Servitude and forced labour in the 21st century: The Human Rights of domestic workers

Industrial Law Journal

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 395-414

  Mantouvalou, Virginia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 37849189376     PISSN: 03059332     EISSN: 14643669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwl029     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. See the Report of the International Labour Organisation Commission of Inquiry appointed to examine the observance of the 1930 Forced Labour Convention, 'Forced Labour in Myanmar (Burma)', 2 July 1998.
2. See also, Amnesty International Report, 'Human Rights for Human Dignity: A Primer on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' (2005) 18.
3. See, among others, the detailed 2005 ILO Report of the Director General of the ILO 'A Global Alliance Against Forced Labour'.
4. See also the Human Rights Watch Report, 'Help Wanted: Abuses Against Female Migrant Domestic Workers in Indonesia and Malaysia' (2004).
5. K. Bales, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy (University of California Press, 1999) 1-2.
6. Ibid at 3.
7. See also B. Anderson, Doing the Dirty Work? The Global Politics of Domestic Labour (Zed Books, 2000) chs 3-5.
8. Data based on a sample of 1,000 domestic workers, available at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kalayaan/home.htm and included in the Council of Europe's Report of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Doc 9102, 17 May 2001, para 12.
9. Report available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/usadom/ usadom0501.pdf.
10. See also J.M. Zambeka 'America's Dirty Work: Migrant Maids and Modern-Day Slavery' in Ehrenreich, Hochschild (eds), Global Woman, (Metropolitan Books, 2003) 142
11. and 'Freedom Denied: Forced Labour in California', Human Rights Centre, University of California Berkeley (February 2005) available at http://www.hrcberkeley.org/download/freedomdenied.pdf.
12. ILO, 'Making Domestic Work Visible: The Case for Specific Regulation', available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/ifpdial/publ/ infocus/domestic/
13. and 'Helping Hands or Shackled Lives? Understanding Child Domestic Labour and Responses to it', International Labour Office (2004).
14. ILO, Official Bulletin, Vol XLVIII(3), (July 1965) Supplement I, pp. 20-1.
15. 'The Employment and Conditions of Domestic Workers in Private Households: An ILO Survey' (1970) 102 International Labour Review 391 at 400.
16. A. Blackett, 'Making Domestic Work Visible: The Case for Specific Regulation', available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/ ifpdial/publ/infocus/domestic/.
17. Report available at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/ DECLARATIONWEB.DOWNLOAD_BLOB?Var_DocumentID=1578, pp 29-30.
18. Report available at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/ DECLARATIONWEB.DOWNLOAD_BLOB?Var_DocumentID=5059.
19. 2001 Report, pp 29-31.
20. 2005 Report, pp 50-1.
21. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Fact Sheet No 14, 'Contemporary Forms of Slavery'.
22. Subcommission Resolution 1997/22, paras 34-5.
23. See, for instance, Report of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, E/CN4/Sub2/2005/34, paras 25-7 and E/CN4/Sub2/2004/36, para 51.
24. On the Special Action Programme, see R. Plant and C. O'Reilly, 'The ILO Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour' (2003) 142 International Labour Review 73.
25. See Discussion Paper on the Protection of Domestic Workers Against the Threat of Forced Labour and Trafficking, prepared for Anti-Slavery International by Lin Chew in cooperation with the ILO's Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour (January 2003) available at http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/resources/ Anti-Slavery%20domestic%20workers%20discussion%20paper%200203.pdf.
26. Recommendation 1523(2001), para 9.
27. Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly Report, Doc 10144, 'Domestic Slavery: Servitude, Au Pairs and Mail-order Brides' (2004) para 1.
28. See final text of Recommendation 1663 (2004).
29. For an overview see J.M. Ramirez-Machado Domestic Work, Conditions of Work and Employment: A Legal Perspective, Conditions of Work and Employment Series No 7 (ILO, 2003).
30. Article 2(1).
31. Article 25.
32. Article 4(1).
33. Article 3(a).
34. Conclusions III, p 5, cited by L. Samuel in Fundamental Social Rights: Case Law of the European Social Charter, 2nd ed (Council of Europe Publishing, 2002) p 18.
35. See, for instance, Conclusions XIII-4, on Belgium, p 342 cited by Samuel, above, n 27, p 66.
36. See Samuel, pp 173, 176.
37. Ibid, p 205 ff.
38. Bales, above, n 3, pp 32-3.
39. Siliadin v France, App No 73316/01, Judgment of 26 July 2005 ([2005] ECHR 545: Available only in French).
40. Siliadin, para 44.
41. Siliadin, para 111.
42. Van der Mussele v Belgium, App No. 8919/80, Judgment of 23 November 1983, para 32.
43. Siliadin, para 120.
44. From the Commission's decision in Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium, App No 7906/77, Report of 9 July 1980, Series B, No 44
45. cited in Siliadin, para 123.
46. Siliadin, para 129.
47. On this see S. Fredman, 'Scepticism under Scrutiny: Labour Law and Human Rights' in Campbell, Ewing, Tomkins (eds), Sceptical Essays on Human Rights (OUP, 2001) p 197.
48. Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v UK, App No 11603/85, Admissibility decision of 20 January 1987.
49. ILO Convention 87, Article 2: 'Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation'.
50. See, among others, G. Morris, 'Freedom of Association and the Interests of the State' in Ewing, Gearty and Hepple (eds), Human Rights and Labour Law (Mansell, 1994) p 29
51. and K.D. Ewing 'Freedom of Association and Trade Union Rights' in Harris and Joseph (eds), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and United Kingdom Law (Clarendon Press, 1995) p 465.
52. See for instance X v Ireland, App No 4125/69, Admissibility decision of 1 February 1971
53. Cheall v UK, App No 15550/83, Admissibility decision of 13 May 1985, (1985) 28 YB of the ECHR 105 at 111.
54. On this see T. Novitz, International and European Protection of the Right to Strike (OUP, 2003) p 224 ff.
55. See also Van der Mussele, above, n 35, para 32 ff.
56. Wilson and Others v UK, App Nos 30668/96, 30671/76, 30678/96, Judgment of 2 July 2002.
57. On this see K.D. Ewing, 'The Implications of Wilson and Palmer' (2003) 32 ILJ 1 at 16.
58. H. Collins, Employment Law (OUP, 2003) p 235.
59. Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania, App Nos 55480/00 and 59330/00, Judgment of 27 July 2004, para 47.
60. On this decision and the 'integrated approach' to the interpretation of the EHCR, see V. Mantouvalou, 'Work and Private Life: Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania' (2005) 30 European Law Review 573.
61. The non-derogable provisions of the ECHR are set down in Article 15.
62. See the landmark Velasquez-Rodriguez v Honduras, Judgment of 29 July 1998, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Ser C) No 4 (1988) para 172.
63. On article 8 and positive action see X and Y v Netherlands, App No 8978/ 80, judgment of 26 March 1985, para 23.
64. Siliadin, para 89.
65. This duty to intervene in relations between individuals in the context of employment was also recognised in Wilson, above, n 44, para 41.
66. For a criticism of the idea of consensus see G. Letsas, 'The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR' (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 279.
67. Siliadin, paras 51, 85-6.
68. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, 17 September 2003, Series A, No 18(2003). In November 2003, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association found in Case No 2227 that the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman does not protect adequately undocumented workers' right to organise.
69. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, para 160.
70. At http://www.corteidh.or.cr/serieapdf_ing/seriea_18_ing.pdf p 25.
71. Ibid at 36.
72. See, for instance, p 62, p 95 n 33.
73. L. Helfer, and A-M. Slaughter, 'Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication' (1997-1998) 107 Yale Law Journal 273 at 323.
74. Ibid at 325.
75. On the importance of the ILO as a standard-setting body, and its relation with other supranational bodies and organisations see P. O'Higgins, 'The Interaction of the ILO, the Council of Europe and European Union Labour Standards' in Hepple (ed), Social and Labour Rights in a Global Context, (Cambridge University Press, 2002) p 55 ff.
76. On the potential relation between the ILO and human rights treaties see also C.W. Jenks, 'Human Rights, Social Justice and Peace' in International Protection of Human Rights (Interscience, 1968) p 227 at 248 ff. On the ILO and the Council of Europe in particular see 254-5.
77. Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium, above, n 37, p 12.
78. Ibid, p 30.
79. De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium, App Nos 2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66, Judgment of 18 June 1971, para 90.
80. W, X, Y and Z v UK, App Nos 3435-3438/67, Admissibility Decision of 19 July 1968.
81. Iversen v Norway, App No 1468/62, Admissibility Decision of 17 December 1963, Yearbook, Vol VII, p 278.
82. X v Germany, App No 4673/70, Admissibility Decision of 1 April 1974.
83. See also Van der Mussele, above, n 35.
84. Talmon v Netherlands, App No 30300/96, Admissibility Decision of 26 February 1997.
85. See, among others, Iversen, p 328.
86. See Ould Barar v Sweden, App No 42367/98, Admissibility Decision of 19 January 1999.
87. As described by the psychotherapist Xiomara Salgado, Human Rights Watch Report available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/usadom/ usadom0501.pdf, p 21.
88. Siliadin, para 95.
89. Recommendation 1523 (2001), para 7.
90. See, for instance, the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level, ETS 144, and its Explanatory Report that emphasises the importance of foreigners' economic and cultural participation. See also the numerous initiatives on Social Cohesion at http://www.coe.int/T/E/Social_cohesion/.
91. W X, Y and Z v UK, App Nos 3435-3438/67, Admissibility decision of 19 July 1968.
92. See generally C. Ovey and R.C.A. White, Jacobs & White: The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th edn (OUP, 2006) pp 120-1.
93. Van der Mussele, above, n 35, para 34.
94. De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium, App Nos 2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66, Judgment of 18 June 1971, para 65.
95. Bales, above, n 3, p 3.
96. J. Waldron, 'Homelessness and the Issue of Freedom' in Liberal Rights (Cambridge University Press, 1993) p 309 at 330.
97. B. Anderson and B. Rogaly, 'Forced Labour and Migration to the UK' available at http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/tuc-9317-f0.pdf, p 53.
98. Anderson, Doing the Dirty Work?, above, n 4, p 121.
99. Above, n 68.
100. See, for instance, Immigration Appeal Tribunal, DJ v SSHD, Somalia CG [2005] UKIAT 00089, para 43 ff,
101. and YS and HA v SSHD, Somalia CG [2005] UKIAT 00088, para 54.
102. Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Doc 9102, Report to the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, 17 May 2001, paras 12-14, and Doc 9136, 25 June 2001, paras 20-1, B. Herzfeld, 'Everywhere In Chains', Guardian, 23 August 2004
103. A. Travis, 'Blunkett Law Will Free UK's Domestic Slaves', Guardian, 11 November 2004
104. O. Bowcott, 'Gang Master Convicted Over "Slave" Workers', Guardian, 4 February 2005.
105. See also B. Anderson, Britain's Secret Slaves: An Investigation into the Plight of Overseas Domestic Workers (Anti-Slavery International Human Rights Series No 5, 1993).
106. Above, n 78, p 36 ff.
107. Ibid, p 21, n 28.
108. Bales, above, n 3, p 32.
109. See HL Debs, 7 July 2005, Col 747.
110. I wish to thank Chaloka Beyani for a clarification on this point.
111. Anderson, Rogaly, above, n 78, pp 8-9.
112. HL Debs, 7 July 2005, Col 766.
113. See, among other authorities, Airey v Ireland, App. No. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, para 24.