A/HRC/21/43 2. Regulation of activities of private military and security companies 55. Both the Swiss draft law and the South African legislation embrace a regulatory approach to private military and security companies. The former mandates the registration and approval of private military and security company activities abroad. The latter does not require registration, but does require authorization for certain types of activities abroad. 56. While none of the legislation considered includes specific vetting and training standards for private military and security companies, Government authorities have been required to undertake additional steps to ensure the qualifications of the individuals who and companies that they seek to hire. Generally, legislation on private military and security companies leaves it to agency-level bodies to develop vetting and training requirements. This is the approach taken in the Swiss draft law. In the United States, the Secretary of Defense is required, under the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, to develop specific requirements for defence contractors, such as a third-party certification process and weapons certification for private military and security company employees who carry weapons. 57. The experience of South Africa in implementing a licensing scheme demonstrates some of the challenges that States face. The body charged with authorizing private military and security company activities abroad is a Cabinet-level body. While charging such a high-level body with this task may serve to ensure utmost care in authorizing the activities of private military and security companies, it has also resulted in administrative challenges. The South African legislation does not specify a time frame within which the Committee must make its determinations and there is little public information about its processes. For example, the Committee is required to report to Parliament on its own activities, including applications received and the status of authorizations, but this requirement has not been regularly met. It also remains unclear whether the Committee maintains the required 19 register of authorizations and approvals issued by the Minister of Defence. This may have had the unintended effect of driving the private military and security company industry underground. During the Working Group’s trip to South Africa, several companies reported that they often chose not to seek authorization for their activities because they possessed 20 little confidence that the Committee would handle applications fairly and promptly. 58. None of the legislation reviewed included systematic monitoring and reporting by private military and security companies to ensure compliance with national laws and international human rights norms. It is therefore unclear whether, once a private military and security company is granted a licence to conduct certain operations, its activities under that contract are in any way monitored by the licensing authorities. The Swiss draft law does not require regular or periodic reporting on the activities of private military and security companies, nor does it require such companies to report allegations of crimes or human rights violations to the authorities. In South Africa, once a company has received authorization to offer its services abroad, the law does not provide for monitoring of its activities by the Committee or any other body. Companies are not required to report on their activities or undergo field auditing. 3. Scope of legislation 59. In defining the scope of regulation of private military and security companies, the States analysed have used various approaches, generally focusing on areas of armed 19 20 14 A/HRC/18/32/Add.3, paras. 27-29. Ibid., para. 30.