A/HRC/30/47 of maritime security operations in the Indian Ocean. Mr. Gibson pointed out that following sustained engagement the British Department for Business Innovation and Skills had announced that it would issue British trade licences authorizing the use of floating armouries for the storage of controlled equipment, including firearms. While he described that as a significant step, he asserted that more needed to be done to facilitate a floating armoury operating under a United Kingdom flag. He further stated that the restrictive nature of the firearms legislation currently prevented appropriate firearms training in the United Kingdom. 46. Finally, Mr. Gibson commented on the decline of Western defence spending without a commensurate decline in political ambition, creating a strategic deficit that would have to be filled by the private sector. Governments would have to increasingly outsource contracts to the private sector in areas that until recently had been considered to be the exclusive prerogative of the military. He also recalled that private security companies were in the business of making a profit, and that it was important that the costs of increasing regulation should not make companies uncompetitive — so as not to penalize those who wished to comply. He emphasized that it was everyone’s responsibility to ensure that clients understood the importance of regulation, and that the additional costs arising from it were worth accepting. 47. Some delegations raised questions regarding the potential of the International Code of Conduct Association to become an effective mechanism and the consequences of noncompliance with applicable law. In his response, Mr. Gibson stated that the Association was still in an early phase of its operationalization, and that the complex issues of certification and oversight were still being discussed. He was confident, however, that there was a real consensus within the Association to make it an organization with teeth. The representative of the Association similarly recalled that it was a three-pillar organization that also included States and civil society. There was agreement that the Association must have effective oversight mechanisms, the ability to exclude those who did not comply and effective grievance mechanisms also offering access to remedies. Some delegates clarified that voluntary regulatory frameworks and recourse avenues neither replaced national legislation and regulation, which took precedence, nor replaced criminal proceedings where appropriate. Mr. Gibson confirmed that the majority of members were from Europe or the United States and that the success of the initiative would depend on the ability of the Association to reach out to other regions. The Executive Director of the Association added that the most recent applications had come from non-Western States, indicating an increased interest and awareness in other regions. 48. Delegations sought Mr. Gibson’s views on issues regarding the use of private military and security companies in complex environments, for example: (a) cases where foreign nationals had engaged in military activities and committed violations, but had benefited from diplomatic immunity; (b) cases where private military and security companies had been in charge of administrating detention centres and prisons; (c) cases where private military and security companies had been hired to protect extractive industries and had committed human rights abuses; (d) reports that floating armouries were placed on the high seas to circumvent national regulations and control; (e) the employment of South African citizens by private military and security companies in violation of South African law, which made it illegal for any South African to render foreign military assistance; and (f) the industry’s lack of denials of, or credible responses to, numerous allegations of human rights abuses committed by private military and security companies. 49. In his responses, Mr. Gibson stated that the companies he represented had no diplomatic immunity and that they, their employees and subcontractors were fully accountable under domestic and international legislation. He confirmed that some companies had indeed been involved in the administration of detention facilities and that 13