Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP) at Ship and their Status According to IMO
AUKUS and Nuclearization in Asia-Pacific: Consequences for International Maritime Security
April 21, 2022
Conceptualizing POLARIS 21 and Strategic Interoperability Framework (SIF) in background of AUKUS and AWDC, NATO.
May 10, 2022
Security of Maritime Vessels
The safety and protection of one’s ships and vessels, is the prime concern for any maritime merchant. Given the history of systematic robberies, piracy, hijacking, and hostage incidents along with the current upsurge in transnational threats, terrorism, smuggling, trafficking, and dangers of mishandling of non-conventional weapons, ship owners have all the right to be concerned with the provision of top-notch security personnel to ensure the cargo reaches its due destination unscathed.
The Somalian pirates’ episode throughout the 2000’s and the insufficiency of security provided at state-level motivated most shipowners to shift towards private contractors and companies, which constitute professional and war veterans who are highly skilled and strictly trained to ensure the safety and security of maritime vessels.
How to ensure Security of Ships at Sea?
There are two ways of providing physical Maritime Security for vessels,
Most of PMSCs are operating in United Kingdom today. However, with increase in maritime threat perception, many new countries are joining the PMSC fraternity with Malta, Greece, Cyprus, and China along with other offshore jurisdictions like UAE, Panama and Belize jumping into the orbit. The size and cost of the PCASPs depends upon the extent of threats, budget of the vessel merchants, contents being carried within the ships, legal frameworks posed by the flag states and decision of the Chief Security Officer (CSO) or Ship Security Officer (SSO) on board.
Legal Status of Privately Contracted Armed Personnel (PCASP) under International Maritime Organization
The International Maritime Agency has always been reluctant to accept the privatisation of security in the maritime sector upon the rationale that it poses many risks than benefits. That is why, IMO has initially discouraged the presence of armed security personnel on vessels, categorically stating
However, with multiple benefits reaping up from PCASP, IMO has evolved its stance from discouragement of private security regimes to acceptance of the presence of private maritime security sector. The Maritime Security Committee (MSC) of the IMO has reinforced in 2011, that it neither endorses nor condemns the use of armed personnel on ships and has called it an individual choice, left up to be decided by the law of the Flag State. Having said that, IMO has reiterated that certain legal frameworks and guidelines ought to be outlined for the Private Security providers as well as the Flag States in order to ensure passenger safety, sovereignty of ships, liability, jurisdiction etc.
Legal Framework and Guidelines under International Maritime Organization (IMO)
Over the years, the Maritime Security Committee (MSC) has formulated, amended, and updated the four types of guiding principles set forth for the stakeholders of PCASP: the Flag States, the Port States, the Shipowners, and the Private Companies themselves.
Limitations imposed by IMO
The above-mentioned interim guidelines are, however, advisory, and recommendatory in nature and not legally binded as put forward by the paragraph 1.5 of the annexure.
Hence, there is no currently recognised international legal framework for Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP), and IMO has given individual countries, the liberty to legalise or illegalise PMSCs and derive their own regulation and frameworks taking help from the interim guidelines carved out by Maritime Security Committee (MSC).
Another limitation posed by the MSC is that the allotment of private security personnel on ships is only allowed for those ships going or coming out of high-risk waters (an area with high ratio of maritime threats either defined by BMP or by the flag state) and no other waters.
IMO’s Joint Ventures to standardize PCASP
Other than the interim guidelines issued, IMO has coordinated with a number of other agencies to regulate and standardize the PMSC. Its collaboration with the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) is one such example. ISO/PAS 28007:2012 is an extensive, sector-specific guidelines and recommendations crafted jointly by the IMO and ISO for the Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSP) to comply with minimum standards while recruiting and deploying PCASP. However, these guidelines are not legally binding but, organizations complying with them gain credibility and improved standing. ISO 28007-1:2015 is the updated and revised version of 28007:2012 with current amendments.
IMO has also cooperated with World Customs Organization (WCO) to resolve customs related issues in the deployment of PCASP and in 2011, issued a Questionnaire to guide the member countries on how to comply with standard customs during the disposal of PCASP on board ships and vessels.
Conclusion
When threats become innovative and sophisticated, the strategy to counter them must also be improvised and modernised accordingly. This is exactly what the private maritime security sector is doing. With private companies providing armed security personnel (PCASP), they are not only intercepting the dangers and hazards and resultingly minimizing maritime terrorism but, also ensuring the safety and security of the seafarers and ship staffers. Yet, with no internationally recognized legal framework for Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSC) and its armed security personnel (PCASP) to act, this division is mostly left on its own to survive and thrive. Thus, International Maritime Organization (IMO) should formulate one such structure which not only promotes and uplifts the security standards but also, increase and enhance regulation and supervision of this fast-pacing zone to ensure that economic growth and maritime security go hand in hand.
The safety and protection of one’s ships and vessels, is the prime concern for any maritime merchant. Given the history of systematic robberies, piracy, hijacking, and hostage incidents along with the current upsurge in transnational threats, terrorism, smuggling, trafficking, and dangers of mishandling of non-conventional weapons, ship owners have all the right to be concerned with the provision of top-notch security personnel to ensure the cargo reaches its due destination unscathed.
The Somalian pirates’ episode throughout the 2000’s and the insufficiency of security provided at state-level motivated most shipowners to shift towards private contractors and companies, which constitute professional and war veterans who are highly skilled and strictly trained to ensure the safety and security of maritime vessels.
How to ensure Security of Ships at Sea?
There are two ways of providing physical Maritime Security for vessels,
- Through Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSC): These are private companies which lend their services in the form of trained security officers, either armed or unarmed, for the protection of ships.
- Through Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP): These are the armed and trained forces deployed by the PMSC on the particular ship.
Most of PMSCs are operating in United Kingdom today. However, with increase in maritime threat perception, many new countries are joining the PMSC fraternity with Malta, Greece, Cyprus, and China along with other offshore jurisdictions like UAE, Panama and Belize jumping into the orbit. The size and cost of the PCASPs depends upon the extent of threats, budget of the vessel merchants, contents being carried within the ships, legal frameworks posed by the flag states and decision of the Chief Security Officer (CSO) or Ship Security Officer (SSO) on board.
Legal Status of Privately Contracted Armed Personnel (PCASP) under International Maritime Organization
The International Maritime Agency has always been reluctant to accept the privatisation of security in the maritime sector upon the rationale that it poses many risks than benefits. That is why, IMO has initially discouraged the presence of armed security personnel on vessels, categorically stating
Flag States should strongly discourage the carrying of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship.
However, with multiple benefits reaping up from PCASP, IMO has evolved its stance from discouragement of private security regimes to acceptance of the presence of private maritime security sector. The Maritime Security Committee (MSC) of the IMO has reinforced in 2011, that it neither endorses nor condemns the use of armed personnel on ships and has called it an individual choice, left up to be decided by the law of the Flag State. Having said that, IMO has reiterated that certain legal frameworks and guidelines ought to be outlined for the Private Security providers as well as the Flag States in order to ensure passenger safety, sovereignty of ships, liability, jurisdiction etc.
Legal Framework and Guidelines under International Maritime Organization (IMO)
Over the years, the Maritime Security Committee (MSC) has formulated, amended, and updated the four types of guiding principles set forth for the stakeholders of PCASP: the Flag States, the Port States, the Shipowners, and the Private Companies themselves.
- Interim Guidance to Shipowners, Ship Operators and Shipmasters on the use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board in the High-Risk Area.(MSC.1/Circ.1405/Rev.2)
- Interim Recommendations for Flag States regarding the use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High-Risk Area.(MSC.1/Circ.1406/Rev.3)
- Guidance to Private Maritime Security Companies providing Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High-Risk Area.(MSC.1/Circ.1443)
- Interim Recommendations for Port and Coastal States regarding the Use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High-Risk Area.(MSC.1/Circ.1408)
Limitations imposed by IMO
The above-mentioned interim guidelines are, however, advisory, and recommendatory in nature and not legally binded as put forward by the paragraph 1.5 of the annexure.
This interim guidance is not legally binding and is not in itself a set of certifiable standards. It does, however, provide minimum recommendations on the competencies and abilities a professional PMSC is expected to have.
Hence, there is no currently recognised international legal framework for Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP), and IMO has given individual countries, the liberty to legalise or illegalise PMSCs and derive their own regulation and frameworks taking help from the interim guidelines carved out by Maritime Security Committee (MSC).
Another limitation posed by the MSC is that the allotment of private security personnel on ships is only allowed for those ships going or coming out of high-risk waters (an area with high ratio of maritime threats either defined by BMP or by the flag state) and no other waters.
IMO’s Joint Ventures to standardize PCASP
Other than the interim guidelines issued, IMO has coordinated with a number of other agencies to regulate and standardize the PMSC. Its collaboration with the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) is one such example. ISO/PAS 28007:2012 is an extensive, sector-specific guidelines and recommendations crafted jointly by the IMO and ISO for the Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSP) to comply with minimum standards while recruiting and deploying PCASP. However, these guidelines are not legally binding but, organizations complying with them gain credibility and improved standing. ISO 28007-1:2015 is the updated and revised version of 28007:2012 with current amendments.
IMO has also cooperated with World Customs Organization (WCO) to resolve customs related issues in the deployment of PCASP and in 2011, issued a Questionnaire to guide the member countries on how to comply with standard customs during the disposal of PCASP on board ships and vessels.
Conclusion
When threats become innovative and sophisticated, the strategy to counter them must also be improvised and modernised accordingly. This is exactly what the private maritime security sector is doing. With private companies providing armed security personnel (PCASP), they are not only intercepting the dangers and hazards and resultingly minimizing maritime terrorism but, also ensuring the safety and security of the seafarers and ship staffers. Yet, with no internationally recognized legal framework for Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSC) and its armed security personnel (PCASP) to act, this division is mostly left on its own to survive and thrive. Thus, International Maritime Organization (IMO) should formulate one such structure which not only promotes and uplifts the security standards but also, increase and enhance regulation and supervision of this fast-pacing zone to ensure that economic growth and maritime security go hand in hand.
Author:
Lyba Mobeen is an intern working in RCIMLP and currently she is pursuing her BS degree in International Relations at International Islamic University Islamabad.
RCIMLP
Research Center For International Maritime Law & Practice
