Lambert here: I don’t know why the tri-partite definition doesn’t apply to ordinary wage labor.
By Marija Jovanovic, Lecturer at the School of Law, University of Essex, UK. She researches modern slavery, human trafficking, criminal justice and human rights, and human rights in the private sphere more generally. Originally published at Open Democracy.
Exploitation has been given a prominent place in the definition of ‘human trafficking’ found in the 2000 United Nations Palermo Protocol. It is identified as the specific aim of the crime of trafficking: all human trafficking is for the purpose of exploitation. But while the protocol lists some examples of exploitation, including slavery, servitude, or forced labour, it does not define the term itself. Nor do the numerous other international instruments that reference the term. And so, as Susan Marks has rightly wondered, we must ask ourselves: “When activists invoke international law to challenge exploitation, when lawyers advise on rights and duties regarding exploitation under international law, and when academics discuss the theme of exploitation in international legal writing, what is it that they have in mind?”
I recently proposed a tripartite definition of exploitation, which I argue underpins practices commonly referred to as ‘modern slavery’. While ‘modern slavery’ is not a legal category per se, I use it as an umbrella term for the practices of human trafficking, slavery, servitude, and forced or compulsory labour. These are jointly prohibited in many human rights instruments, either expressly, as in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights or the Arab Charter on Human Rights, or implicitly, as in the case of the European Convention on Human Rights. Exploitation is a distinct harm that binds together practices captured by the human rights prohibition against ‘modern slavery’, which includes both actual manifestations of exploitation in the form of slavery, servitude, and forced or compulsory labour, and intended exploitation as part of human trafficking. The latter, if uninterrupted, always results in actual exploitation.
The three elements of my proposed definition are: “(a) abuse of vulnerability of an exploitee; (b) excessive (disproportionate) gain acquired through the actions of an exploitee; (c) sustained action (the practice takes place over a period of time)”. We will cover each element in turn below. Before we do that, however, I must first note that my proposed definition of exploitation applies only to practices of ‘modern slavery’ and represents the severity threshold for triggering important state obligations to protect victims under human rights law. Accordingly, while we may consider exploitation as a continuum, it is important to distinguish practices that trigger state obligations required by international human rights law from lesser forms of exploitation that warrant different types of action, or no action at all.
\
In other words, the proposed definition of exploitation sets “a threshold of seriousness, which operates to prevent the inclusion of less serious forms of exploitation into the concept of trafficking in persons, such as labour law infractions that may be anyway subject to another legal regime”. As such, the definition represents an important tool for both courts and individual victims in determining whether a state owes and has complied with its obligations arising out of human rights law. The absence of clear parameters for determining what counts as exploitation allows states to misclassify victims as ‘predatory economic migrants’, who willingly deploy the services of smugglers to bring them across international borders, or as ‘criminals’, who engage in unlawful activities such as cannabis cultivation or shoplifting.
The three pillars of exploitation that underpins ‘modern slavery’
Exploitation as a distinct harm that underpins all practices of ‘modern slavery’ rests on three cumulative conditions. These are discernible from philosophical debates and the jurisprudence of international and domestic courts, but they have never been expressly spelled out. These are: a) the abuse of vulnerability of an exploitee; b) excessive (disproportionate) gain acquired through the actions of an exploitee; and c) sustained action over a period of time. These three cumulative conditions provide a universal frame of reference for the notion of exploitation in relation to ‘modern slavery’, while allowing for a certain leeway to account for specific conditions in different countries. We will consider each in turn.
Abuse of Vulnerability. It is generally accepted that the abuse of a position of vulnerability is “central to any understanding of trafficking” and “the common feature of all forms of exploitation” contained in the human rights prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The United Nations Office On Drugs And Crime states in a background paper that human traffickers “prey on people who are poor, isolated and weak”. And the explanatory report to the Council of Europe’s anti-trafficking convention notes that:
Capitalism, the whole idea of coercion involved in the idea of wage slavery, the landlessness and primitive accumulation that force the peasant/worker into the market in the first place. . . “explopitation” as fundamental to money-making, period. . . don’t all these have to be taken on to provide any grounded definition in the first place? In a world of crap jobs, what percentage of humankind is not engaged in some degree of servitude to the growing disorder? Seems like a bit of a mug’s game, placing one’s finger in the dike amid a damburst.
The second pillar of capitalism is the modern age’s obsession with material things.
Classical civilization had its modern age too.
We can find its counterpart to capitalism in the massive slave economy of the Roman Empire.
The roman slave was permanent and physical, by contrast the modern slave is impermanent and incorporeal and ideally can be dismissed and displaced at any time.
It was the habit of some Roman slave owners to dump their slaves onto the street once they became too old or sick for work. When that did not happen, it was noteworthy. I am not seeing much difference between that and the elderly or ill living on the streets today.
Technically, it is a free country, but the means to live is beyond increasing numbers. But the law says that everyone, rich or poor, can all equally live under a bridge somewhere (really, it is in the bushes on the hillside.) so I guess we all are “free.”
Important topic Lambert.
https://www.megamaschine.org/en/2016/03/01/exit-from-the-megamachine/
http://www.megamaschine.org/en
Exit from the Megamachine
by Fabian Scheidler
Book: “The End of the Megamachine: A Brief History of a Failing Civilization”
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtBvgHjajvE
Summary: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/End_of_the_Megamachine
“The modern megamachine emerged in Europe around 500 years ago in long-lasting social struggles and has spread around the globe with explosive speed ever since. From the beginning, it provided a fabulous increase in wealth for a small minority. For the majority, by contrast, it has meant impoverishment, radical exploitation, war, genocide and the destruction of natural resources.
In the early modern era – starting in the 15th century – the foundations of a transnational trade and finance system and a global division of labor were developed. However, these economic structures were unable to function by themselves. They were and still are dependent on states that can enforce property rights, provide infrastructure, defend trade routes, cushion economic losses and reign in resistance against the system’s injustices. In the light of this, state and market are not opposite forces (as frequently claimed) but have historically emerged in a co-evolutionary manner as parts of a greater structure.”
“In order to escape from this dilemma, we need to change the deep structures of our economy and drop out of the machinery of endless accumulation. We need economic models that serve the common good instead of profit. To achieve this, we have to change not only our mode of consumption but also our institutions, the way we produce and the logic of state action. We need a strategy for massively fostering common-good-oriented economic activities based on local and regional networks, while shrinking economic sectors that are bound to the principle of accumulation and predatory exploitation. Utopian? Possibly. But certainly not out of touch with reality.”
Cuidado! Else the minions of the Republic/Democrat duopoly will accuse you of being a “socialist”.
Thinking before coffee:
Would employment-based medical insurance be considered “abuse of vulnerability” and “sustained action” in this model?
The “excessive gain” part is a bit murky in terms of employment, as the gains get spread out to different parties beyond the employer. Someone’s raking it in, but it might not be the employer.
the employer benefits because he gets to hold you somewhat hostage due to being in charge of provisioning.
if you do not fulfill his functions (the exploitation that he does directly benefit from), he can remove not only your wage, but in theory, your health as well.
anyone who has been tasked with the job of paying solely for their own care, and the unknowables about future care, understands the whip he holds in his hand.
*i say “he” most deliberately
I was thinking about how to define exploitation and for some reason, I was reminded of Game of Thrones in the final episode. When asked about other people, Daenerys says “They don’t get a choice.” Yeah, that is how you can define exploitation – “They don’t get a choice!”
Every worker in every at-will state has a choice. Every frontline service employee has a choice in these times of pandemic.
“Choice” is a loaded word.
having a gun to your head which you can pull the trigger on at will is not a “choice”.
having a choice of Masters is not really a choice. having very little control over labor “market” and compensation levels means you take what you are given, IF they decide to give it to you.
if the choice amounts to “if you don’t, you will starve in the streets” this is not a choice. it is a forced decision in which you do not have equal power, and thus is not in any way a free decision.
we continuously think that people who are on unequal footing with others/institutions are “freely choosing”.
this is a mistake. there is no common land left from which to make a living upon if one does not want to engage in a forced choice in which you automatically have vastly less power.
unless you want to go full Ted Kaczynski (sans bombs).
The three elements of my proposed definition are: “(a) abuse of vulnerability of an exploitee; (b) excessive (disproportionate) gain acquired through the actions of an exploitee; (c) sustained action (the practice takes place over a period of time)”…
B is a loophole…tighten that up!
If states aren’t going to enforce existing laws should we spend time redefining terms?
Seems this would make Jeff Bezos one of the biggest slaveholders on the planet. Stating the obvious, of course.
Real life: Encampments set up by the homeless have occupied raw land I own for quite some time. A compelling proposal is in hand for development of the property. Technically the occupants are trespassers. They must be asked to relocate for development to proceed. Thanks for your memo….I feel less guilt for taking action….continued empathy for their circumstances however.
Passive tense can be seen doing a lot of work here. Today seems to be the day for Carroll.
‘I like the Walrus best,’ said Alice: ‘because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters.’
Retired international lawyer here. A primary task, almost a job qualification, for academic international lawyers in the U.S. and EU is carefully, with precision, to define offenses under international law so as best to minimize the chance of application to the U.S. and EU.
Inflate the price/”value” of a 3 bedroom family home from $50,000 to $500,000. “Help” young person into a $450,000 mortgage. Wait patiently. ………
Burst the bubble and aquire same house for $50,000 at mortgagee sale.
Publicly, cry rivers of crocodile tears ……
Wait patiently…..
Put on “the kind and concerned face”, and suggest a bit more debt for a graduate degree, as a possible way out………?
It is hard to see how slavery was profitable especially as mechanization took over. I think temporary workers the way Amazon does its warehouses have got to be cheaper. Food, housing and medical care add up. Add securtiy to keep slaves from running away and it could not be profitable. In my area of LA you can pick up a Hispanic laborer at the labor points or Home Depot parking lot for ten bucks an hour and they are fighting for the work. A central American or Mexican migrant works hard for the ten bucks and is happy to do it. Wages have gone down over the last ten years believe it or not. Our open border system seems far more efficient for the employers than slavery.
if the dingbats running the Confederacy had figured that out, they’d have not had an unpleasant Yankee interregnum.
Seems to me the proposed tripartite definition can be expanded to delineate the dynamic of state level exploitation I.e. state exploiting state. Rich countries routinely abuse the vulnerability of poor countries, gain excessively from such abuse, and maintain this chokehold over an extended period of time.
The definition provided in the essay was: “(a) abuse of vulnerability of an exploitee; (b) excessive (disproportionate) gain acquired through the actions of an exploitee; (c) sustained action (the practice takes place over a period of time)”.
I would like to point out that item (a) is not right because it blames the victim for being vulnerable. The truth is that ordinary people no different from you and I are under attack from other people with outsized systemic power. The systemic distribution of power and resources is what’s at fault. We’ve got to put the fault where it lies and not further the wrong with narrative injustice.
Inquiring minds may arguably consider as relevant the many curious parallels between slavery and being a postdoc …