Trafficking in Law: Cause Lawyer, Bureaucratic State and Rights of Human Trafficking Victims in Thailand

Abstract

In this case study of a young, Thai "cause lawyer", advocacy for human rights is considered in context. The most important elements of that context are the path of development of Thai political and legal institutions, globalisation of law, and the networks of relationships that penetrate the state. The case study shows that human rights advocacy by NGO lawyers can adapt creatively to unpromising conditions under which courts provide little access or oversight. At the same time, the case study raises profound questions about the ultimate independence of cause lawyers when the state must be made a partner in order to establish the authority of law needed to make human rights advocacy possible. The ambiguity of the lawyer's position is apparent from the relative ineffectiveness of her interventions and her growing moral authority on behalf of best practices under law. Her position suggests the limitations on law imposed by the underpinnings of the Thai state itself. The Precarious Authority of LawThe protagonist of this case study is a young Thai lawyer, Duean, who has found a way to make human rights work within a legal system in which an American lawyer would find it difficult to function. The primary purpose of the NGO for which she works is rescuing victims of human trafficking, but to achieve this end she engages in an equally difficult project of social construction. Duean creates authority for her NGO by means of a network, within and outside of government ministries, and a different discourse of law that accompanies each relationship within the network.

Thai Labour NGOs during the ‘Modern Slavery’ Reforms: NGO Transitions in a Post‐aid World

“…In recent years, Thailand has received attention from human‐ and sex‐trafficking activists in the region (Molland, 2019b). Campaigns and activities have been funded by the Thai government to combat child prostitution and other forms of human trafficking that target women and children (Munger, 2015). The anti‐trafficking development agenda has moved from poverty reduction, as a way of preventing migration, towards humanitarian assistance, focused on saving and rescuing victims (Molland, 2019a; Montgomery, 2008).…”

“…Thai Labour NGOs during the 'Modern Slavery' Reforms 577 prostitution and other forms of human trafficking that target women and children (Munger, 2015). The anti-trafficking development agenda has moved from poverty reduction, as a way of preventing migration, towards humanitarian assistance, focused on saving and rescuing victims (Molland, 2019a;Montgomery, 2008).…”

“…A series of articles published by the Associated Press outlined what came to be framed as ‘modern‐day slavery’ in Thai fisheries, due to the prevalence of forced labour and the links to global supply chains (McDowell et al., 2015; Mendoza et al., 2016). Fish workers were vulnerable to systemic, abusive labour conditions made possible by a range of factors: a lack of clear contracts and social benefits; their status as temporary migrants in Thailand; operations taking place in boats far out at sea; a lack of migrant labour representation in worker organizations; the inability to form unions; and corruption among state officials, including police, immigration and border police (Chantavanich et al., 2013; Derks, 2010; Le, 2022; Marschke and Vandergeest, 2016; Munger, 2015).…”

Scalability, Social Media and Migrant Assistance: Emulation or Contestation?

“…Combining patron-client relations with state officials and social media usage enables MAM to emulate the state (Timmer 2010), which in turn expands their operational space. Although civil society actors' (NGOs) engaging in patron-client relations with state authorities is not new within a Thai context (Munger 2015), we must keep in mind that MAM's conduct engages multiple practices that are deemed illegal by state authorities: assistance of migrant workers (who often may be undocumented or only hold partial legal status) coupled with the fact that MAM itself does not hold a status. As such the stakes are much higher than, say, a Thai NGO developing favourable patron client relations with police officers, as discussed by (Munger 2015).…”

“…Although civil society actors' (NGOs) engaging in patron-client relations with state authorities is not new within a Thai context (Munger 2015), we must keep in mind that MAM's conduct engages multiple practices that are deemed illegal by state authorities: assistance of migrant workers (who often may be undocumented or only hold partial legal status) coupled with the fact that MAM itself does not hold a status. As such the stakes are much higher than, say, a Thai NGO developing favourable patron client relations with police officers, as discussed by (Munger 2015). It is precisely the way MAM's marries different forms of connectivity -patrimonialism and state emulation with social media usage -that helps account for their considerable leverage in crafting an operational space for migration assistance work.…”