 |
|
SECTOR
Home | What's New
| About SECTOR
| Meetings | Publications
| Discussion Forum
| Contact Us |
Links | Site
Map
|
|
|
Go to the main meeting page for the 29th Joint Maritime Commission
Part II. Examination of maritime social security Conventions and Recommendations
Part III. A way forward on maritime labour standards: A possible maritime “Decent work” Convention
Appendix II. Up-to-date list of ratifications of international labour Conventions
This review of relevant ILO maritime instruments is divided into three parts. Parts I and II contain a summary of the examination and decisions to date of the Governing Body concerning the revision of maritime standards and an examination of maritime social security instruments. They are submitted to the Joint Maritime Commission (JMC) for information and, as detailed below, for further consideration in the light of the proposals presented in Part III of this document on a way forward on maritime labour standards.
Part III proposes an integrated approach to future standard setting in the maritime field. It suggests the development of one or possibly five framework instruments to replace the existing body of 30 Conventions and 23 Recommendations. The main proposal in Part III is for one flagship instrument which would represent the “bill of rights” for the industry and seek to ensure progress towards sectoral universality of obligations. The framework Convention would be complemented by annexes to which facilitated amendment procedures would apply. An effective monitoring of the instrument based on article 19 of the ILO Constitution would create a certain dynamism to encourage progress in meeting the objectives contained in the instrument. Part III also makes a case for an enhanced role for the JMC and for a tripartite subcommittee. These proposals seek to ensure that any future standard-setting activity would respond to the rapid changes, needs and technological developments being experienced by a truly global industry – shipping.
The relevant points for discussion are consolidated at the end of the document. Annexed to this document are two tables containing a summary of decisions taken by the Governing Body concerning maritime instruments and an up-to-date list of ratifications of maritime Conventions.
The purpose of this part of the document is to provide a summary of the examination and decisions taken by the Governing Body concerning maritime labour standards which were examined by the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards of the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards of the Governing Body.
Following the discussion on standard-setting policy at the 81st Session of the International Labour Conference in 1994, the Governing Body, at its 262nd Session (March-April 1995), decided to set up a Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards (the Working Party) under the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards (LILS). It was decided that the Working Party would examine the need for revision of all Conventions and Recommendations adopted before 1985 with a view to rejuvenating and strengthening the standard-setting system. Proposals were not to have the effect of reducing the protection already afforded to workers by ratified Conventions. [1]
Since it was set up, the Working Party has met ten times and examined almost all of the Conventions and Recommendations falling under its remit. The Working Party conducted a case-by-case examination of each of the instruments. It formulated proposals which were approved by the LILS Committee and the Governing Body to revise outdated instruments, to promote ratification of up-to-date Conventions, to invite member States to give up-to-date Recommendations due effect and to propose the shelving, abrogation or withdrawal of obsolete instruments as appropriate.
The Working Party initiated its examination of maritime instruments during the 273rd Session (November 1998) of the Governing Body. It applied the same criteria and methodology for the examination of maritime instruments as it did for other instruments. [2] It examined 23 maritime Conventions and 22 Recommendations as part of that process. [3] The work of the Working Party concerning the maritime instruments was facilitated by the recommendations of the constituent members of the JMC made at the Working Party's request. A Joint Working Group of shipowners' and seafarers' representative organizations met in Geneva in July 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Working Group) and formulated recommendations, most of which were approved by the Governing Body. [4]
The following summarizes the proposals of the Working Party, the LILS Committee and the decisions of the Governing Body, including decisions taken at the 277th Session (March 2000) of the Governing Body.
This section contains a summary of the examination relating to each of the seven Conventions retained by the Governing Body for revision.
In addition to the ratifications (including declarations of applications to non-metropolitan territories (NMTs)), [5] Convention No. 73 is contained in the Appendix to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147) – and, by virtue of Article 2(a) of Convention No 147, it applies to 11 additional countries based on the “substantial equivalence” provision. Convention No. 73 has not received as many ratifications as Convention No. 16.
In the course of the examination of Convention No. 16 and Convention No. 73, it was noted that one of the problems concerning their implementation was that fitness standards for seafarers varied widely. [6] A set of Guidelines for Conducting Pre-sea and Periodic Medical Fitness Examinations for Seafarers was developed jointly by the ILO and WHO in 1997 in order to seek to remedy this situation.
The Joint Working Group proposed that both these instruments be revised.
Member States were invited to express their views on whether a revision of these Conventions should be considered as separate items or jointly. A majority of 21 countries and one workers' organization of those responding were in favour of joint revision of the two Conventions. [7] Five countries emphasized the common object of the two instruments and expressed the view that the medical examination of young persons should be considered within the medical examination requirements for seafarers generally. Three countries specified that the revision of the two instruments should result in the adoption of a single Convention. Among the eight countries in favour of separate consideration, two underlined the need to ensure special protection for young persons. In addition, four countries were of the view that the provisions of the two Conventions should be revised to reflect current technology and normative developments such as the IMO's Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (IMO-STCW convention).
The Working Party emphasized that a joint revision of these two Conventions would not in itself be an obstacle to ensuring special protection for young persons if such provisions were to be considered.
Based on the recommendation of the LILS Working Party, the Governing Body decided that Conventions Nos. 16 and 73 should be revised jointly.
In addition to the ratifications registered for Convention No. 22, this Convention applies to 12 additional countries based on the “substantially equivalent” provision in Article 2(a) in Convention No. 147.
The Joint Working Group recommended that this Convention be revised.
Following a Governing Body request for information, seven countries indicated that they saw no obstacles or difficulties that might point to a need for full or partial revision of Convention No. 22, and two additional countries were not in favour of revision of Convention No. 22 as it was contained in the Appendix to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147), to which they were parties. [8] A majority of 14 countries and one workers' organization of those responding were in favour of a revision of Convention No. 22. These countries considered that the Convention should be adapted to the changes that had taken place in the shipping sector since its adoption. The Convention was based on ship-specific articles of agreement, while current practice and legislation seemed to be evolving towards shipowner-specific articles of agreement. There was a need for a comprehensive review and formulation of Conventions more appropriate to current conditions in the light of changes in the maritime industry. It was also suggested that the Convention should be revised to maximize flexibility and minimize administrative problems.
The International Shipping Federation (ISF) expressed the view that Convention No. 22 no longer reflected modern employment practice. In their view, there was an assumption of supervision and control over the contract by public administration which did not currently exist in many flag States; they felt that the articles of agreement should be signed between the shipowner and the seafarer. The International Transport Federation (ITF) considered for its part that while this Convention should be revised, extreme caution should be exercised to ensure that allowing for modern employment practices would not detract from the flag State's ultimate responsibility in this matter.
Based on the recommendation of the LILS Working Party, the Governing Body decided that Convention No. 22 should be revised.
In addition to the ratifications registered for these Conventions, Article 5 of Convention No. 68 is contained in the Appendix to Convention No. 147. This article therefore applies to 22 additional countries based on the “substantially equivalent” provision in Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147.
In the course of examination of both these Conventions, it was noted that they related to an issue that had become increasingly important, namely the need to ensure that seafarers received adequate and well-prepared food. At present seafarers often spent weeks or months on board a ship without any alternative food supply. The health aspects of handling food and catering arrangements had developed considerably on shore, and deficiencies detected in recent years relating to these issues on board ships pointed to the need to revise Conventions Nos. 68 and 69.
The Joint Working Group recommended that both Convention No. 68 and Convention No. 69 be revised.
In written consultations held, 15 countries among those responding were in favour of the revision of both these Conventions. Many countries stressed that Convention No. 68 was dated and was not likely to reflect recent practice, technological developments or legislative provisions in the maritime sector. Some countries emphasized the complementarity between Conventions Nos. 68 and 69 and suggested that they should be revised jointly.
It was also considered that the corresponding International Maritime Organization (IMO) instruments should be taken into account in the context of the revision of these Conventions.
Based on the recommendation of the LILS Working Party, the Governing Body decided that these Conventions should be revised jointly, taking into account relevant IMO instruments.
In the examination of this Convention it was noted that the IMO-STCW convention, as revised, had introduced a new and modern approach to the training and certification of seafarers which might point to a need for revision of Convention No. 74.
The Joint Working Group recommended a revision of this Convention.
In written consultations held, a majority of the countries responding were in favour of revision. Some of them emphasized the need to modernize this Convention which did not reflect current practice, technological developments and legislative provisions in the maritime sector. Others stated that a future revision should be undertaken in order to harmonize the provisions of this Convention with the IMO-STCW convention. Yet other countries took the view that the IMO standard should be the only applicable requirement and that a revision of this Convention should be avoided in order to prevent overlapping with the IMO-STCW convention.
The Working Party considered that although the IMO-STCW convention was the modern international instrument on the training and certification of seafarers, it did not deal with all issues of relevance to labour standards. In addition, different supervisory mechanisms were applicable to IMO and ILO Conventions.
The Governing Body therefore decided that Convention No. 74 should be revised either separately or as part of any framework Convention, taking into account corresponding IMO instruments.
The Joint Working Group recommended a revision of this Convention.
The majority view in the consultations was clearly in favour of revision, taking into account the modern IMO-STCW convention.
Based on the recommendation by the Working Party, the Governing Body decided that Convention No. 134 should be revised and that the corresponding IMO instruments should be taken into account in this context.
The Governing Body decided to maintain the status quo of the following Conventions, considering that no other type of decision was appropriate.
In addition to the ratifications registered for this Convention, Articles 3 and 4 of this Convention are listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147; they therefore apply to 20 additional countries based on the “substantial equivalent” provision in Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147.
The Joint Working Group recommended that Convention No. 53 be shelved.
The Ventejol Working Parties of 1979 and 1987 both classified Convention No. 53 in the category of “instruments to be promoted on priority basis”. The IMO-STCW convention and Convention No. 53 apply with some exceptions, to the same type of ships and same officers. The IMO-STCW convention provides for a modern approach and gives more detailed requirements regarding training, certification and watchkeeping of seafarers than Convention No. 53. Furthermore, the IMO-STCW convention has been ratified by 130 of the member States of the IMO. As regards the Joint Working Group's recommendation, the Governing Body considered that Convention No. 53 still played a role in some situations: firstly, it was fully applicable for States parties to Convention No. 53 which were not parties to the IMO-STCW convention; secondly, the IMO-STCW convention did not cover some of the officers on very small vessels; and thirdly, Convention No. 53 (Articles 3 and 4 only) was listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, thus requiring that ratifying States had minimum provisions concerning certificates to officers and an efficient system of inspection in this regard. Furthermore, a decision to shelve this Convention might, due to the inclusion of Convention No. 53 in the Appendix to Convention No. 147, affect the purpose and the obligations arising from this Convention.
Based on the recommendation of the LILS Working Party, the Governing Body therefore decided to maintain the status quo for this Convention and to re-examine its status in due course.
In addition to the ratifications registered for Convention No. 92, this Convention applies to ten additional countries based on the “substantially equivalent” provision in Article 2(a) in Convention No. 147.
Since the adoption of this Convention, the shipping sector has undergone profound technical developments. There is a close link between Convention No. 92 and the Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970 (No. 133). [9] The latter is included in the Protocol of 1996 to Convention No. 147 [10] and supplements Convention No. 92.
The Joint Working Group recommended that this Convention be revised.
In the written consultations held, 15 countries among those responding were in favour of revision. Five countries stressed that Convention No. 92 was dated and was not likely to reflect current practice, technological developments or legislative provisions in the maritime sector. It was also specifically stated that the Convention should be updated to ensure that it reflected, but did not overlap with, current IMO standards.
The Working Party noted that Conventions Nos. 92 and 133 were closely related. Considering the decision taken with respect to Convention No. 133, the Governing Body decided to maintain the status quo with respect to Convention No. 92 and to re-examine its status in due course.
Convention No. 133 supplements the provisions of Convention No. 92 and pursuant to its Article 3, countries ratifying Convention No. 133 must also comply with the provisions of Parts II and III of Convention No. 92.
The Joint Working Group recommended that the status quo be maintained for Convention No. 133.
Based on the recommendation of the LILS Working Party, the Governing Body decided to maintain the status quo of Convention No. 133.
In the case of the following Conventions, the Governing Body considered that their ratification should be encouraged because they continued to respond to current needs and that their ratification should be promoted. However, in a few instances, the Governing Body also considered it appropriate to request additional information on possible obstacles to ratification. These requests for information are still pending.
As requested by the Working Party, the Office provided information on the background and contents of Convention No. 147, as well as an analysis of the possible implications of proposals to revise, shelve or abrogate the Conventions in its Appendix. [11]
Based on the recommendation of the LILS Working Party, the Governing Body decided to invite member States to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 147 and the Protocol of 1996. [12] It also decided that the list of Conventions in its Appendix be re-examined in due course, in the light of developments in the industry and the adoption of new instruments.
In addition to the ratifications registered for this Convention, its current relevance is demonstrated by its inclusion in Part B of the Supplementary Appendix to the Protocol of 1996 to Convention No. 147. [13]
Based on the recommendation of the Joint Working Group, as well as that of the Working Party, the Governing Body decided to invite member States to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 108.
The Joint Working Group recommended that Convention No. 145 be promoted.
The Working Party noted that this Convention had received a relatively modest number of ratifications. Based on the recommendation by the Working Party, the Governing Body decided that the ratification of this Convention be promoted and that member States be requested to inform the Office of obstacles and difficulties encountered, if any, that might prevent or delay the ratification of Convention No. 145. This request is still pending.
The Joint Working Group recommended that Convention No. 146 be promoted.
The Working Party noted that this Convention had received a relatively modest number of ratifications. Based on the recommendation by the Working Party, the Governing Body decided that the ratification of this Convention be promoted. It should also be noted that in the context of the examination of Conventions Nos. 54, 72 and 91, [14] the States parties to these Conventions were invited to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 146.
Under this rubric, account should also be taken of the maritime labour Conventions adopted after 1985 which were not within the terms of reference of the Working Party. The Governing Body considered that all these instruments were up-to-date. These Conventions were adopted at the 1987 and 1996 Maritime Sessions of the International Labour Conference. They are the following: Seafarers' Welfare Convention, 1987 (No. 163); Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention, 1987(No. 164); Social Security (Seafarers) Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 165); Repatriation of Seafarers Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 166); Labour Inspection (Seafarers) Convention, 1996 (No. 178); Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers Convention, 1996 (No. 179); and Seafarers' Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Convention, 1996 (No. 180).
Revising Conventions have not always attracted a large number of ratifications, and in certain cases the older Conventions have remained in force. The Working Party has made proposals aimed at reactivating the ratification of revising Conventions and the denunciation, at the same time, of such older Conventions.
The following Conventions were revised by more recent Conventions. Member States concerned are being invited to contemplate ratifying the relevant up-to-date Conventions and, at the same time, to denounce the outdated Conventions. For the Conventions listed below, the ratification of the more up-to-date Conventions would result in the automatic denunciation of the older instruments.
(1) Minimum Age (Sea) Convention, 1920 (No. 7) (Revised by Convention No. 56);
(2) Placing of Seamen Convention, 1920 (No. 9) (Revised by Convention No. 179);
(3) Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers) Convention, 1921 (No. 15) (Revised by Convention No. 138);
(4) Repatriation of Seamen Convention, 1926 (No. 23) (Revised by Convention No. 166);
(5) Holidays with Pay (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 54) (Revised by Convention No. 72);
(6) Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 57) (Revised by Convention No. 76);
(7) Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1936 (No. 58) (Revised by Convention No. 138);
(8) Paid Vacations (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 72) (Revised by Convention No. 91);
(9) Accommodation of Crews Convention, 1946 (No. 75) (Revised by Convention No. 92);
(10) Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention, 1946 (No. 76) (Revised by Convention No. 93);
(11) Paid Vacations (Seafarers) Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 91) (Revised by Convention No. 146);
(12) Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 93) (Revised by Convention No. 109);
(13) Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1958 (No. 109) (Revised by Convention No. 180).
The Governing Body considered that certain Conventions no longer corresponded to current needs, and that they had become outmoded or obsolete. The Office no longer requests member States to report on these Conventions to the ILO supervisory bodies. However, the right to invoke provisions relating to representations and complaints under articles 24 and 26 of the Constitution remains intact. In addition, employers' and workers' organizations may still submit observations in accordance with the regular supervisory procedures, for the review by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations resulting, where necessary, in requests for detailed reports. Finally, shelving has no impact on the status of these Conventions in the legal systems of member States that have ratified them.
The Governing Body decided to shelve, with immediate effect, the Paid Vacations (Seafarers) Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 91), and the Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers) Convention, 1921 (No. 15). [16]
The Constitution has been amended to enable the Conference to abrogate any Convention that has lost its purpose (including cases in which their objective has been fully met), or that no longer makes a useful contribution to attaining the objectives of the Organization. [17]
Since the amendment to the Standing Orders, the Conference may withdraw Conventions which have not entered into force or which are no longer in force as a result of denunciations or of ratifications. It also enables the Conference to withdraw Recommendations. Withdrawals do not depend on the entry into force of the constitutional amendment.
The Governing Body decided to propose in due time to the Conference the withdrawal of the following Conventions: [18]
– Holidays with Pay (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 54);
– Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 57);
– Paid Vacations (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 72);
– Accommodation of Crews Convention, 1946 (No. 75);
– Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention, 1946 (No. 76);
– Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 93).
Recommendations are non-binding instruments which define the Organization's objectives in a specific sphere and at a given time, and which establish guidelines to be used by member States in the area of social policy. Unlike Conventions, Recommendations are not subject to ratification.
A distinction has been made between Recommendations which accompany or supplement a Convention and those which are autonomous. The Governing Body decisions concerning Recommendations linked to a Convention tend to follow the decisions taken for the corresponding Convention.
No Recommendations concerning seafarers were included in a list for revision.
When a Recommendation has been considered up to date, the Governing Body has invited the member States to give it effect, in accordance with the provisions of article 19(6) of the Constitution. The Governing Body decided accordingly in the cases of the following three Recommendations:
(1) Protection of Young Seafarers Recommendation, 1976 (No. 153);
(2) Continuity of Employment (Seafarers) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 154);
(3) Merchant Shipping (Improvement of Standards) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 155).
As in the case of Conventions adopted after 1985, the following Recommendations are also, in addition to the above Recommendations, considered up to date:
(1) Seafarers' Welfare Recommendation, 1987 (No. 173);
(2) Repatriation of Seafarers Recommendation, 1987 (No. 174);
(3) Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers Recommendation, 1986 (No. 186);
(4) Seafarers' Wages, Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Recommendation, 1996 (No. 187).
The Joint Working Group recommended the revision of the Bedding, Mess Utensils and Miscellaneous Provisions (Ships' Crews) Recommendation, 1946 (No. 78), and the Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Recommendation, 1970 (No. 142); it recommended maintaining the status quo for the Vocational Training (Seafarers) Recommendation, 1970 (No. 137) and the Employment of Seafarers (Technical Developments) Recommendation, 1970 (No. 139).
The Governing Body decided to invite member States to provide information to the Office on the need to revise [19] these four maritime Recommendations.
In practice, the Conference had tended to “replace” Recommendations rather than revise them pursuant to article 45 of its Standing Orders. The Governing Body decided to take note of the replacement of four Recommendations by subsequent instruments:
(1) Vocational Training (Seafarers) Recommendation, 1946 (No. 77), has been replaced by Vocational Training (Seafarers) Recommendation, 1970 (No. 137);
(2) Repatriation (Ship Masters and Apprentices) Recommendation, 1926 (No. 27), has been replaced by Repatriation of Seafarers Recommendation, 1987(No. 174).
(3) Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Recommendation, 1958 (No. 109), has been replaced by Seafarers' Wages and Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships Recommendation, 1996 (No. 187);
(4) Labour Inspection (Seamen) Recommendation, 1926 (No. 28), has been replaced by Labour Inspection (Seafarers) Recommendation, 1996 (No. 185).
Based on the recommendation by the Joint Working Group and the Working Party the Governing Body decided to maintain the status quo with regard to the following five Recommendations:
(1) National Seamen's Codes Recommendation, 1920 (No. 9);
(2) Seafarer's Engagement (Foreign Vessels) Recommendation, 1958 (No. 107);
(3) Social Conditions and Safety (Seafarers) Recommendation, 1958 (No. 108);
(4) Crew Accommodation (Air Conditioning) Recommendation, 1970 (No 140);
(5) Crew Accommodation (Noise Control) Recommendation, 1970 (No. 141).
As noted above concerning the withdrawal of Conventions, the Standing Orders of the Conference was amended to permit the withdrawal of Recommendations. The procedure to be followed for the withdrawal of Recommendations is the same as that for the withdrawal of Conventions.
In the context of their examination by the Working Party, the Joint Working Group had proposed the withdrawal of Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) Recommendation, 1936 (No. 49); the shelving of Ships' Medicine Chest Recommendation, 1958 (No. 105) and Medical Advice at Sea Recommendation, 1958 (No. 106); and the shelving and abrogation of Seamen's Welfare in Ports Recommendation, 1936 (No. 48) and Seafarers' Welfare Recommendation, 1970 (No. 138). In view of the adoption of the constitutional amendment and the amendment to the Conference Standing Orders concerning abrogation and withdrawal, the appropriate legal procedure for Recommendations which are considered obsolete is that of withdrawal.
The Governing Body decided to note that these five Recommendations were obsolete and that their withdrawal be proposed to the Conference in due time. The intent of the Joint Working Group's recommendations concerning these Recommendations can be considered to have been endorsed by the above decision of the Governing Body.
Based on a recommendation by the Working Party, the Governing Body decided to invite the JMC to undertake a case-by-case examination of Conventions and Recommendations concerning social security for seafarers and submit its conclusions to the Governing Body at a forthcoming session. [20] In accordance with the terms of reference of the Working Party, this decision concerns the instruments adopted before 1985.
The Governing Body was able to benefit from expert advice from the social partners in the maritime sector on its examination of the other maritime instruments. The JMC may wish to make recommendations concerning the Conventions and Recommendations examined below.
(1) Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (No. 8);
(2) Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55);
(3) Sickness Insurance (Sea) Convention, 1936 (No. 56);
(4) Social Security (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 70);
(5) Seafarers' Pensions Convention, 1946 (No. 71).
Two Conventions, Nos. 56 and 70, have been revised by the Social Security (Seafarers) Convention (Revised), 1987 (No. 165). In the case of the other Conventions, Convention No. 165 contains substantive provisions on the branches of social security covered by them. While Convention No. 165 has entered into force, it has only received two ratifications to date. [21] It should be recalled that the Joint Working Group, when it met in July 1998 to review the maritime instruments, had noted the low rate of ratification of that Convention and had expressed a preliminary view that “Convention No. 165 was unlikely to attract widespread ratification in the near future and could not therefore be regarded as an adequate replacement for the previously adopted instruments”. [22]
The scope of Convention No. 165 and its relationship to the other social security instruments not revised by Convention No. 165 would need to be borne in mind. In particular, while the Convention is comprehensive and covers all of the subject-matter dealt with by the above five instruments, a ratification of this Convention may not necessarily mean that there would be automatic coverage for seafarers of all the benefits provided by Conventions Nos. 8, 55 and 71. A member State which ratifies Convention No. 165 is only obliged to provide coverage in respect of a minimum of three out of a possible ten branches of social security. Furthermore, as noted, only two of the Conventions are expressly revised, Conventions Nos. 56 and 70.
The Governing Body has placed on the agenda of the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2001, the question of Social security – Issues, challenges and prospects as an item for general discussion. It should also be noted that at a forthcoming meeting of the Governing Body, the Working Party is due to examine the results of written consultations with the member States requesting information concerning a series of non-maritime social security instruments.
(1) Ratifications:
(a) Number of current ratifications: 59.
(b) Latest ratification: Lebanon (1993).
(c) Ratification prospects: Uncertain. Over the last ten years, this Convention has attracted a slow rate of ratifications. Since 1990, it has received six additional ratifications or confirmations of existing ratifications following accession to independence of States. [23]
(2) Denunciations: None
(3) Comments by the Committee of Experts: Comments are pending for 26 countries and non-metropolitan territories (NMTs).
(4) Need for revision: This Convention has not been revised.
(5) Remarks: The Ventejol Working Parties of 1979 and 1987 had classified Convention No. 8 in the category of instruments to be promoted on a priority basis. This Convention has not been revised and since it was adopted before 1929, it cannot be closed to further ratification. The number of member States parties to this Convention are relatively high in comparison to other maritime instruments.
(6) Proposals: The Commission may wish to propose maintaining the status quo with respect to this Convention, considering the number of member States which are parties to it, to invite those States to ratify Convention No. 165 and to accept coverage of unemployment benefit as one of the branches of social security. These members States could then be invited to denounce Convention No. 8 at the time of ratification of Convention No. 165.
(1) Ratifications:
(a) Number of current ratifications: 16.
(b) Latest ratification: Luxembourg (1991).
(c) Ratification prospects: Uncertain. Over the last ten years, this Convention has attracted only one ratification.
(2) Denunciations: None
(3) Comments by the Committee of Experts: Comments are pending for two countries.
(4) Need for revision: This Convention has not been revised.
(5) Remarks: The Ventejol Working Parties of 1979 and 1987 had classified Convention No. 55 in the category of instruments to be promoted on a priority basis. Convention No. 55 is among the Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147. Pursuant to the “substantially equivalent” provision in Article 2(a) in Convention No. 147, it therefore also applies to those 30 countries which have ratified Convention No. 147 but not Convention No. 55. Convention No. 165 contains provisions dealing with shipowners' liability, but it does not revise Convention No. 55. As noted previously, Convention No. 165 has, to date, only attracted two ratifications.
(6) Proposals: In view of the above, the Commission may wish to recommend the maintenance of the status quo with respect to this Convention.
(1) Ratifications:
(a) Number of current ratifications: 19.
(b) Latest ratification: Bosnia and Herzegovina (1993).
(c) Ratification prospects: Uncertain. Over the last ten years, this Convention has attracted a slow rate of ratifications. It has received five additional ratifications or confirmations of existing ratifications following accession to independence of States. [24]
(2) Denunciations: One, following the ratification by Spain of Convention No. 165 in 1991.
(3) Comments by the Committee of Experts: Comments are pending for ten countries and NMTs.
(4) Need for revision: This Convention has been revised by Convention No. 165.
(5) Remarks: The Ventejol Working Party of 1979 classified Convention No. 56 in the category of instruments to be promoted on a priority basis. However, in 1987, Convention No. 56 was classified by the Ventejol Working Party in the category of instruments to be revised. As indicated above, it was revised by Convention No. 165. Convention No. 56 is among the Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention No. 147 and covered by the “substantial equivalence” provisions in Article 2(a) of Convention No. 147. It therefore applies to 31 countries in addition to those which have ratified Convention No. 56.
(6) Proposals: The Commission may therefore wish to recommend inviting the States parties to Convention No. 56 to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 165. The ratification of the latter Convention will involve the automatic denunciation of Convention No. 56. The status of Convention No. 56 could be re-examined in due course.
(1) Ratifications:
(a) Number of current ratifications: 7.
(b) Latest ratification: Algeria (1962).
(c) Ratification prospects: Uncertain. This Convention has not attracted any ratification since 1962.
(2) Denunciations: One, following the ratification by Spain of Convention No. 165 in 1991.
(3) Comments by the Committee of Experts: No comments pending.
(4) Need for revision: This Convention has been revised by Convention No. 165.
(5) Remarks: Convention No. 70 never entered into force (it requires at least nine ratifications). The Ventejol Working Party of 1979 classified Convention No. 70 in the category of instruments to be promoted on a priority basis. However, in 1987, Convention No. 70 was classified by the Ventejol Working Party in the category of instruments to be revised.
(6) Proposals: The Commission may wish to recommend inviting member States parties to Convention No. 70 to contemplate ratifying Convention No. 165. The ratification of the latter Convention will involve the automatic denunciation of Convention No. 70. The status of Convention No. 70 could be re-examined in due course, including the possibility to consider its eventual withdrawal.
(1) Ratifications:
(a) Number of current ratifications: 13.
(b) Latest ratification: Lebanon (1993).
(c) Ratification prospects: Uncertain. Over the last ten years, this Convention has attracted only one ratification.
(2) Denunciations: None.
(3) Comments by the Committee of Experts: Comments are pending for four countries.
(4) Need for revision: This Convention has not been revised.
(5) Remarks: The Ventejol Working Parties of 1979 and 1987 classified Convention No. 71 in the category of instruments to be promoted on a priority basis. Convention No. 165 contains provisions dealing with seafarers' pensions, but it does not revise Convention No. 71. In addition, a ratification of Convention No. 165 places an obligation on a ratifying State to cover a minimum of three branches of social security – but such a State is not required to cover seafarers' pensions.
(6) Proposals: In view of the above, the Commission may wish to recommend the maintenance of the status quo with respect to this Convention.
(1) Unemployment Insurance (Seamen) Recommendation, 1920 (No. 10);
(2) Seafarers' Social Security (Agreements) Recommendation, 1946 (No. 75);
(3) Seafarers' (Medical Care for Dependants) Recommendation, 1946 (No. 76).
This Recommendation supplements Convention No. 8. The Commission may wish to adopt the same position on this Recommendation as that adopted for Convention No. 8. The Commission may therefore wish to recommend the maintenance of the status quo with respect to this Recommendation and that it be re-examined in due course.
Recommendation No. 75 contains no express provisions concerning its relation to Convention No. 70. However, it was adopted at the same time as Convention No. 70 and Recommendation No. 76. In addition, the preparatory work confirms that Recommendation No. 76 also supplemented Convention No. 70. [25] It should also be noted that Convention No. 165 contains substantive provisions on foreign seafarers, an issue dealt with by Recommendation No. 75.
Proposals: The Commission may wish to recommend that the status quo in respect of Recommendation No. 75 be maintained in view of its relationship to Convention No. 70 and that this Recommendation be re-examined in due course.
Recommendation No. 76 supplements the provisions of Convention No. 70. This Convention was revised by Convention No. 165. However, Convention No. 165 was not supplemented by any Recommendation. It is also to be noted that Convention No. 165 contains provisions concerning medical care.
Proposals: The Commission may wish to recommend that the status quo in respect of Recommendation No. 76 be maintained in view of its relationship to Convention No. 70 and that Recommendation No. 76 be re-examined in due course.
The report under agenda item 3: “The impact on seafarers' living and working conditions of changes in the structure of the shipping industry”(hereinafter referred to as “the report”), highlights a number of developments which have taken place in the industry in recent times. These developments concern changes in ownership, the financing and management of shipping fleets, new forms of registers, dramatic shifts in the origin of labour supply, the growth of multinational and multicultural crew, and the developments in turnaround time of ships coupled with reduced crewing levels. They have all had an impact in various ways on the living and working conditions of seafarers. Although shipping has always been considered a global industry by virtue of its very special nature, globalization of the world economy has not left the industry unaffected. Outside the structural changes which have transformed the shipping industry in the last quarter of the twentieth century and to which the report refers, the emergence of a global labour market for seafarers has effectively transformed the shipping industry making it the world's first genuinely global industry. This requires a global response, an international regulatory response of an appropriate kind – global standards applicable to the entire industry. It calls for standards which would ensure decent shipping fleets, decent safety standards and decent social standards for all seafarers as called for by the Director-General of the ILO in his report Decent work. [26]
The report contains evidence that there has been a dramatic weakening of national regulatory regimes, with an accelerated shift from traditional maritime registers to other registers. The link between the flag State and the seafarer has become even more tenuous with the variety of forms of ownership, management and control of ships. The report refers to the growing avoidance of social regulations which have become the weakest link in the chain in the face of increased international competition and the requirement for mandatory compliance with technical standards. The report calls for breaking the vicious circle of low freight rates, extremely poor conditions and standards, weak national regulatory mechanisms and the reluctance to enforce internationally applicable labour standards. It does not make sweeping generalizations across the board concerning living and working conditions of seafarers. It recognizes that seafarers on board ships of some flag States or types of vessel do enjoy high standards. Poor conditions, some of which result from the developments to which reference is made, do however give rise to concern.
The report therefore recommends adopting minimum standards which should be neither standards reflecting the lowest common denominator nor those that are unrealistically high. These standards would respond to the primary role of the ILO today – which is to promote opportunities for men and women to obtain decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity. And this is precisely what the Director-General calls for in his Report. [27] This overall goal was endorsed by the Conference to be pursued within the context of the global economy. “Decent work” is considered relevant for all countries, including the developed, developing and transition economies. It is equally applicable to all sectors of the global economy – not least the maritime industry.
The Director-General's Report highlights the importance of enhancing the ILO's work on standards and considers a number of actions to raise the profile of its work in this area.
These include:
– preparing the ground for new standards more thoroughly;
– exploring new methods of standard setting;
– engaging in deeper analysis of existing standards, their synergy, lacunae, and impact on various groups;
– accelerating the revision of outdated instruments to build on progress already made and promoting priority standards as problem-solving tools;
– enhancing the impact of supervision of standards; and
– reasserting the role of ILO standards in the broader world context. [28]
The Director-General's Report calls for: reasserting the usefulness of international standards; reinvigorating efforts to experiment with new approaches; encouraging closer consultation with constituents; analysing proposed standards in terms of their potential impact on economic and social policy and their complementarity with other international instruments; and reinvigorating promotional efforts to see that standards are ratified and applied. Reference is also made to the difficulties encountered with ratification, especially as parliaments all over the world often have a long list of items awaiting attention. [29] The Director-General specifically states that “in this competitive environment it is important that the ILO concentrate its attention on high-impact standards to make them stand out from the pack”. [30] He invited the social partners to single out instruments for special attention.
A number of these actions are pertinent to an assessment of the impact of maritime labour standards, particularly in the light of the report. The question arises as to what profile do these standards have. What has been the impact of these standards on the working and living conditions of seafarers, employment in the industry, and on the industry itself? What are the reasons for the low rates of ratification of maritime labour Conventions compared to IMO Conventions? The report has given us elements to arrive at certain conclusions.
The ILO compilation of maritime labour Conventions and Recommendations contains 30 Conventions, one Protocol and 23 Recommendations and has grouped them under major headings. Under the general part, there are three Conventions and six Recommendations. Four Conventions and two Recommendations deal with training and entry into employment. Four Conventions cover conditions for admission to employment and three Conventions provide for certificates of competency. Five Conventions and four Recommendations are concerned with general conditions of employment. Safety, health and welfare are dealt with under six Conventions and nine Recommendations. Social security issues are covered by five Conventions and one Recommendation, while labour inspection is dealt with by only one Convention and a Recommendation. This apparently fragmented approach may be explained by the fact that these instruments were all adopted at different times in response to a specific problem or specific needs – over a period of almost 80 years. They cover most of the essential issues which are relevant to seafarers' working and living conditions. However, having them widely ratified and implemented as well as keeping them up to date, have proved to be a major challenge. In addition, treaty congestion makes it difficult for member States to engage in separate ratification processes for so many instruments. They may not now represent a manageable set of standards to govern a truly global industry.
Of the present 30 maritime Conventions and one Protocol, the ratification rates vary from 81 member States [31] to none in some cases. Convention No. 147, which is the best known ILO maritime Convention, has been ratified to date by 40 member States [32] representing about 60 per cent of the world shipping gross tonnage. Ratifications alone however do not give the full picture and there is no doubt that although the pertinent Conventions may not have been ratified, they have influenced national law and practice – and in some cases are actually applied though not ratified. As the report shows, port state control has also permitted extending compliance with the requirements under Convention No. 147 to third countries, particularly those which have not ratified the pertinent Conventions. The low rate of ratifications of maritime Conventions is widespread. The report refers to the demands of competition as one reason. Another reason may be that social and labour issues are given lower priority than environmental and safety concerns. The situation may also be attributed to the highly fragmented nature of maritime labour standards. The fact that shipping issues are dealt with by ministries dealing with maritime matters or by maritime authorities and labour matters by ministries of labour, means problems of coordination and competence play a role in sustaining the interest for the ratification of maritime labour Conventions. The role of national social partners in promoting ratification of ILO Conventions is also important. The increasing shift to international registers and the fact that more and more seafarers are being employed on ships flying the flag of countries of which they are not nationals, have resulted in the weakening of the role of social partners at the national level in these countries. The general low rate of ratifications and the difficulty in putting labour issues on the maritime and legislative agendas at the national level may raise concerns as to whether the standards meet the needs of the industry today.
The review made by the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, a summary of which is contained in Part I of this report, has concluded that of the maritime Conventions examined, [33] seven of them are obsolete and should be revised; [34] 13 should be denounced, [35] six of which have also been identified for withdrawal [36] as they never entered into force – the more recent Conventions were proposed for ratification in the place of Conventions proposed for denunciation; and six were considered either up to date or were identified for promotion; [37] and maintaining the status quo was proposed for three Conventions. [38] Concerning the examination made of maritime Recommendations, 11 of them were considered up to date or that the status quo be maintained; [39] four were considered to have been replaced; [40] and five were considered obsolete and proposed for withdrawal. [41]
From the above, a total of 16 maritime labour Conventions in addition to the seven adopted since 1987 are considered up to date and relevant to the industry. To this figure of 23 must be added any of the maritime social security instruments which might be considered as up to date. In the case of the Recommendations, a total of ten of those examined have been considered up to date – to which must be added the five adopted since 1987 and any of the social security ones to be retained.
This part of the report has sought to take stock of the entire body of maritime labour standards against the background of the report and to assess whether they continue to meet the needs of the industry today. The following sections will seek to examine what possible responses might be considered to take account of these developments and to ensure the relevance and impact of maritime labour standards.
It is critically important to obtain consensus or broad agreement on the way forward, the main lines of the approach and the objectives to be attained. The standards sought might, in particular, seek to create for the maritime industry a level playing field by providing a basic protection which all States would be invited to accept as a minimum and to promote within their own flag or territorial jurisdiction.
Three options may be explored of a possible way forward for future standard-setting activity in the maritime field.
The first option is to limit new standard-setting action to the revision of the outdated seven instruments which the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards of the Governing Body identified for revision in the maritime sector and which were approved for revision by the Governing Body. [42] These instruments, however, covered very different subject-matter and at most, it will only be possible to consider reducing the seven instruments to five revised ones. The seven do not have a common theme and some of the individual revisions do not provide attractive options for better ratification or implementation. The possibility of consolidating the seven instruments is therefore not considered practicable or attractive. It would not necessarily respond to the problems at present being experienced in the industry or ensure that the revised instruments would be more successful than the ones they would have replaced. The Office does not propose to explore this option in this report.
The second option would be to consolidate all existing and up-to-date maritime Conventions into a new framework Convention. The possibility of going beyond consolidation to include new issues is left open for the time being. The details of this option is examined below. This option has the advantage of proposing one major flagship instrument to become the one-stop point of reference for the industry instead of the present 30 Conventions and 23 Recommendations. It would represent the “bill of rights” for labour and social matters for the industry and be an effective global response for a truly global industry. The world shipping fleet would be governed by this instrument.
The third option would consist of four or five framework Conventions, consolidating a number of Conventions together under major subject areas. Its advantage would be that it would be dealing with the totality of the issues in major subject areas through independent Conventions – and this would make it easier to articulate. It would also reduce the number of instruments considerably.
Such an approach proposes to regroup in a thematic and coherent way the essential principles of existing and up-to-date maritime instruments which are considered to continue to serve a useful purpose in advancing the aims and objectives of the Organization; in particular, these principles are considered essential to bring about decent work in the maritime industry. This approach would seek to safeguard the “capital” of ratifications of existing instruments – but would at the same time provide the conditions under which new ratifications would be possible. The new Convention(s) would replace all existing Conventions when it/they had obtained the required number of ratifications to enter into force. Provision would be made, on entry into force, either to close the existing Conventions to future ratification or to keep them open indefinitely or for a limited period of time. In any event, the ratification of the new Convention(s) would imply the automatic denunciation of the pertinent existing Conventions. A member State which did not ratify the new Convention(s) would remain bound by the existing Conventions which it had ratified.
As indicated in paragraph 98, considering the extremely limited potential to regroup the seven instruments concerned into a coherent structure, this option does not lend itself to the articulation of the approach set out in paragraph 101.
Under this option, there would be one major instrument, a framework Convention which would be structured along the following lines. It would be structured in parts. The first part would contain general provisions and integrate the relevant provisions of Convention No. 147. The other parts would deal with specific subject areas containing the main principles which would fall under such headings as: general conditions of employment (including contracts of employment, repatriation and employment of foreign seafarers); health and safety; social benefits; welfare; and food and accommodation. The main substantive provisions of the appendices to Convention No. 147 would be covered under the various headings.
The framework Convention would be supplemented by a number of annexes which would contain detailed specifications. The annexes would specify the means of implementing the principles and main provisions of the Convention. Each annex would be linked to the corresponding part of the Convention. The significance of the annex would be the level of detail and the opportunity to keep it up to date. It would be conceivable that the updating of the provisions of the annexes could possibly involve the JMC through a tripartite subcommittee and the Governing Body.
The Convention would contain provisions on final clauses containing novel mechanisms of revision of the annexes, as well as a possible role for the JMC in the revision process. The challenge is to achieve a simple instrument – and to do so taking due account all major issues, concerns and difficulties.
The framework Convention and its annexes could be supplemented by a Recommendation, containing provisions which would provide guidance on matters dealt with in the Convention and its annexes or for matters not covered by either. Codes of practice and guidelines could also complement the instruments where appropriate. These could be adopted and revised by the JMC.
The possibility of having a single framework instrument could provide an excellent opportunity to keep the instrument under review and to supervise the progress made by member States towards meeting the objectives of the instrument. In this regard article 19 of the Constitution [43] could be fully utilized; it would enable a more regular monitoring of such an instrument using a new type of general survey undertaken at regular intervals to assess the effect given to the instrument, the difficulties encountered, the obstacles preventing ratification and the need for its revision. [44] Such surveys would cover member States which have ratified the instrument as well as those which have not done so. In addition, any conclusions drawn could form the basis for technical assistance to be provided by the Office to enable countries to overcome any obstacles and to ratify and implement the Convention – and possibly to make proposals for any amendments.
The third option would represent five framework instruments dealing with general conditions of employment; health and safety; welfare; social benefits; and food and accommodation. They could also be complemented by annexes with facilitated amendment procedures along the lines examined below, which would apply to the second and third options.
Under the ILO Constitution, Conventions and Recommendations are adopted by the International Labour Conference by a two-thirds majority of the delegates present at the Conference and submitted to member States for ratification. Up to now, apart from a few exceptions, revisions of Conventions and in some cases Protocols have been adopted by the same procedure which means, in particular, that each amendment has to be formally accepted by the member State before it becomes applicable to that Member. There is however no legal impediment to a simpler procedure being adopted with respect to the amendment of provisions relating to the details of the application of the Convention concerned. As indicated above, the details would be set out in the annexes to the Convention(s) which would contain the substantive provisions. There are precedents for having a separate procedure for amending the details in Conventions. This is the case with the schedules and annex to the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964, No. 121. [45]
The annexes for the framework Convention would be provided for in the Convention, as would a procedure for their amendment. They would be mandatory, but could be revised under a facilitated mechanism, for instance a tacit acceptance procedure of the kind applicable to IMO instruments. Member States which have ratified the Convention could opt out of acceptance of the amendments adopted within a specified time frame. After the expiry of the time-period and on a date to be provided for, the amendment would enter into force for all member States which have not opted out. [46] The revision or amendment process would involve the social partners in the maritime sector.
It is important to identify what would be the possible value added of this approach as well as of the content of the new instrument. This new framework instrument would address the concern expressed earlier of the fragmented nature of existing maritime instruments. It would instead represent an integrated approach. The following are the more specific elements of the added value:
– consolidation of the 30 Conventions and one Protocol along with the 29 Recommendations; they would be thematically and coherently regrouped into one more instruments;
– articulation of the basic principles applicable to the maritime industry to achieve progress towards sectoral universality of obligations or progress towards it;
– simplified content of the provisions of the Convention;
– no less favourable treatment provisions in the annexes;
– inclusion of the substantial equivalence concept [47] in the absence of acceptance of specific provisions, in respect of the provisions relating to Convention No. 147;
– facilitated mechanisms for the updating of annexes (amendment procedures different from that applicable to the Convention);
– enforcement procedures, including port state control;
– the possibility of a new type of general survey, conducted at regular intervals, enabling a closer monitoring of progress made towards meeting the objectives of the Convention;
– inclusion of a new dynamic role for the maritime social partners through the JMC or an expanded JMC;
– provisions for technical assistance to complement efforts of governments, shipowners and seafarers and to create incentives for compliance.
The elements of value added have attempted to demonstrate the possible advantages that the new approach might have. However, it would be appropriate to set out the possible disadvantages of this new approach, which include the following:
– To the extent to which the idea of a framework Convention would seek to extract the main elements and principles in existing Conventions, certain detailed provisions which are at present in the body of Conventions might henceforth be contained in the annexes, which would however be of a binding nature, or possibly in Recommendations.
– There is no guarantee that the new approach will meet with greater success than the existing instruments. There may be a fear that, if it were not successful, it might weaken the existing body of standards. However, the possibility of a regular monitoring of a single instrument through the new type of general survey may mitigate or even eliminate this risk. This new tool might well offer a guarantee for a success of the Convention.
– Convention No. 147 has become a generally recognized international standard and every attempt should be made to preserve it. [48]
The JMC is the only remaining standing industrial committee with its own rules of procedure. The members of the JMC are nominated by the International Labour Conference and, as a consequence, derive significant legitimacy therefrom. The JMC has always played an important role in the preparation of standards. In addition, the JMC plays an important legislative role in the setting of the basic wage of able seamen, albeit in the framework of a Recommendation. [49] The amount set by the JMC, once approved by the Governing Body, becomes a decision of the Organization which the Director-General is required to notify to member States.
In a joint letter of 15 July 1999, the secretaries of the shipowners' and seafarers' groups of the JMC wrote to the Director-General emphasizing the importance of having separate and distinct machinery for the preparation of instruments concerning seafarers. Such a machinery allows for the adoption of standards which respond to the industry's special requirements and permits both sides of the industry to work closely together with government representatives to develop labour standards that they can support. The letter of 15 July 1999 also referred to the importance of a possible enhanced role for the JMC as a mechanism for social dialogue. The JMC may wish to explore this further, considering the possibility for the JMC or a Working Group of the JMC to have ad hoc meetings to discuss and review any new draft instruments. Given the bipartite composition of the JMC and bearing in mind the possibility for it to recommend to the Governing Body the convening of tripartite subcommittees, the JMC may also wish to examine this option to ensure that the various proposals they may make, might be acceptable to governments.
The above analysis has sought to provide some guidance of a possible way forward. The body of maritime labour standards has stood the test of time – indeed some of these standards have had a far-reaching impact on the industry. Unlike IMO conventions, they have not however been seen as equally successful. With the increasing integration of the global economy not even the most global of industries can remain unaffected. The present maritime labour standards have proved their efficacy. They are as necessary today as ever before and every effort must be made to ensure that they maintain their relevance, serve the needs of the industry and provide all seafarers with decent work.
The Commission may wish to consider, in the light of the information contained in this report and any other available information, what action or steps should be taken in advancing the debate on the future of maritime labour standards. The Commission may wish to consider in particular the following points for discussion:
1. Should present action on maritime labour standards be limited to the seven instruments which the Governing Body has identified for revision – and if so what approach should be taken?
2. What recommendations would the Commission consider appropriate to make with respect to the social security instruments examined in Part II?
3. Should a broader approach be adopted concerning the review of the standards and, if so, does the framework approach, as outlined above, represent an interesting option – and in what structure or format should it be pursued?
4. Bearing in mind the possible technical content of future instruments, to what extent would the Commission foresee that the instrument(s) should be comprehensive covering basic principles and main substantive provisions, supplemented by more detailed annexes, Recommendations, codes of practice, guidelines, etc.?
5. What steps should be taken to ensure that the Commission is closely involved in all the preparatory work concerning the elaboration of any new instruments?
6. What steps should be taken to ensure the participation of governments at an early stage in the process?
Appendix I
Subject-matter |
Conventions proposed for revision |
Up-to-date instruments |
Outdated instruments |
Conventions proposed for denunciation |
Shelving |
Abrogation |
Withdrawal |
Request for additional information |
Status quo |
General |
|
C.108 C.145 and R.154 C.147 Protocol 147 and R.155 |
|
|
C.91 |
C.91 |
|
R.139 |
R.9 R.107 R.108 |
Training and entry into employment |
C.22 |
C.179 and R.186 |
C.9 R.77 |
|
|
|
|
R.137 |
|
General conditions of employment |
C.16 C.73 |
C.146 R.153 C.166 and R.174 C.180 R.187 |
C.23 and R.27 C.54 C.57 and R.49 C.72 C.76 C.91 C.93 C.109 and R.109 |
|
|
|
C.54 C.57 C.72 C.75 C.76 C.93 R.49 |
|
|
Safety, health and welfare |
C.68 C.134 |
C.163 and R.173 C.164 |
C.75 R.48 R.105 R.106 R.138 |
|
|
|
R.105 R.106 R.48 R.138 |
R.78 R.142 |
C.92 C.133 R.140 R.141 |
Minimum age |
|
|
C.7 C.15 |
|
C.15 |
|
|
|
|
Labour inspection |
|
C.178 and R.185 |
R.28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of competency |
C.69 C.74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.53 |
* Certain Conventions and Recommendations appear under more than one heading. For instance, it was decided in the case of Convention No. 91 that it was outdated and should be shelved pending its eventual abrogation. |
|||||||||
Up-to-date list of ratifications of international labour Conventions
(as at 9 October 2000)
Minimum Age (Sea) Convention, 1920 (No. 7) |
||||
Date of entry into force: 27.09.1921 |
|
54 ratifications |
||
Angola |
4.06.1976 |
|
Jamaica |
8.07.1963 |
Denunciation (as a result of the ratification of Convention No. 138) |
||||
Argentina |
30.11.1933 |
|
Luxembourg |
16.04.1928 |
Barbados |
8.05.1967 |
|
Malaysia – Sarawak |
3.03.1964 |
Belgium |
4.02.1925 |
|
Malta |
4.01.1965 |
Belize |
15.12.1983 |
|
Mauritius |
2.12.1969 |
Bulgaria |
16.03.1923 |
|
Nicaragua |
12.04.1934 |
Chile |
18.10.1935 |
|
Norway |
7.10.1927 |
China |
2.12.1936 |
|
Poland |
21.06.1924 |
Cuba |
6.08.1928 |
|
Portugal |
24.10.1960 |
Denmark |
12.05.1924 |
|
Romania |
8.05.1922 |
Dominican Republic |
4.02.1933 |
|
Seychelles |
6.02.1978 |
Finland |
10.10.1925 |
|
Spain |
20.06.1924 |
Germany |
11.06.1929 |
|
Sri Lanka |
2.09.1950 |
Greece |
16.12.1925 |
|
Sweden |
27.09.1921 |
Guyana |
8.06.1966 |
|
Tanzania – Zanzibar |
22.06.1964 |
Hungary |
1.03.1928 |
|
United Kingdom |
14.07.1921 |
Ireland |
4.09.1925 |
|
Venezuela |
20.11.1944 |
Italy |
14.07.1932 |
|
Yugoslavia |
1.04.1927 |
Japan |
7.06.1924 |
|
|
|
Denunciation of this Convention and ratification of Convention No. 58 |
||||
Brazil |
8.06.1936 |
|
Netherlands |
26.03.1925 |
Mexico |
17.08.1948
|
|
Uruguay |
6.06.1933 |
Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck) Convention, 1920 (No. 8) |
||||
Date of entry into force: 16.03.1923 |
|
59 ratifications |
||
Argentina | ||||