Luxembourg guidelines (engelsk versjon): Et rammeverk om terminologier for beskyttelse av barn mot seksuelle overgrep og misbruk.
ORdbruk er viktig, fordi det påvirker problemforståelsen, prioriterer og former svar. Inkonsekvent brukt av språk og definisjoner kan føre til ulike regelverk på det samme problemet. Selv om det finnes legaliserte definisjoner for en rekke seksuelle forbrytelser mot barn, hersker det fortsatt betydningsfull mye usikkerhet rundt den ulike bruken av terminologier i forbindelse med seksuell utnyttelse og seksuelt misbruk av barn. Selv der hvor terminologien er brukt er det ofte uenighet omkring den faktiske betydningen, som leder til at de samme ordene blir brukt ved ulike handlinger eller situasjoner. Dette er spesielt utfordrende i tilfeller hvor man skal lage lovverk og programmer, informasjonsinnhenting, skaper unøyaktige svar og gir begrensede eller lite effektive metoder for å måle omfang og sette mål. I sammenheng med internasjonale grensekryssende seksuell utnyttelse er disse problemene enda vanskeligere.
Mangelen på enighet på en internasjonalt nivå omkring flere av punktene eller ordlyden som skal brukes har hatt en innvirkning på global
The absence of consensus at international level on several terms or language that should be employed
has had an impact on global efforts at data collection and identification of different modalities of sexual
exploitation and sexual abuse of children. Confusion in the use of language and terms can impair and
undermine advocacy work and intergovernmental and interagency cooperation. Translating terms
into different languages introduces further challenges. Without clear conceptual understanding of
(and agreement on) their meaning, translating terms accurately across multiple languages becomes
an onerous and resource-intensive task.
Greater conceptual clarity on terminology is thus needed to ensure stronger and more consistent
advocacy, policy and laws in all languages across all regions of the world. To engender more clarity in
the conceptualisation, definition, and translation of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children,
a multi-stakeholder dialogue involving the voices of a multitude of actors at all levels is needed. Given
the fast evolution of information and communication technologies (ICTs), which in turn brings new
manifestations of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children, shaping a common understanding
is increasingly important in the global effort to eradicate these children’s rights violations.
At the initiative of ECPAT International, and with the aim of moving beyond the lack of agreement among
UN entities, international child rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and international and
regional law enforcement agencies regarding what terms to use to describe different forms of sexual
exploitation and sexual abuse of children, in September 2014 an Interagency Working Group (IWG)
comprising representatives from key stakeholders was established. Drawing on the expertise that the
IWG representatives and their respective organisations possess, an in-depth analysis and discussion
on terminology and definitions were launched, which lasted for over a year. The IWG was chaired by
Professor Jaap Doek, former Chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Alongside the IWG
discussions, a consultation process with a broader group of experts on child protection with English,
French and Spanish as native/working languages was held.
These Terminology Guidelines represent the outcome of this interagency initiative, and contain a set
of terms that professionals and international agencies commonly apply in their work on the prevention
and elimination of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children. They are meant to be “universal”
and applicable to work against these phenomena in all settings, including humanitarian settings.
The meaning of each term is explained from a linguistic point of view, and its use is analysed. Where
there is need for caution in the use of a certain term, this is indicated. Moreover, the use of certain
Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
terms is discouraged. For each term that has been defined in international and/or regional legal
instruments, such definitions are included. Where relevant, information from General Comments of
human rights treaty bodies is also used, as well as resolutions and recommendations by international
and regional organisations. All participating organisations also contributed through providing relevant
reports and publications produced by their respective organisations.
Much has changed in recent years in the terminology used in the field of child protection, in particular
as a result of the use of Internet to commit different forms of sexual exploitation and/or abuse — for
example “online grooming
” and live streaming of sexual abuse
. While international standards do not
yet reflect all these new phenomena, the Terminology Guidelines contain an initial analysis of the terms
used to describe them, aiming to clarify their meaning and provide advice with regard to their use.
Given the changing nature of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children, in particular those
committed through the means of ICTs, these Terminology Guidelines may need to be reviewed on a
Roadmap to the Terminology Guidelines
A first and major challenge for the IWG related to deciding which terms to include in the Guidelines.
The decision to include a term was led by the following rules/criteria:
The term has a legal definition in international and/or regional treaties related to sexual
exploitation and/or sexual abuse of children.
The term, although not having a legal definition under international law, is frequently used in
the context of sexual exploitation and/or sexual abuse of children.
Theterm is used for conduct whose primary purpose is to facilitate, enable, propagate, incite,
or engage in the sexual exploitation or sexual abuse of a child.
The term creates misunderstanding among different stakeholders regarding the child’s rights and
entitlements to protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse under international law.
term validates, encourages, propagates, or incites stereotypes, societal attitudes, cultural
beliefs, or norms that are harmful or undermine the child’s right to protection from sexual
exploitation and sexual abuse.
These rules have been good guidance but have not always been decisive. On a few occasions, the
IWG found a term not covered by one of the rules but nevertheless significant enough to be included
in the Guidelines.
Furthermore, the IWG discussed the inclusion of categories of children considered especially at risk
of being sexually exploited or abused, such as street children, runaway children, unaccompanied
refugee children, and working children. The IWG decided not to include these groups. Such children
can be victims of many other violations of their rights and to include them in the Guidelines could
mean singling out one of those risks, which may have resulted in a labelling the IWG wanted to avoid.
The next challenge for the IWG was to determine the order in which to structure the terms included
in the Guidelines. It was agreed to move from the key term “child” to more general terms like sexual
violence against children, child sexual abuse
, and child sexual exploitation
, followed by more specific
terms like child prostitution
, child pornography
, and sexual abuse or sexual exploitation online and in
travel and tourism. The final sections address child victims of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, as
well as perpetrators of sexual crimes against children. Within each section dealing with these (general
and specific) terms, the IWG also identified directly related terms and included them in sub-sections.
The last challenge was the numbering of the sections and sub-sections. The IWG decided to use
numbering that is identical for the different language versions to make comparison between them