The UN's highest court found that a key labor agreement protects workers' right to strike
Listen to this article
Average 3 minutes
The audio version of this article was created by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations may occur. We are working with our partners to continuously review and improve the results.
The United Nations' highest court issued a landmark advisory opinion on the right to strike on Thursday, finding that the basic labor agreement protects workers' ability to walk off the job.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was asked in 2023 by the International Labor Organization, a UN body, to resolve an internal dispute about whether one of the ILO conventions gives workers the right to strike.
Advisory opinions are not legally binding but carry significant weight. The decision could have global implications for labor laws, strengthening the right to strike in labor standards and international trade agreements.
The word “strike” does not appear in the 1948 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, but 14 ICJ judges found that strike actions are covered under other guarantees.
“The protection of the right to strike is linked to freedom of association,” said court president Yuji Iwasawa, reading the decision at the Great Hall of Justice in The Hague.
This convention has been ratified by 158 countries, including Canada, and is included in various employment guidelines and standards, including those from the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and various international trade agreements.
The United States is a member of the ILO but has not yet ratified the convention.
The right to strike may still be subject to restrictions
International labor law expert Paul van der Heijden said the ICJ's advisory opinion gives workers an important tool when their actions run counter to the law. The decision “is important when you go to court,” he told the Associated Press.
The judges were careful that in some cases, the right to strike may be limited. The opinion “does not include any determination of the precise content, scope or conditions of exercising that right,” Iwasawa said.
Most UN agencies can ask the ICJ to analyze legal questions and issue advisory opinions. Last year, the court said in a landmark opinion that countries may be violating international law if they fail to take steps to protect the world from climate change.
During the hearing in October, the court in The Hague heard from 18 countries and five international organizations, including the ILO, and several other countries that sent written arguments.
Most participants opted for the right to strike, a protection already granted in many European countries.
