Humanitarians and Mercenaries: Partners in Security Governance?

  • Christopher Spearin


Post-Cold War security governance makes for strange bedfellows. This is because, increasingly, the obligation of providing security no longer rests predominantly with the state.1 States are downloading responsibilities onto non-state actors and other opportunities are arising in which these actors can operate. Accordingly, how security is provided, by whom, in what combinations, and to what effect should be the foci of study. As such, this chapter provides a specific analysis of interaction between humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and a modern form of mercenaries: international private security companies (PSCs).2


Security Sector Humanitarian Assistance Operational Politicization Security Governance Overseas Development Institute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See Elke Krahmann, “Private Firms and the New Security Governance,” Conflict, Security and Developments 5, no. 2 (2005): forthcoming.Google Scholar
  2. 15.
    Michael Bryans, Bruce D. Jones, and Janice Stein, “Mean Times: Humanitarian Action in Complex Political Emergencies-Stark Choices, Cruel Dilemmas,” Coming to Terms 1 (1999), 2.Google Scholar
  3. 16.
    Larry Minear, “Humanitarian Action and Peacekeeping Operations,” Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, February 1997, Scholar
  4. 17.
    Diane Paul, Protection in Practice: Field-Level Strategies for Protecting Civilians from Deliberate Harm, Relief and Rehabilitation Paper No. 30 (London: Overseas Development Institute, July 1999), 30.Google Scholar
  5. 18.
    David Rieff, “Humanitarianism in Crisis,” Foreign Affairs 81, no. 6 (2002): 111–21, 119.Google Scholar
  6. 20.
    Byman, “Uncertain Partners: NGOs and the Military,” 104.Google Scholar
  7. 57.
    Adam Roberts, Humanitarian Action in War: Aid, Protection and Impartiality in a Policy Vacuum, Adelphi Paper 305 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for IISS, 1996), 86.Google Scholar
  8. 70.
    David Rieff, for one, contends that “despite the best intentions of aid workers, and at times because of them, they become logisticians in the war efforts of warlords, fundamentalists, gangsters, and ethnic cleansers.” David Rieff, “The Humanitarian Illusion,” The New Republic, March 16, 1998, 30.Google Scholar
  9. 71.
    Leura Peterson, “Privatizing Combat, the New World Order,” The Center for Public Integrity, October 28, 2002, 8. The author also notes that in May 2002, the Justice Department of the United States issued new guidelines that allow companies to challenge the release of information through freedom of information requests, thus further hindering public disclosure.Google Scholar
  10. 72.
    See U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation 2001–02 (London: Stationery Office, February 12, 2002); Chaloka Beyani and Damian Lilly, Regulating Private Military Companies: Options for the UK Government (London: International Alert, 2001).Google Scholar
  11. 77.
    Martin Barber, “Private Security Companies and Humanitarian Assistance,” in The Privatization of Security: Framing a Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Policy Agenda—the Report of the Wilton Park Conference (London: International Alert, 2001), 35.Google Scholar
  12. 79.
    Robert Mandel, “The Privatization of Security,” Armed Forces and Society 28, no. 1 (2001): 129–51, 147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elke Krahmann 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Spearin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations