{"id":4013,"date":"2017-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-07-26T06:58:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staging.voelkerrechtsblog.org\/articles\/on-cyber-trafficking-and-the-protection-of-its-victims\/"},"modified":"2020-12-09T13:16:39","modified_gmt":"2020-12-09T12:16:39","slug":"on-cyber-trafficking-and-the-protection-of-its-victims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/on-cyber-trafficking-and-the-protection-of-its-victims\/","title":{"rendered":"On \u2018cyber trafficking\u2019 and the protection of its victims"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2018Cyber trafficking\u2019 has become a buzzword in scientific and policy discussions related to human trafficking. However, as has been noted elsewhere<\/a>, the term is far from being used in a uniform way. In her recent post<\/a>, Sabine Witting discusses the case of trafficking that is exclusively committed online. In my view, \u2018cyber trafficking\u2019 is a much more wide-spread phenomenon than what her article seems to imply, occurring within many cases of \u2018traditional\u2019 trafficking. In the following, I will clarify my understanding of \u2018cyber trafficking\u2019 and I will argue that the term itself has no independent legal value, because even the very extreme example used by Sabine Witting falls under the trafficking definition. I will then re-examine the current definition of human trafficking, arguing contra<\/em> Witting that even actions which are performed exclusively online can fall within the definition of human trafficking as articulated in the Palermo Protocol. More importantly, in my view, the focus should rather lie on victim protection and how it can be adapted to this new modus operandi of traffickers, for example by the use of \u2018new\u2019 technologies for victim identification, protection and support.<\/p>\n

What is \u2018cyber\u2019 trafficking?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The term \u2018cyber trafficking\u2019 is used in an inconsistent way throughout the literature. However, simply put, the prefix \u2018cyber\u2019 essentially denotes everything \u2018relating to, or involving computers or computer networks (such as the Internet)<\/a>\u2019. Therefore, \u2018cyber trafficking\u2019 should essentially be understood as human trafficking that is committed with the help of computer networks. Since trafficking is a crime, \u2018cyber\u2019 trafficking is not only covered by the respective international anti-trafficking instruments such as the 2000 \u2018Palermo Protocol<\/a>\u2019 and the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings<\/a>, but it also falls under the 2001 Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime<\/a>, the first international treaty on crimes committed via the internet.<\/p>\n

There are many ways human trafficking becomes \u2018cyber\u2019: Traffickers may use online chatrooms, social media, online employment agencies or forged immigration assistance websites to recruit<\/em> potential victims. They might use online platforms (be they \u2018publicly\u2019 accessible<\/a> or in a darknet) to offer the services<\/em> of their victims and connect them with clients and customers. These services range from forced prostitution, child pornography, mail-order brides, forced labour to the vending of babies or human organs. The payment<\/em> for these services can also be made online with cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Furthermore, traffickers might use Internet technology to control <\/em>their victims, for example with cell phones or webcams.<\/p>\n

Each of the three cumulative elements of the trafficking definition can thus be committed in a \u2018cyber\u2019 way: the recruitment or the transportation and the offering of the victims (the \u2018action\u2019<\/em> element), the use of coercion and threat, fraud and deception (the \u2018means\u2019<\/em> element), and even the actual exploitation (the \u2018purpose\u2019<\/em> element) can all take place with the help of the Internet. The best-known example of \u2018cyber\u2019 exploitation is the so-called cybersex industry in the Philippines, where children are allegedly forced to perform sexual acts in front of web cameras<\/a>, sometimes with the possibility for the \u2018consumers\u2019 to give directions.<\/p>\n

These examples indicate that the sharp distinction between \u2018cyber\u2019 trafficking and \u2018traditional (offline) trafficking\u2019 that Sabine Witting seems to imply in her article does not correspond to the reality of how human trafficking is performed nowadays. Indeed, most acts of trafficking are committed with the help of the Internet, therefore making \u2018cyber\u2019 trafficking a widespread phenomenon. In contrast, pure \u2018offline\u2019 trafficking seems to have become the exception.<\/p>\n

This observation naturally raises the question whether acts that are performed not only with the help <\/em>of \u2018new technologies\u2019, but solely through them, can be considered to fall within the definition of human trafficking.<\/p>\n

\u2018Cyber\u2019 exploitation, or: is there a requirement of movement?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is why Sabine Witting, in her blog post<\/a>, raises a definitional question: Can a person who has been both recruited and exploited online be considered a victim of human trafficking under the definition of the Palermo Protocol, even though he or she never left the spot in front of the computer? As Witting rightly points out, the central question here is the one of movement:<\/em> If, in order for the crime to meet the definition of trafficking, the victim must have (been) moved from one place to another, some cases of \u2018cyber\u2019 exploitation might not be qualified as trafficking, because the victim might have never moved out of his or her own house and was always only in front of the computer. Sabine Witting argues that movement, in the sense of geographical dislocation, is a necessary condition for the offense of human trafficking. This would mean that \u2018cyber\u2019 trafficking (or more precisely, the special example of exploitation in front of a computer) does not constitute trafficking. To fill this legal vacuum, Witting proposes to understand the element of movement as means of removing victims from their familiar environment. With this creative interpretation, controlling victims via the internet and using psychological methods to isolate them, might also be considered as removing them from their familiar environment and therefore there would have been \u2018movement\u2019.<\/p>\n

Besides the fact that the case cited (exploitation solely in front of the victim\u2019s own computer at home) is an extreme and somewhat constructed example, from a legal point, the assumption that movement is a conditio sine qua non<\/em> has no basis in international law and doctrine. To support her argument, Witting argues that if a family offers her child to be sexually exploited at home, by welcoming clients to the house to sexually abuse the child, nobody would think of laying charges of human trafficking against the family, but rather charge them with child prostitution or similar offences.<\/em> Wittings claim rests on shaky ground, especially because the mere fact that \u2018nobody would think of laying charges of human trafficking\u2019 is not a legal argument at all. Moreover, at least two additional legal arguments speak against her claim:<\/p>\n