Source: UN News: Friday, October 10, 2025 00:01 AM
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has begun hearings on the issue of whether the right to strike is protected under international law. This is the first time that the world’s highest court has been asked to give its opinion on the balance between the rights of employees and the interests of employers. This matter, in 2023 the International Labor Organization (ILO)ILO) began at the request of the administrative body of the World Court. It asked the World Court to advise whether Convention on the Protection of Freedom of Association and the Right to Organize 1948 (No. 87) Convention 87, adopted after World War II, is considered the cornerstone of international labor law, ensuring the right of workers and employers to form and join organizations of their choice. Although this convention does not explicitly mention the right to strike, its advocates have long considered the right to freedom of association to include the right to strike.ICJ ILO President Yuji Iwasawa opened the hearing on the case on Monday by reading formal questions to the judges, citing ILO resolutions and the court’s procedural jurisdiction. He also drew attention to the ILO’s “tripartite structure,” which includes representatives of governments, employers and employees. A rare request. ILO legal counsel Tomi Kohiyama pointed out that the 1932 This is the first time the ILO has come before the ICJ for consultation, making this request a rarity in itself. He said the ILO Secretariat would not take a position on the matter, but would assist the Court in clarifying the institutional context and interpretative approach within the law of the Treaties. Steiner SA The Three Voices of the ILO The ILO was founded in 1919. It is unique in the UN system because of its tripartite structure, which brings together representatives of governments, employers and employees to set international labor standards. However, this balance has sometimes led to impasse. The most prominent example is from 2012, when employer groups raised the question of whether Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 recognize the right to strike. Arguments from both sides Papa Danquah, International Trade Union FederationituC), speaking on behalf of the Labor Party, described the strike as a timeless expression of collective action. He told the court, “Strike has been an important instrument of ours… for improving labor conditions and protecting our human dignity.” He argued that the right to strike is inherently part of the freedom of association and should therefore be recognized as protected under Convention No. 87. In contrast, the International Organization of Employers (IOE) Roberto Suárez Santos said that although the right to strike is not objectionable in principle, Convention No. 87 neither explicitly nor implicitly covers the right to strike. He warned that if it were now considered included in the Treaty, it would amount to imposing a prescriptive framework, that is, defining strike methods that could affect sensitive national labor systems. He said the right path was to build consensus within the ILO’s tripartite institutions, rather than unilaterally raise standards judicially. advisory opinionwill not be legally binding, but it could have a profound impact on international and national labor law.
