Minding the gap? Blind spots in the ILO's and the EU's perspective on anti-forced labour policy

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW
Faina Milman-Sivan, Yair Sagy
{"title":"Minding the gap? Blind spots in the ILO's and the EU's perspective on anti-forced labour policy","authors":"Faina Milman-Sivan, Yair Sagy","doi":"10.1177/20319525241266543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article critically examines the EU's recent proposal to ban products made with forced labour from its market, which adopts the ILO's definition of ‘forced labour’ as outlined in the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 (No. 29). The authors argue that the EU's endorsement of the ILO's approach is problematic due to two flawed assumptions: (1) the definition of ‘forced labour’ is universally accepted across the EU, and (2) it is well-suited to combat forced labour in contemporary supply chains. Through an analysis of ongoing debates between the ILO and its Member States, the article demonstrates a lack of consensus regarding the interpretation of the Convention, particularly in the context of hybrid public-private prison labour arrangements. Furthermore, introducing a new Hybrid Multi-Dimensional (HMD) model for analysing contemporary prison labour practices, the article reveals blind spots in the ILO's approach that may inadvertently allow the incorporation of prison labour into supply chains, contrary to the EU's objectives. The article argues that the EU's unequivocal endorsement of the ILO's definition disregards these fundamental issues and may hinder the effective implementation of its proposed ban. The authors suggest that the HMD model offers a more comprehensive framework for analysing the complex realities of modern prison labour and could provide a roadmap for resolving the ILO-States debate. The article concludes that the EU should reconsider its wholesale adoption of the ILO's approach in light of the HMD model's insights in order to fulfil the objectives of its proposed forced labour product ban.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241266543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article critically examines the EU's recent proposal to ban products made with forced labour from its market, which adopts the ILO's definition of ‘forced labour’ as outlined in the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 (No. 29). The authors argue that the EU's endorsement of the ILO's approach is problematic due to two flawed assumptions: (1) the definition of ‘forced labour’ is universally accepted across the EU, and (2) it is well-suited to combat forced labour in contemporary supply chains. Through an analysis of ongoing debates between the ILO and its Member States, the article demonstrates a lack of consensus regarding the interpretation of the Convention, particularly in the context of hybrid public-private prison labour arrangements. Furthermore, introducing a new Hybrid Multi-Dimensional (HMD) model for analysing contemporary prison labour practices, the article reveals blind spots in the ILO's approach that may inadvertently allow the incorporation of prison labour into supply chains, contrary to the EU's objectives. The article argues that the EU's unequivocal endorsement of the ILO's definition disregards these fundamental issues and may hinder the effective implementation of its proposed ban. The authors suggest that the HMD model offers a more comprehensive framework for analysing the complex realities of modern prison labour and could provide a roadmap for resolving the ILO-States debate. The article concludes that the EU should reconsider its wholesale adoption of the ILO's approach in light of the HMD model's insights in order to fulfil the objectives of its proposed forced labour product ban.
弥补差距?国际劳工组织和欧盟在反强迫劳动政策方面的盲点
本文对欧盟最近提出的禁止在其市场上销售强迫劳动产品的提案进行了批判性研究,该提案采用了国际劳工组织在 1930 年《强迫劳动公约》(第 29 号)中对 "强迫劳动 "所下的定义。作者认为,欧盟认可国际劳工组织的方法是有问题的,因为有两个错误的假设:(1)"强迫劳动 "的定义在欧盟是普遍接受的,(2)它非常适合打击当代供应链中的强迫劳动。通过分析国际劳工组织与其成员国之间正在进行的辩论,文章表明对《公约》的解释缺乏共识,尤其是在公私混合监狱劳动安排的背景下。此外,文章引入了一个新的混合多维(HMD)模型来分析当代监狱劳动实践,揭示了国际劳工组织方法中的盲点,这些盲点可能在无意中允许将监狱劳动纳入供应链,从而与欧盟的目标背道而驰。文章认为,欧盟对国际劳工组织定义的明确认可忽视了这些基本问题,可能会阻碍其拟议禁令的有效实施。作者认为,HMD 模型为分析现代监狱劳动的复杂现实提供了一个更全面的框架,可为解决国际劳工组织与各国之间的争论提供一个路线图。文章最后指出,欧盟应根据 HMD 模型的见解,重新考虑全盘采用国际劳工组织的方法,以实现其拟议的强迫劳动产品禁令的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信