How, then, did legislators around the world incorporate the
definition of trafficking in persons into their domestic legal
orders? As a backdrop, it might be emphasized that we have
entered a "neo-abolitionist" era as a result of the Palermo
Protocol, which has led, in a very short period of time, to many
States incorporating anti-trafficking provisions into their
domestic legal order." This, in the main, is the result of the
emphasis, which the United States of America has placed on the
issue of trafficking as part of its foreign policy. The United States
has taken on the primary role as anti-trafficking advocate
internationally through its development of an annual Trafficking
in Persons Report, which is backed by coercive legislation
developed by the U.S. Congress and has precipitated a
proliferation of domestic anti-trafficking laws.39 As the
International Organization of Migration notes, combating
"human trafficking has become an increasingly important
political priority for many governments around the world."40 This
is so, in large part, because, by virtue of the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Re-authorization Act of 2008, the U.S. Congress makes it "the policy of the United States not to provide non-humanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance to any government that ... does not comply with minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking . . . ."41 Thus, by
threatening to withdraw financial support (both American and its
support before the IMF and World Bank), measuring States
against its own minimum standards, and placing States that fail
to meet these standards on 'watch-lists,' the United States has
forced countries to take trafficking seriously.