One problem though. Since Montreux came into being nobody has had a way to compare in any kind of systematic way how various states were ensuring that PMSC headquartered on their territory were complying with the document’s best practices. In effect, nobody has known which states using PMSC have been naughty and which have been nice. That is, until now.
On Dec 3 the Initiative for Human Rights in Business, Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at the American University Washington College of Law released a report Montreux Five Years On: An analysis of state efforts to implement Montreux Document legal obligations and good practice.
The report focuses on a subset of participating States: two Contracting and Home States (the United States and the United Kingdom), two Territorial States (Iraq and Afghanistan), and a special feature on one region (Latin America and the Caribbean). The report goes on to detail and assess the U.S., U.K., Iraq, and Afghanistan’s efforts to meet their Montreux Document commitments as captured in five categories: Determination of services; Due diligence in selecting, contracting, and authorizing PMSCs; Due diligence in monitoring PMSC activities; Ensuring accountability; and Providing access to effective remedy.