A/HRC/42/36 5 (d) Monitor private security companies and private military companies that operate on the State’s territory. 60. A participant highlighted the importance of looking at how companies treat their personnel. The speaker also underscored the need to consider whether there were jurisdictional issues unique to maritime security companies, such as the matter of flag State jurisdiction. 61. A delegation questioned the use of the term “private security industry” in 5 (a) and then “private security companies and private military companies” in 5 (b). It also mentioned that 5 (a) refers to control and regulation whereas 5 (d) only refers to monitoring. 62. Another delegation suggested amending the language in 5 (a) to read: “Ensure that the private security industry within their jurisdiction is effectively controlled and regulated in order to ensure respect for international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable.” 63. A delegation expressed concern that the existence of a regulatory framework for private military and security companies might presume, and might in effect legitimize, the presence and activities of private military and security companies worldwide. Therefore, it suggested adding language to the framework emphasizing that States and regions have the ultimate discretion to decide whether private military and security companies may operate within their territory. Other delegations noted that it might not be necessary to add such language given that it is the sovereign right of a State to decide whether a company can operate within its territory. It was proposed that the discussion be set aside for the time being since the language requested by one delegation could potentially be included in the preamble to the framework. Home States (element 6) 6 (a) Determine which military/security services may not be exported; 6 (b) Establish a process to grant authorization for the export of military and security services with robust criteria for licensing; 6 (c) Regulate the conduct of private military and security companies and personnel; 6 (d) Monitor and ensure accountability. 64. A delegation suggested amending the language in 6 (c) to read: “Regulate the conduct of private military and security companies and personnel in order to ensure respect for international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable.” Another delegation emphasized that in the context of international humanitarian law there was still a problem with determining the legal status of private military and security companies and their personnel, and questioned whether an employee of a private military and security company was a combatant, mercenary, civilian or part of a new special category. 65. A participant proposed making it clear that home States would extend the jurisdiction of their national civil courts to companies domiciled in the home State which committed violations in other countries. The speaker also noted the importance of ensuring adequate liability for those companies within national legislation. 66. A delegation reiterated its concern that the existence of a regulatory framework for private military and security companies might presume and, in effect, legitimize the presence and activities of private military and security companies worldwide, thereby circumventing the prerogative of States and regions to determine whether they should be allowed within their territories. Another delegation agreed that there was no rationale for entering into a discussion about the raison d’être of private military and security companies. It was noted that States, on the basis of their national sovereignty, had the power to 11