RATIFICATION PROCESS FOR I.L.O. CONVENTIONS

Edited from UFSI REPORTS - August 4, 1987: The International Labor Organization and Human Rights (part 2: Applications).

The promotion and protection of labor standards is the basic mission of the ILO. This was explicit in its foundation in 1919 when it first addressed working conditions in Europe, particularly in mines and for women and children. The ILO does not adopt conventions lightly. In preparing conventions 87 and 98, for example, the Office staff presented the Conference with draft texts detailing standards for freedom of association, protection of the right to organize, and non-discrimination in collective bargaining. In each instance, a tripartite Conference Committee on Freedom of Association and Industrial Relations painstakingly studied and debated the text and, in each instance, voted favorably on a revised text, reflecting modifications and compromises inherent in the Committee's interests, for submission to the full Conference with a recommendation for adoption.

It is impossible to imagine member governments ratifying conventions without the participation and interest of national labor unions and employers associations. The strength of the ILO therefore is in its tripartite character - without such participation there would be no genuine gains in labor protection and promotion through national recognition of standards.

Ratification is a very solemn commitment for the ILO. Since its constitution regards conventions as international treaties, acceptance of a convention by a member government requires legal corroboration of its adoption "in low and in force" by "competent authorities" of that government. This usually assumes legislative commitments. But whatever the competent authority submitting a ratification agreement, the ILO expects the document to be signed by someone with the authority to act on behalf of that government. All parties are aware that the ILO Constitution requires its signatories to accept the competence of the International Court of Justice in disputes arising over application of standards. National sovereignty is at least an implicit issue.

The crucial first step in the application of workers' rights procedures is the preparation and publication of the annual report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. The 20 independent individuals who review member governments on the application of all conventions represent virtually all regions of the world and all economic conditions of ILO members. They are uniformly well qualified to judge the legal status and practical implementation of ILO standard. Selected by the Governing Body for their impartiality, all have legal background and are either distinguishes scholars of labor law, or members of supreme courts. Individually, they are all above reproach.

The Experts meet in Geneva every March for about two weeks to examine reports by member governments on the measures taken to implement the provisions of the conventions to which they are parties. The experts also review the information furnished by members concerning the results of inspection. This entails examination of member government (usually) quadrennial reports of each if the 5,245 ratification as if December 31, 1985 of the 159 conventions (minus the 20 conventions for which detailed reports are no longer required because of eclipse by later conventions of elapsed applicability) or biennial reports in the case of the key worker rights conventions. Particularly recalcitrant cases may be examined annually. In March 1986 , the Committee received 1,312 reports for review out of a total of 1,666. The reporting form is specified by the Governing Body. It asks governments to detail laws governing conventions standards and to describe the practical arrangements that have been made, such as inspection systems, to supervise and evaluate legal conformity.

The Committee of Experts not only reviews member government applications of ratified conventions through the exchange of reports, comments, and observations; it also provides the Conference Committee on the Applications of Conventions and Recommendations with assessments to inform the Committee's reports to the Conference. Both Committees are concerned with applications; the Exports give their independent judgments as to where governments stand, while the Applications Committee gives distinctly interested assessments based on its members' various commitments to workers' rights.

The members of the Conference Committee are nominated by the tripartite group represented in the conference. The nominees are then elected by the Conference Selection Committee whose report proposing Committee membership must be approved by the full Conference in order to install the Committee. This is not necessarily a routine event. But once installed, its voting members choose cases in the Experts' report for their own review and ask government delegates to comment to the Committee on the Experts' findings.

Since most conflicts in the application procedure emerge in their discussion, the Applications Committee meeting is among the most exciting and crucial events of the Conference. Its objective in not to judge and give verdicts. The ILO Constitution confers this competence upon the International Court of Justice. The committee's role is to find whatever pragmatic means are required to promote specific applications in law and practice. Since its members, particularly the worker delegates, are themselves engaged in the real world of labor relations, their participation is both caring and determined. They are not so much concerned with national economic systems as they are with the rights of workers and the conditions in which they work. Their reports to the Conference are intended to express moral values and, where non-compliance persists, to highlight these with paragraphs of special mention. The Conference votes to adopt the Committee's report as part of its official record.

There is ample evidence in the accumulation of annual Applications Committee reports of real progress toward compliance induced by these supervisory activities. Although modest in relation to the needs, the progress does record one of the most successful international activities to promote human rights.