The International Court of Justice has declared that workers’ right to strike is protected under a key labour convention adopted by the International Labour Organization, ending years of debate between employers and labour unions around the world.
In a landmark advisory opinion delivered by a 10-4 majority, the court affirmed that the right of workers and their organisations to engage in strike action falls within the protections provided under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948, also known as Convention No. 87.
The ICJ, headquartered in The Hague, serves as the principal judicial arm of the United Nations and is made up of 15 judges elected by both the UN General Assembly and the Security Council.
Convention No. 87 guarantees workers and employers the freedom to establish and join organisations of their choice without prior approval, while also safeguarding those organisations from government interference.
Although the convention does not specifically mention strikes, the court ruled that the omission does not exclude strike action from the treaty’s protections.
According to the judges, the activities of workers’ organisations, as recognised under the convention, can reasonably include the right to organise strikes in defence of workers’ interests.
The court, however, clarified that its opinion did not define the exact limits or conditions under which strike action may be exercised.
“It does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope or conditions for the exercise of that right,” the judges stated.
The dispute was referred to the court by the ILO Governing Body in November 2023 after prolonged disagreements among governments, employers, and workers’ representatives over the interpretation of Convention No. 87.
Employers’ groups had argued that the convention’s wording and drafting history did not indicate any intention to include the right to strike.
Labour representatives, on the other hand, maintained that strike action is a fundamental part of freedom of association and has consistently been recognised by ILO monitoring bodies over the years.
The court noted that strike action could be linked to provisions protecting workers’ rights to form organisations and defend their interests collectively.
While all judges agreed that the ICJ had the authority to hear the matter, four judges disagreed with the majority’s conclusion on the protection of strike rights under the convention.
This marks only the second occasion in the history of the ILO that the interpretation of one of its labour conventions has been referred for judicial clarification, and the first time such a request has been presented to the ICJ since the court was established in 1945.
Although advisory opinions issued by the ICJ are not legally binding, they are widely regarded as highly influential and often shape international legal interpretation, labour policy, and political discussions across the world.