Slavery by the Back Door

Are We Truly Free in the Modern State?

Abstract

This essay explores the enduring legacy and modern transformations of slavery, challenging the assumption that its abolition marked its end. It traces the institution from its ancient roots through the transatlantic and Arab slave trades, and into its contemporary forms, such as forced labour, human trafficking, coerced military conscription, and state-administered economic and social control.

Drawing on historical accounts, legal frameworks, and philosophical analysis, the essay argues that modern states perpetuate a form of “soft slavery” that relies not on chains, but on bureaucratic systems, surveillance, and economic coercion. By reframing slavery as a continuum of domination without meaningful consent, it calls for renewed scrutiny of governance, legal reform, and moral accountability.

It concludes that until individual autonomy, legal clarity, and true participatory consent become the foundations of state power, modern society will remain bound, if not in chains, then by laws and structures equally limiting in effect.

What Do We Mean by Slavery?

Slavery, in the historical imagination, evokes chains, whips, auctions, and the total dehumanisation of its victims.

It is universally reviled as one of the most morally abhorrent abuses in human history. The transatlantic slave trade, in particular, stands as a grotesque monument to the exploitation and dehumanisation of millions. Most modern societies, especially in the West, now congratulate themselves for having abolished slavery in law and denounce it in every form. However, slavery, in one form or another, has existed for millennia, likely since humans first had disagreements between tribes which led to hierarchical dominance.

The pyramids were built by millions of slaves over hundreds of years, many other monumental structures in the ancient world and even into modern Europe were built by people who were directly or indirectly slaves.

When considering the “modern slave era”, from the 15^th Century onwards, there are a lot of facts that need to be remembered – it does not change the culpability of any government, organisation or individual involved – this simply sets the record straight.

From the 1500s to the early 1800s, Barbary pirates based in North Africa, particularly Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and Salé, raided European coastal towns, especially in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, England, and Ireland, this included the 1631 Sack of Baltimore in Ireland. The Barbary Pirates captured hundreds of thousands of Europeans and sold them into slavery in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire.

In his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters (2003), Professor Robert C. Davis estimated that:

• Between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured and enslaved by Barbary pirates from 1530 to 1780.
• This figure is based on extrapolations of partial records (like ship logs, ransom accounts, and consular reports), assuming 2,000 to 3,000 captives per year on average.
• Records indicate that for every 10 people captured, 3 others were killed in the process. (Davis and historical accounts)
• The Barbary slave system was often brutal, especially for European Christians forced into manual labour or galley service.
• While there is no evidence of a universal policy of execution, the conditions of forced labour, particularly in galleys and fortifications, produced annual death rates of 20 – 30%, which meant few survived beyond a decade of service.
• The Arabs had been taking Africans slaves from around 650AD right up until the early 20^th Century, some estimated put the figure in excess of 20 million, although some state it was no higher than 17 million.

The Europeans got into slavery when the Portugues traded for Africans, who were slaves of other Africans, for guns, textiles and other goods in the middle 15^th Century (around 1440).

• The Spanish and Portuguese were first to develop large-scale plantation slavery in the Caribbean and South America.
• The British, French, and Dutch followed in the 17th century, establishing plantations in the Caribbean and Americas.
• Britain’s involvement escalated after 1619, with colonies like Barbados, Jamaica, and later Virginia using enslaved labour.

This became what we now call the Transatlantic Slave Trade, lasting from the 1500s to the mid-1800s. An estimated 12–13 million Africans were forcibly transported to the Caribbean, and the Americas, with more than 2 million dying en route during the Middle Passage.

These facts complicate the narrative and helps understand how the trade functioned, it is also an uncomfortable truth that many in modern Western countries choose to ignore – without the deliberate and complicit involvement of willing Africans, especially the Ashanti, Dahomey, and Yoruba kingdoms, the trans-Atlantic slave trade could and would not have developed, in no way does this do these facts reduce European culpability for this abhorrent trade, but it does produce a clearer and more historically accurate picture – all human civilisations have treated their fellow man with utter contempt and worse than dirt on their shoes at times, and never again must such barbarism be allowed to rear its ugly head.

But what if slavery did not die, it merely changed its form?

What if slavery, rather than being eradicated, has been sanitised, bureaucratised, and absorbed into the very fabric of modern governance? This essay explores a provocative thesis – that modern law and social organisation, while avoiding the overt horrors of historical slavery, nonetheless impose a pervasive and often unacknowledged system of control over individuals, a form of “soft slavery” that relies not on whips and chains, but on passports, legislation, economic coercion, and administrative power and social fear.

Modern Slavery – A Global Atrocity in the 21st Century

Slavery, long considered a relic of the past, has not been eradicated, it has simply changed its form. While the Transatlantic slave trade is rightly condemned as one of the darkest chapters in human history, the scale of modern slavery reveals a crisis of even greater magnitude unfolding across the globe today, one that dwarfs the transatlantic slave trade in both numbers and scope.

The Walk Free Foundation states.

“Modern slavery is a hidden crime that affects every country in the world. Modern slavery has been found in many industries, including garment manufacturing, mining, and agriculture, and in many contexts, from private homes to settlements for internally displaced people and refugees. Modern slavery impacts on all of us, from the food we consume to the goods we purchase. It is everybody’s responsibility to address and eliminate this crime where it occurs.”

As reported in Global Estimates of Modern Slavery (2022) by ILO, Walk Free, and IOM, it is estimated that 50 million people were living in modern slavery as of 2021. This shocking figure includes:

• 28 million trapped in forced labour, often under threat, debt, or deception.
• 22 million enduring forced marriages, frequently involving minors and coercion.

These forms of exploitation are not isolated to impoverished or war-torn nations. Modern slavery is a global issue, affecting every continent. In fact, the Asia-Pacific region alone accounts for over half of the global total. Africa, the Middle East, and even developed regions like Europe and North America exhibit disturbingly high prevalence rates, particularly in sectors such as domestic work, agriculture, construction, and especially the sex trade.

Perhaps most disturbing is that these numbers represent a 10 million increase since 2016, highlighting not progress, but regression. The clandestine nature of modern slavery, hidden in supply chains, behind closed doors, and within the margins of society, makes it extraordinarily difficult to detect and dismantle.

The economic incentive behind this exploitation is staggering. The ILO estimates that forced labour alone generates $236 billion per year in illegal profits, a 37% increase from earlier estimates. Sexual exploitation, in particular, yields the highest profits per victim, further entrenching the industry in criminal networks and making human trafficking a viable source of income.

Modern slavery is defined by the UN and ILO as involving coercion, deception, abuse of power, or exploitation that deprives individuals of their freedom and autonomy. This encompasses forced labour, debt bondage, human trafficking, child labour, and forced marriage, forms that may not involve legal ownership, but that still strip individuals of agency and dignity.

Although modern slavery is not defined in law, many developed nations already have specific laws targeting human trafficking, slavery and illegal detention, but it is used as an umbrella term that focuses attention on commonalities across all aspects of the insidious trade.

In essence, Modern Slavery refers to situations that involve involuntary exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, and the abuse of power.

This is silent epidemic that makes the horrors of the past feel chillingly present. While historical slavery was overt, institutionalised, and racially codified, modern slavery is bureaucratised, privatised, and often legally obscured, making it harder to challenge and dismantle. There are many countries where slavery exists that do not have specific laws banning slavery, or they have laws that frame it as payment of debts or similar – it is still slavery, nonetheless.

In many ways, this makes modern slavery more insidious, the systems of coercion have adapted to modern economies, hiding behind subcontracting, lax regulation, and digital platforms. It is now less about chains and auctions, and more about passport or official ID confiscation, wages withheld, threats made, and systems that profit from desperation.

The sheer scale and profit driven nature of modern slavery should unsettle any complacency.

It dwarfs the Transatlantic slave trade in volume and speed, while remaining hidden in plain sight. The moral challenge we face today is to confront this modern horror with the same outrage and resolve historically shown toward its predecessors. Political will is required to stop trading with countries that do not take drastic steps to stamp out this insidious trade, manufacturers who are shown to be profiting from the use, directly or indirectly, from the slave trade need to have legal sanctions put on them and boycotted by the people until they remove all business operations from any and all forms of exploitation.

The UN does not have a single charter on the topic of slavery, it does have it codified in several international treaties and conventions, including the 1926 Slavery Convention, the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). These documents prohibit slavery in all its forms and define various slavery-like practices – however, this is the 21^st Century, it is long overdue for a single, enforceable convention of Slavery was created that all members states need to ratify and sign – states that refuse are sanctioned and held to account, equally, if a state that has signed the convention continue to allow slave practices in their jurisdiction with reasonable actions to eradicate it, they too should be sanctioned by the international community.

Slavery is a scourge that must be stamped out once and for all.

Classical Slavery vs. Modern Coercion

The traditional definition of slavery involves absolute ownership of one human being by another. The slave lacks autonomy, cannot own property, has no recognised legal personhood, and is subjected to physical and psychological domination. This condition is, rightly, condemned by all modern legal systems.

But if we strip slavery down to its philosophical core, the involuntary subjugation of one will to another, then the concept begins to blur with other forms of social control. If you are compelled to act against your will by a coercive authority, under threat of punishment, no matter what that authority is, is this then not a form of slavery?

The Philosophers Speak – Freedom and Constraint

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778)

Rousseau famously rejected the idea that the strongest have the right to rule. He argued that force alone cannot justify domination, and that legitimate authority comes from the consent of the governed, not just brute strength.

He further argued that the concept of a “right of slavery” is inherently contradictory. He believed that the very idea of enslaving another person is absurd, as it renders the enslaved individual an object without rights or legal personality.

He strongly believed that in the state of nature, humans are free from societal constraints and possess a freedom that allows them to live in accordance with their natural instincts.

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” wrote Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762). For Rousseau, civil society imposes a necessary but tragic constraint on natural freedom. The legitimacy of this constraint lies in whether the social contract is truly consensual and whether laws reflect the “general will” of the people. If not, then they are tyranny.

Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679)

Hobbes was a complicated man, in his political philosophy, he explored the concept of slavery and its implications. While his views on slavery are complex and have been subject to many a heated debate, he generally argued for the legitimacy of slavery only under certain circumstances, particularly in the context of military conquest or voluntary servitude. He did not agree with the type of slavery seen in the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade.

Hobbes believed that in the state of nature, life was “nasty, brutish, and short,” and thus, surrendering certain freedoms to a sovereign was essential for peace.

Hobbes’s concept of freedom focuses on the absence of physical constraints, like being bound by chains or imprisoned. If no external force prevents a person from acting, they are considered free in that regard.

His definition of freedom does not encompass the idea of “free will,” which suggests that individuals have the power to choose their actions and desires. He believed that even if people are not physically stopped, their actions are still determined by their desires and the circumstances surrounding them.

Hobbes’s concept of freedom significantly influenced his political theory, particularly his justification for a strong sovereign power. He argued that in the state of nature, where individuals have no external restraints, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. To escape this state and achieve security, people would need to surrender some of their freedom to a sovereign who can impose order and enforce laws.

Hobbes saw laws as artificial chains that limit individual liberty. However, he argued that these chains are necessary for creating a stable and peaceful society. He believed that some amount of restraint is essential to prevent the “war of all against all” that he envisioned in the state of nature

John Locke (1632 – 1704)

John Locke’s views on slavery were complex and have been interpreted in various ways. While he argued against the concept of absolute monarchy and the inherent right of rulers to control individuals, he also engaged with the institution of slavery in some of his writings. He acknowledged slavery as a legitimate punishment for crimes, particularly for those who had engaged in unjust warfare. However, he also argued against the idea of inherited slavery, which he saw as a violation of natural rights.

Locke’s justification for slavery, as presented in his Two Treatises of Government, was that it could be a legitimate consequence of a just war. In his framing of this, a victorious party could enslave prisoners of war as a punishment for their crimes and as a means of security.

Contrasting this concept, he recognized the concept of “illegitimate slavery,” which he defined as an authoritarian deprivation of natural rights. He argued against the idea of inherited slavery, where individuals could be enslaved based on their birth or the status of their parents.

Locke’s core philosophical framework, which emphasized natural rights to life, liberty, and property, stood in contrast to the practice of slavery, as it inherently denied individuals the right to freedom and self-determination. However, it’s important to note that Locke was also involved in the development of many colonial policies, including the Constitution of the Carolinas, where slavery was legally sanctioned and even encouraged. This involvement has led to interpretations of his views as being contradictory or ambivalent towards the institution of slavery.

Interestingly, and in contradiction to the Constitution of the Carolinas allowing slavery, Locke’s other writings, strongly condemned absolute monarchy and the notion of divine right of kings, which he saw as a form of tyranny that violated the natural rights of individuals. His arguments against absolute monarchy can be seen as extending to the concept of slavery, which he viewed as a form of authoritarian rule.

Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984)

Foucault offers perhaps the most chilling modern critique. In works like Discipline and Punish, he shows how power no longer needs to operate through violence. Instead, it works through institutions, schools, prisons, police, hospitals, that train us to internalise discipline. We become our own jailers.

He saw a close relationship between ethics and freedom. He believed that ethical practices, such as “care of the self,” can help us to cultivate our freedom and resist the normalising effects of power.

While Michel Foucault recognised the role of power in shaping our lives, he did not advocate for a complete rejection of power relations or an escape from them. Instead, he argued that we should engage with power in a critical and reflexive way, using it to create freedom.

He saw freedom not as a pre-existing state but as a practice, a way of understanding and acting upon one’s own self-making. This involves engaging with power relations and using them creatively to transform oneself.

Foucault’s view of slavery, while not the central focus of his work, is explored through his broader concept of power, knowledge, and the relationship between them. Foucault saw slavery as a prime example of a system where power is exercised through violence, rather than through the more subtle and pervasive disciplinary mechanisms he explored in other contexts. He argued that in absolute forms of domination like slavery, power is not a relationship, but a brute force that restricts all possibility of resistance and freedom.

The Existentialists 

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980)

Sartre’s view of freedom centres on the idea that humans are “condemned to be free“, meaning they are not predetermined or defined by an essence but must create their own meaning through choices and actions. This freedom is absolute and inseparable from responsibility, as we are responsible for all our choices, even the choice to avoid responsibility. Essentially, Sartre argues that freedom is a fundamental aspect of human existence, and it comes with the burden of creating one’s own values and purpose.

While freedom is central to Sartre’s philosophy, he also acknowledges the weight of this freedom. He argues that the realization of our own freedom can lead to feelings of anxiety and responsibility, as we are left to create our own meaning and purpose in a world without inherent values.

Albert Camus (1913 – 1960)

For Albert Camus, freedom is a core aspect of the human condition and a means of asserting oneself in a meaningless world. He believed in the importance of individual freedom, not as a political or legal concept, but as a deeply existential one, crucial for navigating the absurd nature of life. Camus emphasized the responsibility of individuals to embrace their freedom and rebel against oppression.

He saw protest as a vital expression of freedom and a way to assert one’s dignity in the face of injustice. In his works, he explored various forms of protest, from peaceful demonstrations to acts of rebellion, recognising that these actions are necessary to combat oppression and create a sense of solidarity with others.

Further, Camus believed that true freedom could only be achieved by embracing the absurdity of the world and creating one’s own sense of meaning. He argued that individuals must be willing to embrace the uncertainties and challenges of life to achieve true freedom and resist oppression.

Camus saw slavery not just as a legal status, but as a broader societal issue rooted in inequality and violent oppression. He critiqued how any bourgeois society talked about freedom whilst not actually practicing, and how this led to a distrust of freedom itself in revolutionary movements.

The Modern Condition – Legal Control Without Consent

Today, the illusion of freedom is maintained through the democratic process. Citizens vote, they elect representatives, and laws are passed. However, this system often lacks real consent. Most laws are passed by party-dominated legislatures, not referenda. Ministers frequently use statutory instruments to bypass scrutiny. Many ancient laws, some hundreds of years old, remain on the books, unrepealed and unreviewed.

In the UK, this problem is particularly acute:

• Henry VIII clauses allow ministers to change primary legislation without full parliamentary approval.
• The Acts of Union, while constitutionally significant, have never been modernised.
• The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is still used to prosecute crimes in 2025.
• Common law precedents from centuries ago still shapes judicial outcomes.

This means that citizens are governed not just by laws they never voted for, but often by laws created before their grandparents were born.

How can such governance be called democratic? More accurately, it is a form of legislative feudalism, where power resides in precedent and ministerial privilege, not in the people.

The Role of the Police – Enforcers or Interpreters?

In theory, the police should enforce the law impartially, however, in practice, they often interpret it subjectively. Laws around public order, protest, hate speech, and even nuisance allow wide discretion. A peaceful protest can be declared illegal if it causes perceived “disruption“. Someone can be arrested for causing “alarm or distress” without any objective evidence of wrongdoing. A person uses “foul language” with a Police Officer they are either threatened or actually arrested for a breach under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 – with the officer open to interpret what is abusive language or disorderly behaviour.

The result is that law enforcement becomes selective enforcement. Power is wielded differently based on the political climate, the sensitivity of the issue, and the visibility of the subject.

In recent years this has been exacerbated by the introduction of non-crime hate Incidents, an abhorrent abuse of power by the state to blacklist and penalise people who may or may not have said or done something that was claimed to be inspired by a hatred of a protected attribute. This is an absolute abuse of power as detailed in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 s.60. It states in PCSCA. S60(2),

“In this section “hate incident” means an incident or alleged incident which involves or is alleged to involve an act by a person (“the alleged perpetrator”) which is perceived by a person other than the alleged perpetrator to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.”

Lets be clear, hate is a nasty and malevolent trait and emotion, hatred of others, for any reason, but especially if based on race, ethnicity, disability, nationality, religion, gender, sexuality or any other ridiculous homo-centric thinking is wrong and cannot ever be accepted in a civilised society, but this type of legislation is the thin end of the wedge with an encroachment on free speech – we do not have to like or accept what any person says, we may not want to hear it, but if you have the right to condemn them for it, then, as long as they do not advocate violence against others, then they should be entitled to reveal to all what mindless thoughts they have.

However. this is not law to protect society, it is administrative control masquerading as law, controlling what people think, say and do purely, when the state doesn’t like it, as a form of societal control – it is authoritarianism by the back door and a very slippery slope.

Bureaucracy as Chains

The requirement for identification to travel, the existence of databases that track your medical and financial history, the increasing use of surveillance technologies, and the complex web of regulations that govern everything from what you build to what you can say, all of these are examples of control mechanisms that operate without your explicit consent.

They may not involve violence, but they do involve coercion:

• You cannot leave your country without a passport.
• You cannot work without paying tax, under penalty of law.
• You cannot express dissent without risking de-platforming or even legal sanction.
• You are controlled by your gender.
• You are controlled by how you heat your home.
• You have no real privacy – the state holds all your details, and the security services often abuse their powers to investigate citizens.
• The Police use threats of prosecution to obtain information, but are allowed to lie as an interrogation technique, but if you lie to the Police, you are prosecuted – one rule for them, another for you.
• You have no choice how the money the state takes from you – you have no choice but to pay your hard-earned money to both local and national government, where they even force you to buy statutory required services, then they tax you on them.

This is authoritarian soft slavery – a life regulated in every small detail by rules you did not make, enforced by agencies you cannot challenge, interpreted by people you cannot elect all run within a bureaucratic machine whose only demand is blind loyalty and a self-serving desire to continue to exist.

The Myth of Repeal – A Legal System That Never Forgets

One of the most damning aspects of UK law is that old laws are almost never repealed. They linger, waiting to be invoked. Governments prefer this. A legal back catalogue gives them options. When needed, they can dredge up old statutes to suppress unrest, prosecute dissenters, or justify intrusive policies. It is very rare that new rules deliberately repeal older ones, instead the nation ends up with a patchwork of laws that overlap, giving agency to those in power to attack those it disagrees with from different angle.

There is no serious effort to modernise or codify the law. Why? Because opacity benefits and maintains power. A confusing legal system.

• Disempowers citizens.
• Enriches lawyers.
• Grants flexibility to government.
• Prevents accountability.

Repealing all laws made before 2000 would be a radical start. Essential laws or parts thereof could be re-enacted in clearer, democratically approved statutes. Everything else should be archived as history, not wielded as hidden weapons.

Economic Coercion – Work or Die

Modern capitalism also plays a role in this system of control. Most people must work to survive, regardless of whether the work is meaningful, dignified, or even healthy. The welfare state offers little security, and the rising cost of living ensures dependency on the wage system, and for over 50% of the working population, state handouts in the form of benefits.

This isn’t slavery in the legal sense. But when your choices are “work or starve”, “conform or be excluded”, then you are never truly free. You are merely a more comfortable kind of captive.

Are We All Slaves?

Using the expanded definition of slavery, “compelled obedience without meaningful consent”, we can argue that most people in modern societies live under a form of soft slavery. It is more humane, less visible, and less brutal than historical, classical slavery, but it is still a form of slavery, nonetheless. One can argue they swapped the words slavery for employment!

• You cannot opt out.
• You cannot change the rules.
• You cannot live freely unless you are wealthy, and even then, your freedom is conditional – upset those in power and you can find yourself in trouble.

Conscription – Slavery in Uniform?

If we oppose forced labour, how can we morally accept forced combat?

In times of war, governments often invoke patriotic duty to justify compulsory military service. However, beneath the language of honour and nationalism lies an inescapable truth – conscription is coerced military service under threat of punishment.

Historically, conscripts have faced 10–20% mortality rates, with perhaps 50% casualty rates overall, with little choice or recourse. When an individual is forced to kill or be killed, under penalty of imprisonment or execution, the distinction between soldier and slave blurs.

While international law exempts conscription from definitions of slavery, the ethical question remains unresolved. If freedom is the right to refuse coercion, then conscription, particularly for foreign wars or morally and ethically unjust causes, is a chilling reminder that even life itself can be claimed by the state without consent

Freedom as a Spectrum, not a Status

True freedom may not mean the absence of all rules, but it must mean the presence of choice, of consent, of clarity, and of the power to reform what binds us. Today, we are governed by laws we did not write, enforced by powers we cannot really challenge, and constrained by mechanisms we often do not see.

This is not freedom. It is a polite, modern form of slavery, one that wears a suit or uniform and calls itself the rule of law.

The solution begins with honesty – repealing archaic laws, abolishing unchecked ministerial powers, codifying a written constitution, and placing the citizen, not the politician, and not the unelected bureaucrat, at the centre of the legal order.

Until then, the chains may be soft, but they are still chains. You may own your prison, but it is no less a prison if you have no true freedom.

References.

Historical Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade

1. Davis, R. C. (2003). Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500–1800. Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Walvin, J. (2011). The Zong: A Massacre, the Law and the End of Slavery. Yale University Press.
3. Klein, H. S. (2010). The Atlantic Slave Trade. Cambridge University Press.
4. Eltis, D., & Richardson, D. (2008). Atlas of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Yale University Press.
5. Lovejoy, P. E. (2000). Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa. Cambridge University Press.

Arab and Barbary Slavery

1. Fisher, A. G. B. (2001). Slavery in the History of Muslim Black Africa. Markus Wiener Publishers.
2. Segal, R. (2002). Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
3. Davis, R. C. (2003). Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters (cited above) — core source on Barbary piracy.

Modern Slavery – Data and Reports

1. International Labour Organization (ILO), Walk Free, International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2022).
   Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage.
   https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_854733/lang–en/index.htm
2. Walk Free Foundation. (2023). Global Slavery Index.
   https://www.globalslaveryindex.org
3. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2022). Global Report on Trafficking in Persons.
   https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/glotip.html

Legal Instruments and UN Treaties

1. United Nations. (1926). Slavery Convention.
   https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/slavery-convention
2. United Nations. (1956). Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery.
   https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/supplementary-convention-abolition-slavery-slave-trade-and
3. United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
   https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Philosophical Works on Freedom, Authority, and Slavery

1. Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). The Social Contract.
2. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
3. Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government.
4. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
5. Sartre, J.-P. (1943). Being and Nothingness. Routledge.
6. Camus, A. (1942). The Myth of Sisyphus. Penguin Classics.

Military Conscription and Ethical Debate

1. Walzer, M. (1977). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books.
2. Moskos, C. C., & Chambers, J. W. (1993). The New Conscientious Objection: From Sacred to Secular Resistance. Oxford University Press.
3. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2022). Customary IHL Rule 52: Compulsory Military Service.
   https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule52
4. Human Rights Watch. (Various reports on child soldier conscription and national service abuses).
   https://www.hrw.org