MUIREANN O BRIAIN, S.C.

Representative of ECPAT Europe Law Inforcement Group, Dublin, Ireland

Résumé

Les accords bilatéraux entre Etats concernant la traite des personnes peuvent être classés dans la catégorie des « Accords de réadmission ». Aujourd’hui, les arrangements pour la réadmission dans le pays d’origine sont multiples, et impliquent non seulement des gouvernements, mais également des organisations internationales. Le contexte international des lois est influencé depuis 50 ans par l’OIT, et tout récemment par le Protocole contre le Trafic de l’ONU (2000). L’auteur constate que les accords bilatéraux et conventions existants ne prêtent guère attention aux enfants victimes. Les accords de réadmission à l’intérieur de l’Union Européenne, qui s’inscrivent dans un contexte de standardisation des lois, ne garantissent pas de voir un poids plus grand mis sur le bien-être des personnes trafiquées, que sur les stratégies anti-crime et le contrôle de la migration.

Certains accords bilatéraux régionaux sont ensuite examinés sous l’angle de la CRC, avec la réintégration et les Retour Volontaire Assisté (RVA) comme solutions à long terme pour éviter la répétition de la traite.

L’exposé se termine par un étude de cas : Accord entre la Thaïlande et le Cambodge sur la traite de femmes et d’enfants.

Zusammenfassung

Die zwischenstaatlichen bilateralen Abkommen betreffend Menschenhandel können in die Kategorie "Wiederzulassungsabkommen" eingeordnet werden. Heute sind die Vereinbarungen für die Wiederzulassung im Ursprungsland vielschichtig und betreffen nicht nur Regierungen sondern ebenfalls internationale Organisationen. Der Inhalt internationaler Gesetze wird seit 50 Jahren durch die IAO, seit kurzem (2000) auch durch das Protokoll der UNO gegen Menschenhandel beeinflusst. Der Autor stellt fest, dass die Kinderopfer in den bestehenden bilateralen Abkommen und Übereinkommen kaum berücksichtigt werden. Die Wiederzulassungsabkommen innerhalb der Europäischen Union, die im Rahmen der Vereinheitlichung der Gesetze erfolgen, garantieren nicht, dass dem Wohlergehen

der Opfer von Menschenhandel eine grössere Bedeutung zukommt als der Verbrechensbekämpfung oder der Migrationskontrolle.

Weiter analysiert der Autor bestimmte regionale bilaterale Abkommen unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Wiedereingliederung und der freiwilligen Rückkehr als langfristige Lösungen, damit sich der Menschenhandel nicht wiederholt.

Der Vortrag schliesst mit einer Fallstudie über das Abkommen, welches zwischen Thailand und Kambodscha betreffend Frauen- und Kinderhandel getroffen wurde.

Resumen

Los acuerdos bilaterales entre Estados concerniendo el tráfico de personas pueden clasificarse en la categoría de "Acuerdos de readmisión". Hoy, los arreglos por la readmisión en el país de origen son múltiples, e implican no solamente a los gobiernos sino también a las organizaciones internacionales.

El contexto internacional de leyes ha estado influenciado después de 50 años por la OIT y actualmente por el Protocolo contra el tráfico de la ONU (2000). El autor constata que los acuerdos bilaterales y convenciones existentes no prestan atención a los niños víctimas. Los acuerdos de readmisión en el interior de la Unión Europea, que se inscriben en un contexto de estandarización de leyes, no garantizan el acuerdo de un peso más importante a las personas que han sido víctimas de tráfico, lo hacen únicamente sobre las estrategias anti-crimen y el control de la migración

Ciertos acuerdos bilaterales regionales son después examinados bajo el ángulo de la CRC, con la reintegración y la Retorno Voluntario Asistido (RVA) como soluciones a largo plazo para evitar la repetición del tráfico.

La conferencia termina con un estudio de casos: Acuerdo entre Tailandia y la Camboya sobre el tráfico de mujeres y niños.

Summary

Interstate bilateral agreements affecting trafficked persons would fall under the category of “Readmission Agreements”. Today, arrangements for readmission to the country of origin are multifaceted, involving not only governments but international agencies as well. The international law environment has been influenced for 50 years by the ILO, and more recently by the UN Trafficking Protocol (2000). The author observes that in existing bilateral agreements and conventions, there is hardly any attention paid to child victims. European Union readmission agreements situated in the context of legislation standardisation are no guarantee that the welfare of trafficked persons will be paid more attention than criminal justice response and restrictions on migration are.

Regional bilateral Agreements or Arrangements are then discussed in the perspective of the CRC, with an emphasis on reintegration and Assisted Voluntary Return (ARV) as long-term solutions to suppress the risk of re-trafficking.

The lecture ends with the case study: Agreement between Cambodia and Thailand on trafficking in women and children.

INTRODUCTION

What is a Bilateral Agreement?

On 26th May 2004 the President of Belarus said that if the members of the European Union (EU) wished Belarus to assist them to stop refugees from flooding into their countries, then Belarus expected to be financed to provide this service. Despite the fact that the EU already pays for improvements to border security, the President was demanding millions more as the price of Belarusian collaboration.

This episode demonstrates the fact that an agreement between two states (or in this case, between a bloc and a state) is based on mutuality of interest. In the case of the EU Agreement with Belarus, it was in the interests of the EU to stop the flow of refugees through Belarus, and for the Belarusian government, it was an opportunity to earn much-needed cash resources. A bilateral agreement is an agreement between two parties, into which they will only agree to enter when it is in the interests of each individual party to do so. When an agreement is between two countries, both of them must have an interest in solving the problem or issue that the agreement is designed to address. That interest may be different for each one; for example, it might be political for one, and economic for the other, or economic for one, and cultural for the other, but without that interest on the part of each country, there will be no mutuality and therefore no agreement. Bilateral agreements reflect some economic, political, social or cultural reality that both countries have an interest in addressing. It is that mutuality which also enables an agreement to be enforced. Bilateral agreements are essentially diplomatic; they are enforced as a question of honour and interdependence of interests. If one state refuses to implement the agreement, there is not much that the other state can do about it in reality.

Sovereignty of states

When talking about agreements affecting the re-entry of persons to their countries of origin, we also have to remember that every state possesses the sovereign right to decide who can live or remain within its territorial borders. A receiving state has the right to expel persons who have entered without permission, and the state of origin has the right to impose conditions on the return of such persons. Of course, the development of international law, including international treaties on asylum, has limited sovereignty because by such treaties states agree to respect certain fundamental human rights in relation to stateless persons or persons who are fleeing from persecution. A bilateral agreement will similarly limit the exercise of sovereignty, between the two parties to the agreement.

Migrants readmitted to their own countries under Readmission Agreements with other states

Bilateral Agreements affecting trafficked persons would fall under the category of ‘Readmission Agreements’, agreements whereby the state of origin agrees to receive back its nationals or permanent residents. Readmission Agreements basically mean agreements by one state to readmit persons who left that state and entered another one. They may cover not only persons who were trafficked, but migrants who have claimed asylum in other countries, or who entered other countries illegally and are being returned to their countries of origin. In fact, since a trafficking operation renders a victim an illegal migrant in the country of destination, the only difference between an illegal migrant and a trafficked victim is that the latter is entitled, under international law, to a certain number of protections to which a person who is simply an illegal migrant is not entitled. They are essentially the same, but the migrant who has been trafficked may theoretically be able to claim some special protections.

Bilateral agreements on readmission will typically define who may be returned from one country to another, how it should be done, and within what timeframes. As well as being a type of contract, Readmission Agreements are also political

statements, demonstrating cooperation between two countries in managing irregular

migration. In the absence of such agreement, the receiving state has the option of deporting aliens, without knowing whether they will be allowed to enter the other state when they arrive. The migrants may have no identity papers, for example, and be unable to prove their citizenship in their country of origin, or they may have been in breach of their country’s laws in leaving, (perhaps on false papers), and be considered criminal offenders on their return. The Readmission Agreement will deal with these matters.

In the current international legal framework relating to human trafficking, there can be other aspects to the collaboration that make up bilateral agreements on readmission. There can be funding arrangements, arrangements about mutual legal cooperation, joint border patrols, agreements about the provision of travel documents, etc. Indeed, the present day arrangements for the readmission of trafficked persons to their countries of origin are likely to be multifaceted arrangements, involving not only governmental agencies but international agencies as well, including especially the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). For example, in France since 1998 there are provisions under a specific scheme aimed at facilitating the voluntary return of Malian, Senegalese and Moroccan nationals, who have been staying illegally in France, to return to their countries of origin. Under a special agreement with their countries of origin, the migrants take part in a training programme in France, and are paid a monthly allowance. Then they return to their own countries, and continue to receive financial support from the French Office for

International Migration. Another agreement, between France, Afghanistan and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees facilitates voluntary returns of Afghans from France to their own country, and provides them with a substantial financial support. There is a similar arrangement between France and the IOM for the return of Kosovars to their home country.3

Outline of this paper

The title of this paper was originally intended to be ‘Lessons Learned on Bilateral Agreements between Countries for the Detection, Protection and Repatriation of Child Victims of Trafficking’. However, it has been very difficult to get information about the experience of such agreements, and it seems to be far too early to be able to talk about ‘lessons learned’. There is hardly any attention paid to child victims in existing bilateral agreements, and we are operating in a whole new dynamic since the coming into operation of the UN Convention against Transational Organised Crime of 2000, and its Protocols. This presentation therefore considers:

- The international law environment for bilateral agreements on receipt and

return of migrants

- The specific requirements of the UN Trafficking Protocol4 relating to the readmission of trafficked victims

- Attempts by the High Commissioner for Human Rights to bring a human

rights dimension to agreements for the readmission of trafficked victims

- Readmission agreements in a European Union context

- The promotion of bilateral agreements through national and regional plans

to combat trafficking

- Comment on some bilateral agreements between countries that relate to

trafficked victims

- Some conclusions

- A Case Study: The specific example of a Bilateral Agreement on

trafficking made between the Kingdoms of Thailand and Cambodia.

It has not been possible to focus only on arrangements for children. As trafficked victims, they are simply more vulnerable migrants who are entitled to some extra protections and to certain legal assumptions. However, in the case study of the Thai/Cambodia agreement, described later, as well as in an agreement in 2000 between the governments of Cote d’Ivoire and Mali, it will be noticed that children

3 _{European Council on Refugees and Exiles. France:Legal and Social conditions for Asylum Seekers and Refugees.} www.ecre.org/conditions/2003.

have been given a special importance, and these agreements should provide useful models for the future.