Sexual offending, pros2tu2on, and human trafficking
MODULE 1: TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS
Legal instruments
Level Instrument Info
UN 2000 Trafficking Protocol to - With several protocols
UN TOC Conven2on = - UN Conven4on against Transna4onal Organised Crime.
Palermo Conven2on - This is supplemented by two separate but important protocols: the Trafficking Protocol (2000) and the Smuggling
Protocol (2000).
- Both phenomena may be connected some4mes (evolve frome the one into the other) BUT fundamentally the
defini4ons are different – the protected value is different.
o Why do we criminalize smuggling? To protect the territory. To make sure that people do NOT enter our territory
of we don’t want them.
o Why do we criminalize trafficking? The person concerned; the individual; the human rights.
UN 1950 Conven2on on THB - This is a very bad legal instrument. It’s completely outdated, paternalist conven4on because it pleads for aboli4onism
and exploita2on (afschaffing) when it comes to pros4tu4on.
pros2tu2on - The feminist lobby is promo4ng this instrument as the future.
- The conven4on wrongly mixes human trafficking with all forms of pros4tu4on. It fails to include modern insights on
trafficking, which require the element of means (such as force, coercion, or decep4on). This prevents a nuanced legal
approach that dis4nguishes between forced ('mala fide') and consensual ('bona fide') sex work.
- A prac4cal obstacle to regula4on and legaliza4on: For countries that are part of this conven4on, it is difficult to legalize
or regulate pros4tu4on because the conven4on criminalizes the economic organiza4on of sex work. This creates a
paradox where pros4tu4on itself is not illegal, but all suppor4ng ac4vi4es (like adver4sing or ren4ng out spaces) are.
As a result, sex workers and business owners are leX in an 'unstable' and 'grey zone' environment, making it impossible
for sex workers to work as self-employed or gain a stable legal posi4on.
- The conven4on is based on the idea that a person’s consent to pros4tu4on is either irrelevant or impossible. This goes
against modern views on sexual autonomy and the ability of people to make their own choices about their bodies and
sexuality.
- More and more countries are moving toward tolerance, decriminaliza4on, or regula4on, which stands in sharp contrast
to the conven4on’s rigid posi4on.
- The focus on 'women as vic4ms' in the aboli4onist model (inspired by this conven4on) ignores the reality of men and
trans people in sex work.
1
, CoE 2005 Warsaw Conven2on - More modern, same approach as 2000 protocol. When it comes to the core defini4on and approach for human
on THB trafficking, the UN standard is being taken over in this CoE conven4on.
- Its more human rights focused than the UN protocol.
EU 2002 Framework Decision - This is the first hard law instrument.
- They obligate their members to criminalize trafficking when certain cons4tute elements are there. They require member
states to come with minimum sanc4ons for that behavior.
EU 2004 Residence permit - It’s good because it’s protec4ve, but bad because it instrumentalize vic4ms.
direc2ve for THB vic2ms
EU 2011 Direc2ve on THB, - The more humanitarian perspec4ves from Warsaw were taken over. The EU has done more. It’s more advanced.
repealing the 2002 - It picks up the en4re framework decision with important addi4ons.
Frramework Decision - Amended by direc4ve 2024/1712: we have new edi4ons and chances.
- A predecessor instrument from 1996 existed but was non-binding (soX law), a joint ac4on.
Gender-neutral criminal law approach
- Criminal law tries to formulate things is a gender-neutral fashion. However, we shouldn’t be ignorant or in denial of the fact that woman are facing par4cular
vulnerabili4es especially in countries where we have feminiza4on of poverty, gender discrimina4on, lack of opportuni4es.
o A gender-neutral approach does not rule out that gender-specific policies may be necessary and even crucial when there are specific vulnerabili4es.
- The percep4on of human trafficking as mainly a women’s issue related to sexual exploita4on has changed. In Belgium, most vic4ms of human trafficking are now men,
especially in the context of labor exploita4on.
- Models like the Swedish model, which criminalize clients of sex workers and portray men as perpetrators and women as vic4ms, are cri4cized. These models are
heavily influenced by gender stereotypes and are seen as paternalis4c because they deny the free choice of (female) sex workers and ignore the reality of male and
child pros4tu4on. Such policies can push sex work underground and harm the rights of sex workers, including women who fight for their right to do sex work.
Current mainstream criminal law defini2on
- Trafficking is BAD when it consists of the following 3 cons4tuent elements (art. 3 - 2000 protocol):
o Movement
o Means
§ If the person is a child, the second element is unnecessary.
§ In BE this element is also NOT required.
§ The consent of the person involved is irrelevant.
• Some4mes vic4ms don’t feel like vic4ms. We can’t build on the consent.
o Envisaged exploita4on (the idea suffices)
§ This doesn’t need to happen or have happened yet! If it is envisaged, it suffices. As soon as we’re moving someone with bad means for the sake of
exploita4on even if the lager doesn’t happen, it is trafficking.
• Art. 3 – 2002 protocol.
• (11) – direc4ve 2011/36/EU
2
, • Art. 2 – direc4ve 2024/1712
§ The rise of online recruitment and exploita4on has been reflected in recent EU updates. Online methods of coercion and exploita4on, such as through
social media or webcam services, are increasingly common. Even though the online aspect may not always be explicitly stated, it is clear that any of
the three elements of trafficking can occur in digital spaces.
Knowing use of services offered by THB vic2ms
- COE 2005 Conven4on & 2011 EU THB Direc4ve – NOT compelling.
- These instruments did not impose a binding obliga4on on states to criminalize individuals who knowingly use the services of trafficking vic4ms. They only invited
states to consider such criminaliza4on to address demand. At the 4me, the focus was on tackling the demand side.
o Argument: if you take away the demand, the supply will stop.
§ The argument is limited because the phenomenon of human trafficking and sex work is much more complex than a simple supply-and-demand
dynamic. Trafficking is NOT en4rely demand driven.
§ People are oXen forced into exploita4ve situa4ons by a range of 'push factors' and inherent vulnerabili4es, regardless of the external demand for their
services.
EU amending direc2ve (2024) – art. 18a
- The inten4onal use of services provided by a vic4m of human trafficking, while knowing that the person was a vic4m.
- The EU proposal is neutral – it doesn’t mager in what sphere the exploita4on is.
- UK: have come with an act which takes a point of departure that ALL sex workers are offering forced sex work. This means that clients are punishable unless they can
prove themselves that the sex worker was NOT forced.
o This is incompa4ble with criminal law (presump4on of innocence).
o They wanted to be tough on sex work.
o They state “we want to protect woman against trafficking” but in fact they are denying women, men and transpeople the choice about their own sexual
integrity and choices related to selling sexual services.
o They didn’t do this in any other sphere.
- We need to be tough on demand if the demand is for forced pros4tu4on BUT this is limited! There are not a lot of clients that are in a targeted fashion searching to
buy sex offered by someone who is forces to have sex. Clients oXen report this when woman are being beaten up for pros4tu4on!
- How to opera4onalize?
o How can you know as a client?
§ Some situa4ons may be outspoken (a woman beaten up that is ‘offered to you’).
§ NL: they started with licenses. Their arguments were then that clients should be able to prove that they bought services from a sex worker within a
licensed organiza4on. That would require clients to keep receipts etc. but within this sphere they do not always want to keep their receipts (taboo-ish
sphere).
§ Possible answer: trough quality labels & due diligence from user perspec4ve.
• Which would inform poten4al buyers of sexual services of the circumstances.
• To combat human trafficking and exploita4on, and to ensure legality and ethical standards.
3
, • They help to clearly dis4nguish between the 'bona fide' (legi4mate, in good faith) and 'mala fide' (exploita4ve, in bad faith) parts of the sex
industry. By decriminalizing the legi4mate side, it becomes easier to draw a clearer line between legi4mate pros4tu4on and human trafficking.
o For them to avoid prosecu4on for knowing use.
o It is not because the law criminalizes whoever earns money based on someone else’s consensual sex that all the people who earn
money based on someone else’s consensual sex are traffickers. One of the possibili4es you may have is to introduce something that
will make clear that this is a safe zone (bona fide) for police, clients etc.
• This allows businesses to be monitored for compliance with established standards and enables clients to make informed and ethical choices.
• A public mechanism that gives clients the op4on to make an informed choice acts as an economic incen4ve for legi4mate providers of sexual
services. It gives them a compe44ve advantage and ul4mately reduces exploita4on and human trafficking.
Liability legal persons
- It is a common thing (at both UN, CoE and EU level) that we require accountability of legal persons for offenses. Important to provide that legal persons can be held
liable of (facilita4ng) trafficking.
o This happens for all the domains in which the EU requires a min. criminaliza4on. The sort of law we use to enforce it & to punish it may vary.
o Na4onal extension of extra-territorial jurisdic4on for offences commiged for benefit of a legal person established in a state’s territory, could be envisaged.
§ Where you can argue that a corpora4on has his main establishment in Belgium so whatever ac4vity they are performing abroad, it should also trigger
extra territorial competence for our courts even if the trafficking behavior takes place abroad. This is a parallel that could be drawn for natural persons
and legal persons.
- Prof: he is a non-believer in criminal law because you can only use it when everything else has failed. Why don’t we work with quality standards?
o Quality labels encourage businesses not to 'wait un4l they are held liable.' They require companies to monitor their 'supply chains' and the 'working condi4ons'
of subcontractors to prevent 'slavery-like' situa4ons.
Interna2onal coopera2on in criminal ma`ers
- Because many cases are interna4onalized. Where do you apply criminal law? Only on your territory or also outside?
- NO universal jurisdic4on
o EU direc4ve: territorial jurisdic4on + ac4ve personality without double criminality.
o BUT here: even if you are commiqng trafficking outside the EU (you don’t have the certainty that the same defini4ons apply) and you’re doing trafficking
according to the EU defini4on, it’s punishable even if it isn’t according to the country you’re doing it in.
o Some are pleading for universal jurisdic4on = doesn’t mager where the crime was commiged, if a person who is not a na4onal does something to someone
that isn’t na4onal either, I can hold them accountable even if it wasn’t on my territory either.
§ Prof: According to him we need to avoid it as much as possible except for interna4onal core crimes (genocide, war crimes etc.).
- EU: Range of agencies dealing with it
o Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, JITs…
- They did research into the extent that trafficking really was involving organized transna4onal crime. Their conclusion was that (based of the UN defini4on) the presence
of transna4onal organized crime in human trafficking was extremely limited. It is largely happening by lose networks and most of the 4mes within countries or the EU.
- Controlled delivery
o Special inves4ga4on technique in the drug sphere.
4
, o Deliveries, shipments etc. are happening all the 4me. Some4mes police or customs are keeping an eye on the transport across borders silently without
intervening to unravel the network behind it.
§ CEO: only level which formally has prohibited the use of controlled delivery in trafficking cases.
- Interna4onal witness protec4on & video conference hearing
o Because people may be killed. We have witness reloca4on schemes in certain circumstances, but it’s NOT sufficient.
o usually not covered in mul4-/bilateral conven4ons concluded with tradi4onal countries of origin.
THB & Migra2on policy
- Voluntary human smuggling is oXen wrongly portrayed as human trafficking. While smuggling can make people vulnerable and may lead to exploita4on, there is a
fundamental legal difference: smuggling involves the illegal transporta4on of people with their consent (oXen in exchange for payment), whereas trafficking always
involves coercion, fraud, or abuse of vulnerability for the purpose of exploita4on.
- THB instrumentalized for comba4ng smuggling (which indeed vic4mizes people) and, hence, illegal migra4on.
o It is easier as poli4cian to sell that you are figh4ng traffickers than stopping migra4on, but you are figh4ng migra4on.
- Criminalizing and restric4ng migra4on increase the risk of exploita4on and human trafficking, while allowing legal and safe access to work in Europe can help reduce
these problems.
o We may put people in danger – we are adding to their vulnerability.
o We are tough on smuggling, because we don’t want smugglers to facilitate illegal entry NOT to protect people.
o They do it for our sake and to protect our wealth.
- Possible solu4on: crea4on of more legal migra4on possibili4es.
o It can also help tackle the ageing of the European workforce: we simply need more workers.
o Informa4on campaigns in countries of origin are important to raise awareness about people’s rights, the risks of smuggling and trafficking, and safe migra4on
op4ons.
o In the labour sector, it is important to consider exis4ng EU rules on labour mobility (such as the Pos4ng of Workers Direc4ve), as well as the significant
differences in working and living condi4ons between EU member states. These factors can foster exploita4on, even within legal frameworks.
o There may also be a need to regulate migra4on in the sex work sector.
Smuggling, carrier liability and false documents
- Warning: making migra4on rules stricter (like punishing transport companies, criminalizing false documents, and punishing people who offer help) does not stop
migra4on, but pushes people into dangerous, illegal situa4ons. This strengthens smuggling networks and increases the risk of human trafficking. The "Fortress Europe"
approach does not address the root causes but shuts people out — even when they have good reasons to come or simply need help.
- The policy wrongly treats smugglers and human traffickers as the same to gain poli4cal support for tough measures. This hides the fact that the policy itself makes
migrants more vulnerable, pretending to protect them while increasing their risk of exploita4on.
- Solu4ons?
o The exis4ng op4ons for legal migra4on within the EU, like the Blue Card, seasonal work, and intra-corporate pos4ng (workers temporarily moving to another
EU country within the same company), do help, but they don’t change the daily reality for all migrants. The problem is that migra4on is oXen seen as a problem
instead of an opportunity. But the reality is that Europe, because of an aging popula4on and fewer workers, will need many migrants in the future to, for
example, pay for pensions.
5
,Labor and social security law perspec2ve
- Historically: early 90’s trafficking was defined as something in the sexual sphere. The agen4on for exploita4on in the labor sphere and economic has come later.
- Control by social inspec4ons
o There are inspec4on services that check if working condi4ons are good. Some4mes the work is almost like slavery (for example, bad pay or long working
hours). These inspec4ons are very important to find such situa4ons. But not every viola4on of labor rules means there is human trafficking. For example, if
someone is paid one euro less than the official minimum wage, some people call that "slavery." But is that really human trafficking? Probably not. It is bad and
illegal, but it is not the same as human trafficking. This also happens within the EU, for example when Bulgarians want to work in Belgium for less than the
minimum wage because they earn even less in Bulgaria. This is a problem, but it is not human trafficking.
- Human trafficking oXen happens in the EU, especially with people from outside the EU who are already in the EU. Some4mes they don’t have legal papers or have
debts, so they get exploited.
o Human trafficking doesn’t always mean crossing a border. It can happen inside one EU country or between different EU countries.
o Some EU rules make it easier for companies to send workers temporarily to other EU countries or to offer services. But these rules can some4mes be misused,
for example:
§ Pos2ng Direc2ve: This rule is about sending workers temporarily to another EU country. Some4mes it is abused, and workers get exploited.
§ Services Direc2ve: This rule says that self-employed people can offer services anywhere in the EU, including work. But some4mes this is used to make
workers look like “fake self-employed,” so they don’t get proper protec4ons.
Addi2onal problem for vic2ms employed and exploited in sex industry = UN 1950 Trafficking Conven2on
- This is about a difficult problem for vic4ms who work and are exploited in the sex industry, related to the UN Trafficking Conven4on (1950).
- Pros4tu4on itself is not illegal, but it is oXen NOT recognized as a real profession. It is mostly just tolerated, not officially regulated. To beger protect sex workers from
exploita4on, their work should be recognized as a real profession and rules should be made to protect their rights.
- In a ruling by the European Court of Jus4ce (ECJ) in November 2001 - JANY, pros4tu4on was called an economic ac4vity. Sex workers have the right to work as self-
employed and offer their services within the EU, because this is an economic ac4vity.
- The problem is:
o Many EU countries are s4ll part of the 1950 UN Conven4on, which oXen sees pros4tu4on as illegal when it is organized economically (for example, by brothels
or agents). This means that in those countries, almost every form of economic organiza4on of sex work is illegal. But how can something that is an economic
ac4vity (and should be free) be illegal if it is not necessarily about exploita4on?
- In BE we have decriminaliza4on since the 1sth of December of last year we have an applica4on of a new piece of legisla4on which allows sex work under a labor
contract. In principle an employer can rely on our legisla4on and bring a third country na4onal to Belgium for sex work > official sex work.
Intra-migra2on (means: moving within the EU)
(1) Free movement, including for work
- People in the EU have the right to travel and work freely in other EU countries. This is called free movement of persons.
- Who does this apply to?
o Students: Can easily move to study in another EU country.
o Workers / Self-employed: EU ci4zens can work in any EU country, either as an employee or self-employed.
6
, o Enough money: Some4mes you need to show that you have enough money and health insurance, so you don’t depend on social help in the country you move
to.
o Permanent residence: AXer living for 5 years without interrup4on, you can get permanent residence.
o Non-EU family members: Can join you through family reunifica4on.
- Problems that can happen:
o Fake marriages: Some people get married just to get residence rights, without a real rela4onship. This is considered abuse and is not allowed.
o Expulsion or removal: EU ci4zens normally can’t be removed from another EU country, except in very serious cases, like if they are a threat to public order or
health.
- 2014 Direc2ve on Workers' Rights: this EU law makes sure that all EU workers have the same rights and working condi4ons, no mager which EU country they work
in.
- Special cases with new member states: when countries like Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU, some older EU countries wanted to temporarily limit the work
rights of people from those countries. They did this to protect their own job markets, because many job seekers came from Romania and Bulgaria.
o Problem with fake self-employment: many people from those countries came to work as “self-employed” because they were not yet allowed to work as
regular employees. But they were working like employees, just without legal protec4on. This is called “fake self-employment” and it’s bad for the workers
because they don’t have the same rights or job security.
o Cri2cism and interests: trade unions in some countries said that these EU rules put pressure on their own job markets. But oXen they were more focused on
protec4ng their own workers than on helping the migrant workers from other EU countries.
(2) Pos2ng of workers
- A company from one EU country (for example, Lithuania) is allowed to offer services in another EU country (like Belgium). They can bring their own workers to do
temporary work (for example, in construc4on). This is called pos4ng. These workers stay under the social security system of their home country (Lithuania), which is
usually cheaper. But for working condi4ons (like working hours, safety rules, and minimum wage), they must follow the rules of the country where they are working
(Belgium). The law says they must be paid the minimum wage of the host country, but not the full local salary. As a result, foreign companies can work more cheaply
than local companies. They only must pay the minimum, so they are more likely to win contracts. This is called social dumping: using foreign workers to lower labor
costs.
o A new direc4ve was introduced to solve these problems:
§ Equal pay: Not just minimum wage, but also bonuses and allowances must be the same as for local workers.
§ Time limit: Pos4ng can last a maximum of 12 months, or 18 months with an extension. AXer that, the worker must follow all labor laws of the host
country.
§ Equal treatment of temporary agency workers and regular workers.
§ Countries like Poland, Hungary, and Romania protested:
• They say the new rules make it harder for their workers to access Western European job markets.
• They argue: "If we have to pay our workers the same as Western Europeans, we can't compete."
o Yellow card by Eastern European countries (a NO GO).
o Western EU MS have been represen4ng social dumping as trafficking because if they represent it that way, they signal that they care
about the working condi4ons of those people BUT essen4ally thy are worrying about the protec4on of our own labor market! = falsely
linked with trafficking.
7
, o We need to clearly separate real exploita4on (human trafficking) from social dumping or breaking labor laws.
• For them, pos4ng is a way to catch up economically with richer EU countries.
• Figh4ng fraud: companies that create fake setups (like Belgian firms opening fake companies in Eastern Europe to bring in cheap labor) are
being tackled.
Trafficking in human beings
Policies
- The 4P paradigm = 4 key element in building an4trafficking policies
o Prosecu4on
§ All EU countries must make trafficking a crime in their na4onal laws.
§ The EU can also set a minimum standard for the maximum sentence. For example: "this type of trafficking must carry a maximum prison sentence of
at least 12 years."
§ In many countries, prosecutors can choose whether to start a case or not (this is called the opportunity principle). Only a few countries always
prosecute crimes automa4cally. In real trafficking cases, the state must inves4gate and prosecute. This is a human rights issue (see the Rantsev v
Cyprus case at the European Court of Human Rights).
§ Because trafficking oXen happens across countries, states are legally required to cooperate – for example: sharing evidence, joint inves4ga4ons and
extradi4ng suspects.
o Protec4on
§ EU 2004 Direc4ve – residence permit if the vic4m cooperates.
• Vic4ms can get a temporary residence permit if they agree to help the police or jus4ce system (for example, by giving tes4mony).
• They first get a reflec4on period, where they can think about whether they want to cooperate. During this 4me, they get shelter and support.
• Cri4cism: This system mainly uses vic4ms as tools to catch traffickers. If they don’t help (or are no longer needed), they are oXen sent back —
but many would prefer to stay and rebuild their lives.
• Some countries, like Italy, did things differently: they first protected vic4ms and gave them residence, even without coopera4on. This made
vic4ms more willing to talk.
• The 2005 Council of Europe Conven4on also suggested that countries should offer residence permits even if vic4ms do not help the police.
It’s not required but encouraged.
§ EU 2011 Direc4ve – support without needing coopera4on
• This newer direc4ve says vic4ms should always get help and protec4on, even if they don’t talk to the police.
• Help includes things like medical care, psychological support, housing, and more.
• Vic4ms also get special rights in criminal procedures (for example, not being forced to face their trafficker in court).
• There’s a non-punishment rule: vic4ms should not be punished for crimes they were forced to commit (like entering the country illegally or
working in pros4tu4on). This rule helps vic4ms feel safe enough to talk to the police without fear of being arrested or deported.
§ Finding and iden4fying vic4ms is difficult
• Vic4ms are oXen undocumented (they don’t carry papers), because bringing ID can get them refused at the border.
• It can also be hard to know how old a vic4m is — especially important when the vic4m is a child.
8
, § Na4onal and cross-border coopera4on
• Police, prosecutors, social workers, immigra4on services, and shelters must work together.
• They must help vic4ms understand their rights, guide them through the system, and provide proper care.
§ Extra focus on child trafficking and informa4on for migrants
• Special agen4on is given to children, who are more vulnerable.
• The EU also runs informa2on campaigns to tell people the truth about life and work in Europe.
→ These campaigns try to prevent false hopes, but also warn people about risks like exploita4on or trafficking.
o Preven4on
§ Informa2on and Awareness Campaigns: the EU uses posters, leaflets, and campaigns to inform people—especially in countries where vic4ms oXen
come from—about the risks of human trafficking. The idea is that if people are beger informed, they might not fall into the hands of traffickers or may
decide not to migrate in dangerous ways.
§ Limi2ng Irregular Migra2on: some policymakers believe that reducing illegal migra4on helps prevent trafficking, since many vic4ms are
undocumented migrants. However, this is controversial. If people have no legal ways to migrate, they might turn to smugglers, which increases their
risk of being trafficked.
§ Tackling Demand: human trafficking exists because there is a demand for cheap labor, forced sex work, and other exploita4ve services. That’s why the
EU wants to reduce this demand. They promote:
• Consumer awareness (e.g., knowing if your clothes were made using exploited workers),
• Company responsibility (like checking supply chains for human trafficking),
• Codes of conduct and stricter business rules,
• Criminalizing people who knowingly use services or goods from trafficking vic4ms (e.g., paying for sex with someone who is being exploited).
§ Some feminists say the root of trafficking is the unequal power between men and women, which creates demand for things like paid sex. Others point
out that some approaches (like criminalizing sex work) can be unclear or even harmful, especially when vic4ms don’t fit the “perfect vic4m” image
(poor, naive, helpless).
§ So, while it’s important to fight demand, it’s also important to be careful and avoid blaming or harming vic4ms in the process.
o Partnerships
§ To fight human trafficking effec4vely, many different actors need to work together. It's not just the job of the police — a wide network of people and
organiza4ons is needed. This includes police officers, border guards, immigra4on and asylum officials, public prosecutors, lawyers, judges and court
staff, housing, labor, health, social and safety inspectors, civil society organiza4ons, social and youth workers, consumer organiza4ons, trade unions,
employers' organiza4ons, temporary job agencies, recruitment agencies, consular and diploma4c staff, legal guardians, legal representa4ves, and
child and vic4m support services.
§ Each of these actors has an important role in detec4ng, preven4ng, and responding to trafficking. That’s why it is essen4al they coordinate well, share
informa4on, and work in a mul4disciplinary way. This joined-up approach is key to building a strong and effec4ve an4-trafficking policy.
Increased knowledge – what do we know? Do we have reliable sta2s2cs?
- The EU wants to improve how countries deal with human trafficking by making policies more based on facts and data. But comparing data between countries is
difficult, because not all countries use the same defini4on of trafficking. Also, when a country works hard to find and stop trafficking, the number of cases will look
9
, higher — even if the problem isn’t worse than in other places. That’s why every country should have a na2onal rapporteur (an expert or organiza4on) to follow up on
the situa4on and report regularly. This role has been made stronger in a 2024 proposal to update EU laws.
- There is also more focus on vulnerable groups, like children who travel alone, Roma children, children with disabili4es, and those who leave school early. The EU also
wants to pay more agen4on to the gender dimension, because men and women oXen experience different forms of trafficking.
- Another important issue is online trafficking. Traffickers use the internet and social media to find and control vic4ms. The EU now wants to make it very clear in the
law that trafficking can also happen online, and that this is a crime too.
- At the same 4me, the EU is asking internet companies and plaeorms (like social media) to help stop online trafficking. For example, they are asked to block certain
websites or detect suspicious messages. This already happens with online terrorism or child sexual abuse. But it can be worrying, because it means these companies
read and check a lot of what we say online, which can be a privacy problem.
MODULE 2: PROSTITUTION AND SEX WORK
Legal instruments
Level Instrument Info
UN 1993 Interna2onal This was an early agreement between countries to try to stop the trafficking of adult women.
Conven2on for the This conven4on was later used as a basis for the 1950 UN Conven2on on trafficking. So, many ideas from 1933 were kept and
suppression of the traffic in built upon in the newer version.
Women of Full Age At the 4me, the way they looked at pros4tu4on was very different from today:
• Pros2tu2on was seen as morally wrong. It wasn’t just about stopping abuse — it was also about stopping pros4tu4on
because people thought it was immoral.
• Even adult women who agreed to work in pros2tu2on were not seen as truly able to give consent. So the conven4on
said: “Even if a woman agrees to be involved, we s4ll see it as exploita4on and trafficking.”
UN 1950 UN Trafficking The 1950 UN Trafficking Conven4on takes a strict aboli4onist view on pros4tu4on. It does not criminalize being a sex worker,
Conven2on but it does criminalize all ac4vi4es related to organizing or profi4ng from pros4tu4on, like ren4ng rooms or adver4sing. The
conven4on assumes that women in pros4tu4on cannot truly consent, so it treats pros4tu4on itself as something harmful that
should be eliminated.
Later, the 2000 Palermo Protocol introduced a clearer legal defini4on of trafficking, focusing on cases involving force, coercion,
or decep4on. This protocol dis4nguishes between forced and consensual sex work. However, it does not override the older 1950
Conven4on. As a result, many countries are s4ll legally bound by the aboli4onist approach, which creates confusion and legal
challenges.
Because of this, in many places, while sex work itself is not illegal, ac4vi4es around it oXen are. This makes it hard to create a
safe and stable environment for sex workers. For example, brothel owners or managers risk prosecu4on, even if they operate
10
MODULE 1: TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS
Legal instruments
Level Instrument Info
UN 2000 Trafficking Protocol to - With several protocols
UN TOC Conven2on = - UN Conven4on against Transna4onal Organised Crime.
Palermo Conven2on - This is supplemented by two separate but important protocols: the Trafficking Protocol (2000) and the Smuggling
Protocol (2000).
- Both phenomena may be connected some4mes (evolve frome the one into the other) BUT fundamentally the
defini4ons are different – the protected value is different.
o Why do we criminalize smuggling? To protect the territory. To make sure that people do NOT enter our territory
of we don’t want them.
o Why do we criminalize trafficking? The person concerned; the individual; the human rights.
UN 1950 Conven2on on THB - This is a very bad legal instrument. It’s completely outdated, paternalist conven4on because it pleads for aboli4onism
and exploita2on (afschaffing) when it comes to pros4tu4on.
pros2tu2on - The feminist lobby is promo4ng this instrument as the future.
- The conven4on wrongly mixes human trafficking with all forms of pros4tu4on. It fails to include modern insights on
trafficking, which require the element of means (such as force, coercion, or decep4on). This prevents a nuanced legal
approach that dis4nguishes between forced ('mala fide') and consensual ('bona fide') sex work.
- A prac4cal obstacle to regula4on and legaliza4on: For countries that are part of this conven4on, it is difficult to legalize
or regulate pros4tu4on because the conven4on criminalizes the economic organiza4on of sex work. This creates a
paradox where pros4tu4on itself is not illegal, but all suppor4ng ac4vi4es (like adver4sing or ren4ng out spaces) are.
As a result, sex workers and business owners are leX in an 'unstable' and 'grey zone' environment, making it impossible
for sex workers to work as self-employed or gain a stable legal posi4on.
- The conven4on is based on the idea that a person’s consent to pros4tu4on is either irrelevant or impossible. This goes
against modern views on sexual autonomy and the ability of people to make their own choices about their bodies and
sexuality.
- More and more countries are moving toward tolerance, decriminaliza4on, or regula4on, which stands in sharp contrast
to the conven4on’s rigid posi4on.
- The focus on 'women as vic4ms' in the aboli4onist model (inspired by this conven4on) ignores the reality of men and
trans people in sex work.
1
, CoE 2005 Warsaw Conven2on - More modern, same approach as 2000 protocol. When it comes to the core defini4on and approach for human
on THB trafficking, the UN standard is being taken over in this CoE conven4on.
- Its more human rights focused than the UN protocol.
EU 2002 Framework Decision - This is the first hard law instrument.
- They obligate their members to criminalize trafficking when certain cons4tute elements are there. They require member
states to come with minimum sanc4ons for that behavior.
EU 2004 Residence permit - It’s good because it’s protec4ve, but bad because it instrumentalize vic4ms.
direc2ve for THB vic2ms
EU 2011 Direc2ve on THB, - The more humanitarian perspec4ves from Warsaw were taken over. The EU has done more. It’s more advanced.
repealing the 2002 - It picks up the en4re framework decision with important addi4ons.
Frramework Decision - Amended by direc4ve 2024/1712: we have new edi4ons and chances.
- A predecessor instrument from 1996 existed but was non-binding (soX law), a joint ac4on.
Gender-neutral criminal law approach
- Criminal law tries to formulate things is a gender-neutral fashion. However, we shouldn’t be ignorant or in denial of the fact that woman are facing par4cular
vulnerabili4es especially in countries where we have feminiza4on of poverty, gender discrimina4on, lack of opportuni4es.
o A gender-neutral approach does not rule out that gender-specific policies may be necessary and even crucial when there are specific vulnerabili4es.
- The percep4on of human trafficking as mainly a women’s issue related to sexual exploita4on has changed. In Belgium, most vic4ms of human trafficking are now men,
especially in the context of labor exploita4on.
- Models like the Swedish model, which criminalize clients of sex workers and portray men as perpetrators and women as vic4ms, are cri4cized. These models are
heavily influenced by gender stereotypes and are seen as paternalis4c because they deny the free choice of (female) sex workers and ignore the reality of male and
child pros4tu4on. Such policies can push sex work underground and harm the rights of sex workers, including women who fight for their right to do sex work.
Current mainstream criminal law defini2on
- Trafficking is BAD when it consists of the following 3 cons4tuent elements (art. 3 - 2000 protocol):
o Movement
o Means
§ If the person is a child, the second element is unnecessary.
§ In BE this element is also NOT required.
§ The consent of the person involved is irrelevant.
• Some4mes vic4ms don’t feel like vic4ms. We can’t build on the consent.
o Envisaged exploita4on (the idea suffices)
§ This doesn’t need to happen or have happened yet! If it is envisaged, it suffices. As soon as we’re moving someone with bad means for the sake of
exploita4on even if the lager doesn’t happen, it is trafficking.
• Art. 3 – 2002 protocol.
• (11) – direc4ve 2011/36/EU
2
, • Art. 2 – direc4ve 2024/1712
§ The rise of online recruitment and exploita4on has been reflected in recent EU updates. Online methods of coercion and exploita4on, such as through
social media or webcam services, are increasingly common. Even though the online aspect may not always be explicitly stated, it is clear that any of
the three elements of trafficking can occur in digital spaces.
Knowing use of services offered by THB vic2ms
- COE 2005 Conven4on & 2011 EU THB Direc4ve – NOT compelling.
- These instruments did not impose a binding obliga4on on states to criminalize individuals who knowingly use the services of trafficking vic4ms. They only invited
states to consider such criminaliza4on to address demand. At the 4me, the focus was on tackling the demand side.
o Argument: if you take away the demand, the supply will stop.
§ The argument is limited because the phenomenon of human trafficking and sex work is much more complex than a simple supply-and-demand
dynamic. Trafficking is NOT en4rely demand driven.
§ People are oXen forced into exploita4ve situa4ons by a range of 'push factors' and inherent vulnerabili4es, regardless of the external demand for their
services.
EU amending direc2ve (2024) – art. 18a
- The inten4onal use of services provided by a vic4m of human trafficking, while knowing that the person was a vic4m.
- The EU proposal is neutral – it doesn’t mager in what sphere the exploita4on is.
- UK: have come with an act which takes a point of departure that ALL sex workers are offering forced sex work. This means that clients are punishable unless they can
prove themselves that the sex worker was NOT forced.
o This is incompa4ble with criminal law (presump4on of innocence).
o They wanted to be tough on sex work.
o They state “we want to protect woman against trafficking” but in fact they are denying women, men and transpeople the choice about their own sexual
integrity and choices related to selling sexual services.
o They didn’t do this in any other sphere.
- We need to be tough on demand if the demand is for forced pros4tu4on BUT this is limited! There are not a lot of clients that are in a targeted fashion searching to
buy sex offered by someone who is forces to have sex. Clients oXen report this when woman are being beaten up for pros4tu4on!
- How to opera4onalize?
o How can you know as a client?
§ Some situa4ons may be outspoken (a woman beaten up that is ‘offered to you’).
§ NL: they started with licenses. Their arguments were then that clients should be able to prove that they bought services from a sex worker within a
licensed organiza4on. That would require clients to keep receipts etc. but within this sphere they do not always want to keep their receipts (taboo-ish
sphere).
§ Possible answer: trough quality labels & due diligence from user perspec4ve.
• Which would inform poten4al buyers of sexual services of the circumstances.
• To combat human trafficking and exploita4on, and to ensure legality and ethical standards.
3
, • They help to clearly dis4nguish between the 'bona fide' (legi4mate, in good faith) and 'mala fide' (exploita4ve, in bad faith) parts of the sex
industry. By decriminalizing the legi4mate side, it becomes easier to draw a clearer line between legi4mate pros4tu4on and human trafficking.
o For them to avoid prosecu4on for knowing use.
o It is not because the law criminalizes whoever earns money based on someone else’s consensual sex that all the people who earn
money based on someone else’s consensual sex are traffickers. One of the possibili4es you may have is to introduce something that
will make clear that this is a safe zone (bona fide) for police, clients etc.
• This allows businesses to be monitored for compliance with established standards and enables clients to make informed and ethical choices.
• A public mechanism that gives clients the op4on to make an informed choice acts as an economic incen4ve for legi4mate providers of sexual
services. It gives them a compe44ve advantage and ul4mately reduces exploita4on and human trafficking.
Liability legal persons
- It is a common thing (at both UN, CoE and EU level) that we require accountability of legal persons for offenses. Important to provide that legal persons can be held
liable of (facilita4ng) trafficking.
o This happens for all the domains in which the EU requires a min. criminaliza4on. The sort of law we use to enforce it & to punish it may vary.
o Na4onal extension of extra-territorial jurisdic4on for offences commiged for benefit of a legal person established in a state’s territory, could be envisaged.
§ Where you can argue that a corpora4on has his main establishment in Belgium so whatever ac4vity they are performing abroad, it should also trigger
extra territorial competence for our courts even if the trafficking behavior takes place abroad. This is a parallel that could be drawn for natural persons
and legal persons.
- Prof: he is a non-believer in criminal law because you can only use it when everything else has failed. Why don’t we work with quality standards?
o Quality labels encourage businesses not to 'wait un4l they are held liable.' They require companies to monitor their 'supply chains' and the 'working condi4ons'
of subcontractors to prevent 'slavery-like' situa4ons.
Interna2onal coopera2on in criminal ma`ers
- Because many cases are interna4onalized. Where do you apply criminal law? Only on your territory or also outside?
- NO universal jurisdic4on
o EU direc4ve: territorial jurisdic4on + ac4ve personality without double criminality.
o BUT here: even if you are commiqng trafficking outside the EU (you don’t have the certainty that the same defini4ons apply) and you’re doing trafficking
according to the EU defini4on, it’s punishable even if it isn’t according to the country you’re doing it in.
o Some are pleading for universal jurisdic4on = doesn’t mager where the crime was commiged, if a person who is not a na4onal does something to someone
that isn’t na4onal either, I can hold them accountable even if it wasn’t on my territory either.
§ Prof: According to him we need to avoid it as much as possible except for interna4onal core crimes (genocide, war crimes etc.).
- EU: Range of agencies dealing with it
o Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, JITs…
- They did research into the extent that trafficking really was involving organized transna4onal crime. Their conclusion was that (based of the UN defini4on) the presence
of transna4onal organized crime in human trafficking was extremely limited. It is largely happening by lose networks and most of the 4mes within countries or the EU.
- Controlled delivery
o Special inves4ga4on technique in the drug sphere.
4
, o Deliveries, shipments etc. are happening all the 4me. Some4mes police or customs are keeping an eye on the transport across borders silently without
intervening to unravel the network behind it.
§ CEO: only level which formally has prohibited the use of controlled delivery in trafficking cases.
- Interna4onal witness protec4on & video conference hearing
o Because people may be killed. We have witness reloca4on schemes in certain circumstances, but it’s NOT sufficient.
o usually not covered in mul4-/bilateral conven4ons concluded with tradi4onal countries of origin.
THB & Migra2on policy
- Voluntary human smuggling is oXen wrongly portrayed as human trafficking. While smuggling can make people vulnerable and may lead to exploita4on, there is a
fundamental legal difference: smuggling involves the illegal transporta4on of people with their consent (oXen in exchange for payment), whereas trafficking always
involves coercion, fraud, or abuse of vulnerability for the purpose of exploita4on.
- THB instrumentalized for comba4ng smuggling (which indeed vic4mizes people) and, hence, illegal migra4on.
o It is easier as poli4cian to sell that you are figh4ng traffickers than stopping migra4on, but you are figh4ng migra4on.
- Criminalizing and restric4ng migra4on increase the risk of exploita4on and human trafficking, while allowing legal and safe access to work in Europe can help reduce
these problems.
o We may put people in danger – we are adding to their vulnerability.
o We are tough on smuggling, because we don’t want smugglers to facilitate illegal entry NOT to protect people.
o They do it for our sake and to protect our wealth.
- Possible solu4on: crea4on of more legal migra4on possibili4es.
o It can also help tackle the ageing of the European workforce: we simply need more workers.
o Informa4on campaigns in countries of origin are important to raise awareness about people’s rights, the risks of smuggling and trafficking, and safe migra4on
op4ons.
o In the labour sector, it is important to consider exis4ng EU rules on labour mobility (such as the Pos4ng of Workers Direc4ve), as well as the significant
differences in working and living condi4ons between EU member states. These factors can foster exploita4on, even within legal frameworks.
o There may also be a need to regulate migra4on in the sex work sector.
Smuggling, carrier liability and false documents
- Warning: making migra4on rules stricter (like punishing transport companies, criminalizing false documents, and punishing people who offer help) does not stop
migra4on, but pushes people into dangerous, illegal situa4ons. This strengthens smuggling networks and increases the risk of human trafficking. The "Fortress Europe"
approach does not address the root causes but shuts people out — even when they have good reasons to come or simply need help.
- The policy wrongly treats smugglers and human traffickers as the same to gain poli4cal support for tough measures. This hides the fact that the policy itself makes
migrants more vulnerable, pretending to protect them while increasing their risk of exploita4on.
- Solu4ons?
o The exis4ng op4ons for legal migra4on within the EU, like the Blue Card, seasonal work, and intra-corporate pos4ng (workers temporarily moving to another
EU country within the same company), do help, but they don’t change the daily reality for all migrants. The problem is that migra4on is oXen seen as a problem
instead of an opportunity. But the reality is that Europe, because of an aging popula4on and fewer workers, will need many migrants in the future to, for
example, pay for pensions.
5
,Labor and social security law perspec2ve
- Historically: early 90’s trafficking was defined as something in the sexual sphere. The agen4on for exploita4on in the labor sphere and economic has come later.
- Control by social inspec4ons
o There are inspec4on services that check if working condi4ons are good. Some4mes the work is almost like slavery (for example, bad pay or long working
hours). These inspec4ons are very important to find such situa4ons. But not every viola4on of labor rules means there is human trafficking. For example, if
someone is paid one euro less than the official minimum wage, some people call that "slavery." But is that really human trafficking? Probably not. It is bad and
illegal, but it is not the same as human trafficking. This also happens within the EU, for example when Bulgarians want to work in Belgium for less than the
minimum wage because they earn even less in Bulgaria. This is a problem, but it is not human trafficking.
- Human trafficking oXen happens in the EU, especially with people from outside the EU who are already in the EU. Some4mes they don’t have legal papers or have
debts, so they get exploited.
o Human trafficking doesn’t always mean crossing a border. It can happen inside one EU country or between different EU countries.
o Some EU rules make it easier for companies to send workers temporarily to other EU countries or to offer services. But these rules can some4mes be misused,
for example:
§ Pos2ng Direc2ve: This rule is about sending workers temporarily to another EU country. Some4mes it is abused, and workers get exploited.
§ Services Direc2ve: This rule says that self-employed people can offer services anywhere in the EU, including work. But some4mes this is used to make
workers look like “fake self-employed,” so they don’t get proper protec4ons.
Addi2onal problem for vic2ms employed and exploited in sex industry = UN 1950 Trafficking Conven2on
- This is about a difficult problem for vic4ms who work and are exploited in the sex industry, related to the UN Trafficking Conven4on (1950).
- Pros4tu4on itself is not illegal, but it is oXen NOT recognized as a real profession. It is mostly just tolerated, not officially regulated. To beger protect sex workers from
exploita4on, their work should be recognized as a real profession and rules should be made to protect their rights.
- In a ruling by the European Court of Jus4ce (ECJ) in November 2001 - JANY, pros4tu4on was called an economic ac4vity. Sex workers have the right to work as self-
employed and offer their services within the EU, because this is an economic ac4vity.
- The problem is:
o Many EU countries are s4ll part of the 1950 UN Conven4on, which oXen sees pros4tu4on as illegal when it is organized economically (for example, by brothels
or agents). This means that in those countries, almost every form of economic organiza4on of sex work is illegal. But how can something that is an economic
ac4vity (and should be free) be illegal if it is not necessarily about exploita4on?
- In BE we have decriminaliza4on since the 1sth of December of last year we have an applica4on of a new piece of legisla4on which allows sex work under a labor
contract. In principle an employer can rely on our legisla4on and bring a third country na4onal to Belgium for sex work > official sex work.
Intra-migra2on (means: moving within the EU)
(1) Free movement, including for work
- People in the EU have the right to travel and work freely in other EU countries. This is called free movement of persons.
- Who does this apply to?
o Students: Can easily move to study in another EU country.
o Workers / Self-employed: EU ci4zens can work in any EU country, either as an employee or self-employed.
6
, o Enough money: Some4mes you need to show that you have enough money and health insurance, so you don’t depend on social help in the country you move
to.
o Permanent residence: AXer living for 5 years without interrup4on, you can get permanent residence.
o Non-EU family members: Can join you through family reunifica4on.
- Problems that can happen:
o Fake marriages: Some people get married just to get residence rights, without a real rela4onship. This is considered abuse and is not allowed.
o Expulsion or removal: EU ci4zens normally can’t be removed from another EU country, except in very serious cases, like if they are a threat to public order or
health.
- 2014 Direc2ve on Workers' Rights: this EU law makes sure that all EU workers have the same rights and working condi4ons, no mager which EU country they work
in.
- Special cases with new member states: when countries like Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU, some older EU countries wanted to temporarily limit the work
rights of people from those countries. They did this to protect their own job markets, because many job seekers came from Romania and Bulgaria.
o Problem with fake self-employment: many people from those countries came to work as “self-employed” because they were not yet allowed to work as
regular employees. But they were working like employees, just without legal protec4on. This is called “fake self-employment” and it’s bad for the workers
because they don’t have the same rights or job security.
o Cri2cism and interests: trade unions in some countries said that these EU rules put pressure on their own job markets. But oXen they were more focused on
protec4ng their own workers than on helping the migrant workers from other EU countries.
(2) Pos2ng of workers
- A company from one EU country (for example, Lithuania) is allowed to offer services in another EU country (like Belgium). They can bring their own workers to do
temporary work (for example, in construc4on). This is called pos4ng. These workers stay under the social security system of their home country (Lithuania), which is
usually cheaper. But for working condi4ons (like working hours, safety rules, and minimum wage), they must follow the rules of the country where they are working
(Belgium). The law says they must be paid the minimum wage of the host country, but not the full local salary. As a result, foreign companies can work more cheaply
than local companies. They only must pay the minimum, so they are more likely to win contracts. This is called social dumping: using foreign workers to lower labor
costs.
o A new direc4ve was introduced to solve these problems:
§ Equal pay: Not just minimum wage, but also bonuses and allowances must be the same as for local workers.
§ Time limit: Pos4ng can last a maximum of 12 months, or 18 months with an extension. AXer that, the worker must follow all labor laws of the host
country.
§ Equal treatment of temporary agency workers and regular workers.
§ Countries like Poland, Hungary, and Romania protested:
• They say the new rules make it harder for their workers to access Western European job markets.
• They argue: "If we have to pay our workers the same as Western Europeans, we can't compete."
o Yellow card by Eastern European countries (a NO GO).
o Western EU MS have been represen4ng social dumping as trafficking because if they represent it that way, they signal that they care
about the working condi4ons of those people BUT essen4ally thy are worrying about the protec4on of our own labor market! = falsely
linked with trafficking.
7
, o We need to clearly separate real exploita4on (human trafficking) from social dumping or breaking labor laws.
• For them, pos4ng is a way to catch up economically with richer EU countries.
• Figh4ng fraud: companies that create fake setups (like Belgian firms opening fake companies in Eastern Europe to bring in cheap labor) are
being tackled.
Trafficking in human beings
Policies
- The 4P paradigm = 4 key element in building an4trafficking policies
o Prosecu4on
§ All EU countries must make trafficking a crime in their na4onal laws.
§ The EU can also set a minimum standard for the maximum sentence. For example: "this type of trafficking must carry a maximum prison sentence of
at least 12 years."
§ In many countries, prosecutors can choose whether to start a case or not (this is called the opportunity principle). Only a few countries always
prosecute crimes automa4cally. In real trafficking cases, the state must inves4gate and prosecute. This is a human rights issue (see the Rantsev v
Cyprus case at the European Court of Human Rights).
§ Because trafficking oXen happens across countries, states are legally required to cooperate – for example: sharing evidence, joint inves4ga4ons and
extradi4ng suspects.
o Protec4on
§ EU 2004 Direc4ve – residence permit if the vic4m cooperates.
• Vic4ms can get a temporary residence permit if they agree to help the police or jus4ce system (for example, by giving tes4mony).
• They first get a reflec4on period, where they can think about whether they want to cooperate. During this 4me, they get shelter and support.
• Cri4cism: This system mainly uses vic4ms as tools to catch traffickers. If they don’t help (or are no longer needed), they are oXen sent back —
but many would prefer to stay and rebuild their lives.
• Some countries, like Italy, did things differently: they first protected vic4ms and gave them residence, even without coopera4on. This made
vic4ms more willing to talk.
• The 2005 Council of Europe Conven4on also suggested that countries should offer residence permits even if vic4ms do not help the police.
It’s not required but encouraged.
§ EU 2011 Direc4ve – support without needing coopera4on
• This newer direc4ve says vic4ms should always get help and protec4on, even if they don’t talk to the police.
• Help includes things like medical care, psychological support, housing, and more.
• Vic4ms also get special rights in criminal procedures (for example, not being forced to face their trafficker in court).
• There’s a non-punishment rule: vic4ms should not be punished for crimes they were forced to commit (like entering the country illegally or
working in pros4tu4on). This rule helps vic4ms feel safe enough to talk to the police without fear of being arrested or deported.
§ Finding and iden4fying vic4ms is difficult
• Vic4ms are oXen undocumented (they don’t carry papers), because bringing ID can get them refused at the border.
• It can also be hard to know how old a vic4m is — especially important when the vic4m is a child.
8
, § Na4onal and cross-border coopera4on
• Police, prosecutors, social workers, immigra4on services, and shelters must work together.
• They must help vic4ms understand their rights, guide them through the system, and provide proper care.
§ Extra focus on child trafficking and informa4on for migrants
• Special agen4on is given to children, who are more vulnerable.
• The EU also runs informa2on campaigns to tell people the truth about life and work in Europe.
→ These campaigns try to prevent false hopes, but also warn people about risks like exploita4on or trafficking.
o Preven4on
§ Informa2on and Awareness Campaigns: the EU uses posters, leaflets, and campaigns to inform people—especially in countries where vic4ms oXen
come from—about the risks of human trafficking. The idea is that if people are beger informed, they might not fall into the hands of traffickers or may
decide not to migrate in dangerous ways.
§ Limi2ng Irregular Migra2on: some policymakers believe that reducing illegal migra4on helps prevent trafficking, since many vic4ms are
undocumented migrants. However, this is controversial. If people have no legal ways to migrate, they might turn to smugglers, which increases their
risk of being trafficked.
§ Tackling Demand: human trafficking exists because there is a demand for cheap labor, forced sex work, and other exploita4ve services. That’s why the
EU wants to reduce this demand. They promote:
• Consumer awareness (e.g., knowing if your clothes were made using exploited workers),
• Company responsibility (like checking supply chains for human trafficking),
• Codes of conduct and stricter business rules,
• Criminalizing people who knowingly use services or goods from trafficking vic4ms (e.g., paying for sex with someone who is being exploited).
§ Some feminists say the root of trafficking is the unequal power between men and women, which creates demand for things like paid sex. Others point
out that some approaches (like criminalizing sex work) can be unclear or even harmful, especially when vic4ms don’t fit the “perfect vic4m” image
(poor, naive, helpless).
§ So, while it’s important to fight demand, it’s also important to be careful and avoid blaming or harming vic4ms in the process.
o Partnerships
§ To fight human trafficking effec4vely, many different actors need to work together. It's not just the job of the police — a wide network of people and
organiza4ons is needed. This includes police officers, border guards, immigra4on and asylum officials, public prosecutors, lawyers, judges and court
staff, housing, labor, health, social and safety inspectors, civil society organiza4ons, social and youth workers, consumer organiza4ons, trade unions,
employers' organiza4ons, temporary job agencies, recruitment agencies, consular and diploma4c staff, legal guardians, legal representa4ves, and
child and vic4m support services.
§ Each of these actors has an important role in detec4ng, preven4ng, and responding to trafficking. That’s why it is essen4al they coordinate well, share
informa4on, and work in a mul4disciplinary way. This joined-up approach is key to building a strong and effec4ve an4-trafficking policy.
Increased knowledge – what do we know? Do we have reliable sta2s2cs?
- The EU wants to improve how countries deal with human trafficking by making policies more based on facts and data. But comparing data between countries is
difficult, because not all countries use the same defini4on of trafficking. Also, when a country works hard to find and stop trafficking, the number of cases will look
9
, higher — even if the problem isn’t worse than in other places. That’s why every country should have a na2onal rapporteur (an expert or organiza4on) to follow up on
the situa4on and report regularly. This role has been made stronger in a 2024 proposal to update EU laws.
- There is also more focus on vulnerable groups, like children who travel alone, Roma children, children with disabili4es, and those who leave school early. The EU also
wants to pay more agen4on to the gender dimension, because men and women oXen experience different forms of trafficking.
- Another important issue is online trafficking. Traffickers use the internet and social media to find and control vic4ms. The EU now wants to make it very clear in the
law that trafficking can also happen online, and that this is a crime too.
- At the same 4me, the EU is asking internet companies and plaeorms (like social media) to help stop online trafficking. For example, they are asked to block certain
websites or detect suspicious messages. This already happens with online terrorism or child sexual abuse. But it can be worrying, because it means these companies
read and check a lot of what we say online, which can be a privacy problem.
MODULE 2: PROSTITUTION AND SEX WORK
Legal instruments
Level Instrument Info
UN 1993 Interna2onal This was an early agreement between countries to try to stop the trafficking of adult women.
Conven2on for the This conven4on was later used as a basis for the 1950 UN Conven2on on trafficking. So, many ideas from 1933 were kept and
suppression of the traffic in built upon in the newer version.
Women of Full Age At the 4me, the way they looked at pros4tu4on was very different from today:
• Pros2tu2on was seen as morally wrong. It wasn’t just about stopping abuse — it was also about stopping pros4tu4on
because people thought it was immoral.
• Even adult women who agreed to work in pros2tu2on were not seen as truly able to give consent. So the conven4on
said: “Even if a woman agrees to be involved, we s4ll see it as exploita4on and trafficking.”
UN 1950 UN Trafficking The 1950 UN Trafficking Conven4on takes a strict aboli4onist view on pros4tu4on. It does not criminalize being a sex worker,
Conven2on but it does criminalize all ac4vi4es related to organizing or profi4ng from pros4tu4on, like ren4ng rooms or adver4sing. The
conven4on assumes that women in pros4tu4on cannot truly consent, so it treats pros4tu4on itself as something harmful that
should be eliminated.
Later, the 2000 Palermo Protocol introduced a clearer legal defini4on of trafficking, focusing on cases involving force, coercion,
or decep4on. This protocol dis4nguishes between forced and consensual sex work. However, it does not override the older 1950
Conven4on. As a result, many countries are s4ll legally bound by the aboli4onist approach, which creates confusion and legal
challenges.
Because of this, in many places, while sex work itself is not illegal, ac4vi4es around it oXen are. This makes it hard to create a
safe and stable environment for sex workers. For example, brothel owners or managers risk prosecu4on, even if they operate
10
