The kafala system or kefala system ( , ) is a system in the Middle East that involves binding the residency and employment status of a migrant worker to a specific employer throughout the period of their residence in a country. Under this arrangement, the employer holds substantial authority over the worker, including the ability to approve or deny job changes, and permission to leave the country. This dependency creates a significant power imbalance that heightens the risk of exploitation and abusive practices. It currently exists in many Arab countries, especially those in the Arabian Peninsula, with Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait also being very prominent. A similar "binding system" existed in Israel until 2006, when the Israeli Supreme Court struck it down,Kemp, A., & Raijman, R. (2014). Bringing in State Regulations, Private Brokers, and Local Employers: A Meso-Level Analysis of Labor Trafficking in Israel. The International Migration Review, 48(3), 604–642. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24542868; Bringing in State Regulations, Private Brokers, and Local Employers: A MesoLevel Analysis of Labor Trafficking in Israel though it continues to be heavily practiced in certain industries.
The system, which blocks domestic competition for overseas workers in the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, requires migrant workers to have an in-country sponsor, usually their employer, who is responsible for their visa and legal status. This practice has been criticized by human rights organizations for creating easy opportunities for the exploitation of workers, as many employers confiscate their migrant workers' passports and abuse them with little chance of legal repercussions and even repatriation. In 2014, the International Trade Union Confederation estimated that there were 2.4 million enslaved domestic workers in the Arab Gulf countries and the Levant. Virtually all of these enslaved workers were from West Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia.
Etymology and origin
In the first decades of the 21st century, the migrant worker system became widely referred to the "kafala system" in English. The word kafala comes from Arabic, and the related word kafeel refers to the local employment sponsor in the system. In Islamic adoptional jurisprudence, "kafala" refers to the adoption of children. The original law of kafala was expanded to include a system of fixed-term sponsorship of migrant workers in several countries in the late 20th century. This modern system has its origins in labour practices related to pearl hunting. In the Persian Gulf, the pearling industry was dominated by slave labour, and prior to the abolition of slavery in the 20th century, slaves were used as pearl divers.Suzanne Miers: Slavery in the Twentieth Century: The Evolution of a Global Problem, p. 265-66
Kafala as a legal framework has roots in Sharia law, in which one party (the kafil) acts as a guarantor for another (the makful), where the former assumes legal responsibilities if the makful is unable to meet them. The arrangement generally takes two forms: one where the guarantor is responsible for the person himself—such as ensuring good conduct or appearance in court, similar to a bail system—and another where the guarantor assumes responsibility for the payment of a debt should the makful back out.
Scholars offer differing explanations regarding the origins of the kafala system. Gilbert Beaugé argues that it "originated from an old Bedouin custom of granting protection to visitors." Anh Longva suggests that the system is a "well-anchored" Kuwaiti tradition. Omar al-Shehabi, on the other hand, argued that the modern kafala system "was a product of the British colonial era, particularly the period from the 1920s until independence in the 1970s". Al-Shehabi notes that British colonial administrators, who viewed migrant labour "as both a necessity and a problem that needed to be regulated and controlled", introduced sponsorship requirements to control the migration of labourers to the Gulf states.
Workers' rights under kafala In January 2024, domestic workers constituted approximately 32.4% of female employment in the Arab states. Many continued to face various forms of abuse. According to the International Labour Organization, "The informal, unregulated and isolated nature of their work renders migrant domestic workers vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and forced labour. Often, they are denied many basic labour rights related to freedom of association, remuneration, working hours, periods of rest, retention of their identity documents, leave and freedom of movement outside the households they work in."
Exploitation of migrant workers may occur even before their arrival in the host country. Private recruitment agencies, which oversee significant portions of the migration process, engage in unethical practices such as imposing high recruitment charges, withholding workers' identity documents, and offering incomplete or inaccurate information about rights and working conditions. Recruitment also takes place through online social media chatrooms. For example, in March 2016, a closed Facebook group titled "Maids in Qatar," had nearly 9,000 members and featured dozens of weekly posts advertising or seeking domestic work. The Migrant Rights Research Open Repository argued that the lack of regulation of the chatrooms made workers vulnerable to traffickers.
Government policies have contributed to irregular recruitment channels. , the Philippines did not process employment contracts for workers bound for the United Arab Emirates, as the UAE had not permitted the Philippine labour attaché to verify contracts. This situation created a black market for Filipino domestic workers.
Recruitment agencies often advertise the salary of domestic workers according to the country of origin of the workers.
A 2024 Human Rights Watch report documented various labour rights violations impacting workers in the United Arab Emirates under the Kafala system. Employers were able to falsely charge workers for "absconding" in abusive situations, exposing workers to arrest, fines, and potentially deportation. Legal trade unions were absent. UAE based workers were also exposed to extreme weather conditions without sufficient protections.
Independent human rights organizations have advocated for an end to abuses against migrant workers. The United Nations special rapporteur on the protection of the labour and human rights of migrants reported on the human rights violations against migrant workers, and called on states to "align domestic laws with international standards and improve enforcement mechanisms."
Some instances of labour rights abuses led to governments imposing bans on their citizens working in the country where the abuses occurred. One case involved Jeanelyn Villavende, a migrant worker from the Philippines who was killed in Kuwait in January 2020 following severe physical and sexual abuse by her employers. Her death led the Philippine government to implement a deployment ban on Filipino workers bound for Kuwait.
These bans, while intended to protect migrant workers, may also place them in difficult circumstances. The International Labour Organization argued that the bans create difficulties for migrant women, citing a particular case in Nepal: "The age ban and total ban had a number of unintended consequences for women, including making potential women migrant workers apprehensive about revealing their plans for fear of being stopped from migrating. Potential migrant women are no longer attending orientation and training and are becoming less active in seeking out information from official sources. Travelling irregularly also excluded women migrant domestic workers from the benefits of private insurance, and the Welfare Fund in Nepal, namely financial compensation in case of accident or death in destination countries ... [The ban] had reduced the power of recruitment agencies and strengthened unlicensed migrant agents operating out of villages that are associated with deception, fraud and trafficking of women. Finally, many described migration for work as the only economic opportunity available to women, as well as a personal opportunity to travel, to avoid early marriage or abusive and/or unwanted relationships." Programs and initiatives intended to strengthen labour protections were introduced in some countries. In Oman, the Social Protection Law (Royal Decree No. 52/2023) expanded social security coverage to include foreign workers, providing benefits such as workplace injury protection, sick leave, and maternity leave. The government established individual accounts to finance end-of-service benefits for foreign workers.
The Omani law includes a number of broader reforms related to employment conditions, disciplinary procedures, penalties, and time limits for filing claims, as well as compensation for unfair dismissal. Among its provisions, the law specifies that dismissals on discriminatory grounds—such as sex, origin, color, language, religion, creed, social status, disability, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, or labor-union affiliation—constitute unfair dismissal. It outlines rules on working hours and types of leave and recognizes additional forms of employment, including casual, temporary, part-time, and remote work. The law further permits employees to terminate their employment.
Proposed reforms in several states have drawn criticism. Nisha Varia, of Human Rights Watch, stated that "even the proposed reforms [in regards to legal reforms in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Lebanon] fall short of international standards and the comprehensive protections other countries are implementing."
Grassroots organizations contribute to advocacy efforts on behalf of migrant domestic workers. Groups such as Migrant-Rights.org document reported abuses, promote public awareness, and support calls for policy reform.
Per country
Bahrain
In 2009, Bahrain was the first country in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to repeal the kafala system. In a public statement, the Labour Minister likened the system to slavery. Changes to the Labour Market Regulatory Law were made in April 2009 and implemented starting 1 August 2009. Under the new law, migrants are sponsored by the Labour Market Regulation Authority and can change from one employer to another without their employer's agreement. Three months' notice is required to quit from an employer.
However, in November 2009 Human Rights Watch stated that "authorities do little to enforce compliance" with "employers who withhold wages and passports from migrant employees ... practices [which] are illegal under Bahraini law."
Israel For years through the year 2006, Israel effectively maintained a kafala system, which in Israel was called the "binding system". As with the kafala system, migrant laborers in Israel were tied to a specific employer for the duration of their visas. Over the years when Israel maintained this system, passport confiscation and other abuses were systematic and effectively went unpunished.
The Israeli Supreme Court struck down the Israeli version of the kafala system in a landmark March 2006 decision, Kav LaOved Worker's Hotline v. Government of Israel, with the Court citing human rights concerns. While the 2006 decision removed the Israeli version of the kafala system in a formal sense, a 2014 study by Israeli labour scholars Adriana Kemp and Rebeca Raijman claimed that the binding system still applied to migrant domestic workers, though not to migrant workers in general. Abuses of migrant non-domestic workers in Israel remained widespread ; a 2015 study by Human Rights Watch found that almost all Thai migrant workers on kibbutzim in Israel lived in squalor, were denied regular days off, and were worked beyond, and paid below, legally mandated requirements.
Kuwait