A/HRC/36/47 I. Introduction 1. The present report provides an overview of the findings of the Working Group’s global study on national legislation covering private military and security companies in 60 States from five regions worldwide. 1 2. Between 2013 and 2016, annual reports to the Human Rights Council covered the national legislation of thirteen anglophone African States, 2 eight francophone African States3 and eight Asian States. The 2015 report4 covered the laws and regulations of eight countries in Central America and the Caribbean, 5 eight countries in South America 6 and four countries in Europe.7 The 2016 report8 covered six countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States,9 four countries in the Asia and Pacific region, 10 and the United States of America.11 Additional background and research documents relating to the regional studies undertaken in the past four years are available on the Working Group’s website12 and can provide more comprehensive and in-depth coverage of the national legislation referred to in the present report. 3. The global study was conducted to provide analysis of national legislation in order to assess existing gaps, trends and good practices, which could help in developing guidance on regulation within and of the industry. The methodology for the study included a questionnaire sent to States13 in 2012. Over 30 States responded. Additional research was conducted on States’ laws and regulations relating to private military and security companies in all of the United Nations regional groups. The Working Group then analysed the available laws and regulations, on the basis of the following criteria: (a) references to conventions on mercenaries; (b) scope of application; (c) rules on licensing, authorization and registration; (d) regulations on selection and training; (e) prohibited and permitted activities of private military and security companies; (f) rules on acquisition of weapons by private military and security companies; (g) use of force and firearms; and (h) accountability. 4. The Working Group would like to thank the Member States and all stakeholders that contributed to the global study in the past four years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 The report is non-exhaustive, and a more comprehensive coverage of the main issues can be found in the Working Group’s annual reports to the Human Rights Council from 2013 to 2016. See A/HRC/24/45, in regard to Botswana, the Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda and Zimbabwe. See A/HRC/27/50, in regard to Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Morocco, Senegal and Tunisia, and to China, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka and the United Arab Emirates. A/HRC/30/34. Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama. Argentina, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay. (For Argentina, which has a federal system under which regulations are implemented by each province, the regulations of the Province of Buenos Aires were analysed.) France, Hungary, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A/HRC/33/43. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Australia, New Zealand, Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Australia and New Zealand, along with the United States of America, are members of the Western European and Others Group at the United Nations, one of the geopolitical regional groups into which Member States have unofficially divided themselves. See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Mercenaries/WGMercenaries/Pages/NationalLegislationStudies.aspx. With regard to the methodology for the Latin American States, the selection was focused on Spanishspeaking countries. 3