In this thesis is questioned when human smuggling is permissible. By analysing the risk objection, the exploitation objection, the motivation objection, the freedom of association objection and the...Show moreIn this thesis is questioned when human smuggling is permissible. By analysing the risk objection, the exploitation objection, the motivation objection, the freedom of association objection and the law-breaking objection is concluded that human smuggling is not always wrong, at least not pro tanto. Nevertheless, certain conditions have to be satisfied. For one the smuggler should illuminate as many risks as possible, if doing so does not involve more than moderate risks. Therefore a smuggler should actively investigate the possible risks and take steps to mitigate the risks. Secondly, the smuggler needs to fully inform the client about the risks. Thereon, the client must give his real consent. Thirdly, a smuggler should not exploit his clients. Therefore a smuggler may not harm or abuse his client. A smuggler may not deceive his client by not giving an equivalent in return. Furthermore a smuggler may not take advantage of someone in a vulnerable position for example by charging an amount that includes a high profit. Fourthly, a smuggler may break the law if there is a moral reason to override this. The smugglers’ illegal conduct is justified if it prevents a greater evil than the conduct caused, there is no legal alternative that would have averted the harm and that the person was not responsible for creating the threat she helped avert. Finally, human smugglers should only accept a client when he claims that his rights are threatened. Migrants are only allowed to engage in human smuggling if their human rights are threatened and should apply for officials if the state will indeed give a fair hearing. It is the state's responsibility to give a fair hearing.Show less