Prostitution 1AC --- 2.

1AC State IHRL Advantage

CONTENTION 1: IHRL
Current lack of citation of foreign law specifically locks the US out of
developing I-law norms---plans critical
Austen L. Parrish 7, Associate Professor of Law @ Southwestern Law School; J.D. from

Columbia University; Director of Southwestern's Summer Law Program where he teaches

international and comparative law at the University of British Columbia, 2007, University of
Illinois Law Review, 2007 U. Ill. L. Rev. 637
The citation to foreign law is not only sensible for transparency reasons, it also can serve to legitimize the Court as
an institution, both within the United States and around the world. Legitimacy "emanates
from the persuasiveness of the arguments and the enhancement of communal knowledge." 278 In
some contexts, "foreign and international law are actually necessary to legitimate decision-making." 279

Early on in our nation's history, Americans "self-consciously" appealed to the views of other nations "to win global legitimacy for their fledgling republic." 280 In others, foreign
law legitimizes why our courts are doing something different. 281 [*677] As Frank Michelman has described it, by comparative encounters, we "clarify our picture of ourselves."

the use of foreign materials is particularly

appropriate if one considers dialogical (as distinguished from particularist or universal) methods of constitutional
interpretation. Tellingly, despite a fair amount of literature on the topic, those who condemn the use of foreign sources generally ignore the dialogic models. 283 In
recent years, theories of constitutional dialogue have emerged "as one of the principal contenders in
the quest for a satisfactory theory" that legitimizes judicial review . 284 Dialogical theories are based on "the notion that
282 Lastly, apart from issues of transparency and legitimacy in judicial reasoning,

judicial review is part of a "dialogue' between the judges and the legislatures." 285 Rather than focusing on interpretative criteria, dialogic models of interpretation focus on the

Dialogical models are particularly well suited

to justify the use of foreign law, a point generally well accepted. Indeed, the failure of the U.S. Supreme
Court to engage more vigorously in international dialogue leaves the U.S. judiciary out-ofstep and behind the times. 287 A significant amount of scholarship has emphasized the
essential nature of this dialogue and its benefits. 288 "Courts should be talking with each other ... and even with academics. All
are engaged in a search for the meaning of common concepts. The unique authority of each does
not speak at [*678] all to the common substance of their interpretative effort." 289 Melissa Waters has captured the
problem in a nutshell: This is not simply a debate over the relevance of foreign legal materials in the work
of the U.S. courts. In a larger sense, it is a debate over what role U.S. courts will play in
the emerging transnational judicial dialogue among the world's courts. Moreover, the
outcome of this debate will ... have a tremendous impact on the ability of the Supreme Court and other
U.S. courts to influence the emerging transnational judicial dialogue, and through
that dialogue, the development of international legal norms on a wide range of legal
issues. 290
"institutional process through which decisions about constitutional meaning are made." 286

Scenario 1- Treaty Gaps:

State courts incorporation of international human rights is critical to U.S.
treaty compliance
Martha F. Davis 14, Professor at Northeastern University School of Law and Co-Director of
the PHRGE, with Diego Iniguez-Lopez, Robert L. Carter Fellow at The Opportunity Agenda, and
Juhu Thukral, Director of Law and Advocacy at The Opportunity Agenda, Human Rights in
State Courts 2014,
http://opportunityagenda.org/files/field_file/2014.2.06.HumanRightsinStateCourts.pdf

Human rights are a longstanding and crucial part of United States law and culture. The founders of our country declared that we
are all created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that opinions of other nations are entitled to decent respect.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust and World War II, the United States helped craft the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights (UDHR) and the international human rights system. Throughout our history, the
concept of human rights has been central to our nations struggles to achieve equality and justice for all. Yet, despite that
legacy, international human rights laws have often not played a major role in legal advocacy to

secure fundamental rights, justice, and equality in the United States. That trend has begun to change over
the last two decades, as more and more legal advocates have begun to incorporate human rights arguments into their work. Courts
have responded and, the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, has repeatedly cited human rights law as

persuasive authority for important constitutional decisions in areas involving individual

rights.16 Important human rights issues are not always litigated in the federal courts, however.
Federal constitutional protections tend not to include the economic, social, and cultural rights
that are an integral part of the international human rights system. State courts, by contrast,
often consider such protections and, in interpreting state law, have the independence to
recognize a broader range of rights. In addition, state courts may be called on to interpret
and apply international treaties, including human rights treaties. Recognizing this important aspect of the
implementation of human rights law in the U.S., this report details the ways in which state courts have considered and interpreted
this body of law. The report is intended for public interest lawyers, state court litigators, and judges, and also for state and
municipal policymakers interested in integrating compliance with international human rights law into their domestic policies.17
State courts can draw upon a number of arguments to support their use of international human rights principles in decisionmaking. Under Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties are the supreme Law of the Land, binding on the Judges in
every State.18 The United States has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and is therefore bound by these treaties. Provisions of the UDHR have
been recognized as customary international law.19 Implementation of these treaties and their principles is the responsibility of
federal, state, and local government.20 Under the federal system, states are primarily responsible for

regulating many areas of substantive law, including criminal, family, and social welfare law . The
reservations the U.S. Senate issued when it ratified the treaties make clear that states are
responsible for implementing international human rights law in these areas.21 Thus, state
court incorporation of human rights principles is crucial to ensuring the United
States human rights implementation and compliance. There are several ways in which treaty
authority in the U.S. has been minimized. For example, many human rights treaties have been deemed to be
non-self-executing meaning that they cannot be directly enforced in U.S. courts 22 and may even
stop short of imposing concrete obligations on states.23 Further, in ratifying the ICCPR, the Senate mandated that its protections
go no further than corresponding protections in domestic law.24 Advocates and scholars have argued that such a reservation
frustrates the purpose of the treaty and may be invalid under international law and therefore unenforceablealthough the rest of
the treaty may be severable and continue to have legal effect.25 But state courts routinely invoke Senate reservations to deny
individuals claims under treaties like the ICCPR.26 Despite such limitations, international and U.S. law requires

courts to interpret both state and federal law so that it does not conflict with ratified treaties.27
And as a signatory to covenants and conventions like the International Covenant on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on Rights of the Child, the United States
must refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty.28 Furthermore,
when human rights principles rise to the level of customary international law, meaning they are
practices and beliefs that are so vital and intrinsic a part of a social and economic system that they are treated as if they were
laws,29 they do not require implementing legislation to be binding .30 Most importantly, state courts

can look to international human rights treaties for interpretive guidance, whether or not
the treaties are signed, ratified, or considered customary international law. Specifically, courts can
turn to international human rights law to help clarify the meaning of vague or unsettled
domestic law. Even if human rights principles are not directly binding, they can influence courts
as they define and explain statutory provisions, and as they give meaning to domestic
constitutional rights. Courts have looked to unratified as well as ratified treaties for this purpose.31

Its reverse causal---failure of state courts to act makes treaty gaps

inevitable
Martha F. Davis 6, Professor at Northeastern University School of Law and Co-Director of the
PHRGE, THE SPIRIT OF OUR TIMES: STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS, N.Y.U. REVIEW OF LAW & SOCIAL CHANGE [Vol. 30:359,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=908283
State courts have a responsibility to consider international human rights norms and other
transnational law in rendering state constitutional decisions.1 This responsibility is drawn from
several sources: the nature of federalism, the nature of the international system, and individual

states laws and legal history. Where the United States has a formal obligation to comply with international law, the
United States Constitutions Supremacy Clause requires state courts to consider transnational
authority. Indeed, without subnational attention to human rights norms, the international legal
system fails under the weight of the implementation gap between national obligations
and their implementation on the state level. Even absent a formal mandate, however, state courts should consider
transnational sources when interpreting their constitutions. State court judges may find direct support for considering transnational
sources in the constitutional and social history of the provisions being construed, bringing this approach inside the fold of traditional
methodologies of constitutional interpretation.2 Furthermore, transnational law can inform the meaning of state

constitutional grants that have no federal analogues but that are similar to international human
rights law and to provisions of modern constitutions around the world.3 The United States Constitution, which textually
focuses on limiting government action, may yield no guidance to state courts asked to interpret , for example,
the substantive meaning of positive rights to health, education, or welfare .4 In such an
instance, international norms articulated in transnational law may be a singularly important
guide to the substantive content of the provisions. Though courts and scholars have paid significant
attention to state constitutional provisions that have no obvious federal analogues in their efforts to establish the outlines of an
independent state jurisprudence, they have seldom considered the role that transnational law might play in judicial review of these
provisions.5 While federal judicial citation of transnational authority has sparked considerable debate in recent years,6 state court
consideration of transnational sources should be much less controversial. First, the relatively populist structure of state
governmental institutions, including state courts, undermines concerns that one branch might foist improper foreign views on the
others unchecked. Second, institutional infighting between the federal branchesfor example, over what constitutes an exercise of
the foreign affairs powerhas no parallel at the state level. To illustrate how state courts should proceed in light of their
obligations to implement transnational law, I set out a case study of article XVII, section 3 of the New York State Constitution, which
mandates that the state legislature provide for the public health.7 In examining whether state-supported abstinence only-untilmarriage programs violate this constitutional provision, I demonstrate the concrete ways in which the United States treaty

obligations and more general concepts of international public health law should inform state
courts consideration of this issue.8 I conclude that in dealing with the range of transnational law
from ratified treaties to the persuasive decisions of foreign courtsconstituent states should,
and in some cases must, implement international human rights norms. In so doing, I argue
that subnational implementation of international human rights is fully consistent with the United
States federal system, and that state constitutional construction is a particularly useful
vehicle for achieving such implementation. I. SOURCES OF STATE COURT RESPONSIBILITY TO
IMPLEMENT INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW A. The Structure of the Federal System 1. The Federal Supremacy
Clause In large part, state courts obligations to implement international human rights law derive directly from the federal system.
The United States Constitution reserves the treaty power and responsibility for foreign relations to the federal government.9
However, the United States federal system reserves significant regulation of entire substantive

categories such as criminal, family, and social welfare law to subnational governments .10 It
follows that when the United States assents to a treaty or other international agreement, the
federal system often demands that implementation occur on the state as well as the federal level.11 If
states fail to implement international treaty provisions that address areas
traditionally reserved to them, the United States cannot, as a practical matter,
achieve compliance with the treaty provisions to which it is party. Notably, the United States treaty
obligations may go beyond treaties substantive focus and may also incorporate their enforcement procedures.12 For example, both
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD) require the availability of judicial remedies for violations.13 Under federal jurisdictional constraints,
however, judicial remedies will sometimes be available only in state courts. This might be true, for example, of cases shielded from
federal judicial review under the Pennhurst doctrine, which bars federal court adjudication of state law claims for injunctive relief
against the state.14 Likewise, even if plaintiffs are pressing human rights claims that implicate federal obligations under
international law, the federal courts may eschew cases arising in the family law or criminal law contexts, at least in the first
instance.15 In such situations, unless there is state court participation in the procedural as well as substantive

implementation of human rights standards, the United States will fall short of fulfilling its
treaty obligations.16

IHRL treaty implementation gaps broadly undermine multilateralism--domestic implementation is key

Tara J. Melish 9, Visiting Professor, University of Notre Dame School of Law, Spring 2009,
Associate Professor of Law, University at Buffalo School of Law, SUNY, From Paradox to

Subsidiarity: The United States and Human Rights Treaty Bodies,

http://www.yale.edu/yjil/files_PDFs/vol34/Melish.pdf
While realists dominated U.S. human rights policy during the Cold War, 149 and remain highly influential in the foreign policy establishment today,
institutionalists have gained increasing prominence over the last two decades with the dramatic proliferation of international institutions and rapid
expansion of the international human rights architecture. Within this context, the

push-pull dynamic over U.S. human rights

policy as a foreign policy objective has shifted determinatively toward institutionalists . For this
group, human rights treaty body engagement serves two primary strategic foreign policy goals today:
first, renewal of U.S. moral leadership in multilateral settings and, second, promotion of
human rights and democratic reforms in other countries. Both are directed to furthering
national security and global public order objectives, independent of any domestic policy
implication. First, institutionalists appreciate that the international standing of U.S. diplomats
and their ability to lead in international processes of global dispute resolution are compromised
by the nations failure to ratify core human rights treaties and engage in their supervisory procedures. This
failure, which has left the nation increasingly in the company of rogue or failed states,150 renders it out of step with its
democratic partners and subjects it to charges of hypocrisy by less democratic nations where the
United States seeks human rights improvements or security safeguards . 151 On a practical level,
this impairs the United Statess ability to accomplish its national security and other
global security priorities within multilateral settings , at times making disagreement
with the United States a principled human rights stand in itself for nations .152 In this sense, ratification
and engagement serve as tools through which the United States can reseat itself within the international community, reassert its moral leadership
role, and hence better promote its national security agenda in multilateral settings, where most international work gets done. For institutionalists, this
has been a particular priority following the widely internationally condemned unilateral actions taken by the United States following the 9/11 terrorist

The second factor, most commonly articulated by the U.S. State Department ,
involves recognition that full compliance by the United States with international
human rights treaty body procedures increases the visibility and legitimacy of the
procedures themselves, ratcheting up expectation levels for their regular and concerted use, and
thereby prodding other states to take the procedures more seriously. Indeed, U.S. executive agencies recognize
attacks.

that human rights treaty bodiesby providing an international spotlight for gross abuses, giving voice to individuals and civil society groups seeking
greater human rights protections and transparency at home, and providing legitimacy to domestic human rights and democracy movementshave
initiated important conversations and processes in countries around the world, particularly in transitional states.153 They also recognize that while the
United Statess failure to ratify specific treaties has not likely caused other states to forego ratification, it may embolden some to turn ratification into an
empty political act used as a rhetorical device to claim greater commitment to human rights than the United States without making corresponding
changes in their policies and practices at home.154

Commitment to multilateralism is key to solve a laundry list of existential

threats
Esther Brimmer 14, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Organization Affairs
at the United States Department of State from April 2009 to June 2013, Smart Power and
Multilateral Diplomacy, June, http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/publications/books/Smarter
%20Power/Chapter%204%20brimmer.pdf
Over the subsequent decade, the variable definitions of Smart Power have evolved to reflect a rapidly changing foreign
affairs landscape a landscape shaped increasingly by transnational issues and what can only be described as truly
global challenges. Nations of the world must now calibrate their foreign policy investments to try to leverage new opportunities while protecting their
interests from emerging vulnerabilities. Smart

Power is no longer an alternative path; it is a four-lane imperative.

The world in 2014 is fundamentally different from previous periods, growing vastly more interconnected,
interdependent, networked, and complex. National economies are in many cases inextricably
intertwined, with cross-border imports and exports increasing nearly tenfold over the past forty years, and more than doubling over just the past
decade. At the same time, we are all connected and connected immediately to news and events that in past

generations would have been restricted to their local vicinities. Consider, for example, the 2011 tsunami that devastated parts of Japan. Not only did
we know in real time of the earthquake that triggered the tsunami, we had live coverage of some of the tsunamis most devastating impacts and then
round-the-clock coverage of the Fukushima nuclear power plant crisis. Communications technology brings such events to us without delay and in high
definition. This communications revolution, headlined by the explosion of social media, carries with it the almost unlimited potential to inform and
educate. It also provides people and communities with new ability to influence and advance their causes both benevolent and otherwise, as the
dramatic events of recent years in North Africa and the Middle East have made clear. At

the same time, global power is more

diffuse today than in centuries. Although predictions of the nation-states demise have gone
unrealized, non-state actors including NGOs, corporations, and international organizations - are more influential
today than perhaps at any point in human history. The same might be said for transnational

criminal networks and other harmful actors. Concurrently, we are witnessing the rise of new centers of influence the socalled emerging nations that are seeking and gaining positions of global leadership. These emerging powers bring unique histories and new
perspectives to the discussion of current challenges and the future of global governance. Several of these countries are democracies and share many of
the core values of the United States; others have sharply different political systems and perspectives. All are gauging how to be more active in the global
arena. It

is this new, more diffused global system that must now find means of addressing todays
pressing global challenges challenges that in many cases demand Smart Power ingenuity.
From terrorism to nuclear proliferation, climate change to pandemic disease, transnational
crime to cyber attacks, violations of fundamental human rights to natural disasters, todays
most urgent security challenges pay no heed to state borders. So, just as global power is more diffuse, so
too are the opposing threats and challenges, and it is in this new reality that the United States must define
and employ its Smart Power resources. That reality demands a definition that must now
far exceed the origin parameters of hard and soft. Many of these challenges would be
unresponsive to traditional Hard tools (coercion, economic sanctions, military force), while the
application of Soft tools (norm advancement, cultural influence, public diplomacy) in customary
channels is likely to provide unsatisfactory impact. Ultimately, the other component
necessary in todays Smart Power alchemy is robust, focused, and sustained international
cooperation. In effect, in an increasing number of instances, Smart Power must now feature
shared power, and in that context foreign policy choices must follow two related but distinct axes. First, those policy choices must strengthen a
states overall stature and influence (rather than diminish it), leaving the state undertaking the action in a position of equal or greater global standing.
This is easier said than done. The

proliferation in challenges facing all states has created a need for

multiple, simultaneous diplomatic transactions among a broadening cast of actors. Given the nature
of todays threats facing states both large and small, those transactions have never been more frequent and at times overlapping a reality that requires
new agility and synchronization within foreign policy hierarchies. States

that are less capable of responding to this new

reality may experience diminished political capital and international standing by acting on
contemporary threats in isolation or without a full appreciation of the reigning international
sentiment. Many observers have highlighted U.S. decision-making in advance of the 2003 Iraq invasion as
indicative of just this phenomenon. Alternatively, states applying a new Smart Power approach to their foreign policy recognize

the overlapping need to maintain global standing and stature while seeking resolution of individual policy challenges. We see considerable effort on the
part of emerging powers to find just that balance, and I would argue that the United States has also made great strides in that regard since 2009.
Second, Smart

Power policy choices must contribute to the strength and resilience of the
international system. As noted above, the globalization of contemporary challenges and security
threats has augmented the need for effective cooperation among states and other
international actors, and placed even greater demands on the global network of
international institutions, conferences, frameworks, and groupings in which these challenges are more and
more frequently addressed. Given this heightened need for structures to facilitate international collaboration, states are more rarely

undertaking foreign policy courses of action that entirely lack a multilateral component, or that feature no interaction with or demands upon the
international architecture. As recent American history shows, even states with unilateral tendencies have found themselves returning to the multilateral
fold to address aspects of a threat or challenge that simply cannot be addressed effectively alone.

Scenario 2- Overpopulation:
Prostitution is a test case for the USs approach to human rightslegalizing
as sex work is critical
Agnes Binagwaho 10, Permanent Secretary of Health, Republic of Rwanda, and a visiting
lecturer at Harvard University, et al-Mawuena Agbonyitor, Aimable Mwananawe, Placidie
Mugwaneza, Alexander Irwin, and Corine Karema, Developing human rights-based strategies
to improve health among female sex workers in Rwanda, Health and Human Rights Journal,
http://www.hhrjournal.org/2013/08/26/developing-human-rights-based-strategies-toimprove-health-among-female-sex-workers-in-rwanda/
Such an approach implies a fundamental rethinking of how many governments have
traditionally dealt with sex work. Instead of fighting sex workers, governments should focus on fighting the causes of sex
work. Imprisoning sex workers is not a solution . If governments and parliaments wish to criminalize prostitution,

justice dictates that they go even further by arresting the clients of sex workers, since these men are the ones buying illegal services
otherwise, the demand for commercial sex will persist. However, in a context marked by poverty and HIV/AIDS,

instead of incarcerating sex workers and/or their customers, public policy should aim first to

secure the publics health. This means pursuing two simultaneous, mutually reinforcing priorities: Bring health
services and prevention interventions to sex workers in a participatory manner , advancing
universal access to HIV prevention, care, and treatment, and protecting sex workers and the general population
against HIV and STIs; and Accelerate policies in appropriate sectors to address the structural issues of
poverty and gender discrimination that currently leave female sex workers in Rwanda with few
credible paths to alternative livelihoods. The international human rights framework provides
arguments for this multidimensional approach. The 1946 WHO Constitution already
acknowledged that the right to health implies not only access to medical care, but just as fundamentally the creation
of health-enabling social and economic conditions for all people .37 This insight has been refined
through a series of declarations, covenants, and other human rights instruments, notably including the 1978 AlmaAta Declaration and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment 14,
on the right to health, issued in 2000.38 The implications of these positions have been worked out by
human rights scholars and jurists, including in the pages of this journal.39 A growing consensus has
emerged that the implementation of a human rights-based approach to health requires
deliberate action on the social factors that shape health opportunities and outcomes .40 This does
not mean that a tension-free relationship exists between rights-based models and a public health agenda oriented to the social
determinants of health. The articles gathered in this issue of Health and Human Rights highlight divergences and potential conflicts,
as well as positive resonances, among social epidemiology, social medicine traditions, and human rights. These contrasts stem in
part from these approaches distinctive historical trajectories, which have been closely intertwined but are not identical. From the
pragmatic standpoint of health policymaking, several factors could weaken the emerging synergy between social determinants
analysis and rights-driven health action. Perhaps most important, a public health approach emphasizing multiple social
determinants could exacerbate the fuzziness that has historically plagued the notion of the right to health, and which, in some
circles, has damaged the credibility of rights-based approaches to health policy.41 As Alicia Ely Yamin has argued, proponents of the
right to health are often tempted to blur the distinction between health and overall well-being or quality of life.42 This tendency to
include practically everything good and desirable under the rubric of health may enable us to score rhetorical points in the short
term but, ultimately, it limits the precision and efficacy of rights-driven arguments in the health policy sphere. If handled without
appropriate analytic rigor, social determinants language in public health could exacerbate this dilution of the concept of the right to
health. A social determinants agenda enlarges the boundaries of health action to include policy objectives in gender discrimination,
poverty, housing, and education, for example. Yet this expansion of the notion of health action must not become an excuse for
intellectual laziness. The terms health or health determinants must not be brandished indifferently to designate everything we
might value in a good life.43 The conceptual and legal rigor of a human rights-based analysis is precisely what is needed to avoid
this trap. Human rights analysis takes the emerging scientific picture of how social and economic

factors influence health outcomes and translates these scientific findings into specific, concrete
objectives for policy and social action. Among the many social factors that influence health, and on which in an ideal
world it might be desirable for policy to act, rights-based analysis tells us which factors are actionable within countries existing legal
frameworks and political structures. In this sense, human rights-based analysis mediates the passage from

scientific description and social aspiration to political action, that is, from recognizing the
multiple social factors that influence peoples health to formulating policy and programming
measures that can achieve political traction and so bring change on the ground. The
expansion of the conceptual and political space connected with health underscores this critical clarifying role of human rights.

Human rights-based legal analysis tells us what claims are actionable within legal and policy
structures. It thus helps us set realistic and achievable goals for policy rather than invoke
pie-in-the-sky aspirations with no political weight. Rights-informed legal analysis identifies
those areas where public health evidence and social demand can achieve leverage, not just
theoretically, but through the actual accountability mechanisms that mediate
relations between citizens and government. Thus, as Yamin and others have argued, a human rights lens
can actually begin to change how members of disadvantaged communities experience their
position vis--vis public authorities. Rather than passive victims of external forces, citizens
operating within a rights structure become active protagonists participating in the
identification, implementation, and evaluation of political solutions. Yamin writes that what a rights
framework most distinctively adds to mounting work from the fields of social medicine and social epidemiology is
precisely to demand justifications and accountability, recasting public health inequities as
violations for which people are empowered to seek legal redress .44 The situation of female sex
workers constitutes a test case for human rights-based policy approaches, precisely
because of the multiple forms of social exclusion and the compounded health risks

these women face. In many settings, these risks converge in extremely high levels of HIV infection among sex workers.45 However,
examples from a range of international settings suggest that policy measures informed by a human rights perspective can yield

significant reductions in HIV prevalence among sex workers, along with other health benefits for this population. Additional
research is needed to quantify the impact of specific rights-based program components on health outcomes among target
populations. Already, however, the picture emerging from a number of recent studies on HIV prevention among sex workers is
encouraging. Findings suggest that programs application of key human rights principles, such as participation by sex workers in
program design and implementation,have been associated with substantial reductions in HIV epidemics.46

US cred on global family planning is collapsing---the only way to

successfully implement UN goals is for the US to revitalize its commitment
to international health
Sneha Barot 9, Senior Public Policy Associate at the Guttmacher Institute, Reclaiming the

Lead: Restoring U.S. Leadership in Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Policy, Guttmacher
Policy Review, Winter, Volume 12, Number 1
The world has changed markedly since 1994, when U.S. leadership in global sexual and
reproductive health policy was on full display at the historic International Conference on
Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo. The agreements reached at this landmark event
actively supported by the United Stateshave been largely responsible for shifting the global
discourse on population issues from one focusing on meeting macro-demographic targets for population control to a
framework defined by recognizing the reproductive health and rights of women as the best way to
promote development. In the 15 years since the ICPD, even as U.S. policy regressed, the
international community continued to move forward, embarking on a new development agenda outlined in the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Embraced by donor and developing nations alike (but largely ignored by the Bush
administration), the MDGs established ambitious targets and goals related to reducing poverty and furthering
development, including addressing womens health and equality. From its first week in office, the Obama
administration has strongly signaled its intent to restore the countrys reputation and its
commitment to a progressive foreign policy that prioritizes development assistance and
embraces the MDGs. As expected, President Obama moved quickly to overturn some of the most heinous
policies of the previous administration affecting U.S. international family planning and reproductive health assistance. But
to truly demonstrate seriousness and significance when it comes to sexual and
reproductive health and rights, more must be done. The United States must reclaim its
leadership role in the international arena by fulfilling its commitments to Cairo and the MDGs, and by forthrightly
promoting a global agenda on womens sexual and reproductive health. It can take the first
steps by reprioritizing womens health in its own foreign assistance policy and by negotiating strongly on these issues at a series of upcoming

international conferences. The Legacy of the ICPD and MDGs The Programme of Action that emerged from Cairo
endorsed by 179 countries represented major strides in the area of womens health and rightsgains strongly supported and negotiated by the U.S.
delegation, under the chairmanship of Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth. At its heart, the ICPD embodied

a
breakthrough acknowledgment of the critical role of womenincluding the achievement
of their legal rights and the elevation of their social status as necessary and integral to
sustainable development at the family, community and country level. Meeting womens needs was officially
recognized at the global level as the appropriate, fundamental goal guiding the formation and
implementation of development and population policy. Thus, after Cairo, it was unacceptable to promote
population control as the raison detre for environmental sustainability, economic development or family planning programs. Instead, the ICPD
affirmed the basic reproductive right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children
and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. To that end, countries
committed to achieving universal access to reproductive health care by 2015.The following year, at the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in
Beijing, the Cairo principles were reaffirmed. Although the Cairo agreement signified important steps forward, the outcomes were by no means
perfect. Political compromises over contentious issues such as abortion were necessary. Nonetheless, the consensus reached around even this
controversial issue still represented progress. For example, while access to abortion was not recognized as a reproductive right per se, Cairo moved the
discussion of abortion to the health impacts of unsafe abortion, which the final document recognizes as a major public health issue. Six years later, the
worlds leaders converged again to craft an agenda to end extreme poverty by 2015 outlined in the Millennium Declaration. At the New York
headquarters of the United Nations (UN) in 2000, 189 countries pledged to meet eight development goals related to poverty, education, gender
equality, maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS and the environment (see box). Attempts to promote an explicit reproductive health and rights agenda
within the MDGs, however, were vigorously undercut during negotiations by the Bush administration and its allies within the so-called G77, a coalition
of developing countries seeking to enhance their negotiating power within the UN by acting jointly. These deficiencies have been at least partly
remedied over time. In the 2005 World Summit Outcome document, world leaders agreed to integrate the ICPD goal of universal access to reproductive
health by 2015 into the strategies aimed at achieving the MDGs on maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, gender equality and poverty. The UN
Millennium Project, an independent advisory board commissioned by the UN to develop concrete plans to implement the MDGs, subsequently
produced a blueprint endorsing the necessity of sexual and reproductive health to attaining the MDGs and describing interventions to that effect. Now,
universal access to reproductive health is listed as a target for the MDG on maternal health, and fulfilling the unmet need for family planning is
identified as a strategy for achieving this target. The

United States Retreats Although the ICPD marked the

jumping off point for the world to move forward, U.S. policy regressed in the years immediately

following. With the takeover of the House of Representatives by a conservative Republican leadership hostile not only to abortion rights but also
to family planning programs, U.S. funding levels for international family planning assistance declined from their high-water mark in FY 1995, and by
FY 2008, funding had dropped by nearly 40% when accounting for inflation. Policy restrictions subsequently imposed by the Bush administration
further undermined U.S. credibility and leadership. From 2001 until President Obama rescinded it in January, the Mexico City policy (otherwise known
as the global gag rule) prohibited U.S. funding for family planning to indigenous groups overseas that engaged in any services, dissemination of
information or advocacy activities on abortion with other funds. And every year since 2002, President Bush blocked congressionally appropriated
funding for the United Nations Population Fund on the basis of unfounded allegations of its complicity with coercive abortion practices in China.
These policies have had repercussions beyond access to sexual and reproductive health services. Because the sexual and reproductive health of a
countrys women and their partners is so integral to its ability to achieve other development targets, the larger objectives of social and economic
development as espoused by the ICPD and the MDGs have also been crippled. Developing countries that do not provide or are impeded from providing
adequate access to sexual and reproductive health care can only attain limited economic and social progress. Moreover, the

global gag rule

obstructed human rights and democratic values that the United States ostensibly cares about,
such as civil and political rights related to speech and assembly, which are constitutionally protected for its own citizens and

recognized in international treaties. But the World Moves Ahead While U.S. policy has been lagging, other countries and regions have been forging
ahead in their efforts to promote the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women across the developing world. Countries in Europe especially
have moved in to fill the leadership void. Initiatives such as the Safe Abortion Action Fund, established in 2006 by the United Kingdoms Department
for International Development, were specifically developed to ameliorate the harmful effects of the global gag rule. European donor countries have also
been proactively engaged in pushing progress on more politically sensitive sexual and reproductive health concerns. Indeed, countries such as Norway,
Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark have been at the forefront in funding programs in areas such as adolescent reproductive
health, safe abortion services, and sexual health and rights. European countries have also been much more eager than the United States to adopt and
encourage the language and policy framework of international human rights, as formally delineated by the UN system, in their own programs and
policies. European donor countries are ahead of the United States not only philosophically, but also financially. Although the United States remains
the leading donor country in overall amounts for foreign aid, European and other developed countries contribute far more of their gross national
income (GNI). (GNI comprises gross domestic product plus net income from abroad.) In 2007, according to the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States spent less than two-tenths of one percent (0.16%) of its GNI toward official development
assistance, placing it last among members of OECDs Development Assistance Committee (see table). Among committee members, only European
countries have met the UN target of allocating 0.70% of GNI toward official development assistance. Meanwhile, other progress in promoting a sexual
and reproductive health agenda has been occurring at the global, regional and country levels. Although thwarted during high-level international
conferences by the United States and other conservative countries, UN bodies and agencies have nonetheless made key advances in securing
reproductive rights.The UN treaty monitoring system has developed a body of important jurisprudence through the committees that evaluate countries
compliance with the six major international human rights treaties. For example, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors compliance
with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, has interpreted the treaty to require governments that are a party to the convention to provide
adolescents (defined by the UN as 1019-year-olds) with access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information, including on family
planning and contraceptives, the dangers of early pregnancy, the prevention of HIV/AIDS and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted
diseases, ensuring such access regardless of their marital status and whether their parents or guardians consent. Similarly, regional-level bodies
have carved out important victories for reproductive rights. Again, Europe is at the forefront, as evidenced by the actions of the Council of Europe and
of the European Court of Human Rights. For example, in 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a resolution recognizing
that the lawfulness of abortion does not have an effect on a womans need for an abortion, but only on her access to a safe abortion and urged
restrictive member states to decriminalize abortion within reasonable gestational limits. The European court has also built important precedent for
womens reproductive rights. In a historic case against Poland in 2007, the court found that once governments decide to legalize abortion, they must
ensure that obstacles do not impede access to the procedure.The African Union has also made progress through its Protocol on the Rights of Women in
Africa, which requires states to ensure that the right to health of women, including sexual and reproductive health, is respected and promoted. It goes
even further by being the first international treaty to articulate a womans right to medical abortion on a number of grounds, including cases of rape,
incest, endangerment to the physical or mental health of the mother or when the life of the mother or fetus is threatened. Finally, at the country level,
the trend toward recognizing the full range of womens reproductive rights has continued.While the United States has been pushing for greater
restrictions on womens reproductive autonomy at the domestic and international levels through all branches of the government, 16 nations have
liberalized their abortion laws over the last 10 years, and an additional two have expanded abortion access in certain jurisdictions. Only two countries

Repairing, rethinking
and realigning U.S. foreign policies on sexual and reproductive health will be a
formidable task, but President Obama has laid the groundwork. The Obama campaign formally expressed its
have moved against the tide by removing all grounds for abortion access (see chart). Forging a New Agenda

commitment to the current global development agenda by incorporating the language of the MDGs into its campaign platform and promising to
support and achieve the MDGs. With respect to foreign aid, the president has conveyed a willingness to ameliorate the low funding situation for family

However, it is
one thing to rejoin the mainstream, but quite another to be a recognized leader. There is
no doubt that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are committed to sexual and
reproductive health and rights, and to placing a high priority on development assistance within U.S.
planning programs; as a senator, Obama endorsed increasing funding for international family planning programs to $1 billion.

foreign policy. Indeed, Clinton has been a long-standing champion of womens rights in general and of reproductive rights specifically. At the 1995
Beijing conference, as head of the U.S. delegation, she forthrightly proclaimed that womens rights are human rightsa sentiment she reiterated during
her Senate confirmation hearing. And she endorsed development assistanceone of the three legs of American foreign policyas an equal partner,
along with defense and diplomacy, in the furtherance of Americas national security. The challenge confronting the administration, then, is not one of
philosophy, but one of priority. There are several ways that the administration, assisted by a supportive congressional leadership, can begin to
reestablish the countrys global leadership. The obvious first step would be to increase foreign aid to international family planning programs. As a
donor nation, the United States, along with other donor countries, promised to provide one-third of the total funds needed to meet the ICPD
benchmarks (with developing countries themselves supplying the rest); however, the United States has not carried its fair share. Accordingly, U.S.
advocates are waging a concerted effort to more than double U.S. family planning assistance to at least $1 billion, based on the targets set at Cairo.
Indeed, a recently released report by five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) recommends that FY 2010 funding for USAIDs population budget be set at $1.2 billion and raised to $1.5 billion by FY 2014.
Along with bolstering the budget for family planning, and in keeping with the integrated goals of the ICPD and the MDGs, policymakers will need to
robustly support other development programs that are crucial to ensuring the promotion of sexual and reproductive health, and vice-versa, such as
those addressing girls and adult womens education, and womens access to vocational training and financial credit. As Congress embarks on a longterm effort to reform and restructure U.S. foreign aid more broadly, policymakers must look comprehensively at the U.S. global health effort, and
confront the reality that HIV/AIDS programs currently claim an extremely high proportion of the total resources allocated. Particularly in difficult
economic times, it will be a challenge to gross up authorization levels for other critical global health portfolios, including but not limited to family
planning and reproductive health. That, however, is what will be necessary to ensure that the country has an effective, global health strategy that in turn
feeds into a comprehensive effort to combat poverty and promote sustainable development worldwide. Although the administration has already dealt

with some policy modifications such as rescinding the global gag rule, there are long-term restrictions within the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act that
prohibit the United States from funding the full range of reproductive health services in its foreign aid. In particular, the 1973 Helms Amendment bans
U.S. funding for most abortion services abroad. In fact, given the high toll paid by women in the developing world who obtain unsafe abortions, there is
little reason other than politics that the United States should not join other donor countries in supporting the provision of safe abortion services
abroad. Yet, even a more progressive Congress is unlikely to repeal the Helms Amendment anytime soon. Meanwhile, however, at least some of its
harmfuland unnecessary, if long-standingeffects could be mitigated administratively through revised field guidance highlighting activities that are,
in fact, permissible under the law. Such activities would include USAID support for clinical training under certain conditions; provision of neutral,
abortion-related information; and funding of abortion services in cases of rape and incest or where the life of the woman is in danger. Finally, while
the administration works with Congress to ensure the appropriate role of sexual and reproductive health within overall U.S. global health and
development efforts, it must not neglect the same advocacy at the international level, where issues of sexual and reproductive health are at risk of being
lost among concerns of financial crisis and worsening poverty among both developing and developed countries. It is imperative that the United States
reminds others of the integral role of reproductive health in economic development and fights to keep these issues on the worlds agenda. The

Obama administration will have plenty of opportunities in the coming months and years to
demonstrate renewed leadership on the global stage, beginning with the ICPD+15 commemoration this year and the 10year follow-up to the MDGs in 2010. At a range of important conferences, advocates will be looking to
the United States to take a strong leadership role in negotiating progressive outcomes
for consensus documents, so as to further a progressive and effective policy agenda for
population and development. In particular, the world will be watching as the U.S. delegation
negotiates a likely MDG+10 outcome document, with advocates monitoring its commitment
to tearing down barriers to the vindication of the sexual and reproductive health
and rights of millions of individuals across this planet.

Meeting family planning needs solves overpopulationit ensures a

sustainable global population by 2050
Richard E. White 14, Professor Emeritus-Smith College, Food Security, Population, and

Reproductive Health, in Global Population and Reproductive Health, ed Deborah R. McFarlane,

ebook
Successful navigation of the demographic transition and avoidance of the demographic trap
depend on timely reduction in fertility. Three factors play key roles here: awareness of women that fertility reduction
is a choice; objective advantages to smaller family size; and availability of acceptable means of fertility reduction.64 The first factor
depends largely on womens educational status; the second on economic variables, including empowerment of women; and the third
on access to reproductive health services. A powerful comparison of two progressive states in India (Kerala and Tamil
Nadu) shows

that education and empowerment of women there have led to even larger fertility
reductions than the coercive measures adopted in China.9(Chapter9) Furthermore, comparisons between these
two states and other Indian states where birth rates remain high reveal that education of women and their participation in the work
force are the only two elements that have significantly impacted birth rates. Multivariate analysis of a global data set confirms that
literacy rate for women aged 15 and older has the strongest influence on reductions in total fertility rates.64 Others have also
documented the importance of womens education in decreasing birth rates.65(p376),66(p241) Improved access to

contraception has led to avoidance of an estimated 230 million births per year, and an additional
avoidance of some 270,000 annual maternal deaths.67 These results suggest that extending modern
reproductive health servicesin particular, meeting the unfulfilled need for
contraception of an estimated 222 million women worldwide is likely to
accelerate reductions in both fertility and maternal mortality. Yet extending contraception services to
these women would still leave millions more women without access to family planning.67 Even so, gradual fulfillment of
the unmet need for family planning would reduce total fertility rates below the
replacement level after 2030 and approach the levels of the UNs low population estimate
for 2050.68 Even where food security prevails, particularly in industrialized countries, ongoing population
growth imposes growing environmental impacts, such as climate change and biodiversity loss.
Population stabilization, therefore, is a necessary goal for achievement of global sustainability.
Although poverty reduction and improved food access could greatly reduce food insecurity in the world
today, long-term stability of food security requires cessation of population growth. Efforts in this direction
require engagement of the worlds women.

Overpopulation will cause extinction---tech and consumption changes fail

absent population change
Chris Hedges 9, Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute, Pulitzer winner, Are We Breeding
Ourselves to Extinction?, March 10,
http://www.alternet.org/story/130843/are_we_breeding_ourselves_to_extinction
*numbers transcribed into words, noted with brackets
All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not
cut population growth. By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will
have between 8 billion and 10 billion people, according to a recent U.N. forecast. This is a 50 percent
increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern reportin Britain, do not mention the word population.

Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of
population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of

fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge
us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the
dinosaurs disappeared. We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet 's life-forms -- an
estimated 8,760 [eight thousand, seven hundred and sixty] species die off per year -- because,
simply put, there are too many people. Most of these extinctions are the direct result of the
expanding need for energy, housing, food and other resources. The Yangtze River dolphin,
Atlantic gray whale, West African black rhino, Merriam's elk, California grizzly bear, silver trout,
blue pike and dusky seaside sparrow are all victims of human overpopulation. Population growth,
as E.O. Wilson says, is "the monster on the land." Species are vanishing at a rate of a hundred to a thousand
times faster than they did before the arrival of humans. If the current rate of extinction
continues, Homo sapiens will be one of the few life-forms left on the planet, its members scrambling violently
among themselves for water, food, fossil fuels and perhaps air until they too disappear.
Humanity, Wilson says, is leaving the Cenozoic, the age of mammals, and entering the
Eremozoic -- the era of solitude. As long as the Earth is viewed as the personal property of the human race, a belief

embraced by everyone from born-again Christians to Marxists to free-market economists, we are destined to soon inhabit a
biological wasteland. The populations in industrialized nations maintain their lifestyles because they have the military and
economic power to consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources. The United States alone gobbles up about 25 percent
of the oil produced in the world each year. These nations view their stable or even zero growth birthrates as sufficient. It has been
left to developing countries to cope with the emergent population crisis. India, Egypt, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia, Cuba and China,
whose one-child policy has prevented the addition of 400 million people, have all tried to institute population control measures. But
on most of the planet, population growth is exploding. The U.N. estimates that 200 million women worldwide do not have access to
contraception. The population of the Persian Gulf states, along with the Israeli-occupied territories, will double in two decades, a rise
that will ominously coincide with precipitous peak oil declines. The overpopulated regions of the globe will ravage

their local environments, cutting down rainforests and the few remaining wilderness areas, in a
desperate bid to grow food. And the depletion and destruction of resources will eventually create
an overpopulation problem in industrialized nations as well. The resources that industrialized nations
consider their birthright will become harder and more expensive to obtain. Rising water levels on coastlines, which
may submerge coastal nations such as Bangladesh, will disrupt agriculture and displace millions,
who will attempt to flee to areas on the planet where life is still possible. The rising temperatures and droughts have
already begun to destroy crop lands in Africa, Australia, Texas and California . The effects of this

devastation will first be felt in places like Bangladesh, but will soon spread within our borders. Footprint data suggests that, based on
current lifestyles, the sustainable population of the United Kingdom -- the number of people the country could feed, fuel and support
from its own biological capacity -- is about 18 million. This means that in an age of extreme scarcity, some 43 million people in Great
Britain would not be able to survive. Overpopulation will become a serious threat to the viability of many

industrialized states the instant the cheap consumption of the world's resources can no longer
be maintained. This moment may be closer than we think. A world where 8 billion to 10 billion
people are competing for diminishing resources will not be peaceful. The industrialized
nations will, as we have done in Iraq, turn to their militaries to ensure a steady supply of fossil fuels,
minerals and other nonrenewable resources in the vain effort to sustain a lifestyle that will , in the end,
be unsustainable. The collapse of industrial farming, which is made possible only with cheap oil, will
lead to an increase in famine, disease and starvation. And the reaction of those on the bottom
will be the low-tech tactic of terrorism and war. Perhaps the chaos and bloodshed will be so massive that
overpopulation will be solved through violence, but this is hardly a comfort. James Lovelock, an independent British scientist who

has spent most of his career locked out of the mainstream, warned several decades ago that disrupting

the delicate
balance of the Earth, which he refers to as a living body, would be a form of collective suicide. The atmosphere
on Earth -- 21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen -- is not common among planets, he notes. These gases are generated, and
maintained at an equable level for life's processes, by living organisms themselves. Oxygen and nitrogen would

disappear if the biosphere was destroyed. The result would be a greenhouse atmosphere similar
to that of Venus, a planet that is consequently hundreds of degrees hotter than Earth. Lovelock
argues that the atmosphere, oceans, rocks and soil are living entities. They constitute, he says, a self-regulating system. Lovelock, in
support of this thesis, looked at the cycle in which algae in the oceans produce volatile sulfur compounds. These compounds act as
seeds to form oceanic clouds. Without these dimethyl sulfide "seeds" the cooling oceanic clouds would be lost. This self-regulating
system is remarkable because it maintains favorable conditions for human life. Its destruction would not mean the death of the
planet. It would not mean the death of life-forms. But it would mean the death of Homo sapiens. Lovelock advocates

nuclear power and thermal solar power; the latter, he says, can be produced by huge mirrors mounted in deserts such
as those in Arizona and the Sahara. He proposes reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide with large plastic cylinders thrust vertically
into the ocean. These, he says, could bring nutrient-rich lower waters to the surface, producing an algal bloom that would increase
the cloud cover. But he warns that these steps will be ineffective if we do not first control

population growth. He believes the Earth is overpopulated by a factor of about seven. As the planet overheats -and he believes we can do nothing to halt this process -- overpopulation will make all efforts to save the
ecosystem futile. Lovelock, in "The Revenge of Gaia," said that if we do not radically and immediately cut greenhouse gas
emissions, the human race might not die out but it would be reduced to "a few breeding pairs." "The Vanishing Face of Gaia," his
latest book, which has for its subtitle "The Final Warning," paints an even grimmer picture. Lovelock says a continued

population boom will make the reduction of fossil fuel use impossible. If we do not
reduce our emissions by 60 percent, something that can be achieved only by walking away from
fossil fuels, the human race is doomed, he argues. Time is running out. This reduction will
never take place, he says, unless we can dramatically reduce our birthrate. All efforts to
stanch the effects of climate change are not going to work if we do not practice vigorous
population control. Overpopulation, in times of hardship, will create as much havoc in industrialized
nations as in the impoverished slums around the globe where people struggle on less than two dollars a day.
Population growth is often overlooked, or at best considered a secondary issue, by many environmentalists, but it is as
fundamental to our survival as reducing the emissions that are melting the polar ice caps.

1AC Palermo Advantage

CONTENTION 2: PALERMO

Conflation due to anti-trafficking vagueness in UN Protocols continues

today but openings mean nows the crucial time to reconceptualize
trafficking apart from prostitution
Janie A. Chuang 14, Assistant Professor of Law at American University, "Exploitation Creep

and the Unmaking of Human Trafficking Law", last revised 10/30/14,

http://www.upf.edu/gredtiss/_pdf/2013-LLRNConf_Chuang.pdf
What might otherwise be viewed as a rather promiscuous conflation of these legal concepts is
possible here because of the notoriously rigor-free nature of the anti-trafficking field. This
partly results from the fact that, unlike other fields where an advocacy movement spurs creation of a new
legal regime in the trafficking field, the reverse occurred.68 Catching rights advocates flat-footed,
governments created and adopted the UN Trafficking Protocol in record time, fueled largely by
security concerns over increasingly porous borders. For the sake of quickly achieving international consensus over the treaty,
the UN Protocol drafters adopted a definition of trafficking that included
chronically vague elements that remain both undefined under international law and subject to
vast differences in interpretation. The vagaries of the trafficking definition have since enabled
advocates of different stripes to pursue their (sometimes conflicting) causes under the trafficking
banner. Indeed, widespread government and foundation support for anti-trafficking programs has created a veritable trafficking
industrial complex boasting lucrative funding opportunities, incentivizing public interest organizations to frame their work as
antitrafficking projects in order to tap otherwise shrinking public interest funding possibilities. Consequently,

trafficking in the eye of different beholders has alternately meant combating all
(even voluntary) prostitution, international marriage brokering, the labor rights abuse of lowwage migrant
workers or, indeed, of any worker (alien or not) trapped at the bottom of the global economy. The rapid population of the
trafficking field by such diverse actors and agendas has further muddied the already murky doctrinal
waters. Much of the modern anti-trafficking movements first decade was consumed, for example,
by debates over whether the scope of the trafficking definition encompasses noncoerced adult prostitution. Indeed, Whether the U.N. Protocol definitions inclusion of such phrases as exploitation
of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation and abuse of a position of vulnerability consumed the first
decade of the modern antitrafficking movement, and continues to fuel the (often morally-charged) positions of sex

workers rights advocates and anti-prostitution neoabolitionists alike .69 The

recasting of forced labor as trafficking, and trafficking as slavery heralds a second generation of
definitional debates, this time waged between government bureaucracies seeking and resisting a
more capacious role for the trafficking regime. This dynamic has placed up for grabs

the power to fundamentally reconceptualize the problem of trafficking and

the appropriate paradigm and actors to address it, as discussed below
The USs conflation puts it out of step with Palermo nowUS
criminalization of prostitution undermines successful implementation of
UN goals
Janie Chuang 6, Practitioner-in-Residence, American University Washington College of Law.
J.D., Harvard Law School, THE UNITED STATES AS GLOBAL SHERIFF: USING
UNILATERAL SANCTIONS TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 27 Mich. J. Int'l L. 437,
Westlaw
III. Assessing the U.S. Anti-Trafficking Sanctions Regime Since the passage of the TVPA, the U.S.
government has issued five TIP Reports and three rounds of sanctions against countries deemed
non-compliant with the U.S. minimum standards for combating trafficking. Eager to avoid the threat of U.S. sanctions, an
unprecedented number of governments worldwide have passed anti-trafficking legislation and
developed domestic infrastructure to meet the U.S. minimum standards. In one sense, then, the sanctions regime has contributed to the international *465 framework by

But whether the actions taken by a government

result from a genuine commitment to eradicate trafficking or, instead, serve as
expedient cover against the threat of U.S. economic sanctions is a critical distinction to bear in mind. As
discussed above, the success of the TVPA sanctions regime should be measured qualitatively, with
respect to its overall ability to bring governments closer to internalizing international antitrafficking norms. Viewed through the lens of the four assessment criteria discussed in Part II, the U.S. minimum standards and the
process by which the United States articulates and promotes those standards abroad fall short of their
capacity to promote internalization of international anti-trafficking norms. Instead,
the TVPA sanctions regime has become a convenient vehicle for the United States to export its domestic views
and priorities on issues that were highly contested in Vienna and for which the Palermo Protocol
effectively brokered a ceasefire. In threatening to disturb this fragile consensus, the sanctions regime
endangers prospects for much-needed international participation in the articulation,
promulgation, recognition, and internalization of international anti-trafficking norms. A.
promoting recognition of states' obligation to address trafficking.139

Mutually Binding Norms? The first criterion to be considered in assessing the sanctions regime's legitimacy is whether the norms the United States seeks to enforce are
mutually binding on the United States and its target states or, alternatively, binding on all states as a matter of customary international law. Basing the regime on mutually

A
foundation in mutually binding norms also helps stave off allegations of U.S. hypocrisy in forcing
others to abide by norms to which the United States refuses to bind itself. While the hypocrisy
charge typically has been of little consequence to the United States,140 it has particular
significance in the trafficking context, where international cooperation is essential to the
success of both global and U.S. domestic anti-trafficking efforts. The recent decision by
the United States to ratify the Palermo Protocol is a welcome development in this regard. By signaling to the *466 international
binding norms avoids conflict with international law norms regarding nonintervention and non-forcible countermeasures and preserves respect for state sovereignty.

community, through ratification, its willingness to be bound by a set of internationally-defined standards, the United States has improved its standing to police the domestic

These salutary effects, however, are offset by the United States' unwillingness to
abide by the Palermo Protocol's compromise over the definition of trafficking.141 For reasons
explained below, this departure from the compromise definition risks undermining the overall
legitimacy of the TVPA sanctions regime. B. Inconsistency with International Norms The second
criterion for assessing the TVPA sanctions regime concerns whether the United States looks to international
standards in applying its domestic sanctions laws. Key factors to consider include whether the substance and application of the U.S.
anti-trafficking efforts of other countries.

minimum standards comply with the definitions set forth in international instruments and the interpretations and recommendations of international bodies. 142 As Cleveland

"states are much more likely to voluntarily comply with international norms that they
perceive to be fair, and reliable interpretation and application of international norms by
transnational actors is critical to encouraging nations to recognize, internalize, and obey
international law." 143 Given the struggles over the trafficking definition, consistency
with international norms is crucial to the successful operation of the international
anti-trafficking legal framework. As the legislative guide to the Protocol makes clear, "the main
reason for defining the term "trafficking in persons' in international law was to provide some
degree of consensus-based standardization of concepts" to undergird "efficient international
cooperation in investigating and prosecuting cases." 144 An agreed definition would also
standardize research and other activities, allowing for better comparison of national and
regional data and a clearer global picture of the problem. 145 By substituting its own
trafficking definition for that of the Protocol and failing to apply more comprehensive
human rights standards in its [*467] country assessments, however, the U.S. sanctions regime currently diverges in
critical respects from the evolving international anti-trafficking framework. 1. A "New
Realist" Approach to the Trafficking Definition In a move that invites Danchin's "new realism" critique, the TVPA sanctions regime employs a
trafficking definition that cites to the Protocol, but substantively modifies the
internationally-agreed upon Protocol definition. Embracing an abolitionist
viewpoint on prostitution reform, 146 this modified definition is fundamentally
inconsistent with the Protocol drafters' intent to preserve individual state
discretion to decide the domestic legal treatment of prostitution. 147 As discussed in Part I, in
notes,

implementing the sanctions regime, the TIP Office works closely with foreign governments to bring their domestic anti-trafficking laws and policies into compliance with the
U.S. minimum standards. 148 The TIP Office drafts a plan of action for the governments and then provides them with a document setting forth Legal Building Blocks to Combat
Trafficking in Persons (Legal Building Blocks), 149 i.e., model provisions for states to consider incorporating into their own domestic anti-trafficking laws. The Legal Building
Blocks employ a trafficking definition (TIP definition) that mirrors the Palermo Protocol definition but for one critical difference: how it defines the term "exploitation." 150

The Legal Building Blocks cite the Palermo Protocol as if to suggest the TIP definition carries the

imprimatur of the international community. But a comparison of the two trafficking definitions
exposes [*468] a sleight of hand: whereas the Palermo Protocol defines the "exploitation" element of the trafficking definition to include, at a minimum,

the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of
organs, 151 the TIP definition, while explicitly citing to the Protocol definition, states that: "Exploitation" shall mean3: (a) keeping a person in a state of slavery; (b)
subjecting a person to practices similar to slavery; (c) compelling or causing a person to provide forced labor or services; (d) keeping a person in a state of servitude, including
sexual servitude; (e) exploitation of the prostitution of another; (f) engaging in any other form of commercial sexual exploitation, including but not limited to pimping,
pandering, procuring, profiting from prostitution, maintaining a brothel, child pornography; (g) illicit removal of human organs. 152 All elements are the same but for the

the Palermo Protocol drafters

purposely left the terms "exploitation of the prostitution of others" and "other forms of
sexual exploitation" undefined to ensure that the trafficking definition would be "without
prejudice to how state parties address prostitution in their domestic laws." 153 While governments
technically are not required to incorporate the Legal Building Blocks into their domestic legislation, the threat of sanctions nonetheless
pressures governments to conform to U.S. preferences . By virtue of a December 2002 National Security Presidential Directive, 154
addition of subsection (f), defining "commercial sexual exploitation." As discussed above in Part I, however,

[*469] the U.S. government has now upped the ante by making the abolitionist position official U.S. policy and an explicit condition of its foreign grant-making programs. As
explained in the 2005 TIP Report 155 and a "Fact Sheet" on the TIP Office website, "the indisputable connection between human trafficking and prostitution led the [Bush]
Administration to take a strong stand against legalized and tolerated prostitution." 156 Accordingly, "the U.S. government [has] concluded that no U.S. grant funds should be
awarded to foreign non-governmental organizations that support legal state-regulated prostitution." 157 Specifically, U.S. law now prohibits the use of U.S. funds for (1)
programs that "promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution"; 158 and (2) any organization "that has not stated in either a grant application, a grant
agreement, or both, that it does not promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution." 159 The U.S. government recently extended this restriction to
U.S.-based HIV/AIDS organizations that receive funding for work overseas, requiring them to sign an "anti-prostitution loyalty oath" [*470] pledging their opposition to
prostitution and sex trafficking. 160 Predictably, this policy has spawned two lawsuits challenging its constitutionality on First Amendment grounds. 161 Though the sanctions
regime does not explicitly require countries to adopt an abolitionist position, the combination of the funding restrictions and the Legal Building Blocks strongly signals to those
in need of economic assistance that the path to gold lies on the abolitionist side of the road. Having provided $ 82 million in anti-trafficking grants in 2004 alone, 162 the United

the ability of developing countries and

countries with economies in transition to respond to trafficking depends on the availability of
economic and technical assistance to enable them to fully implement many of the key provisions
of the Crime Convention and Palermo Protocol. 163 The United States being the largest source of antitrafficking grant funds in the world, these countries are placed in the unenviable position of
either (1) not developing anti-trafficking programs due to the lack of funds and thus risking U.S.
sanctions; or (2) avoiding sanctions by developing anti-trafficking programs with U.S. financial
assistance and its accompanying abolitionist restrictions. In either case, the strong U.S. foreign
policy stance on prostitution infuses the sanctions threat with intense pressure on target
countries to abide by U.S. abolitionist preferences, 164 contrary to the discretion the
Palermo Protocol explicitly afforded on this issue.
States plays a critical role in global economic assistance. As repeatedly raised during the Vienna process,

The State department is open to resolving trafficking conflation but only

concrete legal change based on a broader IHRL framework in support of
sex work solves
Kari Lerum 12, Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences & Cultural Studies at
University of Washington, Bothell, and Adjunct Professor in Gender, Women, and Sexuality
Studies at University of Washington, Seattle, with Kiesha McCurtis, Penelope Saunders, and
Stphanie Wahab, Using Human Rights to Hold the US Accountable for its Anti-Sex Trafficking
Agenda: The Universal Periodic Review and new directions for US policy,
http://www.antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/article/view/24/42
First, because of the persistent misperception in the US that most or all sex workers are victims of
trafficking, advocates needed to clearly define the difference between human trafficking and
sex work to policy makers. By doing so, they could then illuminate for officials why it is a
problem that US policies against sex work and human trafficking mistakenly stem
from the same logic (unlike, for example, policies around trafficked farm labour vs. voluntary farm labour). Second, federal
policy reform around reducing violence and human rights abuses against sex workers is particularly difficult to
institutionalise due to the US governance structure in which power is divided and shared
between the central (federal) and state or local governments. In other words, even if the State
Department changed its understanding of sex work and human trafficking, this would not
automatically translate into legal changes at the state or local level.56 Third, while police

violence and criminalisation were (and are) the most pressing human rights concerns for sex worker rights advocates in the US, advocates realised that
they could not address sex workers rights with US lawmakers without also engaging in dialogue around current anti-trafficking measures. Therefore, in
developing messages that would resonate in meetings with House and Senate representatives and the State Department, advocates

needed
to underscore the negative impact that trafficking measures have on human rights in the US. For
example, they drew attention to the ways that federal anti-trafficking funding streams have

increased (rather than decreased) law enforcement abuse on sex workers at city and state levels.57 At the same time,
due to federal funding restrictions for such research in the US, building this case with systematic research evidence (as opposed to anecdotal stories) is
an ongoing challenge.58 Connecting with federal officials In February 2011, advocates

met with Senate and House

representatives and their staff to raise awareness about UPR recommendation #86, and the need for the US to accept the
recommendation in its report to the UN.59 Advocates also managed to meet with State Department
representatives including Harold Koh, senior legal adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and head of
the US delegation to the UN Human Rights Commission for the UPR. While these meetings took
considerable effort for advocates to arrange, they were facilitated by the mandate provided by the UPR to engage
in open dialogue with members of civil society. State Department officials took this UN mandate
seriously, and repeatedly articulated to human rights activists their intent to demonstrate to
their global peers how the US is a model for how to best engage with civil society
during the UPR process. In their messages to representatives of the House and Senate and State Department, advocates
stressed that policies must be accountable to reliable evidence and assessment. To address this
need, they urged representatives to build capacity for human rights through research and
dialogue.60 In addition, advocates urged the US government and Congress to [m]odify or eliminate
existing federal policies that conflate sex work with human trafficking and prevent sex workers
from accessing services such as healthcare, HIV prevention and support. Advocates also recommended the
revocation of the anti-prostitution loyalty oath (instructing the Department of Justice to cease its appeal of litigation challenging the oath), and

proposed that sex workers should be included in the US National HIV/AIDS Strategy regarding prevention and harm reduction efforts.61 For

the
first time since the rebirth of the sex worker rights movement in the 2000s, advocates carrying clear
and well-developed messages had gained access to senior policy makers and elected federal
officials. During these meetings many policy makers initially assumed that advocates had come
to raise concern over sex trafficking; some were initially unable to grasp the idea that non-trafficking related human rights
abuses were faced by the constituents represented by Human Rights for All.62 These meetings illustrated the extent to which
sex trafficking had come to be understood by policy makers in Washington, D.C. as the central
issue encompassing all human rights questions in regards to prostitution. However, these
meetings also demonstrated the intellectual openness of some current officials to broaden
their understanding of the issues at hand especially when presented with meticulous evidence
and when supported by a broad coalition of respected activists, scholars, and health officials. As a result of these
successful connections across many lines of difference (both within the Human Rights for All coalition and between the HRFA advocates and federal
officials), the

messages delivered by the activists instigated a series of both personal and political
transformations. Most notably, in early March 2011 the US released report to the United Nations
in which the government officially accepted recommendation #86, stating: No one should face
violence or discrimination in access to public services based on sexual orientation or their status as a
person in prostitution.63 As we describe next, this remarkable and historic statement by the State
Department has opened up a new set of opportunities and challenges for sex worker activists.
Current Opportunities and Challenges The UPR process highlighted the ongoing importance of the global
human rights community for bringing a diversity of marginalised voicesincluding those of sex
workersto the attention of US policy makers.64 It is our contention that the US State
Departments acceptance of recommendation #86 is an indication of the ability for
organised sex workers and their allies to press for change .65 Recommendation #86 is
itself limited in what it calls forframing human rights abuses in terms of basic respect under
the law and access to social services.66 However, a broader human rights strategy around sex work (e.g. one
that also includes labour rights, immigrant rights, and sexual rights) has the potential to chip away
at the hegemonic understanding of sex workers as people who must be rescued, saved, and/or
reviled. During the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, progressives working on HIV/AIDS treatment and care, reproductive rights
and human rights found themselves as outsiders in Washington, D.C.; meanwhile, conservative feminists and the religious right were provided open
access to influence policy.67 The

election of President Obama led to great hope that key policies in these areas
would return to being based on scientific evidence, best practices and human rights standards.
Obama initially pushed back on some of the most retrogressive sexual and reproductive policies implemented
under Bush,68 but over time progressives have been disappointed on many issues. In regards to
anti-trafficking policies, the Obama State Department has indicated an openness to policy
change but has also left a great deal of the Bush approach intact. The administration has

publicly rejected an absolute link between trafficking and sex work , stating that, prostitution by willing adults is
not human trafficking regardless of whether it is legalized, decriminalized, or criminalized.69 However in 2010, after a
temporary suspension of the US appeal, Obama defended the anti-prostitution loyalty oath by
continuing to pursue appeals of an injunction won by US-based international aid organisations
preventing the application of policy to their organisations. 70 Even though these US-based
organisations have again prevailed in court, the anti-prostitution loyalty oath continues
to remain in effect for the vast majority of organisations seeking PEPFAR funding
worldwide under terms almost identical to those imposed under the Bush administration .71
Despite the mixed bag presented by the Obama approach to anti-trafficking policies, advocates for sex workers rights were delighted when, some
months after the US accepted recommendation 86, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the term sex worker during a speech. Commenting on
the achievements of international development work for rights at a celebration of LGBT Pride Month co-hosted by the State Department and Gays and
Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, Clinton reported: [o]ur colleagues are meeting with human rights activists, health authorities, youth activists, sex
workers, the full range of people who are involved in and working to protect LGBT peoples rights and lives.72 This statement combined with the
acceptance of recommendation #86 indicates that central figures in the State Department are, for the first time in more than a decade, prepared to
dialogue about the rights of sex workers.73 Holding the US accountable to Human Rights Principles We

are now in a historic

moment when human rights and sexual rights are beginning to be introduced into frames of
both sex work and human trafficking.74 For the first time in more than a decade, sex workers in
the US are finally gaining political ground. Cracks have appeared in the almost hegemonic
US approach to trafficking in persons. And perhaps for the first time in US history, sex workers and their allies have developed
workable recommendations for change on the federal and international level. Advocates recognised early on in the UPR
process that translating the rhetorical success of the UPR into tangible policy results would
require decades of work. The UPR process gave rise to an active working group of sex worker
rights advocates who have continued to collaborate with working group members beyond
organising around the UPR. Advocates with the BPPP have committed to maintaining a presence in Washington, D.C. with a dedicated

policy consultant monitoring and analysing related policy actions, including the Washington, D.C. policies on Prostitution Free Zones. The process has
also inspired other advocate working group members to generate more collaborative-based research on sex work issues and to address the dearth of
quality data available. The

pre- and post-UPR processes discussed above represent small victories for
the range of individuals involved in sexual commerce as well as their allies and activist s. We now
face a unique opportunityafforded by a global mandate of the United Nationsto begin
systematically implementing human rights principles into research, activism, and policies regarding both
sex work and human trafficking. In his concluding statement to the Human Rights Council, Harold Koh, Legal Adviser of the State
Department, stated that, this is an ongoing process leading to concrete policy and self conscious change.Sex work activists and researchers in the fields
of sexual and reproductive health, human rights, and justice must continue to work together along with our international alliesto hold US governing
and policing institutions accountable to human rights principles for all people engaged in sex trade work.

Scenario 1: Labor Trafficking

Current U.S. conflation is modeled and creates uneven enforcement of
trafficking policy---prevents data collection
Janie A. Chuang 10, Assistant Professor of Law at American University, "Rescuing Trafficking
From Ideological Capture: Prostitution Reform and Anti-Trafficking Law and Policy", Vol. 158,
2010, scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=penn_law_review
A. The Impact on U.S. and International Anti-trafficking Laws Neo-abolitionist advocacy has
affected the ability of U.S. and international anti-trafficking laws to serve the populations they
were designed to protect in two critical respects: (1) by drawing attention away from those
trafficked into non-sex sectors, and (2) by confusing legal standards by strategically
equating trafficking with slavery. Both effects perpetuate inconsistency and confusion
regarding the legal definitions of trafficking and thus undermine the central goal of the U.N.
Trafficking Protocolthat is, to foster international cooperation among states to combat this
crime and human rights violation. U.S. and international anti-trafficking laws were designed to address both sex- and non-sexsector trafficking of men, women, and children. As discussed above,210 expanding the definition of trafficking to
include non-sex-sector forms was a significantand necessary, given the arguably greater
number of non-sex-sector victims improvement on the prior legal regime. Neo-abolitionist
pressure has resulted in uneven domestic enforcement of these laws, however, with the
emphasis on law enforcement activity, resource allocation, and service provision targeted at sex-sector trafficking

and prostitution.

Other countries have followed suit, more likely to adopt domestic laws on sexsector trafficking than on non-sex-sector trafficking, and often passing anti-prostitution
laws under the guise of trafficking laws. Until recently, neo-abolitionist pressure led the U.S.
sanctions regime to condoneif not encouragesuch uneven legislative responses to the different
forms of trafficking.211 The focus on sex-sector trafficking undermines the U.S. and international legal
definitions of trafficking and the U.N. Trafficking Protocols goal of ensuring a consistent legal
definition of trafficking from country to country in order to facilitate more effective
international cooperation. For example, a uniform definition of trafficking is necessary to
foster coordinated transnational responses to trafficking cases and to facilitate
data collection regarding this underresearched phenomenon. Statistics in the trafficking field are notoriously unreliable,
unsubstantiated figures often recycled and accepted as true, as if sheer repetition guarantees veracity.212 One of the key
obstacles to data collection has been the fact that countries and organizations define trafficking
differently, some conflating trafficking with other phenomena, including smuggling, illegal
migration, and prostitution.213 Additionally, neo-abolitionist pressure on states to conflate sex
trafficking and prostitution perpetuates this confusion and inconsistency.

This undercuts effective labor trafficking solutions---recognizing

prostitution as legitimate sex work solves
Janie A. Chuang 10, Assistant Professor of Law at American University, "Rescuing Trafficking
From Ideological Capture: Prostitution Reform and Anti-Trafficking Law and Policy", Vol. 158,
2010, scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=penn_law_review
Taking advantage of their power to control anti-trafficking discourse within the U nited States, the neoabolitionists have embedded in the public consciousness a reductive narrative of trafficking . Through
two discursive moves, this narrative redefines the putative victim population as linked to the sex sector
first, by focusing attention on sex-sector trafficking to the exclusion of non-sexsector trafficking, and second, by conflating trafficking with prostitution. While in some sense all
narratives are reductive, these particular discursive moves have set in motion a set of negative (however unintended)
consequences. The reductive trafficking narrative oversimplifies the problem of trafficking from a
complex human rights problem rooted in the failure of migration and labor frameworks to respond to globalizing trends, to a moral problem and crime of sexual violence against women and girls best addressed

In so doing, the narrative circumscribes the range and content of anti-trafficking

interventions proffered, feeding states preference for aggressive criminal justice responses. It overlooks, if not
through an aggressive criminal justice response.

discounts, the need for better migration and labor frameworks or socioeconomic policies to counter the negative effects of globalizing trends that drive people to undertake risky migration projects in the first
instance. 1. The Focus on Sex Trafficking The influence of neo-abolitionist discourse traces back to Representative Smiths original anti-trafficking bill, which was presented to legislators and the American
public as a necessary response to the 50,000 innocent women and young children . . . thrust into the international sex trade industry with no way out each year.156 Though the 50,000 figure actually
encompassed trafficking of men, women, and children into the United States for sweatshop labor, domestic work, and agricultural labor (and was downgraded in 2003 to a figure of 18,000 to 20,000),157 [t]he
misleading claim that all these . . . were sex slaves. . . was useful in rallying public support for victims of migrant abuse in a climate generally hostile to undocumented workers in Americas factories and

abolitionist feminists strategically fram[ed] the harms of prostitution and trafficking

as politically neutral questions of humanitarian concern about third world women .159 In the wake of antifields.158 The neo-

prostitution feminists failed domestic pornography and prostitution wars in the early 1980s and 1990s, focusing on Third World women was pivotal to waging the fight against commercial sexuality at home and
abroad.160 Accordingly, congressional testimony in the lead-up to the TVPA played on the imagery of women and children forced into literal sexual slavery, utilizing graphic images of women and girls locked in
trailers, raped, and deprived of food.161 Victims were portrayed as no more than unwilling goods exchanged between unscrupulous men, . . . commodities . . . bodies exchanged on a market.162 The imagery
used in this new campaign against modern-day slavery was reminiscent of that used in the early 1900s in the feminist-conservative crusade against white slaveryof innocent women lured, deceived, and

The inordinate focus on sex-sector trafficking belies the reality that

non-sex-sector trafficking accounts for nearly as manyand arguably more164trafficking cases
worldwide. Yet U.S. enforcement priorities, media attention, and NGO practice have treated trafficking for forced
prostitution as the paradigmatic instance of what modern-day slavery is assumed to be .165 A
seduced into prostitution by evil, wanton men.163

comparison of the number of U.S. prosecutions during the period 1996 to 2000 (pre-TVPA) and the period 2001 to 2005 (post-TVPA) reveals an 871% increase in cases involving sexsector trafficking and only a

Media reporting on sex-sector trafficking is hugely disproportionate to

the reporting on non-sex-sector trafficking ,167 as evidenced by the attention garnered by Nicholas Kristofs high-profile and controversial New York Times series
109% increase in non-sex-sector trafficking cases.166

on sex slavery in Cambodia168 and India169 and Peter Landesmans New York Times Magazine expos on sex slavery in the United States.170 The vast majority of documentaries and films on trafficking focus
on sex-sector trafficking.17 By contrast, Chicago Tribune reporter Cam Simpsons awardwinning Pipeline to Peril series on the trafficking of Nepalese men into U.S. military bases in Iraq for forced labor172
garnered relatively little attention in mainstream media and public discourse. Cases of women and girls trafficked into forced domestic work in the United States, a phenomenon exposed by Human Rights Watch
back in 2001,173 only began receiving media attention within the last three years,174 when non-abolitionists made it a priority in lobbying for the 2008 TVPRA. Recent case law reveals that those trafficked into

Critics of
the biased treatment of the different forms of trafficking attribute the disparity to the
mediagenic nature of sex-sector traffickingsimply put, the fact that sex sells.176 The reductive
narrative of trafficking as being about women and children forced into prostitution resonates
because of its simple narrative structure, with a bad guy (evil trafficker or deviant, sex-crazed male) doing bad things (sexual
violence or enslavement) to an innocent, ignorant, impoverished victim (trafficked woman or child, sex slave, or prostitute). The imprisoned nanny or the forced
non-sex sectors tend to be viewed simply as exploited migrants rather than trafficked per-sons; the problem is viewed as one of hiring illegal immigrants, not of abusive labor conditions.175

male farm worker is not nearly so compelling an object of pity or compassion as a brothel captive. The tendency to assume that the nanny and male farm
worker are illegal migrants masks the reality that many cross borders legally. And even if they do not, the notion that consent to cross borders illegally does not translate into consent to all subsequent exploitation
is harder to sell than the standard sex-sector trafficking narrative of innocence debauched. Migrants exploited in fields, farms, restaurants, hair and nail salons, homes, and factories are par for the course in the
United States, their exploiters quite possibly our neighbors, colleagues, and friends. The sense of urgency and threat to our communities is far greater when it comes to loose modern sexual mores, which can

This simplified version of trafficking is much easier to explain

to the general populace than the complex, multilayered narrative concerning the destabilizing effects of globalization and the resulting
transnational flow of capital, goods, and people.178 Under this construction, Third World prostitutes represent the
paradigmatic example of prostitution amounting to sex-sector trafficking . They are characterized as perpetually
underprivileged and marginalised by all-encompassing economic and cultural oppression, such that the very possibility of choice or agency is negated.180 By equating choice with
wealth, and coercion with poverty, no space remains to recognize and validate the choices that women
make when confronted with limited economic opportunities.181 As sociologist Kamala Kempadoo argues, the universalizations and
coerce or lure our daughters, sisters, and wives into the sex industry.177

generalizations that the neo-abolitionists adopt and export abroad reveal the epistemic privilege of a social group that has a racialized power to define the world and to create new meanings about social
realities.182 The reductive portrayal of the trafficking victim sets up a neoimperialist power relation that presumes and establishes an essential divide between East and West, South and North-exotic, archaic,
and authoritarian versus progressive and enlightened; it positions Third World women as ignorant, tradition bound, poor, and infantilized, resembling minors in need of guidance.183 In the prostitution context,
the neo-abolitionist narrative do[es] offer an important critique of liberal notions of freedom and consent that presume autonomous individuals abstracted from relations of power.184 These liberal notions miss
their mark in the trafficking context by failing to appreciate the nuances of contextfor example, how significant economic, gender, and racial inequalities severely compromise the exercise of choice in many
prostitution contexts. As sociologist Laura Agustn notes, many migrant prostitutes do notcontrary to the view of some Western sex-worker advocatesadopt the view that sex work is art, therapy, or like any
other job.185 While formalizing the industry might enable workers to advocate on their own behalf, many migrants do not self-identify as sex professionals but rather view sex work as a temporary financial
measure.186 As Agustn explains, there is an inescapable, fundamental contradiction[] of working in a sector where illegality is the norm.187 Normalizing sex work through harm-reduction strategies cannot

treating prostitution as possibly

a form of work at least focuses attention on the specificities of context: for instance, the fact that
certain working conditions are better for some (e.g., nationals) than others (e.g., migrants). Moreover, as Sullivan explains, the
prostitution-as-work discursive strategy . . . opens up a space for the formation of
new identities not based on passivity, or sexual exploitation and sexual victimhood.189 Perhaps [i]t is not sex
work itself that promotes oppressi[on] . . . but rather the particular cultural and legal production of a
marginalized, degraded prostitution that ensures its oppressive characteristics while acting to
limit the subversive potential that might attend a decriminalized, culturally legitimized form of sex work.190 Indeed, when it comes
to the commodification of sex, what matters ultimately is who controls the meaning of the purchase. In this sense, perhaps sex-worker unions could be an example
of the victims of commodification . . . appropriat[ing] the chains that bind them .191
avoid the practical obstacles to agency that most migrant sex workers suffer as a result of their unlawful migration status.188 Nonetheless,

Human trafficking is critical support for terrorism--- key to facilitate

terrorist travel and alliances
Russell D. Howard 13, professor at Middlebury Institute of International Studies,

Joint Special Operations University, Report 13-6, October 2013, "The Nexus of
Extremism and Trafficking: Scourge of the World or So Much Hype?"
jsou.socom.mil/JSOU%20Publications/13-6_Howard_Nexus_FINAL.pdf
Select cases show that supporters and facilitators have actually used human trafficking to
support terrorist efforts. Three Pakistani citizenswho were tried in a U.S. court
pleaded guilty to provide material support to the Tehrik-e-Taliban in Pakistan (TTP), a
designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO) often referred to as the Pakistani Taliban.62 The three men
admitted that between January 3, 2011 and March 10, 2011 they conspired to provide material support to the TTP
in the form of false documentation and identification, knowing that the TTP engages in terrorist activity and
terrorism. According to court documents [they] conducted a human smuggling operation in
Quito, Ecuador that attempted to smuggle an individual they believed to be a member of the TTP from Pakistan into

the case
underscores the threat posed by human smuggling networks that facilitate
terrorist travel.64 A similar case was reported in Europe in late 2011, when a Helsinki man
supporting the Somali Islamist al-Shabaab movement was arrested by Finlands National
Bureau of Investigation for participating in aggravated human trafficking with a terrorist
intent. The lead investigator stated that plans were under preparation for taking people
abroad without their knowledge of the real purpose of their travel. There is reason
to believe that they would have been taken to a training camp .65 This case is reportedly
the United States.63 According to Assistant Attorney General for National Security Lisa Monaco,

the countrys first-ever terrorism case, showing the expansion and pervasiveness of the nexus. In 2011, the
European Police Office (Europol)

reported a growing connection between human

trafficking and terrorism. Its European Union (EU) Terrorism Situation and Trend Report summarized

member states intelligence and analysis that the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Elam (LTTE) were actively involved in human trafficking. The Canadian government further reported that LTTE
entered the human cargo business when its arms smuggling profits dried up after the war in Sri Lanka ended.66 In
August 2011, the Criminal Investigation Department of Sri Lanka arrested a leading member of the LTTE named

Uganda Bala. The human trafficker had been transiting between Malaysia, Singapore, India, Thailand, and several
other countries, earning millions of rupees for LTTE by sending people to European countries via illegal means.67

These reports not only highlight the linkages between human trafficking and
terrorism, but they also show the resiliency and adaptability of these criminal nexus
organizations. Human traffickers and terrorists benefit from disruptions in an
increasingly globalized world characterized by enclaves that provide space for illicit
activities.68 These spaces can be juridical, social, virtual, or territorial, and may be the result of the vacuum in
power left by weak or failing states.69 Like other forms of organized crime, human trafficking
is pervasive, and there is hardly a location in the world that is not affected, whether
as an origin, transit, or recipient country.70 As a result, the opportunity for
linkages and alliances between human trafficking and terrorist groups is
great and widespread. The following case studies provide a sampling of this growing phenomenon.

Nuclear terror causes accidental US/Russia nuclear war---extinction

Anthony Barrett 13, PhD, Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University,

Director of Research, Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, Fellow in the RAND Stanton Nuclear
Security Fellows Program, Seth Baum, PhD, Geography, Pennsylvania State University,
Executive Director, GCRI, Research Scientist at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science,
former Visiting Scholar position at the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at
Columbia University, and Kelly Hostetler, Research Assistant, GCRI, 6/28, Analyzing and
Reducing the Risks of Inadvertent Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia, Science
and Global Security 21(2): 106-133
War involving significant fractions of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, which are by far the
largest of any nations, could have globally catastrophic effects such as severely reducing food production for years,1
potentially leading to collapse of modern civilization worldwide and even the extinction of
humanity.2 Nuclear war between the United States and Russia could occur by various routes, including accidental or unauthorized launch;
deliberate first attack by one nation; and inadvertent attack. In an accidental or unauthorized launch or detonation, system safeguards or procedures to
maintain control over nuclear weapons fail in such a way that a nuclear weapon or missile launches or explodes without direction from leaders. In a
deliberate first attack, the attacking nation decides to attack based on accurate information about the state of affairs. In an inadvertent attack, the
attacking nation mistakenly concludes that it is under attack and launches nuclear weapons in what it believes is a counterattack.3 (Brinkmanship
strategies incorporate elements of all of the above, in that they involve intentional manipulation of risks from otherwise accidental or inadvertent
launches.4 ) Over the years, nuclear strategy was aimed primarily at minimizing risks of intentional attack through development of deterrence
capabilities, though numerous measures were also taken to reduce probabilities of accidents, unauthorized attack, and inadvertent war. For purposes of
deterrence, both U.S. and Soviet/Russian forces have maintained significant capabilities to have some forces survive a first attack by the other side and
to launch a subsequent counterattack. However, concerns about the extreme disruptions that a first attack would cause in the other sides forces and
command-and-control capabilities led to both sides development of capabilities to detect a first attack and launch a counter-attack before suffering
damage from the first attack.5 Many people believe that with the end of the Cold War and with improved relations between the United States and

inadvertent nuclear
war between the United States and Russia has continued to present a substantial risk.7 While the
Russia, the risk of East-West nuclear war was significantly reduced.6 However, it has also been argued that

United States and Russia are not actively threatening each other with war, they have remained ready to launch nuclear missiles in response to

indications of attack.8 False indicators of nuclear attack could be caused in several ways . First, a wide range of
events have already been mistakenly interpreted as indicators of attack, including weather phenomena, a faulty computer chip, wild animal activity,
and control-room training tapes loaded at the wrong time.9 Second, terrorist

groups or other actors might cause attacks

on either the United States or Russia that resemble some kind of nuclear attack by the other
nation by actions such as exploding a stolen or improvised nuclear bomb ,10 especially if such an event occurs
during a crisis between the United States and Russia.11 A variety of nuclear terrorism scenarios are possible.12 Al
Qaeda has sought to obtain or construct nuclear weapons and to use them against the United
States.13 Other methods could involve attempts to circumvent nuclear weapon launch control
safeguards or exploit holes in their security.14 It has long been argued that the probability of
inadvertent nuclear war is significantly higher during U.S.-Russian crisis conditions ,15 with the Cuban
Missile Crisis being a prime historical example. It is possible that U.S.-Russian relations will significantly
deteriorate in the future, increasing nuclear tensions. There are a variety of ways for a
third party to raise tensions between the United States and Russia, making one or both nations
more likely to misinterpret events as attacks.16

And, international coop on trafficking is key to solve terror

Elsie Gonzalez 13, J.D. Candidate, Seton Hall University, 5/1/13, The Nexus
between Human Trafficking and Terrorism/Organized Crime: Combating Human
Trafficking By Creating a Cooperative Law Enforcement System,
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1227&context=student_scholarship
Technical cooperation among law enforcement agencies is essential for
investigating and prosecuting human traffickers. Actress Mira Sorvino, the U.N. goodwill
ambassador against human trafficking, said that there is a lack of strong legislation and police training to combat
trafficking.164 Even in the United States "only 10 percent of police stations have any protocol to deal with
trafficking."165 Yuri Fedotov, the head of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, called for coordinated local, regional

international responses that balance "progressive and proactive law

enforcement" with actions that combat "the market forces driving human trafficking
in many destination countries."166 Human trafficking, currently, is treated as a
social issue rather a matter of national security. Links between terrorists and
criminals, which capitalize upon gaps in law enforcement and weak security
structures, are increasingly becoming the norm. Any successful approach in
countering terror and crime will have to address human trafficking. Both
terrorist networks and organized criminal groups take advantage of the gray areas
in the law. Officials need to acknowledge the network structure of terrorists and
criminal groups with human trafficking and fight the networks cooperatively.
and

Scenario 2: Sanctions
U.S. domestic policy on prostitution shapes how we enforce TVPA
sanctions---plan moves away from current abolitionism that dictates
broader trafficking policy
Janie A. Chuang 10, Assistant Professor of Law at American University, "Rescuing Trafficking
From Ideological Capture: Prostitution Reform and Anti-Trafficking Law and Policy", Vol. 158,
2010, scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=penn_law_review
In the service of the neo-abolitionist cause, law and policy initiatives during the Bush Administration
waged a war on prostitution at home and abroad. The neo-abolitionists had key support
in the government bureaucracy to implement the anti-prostitution agenda worldwide , having
successfully lobbied for a neo-abolitionist to direct the U.S. State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
(GTIP),101 the office responsible for coordinating U.S. antitrafficking policy. Because 2003 was the first year that

countries risked anti-trafficking sanctions for failure to comply with the U.S. minimum standards,102 the
U.S. governments new anti-prostitution policy factored into perceptionsif not the realityof
what would be required of other countries in order to avoid sanctions.103 The State Department posted on
its website a Fact Sheet stating that where prostitution has been legalized or tolerated, there is an increase in the demand for sex
slaves and the number of victimized foreign womenmany likely victims of human trafficking.104 Prominent display of

the Fact Sheet on the State Department website alongside the Departments Model Law to
Combat Trafficking in Personswhich encouraged countries to adopt a definition of trafficking
that encompasses noncoerced prostitution105certainly signaled to other countries the U.S.
governments interest in eradicating prostitution worldwide. The U.S. governments aim to
eradicate prostitution writ large under the banner of anti-trafficking measures soon
manifested in more explicit laws and regulations that were introduced and largely adopted in the
2003, 2005, and 2008 reauthorizations of the TVPA.106 Three initiatives in particulareach
foreshadowed in earlier neoabolitionist congressional testimony articulating an agenda for U.S. anti-trafficking policymaking107
merit close attention: (1) antiprostitution restrictions on federal-grant administration, (2)

antiprostitution restrictions on U.S. military personnel and government contractors, and (3)
measures to end demand for prostitution and to federalize prostitution-related crimes .

Through the first two measures, the neo-abolitionists have remapped the
trafficking field, using the threatened withdrawal of U.S. funds to pressure foreign
governments, civil-society organizations, and private-sector actors to adopt anti-prostitution measures. Though
the third measure ultimately did not survive legislatively, that it was included in the House version of the 2008 reauthorization bill
marks the tremendous inroads the neoabolitionists have made in pursuit of their anti-prostitution agenda. But perhaps the most

significant neo-abolitionist gains lie not in these legal reforms but in their success in controlling
the trafficking discourse and promoting for mainstream consumption a reductive understanding
of the very nature of the trafficking phenomenon. Contrary to the U.S. and international legal definitions of
trafficking, the neo-abolitionists have succeeded in characterizing trafficking as
primarily about, if not limited to, prostitution (both forced and voluntary). Rather than a
complex phenomenon driven by deep economic disparities between wealthy and poor
communities and nations, and by inadequate labor and migration frameworks to manage their
consequences,108 neo-abolitionism constructs trafficking as a moral or social problem driven by
social deviance or entrenched male patriarchy. The following discussion describes the neo-abolitionist legal
reforms and reductive narrative used to heighten the urgency and stakes of the anti-prostitution campaign. Deeming the
problem a modern form of slavery, the neo-abolitionists have successfully transformed
the anti-trafficking movement into a modern, worldwide moral crusade against
prostitution.

Human rights infusion is key---it effectively limits the TVPA sanctions

regime
Janie Chuang 6, Practitioner-in-Residence, American University Washington College of Law.
J.D., Harvard Law School, THE UNITED STATES AS GLOBAL SHERIFF: USING
UNILATERAL SANCTIONS TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 27 Mich. J. Int'l L. 437
In addition to the definitional bait and switch, the relative absence of human rights norms in the
U.S. minimum standards contradicts the increasing incorporation of human rights principles
into evolving international anti-trafficking norms and, indeed, the avowed goals behind the TVPA. The TVPA's congressional

sponsors used the rhetoric of human rights to describe the problem of trafficking and to demand a rights-protective solution. 165 Arguing in support of
the sanctions regime, Senator Wellstone noted that "women are treated as criminals and not as victims of gross human rights abuse" and proclaimed
that "we intend to change that." 166 But protection

of the human rights of trafficked persons is not among the

four minimum standards. 167 Of the 10 indicia used to determine the fourth minimum standard - i.e., whether a government "makes

serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons" - only one refers to the human rights of victims, and does so almost in
passing. 168 The

actual application of the minimum standards, as demonstrated in the TIP Report country assessments,
reveals the low priority placed on human rights protections. 169 While the focus on a criminal
justice response might be viewed as consistent with the priorities set by the Palermo Protocol, 170 the
relative absence of human rights protections is not. In addition to the Crime Convention requirement that
states protect victims and witnesses from potential retaliation or intimidation, 171 the Palermo Protocol sets forth a framework
for providing human rights protections to trafficked persons , including, among others, medical and psychological
care, appropriate shelter, legal assistance, physical safety, temporary residence, and safe repatriation. 172 It also reaffirms the
applicability of [*472] broader international human rights law by virtue of the article 14 savings clause. 173 Moreover,
since the adoption of the Protocol, international anti-trafficking norm development has moved in the direction of greater recognition of the human
rights dimension to the success of global anti-trafficking efforts. In response to the "clear need for practical, rights-based policy guidance on the
trafficking issue," 174 the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) developed in 2002 its Recommended Principles and
Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking (UN Principles and Guidelines). 175 Noting

that efforts to combat

trafficking had been "ad hoc, sporadic and largely ineffective," marked by "a tendency to
marginalize the human rights and gender dimensions of trafficking," 176 the High Commissioner
sought to remind states of their obligation under international law to act with due diligence to prevent trafficking,

to investigate and prosecute traffickers, and to assist and protect trafficked persons. 177 Cited [*473] with increasing frequency by governments, IGOs,
and NGOs, 178 the UN Principles and Guidelines have been gaining persuasive force. 179 In

addition to promoting consistency

with the evolving international anti-trafficking norms, applying human rights has the
potential to produce more effective results . Recalling Koh's objections to the sanctions regime, trafficking is
not an isolated act of violence but rather part of a broader, vicious cycle of human rights abuses.
Trafficking being rooted in poverty, discrimination, and violence against women, among other enduring
socioeconomic rights violations, a sanctions strategy could miss the mark by failing to address the root

causes of the problem. 180 Because trafficking is a "bottom-up" human rights problem perpetrated by nonstate actors and rooted in private
greed and adverse economic and social conditions, 181 a strategy that penalizes government actors has limited effect and could exacerbate the root
causes of the problem by making target countries poorer and the victims even more vulnerable to traffickers. 182 Incorporating

substantive human rights standards into the application of the sanctions regime can
counter these limitations by drawing attention to the underlying human rights violations
that perpetuate trafficking.

That resolves current Indian tendency to deprioritize labor trafficking

Ratna Kapur 7, Global Professor of Law, Jindal Global Law School, Faculty, Geneva School of
Diplomacy and International Relations; Faculty, Harvard International Global Law and Policy
Institute, India, chapter in Collateral Damage: The Impact of Anti-Trafficking Measures on
Human Rights around the World, 2007, http://gaatw.org/Collateral
%20Damage_Final/CollateralDamage_%20INDIA.pdf
An important source of external pressure on India to amend its trafficking laws and policies
emanates from the United States (US) Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) and its
subsequent reauthorisations, the details of which have been set out in the introduction to this book. The annual tier
placements announced in the US Department of States Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP Report)
are regarded with considerable suspicion by some state and non-state actors , as they are
frequently based on criteria that has little to do with trafficking. The impact of the US TVPA has at best been
questionable, and at worst, harmful to the rights of the very constituency it is intended to help (Shapiro, 2004; Katayama, 2005).
For example, India has been placed on the Tier 2 Watch List for the third consecutive year because

of its apparent failure to show evidence of increasing efforts to address trafficking in persons
(US TIP Report, 2006). While India has a range of laws on trafficking , kidnapping and slavery, it does not
have a law outlawing prostitution, but rather regulates the sex industry. Yet the threat of
sanctions has pressurised the Indian government to draft a new law that focuses on
trafficking for prostitution, targeting, at the expense of their human rights, a broad range
of consensual sexual relationships where some exchange takes place, as well as women in the
sex industry. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA) Amendment Bill, 2006, completely
ignores trafficking into other sectors and criminalises clients, omitting employers
or companies that use trafficked labour. The proposed amendments to the Indian law
will do little to control trafficking, but could actually increase trafficking, as sex workers
will be unable to unionise or check that no underage girl or woman is forced into the profession,
as is currently done through the self-regulation boards set up by a union of sex workers in Calcutta. The sex
workers have mounted a very public and vocal opposition to these reforms supported by some
feminists, communitybased migrant groups, and those aware of the US pressure. With its clear emphasis on law
and order, the minimum standards set out in the TVPA fail to adequately address the need to promote and protect the human rights
of trafficked persons and to adopt broader prevention strategies that address the underlying causes of trafficking.

Thats key to Indias international reputation

Sharon Nambudripad Schiffer 13, University of Massachusetts Boston, Masters thesis in
public affairs, How Ending Gender Violence in India Improves the Nations International
Reputation and Tourism Industry: A Case for Nationalism, December 2013,
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1221&context=masters_theses
If the nation continues to turn a blind eye to the problem, its influence will have a drastic
impact upon the international system. Between the years 1990 and 2011, India's reputation within the international
community flourished. Clearly, tourism is a byproduct of globalization. As nations continue to gain reputation within the
international system, the influx of foreigners traveling to it increases. Prior to 2013, India was no exception to

this rule. Specifically, World Travel & Tourism Council calculated that tourism generated INR6.4 trillion 6.6% of the nation's GDP in 2012. It
supported 39.5 million jobs, 7.7% of its total employment. The sector is predicted to grow at an average annual rate of 7.9% from 2013 to 2023 (WTTC:
17 September 2012). As

the predicted increase in tourism each year is quite substantial, it is clear that
the Indian government had great faith in their nation's attractiveness at the time that the report was compiled.

However, the reality that has expressed itself varies greatly from the prediction, especially due to the December 16th incident. If India is unable to
promote itself as a nation worth traveling to, it is likely that a nation that promotes a higher degree of human security will replace it. As a nation with a
history of colonialism, India must solve the issue by itself rather than relying out outside forces, as a means of promoting human security. If there is an

external force coercing the nation to end this atrocity, it effectively loses its autonomy. As

two major priorities of the nation of

India are to increase its economy and its international reputation, the only way possible for
it to do so is to eliminate human trafficking. This thesis will analyze the specific root causes of India's problem of
gender-based violence and sex trafficking, and prove that only by eliminating both sexism and casteism in the nation (and promoting a sense of true
nationalism) will human trafficking be eradicated. In 1947, India was capable of achieving independence from British rule. One of the most
compelling reasons why the nation was able to achieve the goal of independence is because it was able to work cooperatively against one common
enemy: colonialism. Prior to 1947, under British rule, caste and gender divisions were major sources of division. As England's major interest at that
time was to promote its own economic interests in the region, the preexisting divisions within the country were advantageous to the colonial power.
Through major social movements from 1857 to 1947, there was one ideology that prevailed: nationalism. Although there were major caste and gender
divisions, the unified sense of Indian nationality was the major reason why the country was successful in achieving independence. By means of
regarding colonialism as a common enemy, the Indian identity was constructed. If human trafficking within the nation is regarded as an enemy to the
same extent as colonialism was, the same banding together in the name of nationalism is likely to occur. This thesis will argue that gender-

based violence is the 2013 enemy that colonialism was in the pre-1947 era . As society had the same
divisions in the past and were still capable of achieving a sense of unity toward a common goal, this specific piece of history must be repeated in order
to effectively eradicate gender violence. In the case of India, in the year 2011, the State Department had declared it a Tier 2 Watch List nation. In the
year 2012, it advanced to Tier 2, which means that it had taken some measures in order to decrease the severity of the organized crime in the nation.
As international awareness of sexual violence and trafficking in India have increased, the nation may have had an impetus to decrease the severity of
the illicit trade as a means of augmenting its international reputation. However, the fact remains that there

are individuals that are

involved in the illicit trade of humans, even citizens of their own country. This fact is telling of two major factors: the status
of those trafficked is perceived as 'lower' than that of the traffickers, and the trafficking
business is lucrative. As these fundamental facts prevail in India, the only way for it to be sustainably erased from the nation is by
debunking both ideas. This thesis will argue that the incidence of human trafficking in India in fact decreases its
position in the international system. The two aforementioned priorities of the nation: increasing its
international reputation and its GDP, cannot be accomplished without the eradication of
trafficking. Although the traffickers 'win' by earning $44.3 billion every year, of which $31.6 billion are from trafficked victims, according to The
International Labor Organization (ILO) estimate of global profits made from forced laborers exploited by private enterprises or agents (ILO, 2012). In
addition, world

profits from all forced commercial sexual exploitation amount to $33.9 billion. The
occurrence continues to detract from the GDP. This decrease in GDP is through the means of not only declining tourism
but also the decrease in potential human capital. More specifically, each individual who is a victim
of trafficking has a potential economic value that is unable to be realized . Each victim's responsibility is to pay
off a debt that has been incurred in the process of trafficking. Instead of being able to work to further develop the
country (and in effect, increase the GDP), the work that the victim engages in becomes part of the illicit
trade. Thus, the prevalence of illicit trade not only negatively impacts the victim but also the economy of the nation.

A successful Indian rise solves all existential threats

Mira Kamdar 7, World Policy Institute, Planet India: How the fastest growing democracy is
transforming America and the world, 2007, pp. 3-5
No other country matters more to the future of our planet than India . There is no
challenge we face, no opportunity we covet where India does not have critical relevance. From combating global
terror to finding cures for dangerous pandemics, from dealing with the energy crisis to averting the worst
scenarios of global warming, from rebalancing stark global inequalities to spurring the vital innovation needed to create jobs and improve
livesIndia is now a pivotal player. The world is undergoing a process of profound recalibration in which the rise of
Asia is the most important factor. India holds the key to this new world. India is at once an
ancient Asian civilization, a modern nation grounded in Enlightenment values and democratic institutions, and a rising
twenty-first-century power. With a population of 1.2 billion, India is the worlds largest democracy. It is an open,
vibrant society. Indias diverse population includes Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, Jews, and animists. There are

twenty-two official languages in India. Three hundred fifty million Indians speak English. India is the world in microcosm. Its
geography encompasses every climate, from snowcapped Himalayas to palm-fringed beaches to deserts where nomads and camels roam. A developing
country, India is divided among a tiny affluent minority, a rising middle class, and 800 million people who live on less than $2 per day. India faces all
the critical problems of our timeextreme social inequality, employment insecurity, a growing energy crisis, severe water shortages, a degraded
environment, global warming, a galloping HIV/AIDS epidemic, terrorist attackson a scale that defies the imagination. Indias

goal is
breathtaking in scope: transform a developing country of more than 1 billion people into a
developed nation and global leader by 2020, and do this as a democracy in an era of resource scarcity and environmental
degradation. The world has to cheer India on. If India fails, there is a real risk that our world will become hostage to
political chaos, war over dwindling resources, a poisoned environment, and galloping disease.

if
India succeeds, it will demonstrate that it is possible to lift hundreds of millions of people out
of poverty. It will prove that multiethnic, multireligious democracy is not a luxury for rich
Wealthy enclaves will employ private companies to supply their needs and private militias to protect them from the poor massing at their gates. But,

societies. It will show us how to save our environment, and how to manage in a fractious,
multipolar world. Indias gambit is truly the venture of the century .

1AC Plan
Plan: The United States courts should rule that prostitution is legal based
on international human rights law, citing the Supreme Court of Canadas
decision in Bedford v. Canada, and should require states to:
-classify sex workers as employees and create regulations for sex work that ensure a safe and
healthy workplace, not including mandatory health screenings or licenses for individual
workers;
-require licensing for third-party operators, exempting single-operator owned entities with four
sex workers or less;
-prohibit employers from forcing a worker to engage in a sex act;
-provide recourse to workers whose employer violates these employment regulations

1AC Solvency
CONTENTION 3: SOLVENCY

Legalizing prostitution through IHRL and regulating it as sex work solves

and avoids all their turns
Ronald Weitzer 13, Professor of Sociology at George Washington University, and has
published extensively on sex work, human trafficking, and prostitution policies in the United
States and Europe, Prostitution as a Legal Institution", December 4, www.catounbound.org/2013/12/04/ronald-weitzer/prostitution-legal-institution
Unfortunately, the vast majority of research on prostitution internationally has focused on systems
where all or most of the preconditions for prostitution are illegal. Thus, what we think we know
about prostitution may be colored by research confined to how it manifests under
criminalization, rather than where it is legal. Imagine researching only countries where abortion
is criminalized and occurs in unsafe and shady circumstances then generalizing those skewed
findings to abortion. This is the situation for prostitution : many of the assumptions and
public policies regarding it are based on either folk wisdom or ignorance of the full panoply
of policy regimes. McNeill is right about several things. Starting with her central point, there is absolutely no
reason why sexual commerce cannot be viewed and treated like other kinds of work. What makes it
different from other work is the stigma attached to it and a set of stereotypical assumptions about the participants and the working
conditions. But research shows that such assumptions (e.g., abuse, exploitation, violence) are by no

means inherent in prostitution. The first step in normalizing prostitution, as I write in my book Legalizing
Prostitution, is that consensual adult prostitution be officially recognized as work
and that participants be accorded the rights and protections available to those
involved in other occupations.[1] McNeill is also right to mention conflict over prostitution policy. Such conflict
should not be surprising: it is a staple of other controversial issues, such as same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, and doctorassisted suicide. Opponents are often well organized, media savvy, and influential with politicians. In the prostitution arena, the
most important anti forces (1) equate prostitution with sex trafficking, (2) demand blanket criminalization where it currently
doesnt exist, or (3) champion the Swedish system where the clients of sex workers, but not the workers themselves, are
criminalized. These forces have met with success, in many nations, in redefining prostitution in ideological terms, creating new
offenses and stiffer punishments, and defeating proposals for legalization. McNeill is right to criticize these misguided and
counterproductive policies and the fallacious claims on which they have been based.[2] Draconian punishments for consenting
adults who exchange sex for money compel them to operate underground, exposing both parties to risk of victimization and
exploitation. I should also point out that all of these anti-prostitution campaigns are blatantly gender-

biased: they ignore male and transgender workers and are obsessed with controlling womens
bodies women who are denied individual agency and respect for their decisions and depicted as passive victims. Such anti-

feminist paternalism is part of the answer to George Carlins famous question: Sex is legal. Selling is legal. Why is selling sex
illegal? I dont know whether McNeill has conducted her own research. Relying on others writings, she does recapitulate several
mistakes that deserve correction here. First, the criminalization model is not confined to a handful of

countries, as she claims. It is essentially de facto if not de jure the reigning system in several
nations, where the act of prostitution may be legal but everything surrounding it , including
solicitation or communication regarding price and service, is criminalized. Second, I know of no society that
has adopted a policy of pure decriminalization, entirely lacking in government regulation. It
is a myth that New Zealand and New South Wales, Australia, have decriminalized prostitution with
no regulatory apparatus. New Zealand decriminalized prostitution in 2003 but coupled this with
nuisance-abatement laws for street prostitution and regular inspections of sex businesses by the
police, health department, and social services. This is minimalist legalization, not unregulated
decriminalization. New South Wales delegates regulatory decisions to local city councils, and they
vary tremendously in both their general orientation to commercial sex (pragmatic vs. moralistic) and in the
kinds of restrictions (geographic and otherwise) they place on both businesses and independent operators, some of
which are quite onerous. NSW is not an example of pure decriminalization as McNeill imagines. McNeill uses the
terms heavy and loose legalization; she gives a few examples of each but fails to define these terms. Thus, we have
no way of evaluating any particular system, since she offers no criteria for distinguishing the good from the bad. But perhaps
McNeill would consider this a fools errand anyway, since she seems to advocate radical, unfettered

decriminalization. She writes: even in looser legalization regimes, laws create perverse incentives
and provide weapons the police inevitably use to harass sex workers. These outcomes are
neither inevitable nor perverse, as evidence from several legal regimes shows. Nevadas extremely
comprehensive regulatory system explains why legal brothels have persisted in the state for four decades without controversy.
Several other jurisdictions have legalized at least one type of prostitution without perverse

consequences. A government evaluation of legal brothels in Queensland, Australia, concluded that, Legal brothels now
operating in Queensland provide a sustainable model for a healthy, crime-free, and safe legal licensed brothel industry and are a
state of the art model for the sex industry in Australia.[3] The report found that both legal brothels and sole operators (in-call or
out-call) had little adverse impact on the local community. And one survey found that 70% of a sample of 205 legal brothel workers
and independent escorts said they would definitely choose such work if they had it to do over again, and half of each group felt that
their work was a major source of satisfaction in their lives.[4] Taken to its extreme, total decriminalization sans

regulation would allow street prostitution in any neighborhood; would leave brothels, escort
agencies, and massage parlors unmonitored and their owners unscreened for criminal ties; and would
allow explicit advertising of sexual services virtually everywhere (internet, newspapers, billboards, television). Whatever one thinks
of any of the specific regulations now being instituted in the newly legal marijuana regimes in Colorado and Washington, there is
good reason why the framers of these ballot initiatives eschewed unrestricted decriminalization. The failure of Oregons more radical
ballot measure in 2012 shows the danger of proposing something that is not pragmatic, and the same point applies to efforts to
liberalize policies on sexual commerce. The public is much more likely to endorse proposals containing

reasonable restrictions than a free-for-all approach . Fortunately, a set of best practices

has been proposed. In Legalizing Prostitution, I list about 30 practices that can be used to evaluate existing legal regimes
and serve as guidance for states considering legalization in the future. Space limitations prevent a full discussion of these norms
here, but I will offer a few that relate directly to McNeills essay. I agree with her that the rules should not be
heavy if by that she means onerous,

stigmatizing, arbitrary, or costly to comply with. There

overall objectives
should be health, safety, workers rights, and minimum impact on the public: I assume McNeill would agree with me
that minors should be prohibited from selling sex. This rule is universal among nations that have legalized
prostitution. I agree with McNeill that sex workers should not be forced to register or be
licensed by the authorities. Such attempts have failed everywhere they have been attempted,
should be no sin tax imposed on sex operators that does not apply to other business operations. The

except in Nevadas exceptional rural brothels. As the National Organization for Women declared in its landmark 1973
decriminalization resolution, mandatory registration will result in ongoing persecution of women who register because they do not
wish to publicly proclaim themselves prostitutes.[5] Erotic businesses are different: Their owners should be

subjected to rigorous background checks. Operators who pass the screening should be licensed,
and these licenses should be subject to a periodic renewal process to maintain oversight of these businesses. The cost of the
license should be low, as an incentive to operate within the legal sector rather than
underground. Police are not necessarily malevolent, as McNeill assumes. They can play a constructive role in protecting sex
workers safety and rights.[6] In the Netherlands, special teams of police officers routinely inspect sex premises and question the
workers and owners in a collegial manner. These units are governed by a code of conduct, reprinted in my book. Restrictions

on advertising are needed, just as they are for alcohol and tobacco products. Given the sensitivity of prostitution for many
people, it is best to keep it as discreet as possible. The same goes for the location of erotic businesses, which
should be prohibited from locating near schools and playgrounds . Minimizing encroachment on the public
reduces the chances of backlash if sex businesses and advertisements are too visible. Safe-sex practices and routine
health examinations should be encouraged, repeatedly, by the government, but not mandated
because of both enforcement difficulties and privacy considerations. Many sex
workers already practice safe sex and get regular health checks. Institutionalized discrimination
against prostitutes and business operators should be illegal. An example is the refusal of banks in several
European nations to lend money to owners of legal brothels and erotic clubs. Both workers and business owners should have the
same rights as the participants in other types of commerce. Finally, we should increase penalties for anyone who

engages in exploitation or abuse. Too often, law enforcement has turned a blind eye to instances of parasitical pimping,
assault, robbery, and rape of sex workers. Robust punishment for these crimes will send a (hopefully deterrent)
message to would-be predators that they will be held accountable . A regulatory system built
on these (and some additional) restrictions is far superior to either criminalization or
unregulated decriminalization: it guarantees workers rights and can enhance their health and
safety; it imposes vital oversight over business owners; and it will attract much more public
support than a policy of simple, unrestricted decriminalization.

This specific set of regulations gives sex workers sufficient rights while
avoiding the DAs to previous legalization schemes
Gail M. Deady 11, J.D.-Washington and Lee University School of Law, The Girl Next Door: A
Comparative Approach to Prostitution Laws and Sex Trafficking Victim Identification Within
the Prostitution Industry, 17 WASH. & LEE J.C.R. & SOC. JUST. 515 (2011)
http://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/journal%20of%20civil%20rights%20and%20social
%20justice/Deady.pdf
It also establishes that sex workers are required to adopt safe sex practices in the course
of their employment,205 and that they are "at work" while providing commercial sexual
services for the purpose of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.206 The PRA also contains a
section that specifically prohibits employers from coercing or forcing a sex worker to engage in
prostitution, and explains that an employment contract cannot be used to force a worker to
engage in a sex act against his or her will.207 The Act also sets out a specific plan of action for
preventing minors from entering the sex industry.208 Finally, the Act establishes a certification
procedure for brothels, street prostitutes, and Single Operator-Owned Brothels ("SOOBs").209
The procedure is designed to make certification easy and inexpensive for brothel owners,
while ensuring that anyone with a serious criminal record would be disqualified as a potential
employer of prostitutes.210 The PRA excludes individual sex workers and SOOBs with
four or fewer workers from having to apply for a certificate a concession meant to
require only those controlling the labor of others to be subject to some form of scrutiny. 211 The
easy certification process was designed to enable the New Zealand government to monitor
those engaged in the sex industry while preventing a second, illegal sector from
developing.212 The failure of legalized brothels in Victoria, Australiawhich led to the
development of a bustling illegal sex industrywas a specific reason for making the certification
process as simple, cheap, and convenient as possible.213 One of the most unique aspects of the
PRA is that it openly solicits the aid of the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective ("NZPC")214
and provides remedies for unfair labor practices.215 The NZPC was formed in 1987 in response to "the
threat of an AIDS/HIV epidemic and the resultant need for the health and education authorities to communicate with the sex
industry."216 Interestingly, from its inception, the NZPC was supported and funded by the New Zealand Department of Public
Health because it provided safe sex programs to sex workers.217 The NZPCs membership alliance was also a major impetus for the
passage of the PRA.218 The employment provisions in the PRA give sex workers direct recourse

against employers for violations of the Health and Safety Act so long as they are considered
"employees" as opposed to "contractors."219 The NZPC, despite not being an official union, is contracted to
the Ministry of Health "to advocate for the rights, health, and well-being of sex workers" and its
members provide "general support and advice to sex workers (including help preparing a Curriculum Vitae), and
act as brokers to other agencies who can assist further with alternative career options ."220

States citation of I-law on human rights becomes the law generallyit

would be constitutionally binding national law
Soma Bychkov Green 11, Associate Professor of Law, The John Marshall Law School,

CURRENCY OF LOVE: CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE BATTLE FOR SAMESEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES,
http://www.centerforhumanrights.org/PDFs/currency%20of%20love.pdf
If customary international law is, in fact, federal common lawabout which, as noted, there has been some
debatethen it would ordinarily trump state law under the Supremacy Clause.482 The courts have
relied on international treaties to assist in the interpretation of federal law even when such treaties do not
create an independent cause of action.483 Some have argued that all international human rights
instruments form a part of customary international law.484 However, the courts have been reluctant to use
customary international law,485 and some scholars have warned against too much optimism in this area.486 However, as
discussed above, the Supreme Court and other courts

have already used i nternational law principles to help

them decide certain issues, and certainly the area of human rights is an area where
c ustomary i nternational l aw can guide the courts on how to interpret U.S.

constitutional norms, and on what rights must be protected.487 Professor Strossen describes it the
following way: In contrast to U.S. courts current reluctance to view themselves as bound directly by international human rights
principles on substantive issues, they are much more willing to invoke such principleswhether embodied in treaties or in other
manifestations of customary international lawto guide the interpretation of domestic legal norms.488 In fact, Strossen

describes a scholarly consensus supporting this interpretive use of i nternational h uman r ights
norms in domestic litigation.489 Another concern about customary international law is that due
to its naturea lack of codified and searchable principlesit can be hard to discern .490
Professor Harold Koh, now legal advisor to the State Department, and arguably the leading
scholar on the combination of international and national law,491 refuted the idea that [t]he
growing codification and hence, accessibility of c ustomary i nternational l aw rulesthrough statutes,
unratified treaties, and scholarly treatisesbelied the claim that such rules were hopelessly beyond a
domestic courts law-finding capacities.492 International law can be used as a source of law to
help courts interpret constitutional norms,493 which is particularly important when the courtsand eventually, the
Supreme Court are charged with deciding cases about same-sex marriage. And, importantly, custom is not limited to
the federal courts; it may be used by state courts as well.494 One article describes how federal and
state courts may apply customary international human rights law: Probably the most promising use of
i nternational h uman r ights l aw is for guidance in interpreting federal and state civil
liberties and civil rights laws. Courts may refer to i nternational law in determining the
intended content of federal and state laws in the same way that they refer to legislative
history. . . . Second, under article VI of the United States Constitution, human rights provisions of
treaties ratified by the United States have the same status and effect as federal law. . . .
Third, human rights provisions that are internationally accepted as legally binding are part
of the body of c ustomary i nternational l aw that courts may apply as part of or in a manner
analogous to United States common law.495

[ ] State courts specifically should follow Canadas precedent and rule on Ilaw to legalize prostitution
Ronald Weitzer 12, Professor of Sociology at George Washington University, Legalizing
Prostitution: From Illicit Vice to Lawful Business, ebook

This roster of forces operating against liberalization of prostitution policies should not be taken to mean that legal reform is
impossible in the United States in the future. Liberalization is clearly beyond the pale in the vast majority of jurisdictions, but
it is

possible that a particular city or state, one known for its tolerance, might embrace a more
lenient approach in the future. Recall that San Francisco came close to embracing de facto decriminalization in 2008,

when 42 percent of city residents voted for a measure that would have prevented the police from making prostitution arrests, and a
remarkable de jure decriminalization bill was presented in the Hawaii legislature in 2007.23 It is also possible that a

state court might follow Canadas lead and declare the states prostitution law
unconstitutional (in September 2010, a Canadian court ruled that the prostitution laws are not
in accord with the principles of fundamental justice because criminalization contributes
to the endangerment of prostitutes).24 Although the general trend in the United States is in the
direction of greater repression, the possibility of liberalization at the local level cannot be ruled
out. The experiences of nations where prostitution is legal and regulated could provide useful guidance for any American
jurisdiction that decides to move in that direction.