A. Introduction

1. In accordance with article 7 of its Standing Orders, the Conference set up a Committee to consider and report on item III of its agenda: "Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations". The Committee was composed of 192 members (109 Government members, 27 Employers' members and 56 Workers' members). It also included 13 Government deputy members, 31 Employers' deputy members and 103 Workers' deputy members. (Endnote 1) In addition, 31 non-governmental international organisations were represented by observers. (Endnote 2)

2. The Committee elected its Officers as follows:

Chairman: Mr. J.J. Elmiger (Government member, Switzerland);

Vice-Chairmen: Mr. A. Wisskirchen (Employers' member, Federal Republic of Germany); and Mr. W. Peirens (Workers' member, Belgium);

Reporter: Mr. A. Callorda (Government member, Uruguay).

3. The Committee held 21 sittings.

4. The Committee learned with deep regret of the death on 14 March 1991 of Jef Houthuys, Workers' Vice-Chairman of the Committee from 1969 to 1989. The members of the Committee paid tribute to his outstanding contribution to the pursuit of social justice, both in his own country and through his participation in many international organisations, and particularly in the activities of the ILO. He always showed sincerity, integrity and wisdom, and was in all circumstances a man of dialogue in carrying out his duties as Vice-Chairman of the Committee.

5. Pursuant to its terms of reference, the Committee considered the following questions: (i) information on the submission to the competent authorities of Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the Conference supplied under article 19 of the Constitution; (ii) reports on the application of ratified Conventions, supplied under articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution; and (iii) reports requested by the Governing Body under article 19 of the Constitution on the Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140), and Recommendation, 1974 (No. 148), and the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142) and Recommendation, 1975 (No. 150). (Endnote 3)

6. As usual, the Committee began its work with a discussion of general questions relating to the application of Conventions and Recommendations and the discharge by member States of their obligations under the ILO Constitution and the Conventions they have ratified. The Committee then exchanged views on the general survey made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, which dealt with human resources development (vocational guidance and training, and paid educational leave). Finally, it considered a number of individual cases concerning the application of ratified Conventions or compliance with the obligation to supply reports and to submit Conventions and Recommendations to the competent national authorities. The examination of these cases, which was the essential work of the Committee, was based mainly on the observations contained in the report of the Committee of Experts and on the oral and written explanations provided by the governments concerned. The Committee also relied on its discussions in previous years, on comments received from employers' or workers' organisations or, where appropriate, on the reports of other ILO supervisory bodies. In view of the short time available, the Committee followed its usual practice of making a selection among all of the Committee of Experts' observations and consequently discussed a relatively limited number of cases. The necessity of making this choice in no way alters the conclusions of the Committee of Experts in the other cases in which it appeared appropriate to that Committee, in view of the kind of problems encountered, to ask the governments concerned to supply information to the present session of the Conference. The Committee therefore trusts that these governments will pay close attention to the requests of the Committee of Experts and will not fail to take the measures required to ensure respect for the obligations they have undertaken. A summary of the information supplied by governments, of the discussions in the Committee and of any conclusions reached by it, is set out in Part Two of this report.

7. Referring to a statement he had made to the Committee in 1990, in which he had expressed regret that important and serious cases were not examined systematically, the Workers' member of the Netherlands questioned the criteria applied by the Committee of Experts in deciding on footnotes. He noted as an example that, this year, the Committee of Experts' observations on cases concerning the application of Conventions on freedom of association which had previously been the object of special paragraphs or which were very serious had not been accompanied by footnotes. He stressed that the absence of a footnote did not prevent the Committee from examining the case, and recalled the need to ensure continuity and greater consistency in following up the examination of cases. The representative of the Secretary-General recalled that the Conference Committee had been obliged, because of the increase in the number of member States, Conventions and ratifications, and in the comments made by the Committee of Experts, to examine only a limited number of the cases included in the Committee of Experts' report. The Committee of Experts felt that it was its duty to draw the attention of the Conference Committee through footnotes to certain cases which it considered important. By these footnotes, the Committee of Experts could point out cases in which there had been remarkable progress or, more frequently, those which raised serious problems of application. It could also point out cases in which it felt that the Conference was an occasion for governments to communicate the necessary information, or cases in which interesting developments might occur between the session of the Committee of Experts and the Conference. This choice of cases had never constituted an obligation for the Conference Committee which could add other cases or decide not to examine cases to which the Committee of Experts had drawn attention.

B. General questions relating to international labour standards

Supervisory system

8. The Committee recognised generally the remarkable quality of the Committee of Experts' report, and paid tribute to the principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality which continued to guide that Committee's work. The Employers' and Workers' members agreed that the supervisory system had to be strengthened, and that it was important that standards be correctly applied. Several Government members (Australia, Benin, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark (speaking on behalf of the Nordic governments), France, Kenya, Spain, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay) also made statements to this effect.

9. Referring to the reservations which they had expressed on some elements of the report, the Employers' members stated that a critical dialogue in a spirit of cooperation was the essence of the work of the Conference Committee and the basis on which they would cooperate with all the Committee's members. The Employers' member of the United States stressed that the Employers' group firmly supported the supervisory machinery, and that their comments should be seen as a positive attempt to reinforce the system and to increase the standing of its conclusions. The Government members of the United Kingdom and of the USSR considered that criticisms and occasional disagreements were the sign of a fruitful dialogue.

10. The Employers' member of Sweden stated that he agreed with other members of the Committee concerning the need to provide the supervisory machinery with all the resources necessary to allow it to function perfectly. He was convinced that this supervisory mechanism was the best which existed in any universal international organisation, and wanted it to be respected while being as efficient as possible.

11. The Government member of China stated that his Government attached considerable importance to the role of international labour standards. Their application in law and in practice strengthened the protection of workers, improved their working conditions and eliminated inequality. He was pleased that the Government members of the present Committee shared this view of the importance of the role of the Conference Committee as an instrument for positive dialogue.

12. The Government member of Germany referred to the supervisory system of the European Social Charter and compared it with that of the ILO. Considering the volume of work facing the ILO Committee of Experts, it needed considerable support and therefore the staff should not be reduced. The Workers' member of Germany recalled the differences between the supervisory systems of the European Social Charter and of the ILO, and pointed out in particular that the Governmental Committee of the Charter did not have a tripartite structure as did the Conference Committee. He did not feel that the systems could be compared.

Respective roles and terms of reference of the supervisory bodies

13. The Employers' members recalled that for several years, they had been insisting that the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee were part of the several branches of the ILO's supervisory system. The specific terms of reference of the Committee of Experts had been laid down in 1927 and had not changed in substance, while the Conference Committee's own competence was defined in article 7 of the Standing Orders of the Conference. The negative statement that neither the Committee of Experts nor the Conference Committee was a court of law was not sufficient for understanding the positive functions of these supervisory bodies. The report of the Committee of Experts was an important starting-point for the work of the Conference Committee, but the Employers' members did not consider that the Conference Committee was bound by the Experts' opinions. They referred to the statement made by the Committee of Experts in paragraph 7 of the report it had submitted to the Conference in 1990, in which it had said that its views were to be considered as valid and generally recognised so far as they are not contradicted by the International Court of Justice. The Employers' members felt that this amounted to a statement that their interpretation was binding so long as the International Court of Justice had not decided otherwise, and that this was and continued to be unacceptable because it had no juridical support. They considered that the comments made by the Experts in paragraphs 10 to 13 of their report this year showed a significant movement in their position. They noted in particular that the Committee of Experts had themselves stated, in paragraphs 11 and 12 of its report, that it was not the only body to deal with the problem of application of Conventions, and that its evaluations did not prevail erga omnes, and that the Employers' members of the Conference Committee could reserve the right to depart from these evaluations. The Employers' members considered that logically, and even more emphatically, the Conference Committee had the same right. They considered that the fact that the Conference Committee could have an opinion different from that expressed by the Committee of Experts did not decide the question of the degree to which member States were bound by the evaluations of the Committee of Experts or of the Conference Committee.

14. The Employers' member of the United States, associating himself with the remarks made by the spokesman for the Employers' members concerning paragraphs 9 to 13 of the general report of the Committee of Experts, recalled the terms of reference and evolution of the role of the Committee of Experts since 1927; the Committee's authority had increased, and this had been generally accepted because of its independence, impartiality and objectivity; and as a result its conclusions and interpretations as to the meaning and scope of Conventions had acquired substantial credibility which, from the viewpoint of the Employers' members, were generally accepted. They did not, however, consider that the Committee of Experts was infallible even if it was composed of eminent jurists. He suggested that, in order to improve the working relationship between the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts, the Experts should consider fully the questions of method and substance raised by the members of the Conference Committee and respond to them. Part of the dialogue between the two committees implied that differences of view be re-examined in order to decide whether the views expressed originally were correct or should be modified. He recalled that dialogue was not a one-way process and the Experts should not expect that their views would be adopted automatically in all cases by the Conference Committee. He suggested that the Committee of Experts highlight cases in which it adopted a new opinion or developed an earlier one; and that it refer to the basis of the conclusion drawn, as was sometimes done in general surveys, so that its interpretations would be readily evident to all. This was particularly important because the Conference Committee was able to examine only a part of the comments made by the Committee of Experts. The Employers' member of the United States concluded by saying that, in a democratic institution, dialogue includes criticism as well as praise.

15. The Employers' member of Turkey recalled that although the report of the Committee of Experts was the basis of the work of the Conference Committee, the latter could nevertheless express and support opinions divergent from those of the Experts. He considered that if a member of the Conference Committee convinced a majority of members to accept a position different from that of the Experts, there would be no use in bringing a case before the International Court of Justice. He recalled that the Committee of Experts had stated that the position of the Employers' members was not incompatible with the principles set out in paragraph 7 of its 1990 report. He also referred to paragraph 13 of the 1991 report of the Committee of Experts in which it said that, in examining the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it had taken into consideration the indications and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association. He stressed that the members of that Committee were not lawyers and that by accepting interpretations given by non-lawyers the Committee of Experts had agreed that political protest and sympathy strikes were legitimate, although this had produced unfair results. In this connection, the representative of the Secretary-General provided information on the composition of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the members of which were appointed in their own names, and the chairman of which was presently an independent person who was also a member of the International Court of Justice.

16. The Workers' members fully supported the comments made by the Committee of Experts in paragraphs 10 to 13 of its report this year. They recalled that the role of the Committee of Experts was essentially to verify whether the national law and practice were compatible with ratified Conventions, which implied that it had to examine the scope of the provisions of Conventions and express its views in relation to them. The role of the Conference Committee, which was composed of representatives of each of the parties directly concerned by the application of Conventions and not of independent experts, was to conduct in the most democratic manner possible a full examination of the Committee of Experts' report in order to analyse the implementation of standards at the national level in selected cases and to consider how their observance could be improved. The Workers' members considered that neither the assessments of the present Committee nor the views expressed by the Committee of Experts had the force of law, although the opinion of the Committee of Experts was generally accepted in view of the Committee's composition and working methods, subject to a definitive interpretation by the International Court of Justice. They agreed with the Experts that the proper functioning of the standards system required that a State, which was responsible under the ILO Constitution for the application of Conventions it had ratified, should not contest the views expressed by the Committee of Experts regarding the application of Convention which the State had ratified, and at the same time refrain from appealing to the International Court of Justice. As concerned the right to hold an opinion different from that of the Experts, the Workers' members considered that the scope of this right was not very clear. It was not correct to question the unanimous jurisprudence of the Committee on Freedom of Association or the point of view of the Experts on the established interpretation of a Convention, during the discussion of individual cases. In any case, the Workers' members felt that the right to hold a different opinion did not extend to States bound by Conventions.

17. The Workers' member of Pakistan recalled that in many countries, the opinions of the supervisory bodies had finally prevailed when there had been differences of opinion between them and governments. The Workers' members of Finland (speaking also in the name of the Workers' member of Norway), Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom emphasised the risk to the supervisory system imposed by the attitude of governments which, when they disagreed with the Committee of Experts, then refused to modify their law and practice and refrained from appealing to the International Court of Justice to obtain a definitive interpretation of the Convention concerned. The Workers' member of Sri Lanka considered that, if the members of the Conference Committee could comment on the views expressed by the Committee of Experts, it did not mean that they could superimpose their judgement on that of the Committee of Experts, because the objective should be to strengthen the supervisory mechanism of the ILO and to ensure that the views of the Experts were followed by governments. The Workers' member of the United States recalled the statement he had made before the Committee in 1990 on the need for cooperation and harmony with the Employers' members on the views of the Committee of Experts, and for general respect for its views.

18. The Workers' member of the United Kingdom stated that the Employers' members' right to a different opinion from that expressed by the Committee of Experts, admitted by that Committee in paragraph 12 of its report, did not mean that the Conference as a whole had the right to disagree. He felt that the Employers' and Workers' members' right to disagree could not be applied to governments. Workers and employers had no international legal responsibility to uphold a Convention ratified by their government. Governments, however, were answerable to the Committee of Experts and to the present Committee. He stated that governments therefore had to accept the view of the Committee of Experts or appeal to the International Court of Justice for a definitive opinion. He felt that no in-between position was possible and that there should be no equivocation on this point.

19. Referring to paragraphs 10 to 13 of the report of the Committee of Experts, the Government member of Saudi Arabia (speaking also in the name of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) evoked the right of all countries to contest the opinions of the Committee of Experts concerning the implementation of the provisions of a ratified Convention, as the views of the Committee of Experts were neither definitive nor binding. The Government member of the United Kingdom expressed the hope that acceptance by the Committee of Experts of the employers' right to depart from its views concerning the interpretation of Conventions would also extend to governments. It was for the Conference Committee to debate in detail the different opinions expressed concerning the interpretation of Conventions, and this dialogue provided the raison d'être for the present Committee's existence.

20. The Government member of Uruguay stated that he fully supported paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Committee of Experts' report. The Government member of Australia expressed his appreciation for the additional considerations expressed by the Committee of Experts in paragraphs 10 to 13 of its report, especially as concerned the relationship between the two committees, and stated that his Government agreed with the statements in those paragraphs. The Government member of Belgium stated that it was essential for the ILO supervisory system that the opinions expressed by the Committee of Experts, as described in paragraphs 10 to 13 of its report, be considered valid and generally admitted.

21. The Government member of France stated that the report of the Committee of Experts and the discussion in the Conference Committee clarified the place in the supervisory system of the different bodies, which had different and complementary roles. The Committee of Experts had explained at length in its report the significance of its role as a body for technical and legal instruction; the Conference Committee symbolised tripartite dialogue; the Conference plenary provided political approval for its report and eventually, as the key link in the system, the International Court of Justice provided the final recourse for the interpretation of the Constitution and of Conventions.

22. The Government member of the USSR recalled that no other ILO body had been the subject of as much criticism as the Committee of Experts in relation to its working methods and procedures, at different periods of its history, which indicated the difficulty of its task. Its mandate is to give a formal and juridical evaluation of the application of Conventions ratified by States, without giving too much significance to the economic and social characteristics of each State, as this would be prevent it from doing its job properly. He felt that a future development of the ILO supervisory machinery might place the Committee of Experts on an equal footing with the Conference Committee, in order to enhance and develop the cooperation between these two bodies.

23. The Government member of the United States noted with satisfaction the remarks in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the report of the Committee of Experts. She felt that the efficiency of the ILO supervisory system could be significantly enhanced by the responsible participation of all the members of the present Committee, including governments, in the broad spectrum of issues before it. Recalling that the Committee had been established in 1927 in order to carry out a tripartite dialogue on the application of Conventions and Recommendations, she stressed that more active participation of all members would provide better feedback to the Committee of Experts of the views of the Conference Committee.

24. The Government member of Denmark, speaking in the name of the Nordic governments, recalled that these countries considered that the function of the Committee of Experts was to give independent legal opinions, which was responsible for the wide respect accorded it in the international community for its independence, objectivity and impartiality. Along with the Government members of Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States, she stressed that the general acceptance of the views of the Committee of Experts also relied on a formal dialogue between that Committee and governments, and considered that dialogue with governments would continue to be the most important instrument for the application of standards.

25. The Government member of Cuba stated that in paragraphs 10 to 13 of its report, the Committee of Experts had described in a well-balanced and acceptable manner the ways in which it had to carry out its tasks. She recalled the principles of objectivity, independence and impartiality which guided the work of the Committee of Experts, and stressed the need to bring together the experience and knowledge of legal systems in member States with the knowledge of their social and economic realities. Without questioning the universality of standards, she recalled that the particular conditions and levels of economic and social development in each country should not be ignored by the Committee of Experts.

26. As concerns the question of interpretation of ILO Conventions more specifically, the Employers' members stated that the possibility of holding an opinion divergent from the Experts' legal evaluations was not excluded, in particular on points where it is clear that it is very important that appropriate legal criteria be applied in the interpretation of obligations under a Convention. While the principles of independence, objectivity and impartiality are indispensable in the work of the Experts, they felt that the Experts were required to follow the criteria of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The criteria of interpretation contained in this instrument cannot be set aside by simply recognising that there is a similarity of opinion between different ILO bodies, as is done for instance with the Committee on Freedom of Association, which examines whether member States respect freedom of association principles, and not on the basis of reports submitted under article 22 of the Constitution. The application of the Vienna Convention was uncontested in international law. The Experts themselves had specifically referred to that Convention in paragraphs 54 and 244 of the 1990 General Survey on Convention No. 147. Another uncontested principle of international law was in dubio mitius (i.e. if the wording of a treaty provision is not clear, in choosing between several admissible interpretations, the one which involves the minimum of obligations for the Parties should be adopted). The Employers' members did not insist on this principle for its own sake, but because of its concrete bearing on the manner in which important issues are interpreted and applied in practice, such as the right to strike, which was not even written into the relevant Convention but had become the subject of minutely elaborated principles derived by way of interpretation.

27. The Employers' members further denied assertions that had been made suggesting that they had, by their interventions, behaved like the previously socialist countries by attacking the foundations of the supervisory machinery, or by challenging the behaviour of communist countries but not similar behaviour by Western countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Employers' members were glad that they had then succeeded, together with many other members of the Committee, in defending the supervisory system against these attacks. The former communist countries had challenged comments on legal systems which, at the level of the national Constitution, excluded the existence of free trade unions and employers' organisations outside the State Party. The present dissent concerned questions of detail regarding the right to strike, which was not even written into the relevant Convention but had become the subject of minutely-elaborated principles derived by way of interpretation. This being said, the Employers' members massively supported the ILO supervisory system, of which the present Committee was an integral part.

28. In support of the statement of the Employers' members, the Employers' member of the United States recalled that over the last few years the Employers' members had raised a few problems which they attributed to the misinterpretation of a few Conventions, such as those concerning labour inspection, fee-charging employment agencies, maritime questions and freedom of association. ILO Conventions were frequently drafted in general terms, or with flexibility clauses which allowed a certain latitude in their implementation. No matter how desirable the expansion of social policy which the Experts might deem to be in conformity with the spirit of a particular Convention, it was inappropriate for the Experts to function as a supranational legislature if their interpretation was not within the contemplation of the tripartite Committee which drafted the Convention. It was in acting without restraint that the Committee of Experts might introduce the very legal uncertainty which it considered as undermining the "proper functioning of the standard-setting system of the ILO". He indicated that the Committee of Experts should be guided in interpretations by the principles laid down in the Vienna Convention, as he considered that it had recognised in its General Survey on the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147). It was inappropriate for the Committee of Experts to adopt in full the decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, which were founded on general principles and were not limited to the terms of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), thus extending the scope of these Conventions beyond what was intended by their drafters, as reflected in their texts and legislative history.

29. The representative of the Secretary-General recalled in this connection that it was essential for the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts to keep each other informed on how they had dealt with situations submitted to them for examination. The Committee on Freedom of Association thus took account of the conclusions and comments of the Committee of Experts, and the Committee of Experts sometimes dealt with cases dealt with by the Committee on Freedom of Association when those cases had a legal aspect and raised questions of principle affecting the application of Conventions.

30. The Employers' member of Sweden wished to provide information to the Committee concerning the possibility of requesting a definitive interpretation of Conventions from the International Court of Justice. In the first place, paragraph 3 of Article IX of the Agreement between the United Nations and the ILO provided that a request for an advisory opinion could be addressed to the Court by the Conference or by the Governing Body acting in pursuance of an authorisation by the Conference. Under a resolution adopted by the Conference in 1949, the Governing Body had a general authorisation in this respect. It was in this framework that the application of article 37, paragraph 1, of the Constitution should be seen. Under this provision, any question or dispute relating to the interpretation of the Constitution or a Convention shall be referred for decision to the Court. Secondly, under the complaints procedure laid down in articles 26 to 34 of the Constitution, a government which does not accept the recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry may appeal to the Court within three months. He noted that these procedures had barely been used in the past, which showed that access to the International Court of Justice was not easy. He also recalled the statement made by the Government member of France to the Conference Committee in 1990 drawing attention to the possibilities offered by article 37, paragraph 2, of the Constitution providing for the establishment of a special tribunal for deciding on disputes concerning the application of a Convention.

31. The Workers' members questioned the arguments made by the Employers' members concerning the use by the Committee of Experts of the method of interpretation provided for at Article 31 of the Vienna Convention. They believed that ILO Conventions were not comparable to traditional treaties between States as the parties concerned were not only States but also organisations of employers and workers, who participated in their elaboration. In addition, Article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention provides that practice may be used to identify the intention of the parties in a given interpretation. The Workers' members considered that the fact that the parties are not States alone, meant that nonconforming practice by one or several States should not reflect upon the intention of the parties. Moreover, the tripartite preparatory work for the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), proved that this Convention had to be interpreted very broadly, particularly as concerns the right to join organisations of one's choice, which was recognised for all workers without distinction of any kind. They recalled the proposal made by one of their members in 1990 that the Office prepare a manual of procedures concerning article 37 of the Constitution. As concerned the creation of a tribunal as provided for in article 37, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, to which they were not opposed, the Workers' members asked how such a tribunal would differ from the Committee of Experts, in particular as concerns its composition.

32. The Workers' member of Norway, speaking also on behalf of the Workers' members of Denmark and Finland, proposed the establishment of an independent tribunal, to be called the International Court of Social Justice, which would be competent to resolve difficulties on the interpretation of Conventions and would improve the functioning of the supervisory system. This Court would have a tripartite composition. It would be able to revise interpretations given by the Committee of Experts, as well as the conclusions and recommendations of the committees and commissions provided for in articles 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution. The Court's legal competence could limited, in the first instance, to the most fundamental ILO Conventions such as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) and the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). He suggested that these proposals, which would certainly involve fundamental changes including amendments to the ILO Constitution, be discussed in more depth. The Government member of Romania supported this proposal which he felt might involve lower costs to the ILO than Commissions of Inquiry.

33. Referring to the Committee of Experts' opinion that, in order to implement its mandate, it has the right to express its opinions on the contents of provisions of international labour Conventions, the Government member of the USSR felt that this should be discussed separately in order to find an adequate solution to the problem. The Government member of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the Nordic governments, felt that perhaps the Committee of Experts went too far when it suggested that a government which did not agree with its interpretation would have to obtain a legally binding opinion from the International Court of Justice. She considered that this obligation was not within the spirit of article 37 of the ILO Constitution. She recalled that no request for an advisory opinion on the interpretation of an international labour Convention had been submitted to the Court since the Second World War.

34. The Government member of Cuba, while not doubting the possibility of continuous improvement in the whole supervisory machinery which had given proof of its capacity to adapt, advocated caution against the proposal to create new bodies or procedures which differed from those in existence, since this would add new difficulties for some developing countries in complying with their obligations towards the ILO.

35. The Workers' member of Spain stated that at no time should the right of appeal to the International Court of Justice be placed in doubt, because the right to turn to a legal entity different from the one which produced a standard was a democratic requirement that could not be questioned.

36. The Government member of France recalled that Conventions are composite texts resulting from a tripartite compromise, which governments must ratify without reservations if they wished to adhere to them. It would therefore be important to have a competent authority for the interpretation of international labour Conventions, which are not classical treaties negotiated by diplomats. Referring to the statement of the Employers' member of Sweden concerning the absence of recourse to the procedure provided for in article 37 of the ILO Constitution, he suggested the creation of a supplementary level in the system of supervising the application of standards, under article 37(2) of the Constitution. He considered that nothing in this provision would preclude adding a dose of tripartism, which would respond to the concerns expressed by the Workers' member of Norway. The Government member of the United Kingdom supported this proposal and suggested that the Office consider what was needed to put article 37(2) of the Constitution into effect.

37. The representative of the Secretary-General noted the proposals, which would be duly examined.Composition of the Committee of Experts

38. The Government member of Germany, comparing the Committee of Independent Experts for the European Social Charter and the ILO Committee of Experts, stressed that there was only one woman among the 20 members of the Committee of Experts, while the Committee of Independent Experts counted two women among its seven members. He added that this should be taken into consideration by the ILO, which supports the principle of equality between men and women.

39. The Workers' members paid tribute to Mr. K. Ikawa and to Mr. A.L. Sussekind who had ceased to be members of the Committee of Experts, for the remarkable contribution they had made to the work of the supervisory bodies. The Government member of the United States joined in this tribute. The Workers' member of Luxembourg, while not doubting in any way the qualities or merits of the members of the Committee, nor the value of their accumulated experience, pointed out that an increasing number of the members of the Committee were approaching retirement age. He wondered whether whether a greater mobility of members of the Committee of Experts should not be encouraged while at the same time not calling into question the continuity so necessary for its work. Such an approach should be seen as a constant rejuvenation of the Committee in order to avoid its falling into routine. The Government member of the United States referred to this statement and expressed her Government's strong hope that the revitalisation and rejuvenation of the ILO would not result in the automatic replacement of members of the Committee of Experts when they reached a given age, but rather in a policy in which the Director-General and the Governing Body would consider very carefully the matter of appointment and reappointment of members of the Committee of Experts on a strictly individual basis. To institute an arbitrary age of retirement would in some cases rob the Organisation unnecessarily of the talents and experience of many present members of the Committee of Experts who had served and continued to serve not only with distinction but with vigour. It would also be regrettable to restrict the list of candidates for new posts on the Committee of Experts on the sole criterion of their age. Part of the Committee's prestige came from the vast experience and wisdom which its members had achieved over long and distinguished legal careers. In the interests of continuity and stability in the supervision of standards, it was necessary to be wary before adopting a policy which would result in a drastic change in the composition of the Committee of Experts within a very short period of time.

Constitutional procedures of complaints and representations and other procedures

40. The Employers' members stated that the different constitutional procedures mentioned in the report seemed to be becoming more and more important. Each had its own function and significance, and no objective ranking could be established as to their relative importance. Noting the large number of cases brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association in 1990, the Employers' members considered that some of them could have been settled at a national level and suggested that the Committee should deal with only the most urgent cases, though of course recourse to the ILO procedures remained open.

41. The Workers' members and the Government member of Portugal considered that recourse to the special procedures of complaints and representations, and to the Committee on Freedom of Association, showed the vitality of standards and the wide-spread confidence in which the ILO supervisory system is held. The Workers' members and the Government member of Denmark, speaking also on behalf of the Nordic governments, noted with satisfaction that the Government of South Africa had agreed that the complaint submitted by the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) could be referred to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association.

42. The Government member of Romania, referring to paragraph 25 of the report of the Committee of Experts concerning the complaint against Romania, stated that the report of the Commission of Inquiry which had been received by his Government on 20 May 1991, had been submitted to the ILO Governing Body on 30 May, and that his Government would shortly have the occasion to reply to the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry.

The scope of changes, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, as related to international labour standards

43. The Employers' members stated that the political and economic restructuring in certain countries represented much more than a simple change in the economic order. This had mostly been carried out by the victims of the former system who had opposed dictatorship through pressing for fundamental human rights. These changes went to the core of the institutions and of the social order, and signalled the end of the division of the world into irreconcilable blocs. This process was continuing, but the attainment of the principles of democracy, freedom and justice would be a long and difficult task. They considered as well that these positive developments did not mean that all the problems of the world had been resolved. They hoped that justice and liberty would continue to progress and become stronger. The Employers' members also hoped that all possible assistance would be offered to the States concerned in order to integrate them into the community of free nations. To dwell exclusively on the difficulties of the economic transition period was a failure to grasp the dimensions of the historic event.

44. The Employers' member of Algeria recalled the powerful liberation movement against all forms of totalitarianism which was developing on a world scale, but which was still weak because of the worsening international economic crisis and its negative social implications, accompanied by attacks on human rights. This movement had to be consolidated by the international community in order to become irreversible.

45. The Workers' members referred to what had been achieved and to different aspects, both promising and disquieting, of the situation in central and eastern Europe. They recalled that special attention was needed to the promotion of the social dimension and of tripartism in the profound reform of economic structures taking place in these countries and in the implementation of structural adjustment programmes. Any other approach would, they felt, lead to economic failure and many human tragedies. The Workers' member of Israel stressed that the development of many countries towards democracy and market economies constituted a historic development for all humanity, and that a majority of ILO member States had chosen economic and social development founded upon the principles of democracy, justice and liberty, thus guaranteeing a lasting peace.

46. The Government members of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania informed the Committee of changes in their countries' legislation to adapt it to structural changes and to the new socio-economic mechanisms which were being installed. The Government member of Romania referred to the enormous changes which had taken place in his country since 1989, with the establishment and consolidation of democratic institutions. The Government member of the USSR referred to the new economic conditions in his country and stated that international labour standards were providing a useful basis for the legislative changes which had become necessary.

47. The Workers' member of France stated that it was impossible to remain indifferent to the positive developments in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. These countries were calling for understanding regarding the time needed to complete the developments now going on, which should be accepted while taking care that ILO principles, in particular tripartism, were respected.

Standard-setting activities

48. The Employers' and Workers' members recalled their attachment to the principle of universality of international labour standards.

49. Several members of the Committee also expressed their attachment to this principle. The Government member of Japan stated that international labour standards played a crucial role in promoting social justice, and therefore in the maintenance of world peace. The Government member of Australia stated that his Government was, in addition, firmly committed to a tripartite approach to the development and implementation of international labour standards, and supported all measures which to ensure that the special needs of different countries were taken into account when Conventions and Recommendations were being adopted. His Government considered that future standard-setting activity should have a promotional character whenever possible.

50. The Government member of China hoped that future standards would be more flexible, because most member States of the ILO were developing countries, and it was necessary to take their realities into account so that they could meet the requirements of international labour standards and apply them in the most effective manner, which would in turn contribute to strengthening national legislation and to promoting economic and social progress. The Government member of Australia stressed that there were limits to flexibility: the need for flexibility had to be taken into account when standards were drafted, and there could be no flexibility where fundamental human rights were concerned. The Workers' members recalled that basic Conventions concerning freedom of association as well as those on safety and health must be applied without distinction; in these cases flexibility clauses were not relevant.

51. As concerns future standard-setting, several speakers considered that the revision of older Conventions should continue rather than adopting new standards. The Government member of the USSR wondered whether it was opportune to considering adopting new standards, or whether it would be preferable to concentrate on the improvement of existing standards while strengthening ILO assistance to member States for the practical application of standards.

Submission to the competent authorities

52. As concerns the obligation to submit instruments adopted by the International Labour Conference to the competent authorities, a number of speakers indicated difficulties encountered by States in meeting this obligation under article 19 of the Constitution. These difficulties were of the same kind as those encountered in complying with other constitutional obligations which are examined below. In addition, the Government member of Portugal, supported by the Government member of Angola, stated that the services responsible for submission encountered additional difficulties in some countries because the instruments had to be translated into the language of the country concerned, as was the case for Portuguese which is not an official language of the ILO even though it is widely spoken in the world.

53. Nevertheless, the Government member of Kenya stated that, in spite of administrative, economic and social difficulties, it had been possible to submit a large number of instruments to make up for the accumulated backlog; the Government member of India stated that her Government was now examining a number of Conventions in order to submit them to Parliament; and the Government member of the Dominican Republic stated that his Government had been able to submit all the outstanding instruments to the legislative bodies.

54. The Workers' members regretted that some industrialised countries did not respect their constitutional obligation to submit ILO instruments to the competent authorities and to make proposals for the effect to be given to them. They also referred to the procedure for submitting ILO instruments on questions which were wholly or partially within the competence of the European Communities, and which had been examined in previous years by the Committee of Experts and the present Committee. They believed that the European Communities should respect tripartism at all levels, including in the framework of the submission procedure. In that context, the representative of the Secretary-General recalled constitutional practice; the secondary objective of submission to inform and mobilise public opinion; and the requirement to consult the most representative national employers' and workers' organisations, under Convention No. 144. The Government member of Belgium stated that the Committee of permanent representatives of countries in the Community had recently taken a decision which expressly prescribes respect for the provisions of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), as concerns submission. Referring to the situation of submission in his own country, he mentioned difficulties arising in preparing documents for the submission of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No.169), as concern its application to nomadic populations temporarily within the national territory.

Ratification of Conventions

55. The Employers' and Workers' members noted the large number of new ratifications registered since the 77th Session of the Conference. The Employers' members felt that the increase in ratifications constituted promises for the future, but in the past promises on the application of Conventions had not always been kept. The Workers' members were encouraged by the fact that a number of Government members and the Employers' member of Algeria had spoken in favour of ratification of more Conventions, and in particular of Conventions concerning fundamental human rights. They recalled nevertheless that governments had announced ratifications to the Committee in the past which had never been deposited, and that most of the ratifications registered this year did not concern the most important Conventions. This opinion was shared by the Workers' members of Cuba, Finland (speaking on behalf also of the Workers' member of Norway) and Sri Lanka, who suggested that an in-depth study be carried out of the situation in States that had not ratified fundamental human rights Conventions and that proposals should be made to the competent bodies in order to ensure progress in this regard.

56. The Workers' member of Tunisia stated that countries which did not ratify fundamental human rights Conventions were not meeting their obligations towards the ILO. The Employers' member of Algeria felt that an appeal should be made to invite States which had not already done so to ratify these Conventions without further delay. If attempts at persuasion did not produce satisfactory results, moral sanctions should be considered. This should include use of the mass media to make the situation widely known, exclusion from meetings, ineligibility for participation in ILO elective bodies of representatives of governments which had not ratified fundamental Conventions within three years, and procedures to deal with particularly serious cases without the need to rely on the goodwill of the accused party. The Government member of Uruguay did not agree that the participation of governments in ILO activities should be limited if they had not ratified certain Conventions. Such measures would not be consistent either with the ILO Constitution or with the spirit of dialogue which formed the basis of its work.

57. The Workers' member of Finland recalled the resolution adopted in 1990 by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations inviting member States to ratify the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Government member of Portugal thought it was desirable for all member States to ratify the Conventions on basic human rights, as well as the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and the Labour Administration Convention, 1978 (No. 150). The obligations arising from ratification of these two Conventions would create situations in which all the obligations concerning international labour standards could be respected. The Government member of Belgium recalled that his country had just ratified the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

58. Several members spoke of the reasons which might explain the slow rhythm of ratifications and measures to overcome this problem. The Government member of Australia stated that it was generally accepted that a federal system slowed down the pace of ratifications because of the obligation to consult federal States and Territories. He announced that his Government, which had ratified 48 Conventions, would be considering appropriate measures to improve this situation in consultation with the social partners and the States and Territories, which should lead to a more positive approach to ratification.

59. The Government member of Kenya, whose country had ratified four important Conventions (the Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970 (No. 134), the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), the Seafarers' Annual Leave with Pay Convention, 1976 (No. 146), and the Nursing Personnel Convention, 1977 (No. 149)) stated that more flexible drafting of instruments could allow countries with different levels of development to ratify Conventions more easily. The Government member of Denmark (speaking on behalf of the Governments of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), as well as the Workers' member of Sri Lanka, agreed with the statement. The latter stated that there could, however, be no flexibility in the application of ratified Conventions, because there could not be different criteria from one country to another, even though their levels of development might be different. This corresponded to the concern of the Workers' member of Tunisia that there should not be a double standard in the application of Conventions.

60. In some cases, governments considered that it would be desirable to create the legal and practical means to apply instruments before ratifying them. The Government member of Namibia stated that since his country had become independent on 21 March 1990 it had ratified no Conventions, and that there was no immediate prospect of its doing so while the draft Labour Code now being prepared had not yet been adopted. The ratification of several Conventions could be considered afterwards.

61. The Government member of Poland emphasised that her Government paid particular attention to the conformity of the national legislation to ILO Conventions submitted for ratification. A programme of ratification and implementation of Conventions and of Recommendations of the ILO had been submitted to Parliament to identify possible ways of bringing the legislation into conformity with these instruments. The new legislation adopted concerning employment on board merchant vessels, trade unions, collective labour conflicts and employers' organisations would allow the Government to consider the possibility of ratifying several ILO Conventions and to improve the application of those which had already been ratified.

62. The Government member of Germany asked whether there was a connection between the comments of the Committee of Experts on a Convention and the decision as to whether or not to ratify this Convention. As an example, he noted the jurisprudence of the Committee of Experts concerning the right to strike, which had developed in a very detailed way on the basis criteria based on the law and practice of certain countries. He considered that the reason there had been so few recent ratifications of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), might be due in part to the fact that the Convention had already been widely ratified; but it might also be due to the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning this Convention especially since, unlike other international instruments, ILO Conventions cannot be ratified with reservations.

63. The Government member of the United States welcomed the imminent ratification by her country of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), which would be the first fundamental human rights Convention ratified by the United States. She stated that it had required a certain amount of time before the ratification could be completed because, before the President requested the consent of the Senate, it had been necessary to be sure that the law and the practice were in full conformity with the Convention. She also stated that the ratification had been possible because of the action of the social partners. The Workers' member of the United States, who stressed the exceptional nature of this event in the light of the small number of Conventions ratified by the United States, explained that his country had changed its policy radically thanks to the work of the Tripartite Advisory Panel on International Labour Standards. Since this Panel was created at the beginning of the 1980s, four Conventions had been ratified or were in the process of being ratified.

64. Several other Government members stated that their governments intended to ratify or were considering the ratification of Conventions in the near future: Angola: Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) - India: Labour Statistics Convention, 1985 (No. 160); Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) - Lebanon: Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (No. 8); Placing of Seamen Convention, 1920 (No. 9); Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1936 (No. 58); Social Security (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 70); Seafarers' Pensions Convention, 1946 (No. 71); Paid Vacations (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 72); Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73); Certification of Able Seamen Convention, 1946 (No. 74); Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1958 (No. 109); Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970 (No. 133); Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147); Poland: Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention, 1958 (No. 108); Rural Workers' Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141); Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144); Portugal: Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115); Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154); Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158); Labour Statistics Convention, 1985 (No. 160); Romania: Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144); Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154); Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention, 1988 (No. 168); USSR: White Lead (Painting) Convention, 1921 (No. 13); Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144); Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155).Denunciation of Conventions

65. The Employers' members stated that the large number of denunciations in the last year arose from a particular situation which should be examined on a case by case basis, but the absence of details on the reasons for these denunciations prevented an in-depth review. The two denunciations of the Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948 (No. 89) were added to a series of similar denunciations made for the same reason, which the Employers' members felt was understandable. The very strict provisions of this old Convention discriminate against women in the labour market and were based on the unsound idea that night work is more harmful for women than for men.

66. The Workers' members were concerned by the denunciation of the Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948 (No. 89), by Malta, which was even more regrettable since the Conference had last year adopted a Protocol to this Convention which conferred great flexibility on it on the basis of agreements negotiated by the parties. They urged the Government of Malta to reconsider its decision.

Obligation to supply reports

67. Most of the speakers in the Committee expressed their concern over the degree to which member States were respecting their obligation to supply reports under articles 19, 22 and 35 of the ILO Constitution. While it was true that most of the governments from which reports were due had sent all or most of the reports requested and replied in the reports to the observations and direct requests of the Committee of Experts, some had not sent the reports due, had sent incomplete reports, or had sent them so late that the Experts had not had time to examine them. The Employers' and Workers' members noted that the percentage of reports received in 1990 compared to the number of reports requested, was the lowest figure attained since 1950. They were joined by the Government members of Angola, Australia, Benin, France, Kenya, Portugal, the Ukrainian SSR, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay, the Workers' member of the Syrian Arab Republic and the Employers' member of Algeria, in pointing out the risks which the non-respect of the these obligations to supply reports carried for the good functioning of the supervisory system, as the failure of the governments concerned to meet their obligations resulted in preventing the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee from carrying out their work. The Government member of the United States considered that if this situation were to continue it would have a damaging impact on the implementation, of ratified Conventions. In addition, as the Workers' member of Japan emphasised, the late submission of reports by governments frequently prevents workers' and employers' organisations from formulating a response sufficiently in advance to be taken into consideration by the supervisory bodies.

68. Several Government representatives explained these difficulties by the state of development in their countries, administrative difficulties (lack of qualified personnel to meet the complexity of the obligations), financial and technical difficulties, or the fact that important political and social changes had occurred, such as those mentioned by the Government member of Angola. The Government member of Saudia Arabia (speaking also on behalf of Bahrein, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) stressed that certain countries, in particular those in the developing world, were not able to fulfil their obligations because most of them were not aware of the extent of obligations flowing from ratification. The Employers' member of Algeria considered that developing countries faced difficulties in particular in gathering the necessary statistics, but industrialised developed countries could not cite these difficulties. The Government members of Australia, France and the United Kingdom recalled the difficulties which industrialised countries did encounter in meeting their obligations in this respect, because of the increase in the number, of reports to be sent and the timing for sending reports. The Government members of Australia and the United Kingdom, as well as the Government member of China who called for an in-depth examination of means for assisting countries to overcome their difficulties by practical measures, suggested that the Office undertake a study on the difficulties encountered by States in meeting their reporting obligations. In this connection, the Government member of Benin suggested that the measures taken to ensure respect for these constitutional obligations were not an end in themselves, but that they be understood as an element of a general solution to the problem.

69. Some solutions were already suggested by the members of the Committee. The Employers' members, considering the increase in the number of reports which was related to the increase in the number of Conventions and of ratifications, suggested that the periodicity of reporting be modified to decrease the number of reports sent each year. They felt that this solution would have the advantage of lightening the workload and facilitating the task of the supervisory bodies. Efforts to make the report of the Committee of Experts shorter had a limit: it had to contain enough information to allow the Conference Committee to evaluate the Experts' opinions. In addition, the choice of cases to be examined by the Conference Committee was becoming more difficult, and there was a risk that it would become arbitrary as the number increased. The Government member of Uruguay also raised the possibility of modifying the reporting intervals, which would allow the deadlines to be respected and improve the quality of the information. The Government member of France, having analysed the practical difficulties caused by the deadline of 15 October which had been set for sending reports, stated that even if reports were requested at different intervals the deadline at this time of the year would would continue to cause problems for sending reports on time.

70. The Government member of Cuba stressed the importance of the technical assistance provided by the Office, and in particular by the regional advisers, in assisting governments to meet their obligations. The Workers' members and the Government members of Benin, Kenya, Portugal, the United States and Uruguay called for the programme of helping governments to fulfil their obligations to be continued and strengthened. The Government member of Saudi Arabia (speaking on behalf of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) raised the question of assistance by the Office to countries which wished to ratify Conventions. He noted that this assistance is in fact less useful after ratification than before. It should be provided by experts who could visit the countries to clarify the contents of the obligations arising from ratification and assist States to adopt and modify their legislation, in order to avoid difficulties.

71. The Government member of France proposed that the efforts already made in this connection be pursued and reinforced in two directions: assistance to the administrations of States which had fragile and poorly equipped ministries of labour, and assistance without any discrimination to States which had ratified a large number of Conventions, even when they were developed countries. He suggested that assistance provided in the latter case would consist of regularly sensitising and persuading the administrations of these countries of the importance of their reports. The Government member of the United States recalled that her country held the highest opinion of the activities of the ILO in this area and hoped that they would be intensified, as specified in the Programme and Budget proposals for 1992-93.

72. As concerns the contents of reports communicated to the supervisory bodies, the Workers' members noted that the number of reports containing information on practical application continued to decrease in recent years. The Government member of the Ukrainian SSR suggested that the Conference Committee invite governments to communicate more statistical and factual information which would illustrate the practical application of ratified Conventions.

73. The Workers' members and the Government member of Australia considered that employers' and workers' organisations could play a role in this area by their comments. Without assuming the constitutional obligations which belonged only to member States, employers' and workers' organisations could draw the attention of States and of the supervisory bodies to non-respect of obligations in this regard.

74. The Employers' and Workers' members stressed that certain States systematically sent their reports between the end of the session of the Committee of Experts and the beginning of the Conference, thus avoiding that their reports be examined by the Committee of Experts and their having to provide explanations to the Conference Committee. They proposed that the names of these countries should be expressly mentioned in the report of the Conference Committee at the beginning of its work.

Application of Conventions

75. The Employers' members welcomed generally the fact that the Committee of Experts did not restrict itself to examining only one Convention, and stressed that it should remain with general observations rather than carrying out too detailed an analysis.

Application of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)

76. In general, the Committee's discussions of this question showed the three groups' devotion to Convention No. 122 concerning employment policy and their interest in the comments of the Committee of Experts as to its application.

77. The Employers' members considered the employment situation described by the Committee of Experts in paragraph 47 of its report in industrialised and developing countries rather negative, and they noted that the Experts' comment was a general one based on somewhat limited information. The Government member of Denmark (speaking also on behalf of the Nordic governments) considered, however, that the rather poor employment prospects in most countries of the world - especially developing ones - unfortunately had to be recognised, taking account of current and foreseeable technological and economic changes.

78. In the view of the Government member of Uruguay, the description in the Committee of Experts' report of the situation of developing countries - and especially the "least developed" countries, which seem more than ever caught in a vicious circle of poverty and unemployment with the constraints of structural adjustment - reflects hard realities. Several Workers' members of developing countries (China, Cuba, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia) also spoke of their concern at the gravity of the situation: like the representative of the WFTU, they stressed the problems of the social costs of programmes of structural adjustment and the compatibility of the policies recommended by the international financial institutions with ILO standards. The ILO was called on to play a greater role, and the workers' members emphasised the need to bring out the social dimension if structural adjustment were to be successful: this must mean that ILO standards on employment, basic rights and tripartism should be an integral part of restructuring programmes. The workers' member of United Kingdom considered closer cooperation between the ILO and the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not only desirable but essential. Thus, the Committee noted with interest the speech of the Director-General of the International Monetary Fund in the plenary of the Conference, when he expressed agreement with the Director General of the ILO that the ILO is best qualified to help set up new structures.

79. Considerations as to the social dimension of economic restructuring based on ILO standards are, as the Workers' members observed, applicable, all things being equal, to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The employers' members pointed out that the comments of the Committee of Experts took a more measured tone and had regard to the fundamental changes in those countries, i.e. the transition from a planned economy to a market economy. This radical change presented new challenges to these States. A part of the hidden unemployment was revealed in the process of change. The unemployment which was now appearing was a further example of the weak productivity of centralised systems, and it would be standing things on their head to say that these difficulties were due to the market economy rather than to problems inherited from the old system which now had to be resolved. This difficult transition was in fact the legacy of a system which totally denied human rights while proclaiming the right to work.

80. The Workers' member of United Kingdom agreed that the Report of the Committee of Experts showed less optimism than in previous years, and he attributed this to the persistence of unregulated free market philosophies. He expressed concern about the effect of these philosophies on Eastern Europe. The representative of the WFTU also expressed some reservations as to the effect of pure economic liberalism, deregulation and the uncontrolled working of market forces in those countries.

81. Several speakers, like the Committee of Experts, questioned the priority given to the aim of full employment in programmes and policies as required by Convention No. 122. They referred to the risk that employment might increasingly be seen as a secondary rather than essential aim. The Workers' members were extremely concerned at such a development, which would mean governments' objectives were no longer those of the Convention: this development must be carefully watched. The Workers' member of Spain considered the large increase in insecure and part-time employment in Western Europe was linked to this development. However, the Government member of Denmark (speaking on behalf of the Nordic governments) did not regard this as deviation from the standards, since structural adjustments are a preliminary to full employment; the social effects depended on the way in which the policies are implemented. Several Government members (those of the Nordic countries, Belgium and United Kingdom) referred to the policies in their countries and the stress placed on active labour market policies, while other members (the Government members of Portugal and Romania, and the Workers' member of Romania) stressed the importance of consultation and social dialogue in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

Application of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144)

82. The comments of the Committee of Experts on the application of this Convention were examined by the Committee. The Workers' members of the Committee, and several other members including the Government members of Denmark (speaking on behalf of the Nordic governments) and of Portugal, for example, emphasised the importance of the Convention which establishes tripartism, a cornerstone of the ILO, at national level. The Workers' member of Sri Lanka in particular underlined the importance of the Convention for workers in developing countries because, in his opinion, the role of the trade union movement in economic and social development could not be guaranteed without the ratification and application of this Convention. The Workers' members of China and the Syrian Arab Republic said that the promotion of tripartite dialogue had been a consequence of ratification by their countries. In addition, and more generally, the Workers' members noted that the entry into force of Convention No. 144 had increased the importance of the role of the Committee of Experts, in particular for the Employers' and Workers' groups; moreover, they recalled that the responsibility for communicating the report of the Committee of Experts to workers' organisations stemmed, in particular, from Convention No. 144 which aimed to promote tripartism. The wish was expressed within the Committee that the speed of ratifications would increase. It was noted that, in some cases, mechanisms had been established to permit ratification, for example in Romania, according to the Government member of that country.

83. Other interventions dealt with problems concerning rights and obligations arising from the ILO Constitution and Convention No. 144, for the countries that had ratified it, concerning the law and the practice followed by the relevant courts of the European Communities. Those questions had been the subject of observations by the Committee of Experts for several years, and in the current year the Committee of Experts had noted communications from several national employers' organisations and one workers' organisation of member States of the Community mentioning growing problems in that respect. The Employers' members and the Workers' members of the Committee agreed to acknowledge that the problems had not been solved and expressed the hope that those difficulties could be overcome so as to ensure tripartite consultation at national level, in full respect of the Convention. The Government members of Belgium and of the United Kingdom made statements reassuring the Committee and the Committee of Experts that the governments of States members of the European Community were willing to respect the application of Convention No. 144 and the ILO Constitution. The Committee was, in particular, informed of a recent decision of the Committee of Permanent Representatives of countries of the European Community which expressly provided for respect of Convention No. 144 regarding the submission procedure.

Application of the Labour Administration Convention, 1978 (No. 150)

84. This year, the report of the Committee of Experts included general comments on the application of this Convention which dealt with the role, functions and organisation of labour administration systems. The importance of this Convention, in particular for developing countries, was underlined by the Employers' members as well as by the Government member of the Ukrainian SSR.

85. The Workers' members stressed that labour administrations lacked the means and were not adequately equipped to achieve the objectives of various instruments. This was true for the development of human resources, the promotion of tripartism, the development of labour statistics, coordination of labour policy in general, and labour inspection. The standards envisaged appropriate and effective cooperation with occupational organisations, which required a partner at national level.

86. As the Committee of Experts noted, the Convention in practice provided a framework for a large proportion of studies by the Office and technical cooperation activities. In that perspective, the Government member of Portugal agreed with the Committee of Experts in considering that the ratification and application of the Convention could be the mainspring of closer links, at national level, between international labour standards and ILO's technical cooperation activities. The Employers' members, noting that Convention No. 150 had only received 34 ratifications to date, were in favour of encouraging a higher level of ratification. The Government member of the Ukrainian SSR expressed the wish that, in view of the importance of instruments, the Committee of Experts should continue to deal with their application in its forthcoming reports.

Application of Conventions in export-processing zones or enterprises and to offshore industrial installations

87. The members of the Committee referred to comments made by the Committee of Experts since 1981 on the application of ratified Conventions in these specific sectors of activity.

88. In the Dominican Republic, stated the Government member of that country, the application of Conventions in export-processing zones had a particular importance. His country was experiencing considerable development in these zones, and was counting on them for employment creation. He hoped that the ILO and its supervisory bodies would provide all the information which would allow the improvement of the conditions of the workers in enterprises installed in these zones, as well as on conditions of work in those in other countries. While his country's interest was to remain an attractive place for the establishment of export-processing zones because of the quality of its workers and the competitiveness of its costs, it also resided in seeking uniform development of working conditions in these enterprises in order to avoid the negative effects of competition among countries of the region on the living and working conditions of wage-earners. The Workers' member of Pakistan made a statement along the same lines: according to him, experience had shown that the existence of export-processing zones and enterprises could not justify differences of treatment inside the same country in the application of standards, particularly human rights Conventions.

89. Referring to the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the application of Conventions on offshore industrial installations, the Government member of the Ukrainian SSR asked what had happened to the draft comparative study of the law and practice of a certain number of countries which the secretariat and the supervisory bodies were carrying out. The representative of the Secretary-General replied globally to this question and to others which were put during the discussion, that the secretariat had noted all the comments and that it would make the best possible use of them.

Matters relating to "international" shipping registers

90. The Employers' members noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts on international shipping registers dealt adequately with the stated objectives of these registers, which is the prevention of the loss of ships in countries which have merchant fleets, and consequently the loss of jobs. The establishment of these registers had been generally satisfactory. They agreed that the problems which persist with these registers had to be carefully examined in an appropriate forum which was, in their opinion, the International Maritime Organisation. The Government members of Denmark (speaking on behalf of the Nordic governments), Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom also felt that it was necessary and useful that questions concerning the establishment of national registers should be examined by an appropriate body.

91. The Workers' members recalled that these registers gave rise to inequality of treatment between workers of different nationalities performing the same kind of work on the same ship, and impeded free negotiation. They fully supported the conclusion of the Experts that the question of international maritime registers and the problems they posed deserved an in-depth examination. However, the fact that the examination of this question might be referred to a specialised body did not justify leaving the application of Conventions in suspense. The Workers' member of Argentina rejected the notion that the International Maritime Organisation was the competent organisation to analyse this subject. The questions raised by these registers (freedom to negotiate and discrimination) affect the application of certain international labour Conventions including the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1947 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) and the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). The problems raised by these registers should therefore be examined in the ILO.

92. The Workers' member of Denmark pointed out that the Danish trade union movement was not opposed in principle to the establishment of an international shipping register, because it is not in the interest of seafarers that the international merchant fleet operate under flags of convenience from the "open register" countries. This should, however, be done with due respect for international engagements, including those under ratified ILO Conventions, which he did not consider was the case in his own country.

Measures intended to ensure the application of Conventions

93. Referring to paragraph 107 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts which speaks of administrative, civil or penal sanctions, the Employers' members believed that this was a very important and basic question concerning the measures which a State must put into place to apply ratified Conventions. They pointed out that the Committee of Experts had not indicated other measures to ensure the application of standards, apart from sanctions. While there was no difficulty if a Convention contained a provision for the adoption of such measures, they felt that the recommendation of the Committee of Experts that particular sanctions should be adopted by States when a Convention did not provide for them, was dubious. In this case, it was up to the State to decide to decide how to meet its obligations. The recommendation of the Committee of Experts for the adoption or penal or other sanctions could not be considered to be strict interpretation of a Convention. The Workers' members stressed that the question of sanctions, both national and international, to ensure the application of Conventions should be examined carefully in the future by the Committee and by the Office.

94. The Government member of Germany stated that not every violation of civil law can be punished with penal sanctions, and the obligation to impose penal sanctions should not be included in every ILO Convention. Penal sanctions should be confined to serious violations of a criminal nature, such as forced labour. The Workers' member of Pakistan insisted on the need to provide for sanctions, in particular for the prohibition of discrimination and forced labour.

95. The Government member of Belgium stated that the tendency in his country was to use administrative sanctions of a penal nature more and more often to ensure respect for labour legislation. These sanctions could be appealed to the labour tribunals. The Government member of Saudi Arabia that his country had sanctions sufficient to ensure respect for standards.

96. The representative of the Secretary-General referred to the comments of the Committee of Experts in paragraph 107 of its report, which dealt both with the adoption of adequate sanctions which might be necessary to make the provisions of a Convention effective, and the adaptation of monetary sanctions so that they would have a dissuasive effect, particularly in countries with a high rate of inflation.

Collaboration with other international and regional organisations

97. The Employers' and Workers' members considered that the links between the ILO and organisations dealing with human rights in particular, should be strengthened even further. The ILO's mandate is to contribute by its own means to the improvement of social and working conditions, and thus to keep the protection of human rights in the forefront. The Workers' member of the Syrian Arab Republic considered that cooperation between the ILO and other international organisations, in particular the United Nations, was a ground for both satisfaction and encouragement for achieving the objectives of the ILO, which are in full conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The Workers' member of Pakistan noted with interest that the ILO would be associated directly with the supervision of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. The Government member of Denmark (speaking on behalf of the Nordic governments) noted with satisfaction the measures adopted to strengthen technical cooperation in the area of human rights, by sharing knowledge and experience among the organisations. The Government member of the Ukrainian SSR pointed out the new possibilities for action presented by increased cooperation between the ILO and the UNDP.

Standards and technical cooperation

98. The Workers' members considered that the priority given to the interaction between technical cooperation and the application of standards, as this emerged from the Programme and Budget proposals for 1992-93, was a very positive point. Technical cooperation must go hand in hand with the will to ratify and apply Conventions. The Workers' member of Pakistan recalled that technical cooperation should assist member States in developing their infrastructure for the respect of international labour standards. The Workers' member of Japan stated in this connection that the principle of tripartism should be recognised in the planning, implementation and follow-up of technical cooperation activities. This opinion was shared by the Workers' member of Sri Lanka, who also pointed out that the complementarity between standards and technical cooperation was sometimes forgotten in ILO projects financed by resources from outside agencies. He hoped that this complementarity would be developed and maintained in all ILO projects, whatever the source of financing.

99. The Government member of Australia, referring to paragraph 58 of the report of the Committee of Experts, stated that his Government acknowledged the importance of the linkages between technical cooperation and standards and was pleased to note that the Director-General had decided to give particular priority to this question in his proposals for the Programme and Budget for 1992-1993. He informed the Committee of the action taken by his Government to support ILO activities in this area. In referring to the complementarity between standards and technical cooperation, the Government member of India stated that technical cooperation programmes should be designed to tackle basic socio-economic problems by enhancing the national capability and by creation of employment opportunities to respond more specifically to the needs of the most disadvantaged workers and those in the informal sector.

100. The representative of the Secretary-General pointed out the philosophy underlying the priority given to strengthening the links between standards and technical cooperation. One of the major objectives of technical cooperation was to promote the standards adopted by the International Labour Conference, and the operational activities of the ILO should under no circumstances be in contradiction with the basic principles underlying standards. He recalled that operational activities had to be conducted in such a way as to contribute to the development of standards and to their improved application.

C. Reports requested under article 19 of the ILO Constitution

Paid Educational Leave Convention (No. 140) and Recommendation (No. 148), 1974

Human Resources Development Convention (No. 142) and Recommendation (No. 150), 1975

101. In accordance with the choice made by the Governing Body at its 238th session (November 1987), the General Survey carried out by the Committee of Experts this year dealt with the subject of "human resources development". Based on the reports requested under article 19 of the Constitution on the effect given to the instruments concerned, the survey also took account, in accordance with the established practice, of the information communicated under articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution. It also took due account of the comments received from 20 employers' and workers' organisations from 12 countries of Latin America, Asia, Europe and Oceania.

102. "Human resources development" is not one of the conflictual themes which divide countries and groups whose interests it may be very difficult to reconcile, depending on the stakes. The first and most obvious point recognised by the Committee was its unanimous agreement on this subject, the interest that all countries and all categories of the working population have in it, and its value in meeting the challenges posed by development, technical changes and restructuring in a world which is ever more interdependent and competitive.

103. The Employers' and Workers' members, as well as the Government members which took part in the discussion, stressed the importance and the topicality of the four instruments which, as the Committee of Experts had noted, departed from the traditional idea that vocational training served only to balance the labour market, in favour of a wider and more dynamic concept that considers "human resource development" as a major factor in economic and social development. The Workers' members, as well as the representative of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), pointed out a certain ambiguity in this expression but agreed with the Committee of Experts' analysis. For them, human resources development presupposed the right of every worker, without discrimination, to vocational guidance and training with a concrete or improved perspectives for employment. As stressed by the Committee of Experts, access to occupations must be opened, the mobility of workers promoted and their ability to adapt to new tasks enhanced so as to ensure them opportunities in the labour market. Education and training are also objectives in addition to vocational ones, because they opened up access to culture, to knowledge and to political and social life, and were an essential factor in the full development of the individual. In more general terms, the Employers' members also noted the enormous scope of the concept and its impact in extended domains of social life and economic development.

104. While the discussion indicated a basic consensus, it also showed diverse emphases, nuances and points of view on the problems examined by the Committee of Experts in its general survey. The discussion was based essentially on the structure of the Experts' report, and therefore dealt with the contents, scope and nature of the instruments, with their implementation and the difficulties encountered in this connection, and with the state of ratifications. Finally, some views were expressed concerning the follow-up and the impact of the general survey.

105. The Committee agreed that basic particular characteristics of these instruments should be stressed. Briefly, these relate to the objectives set, to the scope of the standards, to their relationship with other standards and principles, and to the nature of the obligations flowing from them. These points can be illustrated by various statements. For instance, the Employers' members and the Government member of Germany, noted that these instruments adopted in 1974 and 1975 are very progressive standards, which set a very high level for the programmes and policies which should be adopted and implemented. The Workers' members stressed, among other things, the very broad scope of these instruments and their interdependence with other standards and principles, the effect of which was to strengthen the ILO's standard-setting action. This was the case in particular as concerned equality of opportunity and treatment, full and freely chosen employment and tripartism, as well as occupational safety and health, minimum age for admission to employment, etc. The logical relationship between various aspects covered by these standards should not be lost sight of: vocational guidance, initial and further training and recycling, and paid educational leave. The Workers' members considered that neglecting one of these aspects would result in reducing the effectiveness of the other components and in raising the final costs for States and for employers and workers alike. The "management of uncertainty" - a notion which should not be confused with planning in the classical sense of the term - linked to employment and manpower planning, implied that countries should adopt a global approach and aim at the promotion of all the objectives set in the two groups of instruments. The costs of this policy should be regarded as an investment which would bear fruit in the future, as the Government member of Germany noted.

106. The Employers' members noted that, while the objectives to be achieved were set at a very high level, the Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140), and the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142), are "promotional" Conventions, which are flexible by nature. The Committee of Experts developed this idea, which was taken up in particular by the Government member of Germany. It recalled (paragraph 484 of its survey) that designation of an instrument as promotional in no way implies that it is not a legal instrument containing concrete obligations. The flexibility of a promotional instrument does not imply the absence of substantive requirements; it lies rather in the discretion of member States to define, within the context of ongoing efforts, the nature and pace of the measures to be taken to achieve the objectives laid down. The Workers' members spoke in the same vein, and the Workers' member of Poland developed the analysis of the concept by referring to dual obligations of States (results and conduct) contained in these standards.

107. The implementation of the objectives of human resources development implies, in the terms of the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142), the development of open, flexible and complementary systems of general, technical and vocational education, educational and vocational guidance and vocational training, whether these activities take place within the system of formal education or outside it. The following points can be gleaned from the discussion on these various aspects.

108. Several speakers (Employers' members, in particular the Employers' member of the United States; Workers' members, in particular the Workers' members of the Philippines and Poland) stressed the fundamental and determining role of basic education dispensed by educational systems. Therefore, consideration should be given to the situation of teaching personnel, who according to the Employers' member of the United States are "essential service" workers. The representative of the WFTU stated that the evidence showed that the situation of academic teaching in a country had an impact on initial and continuing vocational training. Thus the reduction of education budgets in the framework of macro-economic policies recommended by the IMF meant that the countries affected had higher levels of illiterates and of workers who lacked the basic minimum for training worthy of this name. The Committee noted in this connection a statement made in the plenary of the Conference by the Director-General of the International Monetary Fund, in particular on the importance necessarily attributed to the reduction of budget deficits, but taking account when difficult choices had to be made, of the obviously more productive nature of expenditure on education budgets or on other ways of developing human capital, compared to others such as the development of prestige projects or overblown military activities.

109. As concerns vocational guidance, the Workers' members recalled the great gap noted by the Committee of Experts between practices and techniques in industrialised countries and those in developing countries. Some developing countries had indicated particular difficulties in fully applying the provisions relating to vocational guidance. The General Survey nevertheless contained concrete examples showing how countries had adapted techniques and practices to their own culture, their own needs and their own development. Coordination between guidance at school and at the professional level might also solve a certain number of difficulties. The Workers' members stressed in this connection that the Convention permitted the gradual implementation of measures and national practices. Computerisation of new methods ought to respect privacy, and this required close attention by the Office. States were generally not respecting their obligation to provide information to workers on collective agreements and the system of labour relations. In any case, the Employers' members stated, the importance and utility of vocational guidance covering a wide spectrum and dealing with the different aspects covered by the standards could not be contested. It was necessary to have guidance systems with different contexts according to the target groups of persons to be counselled. Such systems implied having a large and well-trained staff, and required a great deal of financial resources. The Employers' members noted in this connection that the question of financing and the attendant difficulties was present throughout the general survey. The present report will return to this below.

110. As concerns vocational training as such, the Workers' members considered in the first place that initial training in the undertaking deserved special attention, not only because this system offered possibilities to States with limited funds, but also because the inexperience of young people in the world of work itself posed problems, in particular becaue a lack of theoretical training often resulted in failure. It was for this reason that a mixed system, with work alternating with training in an institution, was prefereable even though the school system could not be entirely subordinated to the needs for qualifications which existed at any particular moment. Such subordination would contradict the need for flexibility. Continuing training should be guaranteed for all categories of workers during their whole lives, by means of an appropriate system of funding. The system of financing should in particular guarantee access for workers in the LDCs and precarious workers to continuing training.

111. The question of differentiation and specialisation in vocational training systems, which was dealt with in the standards and in the Committee of Experts' report, was brought up in particular by the Employers' members. The efforts which had been made and which continued by a number of countries led them to recognise that the importance of the question was not underestimated but that it was fully acknowledged. The phenomena of interaction and reciprocity between training and the economy were evident: the economy could prosper only if there was a sufficient quantity of qualified labour, but at the same time training and further education could be guranteed only within a growing economy. The Employers' members noted that considerable progress had already been made in particular in the area of vocational training. The conditions and factors contributing to success were, in addition to financial resources, the active participation of the social partners, motivation of individuals and, in many developing countries, technical cooperation furnished by the ILO. Referring to the situation in his own country, the Employers' member of the United States informed the Committee of programmes implemented by private enterprises, under the pressure of the market, to correct labour force shortages and increase the level of skills. For instance, they had established partnerships with universities and had donated resources to community training programmes.

112. It went without saying, the Employers' members observed, that the contents of vocational training (as well as of vocational guidance) could be very different depending on whether the country concerned was industrialised, agricultural or developing. For industrialised countries, training and guidance were much more specialised and differentiated than in the other two categories of countries. However, the differentiation in vocational training and guidance had to be handled very flexibly, for example as concerned equality of opportunity in this area between urban and rural populations. Vocational training should adapt to structural and social changes; it should not only follow thse developments but should anticipate them, or in any case facilitate them. The success of economic and social restructuring in a number of countries in central and eastern Europe would depend on how training systems reacted and on the degree to which they can adapt to new challenges.

113. A particular problem in the application of these Conventions in developing countries concerned the specificity of the so-called informal or non-structured sector. Unlike the standards on employment policy, those on human resources development made no explicit reference to this. The Committee of Experts had none the less examined the situation in this sector in the light of the principles contained in these standards and had noted from the information supplied, in particular through the ILO's technical assistance programmes, that a large part of vocational guidance and training was being assured in the non-structured sector. The Employers' member of Algeria stated that he wished to express strong reservations on this assessment, which in his opinion was exaggerated and did not correspond to reality, at least in Algeria.

114. Though it was mentioned only in passing in the instruments on human resources development, the Committee of Experts had nevertheless paid particular attention to the question of financing for vocational guidance and training. As it had indicated in the survey, experience had shown that the choice of a system of financing is a basic strategic decision which governs or influences many aspects of policies in this connection. Information supplementing that in the general survey was provided, for example, by the Employers' member of the United States and by the Workers' member of the Philippines on systems of financing, especially private systems, adopted in their countries.

115. The Employers' members considered that human resources development should be seen as an investment in human capital. A system of tax deductions did not seem to them to be an appropriate means of financing training programmes. They felt that taxes levied on employers would be a burden on prosperous enterprises and an impediment to structural adjustment and economic growth.

116. The Workers' members felt that the public resources allocated to human resources development depended not only on the budgetary possibilities of States but also on the budgets assigned to teaching, training, employment and guidance. As human resources had a capital importance for the development and welfare of a country, these are strategic expenditures which are extremely important. States cannot reject their basic responsibilities for vocational guidance and training. The Workers' members considered that it was natural that employers should contribute to financing because it was in their own interest to have qualified workers available. This was especially so in countries - whether industrialised or developing - where enterprises had greater resources than did the State. The method of financing was not neutral, and in order to allow access to training and guidance systems for workers who have a precarious status or those in undertakings in the informal sector or which are in the process of restructuring, sectorial, inter-firm and even inter-sectorial financing systems should be envisaged. The general survey showed that there were many financing possibilities adapted to national needs and practices. Collective agreements offered one possibility for financing. Collaboration between school systems and infrastructures and the post-scholastic networks, and effective management of resources could also contribute to attaining the objectives of the Conventions while limiting expenses. An ongoing combination of alternating work and training as well as apprenticeship within undertakings or in inter-firm centres, were also options. The representative of the WFTU considered that training was a right of workers and an obligation for governments and employers, and that while the modalities of financing between employer and public sources varied in different national contexts, the argument that training was an individual investment to be paid for by the workers concerned was not acceptable.

Paid educational leave

117. The Employers' members observed that economic and financial difficulties were particularly important in relation to the Convention and Recommendation on paid educational leave. These were evident from the low number of ratifications of the Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140). These instruments set a very high level of requirements, reflecting the great optimism prevailing when they were adopted. Today, however, many countries - and not only developing countries - were not able to meet such requirements. It was surprising that the Committee of Experts had emphasised the flexibility of these instruments, while at the same time criticising practices which were in themselves examples of flexibility in implementing them, such as providing that vacations should be used for vocational training, or conditions of maximum age or seniority in the undertaking.

118. As concerns the flexibility of these instruments and the progressive character of their application, the Workers' members noted that between the minimal situation where paid educational leave is made conditional on the job held, and an ideal situation recognising the right of each worker to choose his training, the Committee of Experts had identified many methods by which the right to paid educational leave could be extended progressively. However, this progressive extension presupposed a sustained policy of promoting paid educational leave as provided for in the instruments. The Committee of Experts had recalled that the promotional character of the instruments did not mean the absence of concrete obligations, in this case the obligation to adopt and apply a sustained and explicit policy of promoting the provision of paid educational leave. The Committee of Experts had very correctly indicated that such a policy would necessarily imply authorities and bodies: the simple laissez-faire attitude of some countries was not acceptable. The indispensable role of employers' and workers' organisations in the formulation and application of this policy should also be recognised. The general survey provided interesting examples in this connection of dynamic coexistence between paid educational leave based on law and on collective agreements.

119. The Employers' members stated that the distance between the ambitious objectives of the these instruments and the national realities was particularly flagrant in countries which had to use the very small resources at their disposal to fight against illiteracy rather than to provide additional training to workers who had already reached a certain educational level. In highly developed countries the question took a different form: leisure time was increasing steadily, as were the possibilities offered for training. The problem in this case was to stir up interest in training.

120. The conditions for granting paid educational leave should be exempt from all discrimination. This affirmation by the Committee of Experts of the principle of equality of treatment was pointed out in particular by the Workers' members, who considered this a highly important and binding provision: leave should not be refused in a discriminatory or discretionary manner. As concerns workers' rights, the Workers' members considered that the contract of employment should run through the period of leave, and that full payment of wages was entirely normal when the employer decided to send the worker for training. The Employers' members maintained that, when paid educational leave was granted, account should be taken of the interests and needs of the undertaking, and of the link between the training and the job carried out. Even if the qualifications acquired by the worker during such leave did not give rise to an automatic promotion, it was nevertheless in the interests of the employer to take them into account. Finally, the Employers' members regretted that the Committee of Experts had paid only brief attention to the problems which might be raised by the practice of the State or employers financing courses organised by unions.

121. According to the Workers' members, the International Labour Conference in 1974 had clearly desired, as appeared from Article 2 of the Convention, that paid educational leave not be limited to vocational training linked to the worker's job in the undertaking; it should also be provided for the wider aim of general training and training in trade union affairs. Trade union training was particularly important for the promotion of tripartism and of collective bargaining. The Workers' members also regretted the attitude of seeing paid educational leave simply as an additional cost when in fact it was an investment, especially in times of technological change and restructuring. The representative of the World Federation of Trade Unions added that the idea that it was an additional cost was a short-term view, noting that the countries which were in the best position to master the most advanced technologies were those which had invested most in education and training.

Conclusion: Timely standards which prepare for the future

122. The general survey had three principal objectives. These were to give a general picture of the situation on the subjects covered by the instruments examined, to draw attention to difficulties in application, and to identify any obstacles to the ratification of the Conventions. The Committee considered that the Committee of Experts had entirely met its objectives in this regard, and did not fail to note the two aspects of the principal conclusion which the Experts reached at the end of the survey. The objectives set by the standards on human resources development are recognised and accepted almost universally. However, the implementation of the standards meets considerable difficulties in many countries, in particular in developing countries where the major obstacle is economic conditions and the unfavourable financial situation. This remark is neither new nor surprising, but it recalls the ILO's responsibility in this area, and the President of the Conference did not fail to mention it in his opening address to the 78th Session of the Conference.

123. The Government member of Saudi Arabia, referring to the situation in the developing countries, as well as the Workers' members of Nigeria and the Philippines, painted a sober picture of the situation. In these countries, which represent more than two-thirds of the world's countries, the human resource, the most abundant of natural resources, is growing at an accelerating rate under the effect of uncontrolled demographic factors, while the small size of the economic resources created by their economies seriously limits the development and productive use of labour. The needs are immense and they are urgent, and it is urgent to act. As noted by the Workers' member of Nigeria, education and training have an interest for a country which is not merely economic; they are also very important for stability and peace, especially when a new world order is being established. Concentrated efforts are needed to help developing countries to implement consistent human resources development policies. The speakers called urgently for an intensification of ILO technical cooperation activities in the area of training. The Government member of Saudi Arabia hoped that the ILO budget would include higher allocations for vocational guidance and training for developing countries.

124. The ILO's technical assistance could also lead to a tripartite dialogue which would ease the ratification of Conventions, as indicated by the Workers' member of the Philippines in referring to the recent ratification by his country of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). In the present case, the state of ratifications of the instruments covered in the general survey caused the Committee concern. The representative of the WFTU considered that the number of ratifications of the Conventions (21 and 44 respectively for the Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140), and the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No. 142)) was entirely insufficient, and that it would be paradoxical if such important instruments were ignored just when there was a great deal of talk everywhere about training, mastering new technologies and adapting to scientific and technical changes.

125. The Workers' members considered that the general survey had demonstrated, as shown by the many examples and the in-depth analysis of practice, that the immediate ratification of Conventions Nos. 140 and 142 should pose no problems for the great majority of member States. Most member States which had not yet ratified the Conventions on human resources development had stated in their reports that their legislation or practice was already in conformity with these instruments, or at least that the instruments served as guidelines or as a source of inspiration for their law and practice. The Workers' members also felt that the Committee had responded to the reservations stated by some governments, both from industrialised and developing countries, concerning the possibility of ratifying these instruments, particularly on the basis that they had not attained all the objectives. It had done so, as stated above, by giving useful indications as to the promotional nature of these Conventions and on the obligations which arose under them. The Workers' members also referred to the emphasis placed during the discussion on the difficulties encountered in different countries in putting the Conventions into practice, and the worrying gap between aims and realities, and they stressed or reiterated that a great deal depended on a global approach, on the will to implement a policy, and on continuous action. ILO technical cooperation could contribute to overcoming the problems of implementation. The relevance and timeliness of the Conventions and Recommendations, which the Governing Body had classified among the instruments the ratification and application of which should be promoted on a priority basis, were generally recognised. In conclusion, the Workers' members launched an appeal to member States to ratify the Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140), and the Human Resources Development Convention, 1975 (No.142).

126. The Government member of Germany stated that he had more reservations over the ratification of the two Conventions than did others. The ratification of these two flexible and promotional standards was perhaps more constraining than it appeared, in the sense that they engaged a country in a continuous process of progress toward aims which were difficult to reach, especially for developing countries which had very difficult problems in allocating their limited resources.

127. While there had been much discussion of difficulties, gaps and insufficiencies, the Committee ended its examination of the general survey on a positive and hopeful note. It unanimously praised the manner in which the Committee of Experts had carried out its task: a contribution of high quality to consideration of the subject, and a reference which came at an opportune moment to recall that it was training which constituted the essential motivating factor in development. The Committee therefore expressed the hope that the survey would have the reception it deserved, that it would attract very wide attention, that it would contribute to assisting governments and employers' and workers' organisations to overcome difficulties of implementation, and finally, that it would serve as a stimulus for the ratification of these instruments. The debate would, however, not be closed. It might have contributed to showing that action should not let up, that all the force and energies available should be mobilised in a concentrated effort, and that human resources development was the best means of promoting the social dimension of development by reconciling the objectives of equality and efficiency.

D. Compliance with specific obligations

128. The Committee decided that, in examining individual cases relating to compliance by States with their obligations under or relating to international labour standards, it would follow the same working methods and apply the same criteria as last year, as amended or clarified in 1980 and 1987.

OBLIGATION_A Submission of Conventions and Recommendations to the competent authorities

129. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Committee considered the manner in which effect was given to article 19, paragraphs 5 to 7, of the ILO Constitution. These provisions require member States within 12 months, or exceptionally 18 months, of the closing of each session of the Conference to submit the Conventions and Recommendations adopted at that session to "the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action", and to inform the Director-General of the ILO of the measures taken to that end, with particulars of the authority or authorities regarded as competent.

130. The Committee noted from the report of the Committee of Experts that considerable efforts had been made in a number of countries in the fulfilment of their obligations in regard to submission, namely: Guinea, Mauritius, Mauritania, Netherlands, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe. In the course of its session, the Committee was informed by various other States of measures taken to bring Conventions and Recommendations before the competent national authorities. It welcomed the progress achieved and expressed the hope that there would be further improvements in countries that still experienced difficulties in complying with their obligations.

OBLIGATION_B Failure to submit

131. The Committee noted with regret that no indication was available that steps had been taken to submit the Conventions and Recommendations adopted from the 69th to the 76th Sessions of the Conference (1983 to 1989) to the competent authorities, in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution, by Haiti, Kenya, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone and Suriname.

OBLIGATION_C Supply of reports on ratified Conventions

132. In Part B of its report (General questions concerning international labour standards) the Committee considered the fulfilment by States of their obligation to report on the application of ratified Conventions. Only 9.6 per cent of the reports due had been received by the date fixed by the Governing Body (11.4 per cent in 1990). By the date of the meeting of the Committee of Experts, however, this percentage had risen to 71.9 which is the lowest figure recorded since 1950. Since then further reports have been received, bringing the figure to 83.7 per cent (as compared to 81.9 per cent in 1990 and 84.4 per cent in 1989). This year, 49 per cent of the reports for which information on practical information had been requested contained such information, which represented a considerable decrease over the figures for 1990 (56 per cent) and 1989 (63 per cent). Many members of the Committee emphasised the importance of sending such information, since without it, it was impossible to know if a Convention was being applied. The Committee joins the Committee of Experts in appealing to governments to make every effort to include the necessary information in future reports.

OBLIGATION_D Failure to supply reports and information on the application of ratified Conventions

133. The Committee noted with regret that no reports on ratified Conventions had been supplied for two years or more by the following States: Mauritania, Sierra Leone.

134. The Committee also noted with regret that first reports on ratified Conventions had not been supplied since 1988 by Ghana (Convention No. 148) and Netherlands (Aruba) (Conventions Nos. 121, 140, 141, 142). It stressed the special importance of first reports, on which the Committee of Experts bases its first evaluation of compliance with ratified Conventions.

135. In this year's report, the Committee of Experts noted that 42 governments had not communicated replies to most or any of the observations and direct requests relating to Conventions on which reports were due for examination this year, involving a total of 299 cases (compared with 220 cases last year and 177 two years ago). It was, however, informed that, since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, 31 of the governments concerned had sent replies which would be examined by the Committee of Experts next year.

136. The Committee noted with regret, however, that no information had yet been received regarding any or most of the observations and direct requests of the Committee of Experts to which replies were requested for the period ending 30 June 1990 from the following countries: Afghanistan, Bahamas, Cape Verde, Colombia, Djibouti, El Salvador, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahirya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Yemen, Yugoslavia.

137. The Committee noted the explanations provided by the governments of the following countries concerning difficulties encountered in discharging their obligations: Afghanistan (technical and administrative difficulties); Cape Verde (administrative and institutional difficulties); Colombia (administrative difficulties); Madagascar (technical difficulties); Mauritania (administrative and technical difficulties); Papua New Guinea (administrative difficulties); Sierra Leone (administrative and technical difficulties); Republic of Yemen (technical difficulties); Yugoslavia (administrative and technical difficulties). (Details of these explanations appear in the reports of the discussions of these cases, in Part Two of this report.)

OBLIGATION_E Application of ratified Conventions

138. The Committee noted with particular interest the steps that had been taken by a number of governments to ensure compliance with ratified Conventions. This year, the Committee of Experts had in paragraph 98 of its report listed new cases in which governments had made changes to their law and practice following comments it had made concerning the degree of conformity of national legislation or practice with the provisions of a ratified Convention. There were 48 such cases, relating to 35 States and four non-metropolitan territories in all regions of the world. Almost 1,900 cases of progress have been recorded since the Committee of Experts began listing these cases in its report in 1964. These results are tangible proof of the effectiveness of the supervisory system.

139. In the course of the present session, the Conference Committee was informed of a number of other instances in which measures had recently been taken or were about to be adopted by governments with a view to ensuring the implementation of ratified Conventions. While it is for the Committee of Experts to examine these measures, the Conference Committee welcomed these renewed signs of the efforts made by governments to comply with their international obligations and to act upon the comments of the supervisory bodies.

140. The Committee thought it appropriate to draw the attention of the Conference to a number of important cases which it had to consider.

OBLIGATION_F Cases of progress

141. The Committee noted with satisfaction that in a number of cases governments have introduced changes in their law and practice in order to eliminate divergencies previously discussed by the Committee. In this respect, it referred to the report of the Committee of Experts and the discussion of individual cases which appears in Part Two of this report.

OBLIGATION_G Special cases

142. The Committee considered it appropriate to draw the attention of the Conference to the discussion it had regarding the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs, a full record of which appears in Part Two of this report.

143. As regarded the application by Panama of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Committee took note of the information, both verbal and in writing, provided by the Government representative, as well as the discussion which took place in the Committee. It regretted that this information does not contain any new element which would make it possible to ensure a better application of the Conventions. The Committee recalled that most of the comments made by the Committee of Experts date back to 1967. Bearing in mind the importance of the points raised in the comments which concern trade union rights as such, as well as the right to free collective bargaining, the Committee expressed its deep concern faced with the continuing number of serious divergencies between law and practice, on the one hand, and Convention, on the other. The Committee urged the Government to adopt the necessary measures in the very near future in order to ensure full implementation of Convention Nos. 87 and 98. While recalling the substance of its conclusions of 1989, the Committee trusts that specific measures in line with the observations made by the Committee of Experts can be observed next year.

144. As regarded the application by Thailand of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the Committee took note of the report of the Committee of Experts and the information provided by the Government representative. It noted the additional measures taken by the Government to ensure the protection of children. It expressed, however, its deep concern for the lack of effectiveness of the practical implementation of these measures, in particular as to the application of sanctions against those who were responsible for these cases of abuse. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take all necessary measures to remedy the serious situation of child labour in the country - that is to eliminate child labour - and to provide the International Labour Organisation with all the information required so that the supervisory bodies may note, in the near future, a clear improvement in the situation, bringing the country into complete conformity in law and practice with all the requirements of the Convention.

145. The Committee trusted that the governments concerned would take all the measures necessary to correct the deficiencies noted and invited them to consider using appropriate forms of ILO assistance, including direct contacts, to ensure that real progress would be achieved by next year in regard to the observance of their obligations under the ILO Constitution and the Conventions in question.

OBLIGATION_H Continued failure to implement

146. The Committee recalled that its working methods provide for the listing of cases of continued failure over several years to eliminate serious deficiences, previously discussed, in the application of ratified Conventions. This year the Committee did not list any case under this heading.

147. The Governments of the countries to which reference is made in paragraphs 143 and 144 are invited to supply the relevant reports and information to enable the Committee to follow up the above-mentioned matters at the next session the the Conference.

OBLIGATION_I Supply of reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations

148. As already indicated, reports were requested in 1990, under article 19 of the Constitution, on the Paid Educational Leave Convention (No. 140) and Recommendation (No. 148), 1974, and the Human Resources Development Convention (No. 142) and Recommendation (No. 150), 1975. The Committee noted that 312 of the 523 reports requested were received (59.6 per cent).

149. The Committee noted with regret that, over the past five years, none of the reports on unratified Conventions and on Recommendations requested under article 19 of the Constitution had been supplied by the following: Cambodia, El Salvador, Fiji, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Republic of Yemen.

OBLIGATION_J Communication of copies of reports to workers' and employers' organisations

150. Once again this year, the Committee did not have to apply the criterion "The government has failed during the past three years to indicate the representative organisations of employers and workers to which, in accordance with article 23(2) of the Constitution, copies of reports and information supplied to the ILO under articles 19 and 22 have been communicated".

OBLIGATION_K Participation in the work of the Committee

151. The Committee wishes to express its gratitude to the 51 governments which collaborated by providing information on the situation in their countries and participating in the discussions of their individual cases.

152. However, the Committee regretted that, despite repeated invitations, the governments of the following States failed to take part in the discussions concerning their countries: Belize, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Liberia, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago.

153. The Committee noted with regret that certain States which were not represented at the Conference (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cambodia, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands), as well as another whose representatives had had to leave the Conference before its closure (Djibouti), had been unable to participate in the Committee's examination of the cases relating to them. It decided to mention the cases of these States in the appropriate paragraphs of this report and in accordance with the usual practice to inform the States concerned.

154. This year the Committee had detailed discussions on several major problems - in particular, the links between the various bodies in the supervisory system; the fulfilment of constitutional obligations concerning the application of standards; the position in member States as regards the development of human resources and paid educational leave; and many often difficult and complex national situations, affecting the implementation of international labour standards.

155. These discussions have confirmed the convergence of thinking over recent years, on basic questions such as the universal value of standards, and the absolute necessity of maintaining and strengthening the effectiveness of the ILO's supervisory system, since this is the insurance for international labour standards ratified by member States being made effective. The consideration of the question of interpretation of Conventions was the subject of certain proposals aimed at enabling the relevant provisions of the Constitution to be implemented. The frank, calm discussions which took place in the Conference Committee enable the ILO's constituents to examine and express their opinions on the way in which the member States fulfil their obligations to the Organisation, on the basis of the conclusions of the Committee of Experts and direct dialogue with the Governments concerned. This is a strength of the ILO's supervisory system, which gives governments, employers and workers from all the regions of the world the chance through dialogue to make their views known in this area.

156. The changes which the world has seen in the last few years show the importance of international standards both as a vehicle of change and hope and as a useful framework for the process of reform and restructuring which is going on in many countries in all regions of the world. Great expectations of freedom and justice have been awakened and it is more important than ever to make sure that the social aspects of restructuring and economic development are given full weight by all ILO constituents in order to minimise the social costs of necessary structural adjustment in developing countries and counter the increase of inequity and prejudical treatment in the developed countries. The changes which have taken place or which are still on the way go far beyond the economic sphere. The hopes they give rise to will be fulfilled or dashed according as these changes are successful or unsuccessful in the economic and social dimension.

157. The emphasis which has been placed on greater complementarity between standards and technical cooperation in the ILO's programmes has enabled one step to be taken in this direction. The Committee on the Application of Standards hopes, within its terms of reference, to continue to contribute to the achievement of these aims of social justice.

Geneva, 21 June 1991

J.-J. ELMIGER,

A. CALLORDA,

Endnotes

Endnote 2

Endnote 3