The concept of varying leadership styles caused solely by gender identification is a highly contested theory within political science. This is because if this theory held true, it would be expected that women leaders would only act on their group’s supposed inherent characteristics. Additionally, society furthers stereotypical expectations of women’s leadership through perceived characteristics, the double bind, and polarized media. This is incredibly debilitating to the wealth of diverse abilities and attitudes a woman might bring the political arena. 

A 1970s study done by Sandra Bem noted “adjectives that both men and women thought more desirable in one sex than another”. The adjectives used to describe femininity all fall into a harmful perception of a woman only in a supporting and secondary role who can be easily persuaded. Of course, preferred masculine characteristics all emphasize strong leadership traits and a dominant personality. If any of these thirty distinct characteristics are still valued by common society, it seems natural that women in politics would also be viewed through these lenses. Therefore, for women to garner the necessary votes to win elections, it would follow they would have to cater their campaigns and leadership styles to portray characteristics on this list. 

• Masculine Characteristics: Acts as a leader, aggressive, ambitious, analytical, assertive, competitive, defends own beliefs, dominant, forceful, independent, self reliant, strong personality, willing to take risks.
• Feminine Characteristics: Affectionate, cheerful, childlike, compassionate, does not use harsh language, eager to soothe hurt feelings, feminine, flatterable, gentle, gullible, shy, tender, warm.

In addition to prescribed and preferred gender qualities, women in leadership positions are typically also affected by the societal standard of treating men as normal and women as deviant. Within the realm of politics, this could come from a historical understanding of politics as a man’s world, one that women have only begun to breach. The above detailed masculine characteristics are preferred by the mass public for those in leadership positions, leaving women in a “double bind” situation, in which they must either act as ladies to be viewed as genuine, or act as men to be seen as leaders. Problems and inequality arise as women politicians who act tough are criticized for taking on masculine characteristics, while women who are emotional are harpooned for being incapable of leading assertively due to uncontrollable hormones. 

Media has more harmful consequences on woman leaders. This is because media constantly criticizes women for either acting too cold, distant, and witchy, or, on the other end of the spectrum, too diminutive and sensitive. Media also regularly falls into the trap of focusing on women’s physical appearances, instead of their lauded leadership capabilities. 

Angela Merkel is the successful current Chancellor of Germany. She has been elected twice in a row, and is currently ranked the fifth most powerful person in the world by Forbes; this is the highest ranking achieved by a woman. I believe that Merkel’s success is primarily due to a defiance of stereotypical gender roles in an unusual way; she does not embody solely male characteristics, but walks a fine line of traits that are gender unspecific. Nor does she allow the media much insider information or even fodder for stereotypical analyzing, which enables her to lead a very unglamorous and pragmatic regime.

After gathering data from several news databases and political journals I consolidated phrases and words that analysts and journalists used to describe Chancellor Merkel. The majority of these words focused on non gendered traits, while only a few noted feminine or masculine characteristics. In the beginning of her political career she was branded as “boring, provincial and rather dowdy”, and when she was running for office she was thought of by some as a “lightweight”. Out of these three negative terms, only “dowdy” is used more in reference to women. Not only are these criticism rather gender neutral, but Merkel was also careful to heed the critiques of the media and adjust; she started wearing “bright, colorful outfits and a new hairstyle to enliven her image. Because Merkel has historically avoided leading either as completely cold and calculating or soft and emotional has made it harder to classify her according to stereotypically preferred gender characteristics.

Furthermore, the words used to praise her leadership style do not focus on either feminine or masculine characteristics. She is considered a “prudent, pragmatic and down-to-earth leader”. This has helped her steer clear of the double bind. 

“Rumpled, awkward, with her de rigueur blazer and slacks (the former often just a touch too tight), Merkel can seem a study in orchestrated ordinariness, a brilliant creation of election strategists attuned to the post-traumatic German psyche. Perhaps it costs a lot of money to look this plain. But over time it becomes clear that she just is who she is, unchanged by power; a woman, like Margaret Thatcher, who is “not for turning.”

This description of Angela Merkel notes carefully that for a powerful leader, she dresses and acts very ordinary. However, it does not seem as if the journalist is critical of her choice, but actually admiring of her ability to be unaffected by the public life she must lead. Along the same lines, Andrew Marr of the BBC commented that with Merkel, “there is no exhibitionism and grandstanding”. This comment further points to heightened respect because of her confidence in leading assertively while also showing a lack of grandiose. It is interesting to note that Merkel does not shy away from making tough policy decisions; early in her political career she decisively pushed to make abortion illegal in East Germany, and more recently she has “steer[ed] the EU through its most existential crisis ever. She resisted all pressures to flood the markets with ever more money, but insisted on her bitter prescription: assistance, in return for reforms”. It is crucial to note that neither the assessment of her actions, nor the praise and criticism focus on feminine or masculine characteristics, but rather objectively discuss her ability to lead pragmatically. Merkel’s ability to avoid the double bind has helped her lead without disparaging or harmful factions debating her leadership skills.

Angela Merkel has also garnered success through mastering the media and using news outlets to her advantage. Early in her political career, she turned against her mentor, Chancellor Helmut Khohl, publishing a piece about his private scandal. This led to his dismissal and allowed her to take his place as the front runner in the upcoming elections. Her ruthless use of the media to begin the downfall of a friend was described as “Machiavellian”, but this did not prevent her from continuing the tradition of eliminating her opponents. Remarkably, German citizens do not seem alarmed by this aspect of her leadership. 

Merkel has not limited her media involvement to publishing editorials. As Chancellor she has broadcast podcasts on policy issues since 2006; when a journal author remarked that “a clearly uncomfortable Merkel holds forth each week on such topics as federal reform, key points of health policy reform, and retirement funding." This effort has allowed her presence to be felt in the common household, and prevents a highly polarized media from criticizing superficial aspects of her rule. This type of outreach makes her leadership style even more successful because she is seen as wanting to inform the German populace about policy decisions.

Angela Merkel has been able to avoid stereotypical gender roles, the trap of the double bind, and harsh media criticism by maintaing a very unusual leadership style. This has made her very successful as German chancellor over the course of three elected terms. 

The Representation of Women in Rwanda

As of September 2013, “women [hold] an unprecedented 64 percent of seats in Rwanda’s parliament, more than any other country in the world” [1], a status that is still valid to the present day. This figure is shocking when considering that globally, women comprise only 21.9 percent of parliamentary seats [2]. It is even more astounding when taking into account the civil war and genocide that ravaged Rwanda in the early 1990s.

Photo: Parliament of Rwanda

The Rwandan civil war began as the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) attacked the government in 1990, hoping to liberate the country from President Habyarimana. When Habyarimana was killed in 1994, the Hutus and the Tutsis (rival ethnic groups residing in Rwanda) plunged into a genocide, while the RPF simultaneously resumed the civil war with the government army. Eventually the RPF took control of the country and instituted a transitional government, although the terror did not end. By 1998, the RPF began to ‘democratize’ by establishing the Ministry of Gender and Women in Development and grassroots women’s councils, in order to educate women about political participation and promote women’s issues. However, few women understood the purpose of such councils [3]. By 2000, the RPF established quotas that require women to occupy one-third of the seats in decision-making bodies in an effort “to practice positive discrimination” in a new Rwanda [4].

Clearly, at first glance, the quotas have been a success; Rwandan women representatives have exceeded occupying one-third of parliamentary seats. However, scholars seem unsure that the intentions behind the quotas are genuine. Many, such as Jennie E. Burnet, believe that the RPF established the quotas in order to “quell protest from the diplomatic and international aid communities,” and to mask its “increasingly authoritarian governance” [3]. As Elizabeth Powley notes, it is ironic that the only country that has more women than men in its parliament is “less than democratic” and is still operating under a single-party regime [5].

While there has been a significant increase in women’s representation in Rwanda, this has had little effect on policy outcomes [7]. Though there are a significant number of educated, well-off women in parliament, the majority of Rwandan women are poor, uneducated, and experience gender-based violence [6]. So while Rwanda is excelling in representing its women in a descriptive sense, it remains unclear to what degree Rwandan women representatives accurately represent the interests of the female population, since quotas cannot guarantee that this will be the case. This is of significant concern, as Rwanda shifted demographically after the genocide [3]. There are now more women than men in the total population, and many women have had to take on the responsibilities of being the head of the household. These women need to be accurately represented for their circumstances to improve (of course, it is entirely possible for women to be accurately represented by men, but with so many women in parliament, it is hoped that many of the women representatives will be vying for women’s concerns).

While the motivation behind the quotas may not be sincere and how well the female population is actually represented is unclear, Rwandan women’s level of representation can still have a positive impact for shifting gender norms and improving women’s lives as the country continues on the path of healing and progression.

Washington Post/Getty Images

[1] Gogineni, Roopa. 2013. “Rwandan Parliament’s Female Majority Focuses on Equality.” Voice of America, September 26. http://www.voanews.com/content/rwandan-parliament-female-majority-targets-equality/1757899.html.

[2] Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2014. “Women in National Parliaments.” Last modified June 1, 2014. http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm.

[3] Burnet, Jennie E. 2008. “Gender Balance and the Meanings of Women in Governance in Post-Genocide Rwanda.” African Affairs 107, no. 428 (July): 361-386. http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/107/428/361.full.

[4] United Nations. 2007. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Rwanda. 35-36. http://www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/pdf/43_official_documents/rwandaRWA6.pdf.

[5] Powley, Elizabeth. 2005. “Women in Parliament: Beyond the Numbers.” International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. 154-163. http://www.idea.int/publications/wip2/.

[6] Wallace, Claire, Christian Haerpfer, and Pamela Abbot. 2008/2009. “Women in Rwandan Politics and Society.” International Journal of Sociology 38, no. 4 (Winter): 111-125. http://www.jstor.org.erl.lib.byu.edu/stable/pdfplus/20628350.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true.

[7] Devlin, Claire, and Robert Elgie. 2008. “The Effect of Increased Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Case of Rwanda.” Parliamentary Affairs 61, no. 21 (April): 237-254. http://search.proquest.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/socialservices/docview/61422603/AAAB52270D904921PQ/1?accountid=4488.

Ballroom Dancing and Traditional Gender Roles

            When you walk into a ballroom dance studio to take your first dance lesson the first thing that you learn is that the man leads and the lady follows. Ballroom dance is an art form that at its core represents traditional male and female roles. Men and women are placed in heterosexual partnerships and expected to carry out their very different roles on the dance floor. It is the synchronization of these two different parts that is what makes it so enjoyable to watch. When the two parts do not mesh together the performance looks disconnected and holds less entertainment value.

            The great success of reality TV shows “Dancing with the Stars” and “So You Think You Can Dance” has brought ballroom dancing into the public view. The portrayal of ballroom dancing on these shows is often from a much more traditional standpoint. The women are in feminine clothing, and the men are in tuxedos that are supposed to portray power and wealth [1]. This only furthers the view that ballroom dancing encourages traditional gender roles and stereotypes to the public[2].

While teaching in Manhattan I attended a lecture given in Albany, New York in October of 2012 by a woman who owned a dance studio in Montreal. Her lecture was all about the differences between men and women and how to address them when you taught. For example women have more peripheral vision than men which is why their head is turned more to the left in dance position[3]. They are also not in charge of the direction they are moving in general, but have the ability to direct their partner if they are about to run into someone despite having their head extended further to the left. Even within this lecture there were subtle cues as to how to treat women differently while teaching them, they need more corrections because they like to multi-task or that men have the job to lead so they can’t be overwhelmed with technique in the beginning because they have to think about the steps. Although she herself owned a studio and was a working businesswoman and did not necessarily fit into traditional female stereotypes her teaching was full of subtle cues about how to treat male and female students differently.

Female dancers are constantly being told not to “back-lead” or take the leading role away from their partner. The role of “leader” is restricted for men. This serves a practical role as well. It is impossible for both partners to lead while they are dancing. Someone has to take on that role in order to generate synchronized movement together. It is likely that men have received that role because of the societal roles that existed when partner dancing was first invented. The synchronization of two people is what makes the dancing beautiful. However, because men are leaders women are often portrayed in the softer, more submissive role. The technique books for ballroom dancing include information on steps and roles. There are columns for different elements of dancing including direction of movement, footwork, amount of turn, and rise and fall. The steps are labeled with a “man’s part” and “lady’s part”. The men have an extra column entitled “lead”, to tell them how to lead a step correctly. This adds to the responsibility of men while they’re dancing. Indicating that they are capable of more responsibilities while on the floor than women.

Upon delving into the specific techniques of the craft the differences in the technique of ballroom dancing are much smaller than might be portrayed through a performance. The woman is not a passive contributor to the performance. She needs to participate as much as her partner does. When the international community speaks about couples that compete they call them “teams” which places the woman an equally important footing with her partner. In fact if you were to interview the top competitors in the world it is highly unlikely that any of them would ever view their partner as submissive. The greatest difference is in where the responsibilities of each movement lie.

It has been mentioned at countless lectures that I have attended that it only takes three years to make a good female dancer; however, it takes up to five years to make a good male dancer. This is an indication of the level of difficulty involved in being the “leader” while dancing. This could acknowledge one of two things, that women pick up their parts faster, which is an indication that they could take on more, or that their jobs are easier in relation and thus do not take them as long to master. The latter might seem like it would be the more likely of the two, especially if ballroom is coming out of an era where women were not thought of as equal to the task of learning the same amount of information or responsibilities as men. However, if you dig down into the technique behind the steps in the syllabus for ballroom dance that is international recognized by the International Society of Teacher’s of Dance (ISTD) you would notice a significant difference in the level of difficulty between the man the lady’s parts, especially in Latin American Dancing. Women have steps that are significantly more difficult to teach as well as learn. Men might have more responsibilities on the floor, but women spend much more of their time learning technique and dealing with the difficulties of the figures themselves, while often men repeat a basic action over and over only changing the leads for the steps. This is evidence that would indicate that women and men have jobs that are equally as challenging, and so a woman cannot lead the synchronization of the steps as well as have the more challenging actions to dance.

However the roles of men and women play out on the dance floor the culture of ballroom dancers is much more complex. There are many instructors that might be considered more progressive that promote the idea of unity while you are dancing and that men ask for permission to lead and women allow it so they can have freedom of expression within their movements while not worrying about where they are on the floor. Others, are more traditional and explain dancing as putting the man in a more dominant role and women in a much more submissive one. Whichever way you view it likely depends on the story you believe and want to tell within your dancing. The popularity of ballroom dancing today is likely due to the push for men and women and to explore and define their own meanings of gender roles and how they interpret the older values and create their own meanings while they dance [1].

Sources:

[1] Yamanashi, Allison and Robert C. Bulman. 2007. The Choreography of Gender:

Ballroom Dancing and the Complexity of Gender Identity. Submitted to the meetings of the American Sociological Association. Saint Mary’s College of California.

[2] 2011. Strictly Come Dancing 'popular because of old-fashioned gender roles. The Telegraph. UK.

[3]  Contenta, Patty. 2012. “Teaching Men and Women.” Lecture given at Arthur Murray Region I conference.

Undergraduate Students, Gender Roles, and Political Participation

Gender Roles & Political Participation

            By elementary school, boys and girls have established autonomous peer cultures[1]. Children are educated throughout their young lives to maintain a social equilibrium by acting within their appropriate social, or gender, roles. These gender roles affect what men and women do every day in their personal and professional lives, as well as the level involvement individuals have in the political sphere.

            Studies have shown that women are less involved in politics than men are. Traditional gender socialization has discouraged women from entering the political arena because they are unaccustomed to the political environment [2]. Women tend to believe that they are less capable and unqualified for political involvement because of traditional gender socialization. Even when women are qualified and capable of being politically involved, they tend to be recruited far less than men are. When women are involved in politics, they provide stability to political organizations because they are focused on internal maintenance. Women are also just as successful and capable as men are and perform their duties just as well.

            A study of the model United Nations was done in 1999, where male and female delegates were selected to participate in the event. These individuals signed up for the event voluntarily; however, Rosenthal, Rosenthal, and Jones found that male delegates still participated more than the female delegates did [3]. I believe that these female delegates may have participated less due to uncertainty of the event’s dynamics and expectations. In order to test this theory, I looked at an organization comprised of undergraduate students that had relatively low turnover from 2012 to 2013 and examined the differences of male and female participation.

Study

The Intermountain Affiliate of College and University Residence Halls (IACURH) meets three times a year to do regional business. The organization is comprised of thirty-one universities and colleges from the intermountain region, serves as an advocate for on-campus residence halls, and is one of eight regions in the National Association of College and University Residence Halls, Incorporated (NACURH, inc.). Undergraduate students are the main participants in the organization, though some graduate students also participate. I recorded portions of the annual “No Frills” business conference at the University of Arizona where twenty-two schools and ninety-nine delegates were present.

            At this conference, I recorded five different sessions of “award bid defense” where candidates were presented for awards and representatives from each school debated to decide which candidate would win the award. Each session was a different mixture of male and female delegates, depending upon who the school selected to represent them in that session. Many of the sessions had more female delegates than male delegates. Some sessions had multiple candidates for the award and others only had one candidate. Levels of experience were also gathered based on how many boardroom experiences the individual had, including the current conference. Three sessions were comprised of the delegates from the conference, while four of the sessions were comprised of the regionally elected executives. I wanted to see the difference in how campus elected individuals and regionally elected individuals acted when put in these situations. I also recorded two “post-no frills” bid sessions for the regionally elected individuals.

Findings

            For the campus elected delegates, I found that men tended to speak more than the women did. In one session, there were three guys to twelve girls, but those three men spoke, on average, 3.33 times, while the girls spoke, on average, 2.83 times. In another session, there were seven men to ten women and the men spoke nearly twice as much as the women did. I found that in the last session men and women spoke about the same number of times and there were ten women and ten men present.  I thought it was interesting that men spoke up more than women when they were outnumbered, which reaffirms the gender stereotype that men try to establish dominance and control. I also found it interesting that women were not overpowered when the playing field was an even number of men and women. When looking closer at this last session, I found that nine of the ten females were “experienced,” meaning that this was at least their second boardroom experience, and only four of the ten males were experienced. I also noted that the inexperienced males spoke up more than the experienced males, but it was just the opposite for the women.

            When looking at the regionally elected executives, there were varying results. There are five men on the regional board and two women, and only two individuals are deemed “experienced,” meaning this is their second term as a regional executive (a term being defined as one academic year): one male and one female. In the two bid sessions, the two women spoke more than the five men did. Within the same sessions, the experienced male spoke more than any other individual and the inexperienced males spoke less than everyone else. In the two post-no frills bid sessions, the men and women spoke about the same number of times with the experienced male still speaking the most. In two of these five bid sessions, the inexperienced female spoke the second highest number of times (after the experienced male).

Do gender roles affect political participation?

            I believe that they do. It was very clear in this study that the males tried to assert dominance over the conversation and spoke more than the females did, even if the females were more experienced than the males were. Inexperience does not always seem to affect men in terms of willingness to speak, though inexperience can affect whether or not a woman is willing to speak. Gender roles appear to have a large effect on how individuals act.  

Sources

[1] Adler, Patricia, Steven Kless, and Peter Adler. 1992. Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls, Sociology of Education 65, no. 3(July): 169-87.

[2] Fox, Richard, and Jennifer Lawless. 2010. If only they’d ask: Gender, recruitment, and political ambition, The Journal of Politics 72, no. 2(April): 310-26.

[3] Rosenthal, Cindy S., Jocelyn Jones, and James A. Rosenthal. 2003. Gendered discourse in the political behavior of adolescents, Political Research Quarterly 56, no. 1 (September): 97-104.

Human Trafficking and the International Criminal Court

Andrew Adams

Human Trafficking and the International Criminal Court:

           

                If you haven’t heard of Human Trafficking before, let me update you on a few things:

·         “27 million - Number of people in modern-day slavery across the world

·         12.3 million - Number of adults and children in forced labor around the world

·         9.8 million –Number of these that are exploited by private agents for labor or commercial sex purposes.

·         800,000 – Number of people trafficked across international borders every year, as of 2007

·         2 million – Number of children exploited by the global commercial sex trade

·         1.2 million – Number of children trafficked globally in 2000

·         80% – Percent of transnational victims who are women and girls

·         50% – Percent of transnational victims who are minors

·         At least 56% - Percent of trafficking victims globally who are women

·         127 countries of origin; 98 transit countries; 137 destination countries.”[i]

How about the official United Nation’s definition of Human Trafficking? 

“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.”[ii]

Human Trafficking has been an international issue since the rise of the modern nation-states.  Indeed, sexual slavery and forced labor has been on the rise at a disturbing rate. 

Shocked yet?  Well just wait for the punch line.  But before that, allow me to explain what the “International Criminal Court” is:   

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the highest criminal court in the world. The ICC “was established as a court of last resort to prosecute the most heinous offenses in cases where national courts fail to act…to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.”[iii]  

The ICC was assembled to prosecute three specific types of people:

(a)     Those who are genocidal maniacs  
(b)     Those who commit unspeakable crimes  
(c)     Those who commit crimes during wartime[iv]     

            The United Nations created the ICC to prosecute the most heinous of offenses to humanity.  They have some quite harsh words in regards to Human Trafficking…

Universal Rhetoric Denounces Trafficking:

International rhetoric has continuously denounced Human Trafficking.  In 2000, the United Nations began drafting the ‘Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.’  By October 2012, several crucial protocols had been sustained.  These included:

·         The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (adopted December 2003)”

·         The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (adopted January 2004)

·         The Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking of Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition (adopted July 2005).[v] 

Harvard researcher Jane Kim states:

“Despite the developments in human trafficking law, awareness, and policy over the past decade, the International Criminal Court’s potential treatment of trafficking as a crime against humanity remains a question mark. While the Rome Statute’s reference to human trafficking may seem clear on its face, allegations of human trafficking have not yet been brought to the ICC, nor have they appeared before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) or the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).”[vi]  

Well here is the punch line: 

Up to date, there has not been any legal action in the ICC against Human Trafficking.

Why is this so?  If United Nation’s rhetoric zealously denounces Human Trafficking, and Nations agree that it is a dangerous practice, why has it not been publically addressed in the 10 year existence of the ICC? 

Possibilities for Exclusion:

            There are several important possibilities why the ICC has not yet introduced a Human Trafficking case to the international scene:

·         First: Human Trafficking is not within ICC jurisdiction.  

·         Second: It is a domestic issue only.  The best way to deter Human Trafficking is on the domestic level.    

·         Third: Profits from Human Trafficking might be benefiting several governments, which could encourage them to deter its prosecution.

·         Fourth: Feasibility issues do not permit prosecution at this time

·         Fifth: There is no need to do so. 

Of these five, there is one of utmost importance to consider: Perhaps profits from Human Trafficking are benefiting governments such that they are actually discouraging international deterrence.  

Research on this position is extremely hard.  For one, there are few scholars that would want to publicly challenge dangerous people.  Second, how could this be feasibly proven with certainty?  Despite the challenges, one should pause and think about this issue whenever Human Trafficking is addressed in a public forum.

Perhaps these statistics are a perfect way to close.  Is there a possibility of corruption?  Let the reader decide:

“$32 billion – Total yearly profits, in U.S. dollars, generated by the human trafficking industry

$15.5 billion, half of the total, is made in industrialized countries.

$9.7 billion, one third of the total, is made in Asia.

$13,000 per year, on average, generated by each trafficked laborer. This comes to $1,100 per month.”[vii]

Perhaps we need to stop sweeping things under the carpet of useless UN Protocols.  Words without action are opiates for the masses.  They appease our sense of justice without achieving anything worthwhile.   

---

[i] Polaris Project. Human Trafficking Statistics. 2010. National Human Trafficking Resource Center.www. PolarisProject.org.

[ii] United Nations Convention against transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols.  http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/index.html

[iii] [iii]International Criminal Court. The Free Dictionary. Farlex. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/International+Criminal+Court

[iv] [iv]International Criminal Court. The Free Dictionary. Farlex. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/International+Criminal+Court

[v] United Nations Convention against transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols.  http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/index.html

[vi] [vi] Kim, Jane. A.B. Harvard University. J.D. Candidate, Columbia Law School, 2011.( Pg. 3-4) “Prosecuting Human Trafficking as a Crime against Humanity under the Rome Statute.”

[vii] Polaris Project. Human Trafficking Statistics. 2010. National Human Trafficking Resource Center.www. PolarisProject.org. http://www.bc.edu/content/bc/centers/humanrights/events/jcr%3Acontent/content/download_0/file.res/Human%20Trafficking%20Statistics.pdf