 |
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |
ILCCR: General Observation concerning Antigua and Barbuda. Published: 2007Description:(ILCCR General Observation) Country:(Antigua and Barbuda) Session of the Conference:96 Document:22 Display the document in: French Spanish Document No. (ilolex): 122007ATG I. Observations and Information concerning Reports on ratified Conventions (Articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution) A. Discussion of cases of serious failure by member States to respect their reporting and other standards-related obligations (b) Failure to supply first reports on the application of ratified Conventions A Government representative of Armenia indicated that during the 95th Session of the International Labour Con-ference, her Government had declared that it would fully implement its reporting obligations within a period of two years. It attached great importance to those obligations and was currently undertaking considerable work in that regard with technical assistance from the ILO Office, and in particular the ILO Subregional Office in Moscow, which was greatly appreciated. She informed the Conference Committee that since the 95th Session of the Conference, Armenia had submitted seven of the 14 reports requested, notably on the application of Conventions Nos 29, 81, 95, 98, 100, 105 and 122. However, she regretted the fact that the bulk of the reports had been submitted in April 2007: too late to be included in the Committee of Experts' report. In conclusion, she was pleased to announce that the remaining seven reports on Conventions Nos 17, 18, 111, 135, 151, 174 and 176 were currently being drafted and would be submitted to the ILO in the next few months. Armenia would thus clear its entire backlog on reporting before the end of 2007. A Government representative of Gambia stated that the reports on Conventions Nos 29, 138 and 182 had been sent to the ILO but had apparently not been received. His Government would endeavour to locate copies of the reports and resend them to the ILO. If they could not be found, the reports would be rewritten. Since the Employment Division of the Ministry had only one member of staff, ILO technical assistance would be greatly appreciated on those and other issues. A Government representative of Serbia stated that all state institutions were fully dedicated to fulfilling their country's constitutional obligations. However, two circumstances had had an impact on the failure to submit reports since 2003 and 2005. With regard to the period before May 2006, due to its constitutional particularities, lack of functionality and coherence of public governance had characterized the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. After both republics became independent, Serbia had faced a new challenge, notably on how to undertake the necessary institutional transformations in order to meet international obligations in the most effective way. That was still ongoing. The other aspect concerned Serbia's interest in protecting labour standards in the sectors covered by the Conventions concerned. After the dissolution of the State Union with Montenegro, Serbia became a landlocked country. As a result, attention had to be paid to the relevant sectors and legislation. However, those developments had been duly taken into account in the context of the obligations arising from ILO membership. A consultative process with the line ministries had recently been initiated and the Government would consider carefully the reports on the application of all ratified Conventions. In conclusion, the speaker paid a special tribute to the ILO Subregional Office in Budapest for offering very useful assistance on reporting obligations, among other matters. Government experts had also participated in the course on international labour standards held in Turin and Geneva, and Serbia very much appreciated that help. Serbia was looking forward to participating in other training programmes and benefiting from further ILO technical assistance in order to fulfil its reporting obligations more efficiently. A Government representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia stated that since the last session of the Conference, his Government had been seriously engaged in clearing the reporting backlog with the assistance of the ILO. Since the beginning of the session, reports on Conventions Nos 87 and 98 had been submitted. Reports on Conventions Nos 105 and 182 were being prepared and would be ready by September 2007 at the latest. The Committee noted the information and explanations provided by the Government representatives who took the floor and reiterated the crucial importance of submitting first reports on the application of ratified Conventions. The Committee recalled that the Office's technical assistance was available to the Governments concerned to contribute to the fulfilment of this obligation. The Committee decided to mention the following cases in the appropriate section of the General Report: since 1992 - Liberia (Convention No. 133); since 1995 - Armenia (Convention No. 111), Kyrgyzstan (Convention No. 133); since 1996 - Armenia (Conventions Nos 135, 151); since 1998 - Armenia (Convention No. 174), Equatorial Guinea (Conventions Nos 68, 92); since 1999 - Turkmenistan (Conventions Nos 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111); since 2001 - Armenia (Convention No. 176); since 2002 - Gambia (Conventions Nos 29, 105, 138), Saint Kitts and Nevis (Conventions Nos 87, 98), Saint Lucia (Conventions Nos 154, 158, 182); since 2003 - Dominica (Convention No. 182), Gambia (Convention No. 182), Iraq (Conventions Nos 172, 182), Serbia (Conventions Nos 27, 113, 114); since 2004 - Antigua and Barbuda (Conventions Nos 122, 131, 135, 142, 144, 150, 151, 154, 155, 158, 161, 182), Dominica (Conventions Nos 144, 169), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Convention No. 182); and since 2005 - Albania (Conventions Nos 174, 175, 176), Antigua and Barbuda (Convention No. 100), Armenia (Convention No. 17), Liberia (Conventions Nos 81, 144, 150, 182), Serbia (Conventions Nos 8, 16, 22, 23, 53, 56, 69, 73, 74), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Convention No. 105), Uganda (Convention No. 138). ------------------------ III. Reports on unratified Conventions, Recommendations (Article 19 of the Constitution)(a) Failure to supply reports for the past five years on unratified Conventions and Recommendations A Government representative of Armenia reiterated her Government's commitment to fulfilling all its obligations as an ILO member. The information concerning submission in accordance with article 19 of the ILO Constitution had been transmitted to the ILO in May 2007. As required, the Government had submitted all Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the 80th and subsequent sessions of the International Labour Conference to the National Assembly. A Government representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that the authorities of her country had made consid-erable efforts to fulfil their reporting obligations under article 19 of the ILO Constitution. It was expected that, with ILO assistance, the preparation and submission of all outstanding reports, including those under article 19, would be possible before the end of 2007. A Government representative of Djibouti recalled that his country had ratified no less than 68 Conventions since its accession to independence, and that the burden of work hence exceeded the limited means of its governmental institutions. In that regard, the Government of Djibouti remained vigilant as to the periods during which it would be able to denounce the Conventions that were not of utmost relevance to the country. The Government undertook nonetheless to make every effort to submit the reports due to the Committee. A Government representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia informed the Committee that during the past year, his Government had been focusing, as a priority, on fulfilling its reporting obligations concerning ratified fundamental Conventions. Due to time constraints and lack of resources, the Government had not been in a position to prepare reports on non-ratified Conventions. However, it paid the utmost attention to its obligations under the ILO Constitution and it was hoped that, with ILO assistance, it would be possible to submit all reports before the next session of the Conference. A Government representative of Kiribati stated that the process of dealing with non-ratified Conventions did not pose any serious problems. With ILO assistance, the Government continued to work with the key stakeholders towards ratification before the next session of the Conference. The Committee noted the information and explanations provided by the Government representatives who took the floor. The Committee stressed the importance it attached to the constitutional obligation of supplying reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations. Such reports made it possible to evaluate the situation more fully in the context of the General Surveys prepared by the Committee of Experts. The Committee recalled that the ILO could offer technical assistance to contribute to the fulfilment of this obligation. The Committee urged all member States to comply with their obligations in this respect and expressed the firm hope that the Governments of Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uganda and Uzbekistan would comply in the future with their obligations under article 19 of the Constitution. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the appropriate section of its General Report. The Worker members recalled that the obligation to submit reports was a key element of the ILO supervisory system. In that regard, they believed that governments not submitting their reports benefited from an unjustified advantage compared to those that fulfilled that obligation, since they de facto eluded examination by the Committee on the Application of Standards. The Employer members thanked the governments that had submitted outstanding reports in the meantime and those that provided information to the Committee explaining their situation. It was evident that failure to submit instruments to the competent authorities and to report fundamentally undermined the ratification and implementation process. When ILO instruments were not submitted to the competent authorities, ratification could not take place. Information reported for the purpose of General Surveys enabled the Committee of Experts to identify obstacles to application and to provide suggestions for overcoming them. Once a Convention had been ratified, first reports were crucial to enable the Committee of Experts to assess the level of application by the ratifying country and to make comments. Without reporting, the supervisory system as a whole could not function. The ILO should therefore establish contacts with the countries concerned that were not accredited to the Conference. In case of substantial inability of a government to report, the Office should provide technical assistance. In addition, the possibility that countries with strong reporting systems could assist countries lacking such capacity was raised. In conclusion, the Employer members stressed that those matters were among the most important issues discussed by the Committee. |
| ILO Home | NORMES home | ILOLEX home | Universal Query | NATLEX |
|
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |