ABSTRACT
Forced labour provides the opposite type of contrast. It is prohibited by international law and states have an obligation to take steps to abolish it.3
Again, there is debate about the boundaries of the concept: the distinction between forced labour and exploitative but voluntary labour; the scope of the concept as applied to different categories of worker (children, pregnant
women, the disabled, prisoners); the boundary between forced labour and some types of hazardous or socially stigmatised work. But there is no disputing the state’s obligation to intervene to prevent it, and to take steps to protect those affected by it. Labour organisations and industrial relations experts do not question the legitimacy of state intervention or the importance of enforcing sanctions against coercive employers. Not so with migration. Migrant workers, and advocates concerned with their rights, disagree on the merits of state intervention to block or restrict potentially exploitative labour migration. Some argue that the state has an obligation to intervene to prevent migrants clearly destined for forced labour; others argue that selective exit controls targeted at particular members of the population are inherently discriminatory, paternalistic and motivated by racist or conservative political pressures. There is no consensus.
