Rationale for the Non-liability Principle

Part of the Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology book series (PSVV)


Before engaging in descriptions and debates on the European approach to protecting human trafficking victims from liability, it is important to understand why such persons, who were compelled to break the law, ought to be protected at all.


  1. Allain, J. (2010). Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia: The European Court of Human Rights and Trafficking as Slavery. Human Rights Law Review, 10(3), 546–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anti-slavery. (2014). Trafficking for Forced Criminal Activities and Begging in Europe Exploratory Study and Good Practice Examples [Online].
  3. Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group (ATMG). (2013). In the Dock. [Online]
  4. Berman, M. N. (2003). Justification and Excuse, Law and Morality. Duke Law Journal, 53(1), 1–77.Google Scholar
  5. Boister, N. (2012). An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buczma, S. R. (2013). An Overview of the Law Concerning Protection of Victims of Crime in the View of the Adoption of the Directive 2012/29/EU Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime in the European Union. ERA Forum, 14(2), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, Providing information on cases from the Criminal Court of Antwerp (Belgium), 26 April 2006 and 2 April 2008 quoted in OSCE Office of the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. (2013). Policy and legislative recommendations towards the effective implementation of the non-punishment provision with regard to victims of trafficking. Vienna: OSCE. [Online]
  8. Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as Property. British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, J. O. (2006). Will the Real Sex Slave Please Stand Up? Feminist Review, 83, 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Hert, P. (2016). EU Criminal Law and Fundamental Rights. In V. Mitsilegas, M. Bergstrom, & T. Konstadinides (Eds.), Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law. Chelteham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Dennis, I. H. (2009). On Necessity as a Defence to Crime: Possibilities, Problems and the Limits of Justification and Excuse. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 3(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donnelly, J. (1989). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dressler, J. (2001). Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Lexis Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Dubber, M. D., & Hörnle, T. (2014). Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dussich, J. P. J. (n.d.). Victimology—Past, Present and Future [Online].
  16. Dutheil De La Rochere, J. (2011). Challenges for the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU at the Time of the Entry into Force of the Lisbon Treaty. Fordham International Law Journal, 33(6), 1776–1799.Google Scholar
  17. Elias, R. (1985). Transcending Our Social Reality of Victimisation: Towards a New Victimology of Human Rights. Victimology, 10, 6–25.Google Scholar
  18. European Court of Human Rights. (2014). Guide on Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour [Online].
  19. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2009). Report on strengthening the role of the EU in the fight against child trafficking [Online]
  20. Fattah, E. A. (1997). Criminology: Past, Present and Future. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernández de Casadevante Romani, C. (2012). International Law of Victims. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Fletcher, G. P. (1998). Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fletcher, G. P. (2000). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fundamental Rights Agency. (2010). Detention of Third Country Nationals in Return Procedures, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Vienna [Online].
  25. Gallant, K. S. (2003). Politics, Theory and Institutions: Three Reasons Why International Criminal Defence Is Hard, and What Might Be Done About One of Them. Criminal Law Forum, 14(3), 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gardner, J. (2007). Offences and Defences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gardner, M. R. (1993). The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present. Utah Law Review, 1993, 635–750.Google Scholar
  28. Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and Recovery. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  30. Hoshi, B. (2013). The Trafficking Defence: A Proposed Model for the Non-criminalisation of Trafficked Persons in International Law. Groningen Journal of International Law, 1(2), 54–72.Google Scholar
  31. Hoyle, C., & Sanders, A. (2000). Police Response to Domestic Violence: From Victim Choice to Victim Empowerment? The British Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 14–36.Google Scholar
  32. Hoyle, C., Bosworth, M., & Dempsey, M. (2011). Labelling the Victims of Sex Trafficking: Exploring the Borderland Between Rhetoric and Reality. Social & Legal Studies, 20(3), 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kara, S. (2011). Designing More Effective Laws Against Human Trafficking Designing More Effective Laws Against Human Trafficking. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 9(2), 123.Google Scholar
  34. Klip, A. (2015). On Victim’s Rights and Its Impact on the Rights of the Accused. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 23(3), 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koba, L. (2015). Niekaralnosc ofiar handle ludźmi w Polsce – Punkt Widzenia Fundacji Przeciwko Handlowi Ludzmi I Niewolnictu La Strada. In Z. Lasocik, Z. (Ed.), Niekaralnosc ofiar handle ludźmi – nowe perspektywy, Ośrodek Badań Handlu Ludzmi (pp. 73–80). Warsaw: Warsaw University.Google Scholar
  36. Lanham, D. (1976). Larsonneur Revisited. Criminal Law Review, May, 276–281.Google Scholar
  37. Locke, J. (1990). Questions Concerning the Law of Nature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Loughnan, A. (2016). Asking (Different) Responsibility Questions: Responsibility and Non-responsibility in Criminal Law. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 4(1), 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mantouvalou, V. (2015). “Am I Free Now?” Overseas Domestic Workers in Slavery. Journal of Law and Society, 42(3), 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. OHCHR. (2010). Recommended Principles And Guidelines On Human Rights And Human Trafficking. Geneva: OHCHR [Online]
  41. OSCE Office of the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. (2013). Policy and Legislative Recommendations Towards the Effective Implementation of the Non-punishment Provision with Regard to Victims of Trafficking. Vienna [Online].
  42. Piotrowicz, R. W., & Sorrentino, L. (2016). Human Trafficking and the Emergence of the Non-punishment Principle. Human Rights Law Review, 16(4), 669–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rasquete, C., Ferreira, A., & Moyano Marques, F. (2014). Why Do We Need Concrete Measures for Victims at EU Level? A View from the Coalface. ERA Forum, 15(1), 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rijken, C. (2013). Trafficking in Human Beings for Labour Exploitation: Cooperation in an Integrated Approach. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 21(1), 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rijken, C. R. J. J., & Koster, D. (2008). A Human Rights Based Approach to Trafficking in Human Beings in Theory and Practice. May. SSRN Electronic Journal.Google Scholar
  46. Rijken, C. (2017). Trafficking in persons: a victim’s perspective. In R. Piotrowicz, C. Rijken, & B. H. Uhl (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Human Trafficking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Shoham, S. G., Knepper, P., & Kett, M. (2010). International Handbook of Victimology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  48. Spencer, D. C., & Walklate, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing Critical Victimology: Interventions and Possibilities. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  49. Stoyanova, V. (2012). Dancing on the Borders of Article 4: Human Trafficking and the European Court of Human Rights in the Rantsev Case [Online].
  50. Stoyanova, V. (2016). L.E. v. Greece: Human Trafficking and the Scope of States’ Positive Obligations Under the ECHR. European Human Rights Law Review, 3 [Online].
  51. Turner, I. (2015). Human Rights, Positive Obligations, and Measures to Prevent Human Trafficking in the United Kingdom. Journal of Human Trafficking, 1(4), 296–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vijeyarasa, R., & Bello y Villarino, J. M. (2013). Modern-Day Slavery—A Judicial Catchall for Trafficking, Slavery and Labour Exploitation: A Critique of Tang and Rantsev. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 8(1), 36–61.Google Scholar
  53. Westen, P. (2006). An Attitudinal Theory of Excuse. Law and Philosoph, 25(3), 289–375.Google Scholar
  54. Worley, W. (2009). Explain the Relevance of the Phrase “A Concession to Human Frailty” When it Comes to the Defence of Duress. [Online]
  55. Wit, D., & Wa, T. (2013). Criminality, Judgment and Eschatology. Dutch Reformed Theological Journal, 54, 109–119.Google Scholar
  56. Zornosa, F. (2016). Protecting Human Trafficking Victims from Punishment and Promoting Their Rehabilitation: The Need for an Affirmative Defense. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, 22(1), 177.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trilateral Research & ConsultingLondonUK

Personalised recommendations