of all aspects of security and defence issues, that is to say the French armies, are capable of acting effectively and being deployed immediately in external fields of operations;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas more than 1.5 million private security guards were employed in around 40 000 Private Security Companies in Europe in 2013; whereas these figures are continuing to increase; whereas the confusion between security agencies (whose officers are far from being soldiers) and private military companies makes it impossible to understand realistically the phenomenon of privatisation of security and defence;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
D. whereas, over the last few decades, private security companies (PSCs), a term which for the purposes of this resolution will also include Private Military Companies, have been increasingly employed by national militaries and civilian agencies, both for the domestic provision of services and support for overseas deployment; whereas this process has never been seriously evaluated and whereas its utility and benefits are dubious and may even weaken States' exercise of their sovereign powers and their monopoly of force;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
E. whereas the array of services provided by PSCs ismay be extremely broad, ranging from logistical services to actual combat support and participation in post- conflict reconstruction;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
F. whereas, in the context of the EU, Member State practice on the use of PSCs varies widely, with many using them to support their contingents in multilateral operations; whereas PSCs have been used in both civilian and military Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions, to guard EU delegations and to support humanitarian aid activities; whereas the European Union should not establish a militia or an army of 'mercenaries' of a new kind, particularly because security and defence remain subject to the sovereignty of each Member State;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
G. whereas the outsourcing of military activities, formerly an integral part of the activities of armed forces, is taking place, among other things, to provide services in a more cost-efficient manner, but also to compensate for a shortfall in capabilities in shrinking armed forces in the context of an increasing number of multilateral missions abroad; whereas PSCs can also , provide capabilities that are entirely lacking in nationalmilitary activities may be undertaken only by the armed forces, often at short notice; whereas PSCs could also be used for reasons of political convenience to avoid limitations on the use of troop the Member States;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
H. whereas PSCs have been involved in incidents resulting in loss of life and in atrocities; whereas this has had repercussions on the efforts of the international community in the countries in question and has revealed considerable gaps in accountability structures, aspects which can very clearly associate them with the term 'mercenary';
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
I. whereas, for states to benefit from the advantages offered by PSCs, and to ensure that they can be held accountable, a legal framework should be put in place to facilitate their use; whereas PSCs are part of an industry, which is highly transnational in nature and as such requires a global approach to regulation;deleted
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
J. whereas, as suggested by the definition included in the draft convention prepared by the UN Working Group on Mercenaries, a PSC can be defined as a corporate entity which provides on a compensatory basis military and/or security services by physical persons and/or legal entities; whereas military services in this context can be defined as specialised services related to military actions including strategic planning, intelligence, investigation, land, sea or air reconnaissance, flight operations of any type, manned or unmanned, satellite surveillance and intelligence, any kind of knowledge transfer with military applications, material and technical support to armed forces and other related activities; whereas security services can be defined as armed guarding or protection of buildings, installations, property and people, any kind of knowledge transfer with security and policing applications, development and implementation of informational security measures and other related activitiesit is vital that these contracts can be performed only under strict State supervision;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas the Montreux document is the first major document defining how international law applies to PSCs; whereas the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICoC) defines industry standards and is increasingly proving to be a tool for ensuring common basic standards across a global industry; whereas this code is not sufficient, and whereas it has nothing to do with the codes of honour of armies or with the functioning of armies;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
The use of Private Security Companies in support of the military abroad, under the exclusive supervision of the armed forces
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
The use of Private Security Compancurity of the European Union can be ensured only under the supervision of the armies byof the EUMember States
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
12. Recommends supporentrusting the creation of a flexible, but rigorous, regulatory model which will:solely to the armies of Member States which are capable of carrying out the task;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 1
- help to overcome legal differences between Member States;deleted
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 4
- contextualise the precise nature and role of private military and security companies under the orders and supervision of the armed forces;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that nascent global regulatory frameworks, such as the Montreux document, the ICoC and other regulatory initiatives in the UN framework, constitute clear progress compared to the lack of meaningful regulation that prevailed only ten years ago; stresses that these frameworks remain inadequate and that States should be left free to adopt binding and even radical rules to safeguard the integrity of their defence systems, which are threatened with hybridisation with mercenaries;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Also commends the efforts made by many EU member states, following the good practice outlined in the Montreux document, to introduce effective national regulation of PSCs;deleted
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Notes, however, that the evaluation of the performance of PSCs is hampered by the lack of consistent reporting about their use by both EU institutions and Member States’ governments; encourages Member States and EU institutions to provide this information more consistently to allow for a proper assessment of the use of PSCs by their respective budgetary authorities;deleted
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that the transnational nature of PCSs and, in particular, their activities in areas of the world affected by crisis is dangerous and often leads to jurisdictional gaps that could make it difficult to hold the companies or their employees to account for their actions; notes that the national regulation of Private Security Companies often does not have extraterritorial application; stresses that it is for the Security Council to propose a multilateral framework for the supervision of these organisations;
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Urges, therefore, that the EU and its Member States use their status in the Montreux Document Forum to insist upon regular reviews of the state of implementation of the Montreux Document’s recommendations for good practice by its participants; urges the Member States that have not yet done so to join the Montreux document as soon as possible;deleted
2017/03/20
Committee: AFET