Notes on the Right to Strike and the ICJ

International Court of Justice

• Overview: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the UN's principal judicial organ, established in 1945 to settle disputes based on international law and issue advisory opinions.
• Composition: Comprises 15 judges elected for nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

Right to Strike Topic Synopsis

• Main Question: Is the right to strike protected under international law, particularly in the context of the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 87?
• Context: Disagreement exists on whether the right to strike is guaranteed by the ILO, affecting labor conditions, supply chains, and collective bargaining.
• Objective: This committee's role is to interpret international law for an advisory opinion that could restore functionality to the ILO and impact global workers' rights.

Committee Description

• Role of Judges: Each delegate represents personal views on the right to strike without national affiliations.
• Procedures: A no-tech committee where judges produce "findings" instead of resolutions, leading to a final advisory opinion.

Case Brief Guidelines

• Submission Requirements: Case briefs must be submitted by May 18, 2025, in PDF format, including sections like Background, Legal Precedent, Application, and Implications.
• Format Details: Should be single-spaced, using Times New Roman, size 12 font.

Background of the Case

• Initial Conflict: In 2012, the ILO faced internal conflict regarding the interpretation of Convention No. 87, leading to an external request for the ICJ's opinion due to failure to reach a consensus.
• Convention No. 87: Addresses freedom of association and protection of the right to organize.

Interpretation of Convention No. 87

• Core Question: Does Convention No. 87 protect the right to strike?
• Historical Interpretation: Previously, it was believed strikes for various reasons were protected, but ambiguity exists regarding specific protections.
• Arguments Exist For and Against:
  • Supporters assert that implicit protections are necessary for labor rights.
  • Opponents claim the lack of explicit mention limits protections, indicating only constitutional rights to organize.

Importance of the Right to Strike

1. Worker Protection: Historically used to demand better conditions and fair wages.
2. Autonomy and Power: Enables employees to challenge corporate dominance in the workplace.
3. Prevention of Abuse: Essential for holding corporations accountable.

Arguments Against the Right to Strike

1. Operational Disruption: Strikes can halt critical services, affecting broader community operations.
2. Economic Losses: Strikes may jeopardize financial stability for employees and employers alike.
3. National Sovereignty: International protections may infringe on a country's regulatory power.

The Gray Area of Striking

• Judges should consider limiting strikes in essential services, sectors with national security concerns, and political strikes, as well as the conditions under which strikes can legally occur.

International Models

• Alternatives: Other international frameworks like the ICESCR explicitly protect the right to strike, albeit subject to national laws, which varies globally.
• European Social Charter: Offers protections but is geographically limited to Europe.
• ECHR Article 11: Implicitly protects collective bargaining and actions like striking.

Implications of the Court's Decision

• For Workers: Total support for the right to strike could enhance worker empowerment globally, while a restriction could diminish their rights.
• For the ILO: The ruling will significantly impact the ILO's authority in interpreting labor rights and conventions.

Questions to Consider

1. Does Convention No. 87 explicitly protect the right to strike?
2. What supporting documents or cases favor a broader interpretation?
3. Should only specific types of strikes be protected and why?
4. How does the right to strike correspond with other fundamental rights?
5. How might limiting certain types of strikes affect the groups within the ILO?

Conclusion

• The ICJ’s advisory opinion on the right to strike will carry profound implications not only for workers' rights globally but also for the legitimacy and authority of the ILO and its interpretations of international labor law.