The International Court of Justice recently issued an advisory opinion affirming that an international labor treaty encompasses the right to strike, providing valuable clarity to provisions within the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (Convention No. 87) of the International Labour Organization (ILO). This decision throws significant light on the scope of the right to association as interpreted in international law. The court’s opinion concluded that although Convention No. 87 does not explicitly articulate the right to strike, the right to organize activities inherently includes it. Strikes—defined as temporary work stoppages or slowdowns by worker groups to advocate for their demands—are therefore considered a valid form of such activities.
This conclusion was contrary to arguments presented by employer groups like Business Africa and the International Organisation of Employers, who pushed for a narrower interpretation. They contended that the “activities” mentioned in the convention should be limited to internal matters, including negotiation and election of representatives, and argued that expanding the interpretation to include the right to strike contravened the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties. Despite objections from countries including Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Japan, and Switzerland, the fact that these nations have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which explicitly protects the right to strike in article 8(d), played a crucial role in the court’s reasoning.
The advisory opinion, while non-binding, is considered highly authoritative. The International Trade Union Confederation praised the ruling, highlighting that the right to strike is essential for protecting workers’ interests and promoting democratic principles. It aligns with wider international labor standards embedded in UN labor benchmarks, OECD guidelines, and various trade agreements, further underpinning its significance. For more information about the opinion and its implications, a detailed report can be found here.
Moreover, the ruling solidifies a broader international consensus on the importance of the right to strike. Several regional treaties, such as the European Social Charter and the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, explicitly guarantee this right. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently interpreted Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights as encompassing the right to strike. The latest advisory opinion by the ICJ underscores this evolving interpretation and reinforces worker rights across international jurisdictions.