3 comments  

Jane Kim, a 3rd year law student at Columbia, has published to LSN’s Women, Gender and the Law eJournal an electronic version of a Note just published in the Virginia Journal of International Law, vol 51, p. 443.  Congratulations Jane!

The paper is available here, and the abstract is here:

At any given time, upwards of 12.3 million people are exploited as modern day slaves through the second largest and fastest growing criminal industry in the world: human trafficking. Veiled behind the widely celebrated and sanctified institution of marriage and behind protections of liberty and privacy, one segment of the human trafficking industry continues to be overlooked, tolerated, and often excluded from criminalization: the trafficking of foreign brides. By analyzing two seemingly disparate foreign bride markets – the Chinese market for North Korean brides and the United States market for foreign brides – this Note argues that the foreign bride industry constitutes human trafficking under international law and calls for both immediate legal reforms and the ultimate criminalization and prosecution of foreign bride trafficking.

Beginning with an examination of the two leading definitions of human trafficking as advanced by the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and the United States’ Trafficking Victims Protection Act, this Note argues that the U.S. definition of trafficking, unlike the international definition, is incomplete because it focuses on “severe forms of trafficking,” requiring a level of physical force, fraud, or coercion that fails to recognize the power dynamics and realities of human trafficking. The Note then examines two case studies of foreign bride markets: the North Korean refugee bride market in China and the foreign bride market in the United States, as facilitated by “international marriage broker-traffickers.” These seemingly disparate markets highlight the striking commonalities across the foreign bride industry, namely, similarities in the abuse of vulnerability and power as the means of trafficking and similarities in violence and exploitation in marriage as the purposes of foreign bride trafficking. In highlighting these similarities, this Note reveals that U.S. law’s longstanding prioritization of physical force as the keystone to crimes of violence against women, coupled with the guise of marriage, create a spectrum of force and fictional consent that protect the virility of bride trafficking by ignoring the power differentials and by obscuring the exploitative purposes that drive the foreign bride industry.

In conclusion, this Note advances interim measures and supplementary measures that may be taken in addition to the ultimate prohibition and criminalization of bride-trafficking as trafficking under U.S. and international law.

3 comments

  1. Trafficked: Domestic Violence, Exploitation in Marriage, and the Foreign-Bride Industry http://wp.me/ploC4-Qh

  2. Gender & Sexuality Law Blog » Blog Archive » Trafficked: Domestic … http://bit.ly/gjFYXe

  3. Red Wine and the bottles they come in are quite intriguing.

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Adoption adultery Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Islamophobia Israel Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.