Human Trafficking in the Context of Global Migration: Modern Manifestation of De Facto Slavery, Servitude and Forced or Compulsory Labour

In recent years there has been a significant increase in trafficking in human beings as a global phenomenon. COVID-19 pandemic created conditions that increased the number of persons who were vulnerable to human trafficking and disrupted current and planned anti-trafficking initiatives. Human trafficking treats human beings as commodities to be bought and sold and put to forced labour often for lower or no payment. This constitutes a modern form of de facto slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. This article provides an overview of international law on human trafficking and considers response to human trafficking in Africa. It further considers whether diplomats can be held accountable for exploitation of migrant domestic workers in receiving States. It further examines whether diplomatic immunity can be used as a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by domestic courts and tribunals of a state which hosts the diplomat (the ‘receiving state’) in cases of employment of a trafficked person by a former or serving diplomat. It ends by considering whether trafficked persons should be held to bear individual criminal responsibility for crimes they have committed (or were compelled to commit) in the course, or as a direct consequence, of having been trafficked. Such crimes may include unlawful entry into, presence or residence in another country of transit or destination, working without a work permit, sex work, and use of false identity/false passport.

The Need for a New Paradigm in International Law to Provide International Protection

Too little is provided, not only in international law, but also by the United Nations, for victims around the world. This article therefore argues that a new paradigm is needed. It uses the conflict in Syria since 2011, specifically focusing on how enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions have been used, to examine these questions. It has been reported that at least 150,000 people have been affected by these practices, but the number may be as high as a million. Because the state has used these practices methodically, they amount to a widespread and systemic attack on the civilian population and, therefore, to crimes against humanity. While the Syrian regime is primarily responsible, non-state actors have also been committing these types of crimes. The article discusses the general processes that have been set up to deal with the conflict in international law and by the United Nations in places like Syria. It finds that very little has been done to end the conflict in Syria, other than mediation. The article then reviews the international processes dealing with disappearances and detentions in Syria that families can report to, and the role these institutions have played so far. It again finds that very little has been achieved. The article also examines other countries where processes have been set up to deal with missing and disappeared persons, such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cyprus, and Georgia, to learn the lessons from these past processes for the Syrian situation. It is argued that, generally when mass atrocities occur, the UN on rare occasions will create an accountability process, but never creates a process that focuses on the needs of victims: finding their loved ones, getting them released from custody if they are alive, or finding the truth about what happened to them and where their remains are. The article therefore argues that a new mechanism is needed for Syria (but also for other places) to get people released, and to find information on others whose whereabouts are unknown due to the conflict and/or the mass human rights abuses. It contends that the mechanism could be set up by the UN, and if not, by a regional actor such as the European Union, or by several states. It is reasoned that the mechanism ought to have a Board made up of a representative each from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP), the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions (WGAD) and a Syrian organisation, elected each year.

Compensation for Wrongful Conviction/Miscarriage of Justice in Hong Kong in Light of A v Secretary for Justice and Another [2020] hkcfi 427; hcal 176/2018 (11 March 2020)

Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr) provides for the right to compensation for wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice. In Hong Kong, there are two compensation schemes for people who have been wrongfully convicted – the statutory scheme under Article 11(5) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and the ex gratia scheme (also applicable to wrongful imprisonment). Although there are cases in which Hong Kong courts have dealt with the right to compensation under the ex gratia scheme, it was only in March 2020, in A v Secretary for Justice and Another, that the High Court, for the first time, dealt with a case on the right to compensation under Article 11(5). In this article, the author discusses the right to compensation for wrongful conviction in Hong Kong generally and in particular under Article 11(5) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The author deals with the case of A v Secretary for Justice and Another and illustrates how the High Court’s interpretation of Article 11(5) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance is likely to impact on the right to compensation for wrongful conviction in Hong Kong in the future.

General comment No. 5 (2021) on Migrants’ Rights to Liberty, Freedom from Arbitrary Detention and their Connection with other Human Rights

Article 16 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families protects the right of migrant workers and members of their families to liberty and security of person. Under Article 17, those deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and for their cultural identity. The Committee on Migrant Workers’ General Comment No. 5 (2021) provides authoritative interpretation of articles 16 and 17 and other articles of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families in the context of the rising trend towards criminalization of migration and increasingly frequent use of detention of migrants. General Comment No. 5 (2021) intends to provide guidance to States on fulfilling their obligations under the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families in relation to the right to liberty and protection against arbitrary detention, and other intersecting human rights obligations and other human rights obligations arising from the intersection of those rights with other human rights. The General Comment is also aimed at providing guidance to States on the implementation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and to other stakeholders on implementing initiatives to promote and protect human rights and to monitor compliance thereof.

Ensuring the Rights of Women Migrant Workers – Analysis and Practice from Viet Nam

Women migrant workers, who make up almost half of the migrant population in Vietnam, have been seeking employment opportunities in order to strengthen their standing both economically and socially. Nevertheless, women migrant workers are exposed to more risks and human rights violations than their male counterparts owing to their binary susceptibility as migrants and women. Compounding this, the existing international (human rights) treaties have yet to afford sufficient legal protection to them. Coming from a third world nation, Vietnamese female migrant workers face a multitude of risks arising from their status. Given the risks that they face, further actions by the Vietnamese Government to comprehensively address the problems related to the protection of migrant workers’ rights are needed. Cooperation amongst States in establishing a dialogue and reaching solutions to effectively tackle issues related to women migrant workers is essential.

The Right to Enter One’s Own Country: The Conflict between the Jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and the Travaux Préparatoires of Article 12(4) of the iccpr

Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr) provides that ‘[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.’ The jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee shows that Committee members have often disagreed on the question of whether the right under Article 12(4) is reserved for citizens only or it can be claimed by non-citizens who consider the countries in which they were born or they have lived for longer periods as their own. In its earlier case law, the Committee held that Article 12(4) is applicable to nationals only. Since 1999, when General Comment No.27 was adopted, the Committee has moved towards extending the right under Article 12(4) to non-nationals. Its latest case law appears to have supported the Committee’s position that Article 12(4) is applicable to non-nationals. Central to both majority and minority decisions in which the Committee has dealt with Article 12(4), is whether the travaux préparatoires of Article 12(4) support either view. This article relies on the travaux préparatoires of Article 12(4) to argue that it does not support the view that Article 12(4) is applicable to non-nationals.

Unconstitutionality of Access to Abortion for Embryo-Pathological Reasons

This article comments on the Polish Constitutional Tribunal judgment delivered on 22 October 2020 on the unconstitutionality of the provision of the Act of 1993 allowing for the termination of pregnancy for embryo-pathological reasons. The author provides a commentary on the judgment from the point of view of its formal features and content and demonstrates that it violates in both respects the right to privacy and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, as it was passed without taking into account nor properly balancing the rights of a pregnant mother in a situation of particular vulnerability.