Iraq Human Rights Private companies

Amnesty has a great number of resources relating to Human Rights Responsibilities of Private Companies Operating in Iraq. "The Titan Corporation and CACI International, Inc. have performed services contracts with thehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif U.S. military that have led to public allegations of complicity in abuses against detainees by some of their employees. Amnesty International USA has written to these companies, asking them to clarify their human rights policies and practices and calling on them to support andfacilitate public investigations in order to help bring persons found responsible to justice."

"Titan corporation of San Diego, California, one of the two companies accused of complicity in the prison abuse scandal in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, is currently facing numerous federal investigations for work done in Iraq and around the world."
Chatterjee, C(2004) 'Titan's Translators in Trouble' CorpWatch, San Francisco, May 7th, 2004

CACI abuse "Federal officials are investigating whether employees of defense contractor CACI International Inc. were involved in prisoner abuse in Iraq and whether the company should remain eligible for government contracts, CACI said on Thursday. "
Emery, C (2004) 'Iraq: CACI Probed on Keeping Future Government Contracts' Reuters, New York, May 27th, 2004


Business and Human Rights Centre has a wealth of resources on Iraq Business and Human rights


Foreign Office to propose self-regulation for private military firms [UK]
"The fast-expanding industry of private military companies…should be self-regulating, the government is to propose…in a long-awaited consultation paper expected to be released by the Foreign Office today."Norton-Taylor, R (2009) 'Foreign Office to propose self-regulation for private military firms' The Guardian, London, 24 Apr 2009


A discussion on Private Military contractors "“Private Military Companies – Mercenaries of the Present” A meeting of the Forum Humanitäre Schweiz by Erika Voegeli, Switzerland""Weakening of the state’s position" further aspect, which Renouf wanted to be considered, was the fact that these companies are seeking to gain more authority by self-imposed moral standards, i.e. by self-regimentation. The adherence to such self-imposed regulations, however, can not be enforced by law, neither can the self-imposed sanctions. In addition, the presence of such private security companies weakens the position of the state – one reason, why Afghanistan wants to get rid of them." Worth reading in full.Voegeli, E (2008) "Private Military Companies – Mercenaries of the Present” Meeting of the Forum Humanitäre Schweiz, Current Concerns, Switzerland


A summary of the Chatham House International Law discussion group meeting held
on 22 January 2008. on Private Military contractors. The meeting was chaired by Elizabeth Wilmshurst. Participants included legal practitioners, academics, NGOs, and government representatives. "It was noted that in 2002 the UK government had published a green paper, Private
Military Companies: Options for Regulation, which had concluded that there was
limited public benefit in licensing PMSCs themselves. In particular, the government
would be exposed to an international incident and/or a breach of IHL if a licensee
were free to engage in projects without further government approvals. A further
question was whether licensing should be compulsory; what should be done about
unlicensed companies?" Worth reading in full

The Crimes of Neo-Liberal Rule in Occupied Iraq - Really daming article:
"The scale and intensity of the appropriation of Iraqi oil revenue makes the 2003 invasion one of the most audacious and spectacular crimes of theft in modern history. The institutionalisation of corporate corruption that followed the invasion can only be understood within the context of the coalition forces’ contempt for universal principles of international law enshrined in the Hague and Geneva treaties."
Whyte, D (2007) 'The Crimes of Neo-Liberal Rule in Occupied Iraq' The British Journal of Criminology, Oxford University Press 47:177-195

Private Security Companies, The Case for Regulation - paper by SIPRI, really good.
"It was estimated in March 2003 that 15 000–20 000 private security contractors
were working in Iraq, and the conflict there was referred to as ‘the first privatised
war’Since then, both the number and the visibility of contract personnel in Iraq
have increased, triggering a broad debate on the role of private companies which
provide military and security services to states, corporations and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). However, the phenomenon is neither new nor exclusive to
the Iraqi conflict. The past decade has seen the rise and consolidation of a global
industry for private security provision, with over 100 companies operating in as
many countries worldwide.
The private provision of security and military services challenges conventional
assumptions about the roles of the nation state as the main protagonist in military
affairs and as the guarantor of physical security for its citizens. In the absence of
effective legal or regulatory structures, such activities raise issues of legality, legitimacy and accountability in the sphere of security policy. This study assesses theimpact of ‘the privatization of security’ in various security contexts and examines
some of the ways in which the international community might respond to this
development" Holmqvist, C (2005) 'Private Security Companies, The Case for Regulation', SIPRI Policy Paper No. 9, SIPRI, Stockholm
"SIPRI is an independent research institute focusing on international security, arms control, and disarmament. SIPRI has built its reputation on authoritative, balanced research, including its flagship publication, the SIPRI Yearbook. SIPRI was recently named as one of the world’s leading think tanks in the ‘Think Tank Index’ issued by the journal Foreign Policy" Perhaps email interview author?

Also, worth including contrast on regulation versus self-regulaion, using arguments above: Millibands suggestion of self regulation, SPRI's suggestion of state regulation.

Discussion on a blog here: "The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), headed by David Miliband, announced last Friday the endorsement of the establishment of a Code of Conduct for UK-based Private Military and Security Companies. Some analysts were excited to hear something was finally happening since the release of the Green Paper “Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation” in February 2002. Think twice this is good news. In the UK, regulation dossiers have been collecting dust in a small and not well lit office for some time now. We should remind you that the Green Paper put forward three options for regulation: a ban, self-regulation, or the establishment of a licensing system"

CCR Lawsuits

Centre for Constitutional Rights "CCR pioneered the prosecution in U.S. courts of human rights abuses committed abroad—and some of the worst perpetrators have been corporations. "
"Al Shimari v. CACI is a federal lawsuit brought by four Iraqi torture victims against private US-based contractor CACI International Inc., and CACI Premier Technology, Inc. It asserts that CACI participated directly and through a…
Al-Quraishi et al v. Nakhla et al.

CCR Titan Lawsuit "Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla is a federal lawsuit against US-based private contractor L-3 Services, Inc. (formerly Titan Corporation) and Adel Nakhla, a former employee of Titan/L-3 Services. Brought on behalf of 72 Iraqi plaintiffs, "

CCR Titan Lawsuit 2 "Saleh et al v. Titan et al. Saleh v. Titan is a federal lawsuit brought by more than 250 Iraqi plaintiffs against private contractors CACI International Incorporated and Titan Corporation (now L-3 Services). It charges the companies with torture and other heinous and illegal acts while they were providing interrogation and translation services, respectively at detention facilities in Iraq, including at the notorious Abu Ghraib priso"