Vladislava Stoyanova
Universitetslektor
Dancing on the borders of article 4. Human trafficking and the European Court of Human Rights in the Rantsev case
Författare
Summary, in English
Abstract in Undetermined
This article points to four worrisome aspects of the Court’s reasoning in Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. First, the Court takes on board the concept of ‘human trafficking’ without offering any meaningful legal analysis as to the elements of the human trafficking definition. Second, the adoption of the human trafficking framework implicates the ECtHR in anti-immigration and anti-prostitution agenda. The heart of this article is the argument that the human trafficking framework should be discarded and the Court should focus and develop the prohibitions on slavery, servitude and forced labor. To advance this argument I explain the relation between, on the one hand, ‘human trafficking’ and, on the other hand, slavery, servitude and forced labor. I suggest hints as to how the Court could have engaged and worked with the definition of slavery which requires ‘exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership’, in relation to the particular facts in Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia. Lastly, I submit that the legal analysis as to the state positive obligation to ‘take protective operation measures’ is far from persuasive.
This article points to four worrisome aspects of the Court’s reasoning in Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. First, the Court takes on board the concept of ‘human trafficking’ without offering any meaningful legal analysis as to the elements of the human trafficking definition. Second, the adoption of the human trafficking framework implicates the ECtHR in anti-immigration and anti-prostitution agenda. The heart of this article is the argument that the human trafficking framework should be discarded and the Court should focus and develop the prohibitions on slavery, servitude and forced labor. To advance this argument I explain the relation between, on the one hand, ‘human trafficking’ and, on the other hand, slavery, servitude and forced labor. I suggest hints as to how the Court could have engaged and worked with the definition of slavery which requires ‘exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership’, in relation to the particular facts in Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia. Lastly, I submit that the legal analysis as to the state positive obligation to ‘take protective operation measures’ is far from persuasive.
Avdelning/ar
- Mänskliga rättigheter
- Folkrätt
- Juridiska institutionen
- Migrationsrätt
Publiceringsår
2012
Språk
Engelska
Sidor
163-194
Publikation/Tidskrift/Serie
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
Volym
30
Issue
2
Länkar
Dokumenttyp
Artikel i tidskrift
Förlag
Intersentia
Ämne
- Law
Nyckelord
- forced labour
- Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- European Court of Human Rights
- Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia
- human trafficking
- servitude
- slavery
- human rights
- mänskliga rättigheter
Status
Published
Forskningsgrupp
- Human Rights Law
- Public International Law
- Migration Law
ISBN/ISSN/Övrigt
- ISSN: 0169-3441