Regulating forced labour and combating human trafficking: the relevance of historical definitions in a contemporary perspective

Forced labour has been regulated since 1930 on the basis of the ILO Convention on Forced Labour, and since 1957 on the basis of the ILO Abolition of Forced Labour Convention. In 2000 forced labour was included as one form of exploitation covered by the UN Trafficking Protocol, which situated trafficking into a context of transnational organised crime. In 2014 the ILO adopted a Protocol on Forced Labour, making a link between trafficking and forced labour. The aim of this article is to explore how forced labour came to be regulated and defined in these four treaties. The 1930 ILO Convention came about in a specific historical and political context, yet the 1930 definition remains in use even though the interpretation of forced labour, particularly as it relates to trafficking, has changed. This article focuses on the issue of trafficking for the purpose of forced labour within the context of migration and labour exploitation, and discusses the relevance of historical definitions of forced labour in the current discourse that sees human trafficking mainly as a security threat. It argues that a rigid interpretation of forced labour is not always useful in understanding forms of labour exploitation, at least in a contemporary European migratory perspective. The article calls for a broad interpretation of forced labour, which takes into account also subtle forms of control and coercion.     

A Special Section: Negotiating and Psychoanalysis: Some Common Aspects of Practice

Negotiation Journal -     

紫参颗粒镇静催眠作用的实验研究

目的：观察紫参颗粒的镇静催眠作用。方法：采用自主活动实验及戊巴比妥钠催眠实验。结果：紫参颗粒能减少小鼠自主活动次数，明显增加睡眠小鼠的只数，延长小鼠的睡眠时间，与阴性对照组比较，差异有显性。结论：紫参颗粒具有镇静催眠作用。     

姐妹

我妻子的奶奶,85岁了。前段时间出了点意外,在医院里躺了十多天。就在老人家决定做脊椎手术的前一天晚上,她突然跟家里人提出,想见见她一个远房表妹。于是我们当时都猜想,估计是老人家担心自己下不了手术台。     

Australian Rules: The Rise of Rights and the Demise of the Right

Over a number of years there has been a public debate in Australia over the place of legal rights in the struggle for Indigenous economic, social and cultural gains. Most Indigenous leaders have called for a rights agenda as a solution to Indigenous disadvantage. However, one leader has been a vocal critic of this approach. This paper considers the possibility that although the debates may fundamentally represent different views as to how best to improve conditions for Indigenous Nations, they also represent differing approaches to harnessing the support of mainstream Australia in a politically conservative environment. In coming to this position, I am reminded of the arguments put by proponents of the Critical Legal Studies movement in US, that rights are merely abstractions, and the counter by Patricia Williams, a Critical Race Theorist, that as a result, they can be framed in a variety of ways and can take the form required by the community in which they are found. In Australia, minority groups must find an indexically-open vehicle, fitting to the Australian rhetorical structure(s), to represent their struggle for economic, social and cultural rights. Tracey Summerfield is a white woman born in Perth, Western Australia. Thanks to Stephanie Monck, a Kungarakan/Warramungu woman from the Northern Territory, who provided assistance and feedback on an earlier version. The views expressed here are, of course, those of the writer alone.     

On Some Connections Between Legal Communication and Violence

The first version of this article was written and published in 1989 in Tartu in Russian.¹ As perestroika gathered strength the possibility emerged to take a fresh academic look on concepts which had been dogmatically frozen by “historical Marxism” for many years. One of those laying in the dead end was the Marxist concept of law together with its relation to violence. For a young scholar studying at Tartu University 15 years ago, there was always a possibility to try to apply some ideas and approaches drawn from Yuri Lotman’s articles and lectures. The power of his ideas and its brilliant presentation had already for years fascinated everybody dealing with problems of society and culture in Tartu. The other sources of the present analysis are the ideas about the nature of law and legal communication as they appeared in the 1920s–30s in the works of several Soviet scholars as Eugene Pashukanis and Mikhail Reisner. Both scientists were later condemned and forgotten in the Soviet Union. I also felt very comfortable with the understanding of the nature of law as “language of interaction” expressed and developed by the American lawyer and scholar Lon L. Fuller. The present article focuses only on the logic of communication based on the principle of exchange, reciprocity/contract and mechanism (code) of symbolic equalizations necessary, for achieving such reciprocity. But it is appropriate to point out that in a broader context, contract and reciprocity in society are balanced by different types of principles of human interaction. In this broader understanding, L. Fuller and Y. Lotman are close in their interpretations of cultural interaction and human communication. If we compare Fuller’s article “Two Principles of Human Association”² to Lotman’s “‘Contract’ and ‘Devotion’ as Archetypical Models of Culture”³ we see their approaches are in fact complementary.¹ Kannike, S.H., “O nekotorykh svjazjakh pravovogo obshchenija s nasilijem. Istorija I sovremennost’”, in Tartu Ülikooli Toimetised 850. Studia luridica. Historia et theoria3 (Tartu: Tartu Ülikool, 1989), 76–93² Fuller, L., “Two Principles of Human Association”, in L. Fuller, (ed), The Principles of Human Order(Durham: N.C. Duke University Press, 1981), 67–85³ Lotman, Y.M., ““Dogovor” i “vruchenie sebja” kak arhitipicheskie modeli kul’tury”, in Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 513. Trudy po russkoi I slavjanskoi filologii 332. Literaturovedenije: problemy literaturnoi tipologii I istoricheskoi preemstvennosti(Tartu, 1981), 3–16     

Frontière Dépassée,Frontière Recomposée

La notion de frontière est au c?ur d’une ambivalence entre son caractère délimitateur, son rôle de contour spatial et la contestation des séparations qu’elle opère. La frontière juridico-politique, limite de systèmes, est soumise à de profonds bouleversements. Dès lors, elle fait l’objet d’une nouvelle acception et devient le lieu d’une coopération entre des acteurs soucieux d’un développement harmonieux et d’un retour à la normalité au bénéfice d’une nouvelle dimension de l’espace: le transfrontalier. Comment le droit a t-il accueilli ces évolutions? Quelle définition s’impose au juriste devant la notion de frontière?