Nordic Model Under Debate as Buyer-Only Criminalization Approach

The question of how Japan handles the sex trade is being raised. With voices saying “It is unfair that only women are punished,” a movement to review the Prostitution Prevention Law has begun. How do countries around the world regulate sex trade? This is the first installment of a series by sex industry journalist Akira Ikoma, examining examples from various countries and questioning Japan’s approach. This is the first part.

The review of the Prostitution Prevention Law begins to move

With the enforcement of the revised Entertainment Businesses Act in June last year and discussions beginning in March this year on criminalizing the purchase of sex, regulation of the sex industry has been attracting significant attention.

On April 7, at a hearing by a panel of experts at the Ministry of Justice examining a possible revision of the Prostitution Prevention Law, reference hearings were held to understand the actual situation in Japan. Representatives included the director of an NPO working on issues of sexual exploitation and the head of an organization aiming to ensure the safety and health of sex workers.

Regarding the Prostitution Prevention Law, there are calls for punishment of buyers as well as opposition to stricter regulation. The Ministry of Justice is advancing discussions with the aim of submitting legal revisions either in an extraordinary Diet session this autumn or the regular Diet session next year.

Overseas, due to differences in how sex work is viewed, three main legal systems have become major trends: the “Nordic model,” the legalization model, and the decriminalization model. In addition, there are also the prohibition model and the regulatory model.

Each model has its pros and cons, and no definitive conclusion has been reached even today as to which is correct. The question of “What is the optimal way to regulate the sex industry?” can be seen as an eternal issue that has continued since ancient times.

This series introduces various approaches taken by countries around the world toward sex work. It will closely examine foreign cases and, from a broad global perspective, consider what appears to be the most appropriate relationship with the sex industry today. In addition, it aims to outline Japan’s current situation, its future direction, and possible paths forward.

The “Nordic model,” a groundbreaking approach

What has been spreading mainly across Europe is a legal framework called the “Nordic model,” which criminalizes the purchase of sex. It views sex work as violence and aims for its eradication, with the goal of shrinking the sex industry.

The system fully decriminalizes those who sell sex (mainly women) and supports them in escaping situations where they are forced to sell. Regardless of consent, they are treated as victims and are not punished.

Meanwhile, those who buy sex (mainly men) and intermediaries are punished as perpetrators of sexual exploitation. By making the purchase of sex a criminal offense, the aim is to reduce demand for sex work.

This was a groundbreaking approach that sought to transform the structure of sex work itself by legally holding buyers responsible—something that had previously been largely overlooked in many countries. For this reason, it is also called the “neo-abolitionist” or new prohibitionist model.

This approach was first implemented in Sweden in 1999. It was later adopted in Norway in ’09, Iceland in ’10, Canada in ’14, France in ’16, the Republic of Ireland in ’17, and Israel in ’20, totaling seven countries. It has also been introduced in Northern Ireland in the UK and the state of Maine in the US.

The Nordic model sends a clear message to society that “Sex work is violence, discrimination, and exploitation against women, and it is the men who buy sex who must change,” placing greater emphasis on gender equality rather than traditional moral or chastity values. It is therefore also referred to as an equality model.

Its basic premise is that the commercialization of sexual acts itself is a violation of women’s human rights and should therefore be abolished, and that women trapped in sex work are exposed to abuse.

The argument that “Cracking down on pimps and traffickers and criminalizing the purchase of sex is necessary to change men’s attitudes and behavior in order to achieve a gender-equal society” is said to have significantly shifted global perspectives on sex work.

Background to the birth of the “Nordic model”

The country that first established this legal system, Sweden, once had a licensed prostitution system. From a public health perspective, municipalities registered and managed women selling sex, but this was abolished in 1919 due to a women’s movement demanding abolition.

However, while mediation of prostitution was prohibited under criminal law, operating such establishments was not strictly banned. Also, there was no law punishing the act of selling sex itself, but sex workers were subject to vagrancy-related regulations. As a result, sex work remained a persistent social issue.

In this context, there were moves toward legalization in 1981, and in 1995 there was even a shift toward prohibitionism, criminalizing both buying and selling sex. However, most women’s organizations opposed both approaches. Eventually, in 1998, a law was enacted that did not punish the act of selling sex but punished the buying of sex and the operation of sex businesses.

The Nordic model was not developed purely as a theoretical exercise. Swedish feminists conducted large-scale research on sex work, interviewing both people who sold sex and those who bought it. Women who sold sex spoke about how they entered prostitution, how it affected their lives, and their ways of living.

What those conducting the research discovered was that punishing women is meaningless, because once someone becomes involved in sex work, it is difficult to escape it.

What became clear was the simple fact that prostitution exists because men buy sex. To reduce sex work, they concluded that it was necessary to change the idea that men have the right to buy sex from others. The Nordic model is therefore primarily aimed at changing people’s thinking, attitudes, and behavior.

After the law was implemented in 1999, in Sweden it became punishable to buy sex with fines or imprisonment. The purchase-of-sex offense had a significant impact on Swedish society. In cities across the country, the number of people selling sex on the streets reportedly decreased significantly.

Voices supporting the “Nordic model”

The Nordic model is internationally highly regarded as a system that protects women’s safety within sex work and reduces sexual human trafficking. In a 2014 resolution, the European Parliament encouraged member states to adopt this model, stating that it helps suppress human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Underlying this was the recognition that sex work is an infringement of human dignity and a major barrier to achieving gender equality.

Maud Olivier, a former member of the French National Assembly who led the legislation in France, argues that what is important for achieving gender equality is moving away from a society that tolerates sex work. In Sweden and France, it is said that an overwhelming majority of citizens support the Nordic model.

In Israel, a Nordic-model-type law was partially implemented in July 2020, and feminist efforts played a role in its enactment. In 2013, feminists formed an anti-prostitution coalition of activists, supporters, sex workers, journalists, and politicians and carried out campaigns. This proved highly effective, successfully persuading lawmakers across party lines, both men and women.

A survey conducted three years after the law’s enactment showed that the proportion of men purchasing sex had significantly decreased, and that a majority of the population came to view sex work as harmful. Some men stated that they had completely stopped buying sex because of the law. The legislation prompted a shift in societal attitudes toward sex work.

However, there are also voices claiming that “The Nordic model is the worst.” The argument is that stricter regulation does not protect the safety and health of those working in the sex industry—quite the opposite.

Afterword

The second part will detail the negative aspects of the Nordic model, which was once hailed as groundbreaking:

“‘It only creates worse clients’—the ironic reality in which a system meant to save women instead drives them into greater hardship.”

References

“Sex Work Studies,” SWASH (ed.), Nihon Hyoronsha, 2018

“Fundamentals of Sexual Self-Determination,” Shinji Miyadai et al., Kinokuniya Shoten, 1998

“Why Is It Wrong to Kill People?,” Itsuro Obama, PHP Institute, 2014

Plus numerous books and online sources.