Emory International Law Review
Abstract
The prohibition of forced labor is a globally recognized principle. International laws such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights explicitly ban all forms of slavery, including forced labor, with an exception for forced labor behind bars. Further, ILO asserts that forced prison labor must be conducted solely under the control of public authorities, explicitly excluding private entities from involvement. ILO’s prohibition against private use of prison labor is based on two main concerns: abuse of power over inmates and unfair competition between inmates and free workers. In a case on the constitutionality of private prisons, the Israeli High Court of Justice also adopted the same stance as the ILO and ruled against private prisons.
By using Taiwan’s public prison system as an illustration, this Article reveals the tendency of both public and private sectors to abuse the power over inmates and gain a competitive advantage through their cheap labor. If we seek to address these issues, we must reframe labor as a voluntary opportunity for inmates and protect them as free workers. These changes shift our focus toward prohibiting forced and cheap labor of inmates and protecting them from exploitation. This Article concludes by asserting that if we abandon the public-private divide in prison labor, curb the state’s unchecked power to exploit inmates, and apply consistent standards to both public and private prisons, we can effectively prevent power abuses, mitigate unfair competition, and advance inmates’ rehabilitation.
Recommended Citation
Mao-hong Lin,
Carceral Firms in Disguise: Prison Labor, Human Rights, and the Public-Private Divide,
39
Emory Int'l L. Rev.
705
(2025).
Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol39/iss2/6