A/HRC/21/43 Defense”. Similarly, when Congress extended military jurisdiction over civilians accompanying United States armed forces, it did so by making such jurisdiction available in “contingency operations” (operations where the Secretary of the Defense certifies that United States forces are engaged in, or likely to be engaged in, armed hostilities). Where contractors are not regarded as supporting United States military operations, however, it is 23 unclear whether these jurisdictional expansions would apply. 4. Use of existing bodies to implement new legislation 64. The South African and United States legislation assigned obligations relating to private military and security companies to existing authorities, rather than creating specialized bodies. The Working Group has already discussed herein some challenges for South Africa in using a Cabinet-level body to review requests for authorization to provide military and security services abroad. In the United States, cases against contractors are brought by individual United States Attorneys’ offices, which also deal with other matters. There appears to be some recognition among United States lawmakers that a special unit might be better suited to bring these cases: the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which is pending in Congress, would establish new investigative units to investigate, arrest 24 and prosecute contractors and employees who commit serious crimes. 65. It is unclear whether Switzerland will create a new body to administer its law or whether it will designate an existing body to be the “competent authority”. The explanatory report accompanying the Swiss draft law notes that it does not require the creation of a new authority and that the competence deriving from the law may be attributed to an existing authority. 5. Looking ahead 66. The above analysis is preliminary in nature. The project initiated by the Working Group to collect and analyse national legislation on private military and security companies will undoubtedly reveal further challenges and best practices. The Working Group looks forward to cooperating with Member States to gather all relevant legislation and other materials on national regulatory frameworks pertaining to private military and security companies and their personnel. The translation and publication of national legislation will provide a publicly available resource for use by stakeholders and will inform efforts to develop effective regulatory frameworks. Responses by Member States to the request by the Working Group for national legislation will also inform its report to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-fourth session, in 2013. V. Conclusion and recommendations 67. Given the risk to human rights of the activities of private military and security companies, the Working Group welcomes efforts by States to develop national legislation. 68. The Working Group is of the view that further research into effective national regulatory strategies is needed and recommends that Member States respond to its 23 24 16 See Charles Doyle, Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act: Federal Contractor Criminal Liability Overseas, Congressional Research Service, 15 February 2012, p. 6. Available from www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42358.pdf. United States, Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2011.