dc.contributor.author | Thiemann, I | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-05-15T15:54:22Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-06-30 | |
dc.description.abstract | This article provides an analysis of regulatory approaches to sex work, the status of sex workers’
labour rights, and the conflation of sex work and human trafficking, with reference to the example
of Germany. It assesses the strengths and weaknesses of Germany’s approach to the regulation of
prostitution and the ways it has been influenced by international debates challenging the status of
sex work as work, as well as concerns about human trafficking. It analyses the Prostitution Act
2002 (ProstG), and the Prostitute Protection Act 2017 (ProstSchG), and their effects on the
rights and working conditions of sex workers, as well as their aim of improving the safety of
vulnerable sex workers and reducing the level of human trafficking and exploitation in the
German sex industry. In particular, the article considers the impact of this legislation on those
working in the sex industry,
especially migrant women and those at risk of exploitation. Through
its analysis of the existing approach to sex work in Germany, the direction of reform and the
absence of a labour-rights approach to the regulation of sex work and the prevention of trafficking,
the article highlights the fact that even a country that is -in principle - willing to accept sex work
as work, has failed to grant labour rights to sex workers. The article argues that the Prostitute
Protection Act has in some ways increased the vulnerability of sex workers rather than promoting
their safety. In addition, it is argued that legislators should consider labour protection and labour
rights as an alternative means of protecting sex workers, rather than (re)criminalizing aspects of
sex work in the name of ‘protecting’ women by means of prohibition or control. Adopting a labour-rights approach rather than paternalistic approach would have the potential to bring about far-reaching reform of the relevant legislation both in Germany and internationally. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.citation | Vol. 36 (2) pp. 195 – 220 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/121051 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Kluwer Law International | en_GB |
dc.relation.url | https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/International+Journal+of+Comparative+Labour+Law+and+Industrial+Relations/36.2/IJCL2020011 | |
dc.rights.embargoreason | Under embargo until 30 December 2020 in compliance with publisher policy | en_GB |
dc.rights | © 2020 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands | en_GB |
dc.subject | Sex Work | en_GB |
dc.subject | Human Trafficking | en_GB |
dc.subject | Labour Rights | en_GB |
dc.subject | Criminalization | en_GB |
dc.subject | Prostitution | en_GB |
dc.subject | Sex Work as Work | en_GB |
dc.title | Sex work regulation, protectionist anti-trafficking policy and their effects on sex workers’ labour rights in Germany | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2020-05-15T15:54:22Z | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0952-617X | |
dc.description | This is the final version. Available from Kluwer Law International via the link in this record | en_GB |
dc.identifier.journal | International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations | en_GB |
dc.rights.uri | http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2020-03-22 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2020-03-22 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2020-05-15T15:34:54Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | AM | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2020-12-30T00:00:00Z | |
refterms.panel | C | en_GB |