 Symposium home |
Programme (with links to each speaker's presentation) |
Report (PDF-274KB) |
Profile of speakers |
ILO and Japan (in Japanese) |
I was asked to speak about the expectations for the ILO, so I would like focus my speech on our expectations as an ILO constituent. As you are aware, the ILO is comprised of the International Labour Conference, the Governing Body and the ILO Office. The ILC and the Governing Body consist of governments of member countries and the workers' and employers' Organizations. The Office performs activities in accordance with the decisions reached at the Governing Body.
In short, it would be desirable that the role of the ILO would be properly communicated to the Japanese public so that the presence of the ILO would be better acknowledged and so that the ILO continues to be a beneficial entity to our country. That is because, the ILO is less well-known than UNICEF or UNESCO, and among the older generation, the ILO is recognized as a body to file complaints on conflicts between the civil servants and the government. Many in the younger generations even have never heard of the ILO. Both the ILO Office and the ILO constituents in Japan are responsible for this situation.
To begin with, I would like to request the ILO Office of the following:
Firstly, some ILO officials appear to think that their functions are similar to those of judges in labour tribunal, but I would like their awareness to be corrected at the earliest opportunity. Sometimes, the Office is still considering whether to hand down ruling of violation of conventions to countries where the law pertaining to past cases have already been revised. The role of the ILO is to analyze and assist countries as to how to improve their current labour legislation to achieve the goals raised. A recent good example is the adoption of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention in 1999 (No. 182 Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour). In order for countries to ratify the convention, the ILO is promoting activities on a step by step basis to build institutions needed to ratify the Convention. Such efforts include assistance to the educational systems that receive the children once they have left their jobs, and securing employment opportunities for parents so that their children are not obliged to work. I think the ILO should promote such activities.
On the second point, the government holds a different opinion from the workers. As a result of following the rule of adopting one convention per ILC, we now have 185 Conventions. Some conventions are ratified by only a few countries, and such conventions are tantamount to waste of resources. Once there had been discussions in the Expert Committee that no more new industry-specific conventions should be adopted, nevertheless adoption had ensued such discussion. I would like to request the ILO office to respect the decisions of the Governing Body and perform their duties in coherence with such decisions.
Thirdly, recently, many ad hoc expert meetings were set up and sometimes the office would perform their duties based on the conclusions of such meetings. I would request the Office to use the formal institutions for decision-making, the International Labour Conference and the Governing Body for thorough discussions. These two fora are places for discussion by the official ILO constituents chosen from the ILO member states, but if decisions adopted in other meetings would be implemented, it will lead to the weakening of the tripartism on which the ILO stands. It goes without saying that not only the tripartite constituents, but also the NGOs should be invited to actively participate in ILO activities in the formal meetings as observers.
Turning to the role of the Japanese ILO constituents, I would like to mention some points.
First, the Japanese constituents should make proactive efforts to explain to the media in Japan what the ILO is doing. The media tend to focus only on complaints so more explanatory efforts should be directed so that they will also report on many other activities by the ILO. On top of such efforts, I would like to ask the ILO Office in Japan and the ILO Association in Japan to leverage their activities.
Secondly, Japan should engage itself more proactively to the ILO activities. All three constituents in Japan, the Government, workers and employers, are members of the Governing Body. I am a member of the Committee on Freedom of Association Committee and also serve as the coordinator of the Asian region. In such ways, the Japanese have been part of various initiatives in the ILO. However, Japan cannot be described as sufficiently influential in the organization. In comparison, the Europeans are very skilled at mobilizing international organizations, and so Japan needs to be more actively engaged in the ILO so that we have more substantial influence.
The third issue is to increase the number of Japanese officials working in the ILO. Although Japan is the second largest contributor, the Japanese are absolutely under-represented in the ILO Office. To mitigate this situation, we need to inform the public, especially the young people about the activities of the ILO, and motivate awareness and interest in them so that more would aspire to work for the ILO.
The ILO Office as well as Japanese government, workers and employers are responsible for the weak presence of the ILO in this country. We would make further efforts so that the role of the ILO would be properly understood by the Japanese people.