A/HRC/42/42/Add.2 3. Montreux Document 80. Austria is a signatory to the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict.17 The Montreux Document clarified the status of private security companies and the responsibility of the Governments that hire them under international law. This non-legally binding document includes two parts that cover the obligations of States and private security companies under international law, and outlines a wide range of good practices for contracting States regarding the hire, use and oversight of such companies. The second part proposes a voluntary code of conduct for private security companies. 4. International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers 81. The International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers’ Association is a multi-stakeholder initiative established as a Swiss non-profit association. All of its members – States, private security companies and civil society organizations, referred to as the three pillars – form part of the general assembly. 82. The Association is guided by the principles of the International Code of Conduct. These include a commitment to good governance, respect for human rights and international humanitarian law and a high standard of professional conduct. The Association strives to ensure protection and to provide remedies to victims of abuse by private security providers. It endeavours to prevent the excessive use of force, to prevent torture and other degrading treatment or punishment, to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse and gender-based violence, to prevent human trafficking, slavery and forced labour, to protect the rights of children and to prevent discrimination. 83. Austria does not currently participate in the Association, and no private security companies based in Austria are members. During discussions with the Working Group, the Austrian authorities noted that they felt that it was not necessary to be members of the Association as they did not engage private military or security companies. Furthermore, the requirement for membership could result in differential treatment of private security companies, some of which may be able to fulfil the criteria for membership and could therefore have an advantage in securing contracts over companies that cannot afford to be members. In this sense, the authorities did not feel that Austria needed to become a member of the Association, stating that the current regulations were sufficient to cover the private security industry. 84. However, the Working Group reiterated the usefulness of Association membership, which requires companies to meet certain standards in order to be certified as being in good standing. This means that the company has been vetted and inspected and found to be compliant with the relevant human rights standards. Further, as a result of membership, these companies are required to provide a grievance mechanism to address situations where human rights abuses or offences have been committed – a positive practice that helps ensure accountability. IV. Conclusions and recommendations 85. Austria is at a crossroads in dealing with the phenomenon of foreign fighters. In all its initiatives, one of the important priorities for the Government is to effectively address the root causes of violent extremism and radicalization in order to prevent its nationals and residents from travelling abroad to fight in conflict zones such as those in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic. Government efforts to strengthen national security and to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to intercept individuals attempting to join and fight with groups that are properly designated as terrorist groups are understandable and necessary. However, if these efforts are 17 See European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies, Policy Department, “The role of private security companies (PSCs) in CSDP missions and operations” (Brussels, 2011). 15