A/HRC/36/47 weak national legislation and enforcement mechanisms, along with ad hoc and fragmented industry self-regulation, cannot address human rights concerns effectively. 63. Licensing, registration, vetting of personnel, the scope of permissible and prohibited activities, the use of force, the use of firearms and other weapons, accountability and remedies for violations — especially in the light of the transnational nature and activities of private military and security companies — are all areas in which national legislation is wanting. 64. Even though a private military or security company may be registered in State A, may recruit personnel from States B, C and D, and may enter into a contract with State E (or a private entity in State E) to perform services in State F, few countries have national legislation that covers the activities of private military and security companies abroad. Considering the transnational nature of private security and military services, insufficient national regulation seriously weakens the rule of law. Where borders between countries are porous, it is necessary to fill the gaps and promote international, regional and subregional agreements for the regulation of private military and security companies, to effectively protect the rule of law, human rights, and, especially in conjunction with the use of private military and security companies in extractive industries, the exercise of the right of peoples to selfdetermination. The Working Group encourages States to promote discussion of the role of private security companies in the context of regional and international security, and therefore incorporate such discussions into the agendas of intergovernmental, regional and subregional organizations. 65. In order to ensure the restriction of the use of force to that which is necessary, mandated and proportional, in accordance with international law, regulation is necessary to outline clear conditions regarding the use of force, especially in relation to the right to self-defence. There should also be some consideration given to the distinction between offensive and defensive use of force. It should be noted that while the distinction might be workable in non-armed-conflict contexts governed by international human rights law, it does not work in armed conflict, where defending a legitimate military objective (i.e. being a voluntary human shield) amounts to direct participation in hostilities and renders private military and security company personnel targetable under international humanitarian law. 66. The Working Group welcomes the strengthening of national legislation to fill the regulatory gaps that have been identified in its global study. The Working Group also acknowledges the valuable impact of the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers in improving regulatory standards across the private military and security industry. However, both national legislation and voluntary initiatives have limitations in ensuring accountability and access to effective remedies when human rights violations are committed by private military and security company personnel, particularly in transborder contexts. 67. The Working Group thus reiterates its call for an international legally binding instrument to ensure consistent regulation worldwide and adequate protection of the human rights of all affected by the activities of private military and security companies. An international legally binding instrument can provide a standard regulatory framework and single dedicated body on issues related to the activities of private military and security companies, including accountability and the availability of effective remedies for victims. 68. A body established by an international legally binding instrument could be responsible for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of private military and security companies and could incorporate clear human rights and humanitarian law standards into contracting, licensing and monitoring procedures. Such procedures could also be the basis for due diligence, to introduce human rights-based vetting mechanisms as well as mandatory legal training on international human rights and international humanitarian law standards as a criterion for obtaining a licence to 18