A/HRC/42/36 Objectives of the regulatory framework (element 2) 2 (a) Ensure respect for human rights by the private military and security industry operating in complex situations; 2 (b) Ensure the transparent use of the private military and security industry; 2 (c) Ensure that the rights of individuals are not negatively impacted upon by the activities carried out by such private military and security companies. 40. Many participants agreed that the main objective of a regulatory framework should be to ensure that private military and security companies respected international human rights law, international humanitarian law and other relevant international instruments. One delegation stressed the need to start by examining the compliance of the use of private military and security companies with international law before looking at human rights factors. Some delegations insisted on the need to refer explicitly to the Charter of the United Nations and its principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Some delegations questioned why the scope of the regulatory framework was limited to private military and security companies “operating in complex situations”, as that concept was difficult to define and might not cover all situations. Some participants insisted as well on the need to include subcontractors of private military and security companies in the scope of the regulatory framework. 41. One delegation suggested merging objectives 2 (a) and 2 (c). In response, it was pointed out that the two objectives were redundant and could be merged in a preambular text that would also refer to accountability, redress for victims, transparency and gender perspectives. 42. One delegation suggested adding in objective 2 (a) respect for international law, in particular international humanitarian law, as applicable, by private military and security industry in complex situations. Principles of the regulatory framework (element 3) 3 (a) Effectiveness, in that they must have a genuine, significant and positive impact on performance, rather than just offering process without substantive change and, to that end, must be based on third-party rather than self-regulation; 3 (b) Inclusiveness, in that they must impact on the performance of all companies and not just those companies that are already achieving appropriate standards, although perhaps not in a fully measurable and independently verifiable manner; 3 (c) Transparency, through robust, independent processes which address broader concerns about the integrity of voluntary or self-regulatory systems; 3 (d) Affordability, in that regulation must be proportionate to operational need, and companies should only have to demonstrate conformity with one accepted and recognized standard. 43. Many delegations emphasized accountability as both an objective and a principle that should guide the regulatory framework. However, delegations did not question the distinction between “objectives” and “principles” in the discussion document, with one delegation supporting the distinction. A participant insisted that coherence between international and national regulations be included as a principle. In addition, a delegation suggested including the principle of complementarity of international law in the list of principles. 44. Regarding the principle of effectiveness, some participants pointed out the practical difficulty in making a certification process by a third party acceptable to all stakeholders. A participant expressed concern that reference to “concerns about the integrity of voluntary or 8