Compliance with Applicable Law (Code Paragraph 21) Archives - ICoCA - International Code of Conduct Association

ONGOING CASE: PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY ACCUSED OF SPYING ON JULIAN ASSANGE

Background

Australian born Julian Assange is an acclaimed editor and founder of media company WikiLeaks. In 2010, WikiLeaks released footage showcasing United States soldiers opening fire on Iraqi civilians as well as a compilation of leaked documents by Chelsea Manning coined the Afghan War Diary by WikiLeaks. Following these leaks and other ensuing factors which the United States viewed as a threat to their national security, investigations on Assange and WikiLeaks began. That same year, Swedish authorities issued an arrest warrant accusing Assange of rape and sexual assault. In March 2018, the United States filed an indictment against Assange.

For the next 14 years, Assange would face a long and arduous legal battle. While in detention in the United Kingdom, Assange denied Swedish authorities’ allegations and instead held that such claims were part of a plan to extradite him to the United States for prosecution on the basis of the WikiLeaks disclosures. In 2012, Ecuadorian then-president, Rafael Correa granted asylum to Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after 2 months of taking refuge. Assange was then was given Ecuadorian citizenship.

Once Lenin Moreno was elected president of Ecuador in May 2017, Assange experienced a turn of events. He no longer had access to internet connection and outside visitors were prohibited from entering the premises to visit him. His lawyers, however, were still allowed to continue their activities and visit Assange. Under the decision of President Moreno, Assange was handed over to the British authorities after having been granted asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for seven years. Assange was arrested by United Kingdom police officers and was incarcerated for five years. Throughout his time in the British prison, Assange continued to fight against attempts to extradite him to the United States.

The Incidents

Security guards were employed by Undercover Global S.L in Puerto Real. It is a Spanish security company that is based in the province of Cádiz. The National Intelligence Secretariat funded the private security services with a budget of $5 million. A day before Assange’s arrest, WikiLeaks claimed that it had identified a “major spying operation” against Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy premises. The security firm Undercover Global S.L., responsible for safeguarding the diplomatic premises from 2012 to 2018, allegedly directed its personnel to gather extensive intelligence on Assange on information about his legal representatives and associates.

According to the Acting director of University of New South Wales’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Under Cover S.L “set up a surveillance operation inside the Ecuadorian embassy: microphone, video cameras and eventually live-streaming, and it seems that everything was monitored, including lawyer-client meetings, and including the personal technical equipment of individuals who might be visiting Julian Assange at the embassy”. Intelligence was then likely provided to the US authorities and the CIA.

Sworn witness statements submitted to the Spanish court reportedly contained evidence of surveillance activities. These statements allegedly indicate that a lengthy seven-hour consultation between Assange and his legal counsel on Sunday, June 19, 2016, was subject to audio recording. Furthermore, witness testimony mentioned Assange’s name, claiming that data from his iPad, which had to remain outside the meeting room, was allegedly copied and subsequently transmitted to US officials.

Investigations and Legal Aspects

Assange filed a criminal complaint and accused Undercover Global S.L., director, David Morales and the private security company of privacy offenses involving “violations of his privacy and the secrecy of his client-attorney privileges, as well as misappropriation, bribery and money laundering”.

Evidence showed Morales expressed verbal and written statements suggesting that even though the company was contracted by the government of then-Ecuadorian President Correa, he was simultaneously involved with the Americans, acting in a two-fold manner.

Since then, Spain’s High Court began an investigation on Morales as well on the basis of alleged unlawful activities of his company. Furthermore, a lawsuit was brought by four Americans who visited Assange against the CIA in the United States Federal Court in 2023 on the basis that their privacy rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct states that Member and Affiliate Companies will comply, and will require their Personnel to comply, with applicable law which may include international humanitarian law, and human rights law as imposed upon them by applicable national law, as well as all other applicable international and national law (paragraph 21 of the Code).

Member and Affiliate Companies will exercise due diligence to ensure compliance with the law and with the principles contained in this Code, and will respect the human rights of persons they come into contact with, including, the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly and against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy or deprivation of property (paragraph 21 of the Code).

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, responsible and continue to respect the rule of law.

Impact

In November 2019, however, the Swedish case against Assange on allegations of rape and sexual assault was dropped. Authorities justified the decision by saying that substantial time had passed since the offence. Fast forward to June 24, 2024, Assange was released from prison and granted bail by the High Court in London after pleading guilty to one count of breaching the espionage law. This agreement was reached through tedious diplomatic dialogue led by Australia. Days after his release, the WikiLeaks founder appeared in court at Saipan (US Pacific territory) “where he will be sentenced to 62 months of the time already served”.

Discussion

How can private security companies use technology in a responsible manner?

What are the human rights which have allegedly been breached in this case?

What legal and ethical considerations arise from surveillance activities conducted by private security companies?

Sources

This case was prepared by Anyssa Boyer, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

US STATE DEPARTMENT MAKING ICoCA CERTIFICATION MANDATORY FOR SECURITY PROVIDERS

Background

The Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) programme comes under the US Department of State’s (DOS) Bureau of Diplomatic Security and is responsible for contracting armed bodyguards and security personnel to safeguard American diplomatic personnel globally. This includes a blend of personal protection (bodyguards), static guarding (facilities and checkpoints) and team-based emergency response security services.

The rationale behind the use of private security companies by the US State Department in its missions abroad can be traced back to the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983. This led to the passing of the Diplomatic Security and Anti-terrorism Act of 1986, under which private companies could compete for security contracts for US missions overseas. The first contracted private security by the US State Department was in 1994, during the period of unrest in Haiti. The first iteration of the Worldwide Personal Protective Service (WPPS) contract was in 2000 when DynCorp was contracted to provide services in former Yugoslavia.

The war in Iraq witnessed an increase in the use of PMSCs by the US to handle what was once military tasks. What soon became apparent was the legal vacuum in holding these operators accountable for their criminal violations. As a result of cases of crimes committed by private security contractors (see Nisour square massacre in Baghdad and the DynCorp Bosnia case), attempts were made by Congress to ensure accountability for their actions.

One change that came about was the establishment of the Security Protective Specialist (SPS) programme by the Diplomatic Security. This meant directly hiring experienced protection personnel responsible for contractors who conducted high threat protection assignments on the WPPS program. Thus, the contemporary WPS contract has some very stringent provisions. These include, Diplomatic Security Special Agents supervising the security contractors and ensuring that their training aligns with the specified standards and that it is conducted by trainers approved by the agents. Contractors must undergo 164 hours of instruction and training approved by the Diplomatic Security prior to deployment. Deployment is limited only to those contractors who have successfully completed the training and met the required qualifications.

Good Practice

In 2013, the US State Department stated that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) would incorporate ICoCA membership as a requirement for the bidding process for the successor contract to the WPS programme provided that the ICoC process moves forward and attracts significant industry participation.

Since 2013, contractors to the WPS are required to provide a letter from ICoCA indicating that the applicant is a member or transitional member in good standing and has not been either suspended or terminated from the ICoCA. A tender placed in 2020 by the DOS for the WPS III contract (PSCs contracted for the third time under WPS programme between December 2021-2031) includes that if the bidding entity is acting as the prime contractor in a contractor team arrangement, then the letter should verify that all team members are active members of ICoCA, in good standing and compliant with the requirements of the American National Standards Institute , PSC-1-2012. If subcontractors are going to be engaged to deliver any security services under the contract, they too must be members in good standing of ICoCA. Furthermore, in 2014, during ICoCA’s General Assembly, the US Department of Defence informed it will recognise ICoCA membership as an indicator that companies comply with the Code during its procurement decisions.

Corporate Ethics

Prior to the 2013 ICoCA certification or affiliation requirement put in place by the US State Department, 2010-2017 WPS awardees included Triple Canopy Inc, Torres International, SOC LLC, International Development Solutions, Global Integrated Security, Acuity-Janus, Dyncorp International and Gardaworld Federal Services. Pursuant to not being ICoCA certified Members or Affiliates, Torres International, International Development Solutions, Global Integrated Security and Dyncorp International were not awarded renewed contracts.

For the 2016-2021 WPS II period, contractors included Aegis Defence Services LLC, Chenega Patriot Group LLC, Sallyport Global Holdings Inc., Triple Canopy Inc., SOC LLC, Gardaworld Federal Services LLC and Acuity-Janus Global LLC. Both Gardaworld, Aegis Defence Services LLC, SOC LLC, and Triple Canopy have been ICoCA members for more than five years and the certification was underway in 2017/18.

Acuity and Sallyport Global Holdings, however, have been ICoCA certified Members since 2022. Acuity halted its commercial services, selling off the profitable ones to Janus Global Operations Somalia which has been an ICoCA member since 2023 and includes more broadly Janus Global. Chenega Patriot Group LLC, although previously a member, is now no longer providing security services. Again, for WPS III, the same companies were contracted for the period starting from December 2021-2031. The listed PSCs were not ICoCA members when they were contracted under WPS II and beginning of III. Nevertheless, it is likely that the companies joined ICoCA to fulfil their contractual obligations. Thus, requiring ICoCA certification as part of State contracts encourages PSCs to become Certified members of Affiliate members of ICoCA.

The International Code of Conduct

Member and Affiliate companies of the International Code of Conduct Association (ICoCA) commit to the responsible provision of Security Services to support the rule of law, respect the human rights of all persons, and protect the interests of their clients.

By joining ICoCA, the Member and Affiliate Companies affirm that they have a responsibility to respect the human rights of, and fulfil humanitarian responsibilities towards, all those affected by their business activities, including personnel, clients, suppliers, shareholders, and the population of the area in which services are provided. Furthermore, clients could also require that their security providers are ICoCA certified.

Association of Member Companies

Disclaimer

The case map intends to promote conversations on the responsible provision of private security services, by providing a selection that shows on the one hand cases of abuses by private security companies, and on the other, cases of good practice. The case map exists to inform and provide a representation of selected incidents as well as good practices in the field of private security.

The descriptions of the cases reproduced here are not intended to represent opinions or advertisements of the ICoCA or the authors. In cases where the practices of private security providers are presented as responsible, this should not be interpreted as legitimising any potential human rights violations that may have occurred. Similarly, the inclusion of certain cases does not imply that the ICoCA or authors endorse the conduct of any private security companies that have engaged in human rights abuses or violations.

Sources

This case was prepared by Anyssa Boyer, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

REQUIREMENT FOR SWISS SECURITY COMPANIES OPERATING ABROAD TO JOIN ICoCA

Background

In the last decades Switzerland has been at the spearhead of the development of the international regulatory and governance framework of private military and security companies. It is under its leadership that the Montreux Document on Private Military and Security Companies and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Companies (ICoC) were adopted, in 2008 and 2010 respectively. The Montreux Document affirms the legal obligations of States on the activities carried out by private military and security companies, while the ICoC focuses on the responsibilities of private security companies (PSCs) themselves under international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Switzerland has also been a participant in the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.

The Export Controls and Private Security Services Section within the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs participates in the international dialogue on domestic standards for private military and security companies. These discussions are held in various international organisations (UN, OSCE, etc.). Switzerland is also hosting the International Code of Conduct Association.

Regarding Switzerland’s own national policies on private security services, it regulates private security service providers’ activities within its borders at cantonal-level or through inter-cantonal policies. The Francophone cantons introduced the 1996 Concordat sur les Entreprises de Sécurité (CES). A similar policy was initiated by the German-speaking cantons in 2017 but failed to be adopted when several cantons opted instead for their own cantonal regulations.

Good Practice

In 2010, Switzerland’s Federal Council decided to adopt a federal legislation that sought to regulate PSCs headquartered in Switzerland. This led to the adoption of The Federal Act on Private Security Services Provided Abroad (PSSA) on 27 September 2013, enforcing measures to ensure the respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. The PSSA applies to Swiss-based PSCs whether they provide services within Switzerland or abroad. It also covers companies managed from Switzerland that offer security services overseas, as well as any individuals working for these Swiss-linked security firms, both domestically and internationally. The regulations extend to Swiss federal authorities that employ these private security providers. Thus, providing an authoritative framework for new company registration as well as creating a governance mechanism to ensure compliance with the rules.

The PSSA entered into force on 1 September 2015 and requires companies based in Switzerland providing security services abroad to be ICoCA certified. The legislation also serves as a pillar responsible for safeguarding human rights and respecting the rule of law, as it prohibits security companies from engaging in violations but also offering their services in contexts connected with serious breaches of human rights. Switzerland has shown that an interplay between domestic and foreign policies is important, as commitments to upholding human rights begins with translating international commitments into national frameworks.

Corporate Ethics

Overall, and as stipulated under Article 1, the PSSA aims to “safeguard Switzerland’s internal and external security, achieve Switzerland’s foreign policy objectives, preserve its neutrality and guarantee compliance with international law.” These regulations ensure that Swiss PSCs providing their services abroad are continuously supervised through mandatory declarations and review procedures, ensuring compliance with the Code of Conduct. Article 7 states that companies providing security services must accede to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers. PSCs providing services abroad shall also provide proof of ICoC certification as emphasised under Article 10 (e) and be prohibited from carrying out services if they fail to comply with the provisions of the Code as stipulated under Article 14 §2 (c). Finally, Article 31 §1 (b) explains that the contracting authority must ensure the private security provider maintains a solid reputation and exemplary business practices by complying with the Code of Conduct.

Prior to 2015, one of Switzerland’s embassies in North Africa was responsible for a short mission in a neighbouring country classified as a complex environment. The KMZ, or Centre de Gestion des Crises, participated in the selection of an ICoCA-certified security company for assistance. Since increasingly more PSCs are joining ICoCA because of Switzerland’s PSSA requirement, it is becoming easier for Switzerland to work with ICoCA certified companies and fully comply with the provisions they set out in the Act.

The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs continues its advocacy efforts to encourage PSCs to join ICoCA Swiss representations are always advised to inform companies offering private security services that Switzerland works only with ICoCA members in all different environments, whether complex or not.

Association of Member Companies

The International Code of Conduct

Disclaimer

Sources

This case was prepared by Anyssa Boyer, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

MAJOR BRAND COMMITS TO RESPECT LABOUR RIGHTS OF SECURITY GUARDS

Background

It is well-documented that third-country nationals (TCNs) are frequently subjected to illegal recruitment practices, including deceptive hiring, trafficking and forced labour. In the private security sector, contractors often use local recruitment agents that target vulnerable and poor workers. Agents charge prospective third-country nationals ‘workers recruiting fees,’ leading to increased risk of debt. Moreover, agents often withhold information on the location and conditions of employment. These practices are hallmarks of forced labour. Hence, it is important for companies to properly acknowledge such illegal recruitment practices and ensure they comply with their corporate responsibilities and human rights obligations set forth by the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights.

Since 2022, IKEA updated its Inter IKEA Group policy on human rights, which materialised after an Inter IKEA Group-wide human rights baseline assessment which was subsequently cleared by the Management Board. The policy underscores IKEA’s commitment to respecting international human rights standards in its areas of operation. It emphasises embedding human rights considerations throughout the company’s activities and decisions. This involves proactively identifying potential human rights impacts, addressing any negative impacts and maintaining transparency and accountability.

Good Practice

In Malaysia, IKEA stores severed ties with a private security provider after an investigation allegedly revealed a breach of IKEA’s own labour policies. The investigation allegedly disclosed that “many” security guards in IKEA’s Malaysian stores had paid recruitment fees to secure their positions. It was reported that these mostly Nepali workers paid fees as high as $1,000, and “multiple layers of sub agents [were] involved in the process in rural villages…” Subsequently, Ikano, the company that runs IKEA stores in Malaysia, secured a new supplier that recruited workers directly, instead of using subcontractors. Ikano also stated that it would conduct follow-up audits. Finally, Ikano explained that the incident had been reported to local authorities and the Nepalese embassy.

Inter IKEA Group has acknowledged the various human rights risks when it comes to recruiting migrant workers, including high recruitment fees that migrant workers frequently pay. In response to this risk, IKEA completed projects to map their labour supply chains and highlight the risks associated with migrant worker recruitment.

As a result of the risks associated with migrant worker recruitment, IKEA developed Guidelines on Responsible Recruitment, which aim to build the “understanding and ability of suppliers to responsibly manage the recruitment of migrant workers.” IKEA has since emphasised that they aim to improve and strengthen their dialogue with their suppliers while addressing key topics including working hours, fundamental labour rights and responsible recruitment of migrant workers to respect their human rights due diligence commitments.

Corporate Ethics

IKEA developed Guidelines on Responsible Recruitment, which aim to build the “understanding and ability of suppliers to responsibly manage the recruitment of migrant workers.” IKEA is committed to eliminate worker-paid recruitment fees as shown by their stark decision in Malaysia to terminate their relationship with the private security contractor. The Swedish Company is co-founder of the Leadership Group for Responsible Recruitment chaired by the Institute for Human Rights and Business. This group works to eradicate worker-paid recruitment fees by following the “Employer Pays” principle aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goal of decent work for all. IKEA expressly stated that they “strongly believe that migrant workers should be treated with respect” and they have therefore “committed to advocate for this goal more widely, with governments, businesses and other relevant organizations, and continue to look for ways to assist and support migrant workers.”

Additionally, IKEA developed an introductory course on human rights and due diligence for all Inter IKEA Group co-workers during the 2022 Fiscal Year. More training programmes were created in collaboration with the International Organization for Migration for IKEA employees and business partners in Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Australia. The programmes cover international standards, national laws, methods for taking action against unfair treatment and labour exploitation.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct prohibits Member and Affiliate companies from engaging in the trafficking of persons and requires their personnel to report any instances of trafficking to competent authorities. The International Code of Conduct defines human trafficking, in this context, as the recruitment, harbouring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labour or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purposes of subjection to involuntary servitude, debt bondage, or slavery.

Furthermore, the International Code of Conduct prohibits Member and Affiliate Companies from using slavery, forced or compulsory labour, or to be complicit in any other entity´s use of such labour.

Disclaimer

Sources

This case was prepared by Anyssa Boyer, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

THE NISOUR SQUARE MASSACRE

Background

In 2002, U.S. president George W. Bush argued that the vulnerability of the United States following the September 11 attacks, in addition to Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorist groups, made disarming Iraq a national priority. Believing that Iraq continued to hinder UN inspections, President Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, giving Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq.

When Hussein refused to leave Iraq, the United States launched an attack in March 2003, starting their military operation in Iraq. By May 2003, the Iraqi Army and intelligence services were disbanded.

During the Iraq War, tens of thousands of private security personnel carried out military functions on the ground. These services include protection of key facilities, protection for key leaders and individuals, and convoy escort, a particularly dangerous task given the prevalence of insurgents using roadside ambushes to attack.

Generally, contractors had a poor reputation in Iraq, with locals viewing them as aggressive, disrespectful, and unjustifiably violent. Contractors have used practices like driving convoys on the wrong side of the road, ramming civilian vehicles, and firing weapons as warnings.

Around 1,000 Blackwater contractors were used to guard diplomats in Iraq, amongst other tasks. A 2007 congressional report alleged that Blackwater was

involved in at least 195 shooting incidents in Iraq since 2003. Another report by the staff of committee chair, Representative Henry Waxman, alleged that in most instances, Blackwater fired first. Further, in 80% of the escalation of force incidents, Blackwater’s own reports document either casualties or property damage.

Four Blackwater security guards were killed in an ambush in Fallujah in 2004. In a civil wrongful death lawsuit filed by a relative of one of four men killed, it was alleged that the employees were sent on the mission without the proper equipment, training, or preparation. The day before the four contractors were killed, a Blackwater employee sent an email to supervisors, alerting them about the lack of general and safety equipment. The contract called for at least six men in armoured vehicles and time for a route risk assessment and planning, however, Blackwater rushed together the team of men who had never trained together. Blackwater and the family members settled the lawsuit in 2012.

The incident

On September 16, 2007, armed American trucks entered Nisour Square in Baghdad, Iraq. The Blackwater security guards, known as team Raven 23, were escorting a U.S. State Department convoy through Nisour Square. According to the Blackwater contractors, insurgents then ambushed the security guards, and the security guards believed that had come under fire by insurgents. Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi citizens and wounded many others. During the 20-minute gunfight, Iraqi police and army forces stationed in watchtowers also began firing.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

The United States, through the Coalition Provisional Authority, had granted immunity from the Iraqi legal system to its military personnel and government contractors in Iraq, therefore the Blackwater contractors could not be prosecuted in Iraq.

In 2009, a judge threw out all of the charges related to the incident, citing “reckless” government behaviour. The indictment was dismissed because the prosecutors improperly relied on defendants´ compelled statements, which would have violated their constitutional rights, according to District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina.

In 2011, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals revived the litigation, holding that Judge Urbina misinterpreted the law.

Blackwater was legally and contractually bound to only engage in defensive uses of force to prevent “imminent and grave danger” to themselves or others.”

Ultimately, the case hinged on whether or not the defendants’ belief that they were under attack could be justified by limited evidence apparent to them at the time. Legally, their belief needed to be “reasonable” based on the circumstances. The jurors considered large amounts of evidence, including the act that other Blackwater employees had been hit by a roadside bomb elsewhere in the city the same day, and the fact that the vehicle occupants, a medical student and his mother, were shot and killed, so the car rolled forward automatically with no foot on the brake. Other relevant evidence included the fact that the Blackwater armoured vehicles appeared to have been damaged, but the victims appeared to be shot in the back while trying to flee the scene.

In 2014, four former Blackwater guards were convicted of different charges, including murder, manslaughter, and various weapons charges in relation to the Nisour Square incident. The guards were then immediately jailed.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct Preamble recognises that Private Security Companies and other” play “an important role in protecting state and non-state clients engaged in relief, recovery, and reconstruction efforts, commercial business operations, diplomacy and military activity. In providing these services, the activities of PSCs can have potentially positive and negative consequences for their clients, the local population in the area of operation, the general security environment, the enjoyment of human rights and the rule of law.”

In situations of armed conflicts, Member and Affiliate Companies must comply with International Humanitarian Law (paragraph 21).

The Code requires that Personnel of Member and Affiliate companies take all reasonable steps to avoid the use of force, and if force is used, it should be proportionate to the threat and appropriate to the situation. (Rules on the Use of Force : paragraph 29, Use of Force : paragraph 30-32).

Resources on Use of Force

Further, the International Code of Conduct requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties, and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law.

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Impact

Public Relations

After the public outcry, lawsuits, and investigations over the Nisour Square incident, Blackwater Worldwide rebranded by changing its name to “Xe” in 2009. Additionally, Blackwater Lodge and Training Center, the subsidiary that conducts much of the company’s domestic training, changed its name to U.S. Training Center Inc.

In 2009, it came to light that top Blackwater executives allegedly authorised about $1 million in payments to Iraqi officials to buy support and silence criticism of the firm.

In 2010, Eric Prince, the founder of Blackwater, reached a deal to sell the company to USTC Holdings. Under the agreement, Prince sold his state in the company, and Prince would no longer be involved in the management or operation of the company.

In 2011, Blackwater changed its name again, from Xe to Academi. The company’s president, Ted Wright, stated that the rebranding reflected the changes made in the company, including a “refocused strategy on training and security services.”

Investigations

Immediately after the Nisour Square incident, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pressed all commanders to investigate and pursue any potential wrongdoing from the incident.

The State Department initiated oversight measures, including requiring cameras in PSC vehicles, recording transmission, and embedding State Department personnel with personal security details.

In 2009, Iraqi government leaders did not renew Blackwater’s licence to operate in Iraq, and the State Department also did not renew their contract with Blackwater to protect diplomats.

Settlements and Fines

Blackwater reached a settlement with the State Department in August 2010, agreeing to pay $42 million in fines over hundreds of violations of U.S. export control regulations.

The alleged violations included providing sniper training for Taiwanese police officers and illegal weapons exports to Afghanistan.

Discussion

What were the immediate and long term impacts of the Nissour Square massacre?

How can training and vetting of security personnel prevent situations where use of force was unnecessary?

Related incidents

Sources

Case prepared by Madison Zeeman