International Court of Justice Backs Right to Strike in Advisory Opinion
The Hague, Netherlands — In a significant move, the United Nations’ principal judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), delivered an advisory opinion affirming that a key labor treaty supports workers’ right to strike. The decision stems from a request by the International Labor Organization (ILO) to resolve a debate on whether the ILO’s conventions uphold this right.
Although the advisory opinion lacks legal binding power, it holds considerable influence. The ruling could potentially reshape global labor practices by embedding the right to strike within labor standards and international trade agreements.
Labor unions around the globe have expressed strong approval of the decision. Christy Hoffman, general-secretary of UNI Global Union, emphasized the interconnectedness of organizing and striking rights, stating, “As any trade unionist will tell you, there is no right to organize without the right to strike!” She credited the success to the advocates who presented compelling arguments before the ICJ.
Despite the absence of the term “strike” in the 1948 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, the ICJ’s 14 judges concluded that strike actions are implicitly protected under other assurances. “The protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the freedom of association,” announced ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa at the Great Hall of Justice in The Hague.
The convention, ratified by 158 nations, is a cornerstone for various employment policies and standards, including those upheld by the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Notably, the United States, while a member of the ILO, has not ratified the convention.
Paul van der Heijden, an authority on international labor law, highlighted the significance of the ICJ’s opinion, stating it equips workers with a crucial defense when faced with legal challenges. He remarked that the opinion is particularly “important when you go to court.”
The ICJ, however, clarified that the opinion does not delineate the specific parameters or conditions for exercising the right to strike, acknowledging possible restrictions in certain situations.
The ICJ regularly provides advisory opinions at the request of U.N. agencies on various legal questions. For instance, last year, the court opined that nations could breach international law if they fail to safeguard the environment against climate change.
During the hearings held in October, the court heard testimonies from 18 countries and five international organizations, including the ILO, with several additional countries submitting written statements. An overwhelming majority supported the right to strike, a protection already recognized in numerous European nations.
