Private Security Companies and Human Rights: Are Non-Judicial Remedies Effective?
|dc.description.abstract||The right to an effective remedy for victims of human rights abuses perpetrated by companies remains weak in international law. A host of substantive and procedural legal issues prevent victims from seeking redress in national and international courts. This problem is particularly acute where victims seek redress for abuses perpetrated by private military and security companies. The nature of these companies’ activities and their regular deployment overseas make it difficult to hold them accountable for human rights abuses. This article examines whether non-judicial mechanisms can provide effective remedies against these private military and security companies for their human rights abuses where judicial remedies have failed. The article establishes the parameters of an effective remedy under international human rights law and proceeds to assess whether two specific examples of non-judicial remedies, the International Code of Conduct Association for Private Security Providers’ grievance mechanism and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s National Contact Point system, offer human rights-compliant remedies.|
|dc.description.sponsorship||This article is based on a report written in February 2016 for the FRAME project. The FRAME project -‘Fostering Human Rights Among European Policies’ – is funded by the European Union under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (Grant Agreement No 320000).|
|dc.title||Private Security Companies and Human Rights: Are Non-Judicial Remedies Effective?||en|
|prism.publicationName||Boston University International Law Journal||en|