Friday, March 14, 2014
Palladian (Omni Shoreham)
One of the most salient issues for post-Soviet countries’ internal security is human trafficking that, just like migration, is taking place both within and between the countries of the region, extending beyond regional borders as well. However, unlike international migration governance that develops in the absence of a global migration regime, international action against human trafficking relies on international regime layers both at global level (provided by UN Convention and Protocol) and at regional levels – for example in South East Asia or in Europe (Council of Europe Convention). This said, one still observes divergent approaches of multiple international actors that attempt to be active governors in the field. This concerns both international organisations - one may only be surprised to see how various UN bodies try to preserve the anti-human trafficking agenda within their domain, to say nothing about such IOs as IOM - and individual states, with the USA being the most prominent example. The EU also tries to speak in its own voice in this complex setting, but it has to rely on existing international mechanisms as well as standards and best practices defined most exclusively by the USA. In promoting their anti-human trafficking agendas, various international governors rely on expert knowledge and partnerships with other actors. Combinations of these, as well as other mechanisms such as standard-setting vary. This paper asks how the EU deploys knowledge and partnerships for its anti-human trafficking action in the post-Soviet region and what it means for EU’s international governance agenda.