The Development of Successful Stipulations - Essay Example

?European Union Law PART A The deployment of private military and security firms in the quest towards offering security to the various necessities in the national pictorial implicates a series of concerns. These concerns are calculated from the public level, which includes the private sector and the citizen at large. On reference is a series of issues that emerges from this model of security structure. Key amongst this is the issue of accountability and effectiveness of such firms. Over the years, the topic of accountability has reigned over the topics involving the deployment of these individuals at both the international and national mission levels. On concern is the manner at which the individuals are identified for their tasks and the level of professionalism upon which they execute these missions. Evaluation and Analysis Upon placing the whole idea under the international sporting arena, a series of issues raise for the concern. Such issues are developed along the regions of concern, such as the accountability crisis, the aspects of infringe of the international human rights, and the suitability of the firms. Such concerns are further magnified when the provisions of the charter for fundamental rights are considered. However, the development in the international sporting arena across various states of Europe has lead to the invoke of this model of security. A paramount concern towards the adoption of this measure is the violent based riots that broke out in the autumn of 2010 across various sporting destinations in Europe. The event indicated the existence of a major loophole on the ability of the private military and security companies in providing security in this model of assignments (Reg A6-0471/2006). Various issues of concern were developed while considering this option. Amongst them is the efficiency of the responsible firms in addressing such crisis. Also considered was the policy that sees the involvement of the police when the crisis gets out of control. However, the first issue still remains much prominent in the whole debate. Subsequently, the other side effects that may be associated to the deployment of these private security firms are also eminent (Zarate 1998). The enactment of the legislation that foresees the deployment of the Private Military and Security Companies in offering security services in international sporting arena, across member states of the European Union, has series of loopholes for consideration (Krahmann 2005). Amongst them is the concern over the training of the staff involved in the execution of the security measures. Reading from the findings of the report on autumn of 2010 riots, the manner in which the Private Military and Security Companies entrusted with security handled the matter leaves much to be desired. This is with regards to the numerous concerns on the violation of the international human rights as well as the provision of the charter of fundamental rights. Illegal detentions, as well as the utilization of uncouth tactics in the interrogation of the suspects were highly highlighted (Avant, 2005, p56) On this regard, it is vital to analyze the wave of mandate accredited to the Private Military and Security Companies. Chief focus is laid against issues such as the detention and he interrogation of the suspects. Focusing on the policy in exercise, the key objectives are nested on the containing of the violence, apparently referred to as hooliganism. This is achieved via the evaluation of the weakness in the current system and establishing methodologies of sealing the loopholes. However, the process deployed by the legislation from the European Union seems to undermine the imperial threat that lead to the crisis in the initial consideration. This reflects on the capability and the potential of the private military and security companies in addressing security crisis of the magnitude experienced in 2010. In effort to address such loopholes, the proposed act seeks to establish a mutual co-relationship between the law enforcement acts. Apparently, this proposal is of little contradiction from the proposal of the year 2003 that called for similar measures with regards to capping hooliganism in football matches across the region. The inability of that policy to remain ineffective in the arrest of the 2010 crisis proves that the problem is founded along different avenues than those anticipated by the European Union. Key challenges pointed out while enacting the new policies is the aspect of internationalism (Project Jai/203/Agis/138). Apparently, the local settings are already in complication over the topic of accountability. On reference is a series of litigation filled by complaints over the individuals responsible for crisis in international sporting events. The deployment of the private security firms over such events is not obliged to the general public by the employing authority. On this regard, the issue of accountability emerges, especially over the continuous violation of fundamental human rights by the referred officers (Krahmann, 2011, p92). The general public who are grossly affected by the development are indeed placed in the dilemma of who to seek accountability of the faults committed. The same issue was eminent in the just concluded Olympics in London. The provision of security by the private firms for the whole event was attributed to an eminent crisis with regards to the ability to hoist responsibility on errors (Krahmann & Abzhaparova, 2010, p35). The challenges are further compounded when the international citizens are considered. Pointing back on 2010 crisis, concerns oriented along similar conformations were framed. The history of the capability of the private security firms goes deep into the Iraq war which was well populated by such deals (Isenberg, 2008, pp89-94). On reference is the case of Daniel Fitzimons which evoked a series of irregularities in recruitment of personnel. In the mentioned litigation, the individual was deployed into the security firm without consideration of fundamental records that could have assisted in the quantification of his eligibility. Similar findings have been reported in the sporting arena where the recruitment of the participants is achieved via inacceptable models. The scandalous private security industry requires heightened monitoring than mere guidelines (Rayment, 2005). This places the consideration on harmonizing the training measures at a standardized level at contention. Apparently, some firms are unable to secure competent staff that can foster such levels of training. A specific example is the Triggerhappy SA which utilizes orthodox methodologies of recruitment for their staff. This undermines their potential of being in a position to uphold the stipulated standards in the new legislation. This may explain the reasoning capability behind the opposition the jurisdiction encountered from the parliamentarians of the various member states to the union. Progressively, the integration of the private security companies with the official security outfit of each member state, which in most cases is the police, is still a point of contention (Rayment, 2005). The stipulation by the European Union indicated that the private security firms will be tasked with the offer of light security tasks while the official state security unit will conduct the rest of the activities (Kassebaum, 2000). However, the process of clustering security concern under the criteria of their supposed weight is still a stabling puzzle. Conclusion Various risks are attached to this proposal, amongst them the welfare of the public security policies. Apparently, the various scandals rocking the private military and security companies in terms of conduct are worrying when an option of invoking them in security is considered. In the Afghanistan war, for example, a series of litigation filed against the conduct of these firms pointed on increased cases of corruption during the recruitment exercise. Such eventualities pose as eminent risks in the adoption of the stipulation on harmonization of standards. In a simplified manner, the adoption of the new policies that sees the adoption of the private military and security companies in the provision of security will eventuate in the violation of the rights of the citizens (Krahmann, 2010, p94). This is with the respect to the fact that the same citizens were the central reason behind the adoption of the policies, in the first place. This ironic twist of events assist in concluding that there rises a need for the development of a rather comprehensive policy. Part B The stipulation document by the directive on security seeks to configure several factors that sounds alien to the situation on ground. On the request is the documentation and filling of the methodologies deployed by the private military and security companies in staff recruitment. This stipulation sounds of relevance to the concerns gathered against the deployment of these firms in the provision of security. However, this stipulation does not offer rigid framework upon which these concerns will be addressed. Instead, the directive presumes a methodology that is akin to information quest, rather than ensuring the stipulated standards are met with specificity. The request simply obliges the private military and security firms to simply deposit their methodologies of recruitment with the relevant authorities. The policy does not indicate any procedures that will be observed towards ensuring the viability of this information (Isenberg, 2008). A reflection on the situation on ground reflects on the techniques and methodologies deployed by various private military and security companies in recruiting their staff for various tasks under their assignments (Zarate, 1998). Triggerhappy SA, for example, depends on chance based techniques in acquiring their recruits. Progressively, the provided security is not as adequate as anticipated. Apparently, a significant number of the cases of violence in the infamous 2010 autumn violence were registered in regions that were mainly manned by the company. The central cognitive factor under concern is the core reason behind the involvement of the private firms in security. Their perception diverts from the understanding hoisted by the normal police unit, who are in service to their nation and states. Apparently, the government stands no fiscal based benefits or monetary favours while dispatching the police officers to man such events. The private security firms, to the contrast, are involved via the business angle. This may explain the actions annealed by the Triggerhappy SA over the effort to ensure a specific standard of recruitment measures are observed. Their perception is oriented along the business angle, where they see it as a move to reduce their profitability, a move that may witness their eventual elimination from the market.Their argument remains valid in that the authorities are steering towards regulating their model of performance. This does not marry in terms with the specification of contract law, or business law (COM, 2002, 347). The measure by the Directive should impose the new conditions as new measures for the upcoming or future contracts, and not the already enacted or ongoing policies. This is because the participation of the various firms involved in the current policies was strictly pegged on the profitability of the venture. Adjusting this regulation shall be contravening with this initial calling, implying the failure of the firms in providing the assigned tasks. However, the provision that obliges the member states of the European union to involve the private military and security companies in the provision of security may remain valid (Reg 2000/C 364/01). However, this will depend on the policies uniting the union. On this regard, the member states are at stake of either implementing the directive or overlapping it with their local or domestic stipulations. Some member states have expressed their dissatisfactory over the whole idea. Such states should not be compelled to honour the directive. This hypothesis may be supported by the eventuality at the London Olympics, 2012, where the mandated private security firm failed to attain the anticipated number of staff for the event, and had to be backed up by government based options. Altogether, the idea of involving the private firms into the security solutions adopted at the international gaming events should not be implement under such directives (Krahmann, 2003). Progressively, the directive on the standards upon which the firms should operate should put in mind the current contracts that already active in various member states. This implies that the member states are only anticipated to adopt the new strategies upon the lapse or the termination of such contracts. The directive should, instead, focus on enacting measures that seeks the deployment of sufficient frameworks towards the realization of this objective. Considering the challenge placed by the association of Victims of Violence in Sport (VoViS), several upright arguments can be sourced over the whole topic. VoViS represent the concerns of the citizens, which the European Union seeks to protect via the adoption of the new directive. This gives them the jurisdiction of commenting over the matter, as well as the right of demanding an audience. VoViS has already been involved in various litigations over the plight of the victims of various sporting events especially those from the violence based riots of the autumn of 2010. Their grievances should, thus, be treated with ultimate interest (Kassebaum, 2000). Upon examine the background of their argument, evidence of research is visible. In their argument, they identify along conducting sufficient research upon which they found their arguments. The task upon which European Union should be embracing is not trashing these findings but establishing the sufficiency of the research conducted. On this regard, the union is anticipated to at least perform parallel investigations on the presented findings, if it develops doubts over their adoption. The provision published on December 1st, 2012 seems to disallow these findings and instead embark on a rather different path of solution. Progressively, the argument of the legality of the involvement of the private military and security firms towards the provision of basic security to the citizens still remains an issue of contest (Krahmann, 2010). The fact that such a union finds flaws on such an adoption insists on the perception shared by the citizens of the member states over the act. International sporting arena is widely famous in the region. Its regulation is thus a concern to several individuals in the region. Contentious issues include the right to possible detentions, as well as control the activities of various individuals. These interests are developed from the stipulations of the chatter for fundamental rights. Such grounds are sufficient in the establishment of a successful litigation against the European Union’s directive (de Witte , 1999, p265). Conclusion The development of successful stipulations or directives over the subject of security in the international sporting events should first seek to envisage the anticipated concerns. There need the desire of involving all the considered partisans while in the quest of achieving this objective. This will ensure the development of adoptable directives on the issue. Individuals with paramount interest include the VoViS, the representatives of the private military and security companies and partisans from the member states. References Bruno de Witte, “The Role of the ECJ in Human Rights”, (The EU and Human Rights, 1999). Commission Communication concerning Corporate Social Responsibility, A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development, (COM, 347, 2002). Elke Krahmann and Aida Abzhaparova, The Regulation of Private Military and Security Services in the European Union: Current Policies and Future Options, (European University Institute, Florence Academy of European Law, 2010). Elke Krahmann, Regulating Military and Security Services in the European Union, (accessed at http://www.dcaf.ch/content/download/36833/528883/file/chapter10.pdf, 2011). Elke Krahmann, ‘Regulating Private Military Companies: What Role for the EU?’ , (Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2005). Elke Krahmann, States, Citizens and the Privatization of Security, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010). European Parliament Resolution on Corporate Social Responsibility, A New Partnership, (A6-0471/2006, adopted 13 March, 2007). Deborah D. Avant, The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005). David Isenberg, Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq, (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2008). Kassebaum, D., ‘A Question of Facts - The Legal Use of Private Security Firms in Bosnia', (Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 38, no. 3, 2000). Krahmann, E., 'Conceptualising Security Governance', (Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 38, no. 1, 2003). Official Journal of the European Communities, Charter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union, (2000/C 364/01). Sean Rayment, ‘”Trophy” Video Exposes Private Security Contractors Shooting Up Iraqi Drivers’, (The Telegraph, 27 November 2005). T.M.C. Asser Institute The Hague The Netherlands: Football Hooliganism With An Eu Dimension, Towards An International Legal Framework, (Agis Programme 2003 Project Jai/203/Agis/138, 2004). Zarate, J. C., ‘The Emergence of a New Dog of War: Private International Security Companies, International Law and the New World Disorder’, (Stanford Journal of International Law, vol. 34, no.1, 1998). Read More