On this year’s International Human Rights Day (10 December 2024), the ITUC-Asia Pacific reaffirms that the right to strike is a cornerstone of human rights for workers.
In 2012, the Employers’ Group within the International Labour Organization (ILO) contested the right to strike. While the Committee of Experts has long argued that Convention 87 implicitly guarantees this right, the Employers’ Group contends that the convention does not explicitly guarantee it and has challenged the Committee of Experts’ authority to interpret the convention.
This dispute remained unresolved within the ILO. In November 2023, the ILO Governing Body decided to refer the interpretation of Convention 87 regarding the right to strike to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under Article 37 of the ILO Constitution.
The challenge from the Employers’ Group presents two significant issues: it risks weakening tripartism and could undermine freedom of association itself.
The ILO and the League of Nations were created under the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and 1920, respectively. While the League of Nations failed due to political and institutional shortcomings and dissolved with the outbreak of World War II, the ILO has endured. It has consistently upheld its mission to protect workers’ rights and livelihoods through periods of economic and political crises, such as the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War.
The ILO's longevity and sustainability for over a century partly stems from its indirect approach to promoting global peace by addressing unemployment, poverty, and inequality – key drivers of conflict – through the development of labour standards. Over the years, the ILO has not only enacted international labour standards, but also provided technical assistance to member states for their application.
A key supervisory mechanism within the ILO is the dual structure comprising the Committee of Experts and the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) of the International Labour Conference (ILC). The Committee of Experts, comprising 20 eminent labour law specialists, reviews government reports and comments from employers’ and workers’ organisations and reports annually to the ILC. The CAS, in turn, debates the application of ratified conventions and issues recommendations for improvement. If recommendations are not seriously implemented, the supervisory process can be repeated.
Although the CAS recommendations do not carry legal force, they have significant social weight due to the tripartite agreement. For example, the resolution regarding forced labour in Myanmar – invoking Article 33 of the ILO Constitution for the first time in the history at the ILC in 2000 – was built on repeated CAS recommendations. This resolution played a key role in Myanmar’s subsequent democratisation. The high level of independence, neutrality, and expertise of the Committee of Experts have been the basis of the tripartite discussions at the CAS.
Convention 87 does not explicitly guarantee the right to strike. However, it is insufficient for legal experts to merely state this fact. Given its role in reviewing government reports, the Committee of Experts is expected to provide interpretative opinions.
For over 80 years, the position of the Committee of Experts has been untouchable in the tripartite constituents. It is difficult to understand why the Employers’ Group is now challenging the role of the Committee of Experts, which risks weakening tripartism and diminishing the value of the ILO.
If workers struggle individually to improve their working conditions, they would be outmatched by employers’ economic power. Forming trade unions and engaging in collective action provide workers with the means to defend and assert their rights effectively.
Strikes demonstrate that businesses rely on workers to function, highlighting the workers’ resolve and enabling them to negotiate with employers on an equal footing. For these reasons, the Committee of Experts has consistently held that “the right to strike is an intrinsic corollary of the right to organise protected by Convention 87.”
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, which aimed to give legal force to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and was adopted in the same year as Convention 87, guarantees the right to strike under Article 8(1)(d), provided it is in conformity with national laws. Article 8(2) allows the imposition of restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike by members of the armed forces or of the police, and Article 8(3) further states that the Covenant prohibits legislation that would prejudice the guarantees of Convention 87. Thus, neither recognising nor denying the right to strike inherently conflicts with Convention 87.
The Committee of Experts has consistently maintained that “the right to strike is an intrinsic corollary of the right to organise protected by Convention 87.” The right to strike is enshrined in many countries’ constitutions and general legislation on trade union and collective bargaining. While it is true that Convention 87 does not state the right to strike, this does not precludes its relevance when discussing Convention 87.
In their classic work The History of Trade Unionism (1894), Sidney and Beatrice Webb described the revolt of the Hebrew brickmakers in Egypt in 1490 BC as the very first strike. At that time, the king’s palace was built using bricks instead of stone, as the former is breathable and protects against the heat. To enhance the durability of buildings, straw was mixed with mud to make the bricks stronger.
However, the brickmakers were ordered to assemble bricks without straw in order to make production more efficient and profitable. The brickmakers then went on strike, saying, “We want to make quality bricks. Otherwise, many of our colleagues working in construction could be injured and the palace may collapse more easily.”
Workers do not strike solely for better wages and working conditions, but also for the greater good. Like the ancient brickmakers in Egypt who fought for the safety of their fellow construction workers and for the king to live in a safer palace, workers value the social benefits of their labour.
Without question, the right to strike allows workers to perform their duties with pride and dignity, an essential component of decent work.
Shoya Yoshida
General Secretary
ITUC-Asia Pacific
%201.svg)
%201.svg)
%201.svg)
