Skip Navigation



British Journal of Criminology Advance Access published online on July 6, 2005
British Journal of Criminology, doi:10.1093/bjc/azi070
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
46/2/318    most recent
azi070v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Munro, V. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Article

Stopping Traffic?

Vanessa E. Munro 1*

1 School of Law, King’s College London, Strand Campus, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vanessa E. Munro, E-mail: vanessa.munro{at}kcl.ac.uk


  Abstract

Set against the backdrop of counter-trafficking initiatives at international level, this article draws on the findings of a comparative study that investigated (through semi-structured interviews with officials and interest groups) the merits and demerits of domestic level responses in the United Kingdom, Australia, Holland, Sweden and Italy. In a context in which trafficking in women for sexual purposes can be understood through the lens of numerous frameworks (human rights, criminality, prostitution policy, immigration, social exclusion, etc.), this article examines the extent to which these different agendas have influenced the construction and operation of the respective domestic regimes. More specifically, it illustrates the extent to which the ambiguities inherent in the United Nation’s most recent Anti-Trafficking Protocol permit scope for the incorporation and/or perpetuation of discretion at domestic level. Highlighting the underlying tensions between competing immigration, human rights, policing and social services imperatives, the differential resolution of which leads to the divergence in domestic response, this article situates this complex engagement in the broader context of debates about globalization, exploitation and prostitution.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.