Today, the emergence of private military and security companies raises a number of ethical and legal issues. In this regard, the monopoly of the state on violence is one of the major concerns associated with the development and growing spread of military and security companies. At the same time, the development of operations conducted by military and security companies raises the problem of the use of violence by these companies. In addition, private military and security companies often face a threat of being involved in military conflicts and the question of their legal status in the area of the military conflict. For instance, the status of employees of private military and security companies can hardly be defined clearly in terms of the Geneva Conventions because, on the one hand, they are not civilians, whereas, on the other hand, they are not participants of the conflict. In addition, the current development of private military and security companies raises the risk of their further transformation into active military units that may take part in the military actions to prevent the attack on the secured area, which they defend. In such a way, the problem of the legitimacy and accountability of private military and security companies is very important and affects consistently the development of military operations today and the position of states in relation to such companies.
Historically, the monopoly of the state on violence was unchallengeable because the state only could use the military to conduct military operations both defensive and offensive. However, in recent years, the emergence of private military and security companies has started to change the current situation in regard to the monopoly of the state on the use of violence. The government traditionally controlled military units, while any military units were outlaws because the state traditionally viewed such units as a threat to the national security. At the same time, today, the emergence of private military and security companies is often welcomed by governments because these companies provide military and security services, training, equipment, intelligence and other services, which government may need. As a result, today, governments often prefer to outsource such defensive services instead of using their army to perform such functions as defense of certain areas or buildings, for instance. As a result, private military and security companies progress and are operating widely in areas of military conflicts. Remarkably, today, Iraq is the major area of operations of private military and security companies because this is the area of the military tension, where the risk of attacks on different areas and buildings is high and companies as well as the government need services of private military and security companies, which are not limited to the defense services but also include intelligence services, supply services, logistics and other services, which are particularly important in the area of military operations.IN such a way, states refuse from the monopoly on violence and outsource some services, which used to be performed by the military solely which were under the full control of the government.