A/HRC/32/39 Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework.6 A. Privatization of security services 59. The use of private entities for security or law enforcement is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that the modern concept of professional, bureaucratic policing was pioneered by private firms such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency and its competitors during the mid-nineteenth century.7 However, the private security sector is certainly rapidly expanding. 8 In 2011, the Small Arms Survey conducted a study comparing the number of private security personnel in 70 countries with the number of police officers. Several countries stood out, including Guatemala, with 6 times as many private security personnel as police officers, India, with nearly 5 times as many, South Africa, with more than 2.5 times as many, and the United States of America, with 2.26 times as many.9 60. The privatization of State security services has steadily been increasing over recent years, and the establishment of public-private partnerships in the area is not uncommon.10 There are several arguments supporting the privatization of public functions or services. 11 Security may be privatized where government lacks the capacity either technically or materially to perform its duties, or in certain circumstances it may be cheaper to privatize certain functions than for governments to perform them themselves.12 61. Private security services provide some benefits, as far as the protection of life, limb and property is concerned. At the same time the sector presents major challenges. Since States are primarily responsible for human rights fulfilment, the increasing movement toward the privatization of security raises questions as to roles, responsibilities, and ultimately accountability in relation to human rights violations and abuses. The Danish Institute for Human Rights has raised concerns about the trend towards privatization, noting that “the logic of privatization suggests that states can distance themselves from responsibility by simply firing the company in question”.13 Moreover, there is concern that privatization could have a discriminatory impact because poor or marginalized communities cannot afford the private services and are left underprotected.14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 C. Seiberth, Private Military and Security Companies in International Law (Cambridge, Intersentia Ltd., 2014), p. 25. D. Sklansky, “The private police”, University of California Los Angeles Law Review, vol. 46, No. 4 (April 1999), p. 1182. See A. Sinha and P. Chatterjee, “Calling security”, Business World (5 January 2016). Available from http://businessworld.in/article/Calling-Security/05-01-2016-89925/. See N. Florquin, “A booming business: private security and small arms” Small Arms Survey 2011. Available from www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey2011.html. M. Mota Prado “Regulatory choices in the privatization of infrastructure” in S. Chesterman and A. Fisher, Private Security, Public Order: The Outsourcing of Public Services and Its Limits (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 108. M. Mota Prado “Regulatory choices in the privatization of infrastructure”, p. 109. International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Complex irregular warfare: the privatisation of force”, The Military Balance, vol. 106, No. 1 (June 2006), pp. 411-416. See IRIN, “Private security firms prosper as more migrants detained”, 12 March 2014. Available from www.irinnews.org/report/99766/private-security-firms-prosper-as-more-migrants-detained. See, for example, J. Cavallaro, “The urban poor: problems of access to human rights”, paper presented at the sixth annual assembly of the International Council on Human Rights Policy,