World's top court weighs in on whether the right to strike is protected under the ILO Convention No. 87
Workers' right to strike is protected under the ILO Convention No. 87, according to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), addressing the "persistent disagreement" among employers and employees.
In an advisory opinion, the ICJ said the right to strike of workers and their organisations "is protected under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)."
It made the conclusion following a vote of 10-4.
ICJ Vice-President Julia Sebutinde, who voted in favour, said the question on whether the right to strike was protected by international law can be answered in the affirmative by applying the general rule of interpretation in Article 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
"The ordinary meaning of the relevant provisions of Convention No. 87, read in good faith, in their context and in light of the Convention's object and purpose, supports the conclusion that protection of the right to strike falls within the scope of the freedom of association guaranteed by the Convention," said Sebutinde in a declaration cited by the ICJ's summary.
The Hague-based court noted, however, that its opinion did not define the exact scope of the right to strike.
"The Court's conclusion that the right to strike is protected by Convention No. 87 does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right," the opinion read.
The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, consisting of 15 judges with nine-year terms who are elected by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.
Its conclusion comes after the Governing Body of the International Labour Office raised the matter to the ICJ, following "serious and persistent disagreement" among governments, employers, and employees over the right to strike.
Victory for workers
The International Trade Union Congress (ITUC), which 191 million workers in 169 countries and territories, welcomed the ICJ's ruling saying it restores legal certainty in the international labour standards system.
"We thank the world court for this advisory opinion. The Court has confirmed that international law supports the longstanding understanding shared not only by unions, but across large parts of the ILO system for decades," said ITUC General Secretary Luc Triangle in a statement.
"This is an important moment for legal certainty, for social justice and for the credibility of the international labour standards system."
Other unions across the worlda also underscored the opinion's impact in boosting the confidence for workers amid growing pressure on collective bargaining rights globally.
"This will give workers a stronger voice to bargain for better wages, safer workplaces, and fairer and more democratic societies," said Michele O'Neil, president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in a statement.
"This ruling is important both for Australian workers and workers in countries with restrictive strike regimes or where courts have rejected workers' general right to strike."
Melissa Ansell-Bridges, secretary of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, added that the ruling is also "good news" for employers.
"This is a win for workers, but it's also good news for governments and responsible employers. Clear, predictable rules make for stable workplaces and constructive bargaining," Ansell-Bridges said in a statement.
The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), which is among the groups that advocated for the referral of the dispute through the ILO, called the ICJ's opinion a "victory for workers."
"The world's highest court has made it clear: workers do have the right to strike under international law. That clarity matters enormously for workers, unions, governments, and employers alike. And we're proud of the role that CLC played in securing this decision," said CLC president Bea Bruske in a statement.
