I'm going to put some of my general comments here before I begin editing so Sam and everyone can look in the history to see my thought process. My first thought is that you spend a lot of time in the build-up and the explanation of the history and effectiveness of Swedish law, while not spending a lot of time on asking the questions that these problems create and what they mean. In particular, I thought there were two areas which could have been explored more: why people think domestic issues are more important, and what the limitations of the law are in this area and how to overcome them. As to the first, my personal intuition as to why people would care more about the US than anywhere else is taxes. If we are paying the money, we want it spent on ourselves. How do we justify spending it elsewhere, especially if we don't see any material benefit to us being returned? And especially if the host country won't even cooperate? As to the lawyering issue, a few things come to mind. First, how does a lawyer tackle a problem which does not have any law, or minimal law, to back it up? How can we use existing laws to further our goals when there isn't much that looks on point? Second, a major problem in this area would presumably be that because these are criminal statutes, only prosecutors can bring the cases, so there is only a subset of lawyers who could even do this if they wanted to. Given the political realities for most prosecutors, how do we move these types of cases further up in their agenda? And lastly, what if for the time being this really is just a political issue? How does a lawyer deal with that? And how do we get at the real problem (the pimps and organizers) if the host country won't? All these issues arise from your factual premise, and I intend to try to incorporate them in my rewrite.