This blog is hosted on Ideas on EuropeIdeas on Europe Avatar

Latest

The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum: A Missed Opportunity to Strengthen Protection against Human Trafficking?

On 23rd September 2020, the EU published the ‘New Pact on Migration and Asylum’ that aims to be ‘[a] fresh start on migration in Europe’.  The Pact contains various commitments and timelines for action ranging from proposed reforms on existing asylum procedures rules to a proposed new Screening Regulation and a proposed Asylum and Migration Management Regulation. Since the Pact was published, its contents have received significant criticism from academics, practitioners, and NGOs alike. That criticism has focused on a range of matters, including human rights concerns, and scepticisms about the Pact’s potential to alleviate the burden of member states at the EU’s external borders who receive the most refugees and asylum seekers.

The focus of this blog, however, is on what might be described as a missed opportunity to meaningfully address the issue of human trafficking within the Pact. I highlight the near absence of an explicit focus on addressing trafficking within the catalogue of proposed instruments which make up the Pact and stress the possible negative impacts of proposed measures. Before turning to the Pact itself, I briefly recall how human trafficking is defined, and what obligations EU member states have in this regard.

International law defines human trafficking in the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children. The definition, which is replicated almost word for word in the EU Trafficking Directive and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, comprises three elements: an act ‘recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt’; a means, ‘threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person; and a purpose, ‘exploitation’. The relevant international and European instruments oblige EU member states to not only criminalise conduct falling within the scope of the above definition, but also to prevent trafficking, and to provide protection to trafficked persons.

Given the obligations outlined above, the connections between human trafficking and migration, and the fact that addressing human trafficking falls within the EU’s competence, one might expect to see a focus on preventing and tackling trafficking within the various proposed instruments which make up the Pact. This is not the case. Take, for example, the proposed Screening Regulation. The entire draft regulation mentions trafficking only in relation to the involvement of national anti-trafficking Rapporteurs in cases where screening may indicate trafficking.  In the proposed Asylum and Migration Management Regulation, human trafficking is referred to only twice, both in relation to children’s needs. While these connections, along with references to the EU’s Trafficking Directive in the recitals, are certainly welcome, such limited explicit focus is arguably insufficient, given the realities of risk and vulnerability within the asylum context. Questions certainly remain. How, precisely, will action to prevent trafficking be implemented within migration and asylum processes?

Whatever the reason, notwithstanding the limited references mentioned above, the issue of trafficking has apparently not played any meaningful role in the development of the Pact’s normative standards on migration and asylum. Perhaps it might be asserted that a focus on human trafficking is not necessary, given that other international and EU instruments address this issue. Arguably, though, such an approach fails to capture the complex reality which exists in practice: one where action taken to address migration and asylum can have an impact on both the risk and prevalence of human trafficking.

For example, some of the proposed measures, if enacted, may actually work in practice to aggravate trafficking or even re-trafficking risk. Consider the proposed screening regulation which requires accelerated border procedures in cases where asylum seekers are deemed to have originated from ‘safe’ countries. The human rights concerns about these provisions have been documented elsewhere. Specifically related to trafficking concerns, the idea of accelerated border procedures for those deemed to have arrived from so-called ‘safe’ countries is problematic, since signs indictors of trafficking may be missed in the course of such a procedure. Moreover, if such individuals are refused asylum and assistance measures owed to trafficked persons when, in reality, they need protection, they will remain at risk of harm and exploitation. Surely obligations to prevent trafficking require a different approach.

The example outlined above presents just one area in which the opportunity to meaningfully consider anti-trafficking obligations appears to have been missed. At present, the proposed instruments within the Pact have not entered into force. However, given their stage in the legislative process, and the complexities of achieving consensus among Member States, it remains unlikely that any significant substantial change will occur meanwhile. Since the EU member states have obligations not only to prosecute but also to prevent trafficking and protect trafficked individuals, surely this requires at the very least, that legal rules on managing migration and asylum should not have the potential to increase trafficking risk or result in situations where trafficked persons remain unidentified.

Simply put, asylum law, policy, and practice cannot be ignored if efforts to tackle trafficking are to succeed. The challenge, going forward, is to ensure that anti-trafficking obligations are addressed in a more significant way within EU asylum law.

 

[1] This commentary is based upon content provided by the author for a webinar on the EU Pact for Network for Migration Matters.

 


Author

Gillian is a PhD candidate in the School of Law at Queen’s University, Belfast. She holds an LLB in International and European Law, and an LLM in Human Rights Law. Her PhD research investigates the role of international law in preventing and tackling human trafficking among refugees and asylum seekers.

 

Twitter Handle: @gilliankane87

COMMENT

Recent Articles

Stigma: Perspectives of Nigerian women trafficked into Europe

Published on by | 1 Comment

The fields of migration studies and human trafficking research (especially in Europe) are diverse and well-researched. Much work has been done among vulnerable populations such as refugees, unaccompanied minors, and victims of trafficking, including their experiences, push and pull factors, integration, etc. However, more work is needed to understand their experiences beyond the legal and policy aspects to consider their mental health and psychosocial wellbeing in the countries of settlement.

Cybersecurity and the EU: lessons from the COVID-19 crisis

Published on by | Comments Off on Cybersecurity and the EU: lessons from the COVID-19 crisis

The COVID-19 pandemic hit the world hard. While medical researchers are racing to find a vaccine, malicious actors are exploiting the new range of possibilities to interfere with IT devices. Cybersecurity has become a prominent feature of the pandemic, especially in the health sector.  

Operational overlap between the EU and NATO: An empirical venue for Member State decision-making analysis?

Published on by | Comments Off on Operational overlap between the EU and NATO: An empirical venue for Member State decision-making analysis?

The EU and NATO crisis response operations have been widely debated from a division of labour perspective. For some scholars, there has been a de facto partition of work between these operations, as NATO focuses on the higher intensity tasks of peace enforcement and peacekeeping while EU is mainly involved in the lower end of conflict prevention and post-conflict management.

Terrorism in the United Kingdom: Securitizing Narrative, Surveillance Practices and the Right to Privacy

Published on by | Comments Off on Terrorism in the United Kingdom: Securitizing Narrative, Surveillance Practices and the Right to Privacy

By Romana Oliveira Pinhal | In the United Kingdom terrorism is presented, by the British government, as one of the most serious and dangerous threats to national security and justified the introduction of legislative, political and operational measures aimed at combating the terrorist threat. The British securitizing narrative states the country is facing “a serious terrorist threat” […]

Poor Detention Conditions and the European Arrest Warrant: Are Social Rights the Way Forward?

Published on by | Comments Off on Poor Detention Conditions and the European Arrest Warrant: Are Social Rights the Way Forward?

With poor detention and prison conditions in EU Member states, Neža Šubic argues that social rights should be taken seriously in the context of the European Arrest Warrant. This would be the next step in designing an ever more rights-based Union. 

Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey: An Important Legal Development or a Step Too Far?

Published on by | Comments Off on Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey: An Important Legal Development or a Step Too Far?

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently delivered a judgment on a case concerning the murder of a Turkish Cypriot family. Nasia Hadjigeorgiou examines how this has broken new legal ground, while raising questions about the Court’s ability to address legal challenges in contexts of frozen conflict.

An Ever Growing Apart Union? On the Separating Impacts of Differentiated Integration

Published on by | Comments Off on An Ever Growing Apart Union? On the Separating Impacts of Differentiated Integration

The process of differentiated integration explicitly separates insiders and outsiders into different institutions. Within the Eurozone crisis, the institutional separation between ‘euro-ins’ and ‘euro-outs’ reached a new high. Alexander Schilin takes a social constructivist approach to reexamine the relationship between differentiated integration and interpersonal separation within the EU.

Ensuring the Future of Europe: The Decentring Approach to the EU’s Human Rights and Democracy Strategies

Published on by | Comments Off on Ensuring the Future of Europe: The Decentring Approach to the EU’s Human Rights and Democracy Strategies

Patrik Taufar argues that taking a decentring approach to the EU’s human rights policies may promote engagement and ensure the effectiveness of the policy. He frames this argument within the question of the future of Europe and what steps must be taken to ensure the existence of ‘a next European century’.

The Far-Right in International and European Law

Published on by | Comments Off on The Far-Right in International and European Law

Since the Second World War, the international community has sought to prevent the repetition of destructive far-right forces. Nevertheless, violent far-right entities have recently received unprecedented electoral support. In light of the current reality, a new book by UACES member Natalie Alkiviadou critically assesses the international and European tools available for States to regulate the […]

UACES and Ideas on Europe do not take responsibility for opinions expressed in articles on blogs hosted on Ideas on Europe. All opinions are those of the contributing authors.