Tariffs won’t fix Asia-Pacific forced labour – enforcement will

Whatever the trade court decides, the region’s 15 million forced labourers need due diligence law, not tariffs.

Cory Searcy

10 September 20264 min read

Washington’s Section 301 forced labour tariffs (Opens in new window) will be challenged (Opens in new window) in the United States Court of International Trade on 30 September. The tariffs have been criticised (Opens in new window) as being about trade leverage rather than forced labour. Whichever way the court rules, however, it won’t address the most difficult question: do the Asia-Pacific’s forced labour standards work?

Anti-human trafficking laws, criminal codes, or labour legislation prohibiting forced labour are common across the Asia-Pacific region. For example, the ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Opens in new window) was signed by member states in November 2015. But an estimated (Opens in new window) 15 million people remain in forced labour throughout the region. Examples of forced labour are easy to find, such in Thailand’s fishing sector (Opens in new window), in Malaysian rubber glove and palm oil production (Opens in new window), and in Bangladesh’s garment sector (Opens in new window).

Pooling data across the Asia-Pacific is not contingent on any one country’s political system or capacity, making it a realistic starting point for collaboration.

Australia’s experience also shows the limitations of disclosure-based approaches. Its Modern Slavery Act (Opens in new window), in force since 2019, required companies to report on modern slavery in their supply chains, but carried no financial or criminal penalty for a weak filing. In January 2026, Australia’s Anti-Slavery Commissioner released its Recommendations to Strengthen Modern Slavery Laws (Opens in new window), with a heavy emphasis on moving beyond disclosure to a minimum due diligence obligation. This conclusion was reached well before the imposition of the US tariffs.

Forced labour is a serious, long recognised, independently documented problem across the Asia-Pacific. It must be addressed regardless of the outcome of the decision by the Court of International Trade. Any recommendations on how to do so must consider how unevenly governments across the region are equipped to act. Political systems and capacity vary widely across the region, from democracies with independent regulators to states where enforcement is limited.

There are, though, changes any government in the Asia-Pacific should consider if they are serious about reducing forced labour in their countries.

Mauk, Banten Province, Indonesia: Fishing is an industry rife with forced labour (Claudio Pramana/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The starting point is to establish a due diligence obligation for entities operating in the Asia-Pacific to report on and take action to address the risk of forced labour in their supply chains. Due diligence obligations should extend beyond Tier 1 suppliers to include at least second-tier subcontractors, with additional tiers added as capacity develops. The European Union’s Forced Labour Regulation (Opens in new window) provides one possible reference point. These obligations could take the form of binding regulations where institutions allow, be phased in elsewhere, or be jointly implemented through regional bodies such as ASEAN where unilateral action isn’t realistic.

Any due diligence obligations should move the evidentiary bar from attestation to verification. Auditors provide one means of verification, but they should be supported by remote auditing technologies (Opens in new window) to identify high-risk regions, sectors, and products. This could include, for example, using satellite-based vessel monitoring to flag fishing vessels that operate without required tracking. Incorporating remote monitoring technology can provide coverage that in-person auditing cannot match. It could also, for example, be used to determine when and where unannounced audits should be performed.

Poor performance also requires consequences. As Australia’s Commissioner found, disclosure without penalty can produce polished reports (Opens in new window) that do not necessarily improve conditions on the ground. The ability to enforce due diligence obligations will be critical, particularly given the weak enforcement of many existing laws in parts of the Asia-Pacific region. Enforcement can scale with capacity, such as public disclosure of non-compliance, procurement blacklisting, fines, and criminal penalties. One starting point to develop local capacity is to work with NGOs and other countries implementing forced labour due diligence requirements.

Sector- and region-specific risk data is needed to underpin these initiatives, along the lines of the database (Opens in new window) required under Article 8 of the EU’s Forced Labour Regulation. Governments, regional associations, industry bodies, and non-governmental organisations already produce data to begin populating the database. For example, the International Labour Organisation (Opens in new window), Human Rights Watch (Opens in new window), and Goodweave (Opens in new window) produce relevant information, but key data is scattered across NGO reports, foreign customs filings, and other sources. Pooling this data across the Asia-Pacific is not contingent on any one country’s political system or capacity, making it a realistic starting point for collaboration.

None of this would stop the next tariff dispute. As the recent action by the US has shown, supply chain due diligence does not change a government’s incentives to use trade leverage. But making these changes could support real progress in reducing the millions of people in forced labour throughout the Asia-Pacific. Whatever the outcome of the challenge at the Court of International Trade, it is time for action to reduce forced labour.

About the author

Cory Searcy

Cory Searcy is Professor and Assistant Vice-President, International at Toronto Metropolitan University.

Topics

Human rights Trade & investment Southeast Asia Australia United States