This article deals with the legislative proposal in the Netherlands to criminalise staying (without permission) in an area controlled by a terrorist organisation. The discussion surrounding the proposal is focused, amongst other things, on possible exemptions for journalists and providers of humanitarian assistance. This article analyses the newest version of the proposal in light of the rights to freedom of movement and freedom of expression.

Article 273f, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3, of the Dutch Penal Code criminalizes, as trafficking in human beings, the act of recruiting, removing or abducting another person with the intention of inducing this person to make himself available, in another country, for the performance of sexual acts with or for a third party for remuneration. This provision, deriving from an international convention established in 1933, has always been a bit of an oddity in the Dutch penal provision on trafficking in human beings since it is not necessary to prove that the prostitute involved was lured or otherwise forced into prostitution and prostitution is legalized in the Netherlands. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled in a landmark case in 2016, that the act criminalized in subparagraph 3 can only be punishable in situations where it can be said that the recruiting, removing or abduction of the prostitute occurred under circumstances that can be qualified as exploitation. This contribution sheds light on the historical backgrounds of this remarkable penal provision, its particularities and the recent case law of the Supreme Court. It demonstrates that the development of this provision and the discussion it sparks, embody the more general quest, in criminal law, to strike a balance between protecting individual liberty on the one side and protecting vulnerable persons on the other.

In the Netherlands, the penalization of human smuggling has become broader and more severe. This development is part of a crimmigration trend that describes an increase of immigration-related criminal offenses. Currently, the provision does not include a financial component, nor does it exclude acts with a humanitarian motive. The validity of such severe prohibitions, especially those including acts that are not morally reprehensible, is questioned through the concept of ‘humanitarian smuggling’. Moral reprehensibility is one of the criteria for criminalization that provide a framework for the reflection on the Dutch prohibition of human smuggling that is conducted in this article.

This article deals with the criminal offence of recruiting persons for armed struggle (art. 205 of the Dutch Criminal Code), a provision that nowadays mainly arises in terrorism cases. It revolves around the dilemmas and interpretative questions that this criminal offence has yielded so far – especially since the amendments in 2004 – and examines how the courts have dealt with it.

At first sight there seems to be a strong relationship between crimmigration and the criminology of administrative law enforcement. However, a further analysis shows that crimmigration fits more in the concept of the so-called integrated science of criminal justice. Crimmigration can be identified as an interdisciplinary concept, while the criminology of the administrative law enforcement should be classified as an empirical discipline. Nevertheless, both concepts complement each other with regard to the socio-scientific study of the practice of immigration law.