Janie Chuang discusses important shifts in the way that American policy makers and activists have defined and fought human trafficking. As she shows, key aspects of the 2000 UN Protocol’s definition of trafficking have been whiplashed by changing political winds emanating from the Bush and Obama administrations. In the Bush years, a strange bedfellows network of feminists, evangelicals, and neo-conservatives directed American trafficking policy primarily toward sexual exploitation, pushing for prohibitions not only on forced but also on voluntary prostitution. Other types of trafficking were neglected. The Obama administration and its own set of civil society associates gusted other ways. Among other moves, it reduced the focus on sex, dropped the view that voluntary prostitution constituted trafficking, enlarged the trafficking concept to include all forced labor (whether or not involving movement), and rebranded the expansive new notion as slavery.

In her article Exploitation Creep and the Unmaking of Human Trafficking Law, Janie Chuang insightfully describes transformations in the discourse on trafficking as it shifted from sex trafficking to human trafficking, and as human trafficking came to be understood as forced labor, and now modern day slavery. With each of these transformations, the United States government, self-anointed “global sheriff” of anti-trafficking efforts, deepened its emphasis on a prosecution-oriented strategy focused on individual perpetrator accountability. As an alternative trajectory, Chuang identifies and convincingly argues for a labor-rights approach that takes into consideration the structural causes of exploitation in the labor market, including poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and conflict.

Even ten years ago, the phrase “human trafficking” might have evoked blank stares in many circles. Today, the existence of a contemporary trade in human beings has blossomed fully into public awareness. Discussion of and expositions about human traffickingappear not only in sensationalist media reports, but also in many other arenas, such as film dramas, documentaries, books and articles by scholars from a variety of disciplines, activist NGO websites, and legislative chambers across the globe.

However, some legal scholars as well as other scholars in the human trafficking sphere admit to a growing unease. Why? There is the sense that the label is a mushrooming monster that encompasses or swallows up all forms of human exploitation, identifies or creates stereotypical bad guys and innocent victims, and yet leaves relatively untouched the root causes of the exploitation.

Anti-trafficking law, with its rapid ascent to public visibility since the establishment of the Palermo Protocol fifteen years ago, offers a highly salient framework for understanding, and addressing, human exploitation. Yet this framework, as Professor Janie Chuang brilliantly illustrates in her article, Exploitation Creep and the Un-making of Human Trafficking Law,1 has proven both over-inclusive and, simultaneously and problematically, under-inclusive in its endeavors.

The anti-trafficking framework is broad enough to have overlapped substantially with potentially competing legal and institutional regimes through the “exploitation creep” that Chuang identifies—regimes that ban, re-spectively, forced labor (“Creep 1”) and slavery (“Creep 2”). If brought to fruition, Chuang’s exposition suggests, the effect of anti-trafficking’s exploitation creep may be to marginalize the positive international law of forced labor and slavery treaties, and perhaps even to render them entirely superfluous.