Abstract

Excerpted From: Katherine Pratty, Slavery Still Exists, and May Have Produced Your Hairdryer, 39 American University International Law Review 87 (2024) (212 Footnotes) (Full Document)

Slavery still exists today. It takes many forms and is called many names, including, human trafficking, debt bondage, and forced labor. However, each of these terms refers to the enslavement of real people being forced to work for little to no pay under the threat of force, fraud, or coercion. Tragically, there are more people enslaved right now than there were at the height of the transatlantic slave trade. Today, nearly all electronics are manufactured using slave labor at some point in the supply chain, usually at the mining level. Despite the clear reality that slavery remains a critical component of the modern economy, only a small majority of nation states have made significant anti-slavery efforts by criminalizing slavery in their respective domestic legislatures. However, ninety-four nations have yet to criminalize slavery; in these countries, slavery is still legal. In recognition of the shocking reality that slavery still exists in 2023, this paper employs the term “modern slavery” to refer to what many others call human trafficking, though the terms are largely interchangeable.

The United Kingdom (“UK”) is one nation that has been a leader in the anti-modern slavery movement, having implemented the highest quantity of anti-slavery legislation. The UK has explicitly professed its intention to “lead the charge in eradicating modern slavery,” and has largely carried out this intention. In 2015, the UK's legislature enacted the first domestic policy of its kind requiring corporate reporting and accountability compliance in support of modern slavery-free businesses and supply chains: the Modern Slavery Act 2015. In the international policy space, the UK has demonstrated its commitment to developing and effectuating anti-slavery laws through its historic participation in international anti-slavery treaties; the UK is party to ten. In addition to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the UK has enacted six other domestic legislative provisions against slavery.

Despite the appearance that the UK is committed to ending modern slavery through quantifiable international obligations and domestic legislature, its response to allegations against one corporation clearly under the UK's jurisdiction reveals otherwise. In February of 2022, UK law firm Leigh Day publicly announced its suit against Dyson Limited (“Dyson”) on behalf of workers in Dyson's Malaysia factory. The underlying crime alleged in the suit is the perpetration of forced labor. These allegations against Dyson (which is incorporated in Singapore, has a UK subsidiary, conducts extensive business in the UK where it was previously incorporated, and manufactures all of its products primarily in Malaysia) implicate the company's violation of international forced labor regulations. Additionally, the UK's failure to file sanctions against Dyson implicates the UK as in violation of its international law commitments.

This Comment argues that, if the allegations against Dyson and their long-term manufacturer in Malaysia are true, then the United Kingdom is in violation of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 because the UK has not sanctioned Dyson's UK subsidiaries. Part II of this Comment provides a brief historical background of the United Kingdom's stance against slavery and modern slavery. Additionally, Part II introduces the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 and its 2014 amendment. After establishing an understanding of the key provisions of the Protocol that require signatories to act, Part III discusses whether and how the allegations require the United Kingdom to act. Additionally, Part III analyzes two of the United Kingdom's legal instruments that could be used to remedy the its breach of the Protocol: the Modern Slavery Act and the UK Bribery Act (“UKBA”). Because modern slavery frequently intersects with corruption, the allegations of forced labor in Dyson's factory in Malaysia support the inference that Dyson is likely also in violation of the UKBA. Extraterritorial jurisdiction under the UKBA would apply to any corrupt acts made in furtherance of keeping the illegal labor practices in Dyson's factory in Malaysia in operation. Therefore, this Comment argues that the UK is obligated to prosecute Dyson via the UKBA in order to satisfy its obligations under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 and its Protocol introduced in 2014. In recognition of the scale of modern slavery and the global commitment to ending modern slavery, Part IV recommends that the UK make better use of the UKBA to sanction corporations for corrupt acts made in furtherance of the corporation's continued benefit of forced labor in their supply chains. Additionally, Part IV recommends that more countries adopt anti-corruption legislature like the UKBA the United States' counterpart, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

[. . .]

The United Kingdom could and should utilize the UKBA to impose high sanctions on Dyson to remedy the UK's breach of P029. However, this conclusion reveals how little current anti-slavery legislature can effectively deter corporate use of slavery in their supply chains. Anti-slavery laws must exist for an anti-corruption approach to work as proposed here: as a tool to close the loop that effectively allows corporations even in the wealthiest parts of the world to benefit from cutting costs with illegally cheap and coerced labor and by using cheaper practices that are illegally destroying our environment. Due to capitalist competition, paying off public officials to turn a blind eye to illegal labor practices is very cost-effective and compelling for suppliers and corporations. Without innate incentive to end forced labor practices, or rather with every incentive to utilize forced labor in their supply chains, corporations, starting with Dyson, need to be hugely deterred from these practices by governments if slavery is ever going to be ended.

From Katherine's first summer during law school through the present, she has worked with the highly creative and nationally acclaimed law firm Geragos & Geragos, working on cases intersecting with human rights, constitutional rights, labor law, and international war crimes.