Human Trafficking Under the European Convention on Human Rights: Rantsev and Onwards

Öz

The European Convention on Human Rights ECHR does not contain the term human trafficking in its text. The term has been included to Article 4 of the ECHR for the first time in 2010, through the Rantsev decision of the European Court of Human Rights ECtHR . The fact that all the applications regarding human trafficking submitted by women reveals the relationship between human trafficking and gender. Due to limited number of the applications and widely criticised decisions, the Court’s Article 4 jurisprudence is considered to be immature and have limited effect. This article aims to establish ECtHR’s approach to the human trafficking phenomenon as well as positive obligations of the Member States and concrete rights derived from Article 4 regarding human trafficking. In order to bring out the meaning of the term human trafficking in the accounts of the Court, definitions and the limits of the legal terms originally included in Article 4 should be determined and the distinctions between them and human trafficking should be clarified. This last emphasize is the reason why this work shall also be considered as a general review of the evolution of Article 4 jurisprudence. This work can be seen as a contribution to a major gap of the related Turkish literature. Besides, it aims to show the inevitable connections between gender unequality and the Article 4

Anahtar Kelimeler

• human trafficking,slavery,ECHR,Rantsev,positive obligations

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinde İnsan Ticareti: Rantsev ve Sonrası

Öz

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nde AİHS yer almayan bir kavram olan insan ticareti, ilk kez 2010 yılında Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Rantsev kararıyla AİHS’nin 4. maddesi kapsamına alınmıştır. İnsan ticareti çerçevesinde yapılmış tüm başvuruların kadınlar tarafından yapılmış olması, bu olgunun toplumsal cinsiyetle ilişkisini göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada AİHM’nin insan ticareti olgusuna yaklaşımı, insan ticareti bakımından Taraf Devletlere getirdiği pozitif yükümlülükler ve güvence altına aldığı haklar belirlenmeye çalışılacaktır. İnsan ticareti kavramının AİHM nezdindeki anlamını belirleyebilmek için 4. maddedeki diğer kavramlar olan kölelik, kulluk ve zorla çalıştırma yasağının kapsama alanı ve insan ticaretinin bunlardan ayrıştığı noktaların da belirlenmesi gerektiğinden, çalışma aynı zamanda AİHM’nin 4. madde içtihadına genel bir bakış niteliği de taşımaktadır. Bu yönüyle bu çalışmanın Türkçe literatürdeki önemli bir eksikliğin tamamlanmasına katkı sunacağı ve 4. maddenin toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliğiyle olan kaçınılmaz bağını göstereceği umulmaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• insan ticareti,kölelik,AİHS,Rantsev,pozitif yükümlülükler

Kaynakça

1. Allain, Jean. Slavery in International Law (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013).
2. Allein, Jean. “Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia: The European Court of Human Rights and Trafficking as Slavery” Human Rights Law Review 10, no. 3 (2010): 546-557.
3. Amiel, Alexandra. “Integrating A Human Rights Perspective into the European Approach to Combatting the Trafficking of Women for Sexual Exploitation”, Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 12, (2006): 5-56.
4. Bales, Kevin. Ending Slavery (Berkeley ve Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007).
5. Canveren, Önder ve Emir Özeren. “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin X/Türkiye Kararı Temelinde Türkiye’de LGBT Mahkumlara Yönelik Bir İnceleme” Kadın/Woman 15, no. 1 (2014): 71-96.
6. Cullen, Holy. “Siliadin v. France: Positive Obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights” Human Rights Law Review 6, no. 3 (2006): 585-592.
7. Eriksson, Maria. “The Prevention of Human Trafficking-Regulating DOmestic Criminal Legislation through the European Convention on Human Rights” Nordic Journal of International Law 82, (2013): 339-368.
8. Fletcher, Laurel E., Kevin Bales ve Eric Stover. “Hidden Slaves: Forced Labor in the United States” Berkeley Journal of International Law 23, (2005): 47-111.

9. Gallagher, Anne T. ”Human Rights and Human Trafficking: Quagmire of Firm Ground? A Response to James Hathaway” Virginia Journal of International Law 49, no. 4 (2008-2009): 789-848.
10. Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), Ülke Raporları, http://www.coe.int/en/web/antihuman-trafficking/country-reports. Hathaway, James C. “The Human Rights Quagmire of ‘Human Trafficking’” Virginia Journal of International Law 49, no. 1 (2008-2009): 1-59.
11. Kara, Siddhart. “Designing More Effective Laws Against Human Trafficking” Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 9, no. 2 (2011): 123-147.
12. Kuyucu, Nisan. “Kadınların Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Önünde Adalete Erişim Sorunu: Mahkeme Kararlarında Cinsiyet Ayrımcılığı Olarak Kadına Yönelik Şiddet” Fe Dergi 7, no. 1 (2015): 61-77.
13. Mantouvalou, Virginia. “Servitude and Forced Labour in the 21st Century: The Human Rights of Domestic Workers” Industrial Law Journal 35, no. 4 (2006): 395-414.
14. McGeehan, Nicholas Lawrence. “Misunderstood and Neglected: The Marginalisation of Slavery in International Law” The International Journal of Human Rights 16, no. 3 (2012): 436-460.
15. Moerman, Jochen. “A Critical Analysis of the Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights” Inter-American and European Human Rights Journal 3, (2010): 86-114.
16. Nicholson, Andrea. “Reflections on Siliadin v. France: Slavery and Legal Definition” The International Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 5 (2010): 705-720.
17. Obokata, Tom. Trafficking of Human Beings from A Human Rights Perspective (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006a).
18. Obokata, Tom. “A Human Rights Frameworkto Address Trafficking of Human Beings” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 23, no. 3 (2006b): 379-404.
19. Piotrowicz, Ryszard. “States’s Obligations under Human Rights Law towards Victims of Trafficking in Human Beings: P ositive Developments in Postive Obligations” International Journal of Refugee Law 24, no. 2, 181-201.
20. Pitea, Cesare. “Rape as a Human Rights Violation and a Criminal Offence: The European Court's Judgment in M.C. v. Bulgaria” Journal of International Criminal Justice 3, no. 2 (2005): 447-462.
21. Pormesiter, Kärt. “The Legal Concept of Slavery in the Modern EUropean Legal Sphere” Juridica International 21, (2014): 130- 136.
22. Quirk, Joel. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Survey of Historical and Contemporary Slavery (Paris, Birleşik Krallık: UNESCO ve WİSE, 2008).
23. Shahinian, Gulnara. Trafficking in Women and Girls, Concept Paper, United Nations Expert Group Meeting on “Trafficking in Women and Girls”, EGM/TRAF/2002/EP.1, 8 Kasım 2002.
24. Shaver, Donald ve Leo Zwaak. “Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia: Procedural Obligations of Third Party Countries in Human Trafficking under article 4 ECHR” Inter-American and European Human Rights Journal, no. 1 (2011): 118-135.
25. Stoyanova, Vladislava. “Dancing on the Borders of Article 4: Human Trafficking and the European Court of Human Rights in the Rantsev Case” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 30, no.2 (2012): 163-194.
26. Stoyanova,Vladislava. “Article 4 of the ECHR and the Obligation of Criminalising Slavery, Servitude, Forced Labour and Human Trafficking” Cambridge Journal of International and Comperative Law 3, no. 2 (2014): 407-443.
27. UNODC. Global Report on Trafficking in Persons (New York: United Nations Publications, 2014).
28. Vijeyarasa, Ramona ve Jose Miguel Bello y Villarino. “Modern Day Slavery? A Judicial Catchall for Trafficking, Slavery and Labor Exploitation: A Critique of Tang and Rantsev” Journal of International Law and International Relations 8, (2012): 36-61.