CYIL 2014

366 / 532

350
CAROLLANN BRAUM CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
corporations accountable for human rights violations, and such accountability can
have a significant impact.
In today’s world, armed conflicts are no longer solely the domain of States or
insurgent groups, but also business corporations, as is clearly seen in the case of
Akhmetov’s steelworkers and PMSCs.36 Along with this new reality must come a
new framework for accountability, including corporate social responsibility. In 2008,
the United Nations Special Representative, John Ruggie, proposed a framework
on business and human rights to the UN Human Rights Council, resting on three
pillars: (1) the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties,
including business; (2) the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and
(3) greater access by victims to effective remedy, both judicial and non-judicial.37
There is no doubt that this framework, while not binding, should apply to PMSCs
and any private businesses providing military-like services, of any nature, in conflict
situations. As an effort to address these issues, a joint effort by the Swiss government
and the ICRC in 2008 led to the development of the Montreux Document, which
is largely a restatement of the existing international law which may apply to the
regulation of PMSCs.38 The Montreux Document has two primary objectives: (1)
to reaffirm and clarify “the existing obligations of States under international law –
in particular under international humanitarian and human rights law,” and (2) to
identify “good practices to assist States in promoting respect for international law by
PMSCs.”39 While there has been wide acceptance by the PMSC community of this
Document, the field is still the “Wild West” in many senses, and improvement of
accountability is a project in the works.
While all fighters should respect human rights, and there is movement towards
greater accountability of businesses for human rights violations and remedies, under
international law the greatest accountability still falls on the shoulders of States, which
will ultimately be responsible for ensuring human rights and must hold accountable
those PMSCs, paramilitaries or mercenaries responsible for abuses. Therefore, an
understanding of this and of the actors in the Ukrainian conflict raises the question
of whether there were acts of aggression by other States. While this is subject to
speculation at present, it provides an important legal analysis, particularly considering
how customary international law may possibly be shifting before our eyes.
36 Beerli, “A humanitarian perspective,” supra note 27.
37 UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, available at
SpecialRepPortal/Home/Protect-Respect-Remedy-Framework.
38 Christine Beerli, “Private military/security companies: Rules should be implemented,” Montreux
+5 Conference, Montreux, Switzerland, 11-13 December 2013, Keynote Address, International
Committee of the Red Cross Resource Centre, December 11, 2013, available at
resources/documents/statement/2013/12-11-privatization-of-war-montreux-plus-5-beerli.htm.
39 Ibid.