International Journal on Criminology Volume 4, Number 2, Winter 2016 | Page 123

Private Security on a Global Level
If private security exists throughout the world with differences in its usage,
then its frameworks and its regulation also appear to be more and more varied.
III. The Governance of Private Security Follows a Similar Tendency among States,
Namely an Already Well Established Framework, or Its Current Reinforcement.
Legislation in the field of domestic private security exists in the majority of
states. Thus, according to UNODC: “Several States reported that they had in place
or had amended their legal regulation on private security services; others replied
that they had new relevant legal projects or amendments under way, while others
indicated the need for a new regulation.” 22 In the European area alone, the CoESS
indicates that 94% of states offer specific legislative regimes for private security, but
in each case with important differences in the authority in charge of its development—
the Ministry of the Interior being responsible for 53%, the Ministry of Justice for
16%, the police themselves for 6%, and other organizations for the remaining 25%
(economic and finance ministries). The vast majority of these legislative regimes
implement a system of authorization, both for companies and for personnel, and
both in the European area and in the states that responded to UNODC: “Most States
required a type of authorization or license not only for the private security firm but
also for their employees.” 23 A final common tendency is the reinforcement of the
framework—in terms of legal protection for personnel in Norway, and in terms of
training in Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, the Czech Republic, and Burkina Faso, as
well as France and China. 24 Other countries are currently revising their regulations, or
plan to do so soon (the United Kingdom, Thailand, etc.).
At this stage, it is worth noting that, as is often the case, there exist two models
among the states that regulate private security—a centralist model and a federal model.
The federal model can be found in the United States, in Canada, in Germany, in
Switzerland, and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in particular. It is neither the most developed
model, nor does it promise to become so. In fact, these states, which all emphasize the
difficulties of this manner of organization (the unequal value of licenses in different
territories, the administrative complications for service providers, etc.), are trying to
unify their licensing regulations. As one example: In 1996 six cantons signed the
22
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, “Civilian private security services: their
oversight and their role in and contribution to crime prevention and community safety – Note by the
Secretariat,” E/CN.15/2011/14, January 20, 2011, p. 10.
23
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, “Civilian private security services: their
oversight and their role in and contribution to crime prevention and community safety – Note by the
Secretariat,” E/CN.15/2011/14, January 20, 2011, p. 11.
24
In China, the demand for physical protection of individuals from businessman travelling abroad has
led to the creation of the country’s first private training college, Genghis Security Advisor, which uses
parts of some military facilities in Beijing (http://geopolis.francetvinfo.fr/la-chine-se-lance-dans-lasecurite-privee-12083).
122