Suchergebnisse

The Global Slavery Index (GSI), which has been produced by the Walk Free Foundation in 2013, 2014 and 2016, seeks to calculate the number of victims of human trafficking (or 'modern slavery') in each country and to assess and rank government responses. Using the latest iteration of the Index, this article examines each of the three elements (vulnerability measurement; prevalence measurement and response measurement), making some preliminary findings about the quality of the methodology and its application under each heading. It concludes with a consideration of two broader issues: (i) the conspicuous lack of critical engagement with the Index; and (ii) what the Index reveals about the changing face of anti-trafficking/anti-slavery work—most particularly, the growing involvement of metrics-focused strategic philanthropy in defining the 'problem' and directing responses.

The Global Slavery Index (GSI), which has been produced by the Walk Free Foundation in 2013, 2014 and 2016, seeks to calculate the number of victims of human trafficking (or 'modern slavery') in each country and to assess and rank government responses. Using the latest iteration of the Index, this article examines each of the three elements (vulnerability measurement; prevalence measurement and response measurement), making some preliminary findings about the quality of the methodology and its application under each heading. It concludes with a consideration of two broader issues: (i) the conspicuous lack of critical engagement with the Index; and (ii) what the Index reveals about the changing face of anti-trafficking/anti-slavery work—most particularly, the growing involvement of metrics-focused strategic philanthropy in defining the 'problem' and directing responses.

Having been guest editor of the very first issue of the Anti-Trafficking Review, it was with great pleasure that I accepted the invitation of the editorial board to oversee the production of its sixth issue. Back in 2012 I identified the emergence of the Anti-Trafficking Review, thefirst specialist journal on human trafficking, as a watershed moment, signalling the transformation of'trafficking' from a niche (perhaps even a fringe) academic sub-discipline into a legitimate, substantial and discrete area of study. The past four years since its launch have vindicated that assessment. New specialist journals on trafficking and its variants have been launched, and the range and depth of research being undertaken in this field has significantly expanded. While law, sociology and human rights continue to be the dominant lenses through which trafficking is studied, analysed and explained, there is no denying the expanding and enriching influence of other disciplines: from geography to anthropology; from health sciences to migration studies. These changes in research and writing around trafficking have brought tangible benefits: helping improve our understanding of what is happening and why, as well as strengthening the evidence base on which credible, effective responses can be built.

The Trafficking Protocol makes an easy target for attack. Its origins lie in an attempt to control a particularly exploitative form of migration that was challenging the ability of States to control their own borders. Its parent instrument is a framework agreement to address transnational organised crime. While paying fleeting attention to the rights of victims, the Protocol, with its emphasis on criminalisation and border protection is nowhere near being a human rights treaty. On top of all that it does not even have a credible enforcement mechanism, allowing states parties wide latitude in interpreting and applying their obligations. Strangely, these seemingly insurmountable flaws have not stopped the Protocol's emergence as perhaps the single most important development in the fight against human trafficking. Without the Protocol, arguments around definitions would have continued to block the evolution of principles and rules. Without the Protocol it is likely that the human rights system would have continued its shameful tradition of sidelining issues such as forced labour, forced sex, forced marriage and the ritual exploitation of migrant workers through debt. Most critically, the Protocol provided the impetus and template for a series of legal and political developments that, over time, have served to ameliorate some of its greatest weaknesses, including the lack of human rights protections and of a credible oversight mechanism.

The Trafficking Protocol makes an easy target for attack. Its origins lie in an attempt to control a particularly exploitative form of migration that was challenging the ability of States to control their own borders. Its parent instrument is a framework agreement to address transnational organised crime. While paying fleeting attention to the rights of victims, the Protocol, with its emphasis on criminalisation and border protection is nowhere near being a human rights treaty. On top of all that it does not even have a credible enforcement mechanism, allowing states parties wide latitude in interpreting and applying their obligations. Strangely, these seemingly insurmountable flaws have not stopped the Protocol's emergence as perhaps the single most important development in the fight against human trafficking. Without the Protocol, arguments around definitions would have continued to block the evolution of principles and rules. Without the Protocol it is likely that the human rights system would have continued its shameful tradition of sidelining issues such as forced labour, forced sex, forced marriage and the ritual exploitation of migrant workers through debt. Most critically, the Protocol provided the impetus and template for a series of legal and political developments that, over time, have served to ameliorate some of its greatest weaknesses, including the lack of human rights protections and of a credible oversight mechanism.

In 2000, the United States Congress passed the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act requiring its State Department to issue annual Trafficking in Persons Reports (TIP Reports) describing "the nature and extent of severe forms of trafficking in persons" and assessing governmental efforts across the world to combat such trafficking against criteria established by US law. This article examines the opportunities and risks presented by the TIP Reports, tracing their evolution over the past decade and considering their impact on the behavior of states. In looking to the future, the article focuses on how this influential unilateral compliance mechanism could improve its legitimacy, respond to negative impacts, and better contribute to the international legal regime around trafficking. Adapted from the source document.