A/HRC/21/43 National Conventional Arms Control Committee, can proclaim a country as “regulated” by the Act. 36. The Act maintains the centrality of the Committee in implementing its provisions and even expands the Committee’s role. The Committee remains the authorizing authority and the keeper of records (section 8 of the Act maintains the requirement that the Committee submit quarterly reports to the national executive and Parliament with regard to the register and requires the Committee to record proclamations by the President as to regulated countries). The Committee is also mandated, however, to review and authorize requests to render humanitarian assistance in areas of armed conflict, unlike in the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, which expressly excluded “humanitarian or civilian activities aimed at relieving the plight of civilians in an area of armed conflict” from the definition of foreign military assistance under article 1 (iii). Furthermore, as with the previous law, it establishes the extraterritorial jurisdiction of South African courts over offences committed under the Act. 37. Although the Act was adopted by Parliament on 17 November 2006 and received presidential assent on 12 November 2007, it has yet to enter into force. During its country visit in 2010, the Working Group was informed by the South African authorities that certain regulations, such as those dealing with application forms, fees and the list of regulated 9 countries covered by the Act, needed to be adopted before it would enter into force. Because the Act has yet to enter into force, it remains to be seen whether it will effectively regulate the activities of private military and security companies. 2. United States 38. The United States has dramatically increased its reliance on the private military and 10 security industry, most notably as part of its military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Consequently, it has also substantially increased its regulation of private military and security companies. The current framework consists of national legislation, military regulations and administrative contracting policies and procedures. Perhaps owing to this relationship between the increase in contracting by the United States Government and its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, United States legislation on private military and security companies focuses on Government contractors rather than on those companies under contract with non-governmental organizations, private companies or other clients. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 and certain provisions of the National Defense Authorization Acts for recent fiscal years comprise the core of United States national legislation on private military and security companies. It should be noted, however, that significant elements of the United States regulatory structure are found in agency-level regulations that are beyond the scope of the present report. 39. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act was designed to extend the reach of the civilian criminal justice system to individuals who accompany the United States Armed 9 10 10 A/HRC/18/32/Add.2, paras. 57-59. Moshe Schwartz, Department of DefenseContractors in Afghanistan and Iraq: Background and Analysis, Congressional Research Service, 13 May 2011, available from www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf; Kristine A. Huskey and Scott M. Sullivan, The American Way: Private Military Contractors & U.S. Law After 9/11, PRIV-WAR Report – the United States of America, National Reports Series 02/08, available from http://priv-war.eu/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2009/05/nr-02-08-usa.pdf; and Kristine A. Huskey, The American Way: Private Military Contractors & US Law After 9/11: An Update - 2010, PRIV-WAR Report – the United States of America, National Reports Series 03/10, available from http://priv-war.eu/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/nr-03-10-USA.pdf.