by Maya Esslemont

In recent years, the concept of ‘modern slavery’ has garnered significant academic, political and media interest. However political momentum, which peaked at the advent of the Modern Slavery Act’s passage in 2015, has now waned.1 Whilst there is some public data on modern slavery referrals, decisions and the characteristics of victims, practitioners still struggle to access reliable evidence on prevention, support, or identification. Inconsistent data access makes it difficult to assess the Government’s performance in addressing the drivers of exploitation or empowering survivors to recover. The influence of ‘data gaps’ cannot be understated. In the course of this research, professionals from a wide range of sectors reported that they have had to reconfigure or completely abandon projects due to a lack of available public data. Interviewees told us that planned work exploring survivors’ access to safe housing, the criminalisation of young victims, homelessness, and survivors’ health outcomes were amongst topics shelved due to a lack of evidence. Journalists told of having to drop reports on individual survivors’ stories, or emerging concerns held by practitioners, in the absence of national statistics.

Yet, where data is published, the output was often described as inaccurate, inconsistent, lacking in detail, or undermined by the bias of data producers’ chosen framing or ‘narratives’. In the absence of modern slavery statistics which meet the needs of practitioners, participants extolled the virtues of Parliamentary Questions (PQs) or Freedom of Information (FOI) requests as forms of evidence gathering (see 3. Requesting data). However, these methods come with challenges. The diminishing quality of data responses, coupled with the dwindling capacity and confidence of practitioners, deter many from asking for evidence in the first place. Through ‘A can of worms’: Challenges and opportunities in gathering modern slavery evidence, After Exploitation evaluates the needs of a diverse range of practitioners who use modern slavery evidence as part of their day-to-day work, alongside a five-person panel of experts with lived experience (the ‘PELE’). Recommendations for improving transparency and public data were shared by practitioners and the panel, and we have grouped data recommendations into six policy areas, explored in order of recommendation frequency: Entitlements and survivor outcomes (n=41); Immigration and enforcement (n=35); Policy monitoring and transparency (n=33), NRM recording (n=32), prevention (n=28) and criminal justice (n=21).

London: After Exploitation, 2024. 82p.

Editors:  Rebecca Adami, Anna Kaldal , and  Margareta As

How can human rights for children born outside their national jurisdiction with parents deemed as terrorists be safeguarded? In what ways do children risk being discriminated in their welfare rights in Sweden when treated as invisible part of a family? How can we do research on children’s rights in not just ethically sensitive ways but also with respect for children as rights subjects? And what could be a theory on social justice for children? These are questions discussed in studies from different disciplines concerning children’s international human rights, with a special focus on the realization of the CRC in Sweden.

Leiden: Brill, 2023. 

Edited by Jessica Johnson and Karekwaivanane, George Hamandishe

Pursuing Justice in Africa focuses on the many actors pursuing many visions of justice across the African continent—their aspirations, divergent practices, and articulations of international and vernacular idioms of justice. The essays selected by editors Jessica Johnson and George Hamandishe Karekwaivanane engage with topics at the cutting edge of contemporary scholarship across a wide range of disciplines. These include activism, land tenure, international legal institutions, and postconflict reconciliation. Building on recent work in socio-legal studies that foregrounds justice over and above concepts such as human rights and legal pluralism, the contributors grapple with alternative approaches to the concept of justice and its relationships with law, morality, and rights. While the chapters are grounded in local experiences, they also attend to the ways in which national and international actors and processes influence, for better or worse, local experiences and understandings of justice. The result is a timely and original addition to scholarship on a topic of major scholarly and pragmatic interest. Contributors: Felicitas Becker, Jonathon L. Earle, Patrick Hoenig, Stacey Hynd, Fred Nyongesa Ikanda, Ngeyi Ruth Kanyongolo, Anna Macdonald, Bernadette Malunga, Alan Msosa, Benson A. Mulemi, Holly Porter, Duncan Scott, Olaf Zenker.

Athens, OH:: Ohio University Press, 2018.

By Olivier Marie and Paolo Pinotti

The association between immigration and crime has long been a subject of debate, and only recently have we encountered systematic empirical evidence on this issue. Data shows that immigrants, often younger, male, and less educated compared to natives, are disproportionately represented among offenders in numerous host countries. However, existing research, inclusive of our analysis of new international data, consistently indicates that immigration does not significantly impact local crime rates in these countries. Furthermore, recent studies underscore that obtaining legal status diminishes immigrants' involvement in criminal activities. Finally, we discuss potential explanations for the apparent incongruity between immigrants' overrepresentation among offenders and the null effect of immigration on crime rates.

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES. VOL. 38, NO. 1, WINTER 2024. (pp. 181-200)

By Matthias Lücke , Helena Hahn , Silvia Carta , Martin Ruhs , Mehari Taddele Maru , Paweł Kaczmarczyk , Karolina Łukasiewicz , Marta Pachocka , Tobias Heidland

Recent geopolitical events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the instrumentalisation of migration from Belarus to Poland are re-shaping the EU's migration policy. To build a resilient migration and asylum system, the EU and its member states must find a way to balance ad hoc, crisis-oriented responses with a long-term, strategic approach. This is one of the main findings of the 2022 MEDAM Assessment Report “Refugee protection in the EU: Building resilience to geopolitical conflict”.

This final report concludes the Mercator Dialogue on Asylum and Migration (MEDAM). Launched in 2016, the project aimed to develop concrete proposals to reform EU asylum and migration policy based on in-depth research. The report considers the most recent developments in the European migration system and reflects on how the numerous crises facing the EU influence the negotiations on the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, proposed in 2020, and public perception of migrants and refugees.

As Russia continues to wage war against Ukraine, the report provides an insightful analysis of refugee movements from Ukraine to Europe since February 2022. The authors discuss the effectiveness of the TPD and future challenges that the war's outcome can pose.

The report also considers general, global migration trends. First, it looks more closely at the link between migration and development policies. The report advances the argument that the relation between economic development, foreign aid, and out-migration is a complex one, challenging the widespread belief that better economic conditions encourage migration. The report also explores the preconditions for effective cooperation on migration management with countries of origin and transit, with a particular focus on EU-Africa relations.

Recent geopolitical events have put migration and asylum back at the centre of EU policymaking. Yet, member states are still struggling to find a common, structured and effective response. Finding a way to bridge their deep-seated differences will be vital to ensure that the EU is ready to navigate future crises.

MEDAM Assessment Report . Kiel, Germany: Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) Mercator Dialogue on Asylum and Migration (MEDAM). 2022. 92p.

By Jonathan Hafetz

The U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay has long been synonymous with torture, secrecy, and the abuse of executive power. It has come to epitomize lawlessness and has sparked protracted legal battles and political debate. For too long, however, Guantánamo has been viewed in isolation and has overshadowed a larger, interconnected global detention system that includes other military prisons such as Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, secret CIA jails, and the transfer of prisoners to other countries for torture. Guantánamo is simply—and alarmingly—the most visible example of a much larger prison system designed to operate outside the law.

Habeas Corpus after 9/11 examines the rise of the U.S.-run global detention system that emerged after 9/11 and the efforts to challenge it through habeas corpus (a petition to appear in court to claim unlawful imprisonment). Habeas expert and litigator Jonathan Hafetz gives us an insider’s view of the detention of “enemy combatants” and an accessible explanation of the complex forces that keep these systems running.

In the age of terrorism, some argue that habeas corpus is impractical and unwise. Hafetz advocates that it remains the single most important check against arbitrary and unlawful detention, torture, and the abuse of executive power

New York; London: NYU Press, 2011. 331p.

By Polaris

We have long known human trafficking to be a pervasive and versatile crime, as traffickers and exploiters adjust to changing environments. The COVID-19 pandemic showed us the profound adaptability of human trafficking. A global pandemic did not stop or impede trafficking from happening and, with few exceptions, did not seem to change how it happens or to whom it happens. In this report, we examine data from the National Human Trafficking Hotline from January 2020 through August 2022 and explore a snapshot of the top findings of human trafficking during the calamitous pandemic years. We provide top trends and answers to questions we typically report on as a part of our data analysis, and introduce how select trends that began early in the pandemic changed or continued as the crisis evolved. 

Washington, DC: Polaris. 2024, 10pg

By OSCE - Office of the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings

First of its kind, this report was designed to identify — in 40 OSCE participating States — the market-leading online sites and platforms for the explicit and non-explicit selling of sexual services where victims of THB for sexual exploitation could be advertised. The report's findings are based on the mapping and analysis of almost 2,900 sex services websites across the OSCE region, containing over 3 million advertisements; detailed information about how these websites operate is provided. The research also lists information and data associated with the sites and, through an analysis based on trafficking indicators, examines whether they can be exposed to human trafficking's risks.

Vienna: OSCE. 2023, 40pg

By Marta Gionco and Jyothi Kanics 

The European Union (EU) is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.8 The Treaty on European Union (TEU) underlines that these values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and gender equality prevail.9

Yet, in recent years, these values have been under threat within the EU, as many Member States’ policies and actions have led to a “shrinking space” for civil society. Perhaps this trend is nowhere more evident than in the treatment of migrants in Europe and the human rights defenders working to assist them. The “criminalisation of solidarity” strikes at the heart of European values and contributes to the erosion of rule of law and democracy, while seriously impacting the rights and welfare of the most vulnerable in our societies and those who seek to protect and assist them. The criminalisation of solidarity with migrants remains a widespread phenomenon across the EU. According to our media monitoring, at least 89 people were criminalised in the EU between January 2021 and March 2022.10 Out of them, 18 people faced new charges, while the other 71 were ongoing cases from previous years. Four of them are migrants themselves. Three people were convicted and 15 acquitted, while all the other cases are still ongoing. People have been criminalised for actions including providing food, shelter, medical assistance, transportation and other humanitarian aid to migrants in dire conditions; assisting with asylum applications; and rescuing migrants at sea. In the vast majority of the cases (88%), human rights defenders were charged with facilitation of entry, transit or stay, or migrant smuggling (depending on how the crime is defined in the national legislation).11 It is also notable that the criminalisation of solidarity has continued, and in certain cases even soared (see section 1.2), during periods in which many countries adopted COVID-19 restrictions, at a time when human rights defenders risked their own personal safety and health to leave their homes to help others. Emergency measures adopted to address the COVID-19 pandemic have been used to limit access to reception facilities and detention centres, to impose fines on organisations providing services during lock-downs or after the curfew, and to limit the right to freedom of assembly. National data further contributes to give an idea of the magnitude of the criminalisation of solidarity in the EU. For example, according to the Polish civil society network Grupa Granica, nearly 330 people were detained for helping people crossing borders irregularly between Belarus and Poland between August and November 2021.12 Those detained include EU nationals as well as migrants and their family members, many of whom had residence permits in Belgium, Germany and Poland. Many are likely to have been motivated by humanitarian reasons, including helping family members. In another example, a total of 972 people were convicted in Switzerland in 2018 on grounds of facilitation of irregular entry or stay.13 The vast majority, almost 900 people, acted out of solidarity or family reasons.

Belgium, PICUM. 2022, 66pg