This week’s class discussion about private security
organizations undermining state authority was very interesting. Before class, I
only thought about private security organizations that operate in a state with
the state’s authorization. I was especially thinking about the private security
companies that have taken over several police work and are authorized by a
state to do that work. In Germany, for example, Germany’s largest airport in
Frankfurt used to be solely patrolled by the Federal Police, which was also in
charge of doing the passenger control. A few years ago, however, the state of
Hessen decided to authorize a private security company to do the passenger
control at the airport. The major reason is that there are just not enough
police officers to handle the increasing amount of passengers while at the same
time have to deal with threats like terrorism.
Over the last few years, more and more states in Germany
have authorized private security companies to do police work because of the
same reasons: not enough officers to do the jobs, and because private security
companies are cheaper. Since these security companies have authorization by the
state to do police work, they do not undermine state authority. However, the
problem with these companies is that their employees have not received the same
training that police officers have. Oftentimes they cannot do the job the same
way that police officers can and the question comes up if the state is risking
the lives of its citizens just to save a little money?
In this week’s lecture we learned that states have
authority, which is the right to do something. When crimes are committed inside
a state’s territory the state has the authority to fight these crimes and
control the organizations committing the crimes. It authorizes the police to do
these jobs. However, with the advent of the transnational criminal organizations
that operate across borders, states do not have the capacities to control them
anymore. This is especially the case in weak states or states in transition
(Phil Williams 2002, 170). Organized crime in Russia, for example, existed
during the Soviet years. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
organizations flourished and started to operate in other countries as well.
Transnational organized crime organization take advantage of weak states or
states in transition because they lack many state functions including effective
law enforcement agencies (Williams 2002,
170).
I think that transnational organized crime organizations
will continue to challenge state authority of weak as well as strong states.
While strong states have more capacity to fight these organizations, the
organizations use methods like corruption to protect their activities and,
unfortunately, corruption also exists in strong states.
References
Williams, Phil. 2002. “Transnational Organized Crime and the
State,” in The Emergence of Private
Authority in Global Governance, ed. Tom Biersteker and Rodney Bruce Hall.
Christine, I had a similar thoughts about states giving authority to private security companies. Recently in the US, the federal government decided not to renew contracts with private security in charge of running federal prisons. I found this very interesting as it is contradictory to the changes we see of increased privatization. The reason is that there have been problems with these companies providing adequate services for inmates. I'm sure this is not the only instance where the private security company gets away with providing sub par services, as mentioned with poorly trained police in Germany, and the state simply covers it up because it is "contracting out" services, almost as if that is acceptable and they no longer have control. However, as you mentioned, often this is supposed to be an extension of the state's power and in that sense, it is being corrupted by these private security companies.
ReplyDeleteAnd when we think about the corruption with transnational criminal organizations, it seems unlikely that states would be able to "fight" them adequately when they cannot even control these groups nationally.
Jessica,
DeleteThank you for your comments. Police in Germany is actually trained really well, but that is also the reason why states have to contract out police work to private security companies: the training costs a lot of money. The increasing problems including violence at train stations, violence at soccer games, the protests against the refugees etc. as well as the increasing terror threat requires more police officers. However, some states do not have the money (or do not want to pay the money) to train more officers.
Christine and Jessica, your blog post and comment raise an interesting question for me. Can the state say that they are no longer responsible for things when they contract it out? If there was a terrorist attack at the Frankfurt airport, could the German government legitimately place the blame on the contractors? That seems unlikely, and they would take responsibility for contracting out. But in your point about the private prisons, Jessica, I do think that the state has been able to shift the burden onto the security firms rather than take responsibility for mistreatment of inmates. I wonder if it's because the prison system is a less visible public safety issue when the inmates are in prison? Or what other factors? Theoretically, I think that the authors would support that the state is still accountable for security even if it's done by PSCs, but I'm not sure how that works in practice.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, good post and comment! Got me thinking!
Erica,
DeleteYou ask a very good question! Two years ago, the EU decided to do random security tests at different airports in the EU. The result: Frankfurt was one of the worst airports! The state of Hessen was blamed for the security problems at the airport, not the private security companies, because the state decided to contract it out.
Thank you for the excellent real world example and manner a state would use PSCs. The fear of the public that they are not being protected as they should be so that the state can save a little money is very interesting. Has there been any push in Germany to train more police officers. i.e. have more young people pursue careers in public security. I would think that the state could strategically increase the benefits of being a police officer in order to incentivize the creation of larger forces.
ReplyDeleteThis was the tactic of the Police Chief in Dallas, TX after the recent shootings there. Although it is too soon to know the results, I think it is a very smart reaction on his part.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. The problem in Germany is that there are not enough police officers. Over the last few decades there has been a steady increase of violence in the bigger cities, as well as an increase in terror threats. This requires that all public places, including train stations, subway stations, soccer stadiums, airports etc. are getting constantly patrolled. However, there are not enough police officers to do that. The states just do not have the large amounts of money necessary to pay for that. Private security companies are cheaper. In Germany, police officers have to go through a three year program of training and schooling. The states have to pay for that. Private security companies are not required to do the same training. Therefore, they can offer their services a lot cheaper.
To answer your question: yes, states are working on training more officers but they simply cannot train as many officers as are needed to do all the jobs.