• Jovana Jezdimirovic Ranito


This Chapter presents conclusions, deriving from analysis of the US regulatory process of private security contractors through conceptual framework of Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. In addition to identifying obstacles of the regulatory process of PSCs in the USA, it summarizes how it is theoretically possible to observe it in this and other cases by applying Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. It exposes the utility of such an approach for other research and demonstrates possibilities for further research.


  1. Abrahamsen, Rita, and Michael C. Williams. 2010. Security Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, Hannah. 1972. Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics; Civil Disobedience; On Violence; Thoughts on Politics and Revolution. New York: Harvest Books.Google Scholar
  3. Avant, Deborah, and Renee De Nevers. 2011. “Military Contractors & the American Way of War.” Daedalus 140 (3): 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, Kimberly N. 2013. “We the People, Constitutional Accountability, and Outsourcing Government.” Indiana Law Journal 88 (4): 1347–403.Google Scholar
  7. Buzatu, Anne-Marie. 2015. Towards an International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers: A View from Inside a Multistakeholder Process. Genève: DCAF.Google Scholar
  8. Carafano, James Jay. 2008. Private Sector, Public Wars: Contractors in Combat—Afghanistan, Iraq, and Future Conflicts. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Doward, Jamie. 2018. “Britain Funds Research into Drones That Decide Who They Kill, Says Report.” The Observer, November 10 sec. World news.
  10. Horton, Scott. 2015. Lords of Secrecy: The National Security Elite and America’s Stealth Warfare. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
  11. Krahmann, Elke. 2016. “NATO Contracting in Afghanistan: The Problem of Principal–Agent Networks.” International Affairs 92 (6): 1401–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leander, Anna. 2015. “Ethnographic Contributions to Method Development: ‘Strong Objectivity’ in Security Studies.” International Studies Perspectives (December), ekv021.Google Scholar
  13. Tiefer, Charles. 2013. “Restrain ‘Risky Business’: Treat High-Risk Private Security Contractors as Inherently Governmental.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 50 (1): 209–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jovana Jezdimirovic Ranito
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of History and International RelationsUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations