I. INTRODUCTION

One of the most horrific and exceedingly pervasive human rights violations today is human trafficking—otherwise known as modern slavery. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has admitted that it is not only one of the largest sources of income for organized crime, but also the fastest growing.1 Despite heightened attention by activist groups and the international community as a whole, victims continue to be exploited at alarmingly high rates.2 In fact, with upwards of 21 million victims worldwide, it has become one of the largest illegal industries, second only to drug trafficking.3 Human trafficking earns roughly $150 billion USD a year ($99 billion of which comes from sexual exploitation alone).4 To put that into perspective: the enslavement of human beings earns well over the annual revenue of Microsoft, Nike and Starbucks combined.5 Yet despite the blatant human rights crisis implied by these gut wrenching numbers, survivors of human trafficking are often unfairly overlooked as deserving recipients of international asylum protection.6

So what exactly is human trafficking, and why has it been allowed to fester into such a global atrocity? Although the term trafficking may imply movement, it is not required by definition, and in fact is much more inclusive in its scope.7 Article 3(a) of the United Nations’ Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children (“Trafficking Protocol”) defines trafficking in persons as:

This definition comprises three essential elements: action, means, and purpose. The actus reus (action) of recruiting, transporting, transferring, harbouring, or receiving can normally be neutral on its own, but when combined with the mens rea (purpose) of exploitation any innocence in the behavior itself is distorted.9 In most cases all three elements must be present before finding that trafficking in persons has occurred, yet in instances where the victim is a minor, the means requirement is vacated and courts focus solely on the action and the purpose.10

I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

The means of exploitation, as evidenced by the lengthy list offered in Article 3(a), can be numerous. Although abduction or sale by a family member is not uncommon, one of the most prevalent approaches used by traffickers is to recruit individuals using false pretenses of lavish jobs with better earning capabilities.11 Presented with the promise of a better life, these often poor and uneducated individuals leave home with their recruiter only to find themselves in situations drastically different than they expected.12 Additionally, because the recruiter typically covers the cost of travel, victims are considered indebted and forced to work without compensation in order to pay off the recruiter’s fees and other travel expenses.13 Furthermore, although the Trafficking Protocol provides no definition of exploitation, international law recognizes that it can be carried out in many ways.14 The most common are through sexual slavery, which makes up 72% of all trafficking occurrences, and forced labor, which makes up 20% of all trafficking occurrences.15 The remaining 8% is a conglomeration of equally appalling methods, including trafficking children to be used as soldiers or for forced and sham marriages, as well as pornography, street begging, and even organ removal.16 Once enslaved, victims face repeated rape and sexual abuse, violent beatings, humiliation, degradation and other forms of psychological manipulation. 17 Additionally, in order to assert control, traffickers often implement forced drug use in order to keep the victim in a weakened state and, once addiction takes hold, dependent on the traffickers themselves.18

† Rikkilee Moser earned her J.D. in 2016 from Northern Illinois University, and in 2017, she earned her L.L.M. in Human Rights from UCL in the United Kingdom. She currently lives in London and works as an immigration attorney for a U.S. immigration firm.
1 See Human Trafficking: Organized Crime and the Multibillion Dollar Sale of People, U.N. OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME (July 19, 2012), http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2012/July/human-trafficking_-organized-crime-and-the-multibillion-dollar-sale-of-people.html.
2 See The Scale of The Issue, STOP THE TRAFFIK, https://www.stopthetraffik.org/about-human-trafficking/the-scale-of-human-trafficking/ (last visited Jan. 26, 2018).
3 See id.; CAL. DEP’T OF JUSTICE , THE STATE OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN CALIFORNIA 3 (2012), http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB24-4L-4.pdf.
4 Human Trafficking by the Numbers, H UM . RTS . F IRST (Jan. 7, 2017), http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/human-trafficking-numbers.
5 The combined revenue of Microsoft, Nike, and Starbucks in 2017 totaled $146.03 billion. See Microsoft Corp., MARKET WATCH,
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/msft/financials (last visited Apr. 29, 2018); Starbucks Corp., MARKET WATCH ,
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/sbux/financials (last visited Apr. 29, 2018); Nike Inc., MARKET WATCH , http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nke/financials (last visited Apr. 29, 2018).
6 See Smuggling and Trafficking, RIGHTS IN EXILE PROGRAMME,
http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/smuggling-and-trafficking (last visited Feb. 14, 2018).
7 See Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, art. 3(a), Dec. 25, 2003, 2237 U.N.T.S. 319, 344 [hereinafter Trafficking Protocol].
8 Id.
9 U.N. Office of Drugs & Crime, The Role of ‘Consent’ in the Trafficking in Persons Protocol 2, 24 (2014), http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/2014/UNODC_2014_Issue_Paper_Consent.pdf [hereinafter The Role of ‘Consent’].
10 See id. at 25.
11 U.S. DEP’T OF S TATE, TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS REPORT 15 (2015), http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245365.pdf.
12 See id.
13 Id. at 15, 17.
14 U.N. Office of Drugs & Crime, The Role of ‘Exploitation’ in the Trafficking in Persons Protocol 2, 21, 23–24 (2014), https://www.unodc.org/documents/congress/background-information/Human_Trafficking/UNODC_2015_Issue_Paper_Exploitation.pdf [hereinafter The Role of ‘Exploitation’].
15 U.N. Office of Drugs & Crime, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 1, 28 (2016), https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-
analysis/glotip/2016_Global_Report_on_Trafficking_in_Persons.pdf [hereinafter Global Report on Trafficking in Persons].
16 See id. at 8, 28.
17 Kelly Karvelis, The Asylum Claim for Victims of Attempted Trafficking, 8 NW. J. L. & SOC. POL’Y 274, 277 (2013).
18 Id.

North Korea has long been an international concern, not only for the United States, but also for its allies in the Pacific region.1 These concerns have been elevated in recent years with North Korea’s intentions to become a nuclear power and subsequent rounds of testing.2 Most of the recent international focus has been spent attempting to curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, yet, there has been little response addressing its human rights issues and the generations-long atrocities against the North Korean people by its rulers. 3 The extent of the atrocities were exposed in 2014, when the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) released a report outlining the lack of human rights in North Korea and noting that “crimes against humanity” (CAH) had been committed.4 The same evidence indicates North Korean leadership has also committed genocidal and democidal acts. Democide, a fairly new term, is “[t]he murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.” 5 Given the historical and current treatment of North Korean citizens by its government, this phrase would adequately define those atrocities. 6 Yet, does it matter if North Korean leadership is committing genocide, democide, or “crimes against humanity,” and if it does, what should be the international response under current international law? No matter what the international response, there are no good options. The international community could choose to do nothing and maintain the status quo, or it could rely on international law to properly address the crimes against humanity (CAH) committed by North Korean leadership. The international community could also use military action to end the crimes against humanity. All options have serious flaws.

The first two parts of this Article will present some brief background information about North Korea, some of the findings of the UNHRC’s Commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“the Commission”), how those findings fit into the definitions of genocide, democide, and CAH, and why North Korean leadership should be charged with CAH. However, charging is only part of the equation. The third part of this Article will explore why relying on international law to end the North Korean CAH, particularly relying on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Universal Jurisdiction (UJ), are not viable options. Finally, this Article will discuss the propriety of military action: why state sovereignty is not the issue it used to be, the impact the “Responsibility to Protect” will have on state sovereignty, and how inaction by the United Nations (UN) Security Council to address CAH around the world has weakened its legitimacy. Ultimately, the facts presented will show that rapidly changing international law has eroded the notion of the sanctity of state sovereignty, and because the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has failed to protect the citizens of North Korea from its own leadership committing crimes against humanity, international military action is the only option to end the long-standing atrocities.

I. NORTH KOREA AND THE COMMISSION’S REPORT

The most reclusive, secretive country on Earth, North Korea is a mystery to most people.7 This can most likely be attributed to the policy established by the country’s first leader, Kim il-Sung, who “created the country’s policy of juche or self-reliance,” resulting in North Korea cutting itself off from the rest of the world politically, economically, and relying on its own military for protection.8 Yet, juche is now used as an “ideological weapon to justify its dictatorship and hereditary power succession plan . . . a means to justify its closed-door system externally.”9 For nearly 70 years, its Supreme Leaders, Kim il-Sung, his son, Kim Jung-il, and now Kim Jung Un, Kim il-Sung’s grandson,10 have abused, manipulated, and suppressed the human rights of the North Korean people under the principle of juche.11 Little good comes from its political situation, and for the most part, the world only hears about North Korea when it is threatening to obtain and/or use nuclear weapons.

It is estimated that North Korea has a population of just over 25 million people.12 Despite spending an estimated $1.3 billion on its missile program in 2012,13 North Korea has one of the world’s least open economies, with a gross domestic product of $1800 per capita, and has an estimated 25.6% unemployment rate.14 North Korea spends about one third of its income on military spending and has 1.2 million military members, twice as many as South Korea.15 A portion of North Korea’s citizens do not even have electricity in their homes, and those that do have electricity only receive it “a few hours per day.”16 There is no independent media, and the state relies on international aid to feed its population.17 The UN World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that more than 70% of the North Korean population is food insecure, with only about a fifth of its land being arable, and that children in WFP nurseries showed a 25% stunting prevalence due to the lack of food consumption.18 “In 2015, the U.N. [WFP] asked foreign donors for . . . $111 million in contributions.”19 However, donors are reluctant to help North Korea because of restrictions on “humanitarian workers and international fears over its nuclear ambitions.”20 There is no religious freedom in North Korea, nor is there an independent judicial system.21 North Korea is considered to be the third most corrupt country on earth.22

† Charlton J. Meginley is a Judge Advocate for the United States Air Force. He received his undergraduate degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Louisiana at Monroe, and his Juris Doctor from Louisiana State University. He currently serves as the Chief Senior Defense Counsel for the Air Force’s Central Circuit. Please note: the opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within this Article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency.
1 See Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State of the U.S., Remarks at the United Nations Security Council Ministerial Session on D.P.R.K., (Apr. 28, 2017) (transcript available at https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/04/270544.html).
2 North Korea’s Push over the Years to Become a Nuclear Power, L.A. T IMES (Apr. 14, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-north-korea-nuclear-timeline-20170414-htmlstory.html.
3 Olivia Enos, What the United States Can Do to Address North Korea’s Human Rights Crisis, THE FEDERALIST (Apr. 17, 2017), http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/17/united-states-can-address-north-koreas-human-rights-crisis/.
4 See U.N. Human Rights Council on Its Twenty-Fifth Session, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/25/CRP.1 (2014) [hereinafter U.N. Human Rights Council].
5 R.J. RUMMEL, D EATH BY G OVERNMENT Ch. 2 (Transaction Publishers, 1994).
6 See id.; see also Yael Stein and Elihu D. Ritcher, Suspected Mass Killings, GENOCIDE PREVENTION NOW, www.genocidepreventionnow.org (last visited Oct. 4, 2017).
7 See Charlotte Alfred, How North Korea Became So Isolated, HUFF POST (Oct. 17, 2014, 5:42 PM ), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/north-korea-history-isolation_n_5991000.html.
8 15 Fascinating Facts about Mysterious North Korea, USA TODAY (July 17, 2017 10:17 AM ), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/17/fascinating-facts-north-korea/99296938/.
9 See Columbia University, Juche Ideology, http://www2.law.columbia.edu/course_00S_L9436_001-North%20Korea%20materials/3.html (last visited Sept. 17, 2017); Dae-Kyu Yoon, The Constitution of North Korea: Its Changes and Implications, 27 FORDHAM INT’L L. J. 1289, 1291 (2004).
10 See Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook: North Korea, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html (last updated Sept. 6, 2017).
11 See 15 Fascinating Facts about Mysterious North Korea, supra note 8.
12 Central Intelligence Agency, supra note 10.
13 Ramy Inocencio, North Korea’s Rocket Launches Cost $1.3 Billion, CNN (Dec. 12, 2012), http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/business/north-korea-rocket-cost/index.html.
14 Central Intelligence Agency, supra note 10. See generally North Korea’s economic growth climbs to 17-year high in 2016 despite sanctions targeting nuclear program, CNBC (July 20, 2017 11:26 PM), https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/north-koreas-economic-growth-climbs-to-17-year-high-in-2016-despite-sanctions-targeting-nuclear-program.html (noting that the North Korean economy is growing, even in light of the sanctions).
15 20 Facts about North Korea, USA TODAY (Apr. 13, 2013), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/13/north-korea-factoids/2078831/.
16 See id.; Rick Newman, Here’s How Lousy Life is in North Korea, U.S. NEWS (Apr. 12, 2013), https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/04/12/heres-how-lousy-life-is-in-north-korea.
17 20 Facts about North Korea, supra note 15.
18 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME, http://www.wfp.org/countries/korea-democratic-peoples-republic (last visited Sept. 18, 2017); see also DPRK Country Brief, WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME, http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ep/wfp276263.pdf?_ga=2.143296828.840591394.1505785676-1256538179.1505785676 (last visited Sept. 18, 2017). According to the WFP, “81 percent of DPRK’s population do not have acceptable diversity in their diet. People consume 25 percent less protein and 30 percent less fat than required for a healthy life, according to international standards. One in three children under five years of age, and almost half of the children between 12 and 23 months of age, are anemic.” Id.
19 Olivia Enos & Bruce Klinger, Next Steps for Human Rights in North Korea, HERITAGE FOUND. (Jan. 12, 2016), http://www.heritage.org/asia/report/next-steps-human-rights-north-korea.
20 Magdalena Mis, U.N. Calls for $111 Million for Crucial Aid for North Korea, REUTERS (Apr. 9, 2015), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-aid-un-idUSKBN0N01YK20150409.
21 20 Facts about North Korea, supra note 15.
22 See Corruption Perceptions Index 2016, TRANSPARENCY INT’L, https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 (last visited Sept. 20, 2017) (noting Somalia as the most corrupt nation, followed by South Sudan); Aza Wee Sile, These are the World’s Most Corrupt Countries, CNBC (Jan. 24, 2017, 11:07 PM ), https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/these-are-the-worlds-most-corrupt-countries.html.

ABSTRACT

This Article examines the theoretical and historical contexts, the applicable law and the practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to establish whether activist interpretation features in judicial decision-making of the court. The Article argues that the high level of detail in the normative framework of the court does not address activist judicial practice as was anticipated by the creators of the court. Influenced by the interpretive culture of the foregoing tribunals where normative realities were starkly different, judicial interpretation at the ICC nonetheless experiences similar activist tendencies that may defy the established legislative polices of the court and the principle of legality. It argues that the incoherent interpretive practice allows the judges to express their idiosyncratic understanding of law in a way that may be inconsistent with the policies previously announced by the states parties to the Rome Statute and the court’s legislative authority –the Assembly of States Parties. The Article concludes that consistent and sound interpretive methodology is wanting for the court to be able to effectively adhere to the principle of legality.

INTRODUCTION

The creation of the modern international criminal courts triggered an active process of development of international criminal law and its institutions. Having started as a handful of customary legal rules, international criminal law has developed through the jurisprudence of these courts into a comprehensive body of positive law that today is largely reflected in the Rome Statute of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC).

The judicial process in the early ad hoc tribunals took course under assumption of discoverability of ex ante specific components of international crimes, and of specific norms of international criminal law in general. 1 These cryptic norms were assumed to have existed in their latent form in either international custom or principles of law and only needed to be actively discovered by the judges. A wide range of interpretive methods – from the postulates of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to fundamental values of humanity – was employed for that purpose. 2 The interpretive processes at the ad hoc tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), showed that in the context of customary international law the line between creation and discovery of law is hard to detect.3 This ambiguity resulted in concerns of subjecting the entire process of legal development to the individual vision of a judge. The resulted expansion of the normative body of international criminal law sparked a vigorous debate about the age-old dilemma of relationship between a judge and the law, translating the debate into the international criminal law context.4 The vigour of progressive jurisprudence of the ad hoc criminal tribunals raised many questions vis-à-vis judge-made law, its legitimacy at the arena of international criminal justice, and the boundaries to which the practice of expansive interpretation is permissible to extend without offending the principle of legality.

The common law tradition that greatly influenced all international criminal courts has a long history of debate on judicial discretion. In the twentieth century, American legal scholarship labelled certain age-old progressive practices of judicial freedom in interpretation of law as judicial activism. The practice of activist judging may have expanded to ad hoc international criminal tribunals drawing on both the courts’ common law parentage and the nature of the international legal order with its decentralised legal architecture and the absence of legislative authority. The lack of normative clarity and complex realities in which ad hoc tribunals had to operate pleaded in justification of the progressive developments of law at these international courts.

Unlike the ad hoc tribunals, the ICC is equipped with a well-prepared and detailed set of comprehensive positive rules – the Rome Statute (the court’s creating treaty), the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Elements of Crimes and other instruments. The normative reality of the ICC significantly limits the space for the progressive development of international criminal law through limiting the interpretive freedom of the judges and their capacity to actively develop applicable criminal law. The Rome Statute, in addition to supplying the judges with a codification of substantive and procedural norms, provides for interpretive guidelines mainly expressed through its articles 21 and 22.5 In turn, the structure of the court provides for the legislative authority assumed by the states parties to the Rome Statute and their Assembly (ASP). This further limits the judicial function by clearly distinguishing it from the legislative mandate. These normative and structural changes may have been intended to limit the role of the judges in the law-making processes.6 However, the incoherent interpretive practice may allow the judges to express their personal understanding of even the most detailed law in a way that may be inconsistent with the pre-announced policies. A judge may invoke a particular interpretive canon to yield a desired outcome in his decision, rather than be guided by the law in light of consistent methodological reasoning.7 In the absence of clear interpretive methodology, the ICC might run the risk of continuing the inertia of activist judging that gained momentum at the ad hoc tribunals. At the expense of the principle of legality, such practice may establish a similar culture of expansive judicial interpretation that defies established policies expressed in the codified law of the court.

The main objective of this Article is to examine the theoretical and historical contexts, the applicable law, and the practice of the ICC to establish whether activist interpretation features in the judicial decision-making of the court. For that purpose, this Article provides for a theoretical discussion of the concept of judicial activism and the related interpretive phenomena. It then uses the theoretical findings to analyse the context in which the early ad hoc international criminal tribunals operated. This Article argues that the ad hoc tribunals developed a culture of activist interpretation of law that subsequently emerged at the ICC despite its structural differences. This Article considers whether the legal architecture of the ICC with its high level of normativity and textual clarity helps abate the judicial interpretive function by subjecting it to the principle of legality and whether the interpretive rules as applied by the court are adequate to address activist judging. To reveal the activist tendencies in the work of the ICC, this Article considers a number of examples from the practice of the court that in the opinion of the author are most illustrative of the activist tendencies.

I. DECONSTRUCTING JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

The term “judicial activism” first appeared in legal parlance in January 1947, when Arthur Schlesinger Jr. introduced it in his article in a popular Fortune magazine intended for a very general audience.8 An American historian and a social critic, Schlesinger profiled the then judges of the United States Supreme Court.9 He articulated the divisions among the judges by highlighting the differences among them in their perception of the judicial role.10 Schlesinger discerned two main groups, characterizing one group as being “judicial activists,” and the other as the “champions of self-restraint.”11 Judicially active judges, as portrayed by Schlesinger, are those who, being aware of the ambiguous range of law and believing in inseparability of law and politics, move the policy concerns and social results to the front in the exercise of their judicial power. The champions of self-restraint, on the other hand, believe that the meaning of the law is fixed. Deviation from the fixed meaning is inappropriate even in cases where the legislator made a clear mistake in law, in which situation the remedy must be left to the legislator.12 By extrapolating his “judicial activism” and “self-restraint,” Schlesinger reminded his audience of the fundamental formalist-realist philosophical dilemma of judicial discretion in the context of the doctrine of separation of powers and legal decision-making within the doctrine.13

INTRODUCTION

In 1910, Ernest Bell released a treatise entitled Fighting the Traffic in Young Girls or, War on the White Slave Trade, described as “a complete and detailed account of the shameless traffic in young girls.”¹ The contributors to this work included U.S. Attorneys, educators, pastors, and professors at medical schools.² Although written over a century ago, the introduction written by Edwin W. Sims, a United States District Attorney from Chicago, aptly describes human trafficking today:

In the past fifteen years, as a result of media initiatives,⁴ congressional hearings and public awareness initiatives by NGOs such as the Polaris Project,⁵ the Protection Project,⁶ and Free the Slaves,⁷ there is a growing public awareness that commerce in human beings is not merely a historical institution from our past.⁸ In fact, it haunts our present and demands the public’s attention. Trafficking in human beings continues to be a global enterprise generating billions of dollars of revenues and affecting over 600,000 people each year.⁹ Some analysts have suggested that trafficking in humans is close behind the gun and drug trade as a criminal enterprise because of its profitability.¹⁰ Although sexual trafficking of women and children has garnered the lion’s share of the public attention focused on this issue,¹¹ other sectors of the economy host trafficked and exploited workers. Victims of trafficking are exploited not only as prostitutes but also as agricultural laborers, sweatshop workers and domestic workers.¹² Moreover, there is a segment of the population whose dire circumstances cause them to fall victim to trafficking for the removal of human organs.¹³

Nongovernmental organizations have been aware of the problem of trafficking and have been actively engaged in advocacy on behalf of victims of trafficking for over a decade. Starting with the policy initiatives of the Clinton administration,¹⁴ these efforts have evolved into the anti-trafficking legislation enacted during the Clinton Administration and amended during the Bush Administration.¹⁵

The purpose of this Article is to examine the legislative response of the United States to human trafficking. Section I discusses the factors most frequently cited as contributing to the problem. Section II examines international authority for interdicting trafficking. Section III examines the United States’ response to the problem. It discusses the context in which the public awareness of the issue of trafficking has evolved and the culmination of this awareness in the enactment of federal legislation to address the problem. It also briefly examines the strategies mandated by the legislation on a national and international level and the ongoing role to be played by nongovernmental organizations in implementing this legislation by assisting with the identification of victims of severe forms of trafficking and the provision of services to them. Last but not least, Section IV of this Article looks at some of the accomplishments of the legislation to date and lessons to be learned from its successes and its limitations.

I. THE PROBLEM: AN OVERVIEW OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

A. Social, Economic and Political Factors

There are both shared and unique factors that characterize countries from which people are trafficked. As one analyst noted:

Over time, researchers have identified a number of factors that contribute to the power dynamic that facilitates and sustains the trafficking and subsequent enslavement of individuals. These are briefly described in a congressional hearing on the international trafficking of women and children and are set forth below.

1 ERNEST A. BELL ET AL., FIGHTING THE TRAFFIC IN YOUNG GIRLS OR, WAR ON THE WHITE SLAVE TRADE (General Books 2010) (1910).
2 Id. at 1–2.
3 Id. at 13.
4 See Bridget Leininger, CNN Freedom Project and Tony Maddox Honored by U.S.State Department as 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report Hero, CNN (July 27, 2015, 12:29 PM), http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/07/27/cnn-freedom-project-and-tony-maddox-honored-by-u-s-state-department-as-2015-trafficking-in-persons-report-hero/ (detailing how CNN’s Freedom Project was honored by the U.S. Department of State with the release of the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report last year).
5 See, e.g., Human Trafficking, POLARIS, https://polarisproject.org/human-trafficking (last visited Feb. 18, 2016) (providing up to date information on federal and state trafficking legislation as well as current trafficking statistics).
6 See THE PROTECTION PROJECT, http://www.protectionproject.org/ (last visited Jan. 18, 2016).
7 See Slavery Facts and Our Impact, FREE THE SLAVES , http://www.freetheslaves.net/ (last visited Jan. 18, 2016).
8 See Kara C. Ryf, The First Modern Anti-Slavery Law: The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 34 CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L. 45, 45 (2002) (“Although both slavery and involuntary servitude were outlawed in the United States in 1865, over one million people remain in forced prostitution, sweatshop labor, and domestic servitude throughout the United States. Most of these individuals are held captive, physically beaten, sexually abused, and psychologically intimidated. They are not paid for their services, nor are they free to leave. Few Americans are aware of the scope and severity of the human trafficking industry and the extent to which this phenomenon occurs within our own borders.”).
9 146 CONG. REC. 22,041, 22,043 (2000) (during the Senate debate on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 3244), Senator Brownback stated: “Our government estimates that between 600,000 and 2 million women are trafficked each year beyond international borders. They are trafficked for the purpose of sexual prostitution by organized crime units and groups that are aggressively out making money off the trafficking of human flesh.”). FRANCIS T. MIKO, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL30545, TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN AND CHILDREN: THE U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE 1 (2004) (“According to the latest U.S. Government estimates, some 800,000 to 900,000 people are trafficked across borders each year worldwide for forced labor, domestic servitude, or sexual exploitation. Trafficking is considered one of the largest sources of profits for organized crime, generating seven to ten billion dollars annually according to United Nations estimates.”) (emphasis added).
10 International Trafficking in Women and Children: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Near E. and S. Asian Affairs of the S. Comm. on Foreign Relations, 106th Cong. 11 (2000)(statement of Hon. Frank E. Loy, Under Sec’y of State, Global Affairs) [hereinafter International Trafficking in Women and Children Hearings](“Alarmingly, the trafficking industry is one of the fastest growing and most lucrative criminal enterprises in the world. Profits from the industry are enormous, generating billions of dollars annually to organized criminal groups. Trafficking in women and children is now considered the third largest source of profits for organized crime, behind only drugs and guns. Traffickers know that throughout the world they can reap large profits while facing a relatively low risk of prosecution. Moreover, it has been observed that, unlike drugs or firearms, trafficking ‘in women and children doesn’t require capital to start.’”).
11 Ryan Goehrung, Sex: Drowning Out the Discourse on Trafficking, HUMAN TRAFFICKING CTR. (Apr. 3, 2014), http://humantraffickingcenter.org/posts-by-htc-associates/sex-drowning-out-the-discourse-on-trafficking/ (“Despite the fact that sex trafficking cases account for less than one quarter of all human trafficking cases globally – 21.5 percent according to International Labour Organization estimates – the focus of the media and many anti-trafficking organizations seems to suggest sex trafficking is the most widespread kind of exploitation. As a result, similarly egregious and much more common labor trafficking cases receive little public attention and notably fewer resources.”).
12 International Trafficking in Women and Children Hearings, supra note 10 (“A trafficking scheme involves a continuum of recruitment, abduction, transport, harboring, transfer, sale or receipt of persons through various types of coercion, force, fraud or deception for the purpose of placing persons in situations of slavery or slavery-like conditions, servitude, forced labor or services. Examples include, but are not limited to sexual servitude, domestic servitude, bonded sweatshop labor or other debt bondage.”) (emphasis added). Bo Cooper, A New Approach to Protection and Law Enforcement Under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, 51 EMORY L.J. 1041, 1045–46 (2002) (“Persons are trafficked into the sex trade by force, fraud, or coercion to engage in prostitution, pornography, sex tourism, and other commercial sexual services. Others are required to perform forced labor as agricultural workers, domestic workers, maids in motels and hotels, and peddlers of trinkets on buses and in subways.”) (emphasis added). A MY O’NEILL RICHARD, CTR. FOR THE STUDY OF INTELLIGENCE, INTERNATIONAL TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN TO THE UNITED STATES: A CONTEMPORARY MANIFESTATION OF SLAVERY AND ORGANIZED CRIME 3 (1999) (“A review of several illustrative trafficking and slavery operations –involving sweatshop, agricultural, and other forms of labor – over the last eight years shows that these operations went unnoticed or were able to exist longer than trafficking operations involving the sex industry.”) (emphasis added).
13 Trafficking in human organs is distinguishable from trafficking for the removal of human organs. Typically in the latter case, individuals are either recruited with the pretext of a job or they are abducted. Once the individual reaches the location where the organ is to be removed, his compliance is forced with threats of violence which may extend to his family members. Once the organ is removed, the individual is minimally compensated and set loose with no provisions for aftercare. ARTHUR CAPLAN ET AL., COUNCIL OF EUROPE/UNITED NATIONS, TRAFFICKING IN ORGANS, TISSUES AND CELLS AND TRAFFICKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE REMOVAL OF ORGANS 55–58 (2009) (emphasis added).
14 See MIKO, supra note 9, at 8.
15 See id. at 8–10. In the 114th Congress, 92 bills were introduced that related to the subject of Human Trafficking. See generally Human Trafficking, GOVTRACK , www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/human_trafficking/6210 (last visited Feb. 27, 2016).
16 KEVIN BALES, UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL SLAVERY : A READER 10 (2005).

† Associate Professor, Regent University School of Law. B.A. 1966, State University of New York at Albany; J.D. 1977, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America; LL.M. 1984, Georgetown University Law Center.

INTRODUCTION

Much is at stake in the developing conflicts between freedom of conscience and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) policies in international human rights law. Conscience is the human faculty with which individuals seek moral truth.¹ Over centuries, as evil roused the conscience of previous generations, they recognized the existence of human rights, and called upon states to protect these rights. In the twentieth century, drafters of the international human rights framework cited our endowment with conscience and reason as evidence of our inherent human “dignity,” the basis for universal and inalienable human rights.²

Because the creators of the international human rights system had a high view of conscience, both as a faculty for discerning moral truth and evidence of human dignity, they identified it as a “core human right”; and they created the strongest level of legal protection for it.³ As conflicts between freedom of conscience, state interests, and other rights have arisen, legal interpreters have consistently upheld freedom of conscience. However, over the past decade, conflicts between freedom of conscience and new LGBT policies (particularly legislatively and court-created same-sex marriage and sexual orientation nondiscrimination mandates) have grown. These conflicts threaten the status of freedom of conscience, both as a core human right and as foundational to the human rights system.

I. ORIGINS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

A. Where Do International Human Rights Come From?

No matter what human rights you believe in, this is an important question. For what you believe about the source of human rights will largely determine which rights you consider to be universal and how you believe the human rights system should be sustained and strengthened.

Philosophers, theologians, and legal scholars from many different time periods, have recognized conscience as a source of our rights. From Socrates to Thomas Aquinas, men have sought to determine questions about rights in their conscience.⁴ The assertion that conscience is the human faculty for apprehending moral truth may seem obvious, but it was not until the seventeenth century that thinkers began to articulate the relationships between conscience, reason, and rights.

In 1625, Dutch legal scholar Hugo Grotius, the “Father of International Law,” identified “right reason” (the ability to discern right from wrong) as a uniquely human power.⁵ Grotius and many others of his time saw human conscience as evidence that God made individuals in His own image (Imago Dei).⁶ He also believed that the power to discern right from wrong necessitated certain rights.⁷ A century after Grotius, Swiss scholar Emmerich de Vattel articulated the role of states vis-à-vis each other. In his watershed book, The Law of Nations, he asserted that states have duties to protect each other’s citizens from injury.⁸ Taken together, Grotius’ view of our unique human nature and Vattel’s view of the state, created the basis for an international human rights system.⁹ Neither saw the state as the source of human rights but as trustee of the duty to protect rights.¹⁰ 

Conscience has also been the engine of human rights action. In 1789, William Wilberforce, the “Conscience of England,” showed his nation that African and West Indian slaves were no less human than their masters and possessed human rights in no less measure.¹¹ In his speech “On the Horrors of the Slave Trade,” he made this appeal:

Wilberforce’s Christian beliefs motivated him to action.¹³ But, in his appeal to the nation, he did not rely on shared religious beliefs. He called upon the conscience of all citizens to recognize the evil of the slave trade and do their part in ending it. Wilberforce knew the human rights of slaves hinged upon the ability of men to apprehend truth in their conscience.

Florence Nightingale revolutionized medical care in armed conflict after seeing soldiers die needlessly in the Crimean War in 1854.¹⁴ She wrote, “[e]very man stands upon his own conscience; everything is between himself and his God.”¹⁵ Conscience caused the earliest human rights activists to turn ideas into action to protect the vulnerable.

In the twentieth century, World War II and the Holocaust shocked the collective conscience of the world. The post-World War II generation vowed “never again” and created a system of international law to protect the human rights of every person. In 1947, the United Nations (UN) commissioned American First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, Lebanese Christian leader Charles Malik, Chinese philosopher Peng Chun Chang, French diplomat René Cassin, and Canadian lawyer John Peters Humphrey to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).¹⁶ They came from different nations, cultures, and religions.¹⁷ Roosevelt was Protestant.¹⁸ Cassin was Jewish.¹⁹. Chang was a noted Confucian scholar.²⁰ Malik was Greek Orthodox.²¹ They could not agree on divinity, but all saw the need for a transcendent basis for human rights.

They found this in human dignity—Article 1 of the UDHR states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience . . . .”²² 

Like Grotius and Vattel, the drafters found that man’s endowed qualities of reason and conscience are evidence of our unique human dignity. This dignity requires all states to recognize the rights of all humans. The clear lesson of World War II was that an unchecked state could produce unimaginable evil and suffering and abhorrent violations of individual rights.²³ Therefore, the UDHR made clear that human dignity and endowed reason and conscience was the source of human rights, not the state.²⁴ To directly safeguard individual conscience, it created the strongest legal protection possible. The UDHR itself did not create rights—it merely recognized their existence.²⁵

1 See Conscience, BLACK’ S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014).
2 See G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 1 (Dec. 10, 1948) [hereinafter UDHR].
3 See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 4, opened for signature Dec. 16, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-20, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976) [hereinafter ICCPR]; Louis B. Sohn, The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather Than States, 32 AM . U.L. REV . 1, 17–19 (1982)(explaining that while the ICCPR admits that states have the authority to derogate certain human rights in times of emergency, the ICCPR categorizes the right to conscience as an inalienable right that never can be lawfully derogated).
4 Robert P. Lawry, Ethics in the Shadow of the Law: The Political Obligation of a Citizen, 52 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 655, 718–19 (2002) (discussing the attempts of Socrates, Aquinas, Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Jr. et. al. to proffer an acceptable solution in instances when conscience and the duty to obey the law are in conflict).
5 1 HUGO GROTIUS, THE RIGHTS OF WAR AND PEACE 150–153 (Richard Tuck ed., Liberty Fund 2005) (1625), http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/grotius/Law2.pdf; Benjamin Strauman, Early Modern Sovereignty and Its Limits, 16 THEORETICAL INQUIRIES L. 423, 429–30 (2015) (noting that Cicero and Grotius similarly attribute right
reason to humans alone).
6 Janne Elisabeth Nijman, Grotius’ Imago Dei Anthropology: Grounding Ius Naturae et Gentium, in INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RELIGION (Martti Koskenniemi et al. eds.) (forthcoming) (manuscript at 2–3), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2665553.
7 See GROTIUS, supra note 5, at 1132 & n. 8.
8 EMER DE VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS, 262–63 (Richard Whatmore & Béla Kapossy eds., Liberty Fund 2008) (1758), http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2246.
9 See Evan J. Criddle, Standing for Human Rights Abroad, 100 CORNELL L. REV. 269, 299–332 (2015).
10 See id. at 308, 313, 332 (noting that the “fiduciary theory” based on the work of Vattel and Grotius provides for an international law system where human rights are vested “exclusively in human beings,” not the state).
11 See William Wilberforce, On the Horrors of the Slave Trade, Speech in the House of Commons (May 12, 1789), in 4 THE WORLD’S FAMOUS ORATIONS 60, 68 (William Jennings Bryan & Francis W. Halsey eds., 1906) (arguing against the inhumanity of the slave trade
that caused the “effusion of human blood,” set “fellow creatures a-hunting each other for slaves,” and filled fairs and markets with “human flesh”).
12 Id. at 69–70 (emphasis added).
13 Michael V. Hernandez, A Flawed Foundation: Christianity’s Loss of Preeminent Influence on American Law, 56 RUTGERS L. REV. 625, 681 n. 348 (2004).
14 See Tsvetelina Gerova-Wilson, Nursing Is Not a Lesser Included Profession: Why Physicians Should Not Be Allowed to Establish the Nursing Standard of Care, 16 QUINNIPIAC HEALTH L.J. 43, 45 n. 12 (2012–2013) (describing the impact of Nightingale’s reforms on the practice of nursing and treating those wounded in war).
15 Letter from Florence Nightingale (Feb. 17, 1848), in 7 FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE’S EUROPEAN TRAVELS 264, 265 (Lynn McDonald ed., 2004) (ebook) (writing these words in reflecting upon Michelangelo’s painting, The Last Judgment, and perhaps revealing the associations she made between conscience, duty, rights, and religion).
16 See History of the Document, UNITED NATIONS, http://www.un.org/en/sections/universal-declaration/history-document/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
17 See id.
18 Mary Ann Glendon, God and Mrs. Roosevelt, FIRST THINGS (May 2010), http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/god-and-mrs-roosevelt.
19 JAY WINTER & ANTOINE PROST, RENÉ CASSIN AND HUMAN RIGHTS: FROM THE GREAT WAR TO THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION 318 (2013).
20 Mary Ann Glendon, Foundations of Human Rights: The Unfinished Business, 44 AM. J. JURIS. 1, 1 (1999).
21 Drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNITED NATIONS,
http://research.un.org/en/undhr/draftingcommittee (last visited Feb. 2, 2016).
22 UDHR, supra note 2, art. 1 (emphasis added).
23 See Karina Michael Waller, Intrastate Ethnic Conflicts and International Law: How the Rise of Intrastate Ethnic Conflicts Has Rendered International Human Rights Laws Ineffective, Especially Regarding Sex-Based Crimes, 9 AM. U. J. GENDER SOCIAL SOC. POL’Y & L. 621, 622, 624–25 (2001); History of the Document, supra note 16.
24 See UDHR, supra note 2, pmbl., art. 1–2.
25 See id.

† Director, Center for Religious Liberty, Family Research Council, Washington,
D.C.; B.S. 2002, U.S. Naval Academy; J.D. 2010, Regent University School of Law; LL.M. 2011, Georgetown University Law Center.
†† L. Lin is a graduate of Harvard Law School who has defended freedom of thought, conscience and religion for clients of various faiths from around the world.

INTRODUCTION

A law that goes unenforced may as well be a suggestion. In today’s world, suggestions never seem to carry much weight.¹ Such is the case with the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC or the “Convention”).² Entered into force in September 1990, and ratified by 193 countries, the CRC is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world.³ Three countries have held out; to this day the CRC has not been ratified by the United States, South Sudan, or Somalia.⁴ Almost 25 years old, it is difficult, and perhaps even dishonest, to say that the CRC has effected much change or improvement in terms of the status of children around the world.⁵

One of the principal reasons for this is the lack of enforcement of the CRC’s provisions within the States Parties (or “signatory nations”) who have ratified it.⁶ The CRC lacks the system of enforcement needed to make it more than just a twenty-five year-long suggestion; it needs to be enforced to allow for the adjudication of complaints of individual children. Currently, there is very little case law to be found which applies the Convention’s standards to cases, giving it insufficient foundation and thus making it difficult to determine the ways in which it is to be implemented and enforced.⁷ Instead, the implementation of the CRC is monitored by a committee of international experts whose “primary responsibility is to monitor reports submitted by States Parties on national implementation of [the] CRC.”⁸ Essentially, the committee gives criticism and makes recommendations, which the majority of member countries do not qualify as mandatory or necessary.⁹ The advisory, non-adversarial nature of the CRC relies on diplomacy rather than legal sanction,¹⁰ and for the time being, that is getting the children of this world nowhere.¹¹

Countries that are party to the CRC agree to take “all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures” to ensure that all children in their jurisdiction have their rights set forth in the Convention.¹² “Such rights include life and development; name, nationality, and prenatal care; health and access to healthcare services; and education.”¹³ “They also include protection from abuse and neglect, as well as freedom of expression, religion, association, and peaceful assembly.”¹⁴ The “CRC calls for the protection of children from economic, sexual, and other forms of exploitation; torture; and capital punishment for offenses committed before the age of [eighteen].”¹⁵ “It also provides special protections for orphans, refugees, and the disabled.”¹⁶ However, the prevalent lack of enforcement in certain countries is largely due to the flaws in the document itself,¹⁷ as well as cultural mores and norms that cause these member States to interpret the CRC differently.¹⁸ Often, member countries are dishonest with the CRC Committee about their degree of enforcement, and even more often, the countries lack the infrastructure required to implement and enforce the rules of the CRC.¹⁹ Additionally, the UN’s jurisdiction has very little enforcement of law behind it, often making its regulations rather idealistic and ineffective.²⁰

This Note will discuss in detail (1) the CRC’s background, key articles, and general problems, (2) the reasons behind the CRC’s lack of
enforcement, (3) the types of atrocities that are happening to children around the world due to its lack of enforcement, (4) the reasons why the United States has, year after year and president after president, chosen not to ratify it, and (5) some ways in which the policies and implementation could be changed in order to make enforcement more effective.

1 See Oona A. Hathaway, Making Human Rights Treaties Work: Global Legal Information and Human Rights in the 21st Century, 31 INT’L J. LEGAL INFO. 312, 312-13 (2003).
2 Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter CRC].
3 LUISA BLANCHFIELD, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R40484, THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 1 (2013) [hereinafter CONG. RESEARCH SERV.].
4 Participating Countries, CHILD RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, http://www.childrightscampaign.org/what-is-the-crc/participating-countries (last visited Nov. 30, 2014).
5 Natasha Parassram Concepcion, The Convention on the Rights of the Child After Ten Years: Success or Failure? 7 HUM. RTS. BRIEF 2, 19 (2000) (“Although the CRC has highlighted children’s rights and works with states to enforce these rights, reality suggests that states have not followed through on their commitments to the CRC.”); see also Lynne Marie Kohm, A Brief Assessment of the 25-Year Effect of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 23 CARDOZO J. INT’L & COMP. L. 323, 345 (2015) [hereinafter A Brief Assessment].
6 Concepcion, supra note 5, at 2. (“Despite the nearly universal ratification of the CRC, the situation of the world’s youth casts doubt over actual domestic implementation and enforcement of the convention. In 1999, more than a decade after the CRC was adopted, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicated that the plight of children worldwide has not significantly improved. As of 1999, an estimated twelve million children under the age of five die every year, mostly of easily preventable causes; 130 million children in developing countries, a majority of whom are girls, are not in primary school; 160 million children are severely or moderately malnourished; approximately 1.4 billion children lack access to safe water; and 2.7 billion children lack access to adequate sanitation.”); see also A Brief Assessment, supra note 5, at 344 (“Other inconsistencies are apparent in the lack of enforcement within the Convention itself, within the United Nations, and within the international community.”).
7 Stefanie Grant, Functional Distinction or Bilingualism? Human Rights and Trade: The UN Human Rights System, 5 THE WORLD TRADE FORUM, INT’L TRADE & HUMAN RIGHTS: FOUND. AND CONCEPTUAL ISSUES 137, 138 (Frederick M. Abbott et al. eds., 2006).
8 CONG. RESEARCH SERV., supra note 3, at 3.
9 Id. at 9.
10 Id.
11 See id. at 15–16 (describing the areas of ineffectiveness of the CRC as a whole).
12 CRC, supra note 2, at 46.
13 CONG. RESEARCH SERV., supra note 3, at 3; see also CRC, supra note 2 at 47, 52–53.
14 CONG. RESEARCH SERV., supra note 3, at 3; see also CRC, supra note 2, at 48–50.
15 CONG. RESEARCH SERV., supra note 3, at 3; see also CRC, supra note 2, at 50, 54–55.
16 CONG. RESEARCH SERV., supra note 3, at 3; see also CRC, supra note 2, at 50–51.
17 See discussion infra Section II.A.
18 See A Brief Assessment, supra note 5, at 343 (“Furthermore, others question the Western, idealistic view of universal children’s rights that fails to take into account regional differences.”); see also Philip Alston, The Best Interests Principle: Towards a Reconciliation of Culture and Human Rights, in THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD: RECONCILING CULTURE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 1, 23 (Philip Alston ed, 1994) (discussing the cultural differences in the context of parental responsibility, parental rights, and child custody). See generally Sonia Harris-Short, International Human Rights Law: Imperialist, Inept and Ineffective? Cultural Relativism and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 25 HUM. RTS. Q. 130 (2003) (discussing the use of the cultural relativism argument at the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and how the “cultural difference” argument reflects the inherent limitations and fundamental weaknesses of an international legal system founded on a “society of States” where individual voices as well as voices of local governments are effectively silenced).
19 A Brief Assessment, supra note 5, at 345 (“[B]ecause enforcement mechanisms are almost entirely internal, other problems such as honesty in enforcement and lack of infrastructure for enforcement in States Parties can be troubling, as evidenced by the fact that many of the trafficking issues come from groups that are not actually entities that could ratify the CRC, but exist nonetheless within States Parties.”); see also Heather L. Carmody, The Child Soldiers Prevention Act: How the Act’s Inadequacy Leaves the World’s Children Vulnerable, 43 CAL. W. INT’L L. J. 233, 245–46 (2012) (“State Parties recently emerging from internal conflict may not have the infrastructure and organizations necessary to address the long-term needs of its former child soldiers.”).
20 See A Brief Assessment, supra note 5, at 345–46.

† B.A. 2013, California Baptist University; J.D. 2016, Regent University School of Law.