**5. Critique of different definitions of modern slavery**

I think that a definition that does not include any of the elements in the definition I have proposed may be useless to understand the modern slavery phenomenon "as it is". I will try to defend this view by examining the major modern definitions of slavery in the literature.

For example, let us take the definition of the 1926 Slavery Convention, which is at the center of all descriptive debates in international legal texts. In the Convention, the definition of slavery is formulated as "slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised". In this definition, we can only reach the control element in the table through judgmental and scientific interpretations [11, 12] that suggest that the definition should be re-read in accordance with today's conditions. We see that the elements of continuity, voluntas and exploitation in the table are not included in this definition. In this case, even if the definition of the Slavery Convention is reinterpreted according to the conditions of the day, it is insufficient to cover some examples of modern slavery and remains broad enough to cover some situations that do not constitute slavery.

In this context, in the simplest form of the powers related to the property right, I will try to test this definition in terms of various examples, remembering that they have the authority to usus, fructus and abusus [13].

This is a basic function in terms of the period when it is possible to establish legal property rights on the person and legitimate and legal slavery is in question. However, when it comes to modern slavery practices encountered in modern legal systems where it is not possible to establish legal property rights on the person, this basis will be dysfunctional in determining slavery.

For example, the ECHR, in its assessments on slavery, prefers an interpretation that is closely tied to the definition of slavery in the Slavery Convention. According to the ECHR, only if the "authorities related to the right to property over the person" in the definition are legally recognized, a violation of the prohibition of slavery in paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the ECHR may be in question. Therefore, since it is not possible to establish a legal property right over a person in the legal systems of the states party to the ECHR, the ECHR has not detected "slavery" in any of the applications it has examined so far.

Also, for example, in a business relationship established between the employee and the employer, the employer earns a profit on the labor of the employee in relation to the subject of work. It is clear that this situation is "fructus", which is one of the powers of ownership. In addition, this authority provides the employer with a control over the worker. However, if this benefit is carried out in a way that is not contrary to a lawful contract established between the employee and the employer and the employee is paid a fair wage for his labor, it will not be considered as slavery in any way. However, when this example is examined through the definition of the Slavery Convention, it may seem as if the worker is a slave as "a person on whom any of the powers related to the right of property are exercised". Because, in the definition of the Slavery Convention, it is not mentioned that "control over the person should be of a nature that would deprive the person of his individual freedoms significantly.

Another important deficiency in the definition of the Slavery Convention is that it does not include the element of continuity. In fact, the expression "status of the person" in the definition expresses a continuity with a legal basis. However, as I mentioned above, this continuity does not make sense in terms of contemporary legal systems where the status of slave is not legally recognized. The expression "(person's) situation" in the definition does not always contain a continuity. For example, it cannot be said that a person who has been subjected to the act of rape once is in a state of slavery. However, a person who has been subjected to a pervasive and repeated rape can be characterized as a kind of modern slave throughout the continuum of his situation. Or, it is clear that a person who is forced to do something that will happen immediately for the exploitation of his labor and does not have the will to get out of this situation is subjected to forced labor, but this case has not yet turned into slavery. However, if forced labor in this way turns into a serious, continuous and intense deprivation of individual freedom, with different behavioral patterns that have an exclusionary effect on the will, depending on the main purpose of exploitation, then slavery should be mentioned. In both cases, victims are in the position of "a person to whom any or all of the property rights are exercised" in the definition of the Slavery Convention. However, as it is tried to be explained in the examples, this situation they are in cannot be described as modern slavery in every case.

In addition, the fact that the control over the person has the purpose of exploitation and the fact that the will of the person is unimportant in the termination of control is not included in the definition, which distracts the definition from the reality of modern slavery. For these reasons, we can say that the definition of the Slavery Convention is insufficient in terms of covering modern slavery practices in its current

#### *Perspective Chapter: Legal Definition of Modern Slavery DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109994*

form, and that with its interpretation in accordance with today's conditions, it widens the scope of modern slavery too much and obscures the concept.

The second definition I will examine is that of the Walk For Free Foundation, a non-governmental organization that conducts significant global work on modern slavery. WFF modern slavery It defines it as an umbrella concept that expresses "the situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse and cannot get rid of because of threat, violence, coercion, abuse of power or deception" [14]. Essentially, this definition includes the three elements I have identified, namely control, exploitation and will. However, this definition does not include the element of continuity. For this reason, the definition of WFF may be insufficient in terms of covering all the appearance forms of modern slavery.

Bales, on the other hand, defined modern slavery as "the detention of a person by violence or threat of violence for the purpose of economic exploitation" in his definition, which he accepts as extremely general [5]. But in a more recent study by Bales, co-published with different authors, modern slavery is defined as: Modern slavery is a relationship in which one person is controlled by another through violence, threats of violence or psychological coercion, loses free will and is deprived of freedom of movement, is economically exploited and is paid nothing but a living wage [15].

The fact that the element of exploitation is limited to only economic exploitation in both of Bales' definitions is the most important problem faced by these definitions in terms of meeting all the appearance forms of modern slavery. If these definitions are taken as a basis, sexual exploitation by forced marriage in the axis of traditional rituals, ideological exploitation by being used as a soldier in conflicts and people enslaved as a result of exploitation with religious motives will be excluded from the scope of modern slavery. Apart from this, we see that in both definitions of Bales, the element of continuity is ignored. For this reason, I have to say that Bales' definitions are not definitions that will cover the whole of modern slavery practices, even though they include a narrow-scoped element of exploitation along with control and voluntas elements.

Known for his expertise in immigration law and international humanitarian law, Piotrowicz prefers to define the modern slavery as: "the control of a person by another person using violence, threats or psychological pressure, and as a result economic exploitation of the person resulting in the loss of free will and freedom of action" [16]. As such, just like in Bales' definitions, this definition, which includes the elements of control, will and limited exploitation, is incomplete in terms of defining the modern slavery phenomenon, since it does not include the element of continuity and limits the element of exploitation to only economic exploitation.

In a study recently published in Turkey, modern slavery, we see that it is defined as "the human will being weakened by deception, deception or coercion, and being forced to stay permanently in situations where it cannot save itself from the exploitation of its labor and body" [17]. This definition, formulated by Ogün Usta, differs positively from all other definitions, especially in that it includes the element of continuity. This definition, which I think is sufficient in terms of control, exploitation and will, is open to criticism because of the weakness in the expression "the human will … weakening". So much so that, when examined semantically, the expression "weakening the will" still indicates the existence of a certain degree of will, together with the weakening of the will. However, for people who are faced with modern slavery, it is necessary to talk about not weakening their will, but taking away their will completely, that is, the elimination of their will completely.

Therefore, in fact, I can say that if the definition of the Master is rewritten with a stronger expression such as "the abolition of the will" rather than "the weakening of the will", it can be a definition that fits the elements I have identified and covers all the manifestations of modern slavery.

At this point I am concerned that the conclusion has been drawn that I have argued that the only and best definition of modern slavery is the one I have made. Of course, all definitions of the concept can be considered as "adequate" by the authors who wrote these definitions. In this study, I need to remind you that the qualifications I have made regarding the above definitions such as "incomplete" and "inadequate" are based on the criteria included in the table of "Elements that must be present in the definition of modern slavery", which is also tried to be put forward by me. Therefore, it is clear that all the characterizations put forward regarding all these definitions are of a relatively subjective nature. Nevertheless, I would like to state that I hope that these criticisms can contribute to the development of an effective fight against modern slavery at the international and national level, at least in terms of definition.
