International human rights law’s complicity in status subordination: A postcolonial critique of treaty bodies’ engagement with human trafficking

3Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This article presents a critical postcolonial analysis of international human rights law’s engagement with human trafficking through the lens of seven UN treaty bodies. Drawing on content analysis of 1,197 documents (33 General Comments/Recommendations, 1,049 Concluding Observations, and 115 Individual Communications), the article reveals how international human rights law is implicated in the status subordination of subaltern people. The article identifies 54 documents containing evidence of colonial legacies, with 76% of relevant Concluding Observations addressing Global South states. It argues that treaty bodies reinscribe colonial patterns through problematic conflation of trafficking with slavery, promotion of repressive migration policies, inconsistent treatment of prostitution and sex tourism, perpetuation of ‘raid and rescue’ approaches, and essentialization of trafficking victims as ‘innocent’. It also exposes limited engagement with intersectionality in individual communications, potentially overlooking complex, multifaceted experiences of trafficking victims. The article concludes by proposing concrete strategies to decolonise anti-trafficking law and practice, including interrogating assumed neutrality in legal instruments, embracing a politics of recognition, integrating the concept of ‘burdened agency’, and meaningfully countenancing intersectionality in legal analyses. This analysis contributes to understanding how international human rights law can better serve its emancipatory potential while avoiding the perpetuation of status subordination.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Haynes, J. (2025). International human rights law’s complicity in status subordination: A postcolonial critique of treaty bodies’ engagement with human trafficking. Leiden Journal of International Law, 38(4), 733–765. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156525100332

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free