While human trafficking is a major issue in every part of the European Union (EU), one Member State – the Netherlands – experiences trafficking rates which surpass those of its fellow EU Members....Show moreWhile human trafficking is a major issue in every part of the European Union (EU), one Member State – the Netherlands – experiences trafficking rates which surpass those of its fellow EU Members. In 2011, the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive was created with the overall intention of standardizing and implementing measures across the EU to combat human trafficking. The following article aims to explain why the Netherlands maintains exceptionally high human trafficking rates compared to the remainder of EU Member States, even though it has officially signed on to this directive. I examine the situation from a compliance perspective to understand whether causes of non-compliance such as corruption, a lack of benefits associated with complying, or the failure of national regulations to align with international stipulations is responsible. I then see whether the legal status of prostitution impedes the effectiveness of the directive’s stipulations which are directly correlated with variance in human trafficking rates. The time period I focus on is 2000-2020, beginning with the Dutch legalization of prostitution and continuing until the year in which I conduct this study. Doing so allows me to focus on the most recent and relevant information. The overall argument this articles makes is that non-compliance with the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive is not the cause of the Netherlands’ inability to curb human trafficking rates, as the directive actually fails to achieve its desired results due to the legal status of prostitution interfering with its success. I rely on information gathered through a discourse analysis of published data from the European Commission, EU Parliament, news articles, and surveys, along with interviews with Dutch government officials who specialize in the fields of legalized prostitution, human trafficking, and policy development to support this conclusion.Show less
This thesis aims to explain why the de facto authorities of the non-recognised state of Transnistria use multiple strategies in their desire to achieve internal and external legitimacy by engaging...Show moreThis thesis aims to explain why the de facto authorities of the non-recognised state of Transnistria use multiple strategies in their desire to achieve internal and external legitimacy by engaging in nation-building and state-building. These strategies consist of one or more policies with a specific aim, and an argumentation of why the state, and by extension its regime, ought to be recognised. These arguments are remedial secession, historical statehood and earned sovereignty. Using Qualitative Content Analysis to analyse scholarly articles, government statements and local news outlets published between 1989 and 2019, I inductively build up a typology that distinguishes between four distinct strategies: strategies that aim to strengthen external legitimacy by appealing to the wishes of the international community, those that aim to strengthen internal legitimacy by appealing to the needs of the population, and those that aim to do both or neither. The typology also accounts for the prevalence of certain policies in one of the four distinguished periods of the de facto state’s existence. I provide three interconnecting explanations of why certain strategies prevail over others in different time periods. Firstly, strengthening internal and external legitimacy are different goals and therefore require a different strategy. Constrained by limited resources, the nation-builders have to prioritise these strategies. Secondly, ever-changing domestic and international geopolitical and socio-economic developments determine which policies and arguments will be effective. Lastly, strategies do not exist in isolation to each other, but are built upon by more refined arguments and renewed policies.Show less
