Anti-Trafficking Rhetoric and the Making of a Global Apartheid

From humanitarian exceptionalism to contingent care: Care and enforcement at the humanitarian border

“…Moreover, discourses of female and child vulnerability more broadly have been central to justifying both exceptional humanitarian practices and the broader exclusionary immigration enforcement regimes of which they are a part (Phillips, 2009;Sharma, 2005;Ticktin, 2006;Williams 2011). State policies that take a sympathetic stance towards the injured, sick, and violated are positioned as explicit exceptions to exclusionary immigration laws, allowing states to reconcile transnational human rights norms with nationalist objectives.…”

North Korean Women's Narratives of Migration: Challenging Hegemonic Discourses of Trafficking and Geopolitics

“…Those supporting a criminal justice approach (United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime 2000; Council of Europe 2005) believe that trafficked women need to be controlled and regulated to protect national security. From this perspective, trafficked women are considered illegal and their bodies deemed vectors for the spread of HIV and other diseases (Sharma 2005). Much of the focus has also been on sex trafficking only, a fact that feminist scholars argue has obscured other forms of trafficking and, crucially, the relationship among labor, migration, and international relations (Chuang 2006;Zheng 2010;Bernstein 2012;Brennan 2013).…”

“…The line between trafficking and smuggling is blurry, yet those anxious to protect exploited women often construct trafficked women as innocent and powerless victims in need of rescue (Sharma 2005). Such depictions of North Korean women have been used by human rights agencies such as Human Rights Watch (2002), Amnesty International (2009), and Anti-Slavery International (2005) and are evident in the North Korean Human Rights Act (2004) and the U.S. Department Trafficking in Persons reports (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013).…”

Rethinking the Boundaries: Towards a Butlerian Ethics of Vulnerability in Sex Trafficking Debates

“…On one side are abolitionists, who see the problem as one of male violence against women, and hence define all sex work as exploitation (see, e.g., Barry, 1979;Pateman, 1988;Jeffreys, 1997Jeffreys, , 2009Miriam, 2005). On the other are labour and migration rights activists, who define the problem as one of labour exploitation, and argue for migration and labour rights for sex workers (see, e.g., Kempadoo and Doezema, 1998;Doezema, 2001Doezema, , 2010Agustin, 2002Agustin, , 2007Sharma, 2005;Andrijasevic, 2010). The entrenched argument has resulted in a set of overly simplistic stereotypes of either helpless victims in need of rescue or wilful sex workers expressing their agency.…”

“…The narrative of the need to 'protect' women from the penetration of their bodily borders provides justification for the reinforcement and policing of national borders (Sharma, 2005;Segrave, 2009). This in itself does very little to protect migrant sex workers, and most often in fact increases their vulnerability, as in the absence of legitimate avenues to migration they pursue semi-or entirely illegal ones (Andrijasevic, 2010).…”