Intelligence services and their methods within Military Contracting Companies

Intelligence services and their methods within Military Contracting Companies

Dr.sc.Blerim Olluri

Prof.Ass.Dr.Skender Gojani

Prof.Ass.Dr.Mensut Ademi

Prof.Ass.Dr.sc.Fadil Lekaj

Ph.D.Drizan Shala

Dr. Sc. Blerim Olluri, Prof. Ass. Dr. Skender Gojani, Prof. Ass. Dr. Mensut Ademi, Prof. Ass. Dr. Sc. Fadil Lekaj, & Ph.D. Drizan Shala. (2026). Intelligence services and their methods within Military Contracting Companies. Theory and Event, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19512182

Abstracts:

The intelligent services, traditionally, are treated notional in terms of the totality of being an intelligent cell that offered products for policymakers is considered the most important and security components for the treasurer since the beginning. On the other hand, from the point of view of modern times, the intelligence services have become part of the genetic and elite for national and international security policy and because of the need for a preventive security policy to continue to evolve in human resources, adaptation to legality, use of technique and high technology in all international prisons because they have been converted into private military companies and industries that have evolved into an individual act of mercenarism into a professional corporate variety, which is very and legitimized in most of the svetsi from the graft.

However, PMCs will not only produce more exclusively armed devices, they also supply more and more knowledge products for governments and trade subjects in the field of espionage, industrial sabotage, and the intelligent future of industry in a way that is half-free from the surveillance that the political/legislative level can do.

Keywords: Private Military Company – PMC, Phenomenology, Etiology, Crisis.

Research Subject

Oriented mainly in understanding the Intelligence Services and their cooperation within private military companies, with special emphasis on their methods within this sphere which is determining the regional, European and global security sphere. During my work I will be oriented towards the factors that have influenced the cooperation between the state (its agencies) and these private military companies.

The purpose of the research is to understand the process of the security impact that cooperation between intelligence services and private military contractors has raised, as well as to find their connections.Arsyeshmëria shkencore dhe praktika e hulumtimit

It consists in the fact that the data obtained from the research are based and confirmed as accurate, because those data are based on scientific research that has been done.

Users of the research will have the opportunity to see tables, which will be needed for scientific, but also practical purposes, by security institutions and security researchers of the country.

This master’s thesis includes 2 hypotheses:

General hypotheses

The possibility of changing the external and internal perception in knowledge about the cooperation of intelligence services and non-state actors (private military companies) which should change and adapt to new contemporary concepts in the sense of legality, which affects the quality of regional and international cooperation.

Specific hypothesis:

How much control and supervision will the intelligence services have over the use of these services by private military contractors and other non-state actors.

Table 1 – The difference between mercenaries and private military and security companies

Table 2 – Classification of KPS according to Fred Schrajer and Marina Kaparini

Table 3 – Classification of PMC according to Fred Schrajer and Marina Kaparini

Table 4 below presents some of the main characteristics, clients and operations of representatives of private military companies.

Table 5 below shows some of the main differences between the PMC and the KPS.

Abbreviations

Private Military Contractor –PMC

Private Security Contractor –PSC

GRU- General Directorate of Russian Military Intelligence

SIGINT- Signals Intelligence

ELINT- Electronic Intelligence

GEOINT – Geospatial Intelligence

HUMINT- Human Intelligence

Introduction

Intelligence services in 19th century wars did not use as many companies or private security industries as in the early 20th century where now private armies have their place in advancing the interests of those states behind which intelligence services operate with these private armies or as they are called PMCs.

Governments have recruited or recruited their citizens to secure their citizenship and sovereignty from internal and external threats. Citizens fought wars in the name of the state, for loyalty, nationality and ideology. This capacity to provide security at home and abroad has led to the ability of states to contribute to collective security on a regional and global scale.

Transnational terrorist groups, drug cartel forces, ethnically and religiously motivated armed groups, or internationally organized criminal enterprises are other examples of the privatization of conflict, while the increased use of private military contractors is a manifestation of the privatization and commercialization of war.

The recent wars in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq were all fought with the help of private military contractors. Mercenaries, as they were once known, are therefore thriving – only now they are called Private Military Contractors (PMCs) and Private Security Companies (PSCs). PMCs are private companies that specialize in military capabilities, including combat operations, strategic planning, intelligence gathering, operational support, logistics, training, procurement, and maintenance of weapons and equipment. While most PMCs serve governments and armed forces, some have helped democratize foreign security forces and have worked for the UN, NGOs, and even environmental groups. Others work for dictators, failed state regimes, organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorist-affiliated groups. The growth of the PMC industry reflects the new face of the business of war. Representing the newest addition to the modern battlefield, the role of PMCs in contemporary warfare is becoming increasingly important, changing armed forces around the world and the ways wars are fought.

1. Private military companies – a phenomenon in the security sphere in the 21st century

Private military companies (or military corporations, military firms, private security agencies, as they are called by other names) are part of the new phenomena in the security sphere. Their appearance and role in contemporary conflicts are the result of the internationalization of the security sector after the end of the Cold War. According to David Eisenberg, from the American-British Security Council (BASIC), several key circumstances are important for the emergence and development of private military and security companies. First of all, the reduction of the military and security-intelligence apparatus after the end of the Cold War left hundreds of thousands of professionals around the world unemployed. The end of the division of the bloc, fueled many ethnic conflicts around the world. Since neither the US nor Russia can solve them quickly, private companies were the ones who filled the vacuum caused to help one of the warring parties in the newly created courts. Finally, the liberal understanding of the state, according to which it should have a minimal role in society, represents a theoretical basis for the privatization of state functions, including those in the security sphere.

The lack of division of the bloc changed the notion of security and brought new challenges. The approach according to which the main threat to the security of a country comes from hostile states and alliances has been almost abandoned. According to modern understandings and notions, the main problems are terrorism, organized crime and ethnic conflicts, the spread of nuclear weapons, etc. It also requires the reorganization of the army, police and security-intelligence services, which states began to implement. The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 and the American interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, showed the shortcomings of the organization of the entire defense apparatus that the USA had at that time. Again, the need arose for additional personnel, both for tasks that the army traditionally performs and in security-intelligence structures. Unable to quickly solve the lack of the right staff, countries have sought the services of private companies.

Private military companies are like any other firm, providing expertise in this field. Their services range from consulting and training, to direct participation in conflicts, selling weapons regardless of possible embargoes, and intelligence-counterintelligence work. These companies can be roughly divided into private military companies (operating offensively, participating in combat operations) and private security companies, which operate defensively and provide security, consulting, and intelligence services.

The largest private companies operate both as military and security companies. The employees of these companies are mainly former soldiers, officers, or informants. Working in a company that provides services from the security sector is what distinguishes them from ordinary mercenaries who work for whoever will offer them the highest salary. Almost all companies claim to have a code of conduct that employees must adhere to.

They are present almost everywhere, from conflict zones to countries reforming their security systems. The areas of greatest interest for their work are Iraq, Afghanistan and, traditionally, Africa.

Paying is undoubtedly one of the oldest professions and as such, even today it is still a subject of the war market that has its clients and service providers. In addition to traditional forms of payment and offers of private military forces, today we also have new forms of engagement of private military companies and private security companies and capacities that work and operate in a vague framework, respectively, a still unspecified and unregulated legal and regulatory framework.

The private security industry emerged towards the end of the nineties of the twentieth century as a result of three circumstantial factors – the end of the Cold War and the vacuum that it caused in the search and provision of services in the field of security, the transformation in the nature of warfare and the normative increase in privatization in all sectors – the creation of new space and the search for the formation of the private security industry.

The formation of the private security sector, in which private non-state security providers operate, independent of the state, represents an important moment in the development of both contemporary international relations and the functioning of states themselves.

The private security industry, private military and security companies form the industrial chain that operates freely in the global market, organized through existing and strong corporate ties that are constantly growing and strengthening.

In the broadest sense, the actors belonging to the private security sector are made up of a diverse spectrum of people, organizations and activities. Some of them are very important and legitimate, while some are illegal and belong to the so-called security wind zone.

In the private security sector we can count mercenaries, volunteers, foreign employees established in national armies, various types of private armies and militias, private security agencies, private military companies as well as many actors as providers of security and military services.

In this paper we will focus on private security companies and private military companies, with special interest in private military companies and the use of PPC in international conflicts, the difference between private security companies (PSC) and private military companies (PMC).

2.1. Definition of the notion of mercenaries

Mercenaries: Nathan defines mercenaries as “soldiers who are loaned to foreign states or insurgent movements to contribute to the conduct of armed conflict, either directly or indirectly, through training, logistics or intelligence gathering – they work outside the competence of the armed forces or the state to which they belong. [ Nathan, L. (1997), „Lethal Weapons: Why Africa needs alternatives to hired guns”, Track Two, 6 (2), August.] The Oxford Dictionary defines mercenaries as “professional soldiers recruited to serve in foreign armies”. [ The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the US Military, 2001.] The Geneva Convention uses six criteria for defining the notion of mercenary (see: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims oflnternational Armed Conflicts, Geneva, ICRC, 1997: Article 47: Mercenaries. Herein after referred to as Protocol I). One of the most recent definitions of the notion of mercenaries is “Mercenaries are individuals who fight in armed conflict motivated and driven by the desire for personal financial gain in foreign wars (wars that are not led by the states of which they are citizens, are not residents of the territory – state in which there is an armed conflict, nor are they members of the regular armed forces of the parties to the conflict), they mainly engage armed groups, and occasionally also states”. [ Schreier, Fred and Caparini, Marina (2005), „Privatising Security: Law, Practice аnd Governance оf Private Military аnd Security Companies”, Occasional Paper – №6, DCAF, Geneva, March, pp 20.]

The engagement of mercenaries is prohibited by international law, however, the main problem is the definition of the notion of mercenaries alone. [ Schreier, Fred and Caparini, Marina (2005), „Privatising Security: Law, Practice аnd Governance оf Private Military аnd Security Companies”, Occasional Paper – №6, DCAF, Geneva, March, pp 21.]

States have been trying to define this notion for decades, however, they have not yet come to a single definition that will be fully incorporated and accepted in international law. For now, it seems that it is still not possible to reach an accepted legal definition for mercenaries, which is also confirmed in the three recent international conventions that deal with this shipment.

Traditionally, mercenaries are defined as individuals who are hired to participate in wars that are not led by their home countries.[ United Nations,General Assembly, A/RES/44/34, internet.]

Their main motivation is profit, and not patriotism or devotion to their nation or state. A mercenary can be an adventurer, a former member of the armed forces, while very often they are killers, ready to, for any reason, recruit any organization and the same pays them for their engagement. Sometimes they are veterans of former wars or conflicts who are looking for, regardless of what armed conflict, how to continue with what they previously worked with fighting. Based on the above, we can conclude that people do not necessarily become mercenaries only because of financial benefits, very often also because of conscience, and this is the only style and way of life that such an individual can have and lead. The failure of re-education programs or programs for returning to so-called civilian life that would provide hope for fighters often play an important role in their continuing their lives as mercenaries. [ Schreier, Fred and Caparini, Marina (2005), “Privatising Security: Law, Practice аnd Governance оf Private Military аnd Security Companies”, Occasional Paper – №6, DCAF, Geneva, March, pp 24.

] For someone who has spent his whole life in combat and war, the notion that he does not fit into the civilized environment and normal life is a major motivation to become a mercenary. Most mercenaries are soldiers without a permanent place of residence, who fight for very dubious purposes for large sums of money.

Most of them are ruthless, often instigate and continue the conflict in which they are engaged, are disloyal, unreliable and very easily change sides in the conflict for a larger sum of money.

In comparison to private wars and security companies, mercenaries are temporary and ad hoc groups of individual soldiers recruited indirectly and indirectly to avoid legal liability. Because they do not belong to any organization, they lack professionalism and discipline, are not integrated anywhere, have no doctrine, and their capabilities are very limited. In fact, they are not able to provide anything other than close combat at the level of small units and limited individual military training. In general, mercenaries lack the skills, capital, established standard methods, and the ability to organize and implement multi-sectoral operations that private military companies are capable of (Table 1).

2.1. Definition and classification of private security companies (PSCs)

Although the term “private security company” is in use in many countries, there is much debate about the exact meaning of this notion. Goddard defines PSCs as registered civilian companies that specialize in providing contracted services of a commercial nature to domestic and foreign companies, for the protection of persons, humanitarian workers or industrial complexes within the legal framework of the state in which such action takes place. [Goddard, S. (2001), The Private Military Company: A Legitimate International Entity Within Modern Conflict, A thesis presented to the Faculty of the US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, USA.] The broadest definition of PSCs is given by a group of authors, and it means that a PSC is a clearly structured and hierarchically established, registered corporate association that provides security services, competing with other such firms for market work..

The PSC market has existed for a long time, is much larger and the competition in that market is much sharper compared to the field of PSC. Two main characteristics characterize PSCs, the drive for profit and the start of providing internal security and protection services. The largest number of these companies are small, focused on crime prevention, ensuring public order and peace, as well as private security services.

2.1. Definition and classification of private military companies (PMCs)

In the context of post-Cold War de-escalation, the sale of arms and military equipment, and directly with neoliberal privatization, corporations quickly became aware of the opportunities that governments offer by privatizing certain state sectors. States with their new privatization initiatives want to reduce military spending and transfer certain parts of it to the private sector. As a result, world powers – traditional actors in regional and interstate conflicts during the Cold War – have greatly reduced their engagement in conflict resolution.. The PMCs quickly saw their great opportunity and filled that newly created vacuum. The PMCs automatically absorbed the surplus of military personnel and equipment. They soon began to offer a wide range of military and security services to various interested clients.

After the end of the Cold War, the second great wave of growth and development of private military and security companies began after the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sipas David Isenberg, PMCs are doing a great job in Iraq, carrying out many difficult missions in very uncertain circumstances. He says that most of the companies were in Iraq for the first time, but they were able to deploy personnel and perform tasks for a shorter period of time than was necessary in regular national armies.

The process of globalization today affects governments around the world often moving towards privatization of parts of state property as well as various other actions within state competence in order to reduce annual expenses. Such a trend is a visible phenomenon in the field of energy, communications, telecommunications, etc., but in the last few decades it has become increasingly visible in the field of security. The large number of states, and especially Western countries, leaving room for the state monopoly on the use of force as a security measure gradually creates space and opens the door for the involvement of private interests in the scope of national and international security.

Considering the functions performed by private military companies, as well as their comparison with mercenaries, it can be said that there is no consensus and international agreement by which these companies will be defined. This is precisely why a wrong comparison is often made and PMCs are equated with mercenaries. Focusing on the functions they perform, namely the services they provide, PMCs can be defined as a business – professional services that are complexly related to combat. In accordance with this, PMCs are corporate bodies that provide a wide range of military services to various clients for profit. Thus, it can be said that private military companies (PMCs) are firms that provide specialized services that refer to security in peace, war and conflict, including combat operations, strategic planning, collection of confidential information, operational and logistical support, training, supply and maintenance. Of course, as mentioned earlier, PMCs provide these services for a certain profit.

• Consequently, there are several characteristics of private military companies by which they are known, the most prominent of which are:
• -Organizational structure: PMCs are registered firms with corporate structures,
• Motivation: PMCs provide their services primarily for profit, and not for political reasons.

In terms of size, PMCs can range from small consulting firms to large multinational corporations. Although PMCs first emerged after World War II, geopolitical changes and the restructuring of the armed forces of many countries after the end of the Cold War led to the rapid growth of the private security industry. The services of numerous private military companies are now used in over 50 countries around the world.

Often, in addition to PMCs, terms such as mercenary and private security companies (PSCs) are used. Until recently, mercenaries were the standard term for actors in conflict who were usually motivated solely by personal gain. This term appears in several international agreements, although these agreements have been criticized for their lack of precision, as they focus on the motivation for actions, which are difficult to identify, rather than the actions themselves. For example, many of the American security service providers in Iraq claim to be working equally out of patriotism and financial gain. Many firms that specialize in protecting personnel and property, rather than engaging in combat activities, prefer to identify themselves as KSPs. But when protection has a serious impact on the outcome of a conflict, it is difficult to distinguish between the combat and protective roles.

The users of the services provided by PMCs can be states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), humanitarian and development agencies, multinational corporations, and even individuals with the signing of appropriate agreements. When PMCs are used by states, these companies are often used to compensate for the lack of national capacity. PMCs provide modern technological capabilities in areas where the armed forces cannot afford to train personnel or create attractive career opportunities. In other cases, PMCs replace capabilities that do not exist. For example, the loan of the Israeli firm Levdan enabled Congo-Brazzaville President Pascal Lissuba in 1994 to create a new force to replace military units loyal to the former president and transform the army into a ushtri moderne e orientuar ndaj ushtrive perendimore. Grupet tjera i përdorin PMC-të që tu ndihmojnë të funksionojnë në mjedise të rrezikshme dhe konfliktuale për shembul si Iraku, Afganistani. PMC-të janë të përfitimit potencial dhe për Kombet e Bashkuara (KB) dhe organizata tjera ndërkombëtare sepse vendosja e tyre do ti nënshtrohen kontradiktës së vogël politike se sa një vendim për vendosjen e trupave kombëtare nën patronazhin e KB-së.

• It has been mentioned before that the dependence of states on the private military industry is not as new as is often claimed. Civilians have always been instrumental in military operations and have often been in one way or another supporting the military. In scientific circles, for years, attempts have been made to arrive at a framework that would describe the functions of PMCs outside the framework of their definition (for example, mercenaries versus PMCs). This is not just a matter of semantics. The confusion surrounding PMCs and mercenaries reflects the difference in how security is understood and judged, a difference in how international law is still not regulated. Because PMCs are business companies, their main mission is to make a profit and adapt to the needs of their clients. The typology of private military companies is mainly based on the functions, respectively the activities that they perform. There are three main categories of activities on the basis of which the companies can be divided:
• Military combat companies that provide combat-capable forces and security forces. These types of companies in the PMC world are the most well-known and have received great publicity in the public. Military combat companies can be divided within their group into offensive and defensive combat companies.[ Examples of offensive PMCs include South Africa’s Executive Outkams and Great Britain’s Sentline International, while the best example of defensive PMCs is Blackwater.]
• Military consulting companies that traditionally offer and provide training and advisory services.
• Military support companies that provide non-lethal assistance, such as weapons maintenance, technical support, demining and destruction of unexploded ordnance, as well as intelligence collection and analysis services.

Table 4 below presents some of the key characteristics, clients and operations of representatives of private military companies.

There is no concrete line that distinguishes private military companies from each other based on their primary functions, because the same company can perform more than one function and offer more than one capacity at any given time. For example, military consulting companies offer a wide range of services even when they do not have the necessary capacity available to fulfill the contract, after which they resort to borrowing from other similar companies.

2.1.The difference between the services of private military companies and private security companies

At a time of increasing security threats affecting the situation and the popularization of the private security sector, as well as the reduction of the capacities of states to deal with such threats, it is very likely that the trend of using private military companies will continue to grow and shape international security in the future.

Private military companies will continue to exist and develop in the current modern world. Given the regional conflicts and wars after the Cold War, the inability or unwillingness of the international community to get involved in these conflicts, as well as the efforts of the great powers to reduce military forces and rely on sophisticated technological weapons, it is logical that private military companies will increasingly develop and regulate the character of current and future wars.

Private military companies have the ability to significantly change and influence the strategic military situation in a given conflict, whether it is a combat or non-combat function, in the same or similar way as military units will do and regulate it. As was the case in several recent conflicts, the involvement of private military companies in combat or non-combat roles can change the balance of a given conflict and create the right conditions in favor of a given party. The rise of PMCs and their increasing popularity in terms of operational involvement, emphasizes the issue that the customers of these global games, and especially states, will become very dependent on the military services of these companies. All this confirms the importance that private military companies have had and will have in the future.

Table 5 below shows some of the main differences between PMC and KPS.

It is assumed that after the end of the PMC’s engagement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and their withdrawal from these areas, their existence will not cease to exist. As a future market for these companies, the Middle East, Latin America, and African countries will certainly be imposed precisely because the demand for security has increased there. The new capabilities that PMCs have attract new customers, not only from Western countries and especially from the USA, but also from outside of these, such as: weak states with tyrannical regimes that need the help of their armed forces, then UN missions that require more peacekeepers, multinational corporations that need to protect their property and assets, humanitarian workers that need protection, opposition groups that fight against regime change, etc.

In parallel with their development, private military companies will also pose a real challenge in the future for the effective and fair regulation of their services, especially in the area of ​​their responsibility for human rights violations during operational use. But, in any case, they will continue to provide security in the positive sense of the word through innovations and the ability to be effective with fewer resources in difficult economic times.

Regardless of the positive or negative moral contagion that attaches to private security companies, it can be said that these actors on a global level are capable of shaping the history of contemporary warfare to a certain extent.

Despite various predictions, the private military industry has a bright future. The billion-dollar industry will simply not disappear even after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. On the contrary, the exact opposite may happen – private military companies fill the gap created after the withdrawal of regular military units with their highly qualified manpower and sophisticated equipment and weapons that provide a wide range of services. Today’s private military companies are ready to take on responsibility for combat and service support, command and control, reconnaissance and analysis, humanitarian support, post-conflict operations, etc. Furthermore, they are ready to face new challenges, such as counter-terrorist operations, as well as negotiations in the event of kidnapping. Direct involvement of PMCs in combat operations in conflict environments is very unlikely. However, this is also possible, as the previous example highlighted in Angola. It seems that there is no safe zone where PMCs cannot be used. In other words, PMCs are capable of operating not only at the tactical level, but also fully supporting modern warfare by developing new capabilities to meet new challenges. This industry will certainly develop, become more competitive, and thrive in the free market of force where the means of warfare are available to anyone who can afford them.

conclusion

The use of private military companies has recently raised controversy. This is mainly due to the question of what is the benefit of using private military companies. There are mainly two factors, namely the reasons why PMC services are used today, they are economic and political factors.

One of the main arguments in support of the large involvement of PMCs in modern military operations in the new era is certainly the money they save the states that lend them money. The cost of money is a subject of debate, but in addition to this, governments claim that the amounts saved by using the services of private companies are expressed in millions. The largest savings for states and their governments are represented by specialized military services. As an example, the USA can be mentioned, which is quite dependent in this area on private companies precisely as a result of technological innovations from civilian structures. Specifically, progress in information technology requires the army to seek help from abroad. One of the reasons why private company employees have control over such equipment is that most military personnel do not have sufficient experience and expertise to develop the skills required to maintain and operate such equipment. Often, special services are borrowed because it is not logical for the military to intervene in an area that is relatively small, can be carried out for a short period of time, and moreover, would have to train personnel for this.

Political reasons, as previously noted, are primarily reflected in the covert use of PMCs in certain sensitive areas and areas. An often overlooked reason for the involvement of private military companies is that the strategy of their covert use allows the United States to provide unofficial assistance to certain groups in conditions where the United States itself may face contradictions or violations of neutrality standards, etc. However, these political motives are often criticized because they undermine the transparency of the use of PMC, and in addition leave room for various misuses.

It can be said that the data on the economic feasibility of PMCs are different. PMC employees are quite expensive, with average salaries ranging from 400 to 1000 US dollars per day. Claims that PMCs are more economically viable than maintaining standing armies are usually based on the following arguments:

• PMCs can employ personnel who are often paid significantly less.
• Governments or lending organizations do not necessarily provide PMCs with “hidden” benefits such as pensions, health care, housing, etc., as this is usually included in the agreement.
• PMCs have the ability to quickly increase the number of forces, without the costs of long-term maintenance of military capabilities or “compensation payments”; which often occur when the army is subject to rapid reductions. This allows armies to focus and prepare for a specific mission in a very short period of time.
• By performing key non-combat operations, PMCs allow armed forces to focus on core missions. An example is the security of high-ranking officials, since instead of using special forces personnel, personnel from private military companies are used, while special forces are used “where they are really needed”.

However, when considering economic feasibility, the following should also be taken into account:

• Given that they are paid on a contractual basis, rather than as a function of the number of soldiers in the field, it is difficult to compare the economic feasibility of PMCs with that of the regular army.
• PMC personnel often receive training that provides the state with the capacity to act as members of national armies, this training effectively providing financial support for the PMC itself and its operations, while the personnel move on to better-paid jobs in the private sector.

Intelligence services will continue to exploit these structures to evade oversight by the legislative and criminal justice systems in their own countries, as well as those in the countries where these structures will be deployed.

LITERATURE

• Dibrani Naim seminar topic: “Intelligence Agencies and the Formation of the Kosovo Intelligence Agency” Skopje 2011
• Loch Johnson, “Bricks and Mortar for a Theory of Intelligence,” Comparative Strategy. 22, no. 1 (2003)
• Caparini Marina, “Controlling and Overseeing Intelligence Services in Democratic States,” in DemocraticControl of Intelligence Services: Containing Rogue Elephant, ed. Hans Born and Marina Caparini (England: Ashgate, 2007)
• Abazoviq, Dr. Mirsad NATIONAL SECURITY/ FSK/S – 05/06 PRISTINA 2006, page 70
• Bahri, Barcellor’s Topic “The Role of Intelligence Services in Democratic Societies”. Pristina 2010
• Hans Born and Aidan Wills “Oversight of Intelligence Services: Toolkit” Geneva 2009Nathan, L. (1997), “Lethal Weapons: Why Africa needs alternatives to hired guns”, Track Two, 6 (2), August. The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the US Military, 2001.
• Schreier, Fred and Caparini, Marina (2005), “Privatizing Security: Law, Practice аnd Governance оf Private Military аnd Security Companies”, Occasional Paper – №6, DCAF, Geneva, March, pp 20.
• Schreier, Fred and Caparini, Marina (2005), “Privatizing Security: Law, Practice аnd Governance оf Private Military аnd Security Companies”, Occasional Paper – №6, DCAF, Geneva, March, pp 21.
• United Nations, General Assembly, A/RES/44/34, internet.
• Schreier, Fred and Caparini, Marina (2005), “Privatizing Security: Law, Practice аnd Governance оf Private Military аnd Security Companies”, Occasional Paper – №6, DCAF, Geneva, March, pp 24.
• Goddard, S. (2001), The Private Military Company: A Legitimate International Entity Within Modern Conflict, A thesis presented to the Faculty of the US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, USA.
• Petrovic, Predrag, Unijat, Milosevic, Marko (2010), Commentary on the Draft Law on Privileged Obuzujenjuu I Draft Law on Detective Jobs.
• Schreier, Fred and Caparini, Marina (2005), “Privatizing Security: Law, Practice аnd Governance оf Private Military аnd Security Companies”, Occasional Paper – №6, DCAF, Geneva, March, pp 20.
• Isenberg, D. (2004), A Fistful of Contractors: The Case for a Pragmatic Assessment of Private Military Companies in Iraq, BASIC Research Report 2004 of the British American Security Information Council, September.
• UNITA – The National Union for the Total Independence of Angola
• Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova, no. 166 of 26.12.2012, – Law on private insurance voted by the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova on 24.12.2012.
• Jordi Palou-Loverdos, Leticia Armendáriz, The Privatization of Warfare, Violence and Private Military & Security Companies, 2011,
• Navy SEAL (Sea, Air Land Teams), a special naval unit for operations at sea, in the air and on land.
• IFOR – Implementation force – the implementation forces that were the NATO-led multinational peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina with a one-year mandate from 20 December 1995 to 20 December 1996
• HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN WESTERN BALKAN: CASE STUDY OF KOSOVO, Berisha, F.,
• Dema, A., Ademi, M., Qerimi, I. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2024, 7(1), pp.
• 390–403 (Scopus, Web sc))
• The Impacts of COVID-19 as an External Socio-economic Factor in the Real
• Convergence of the Western Balkan States Toward the European Union Kukaj, D.,
• Ademi, M. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 2024, 16(1), pp. 591–604 (Scopus)
• Artificial Intelligence Technology and Human Rights Vula, V., Qerimi, I., Ademi, M.
• Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 2023, 15(4), pp. 377–388 (Scopus)
• THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION AND COMBAT OF VIOLENT
• EXTREMISM AND RADICALIZATION LEADING TO TERRORISM-WAR Ademi, M., Vula, V.
• Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2023, 6(3), pp. 192–203 (Scopus)
• The role of the police in reducing the fear of crime in the community Muharremi, D.,
• Ademi, M. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2023, 2023(2), pp. 242–254 (Scopus, Web Sc)