A/HRC/36/47 States’ national legislation expressly provides for penal and civil sanctions for violations committed by private military and security companies, and even fewer States’ national legislation contains provisions on any forms of remedy for victims. Without a proper and standardized monitoring and accountability mechanism for the activities of private military and security companies and an effective oversight, reporting, sanctioning and remedy system related to violations of the law, including human rights law, there is the risk that private military and security companies and their personnel in the countries of origin, registration and operation are not held accountable and liable for the human rights violations they commit during their operations. 57. The Working Group found great diversity and ambiguity in the description of permitted and prohibited activities, a lack of a clear dividing line between the functions of private military and security companies and law enforcement authorities, and a lack of rules prohibiting direct participation in hostilities in armed conflict — an especially significant concern considering the growing role of private military and security companies in armed conflicts, post-conflict situations and low-intensity armed conflict situations. This gives rise to challenges of enforcement, accountability and the availability of remedies to victims of violations. 58. The private military and security industry often operates in complex environments characterized by weakened rule of law. The Working Group believes that accountability under such conditions requires the increased exercise of extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction. 59. The Working Group is also of the view that regulation of non-State actors, such as private security providers, requires a multidimensional approach that includes improved international norms and standards, effective national regulation and enforcement, and industry-led efforts to improve compliance with human rights standards. The Working Group has been involved in various efforts at each of these levels, and in the present report focuses on domestic legislation. This global study of national legislation shows that, despite commendable efforts, norms and standards at the national level leave many gaps in the regulation of private military and security companies and in regard to their accountability in the face of human rights violations. 60. Given the regulatory gaps that have been identified, the Working Group is pleased at the development of voluntary initiatives such as the Montreux Document Forum and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers, which have clearly led to improved standards across the industry. It is also encouraging to see that many companies have signed up to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers’ Association since its establishment and that the Montreux Document is also garnering a growing number of signatories. These are important complementary initiatives for the strengthening of regulation on private military and security companies. 61. However, an assessment of self-regulatory and voluntary initiatives such as those mentioned, as well as this global study on national legislation, show that self-regulation and voluntary initiatives cannot in themselves ensure comprehensive accountability for human rights violations and provide effective remedies for victims. Only clear legal norms backed by State enforcement can do this. The Working Group supports the incorporation of these norms into an international legally binding instrument rather than relying on self-regulation and voluntary initiatives that are non-binding. V. Conclusions and recommendations 62. The Working Group’s global study indicates that States’ approach to regulation of an increasingly transnational industry is patchy and inconsistent. The ever-increasing privatization of security and military functions and the general growth of the private military and security industry across international boundaries raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the private use of force and the capacity of States to control their territory effectively and to provide strong accountability mechanisms and effective remedies to victims of human rights violations committed by private military and security companies. The Working Group is concerned that 17