An assessment of the EU’s approach to combat human trafficking

Abstract

This dissertation provides a comprehensive assessment of the European Union’s legal and policy frameworks to combat human trafficking, evaluating their strengths, limitations, and systemic challenges. The EU has emerged as a global leader in anti-trafficking governance, driven by progressive legislation such as Directive 2011/36/EU, which harmonized definitions of trafficking across Member States and prioritized victim-centred protections. The directive’s broad scope—encompassing sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery, and organ trafficking— facilitated cross-border collaboration and prosecution of transnational networks. Subsequent amendments under Directive (EU) 2024/1712 expanded protections to address emerging trends, including forced marriage, digital exploitation, and illegal adoption, while enhancing accountability for legal entities profiting from trafficking. Institutional mechanisms, such as Joint Investigation Teams and the EU-THB Data Hub, further strengthened intelligence-sharing and operational coordination. Victim support systems, including shelters, legal aid, and traumainformed care, marked a significant shift from punitive approaches to rights-based strategies, with notable reductions in re-trafficking rates in states like Germany and Sweden. However, persistent gaps between policy ambitions and practical outcomes undermine the EU’s efficacy. Disparities in the transposition and implementation of directives across Member States create jurisdictional loopholes. For example, Hungary’s narrow legal definitions and Bulgaria’s under-resourced judicial systems result in inconsistent enforcement, with prosecution rates as low as 15% in some regions. Underreporting remains pervasive, driven by victims’ distrust of authorities, institutional corruption, and fear of retaliation—factors exacerbated in marginalized groups such as climate-displaced migrants. Data reliability is compromised by fragmented collection practices, misclassification of cases, and an overreliance on prosecution-centric metrics that obscure survivor outcomes. Restrictive migration policies and labour market exemptions further contradict anti-trafficking goals, pushing vulnerable populations into informal sectors where exploitation thrives. Methodologically, the study employs document-based analysis of legal texts, EU strategies, academic literature, and case law to identify systemic contradictions. Findings reveal that while the EU excels in legislative innovation and transnational cooperation, structural inequities—such as uneven funding for victim services, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and sovereignty disputes— hinder progress. For instance, Eastern European states face reintegration failures, with 29% of survivors re-trafficked due to inadequate housing and employment support. The dissertation concludes with actionable recommendations: binding mechanisms to enforce harmonization, equitable funding for victim-centred programs, alignment of migration and labour policies with anti-exploitation objectives, and the integration of qualitative survivor data into policymaking. By addressing root causes like economic precocity and institutional distrust, the EU can transition from reactive enforcement to proactive prevention. Ultimately, bridging the gap between visionary frameworks and grassroots realities is critical to eradicating human trafficking and upholding the bloc’s human rights commitments.