A/HRC/30/47 they should be subject to regulation and be held accountable for any abuses committed. He also conceded that some environments were particularly problematic owing to the absence of the rule of law. He emphasized that, in order to avoid abuses, it was critical to vet and train employees of private security companies, but also to make clients understand that they bore responsibility for contracting reliable companies only. 50. Mr. Gibson explained that floating armouries were placed in the Indian Ocean near the routes of ships that required protection, and not as a way to circumvent control. He said that those armouries fell under the jurisdiction of the flag State, but also expressed sympathy for the view that in some of those States the regulatory frameworks were not sufficiently robust. He refuted the suggestion that staff of maritime security companies might find it easier to shoot first and ask questions later. He explained that companies adhered to strict rules on the use of force that mandated proportionate and escalatory measures, that experience had shown that the firing of warning shots was enough to deter and avert pirate attacks, and that maritime security companies did not detain pirates. He also stated that privately contracted armed security personnel on ships wore helmets fitted with cameras to provide full visibility and accountability for their actions. 51. With regard to the employment of South African citizens by private military and security companies, Mr. Gibson agreed that South Africa should receive a considered response on why there had so far been no commitment in the context of the Montreux Document or the International Code of Conduct not to recruit South Africans in violation of South African law. The representative of the International Code of Conduct Association concurred with that view. With regard to the suggestion that private security companies were not responding to allegations of human rights abuses, Mr. Gibson said the companies he dealt with had grievance mechanisms embedded in their business models that enabled thorough investigations to take place following an allegation of a human rights abuse. The industry welcomed civil society and others bringing such allegations to the fore to enhance the transparency and accountability of those investigations. In due course, oversight mechanisms would also be in place under the auspices of the Association. 52. One delegation described the International Code of Conduct as a gentlemen’s agreement and the Association as a gentlemen’s association, and considered them insufficient to protect victims of human rights abuses. Pointing out that the self-regulatory system in the banking industry had proved insufficient, it was questioned whether selfregulation processes could be trusted and whether there was any experience with such processes functioning satisfactorily. Mr. Gibson explained that, in his view, considerable success had been achieved with voluntary regulation in the private security sector. In a short time frame and with the industry as catalyst, two international standards recognized by ISO had been developed and the Association had been created. However, Mr. Gibson added that the industry would not be opposed to an international legally binding instrument, with the critical proviso that it must create a genuinely level playing field at the global level. If that were achieved, the industry would be fully supportive. Some delegations commended Mr. Gibson for that statement, recalling their view that a global and binding convention laying out the minimum standards was necessary. C. Specificities of regulating sea-based private security activities 53. On 29 April 2015, senior researcher in international law at the University of Pretoria Mr. Casey-Maslen presented some of the issues regarding the use of force by private maritime security service providers, in particular with respect to counter-piracy operations and how they might affect the possible international regulatory framework governing private security companies. While the Security Council, in its resolution 1851 (2008), referred to “applicable international humanitarian law”, counter-piracy operations and 14