Right to strike protected under key labour treaty, says UN World Court

Right to strike protected under key labour treaty, says UN World Court

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that workers’ right to strike is protected under a major International Labour Organization (ILO) convention.

The UN World Court delivered the advisory opinion in a 10-4 decision. The ruling settles a long-running dispute between employers and workers around the world.

Based in The Hague, the ICJ serves as the main judicial organ of the United Nations. Fifteen judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council make up the Court.

The Court ruled that workers and their organizations have a protected right to strike under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948, also known as Convention No. 87.

Convention No. 87 gives workers and employers the right to form and join organizations of their choice without prior approval. It also protects those organizations from government interference.

The judges noted that the convention does not directly mention strikes. However, they said the absence of clear wording does not remove the protection.

Read Also: Hayatu-Deen cautions ADC against playing “old politics” ahead of…

According to the Court, strike action can fall within the “activities” of workers’ organizations under the convention. The judges also said workers must have the freedom to defend their interests through their organizations.

The ICJ stressed that the opinion does not define the exact limits of the right to strike.

The judges said the ruling does not determine the precise content, conditions, or scope of strike action. Instead, it confirms that the right exists under Convention No. 87.

The ILO Governing Body referred the case to the ICJ in November 2023 after years of disagreement among governments, employers, and workers.

The dispute focused on whether Convention No. 87 protects the right to strike even though the treaty does not specifically mention it.

Employers’ groups argued that the convention contains no wording that clearly supports a right to strike. They also said the treaty’s drafting history showed no intention to include strike action.

Workers’ representatives disagreed. They argued that the right to strike forms part of freedom of association. They also pointed to years of recognition by ILO supervisory bodies.

All the judges agreed that the ICJ had jurisdiction to answer the ILO’s request. However, four judges disagreed with the Court’s main conclusion on strike rights.

The Court described strike action as part of workers’ ability to organize and defend their interests under Convention No. 87.

The case marks only the second time in ILO history that the interpretation of an international labour convention has gone before a court.

It is also the first request involving an ILO convention sent to the ICJ since the Court was created in 1945.

Although ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry major legal and political influence. They often shape labour debates, national laws, and international legal standards.

The ILO Governing Body is expected to discuss the ruling and possible follow-up actions during its November session.