Specificity of Human Trafficking Crimes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52152/nh0vqt48Keywords:
Specificity, trafficking, humans, characteristics, distinctionAbstract
One of the challenges facing humanity in our current era is human trafficking crimes, which have turned human life into a commodity circulated among people of different races and affiliations. This represents the contemporary face of the phenomenon of slavery. Human trafficking is a crime based on the exploitation practiced by international gangs and criminal networks that have professionalized this field, making it the focus of their activity and interest, and perhaps the main source of their income and the rapid growth of their wealth. The threads of this crime extend to more than one country, which has led to the expansion of this trade and an increase in the number of its victims, who are often from poor countries or countries suffering from the catastrophes of war and regional or internal conflicts. This type of trade differs from commerce in its economic sense in terms of its subject matter, as it takes the human being as its object, making them a commodity subject to supply and demand in the modern slave market, so that they can be traded and exploited by all illegal means to obtain profits, without regard to the pain and psychological and physical suffering of hundreds of thousands of victims, and the forms of degradation, sexual exploitation, forced servitude, coerced sale of human organs, and other immoral practices they are subjected to, which violate divine laws, international laws, and norms.
References
- Alarcón García G. y Molina Molina J. (2008): Los presupuestos públicos participativos: una experiencia para la administración local Papeles de Economía FUNCAS,115, 288–307.
- Armstrong, C.L. (2011): Providing a clearer view: An examination of transparency on local government websites. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 28, 11-16.
- Barnes, S. J, and Vidgen, R. (2004): Evaluating the Web Site of the UK Inland Revenue. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, (2:1), 42-63.
- Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. EuropeanLawJournal, 13(4), 447–468.
- Brueckner, A.R.K. (2002): Government & Community Building: A Study of Michigan Local Governments Online. In ASIST 2002: Proceedings of the 65th Asist Annual Meeting, E.G. Toms (ed.), Medford, 539-541.
- Caba Pérez, C., López Hernández, A.M., & Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P. (2005): Citizens' access to on-line governmental financial information: Practices in the European Union countries. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 258–276.
- Candela Talavero J.E. (2015): Los medios de comunicación, la democracia representativa y el espacio público Universitas. Revista de Filosofía, Derecho y Política, 21, 96–111.
- Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (2003): “Online Availability of Public Services: How Does Europe Progress,” Report for the European Commission, DG Information Society. Online at http://www.capgemini.com/news/2003/egovfull.zip, accessed January 6, 2006.
- Collins, 2009 Collins, S. (2009). Government 2.0, e-Government and culture. In J. Gøtze, & C. B. Pedersen (Eds.), Government 2.0 and onwards. State of the eUnion.
- Cucciniello, M., Nasi, G. &Valotti, G. (2012): Assessing transparency in government: Rhetoric, reality and desire. Paper presented at the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS).
- Dawes, S.S. (2010): Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 27(4), 377-383.
- Del Río Villar S. (2013): Ciudadanía europea: participación y comunicación para una nueva política Papeles de Economía FUNCAS, 17, primer semestre, 149-157.
- Drew, C.H. &Nyerges, T.L. (2004): Transparency of environmental decisión making: a case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area. Journal of RiskResearch, 7(1), 33-71.
- eEurope (2001): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - eEurope 2002: Impact and Priorities. A communication to the Spring European Council in Stockholm.
- Eschenfelder, K.R., Beachboard, J.C., McClure, C.R. & Wyman, S.K. (1997): Assessing US Federal Goverment Websites. GovermentInformationQuarterly, 14(2), 173–189.
- Flak, L.S., Olsen, D.H. y Wolcott, P. (2005): Local E-Government in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol.17, Iss.2, Article 1. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol17/iss2/1
- García García J. (2013): Gobierno abierto: transparencia, participación y colaboración en las Administraciones Públicas Revista INNOVAR 24(54), 75-88.
- Gartner Research (2001): E-Government: What are Citizens Really Looking For?. Gartner Research Report COM-13-3960, London.
- Gómez Sánchez Y. (2013): La iniciativa ciudadana en la Unión Europea Papeles de Economía FUNCAS,17, primer semestre, 59-69.
- Graafland-Essers, I. and Ettedgui, E. (2003): Benchmarking e-Government in Europe and the US. Rand Europe Report IST-2000-20276. Santa Mónica, CA, March.
- Harrison, T.M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G.B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., et al. (2012): Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), 83-97.
- Heald, D. (2006): Varieties of transparency. In C. Hood, & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?: Proceedings of the British Academy (pp. 25–43). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
- Heckmann (2011): Open Government—Retooling Democracy for the 21st Century.Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences—201, (Hawaii).
- Hilgers (2012) Open Government: Theoretische Bezüge und konzeptionelle Grundlagen einer neuen Entwicklung in Staat und öffentlichen Verwaltungen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 82, 631–660. Citado en Wijnhoven, Ehrenhard y Kuhn (2015): Open governmentobjectivesandparticipationmotivations, en Government Information Quarterly nº32, 30-42.
- Janssen, D., Rotthier, S. and Snijkers, K. (2004): If You Measure It They will Score: An Assessment of International eGovernment Benchmarking. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on E-Government, D. Remenyi (ed.), Academic Conferences Limited, Reading, UK, 395-402.
- Kersting N. (2016): Participatory turn? Comparing citizens’ and politicians’ perspectives on online and offline local political participation. Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government Vol 14, No 2, 251-263
- Lathrop, D., &Ruma, L. (2010). Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. O'Reilly Media.
- Lee, G., &Kwak, Y. (2011): Open government implementation model: Moving to increased public engagement: IBM center for the business of government.
- Lee, G., &Kwak, Y. (2012): An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. GovermentInformationQuarterly, 29(4), 492-503.
- López Camps J. y Gadea Carrera A. (2001): Una nueva administración pública. Estrategias y métodos para mejorar la calidad y la eficiencia del e-Gobierno. Editorial IVAP. Oñati.
- Lourenço, R.P. (2015): An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly32, 323-332.
- Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Torres, L. H. (2008). Citizensourcing: Citizen Participation in a Networked. In K. Yang, & E. Bergrud (Eds.), Civic Engagement in a Network Society. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.
- McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know andhow we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33–43.
- Medaglia R. (2012): eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006-2011). Government Information Quarterly29, 346-360.
- Merickova B.M., Nemec J. and Svidronova M. (2015): Co-creation in Local Public Services Delivery Innovation: Slovak Experience Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government Vol 13, No.3, 521-535
- Mora Agudo L. (2005): Una evaluación económica del uso de los presupuestos participativos Análisis Local, 60, 57-67.
- O'Reilly, T. (2009). A Promise of Innovation. In J. Gøtze, & C. B. Pedersen (Eds.), The State of the eUnion. 21gov.net.
- OECD (2003): The eGovernment Imperative. Paris: OECD.
- OECD (2004). Promise and Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement. Paris: OECD Publications
- Open Government Working Group –OGWG- (2007): 8 Principles of Open Government Data. (Retrieved october 28, 2015) from https://public.resource.org/8_principles.html
- Pecaric M. (2013): Some initiatives for modernization of local democracy Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government Vol 11, No 3, 271-291
- Pina, V., Torres, L. &Royo, S. (2010): Is e-Government leading to more accountable and transparent local governments? Anoverallview. FinancialAccountability and Management, 26(1), 3-20.
- Potter, A. (2002): Accessibility of Alabama Government Web Sites. Journal of Government Information, (29:5), 303-317.
- Ramos Vielba I. (2013): Nuevas tecnologías y transparencia parlamentaria: las organizaciones sociales de monitorización Papeles de Economía FUNCAS, 18, segundo semestre, 159-167.
- Robinson, D., Yu, H., Zeller, W.P. &Felten, E.W. (2009): Government data and the invisible hand. Yale Journal of Law&Technology, 11, 160.
- Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P., Caba Pérez, C. & López Hernández, A.M. (2006): Cultural contexts and governmental digital reporting. International Review of AdministrativeSciences, 72(2), 269-290.
- Sanford C. y Rose J. (2007): Characterizing eParticipation. International Journal of Information Management, 27, 406-421.
- Schneider C. y Welp Y. (2015): Diseños institucionales y (des)equilibrios de poder: las instituciones de participación ciudadana en disputa. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y SocialesNueva época, año LX, núm. 224, agosto, 15-44.
- Smith, A.G. (2001): Applying evaluation criteria to New Zealand government websites. International Journal of Information Management 21, 137-149.
- Stowers, G. (1999): Becoming Cyberactive: State and Local Governments on the World Wide Web. Government Information Quarterly, (16:2), 111-127.
- United Nations (2003): World Public Sector Report 2003: E-government at the Crossroads. ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/49, New York.
- West, D. M. (2000): Assessing E-Government: The Internet, Democracy, and Service Delivery by State and Federal Governments. Brown University, online at http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovtreport00.html, accessed January 6, 2006.
- West, D. M. (2003): Urban E-Government, 2003. Center for Public Policy, Brown University, online at http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt03city.pdf, accessed January 6, 2006.
- Wijnhoven, Ehrenhard y Kuhn (2015): Open government objectives and participation motivations, en Government Information Quarterly nº32, 30-42.
- Armstrong, C.L. (2011): Providing a clearer view: An examination of transparency on local government websites. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 28, 11-16.
- Barnes, S. J, and Vidgen, R. (2004): Evaluating the Web Site of the UK Inland Revenue. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, (2:1), 42-63.
- Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. EuropeanLawJournal, 13(4), 447–468.
- Brueckner, A.R.K. (2002): Government & Community Building: A Study of Michigan Local Governments Online. In ASIST 2002: Proceedings of the 65th Asist Annual Meeting, E.G. Toms (ed.), Medford, 539-541.
- Caba Pérez, C., López Hernández, A.M., & Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P. (2005): Citizens' access to on-line governmental financial information: Practices in the European Union countries. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 258–276.
- Candela Talavero J.E. (2015): Los medios de comunicación, la democracia representativa y el espacio público Universitas. Revista de Filosofía, Derecho y Política, 21, 96–111.
- Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (2003): “Online Availability of Public Services: How Does Europe Progress,” Report for the European Commission, DG Information Society. Online at http://www.capgemini.com/news/2003/egovfull.zip, accessed January 6, 2006.
- Collins, 2009 Collins, S. (2009). Government 2.0, e-Government and culture. In J. Gøtze, & C. B. Pedersen (Eds.), Government 2.0 and onwards. State of the eUnion.
- Cucciniello, M., Nasi, G. &Valotti, G. (2012): Assessing transparency in government: Rhetoric, reality and desire. Paper presented at the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS).
- Dawes, S.S. (2010): Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 27(4), 377-383.
- Del Río Villar S. (2013): Ciudadanía europea: participación y comunicación para una nueva política Papeles de Economía FUNCAS, 17, primer semestre, 149-157.
- Drew, C.H. &Nyerges, T.L. (2004): Transparency of environmental decisión making: a case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area. Journal of RiskResearch, 7(1), 33-71.
- eEurope (2001): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - eEurope 2002: Impact and Priorities. A communication to the Spring European Council in Stockholm.
- Eschenfelder, K.R., Beachboard, J.C., McClure, C.R. & Wyman, S.K. (1997): Assessing US Federal Goverment Websites. GovermentInformationQuarterly, 14(2), 173–189.
- Flak, L.S., Olsen, D.H. y Wolcott, P. (2005): Local E-Government in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol.17, Iss.2, Article 1. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol17/iss2/1
- García García J. (2013): Gobierno abierto: transparencia, participación y colaboración en las Administraciones Públicas Revista INNOVAR 24(54), 75-88.
- Gartner Research (2001): E-Government: What are Citizens Really Looking For?. Gartner Research Report COM-13-3960, London.
- Gómez Sánchez Y. (2013): La iniciativa ciudadana en la Unión Europea Papeles de Economía FUNCAS,17, primer semestre, 59-69.
- Graafland-Essers, I. and Ettedgui, E. (2003): Benchmarking e-Government in Europe and the US. Rand Europe Report IST-2000-20276. Santa Mónica, CA, March.
- Harrison, T.M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G.B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., et al. (2012): Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), 83-97.
- Heald, D. (2006): Varieties of transparency. In C. Hood, & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?: Proceedings of the British Academy (pp. 25–43). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
- Heckmann (2011): Open Government—Retooling Democracy for the 21st Century.Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences—201, (Hawaii).
- Hilgers (2012) Open Government: Theoretische Bezüge und konzeptionelle Grundlagen einer neuen Entwicklung in Staat und öffentlichen Verwaltungen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 82, 631–660. Citado en Wijnhoven, Ehrenhard y Kuhn (2015): Open governmentobjectivesandparticipationmotivations, en Government Information Quarterly nº32, 30-42.
- Janssen, D., Rotthier, S. and Snijkers, K. (2004): If You Measure It They will Score: An Assessment of International eGovernment Benchmarking. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on E-Government, D. Remenyi (ed.), Academic Conferences Limited, Reading, UK, 395-402.
- Kersting N. (2016): Participatory turn? Comparing citizens’ and politicians’ perspectives on online and offline local political participation. Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government Vol 14, No 2, 251-263
- Lathrop, D., &Ruma, L. (2010). Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. O'Reilly Media.
- Lee, G., &Kwak, Y. (2011): Open government implementation model: Moving to increased public engagement: IBM center for the business of government.
- Lee, G., &Kwak, Y. (2012): An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. GovermentInformationQuarterly, 29(4), 492-503.
- López Camps J. y Gadea Carrera A. (2001): Una nueva administración pública. Estrategias y métodos para mejorar la calidad y la eficiencia del e-Gobierno. Editorial IVAP. Oñati.
- Lourenço, R.P. (2015): An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly32, 323-332.
- Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Torres, L. H. (2008). Citizensourcing: Citizen Participation in a Networked. In K. Yang, & E. Bergrud (Eds.), Civic Engagement in a Network Society. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.
- McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know andhow we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33–43.
- Medaglia R. (2012): eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006-2011). Government Information Quarterly29, 346-360.
- Merickova B.M., Nemec J. and Svidronova M. (2015): Co-creation in Local Public Services Delivery Innovation: Slovak Experience Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government Vol 13, No.3, 521-535
- Mora Agudo L. (2005): Una evaluación económica del uso de los presupuestos participativos Análisis Local, 60, 57-67.
- O'Reilly, T. (2009). A Promise of Innovation. In J. Gøtze, & C. B. Pedersen (Eds.), The State of the eUnion. 21gov.net.
- OECD (2003): The eGovernment Imperative. Paris: OECD.
- OECD (2004). Promise and Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement. Paris: OECD Publications
- Open Government Working Group –OGWG- (2007): 8 Principles of Open Government Data. (Retrieved october 28, 2015) from https://public.resource.org/8_principles.html
- Pecaric M. (2013): Some initiatives for modernization of local democracy Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government Vol 11, No 3, 271-291
- Pina, V., Torres, L. &Royo, S. (2010): Is e-Government leading to more accountable and transparent local governments? Anoverallview. FinancialAccountability and Management, 26(1), 3-20.
- Potter, A. (2002): Accessibility of Alabama Government Web Sites. Journal of Government Information, (29:5), 303-317.
- Ramos Vielba I. (2013): Nuevas tecnologías y transparencia parlamentaria: las organizaciones sociales de monitorización Papeles de Economía FUNCAS, 18, segundo semestre, 159-167.
- Robinson, D., Yu, H., Zeller, W.P. &Felten, E.W. (2009): Government data and the invisible hand. Yale Journal of Law&Technology, 11, 160.
- Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P., Caba Pérez, C. & López Hernández, A.M. (2006): Cultural contexts and governmental digital reporting. International Review of AdministrativeSciences, 72(2), 269-290.
- Sanford C. y Rose J. (2007): Characterizing eParticipation. International Journal of Information Management, 27, 406-421.
- Schneider C. y Welp Y. (2015): Diseños institucionales y (des)equilibrios de poder: las instituciones de participación ciudadana en disputa. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y SocialesNueva época, año LX, núm. 224, agosto, 15-44.
- Smith, A.G. (2001): Applying evaluation criteria to New Zealand government websites. International Journal of Information Management 21, 137-149.
- Stowers, G. (1999): Becoming Cyberactive: State and Local Governments on the World Wide Web. Government Information Quarterly, (16:2), 111-127.
- United Nations (2003): World Public Sector Report 2003: E-government at the Crossroads. ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/49, New York.
- West, D. M. (2000): Assessing E-Government: The Internet, Democracy, and Service Delivery by State and Federal Governments. Brown University, online at http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovtreport00.html, accessed January 6, 2006.
- West, D. M. (2003): Urban E-Government, 2003. Center for Public Policy, Brown University, online at http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt03city.pdf, accessed January 6, 2006.
- Wijnhoven, Ehrenhard y Kuhn (2015): Open government objectives and participation motivations, en Government Information Quarterly nº32, 30-42.
Downloads
Published
2025-10-15
Issue
Section
Article
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Specificity of Human Trafficking Crimes. (2025). Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-Government, 23(10), 1553-1567. https://doi.org/10.52152/nh0vqt48
