Search

Begin New Search Topic Trafficking Political Geography Global Focus

1. 3 Ways to Recognize and Address Human Trafficking

Author:
Elizabeth Kirchhoff
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Human Rights Education, University of Denver
Abstract:
How would you know if you met a victim of human trafficking? Would you know what to do? Human trafficking is a form of modern slavery where human beings are recruited and forced to work through abuse of power, coercion, intimidation, or other means, and effects every nation in the world. According to a recent report from the anti-trafficking organization, the Polaris Project, more than 21 million people are victims of human trafficking today, who are often hidden “in plain sight,” in many different industries—including agriculture, prostitution, domestic work, prisons, restaurants, hotels, and construction. And while the statistics on modern slavery in the United States and globally continues to be reliably grim, there are actually many ways—large and small—to combat it.
Topic:
Human Rights, Trafficking, Slavery, and Human Trafficking
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Searching for Illicit Dual Use Items in Online Marketplaces: A Semi-Automated Approach

Author:
Bryan Lee, Margaret Arno, and Daniel Salisbury
Publication Date:
04-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
Online business today takes place in a global marketplace. Drop shipments and containerized shipping have made the export and import of materials and finished goods easier than ever. Anyone who has ever purchased something online is already familiar with this world from the consumer perspective. However, online marketplaces are increasingly important for business-to-business commerce as well. Suppliers of many high-tech products use online platforms for both domestic and international transfers, including products that are considered dual-use. Dual-use commodities are items which are used for civilian industry but also have potential application in the development of weapons of mass destruction. As the popularity of online marketplaces increases, so does the risk that illicit trafficking networks can misuse these platforms as a means of gaining access to critical dual-use commodities. Well-known US-based platforms like eBay, Amazon, and Craigslist are thought to have reasonably effective procedures to screen for dual-use materials that might be controlled. However, even these firms have been challenged by the upsurge in use of their platforms for trade in potentially sensitive items. For non-US based platforms, reports highlighting how some sites have been used for illicit trafficking may have brought increased attention to the issue, but it remains unclear how effective screening methodologies are. Further, it is unclear if smaller sites that specialize in business-to-business transfers of industrial materials understand or implement controls on the sale of dual-use technologies. This report explores the value of semi-automated approaches to gather and analyze data from online marketplaces to further understanding of the prevalence of dual-use technologies and the potential for proliferators to use these marketplaces to illicitly procure these items. It concludes that large-scale harvesting of online marketplace information is possible using off-the-shelf open source technologies and basic programming skills. Data gathered through such harvesting methods, however, are of generally poor quality. Machine learning techniques are likely to improve data collection and closer cooperation between online marketplaces and compliance officials would be an effective method of keeping these marketplaces safe and open for business.
Topic:
Digital Economy, Trafficking, Illegal Trade, and Digitization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Arms Trafficking: The International and Domestic Legal Framework

Author:
Oona A. Hathaway, Elizabeth Nielsen, Chelsea Purvis, Saurrabh Sanghvi, and Sara Solow
Publication Date:
11-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
The conventional arms trade,2 both legal and illegal, is vast in scope. As of 2001, there were an estimated half billion documented small arms in the world, more than one for every twelve people.3 International arms sales are a booming business, and the United States is the world’s largest exporter. In 2008, worldwide arms transfer agreements reached a value of $55.2 billion, of which 76.4% involved developing nations.4 The United States accounted for $37.8 billion, or 68.4%, of these worldwide arms transfer agreements,5 and U.S. activity falls into five categories: foreign military sales agreements between foreign governments and the Department of Defense, direct commercial sales to foreign buyers negotiated by U.S. companies, leases of military equipment by U.S. entities, excess defense materials, and emergency decreases of weapons stockpiles.6 An extensive legal regime has emerged at the international and domestic levels to regulate conventional arms trafficking. This report aims to provide an overview of that framework. It surveys existing international arms trafficking agreements and provides an analytic framework for distinguishing between them. It also surveys the domestic legal framework regarding arms trafficking. Together, these overviews provide a starting point for identifying the shortcomings of existing law, identifying gaps in the legal framework as it currently operates, and considering options to begin to address these shortcomings. This report begins in Part I by briefly outlining the scope of the problem of conventional arms trafficking. It then turns in Part II to identifying three fundamental axes on which international arms trafficking agreements differ. First, each agreement targets one or more points in a conventional arms life cycle: it targets the point of production; the point of domestic ownership and transfer; or the point of interstate transfer. Second, agreements differ in the scope of weapons they cover—they may target different classes of weapons (such as major conventional weapons, small arms and light weapons, and dual-use technologies) and different legal categories of weapons (for example, some cover both legal and illicit weapons, while others only focus on illicit weapons). Third, agreements differ in terms of their enforceability: some are legally binding while others set nonbinding goals. Part III of the report examines the ways in which the United States regulates arms trafficking through its domestic laws and international agreements. It shows that the United States places strong controls on interstate transfers of arms, but it has a more mixed record when it comes to regulating earlier stages of the arms life cycle. While U.S. law places a number of marking and recordkeeping requirements on arms producers and sellers, domestic ownership laws are lax compared to those of other countries. Part IV shows that there are three major gaps in extant arms trafficking agreements. First, the international agreements that are the most enforceable either fail to target arms trafficking at multiple points in the life cycle or fail to cover a broad scope of weapons. Second, arms trafficking agreements do not adequately regulate the illicit resale of arms in the black market after they are produced and sold for the first time legally. This is because there is no binding and enforceable agreement that requires states to track all domestic weapons transfers, from their initial sale to the final sale before their export. Finally, major arms suppliers, such as the United States, are not party to several major arms trafficking agreements. To address these shortcomings, this report offers three options available to U.S. policymakers for strengthening arms trafficking laws. First, the United States could increase multilateral engagement by ratifying the leading regional arms trafficking agreement, Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (CIFTA). Doing so would likely require no changes in U.S. domestic law but would strengthen the U.S. ability to coordinate its arms control efforts with other countries while encouraging other countries to more effectively address arms trafficking. Second, the United States could increase bilateral programmatic assistance to address arms trafficking—at the very least by taking arms trafficking into account in existing assistance programs. Finally, the United States could engage more actively in leading negotiations over a robust and comprehensive arms trade treaty. Such an agreement would ideally aim to bring the international legal standards developed in CIFTA to the global stage. In leading the way toward such a comprehensive treaty, the United States could encourage universal adoption of the high standards the United States already has in place to ensure that arms are not transferred for illegitimate purposes—purposes that may directly affect U.S. security interests.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Arms Trade, Trafficking, Legal Theory, and Illegal Trade
Political Geography:
Global Focus