It has been designed to apply in complex security environments, meaning any areas experiencing or recovering from unrest or instability, whether due to natural disasters or armed conflicts, where the rule of law has been substantially undermined, and in which the capacity of the state authority to handle the situation is diminished, limited, or non-existent.
[2][3] In contrast, the Code has been accepted by a significant number of companies, and is supported by states and civil society organizations: As of June 1, 2013, 659 private security providers were signatories to the ICoC.
"[6] In February 2013 representatives from signatory companies, civil society and governments negotiated the Charter for the Oversight Mechanism of the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (called ‘Articles of Association’).
The overarching purpose of this Association is to promote the responsible provision of private security services and respect for human rights and national and international law by exercising independent governance and oversight of the Code.
The first time, a "code of conduct" was mentioned in order to close a regulatory gap was in a scientific article about human rights violations by private service providers in Abu Ghraib.
The argument was "...a common normative standard of human rights obligations would provide a gernal legal framework which would shape national legislation and international dispute settlement.
[...] the definition of direct obligations is a first step which could be implemented by states via regulation, by international organizations via monitoring and advice, by NGOs as independent watch-dogs and by business itself with a code of conduct.
In parallel to the Montreux Document a Draft of a Code of Conduct was published as an Occasional Position Paper of the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.