Introduction

Human Trafficking, contrary to appearances, is not a �new’ global phenomenon. But the issue has increasingly impinged on the conscience of governments and policymakers for various reasons.

Human trafficking now occupies a place of high priority on political agendas throughout the region and attempts have been made by Caribbean governments in recent years to combat smuggling in persons within and across national borders. This has resulted in the introduction of anti-trafficking legislation within the last 10 years addressing human trafficking as a transnational crime in three Caribbean jurisdictions. Leading the way in 2003, Belize enacted its Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Act 2003-18. The Guyana Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act 2005-2 followed two years later, and finally, another two years later, Jamaica enacted its Trafficking in Persons (Prevention, Suppression and Punishment) Act 2007-1. These statutes outlaw human trafficking, impose stringent sanctions for committing or participating in the crime, and provide extensive protection for and assistance to the victims of trafficking.

The sudden introduction of these statutes in Belize, Guyana and Jamaica is less a response to the problem of human trafficking and more a reaction to external pressures. The exercise of United States hegemony, through its blacklisting and sanctioning process under the US Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 2000,3 is the single most powerful stimulant in effecting the introduction of statutory regimes against human trafficking in the region. To satisfy the United States’ minimum requirements, the Acts transplanted the Palermo Protocol on the Prevention, Suppression and Punishment of Trafficking in Persons and the Convention against Transnational Crime, both adopted in 2000.4 There was no meaningful assessment of the phenomenon of human trafficking in the Caribbean, an essential prerequisite for good law­making. Further, the interaction between the domestic legislative process and international standards in these countries resulted in statutes that are not tailored for the Caribbean region. Rather, they embody carbon copies of the international standards, with their peculiarities and deficiencies.

2.