Policies that Specify the Foundation of the Contract, Operations, and Termination
Policies that specify the foundation of the contract, operations, and termination serve as a guide for employing a private security provider. (Kravetz, 2001). The practice of private security is governed by definite rules. For instance, policies may allow for the approval or denial of a license, whereas systems may specify the actions that must be taken to obtain a permit or avoid having one denied. This article will concentrate on a few elements of hiring practices and policies for private security as a result. In this instance, the regulatory agencies that oversee the private security sector will be the main focus, along with their methods for examining regulatory compliance, effects of sexual harassment laws on the private security industry, and a comparison of germane court cases with other cases.
Agencies Regulating Private Security Industry
Several federal agencies regulate the private security industry in the United States that is Defense, Commerce, State departments, and USAID (University of Denver, 2014). Each federal agency has designated role in ensuring quality service delivery among the private security providers. The department of defense offers private military and security contractors, employment opportunity which necessitates the need to monitor the private security under their watch. As a result, they play a particular regulatory role on the private military and safety service providers. Moreover, the department of justice is actively involved in international peacekeeping operations which require contractor support (University of Denver, 2001). For instance, International Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) awarded the contract to MIPRI Security Company to conduct security training programs. Consequently, the department of justice will vet MIPRI personnel, undertake an audit, and monitor contract compliance with the instituted United States applicable laws.
The Commerce and State Departments
The Commerce and State departments also play a vital role in regulating the private security industry. As part of its obligations, the department of state is responsible for the United States' personnel and facility protection within the country as well as abroad. In order to successfully execute its duties, the department of state substantively relies on the services of private military and security contractors. They also provide finance to facilitate security programs. Based on the role of the department of state and their reliance on the services of private security, they regulate the private security industry. On the other hand, the department of commerce has control over defense services among other roles. It implies that they formulate policies which the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) implement (University of Denver, 2001). These regulations directly affect the operations of private military and security companies.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Additionally, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have some regulatory powers in the private security industry (University of Denver, 2001). USAID is a federal agency created by Congress to provide humanitarian assistance as a means of enforcing foreign policy goals of the United States. Since the agency operates in conflict-prone areas, it relies on private security services to support its operations in a complex environment. As a result, USAID partners with private military and safety companies. Therefore, Congress has mandated the agency to adopt policies that will regulate the operations of the security providers. It implies that the organization will play some oversight duties over the contracted security firm to ensure that they meet the national statutes. The agency has outlined policies and procedures that are used to access and guide services it obtains from implementing groups. Some aspects of regulation include guidelines the use of force, identification and operational laws among others.
How Agencies Investigate Regulatory Compliance
The agencies enter into a contract with private military and security companies with a well-defined adherence and sanction mechanism (University of Denver, 2014). However, there instances when private military contractors breach the terms of contract leading to torture and war crimes raising concerns on the international humanitarian law and other federal regulatory policies. In other occasions, military personnel engages in unacceptable codes of conduct which attract penalties and charges to the private military companies. Based on these facts, the stated agencies have ways of investigating regulatory compliance on the private security companies within the United States and also in the foreign countries. Notably, investigating regulatory compliance is sometimes a major challenge to the federal agencies since most of the operations are carried away from the contracting agency.
Information from Local Population, Media, and Civil Society
The local population, media, and the civil society offer vital information on the performance of private military and security service providers. Guided by performance indicators which are outlined regarding contract, aspects of violence, violation of applicable law, and misuse of force among other forms of misconduct are reported to the agency through the local authorities. The allegations are then taken to the American courts for appropriate legal processes. A typical example is the charges facing two military contractors that are CACI and Engility Corporation which provided interrogation and translation services respectively in U.S-run detention facilities in Iraq, Abu Ghraib. In the cases that are Al Shimari v. CACI and Saleh v. Titan (Engility Corporation), Iraqi civilians accused the private military contractors of involvement in torture and mistreatment in the context of detainees (University of Denver, 2014). In as much as there are legal prohibitions on torture, the cases have not been adjudicated following the merits.
Information from External Audit Institutions
The federal agencies also rely on information provided by external audit institutions. In this case, the federal agency seeks the services of a company, an organization or a commission with adequate experience to provide monitoring services on compliance. These institutions then report to the office which finally tables compliance reports to the oversight authority. The private security firms which are found culpable face penalties through the inspector general of the various agencies. For instance, the Department of Defense debarred 708 individuals and companies between the years 2004 to 2009 (University of Denver, 2014). Other federal agencies also undertake penalty actions against private security firms which breach the contract agreements. However, the agencies reportedly protect the interest of the federal government which leaves more room for non-compliance among the private military and security companies.
Examples of Neglected Policies
The case of Dominic Baragona who was killed by an employee of the Kuwait Gulf Link Transport Company serves as an evidence to the fact that law agencies might at times become malicious (KGL) (University of Denver, 2014). After the truck driver had stricken his car killing him instantly, the inspector general of the Department of Commerce did not take a legal action. Instead, his family filed a lawsuit against the KGL Company to hold them responsible for the killing. In as much as the case was previously dismissed, the federal agencies had an opportunity to investigate regulatory compliance after that. It is a reflection of how the federal agencies neglect the policies in an attempt to protect the interest of the government. Unlike other cases which courts prosecute with ease and efficiency, cases involving private military and security service providers are treated with noticeable leniency. The agencies also use licensing and other alternative procedures in investigating regulatory compliance as well as monitoring the conduct of the private military and security service companies.
Effects of OSHA, ADA, FFLS Act and Sexual Harassment Laws on Private Security Industry
Private security companies like other business entities are guided by multiple laws including Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), American with Disabilities (ADA), Federal Firearms License (FFL), and the sexual harassment laws (Kravetz, 2001). OSHA defines the health conditions of personnel deployed by the private military and security firms to the various areas of operation. It sets the minimum standards of sanitary conditions in the work environment. As part of the requirement, the audit institutions report to the federal agencies on the workplace conditions according to the established OSHA standards. On the other hand, ADA protects persons against discrimination if they meet the criteria for hire.
Compliance with ADA Requirements
The private security companies are required to comply with the legal policies when recruiting persons with disability. Sometimes the conditions that are set by the private security companies may conflict with the requirements of ADA in particular on the grounds of physical fitness. Most military roles are materially intensive and may not be appropriate for physically disabled persons even if they have the required qualifications as specified in ADA. Additionally, FFLS laws regulate and restrict the use of firearms by the private security personnel. As a result of the lengthy procedures established by FFSL, private military and safety companies sometimes delay the process of gun acquisition thus leading to inefficient operations among the security personnel (Kravetz 2001). Finally, the sexual harassment laws have also subjected private security firms into penalties and fines over sexual misconducts especially against female officers.
Conclusion
The hiring policies and procedures for private military and safety services apply to all federal agencies which are actively involved in the industry such as Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Commerce as well as USAID which is established by the Congress. These agencies employ various tactics in ensuring regulatory compliance including the use of local population, contracted oversight institutions such as human rights movements and other specialized organizations to provide reliable reports on the conduct of the security personnel. Meanwhile, other regulatory policies such as OSHA, ADA, FFSL and sexual harassment laws affect the operations of private security companies.
References
Kravetz, J. A. (2001). Deterrence v. Material Harm: Finding the Appropriate Standard to Define an Adverse Action in Retaliation Claims Brought under the Applicable Equal Employment Opportunity Statutes. U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L., 4, 315.
University of Denver (2014). National Regulations; United States. Retrieved on 14th May, 2017 http://psm.du.edu/national_regulation/united_states/index.html
