Forced labour import bans are becoming a prominent tool in the ‘fight against human trafficking’. These laws allow customs officers to prevent foreign-made goods from entering a country if they suspect forced labour was used in their production. Their popularity is growing among governments in the global North, and among civil society organisations concerned with ending labour exploitation in global supply chains.
But before we jump on the ban wagon, we should pause to consider some of the lessons labour advocates have learned from observing over 20 years of enforcing anti-trafficking-law. These include: the impact of the provenance of governance instruments on their effectiveness; the ways instruments are used for a range of political ends; the ways they create collateral damage; and how their use lends them legitimacy, even when they are deeply flawed.
Forced labour bans: protecting rights or markets?
At present, only the US, Canada and Mexico have forced labour import bans in place. The EU Parliament, which approved a ban of its own last April, is taking the single market in that direction as well. All these bans target forced labour and involve customs officials. But they differ significantly in their origins, how they were designed, and how they are administered.
