国际法与区域规范走私:欧盟与东盟如何重新定义全球人口贩运制度

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW American Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2021-02-12 DOI:10.1093/AJCL/AVAA030
Marija Jovanović
{"title":"国际法与区域规范走私:欧盟与东盟如何重新定义全球人口贩运制度","authors":"Marija Jovanović","doi":"10.1093/AJCL/AVAA030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have developed fundamentally different regional regimes to address human trafficking despite both drawing on the framework established by the U.N. Palermo Protocol. These regimes have been deployed to achieve different missions: crime control animates the European framework whereas migration management informs the ASEAN regime. These different regional agendas have led to all central elements of the respective antitrafficking regimes being addressed differently including, the legal authority of the regional regime over domestic legislation, the allocation of responsibility between “sending” and “receiving” countries, their approaches to subjects of human trafficking, and the connectedness of each antitrafficking instrument to the wider regional regimes. The two regional responses challenge general assumptions about the universality and coherence of the growing international legal framework on human trafficking.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Law and Regional Norm Smuggling: How the EU and ASEAN Redefined the Global Regime on Human Trafficking\",\"authors\":\"Marija Jovanović\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/AJCL/AVAA030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have developed fundamentally different regional regimes to address human trafficking despite both drawing on the framework established by the U.N. Palermo Protocol. These regimes have been deployed to achieve different missions: crime control animates the European framework whereas migration management informs the ASEAN regime. These different regional agendas have led to all central elements of the respective antitrafficking regimes being addressed differently including, the legal authority of the regional regime over domestic legislation, the allocation of responsibility between “sending” and “receiving” countries, their approaches to subjects of human trafficking, and the connectedness of each antitrafficking instrument to the wider regional regimes. The two regional responses challenge general assumptions about the universality and coherence of the growing international legal framework on human trafficking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/AJCL/AVAA030\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/AJCL/AVAA030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟(EU)和东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN)在处理人口贩运问题上建立了截然不同的地区机制,尽管它们都借鉴了联合国《巴勒莫议定书》(U.N. Palermo Protocol)建立的框架。这些制度的部署是为了实现不同的使命:控制犯罪是欧洲框架的动力,而移民管理是东盟制度的动力。这些不同的区域议程导致各自反贩运制度的所有核心要素得到不同的处理,包括区域制度对国内立法的法律权威、“派遣国”和“接收国”之间的责任分配、它们处理人口贩运问题的方法以及每个反贩运文书与更广泛的区域制度的联系。这两项区域反应挑战了关于日益增长的人口贩运国际法律框架的普遍性和一致性的一般假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
International Law and Regional Norm Smuggling: How the EU and ASEAN Redefined the Global Regime on Human Trafficking
The European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have developed fundamentally different regional regimes to address human trafficking despite both drawing on the framework established by the U.N. Palermo Protocol. These regimes have been deployed to achieve different missions: crime control animates the European framework whereas migration management informs the ASEAN regime. These different regional agendas have led to all central elements of the respective antitrafficking regimes being addressed differently including, the legal authority of the regional regime over domestic legislation, the allocation of responsibility between “sending” and “receiving” countries, their approaches to subjects of human trafficking, and the connectedness of each antitrafficking instrument to the wider regional regimes. The two regional responses challenge general assumptions about the universality and coherence of the growing international legal framework on human trafficking.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Comparative Law is a scholarly quarterly journal devoted to comparative law, comparing the laws of one or more nations with those of another or discussing one jurisdiction"s law in order for the reader to understand how it might differ from that of the United States or another country. It publishes features articles contributed by major scholars and comments by law student writers. The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc. (ASCL), formerly the American Association for the Comparative Study of Law, Inc., is an organization of institutional and individual members devoted to study, research, and write on foreign and comparative law as well as private international law.
期刊最新文献
Sovereignty, Territoriality, and Private International Law in Classical Muslim International Law Beyond Transplant: A Network Innovation Model of Transnational Regulatory Change The Irony of British Human Rights Exceptionalism, 1948–1998 Are Political “Attacks” on the Judiciary Ever Justifiable? The Relationship Between Unfair Criticism and Public Accountability Is Neutrality Possible? A Critique of the CJEU on Headscarves in the Workplace from a Comparative Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1