Julie Debeljak

Transnational crime and human rights : responses to human trafficking in the Greater Mekong Subregion

1. The Discourse on Trafficking: Transnational Criminal Justice and Human Rights 2. Anti-Trafficking Discourses and International Migration: the Origins 3. The Greater Mekong Subregion: Discourses and Regional Responses in the 1990s 4. Implementing the Trafficking Protocol in the Greater Mekong Subregion: the Trafficking Definition 5. Prevention and Cooperation in the Greater Mekong Subregion: Compliance, Legitimacy and Norm Re-Enactment 6. Protection of victims of trafficking: Criminal Justice and Human Rights in the Greater Mekong Subregion 7. Conclusion

Combating Transnational Crime in the Greater Mekong Subregion: The Cases of Laos and Cambodia

As in other regions of the globe, attention to trafficking issues in the Greater Mekong Sub-region (‘GMS’) began with a gendered focus on women and children and exploitation in the sex industry at the end of the last decade. And as in other regions, legal responses to trafficking issues quickly became framed in a predominantly criminal justice and anti-immigration discourse when countries in the region signed up to the 2000 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (‘CTOC framework’) including the Trafficking Protocol, which contains the three ‘Ps’: Prevention, Prosecution and Protection. In this chapter, taking the responses of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (‘Lao PDR’) and the Kingdom of Cambodia (‘Cambodia’) as case studies of two countries for trafficking within the GMS, we highlight lessons about the strengths and limits of criminal justice and anti-immigration responses to trafficking to this profoundly human problem. Additionally, the comparison of the Lao PDR and Cambodia demonstrates the importance of stable institutions, and of what is loosely known as ‘the rule of law’, for the success of such responses. This has implications for international programs and assistance to such countries. In this chapter we show that to date the predominant response to trafficking in the Lao PDR and Cambodia has focused upon Prevention and law enforcement measures, including Prosecutions. The third ‘P’, namely Protection, has received the least attention in anti-trafficking measures. This is hardly surprising, given the limited resources available to combat the trafficking problem. But we argue that a victim-centered approach is needed in order to understand the nature of trafficking in the GMS and to fight against exploitation of individuals. We begin by explaining the patterns of movements that involve trafficking from and within the Lao PDR and Cambodia. We then describe national legal and criminal justice responses, and conclude with an evaluation of such responses in light of the problem we have described.

The Human Rights Act 1998 (UK): The Preservation of Parliamentary Supremacy in the Context of Rights Protection

The Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) incorporates the European Convention of Human Rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom. The model for incorporation is unique among domestic rights instruments. The Human Rights Act imposes an interpretive obligation on the judiciary, requiring it to interpret legislation in a manner that is compatible with Convention rights wherever it is possible to do so. Where such interpretation is not possible, the judiciary is empowered to make declarations of legislative incompatibility. Such declarations do not affect the validity of the legislation; rather, notify the executive and parliament of the violation, and shift the onus to remedy the defect on them. This model attempts to marry rights promotion and protection with the retention of parliamentary sovereignty. It also ensures that rights are a matter of inter-institutional dialogue, as opposed to judicial monologue. This article critically assesses the capacity of the HR Act to retain traditional notions of parliamentary sovereignty, whilst committing to human rights protection and sharing the responsibility for human rights across all three arms of government. It also critically assesses the capacity of the judiciary to fulfill its mandated human rights contribution to an inter-institutional dialogue in the context of a strong commitment to parliamentary sovereignty.