|
|
Prof. Yokota:
My questions are divided into five broad categories. The first is on your personal
background, the second is on the new consolidated maritime convention that is
called the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, and the third is on other maritime
issues. The fourth and fifth categories, are concerned more broadly with International
Labour Standards (ILS) in general, and then specifically with some topics in
connection with ILS in Japan.
First I will start with a personal question. How did you come to work for the ILO? I am interested in hearing about your background and your personal interest in the work of the ILO.
Dr. Cleopatra Doumbia-Henry:
I came to work with the ILO almost twenty years ago. On the 15 of May 2007,
I will celebrate my 20th anniversary with the ILO! I applied in a competition
for a position with the ILO's Legal Office. I consider it my good fortune that
I was selected. I then had the privilege working for many years with the many
talented professionals in that Department including, of course, the ILO's Legal
Advisers.
I can truthfully say that I am passionate about my work and about the Organization. I think it has allowed me to have an exciting and fulfilling career as an international public servant and as a lawyer doing work that I care about and that I believe can make a difference in the world. This situation has also encouraged, and often required, my personal development. I have been very fortunate to have worked with excellent people, both as role models, and as people who have a deep commitment and conviction in what the ILO stands for. I think they have imbued me with their enthusiasm for the ILO.
Yokota:
Amongst the many international organizations, why did you choose the ILO? I
know that you have studied in Geneva, so you were familiar with the ILO, but
also there are many other UN agencies and specialized international organizations.
What attracted you most to the ILO? Was it because of your interest in ILS?
Doumbia-Henry:
The greatest attraction I had to the ILO derived from my doctoral thesis. Studying
international law at the Graduate Institute in Geneva gave me an incredible
opportunity and exposure to the entire United Nations system. The topic of my
doctoral thesis was lawmaking by international organizations. I realized that
the ILO had the most advanced concept of lawmaking, and it was one of the organizations
that I exhaustively reviewed, in fact, it was the subject of one of the chapters
of my doctoral thesis. I applied to a number of organizations when I graduated,
including the ILO, and opted to take the job offer from the ILO, as it offered
the best opportunity to take forward into practice what I had studied. Being
able to work in the legal field in the framework of the ILO was for me an incredible
opportunity. I should also say that my father was a former Minister of Labour
in my home country of Dominica. I have been very influenced by him. He was the
architect of laws and policies to provide rights and equal opportunities for
women, access to education, and a champion of trade union rights. This is also
an important part of my personal background.
Yokota:
That is very interesting. I can see now why you chose the ILO, and why you continue
to have such strong convictions about the work of the ILO.
My next questions are about the recently adopted Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. First of all, I would like to express my congratulations on the successful adoption without any objections at the recent Maritime Session of the International Labour Conference. I know that you worked very hard and made the draft convention very complete and well organized as well as easy to understand and useful. I would like to ask you why the many maritime labour Conventions and Recommendations that the ILO has adopted in the past had to be consolidated into one convention.
Doumbia-Henry:
What was done was to integrate the provisions of 66 international labour instruments
- 37 Conventions and 29 Recommendations. I think this is a phenomenal achievement,
not only for the ILO, but also for international treaty-making. Having such
a large number of individual conventions created a challenge for the ILO and
particularly for the Member States. When we looked at developments in the international
maritime field, in connection with related issues dealt with by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) such as safety of ships at sea and protection of
the marine environment, we found that there were single comprehensive and well-known
instruments such as SOLAS, STCW and MARPOL. These were all well-ratified and
were being effectively enforced. Having a multitude of ILO conventions meant
that we had a fragmented system with uneven application of the international
standards. This made them difficult to enforce and they were very easily evaded.
In addition, the Conventions contained a number of very detailed technical provisions. Although most ILO Members supported the underlying principles and objectives of these Conventions, the detailed provisions created impediments to ratification for some countries. It became difficult for these Conventions to be implemented because they were not being ratified. Also many of the ILO maritime Conventions date back to as early as 1919 and 1920. These instruments were adopted between 1920 and 1996; therefore a lot of them were not up to date in terms of their relevance to the industry, and in providing the protection that the seafarers required. As a result, the ILO maritime labour conventions did not garner the degree of support in terms of ratification comparable to that of the maritime conventions in the framework of the International Maritime Organization.
We focused on building upon the foundation provided by the Merchant Shipping
(Minimum Standards) Convention 1976 (Convention 147) as it was among our better-ratified
conventions and it also set out the basis for an effective enforcement system.
It has had moderate success in terms of its enforcement through the port State
control system, but even the ratification of that Convention was not creating
conditions to support fair competition between shipowners and decent work for
seafarers.
Yokota:
Whose idea was it initially to consolidate the maritime labour conventions?
Which countries and labour unions and employers organizations were the main
driving forces? I am sure you encountered some resistance and criticisms. Can
you describe the initial negotiation process to bring this Convention to this
successful adoption?
Doumbia-Henry:
One of the important achievements of this new Convention is the process of its
development. Those who should have the credit for the idea are the social partners
in the framework of the ILO Joint Maritime Commission, a bipartite body of ship
owners and seafarers. They came to the conclusion that a global industry required
global standards that could be uniformly enforced. It was no longer acceptable
to have a plethora of international labour standards which looked impressive
on paper but, partly due to their number and level of detail, were not effective.
The social partners realized they could not do it by themselves. After the adoption
of the Geneva Accord in January 2001, which was a joint resolution proposing
the consolidation of all the existing maritime labour conventions, they articulated
their "preferred solutions" with respect to the content of a new instrument
and submitted this for consideration by the government representatives of ILO
Members. The proposal to convene a tripartite high-level meeting to examine
the proposals of the social partners was supported by the ILO Governing Body,
and in December 2001, the first tripartite meeting was convened. The governments
immediately endorsed those proposals. That was the beginning of the tripartite
adventure and wonderful example of international social dialogue operating at
its best. This dialogue and adventure continued for the next five years.
The role of the International Labour Office throughout the entire process has been to provide the necessary support to facilitate this process and to take this shared vision forward to its final realization through, first, the adoption of Convention and, now, to bring it into force with as close to universal ratification as possible and effective national implementation.
Yokota:
That is an amazing process, especially given the complex nature of the problem.
Yet within five years you have achieved this vision, and everyone liked the
idea and the final text itself. This is a historic achievement. I now understand
why this was so, because of the careful process of getting responses from all
the partners involved. I think this is the model example of solving some of
the complex international issues that we face with globalization.
Doumbia-Henry:
That's right. This is a lesson for the international community. It took a lot
of resources and time and a genuine commitment to the process and its objectives,
from everyone concerned. There were more than ten tripartite meetings, some
involving several hundred participants, held to discuss and review the issues
to identify and address the difficulties and concerns. One of the things that
were critically important was the invitation extended to governments at each
stage to identify the difficulties that could exist as the texts developed,
in terms of impediments to ratification. That is why this process is so important;
it allowed time and distance for reflection and discussion. This allowed the
tripartite partners to think creatively with a view to finding a solution. There
were difficult moments and difficult issues, but I would say there was a determination
and common interest in moving this agenda forward. With the trust and confidence
of the parties I think it was possible to address the most difficult issues
as long as everyone knew and remained committed to the ultimate objectives.
Yokota:
I have noticed a number of very interesting and unique aspects of the Maritime
Labour Convention, 2006 from an ILO Convention point of view, and even general
international law point of view. Could you explain to us some of the unique
features of this Convention compared with other ILO Conventions and, more generally,
international law?
Doumbia-Henry:
I think one of the first important aspects of this new Convention is its new
style. It has a unique structure and format for an ILO Convention. Through this
Convention, the ILO was trying to marry the best of the old with the best of
the new to solidify the new international legal labour regime.
The general structure of the Convention was borrowed from the IMO, because it was familiar to the maritime sector and had proved to be a successful approach to addressing some concerns that we also shared. However, it was then shaped and built to reflect ILO values and perspectives. We consolidated the existing provisions of the Conventions with those of the existing Recommendations. I must note that one of the important advantages of this Convention is its approach which reflects the idea of being firm in terms of principles and rights, while also being flexible with respect to the precise means of implementation. This was achieved partly through the structure that was adopted. We created what I would call a three-tier integrated structure. There are sixteen mandatory Articles that set out the overall principles and obligations that apply to the entire Convention. The next level of detail is provided by Regulations, which address the application of these broader principles in specific situations such as conditions of employment or onboard accommodation or social protection. The Regulations are organized under five Titles dealing with differing areas of concerns, including one Title, Title 5, which is devoted to the topic of compliance and enforcement. The Articles and Regulations can only be amended through the more usual ILO process. They are more general in their wording. This was a conscious decision as text that is unnecessarily detailed risks becoming outdated with changes in the sector.
The third level of detail, called the Code, contains the more technical provisions that provide a more detailed elaboration of the Regulations. The Code has two parts: Part A called "Standards" and Part B called "Guidelines". Part A Standards are mandatory with the Part B Guidelines providing further guidance to national administrations regarding application of the Standards and Regulations. Members must give the Guidelines due consideration when implementing the Convention in their national systems. The Code is organized under the same five Titles as the Regulations in what I would call a vertically integrated format. By this I mean that a person will read the Regulation, then the Standards and then the Guidelines. Let me give you an example taking a topic under Title 2 Conditions of Employment, such as repatriation. Repatriation is dealt with in the provisions in Regulation 2.5. The Regulation is immediately followed by the provisions in the related Standard on the issue, Standard A2.5, which is then followed by the provisions in the related Guideline, Guideline B2.5. The most general principle is at the level of the Articles or the Regulations and the most detailed provisions are at the level of the Guidelines. It is like a cascade. This means that some of the most technical provisions, which had been creating difficulties for countries that otherwise supported the basic principles underlying topics such as repatriation, are now found in the Guidelines. Members can thus meet the objectives as set out in the Regulations and Standards but may do so in a way that is not exactly the same way as the Guidelines. Their approach to implementing the Convention would then be explained to the Committee of Experts. For the Committee of Experts it is going to be interesting, because the Committee of Experts will also be able to use the Guidelines as the benchmark against which to measure compliance, recognizing that there is flexibility given to the Member States.
Another important element relating to this three level structure is that the technical details that are in the Code can be amended through a new accelerated procedure as well as through the more usual ILO General Conference process. The accelerated amendment process, which is similar to one that is used by the IMO, was developed to try avoid the problem of technical provisions, such as those dealing with occupational safety and health or onboard accommodation, become outdated. This is an important innovation for ILO Conventions. This Convention will not change its name. It does not have a number and when there are amendments it will be known as the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, as amended.
In addition to flexibility arising from this structure it also has a number of other ways in which it provides some flexibility to Member States with respect to the particular way that they choose to implement their obligations. For example, one of the Articles recognizes the concept of implementation of the Code, Part A, based on "substantial equivalence". This is a type of flexibility that we already have in Convention 147, but it now goes further and provides a definition of the meaning of substantial equivalence for the purposes of this Convention. It applies to all maritime labour topics dealt with in the Titles except for Title 5 on compliance and enforcement. Members must comply with compliance and enforcement provisions in all their details. I should also note that, unless stated otherwise in a provision, the Convention can be implemented through laws or regulations or collective agreements or though other measures or practices. These flexibility provisions are all going to be important because it will give countries the flexibility they need to be able to ratify this Convention.
But one of the most far-reaching innovations is in its enforcement and compliance regime. It establishes for the first time for an ILO Convention the requirement for a labour certificate. Each ship that is 500 gross tonnage or over engaged in international voyages will have to carry a Maritime Labour Certificate and Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance. These documents will be issued by the flag State, or by a Recognized Organization that been authorized by flag Sate administration to issue them. These documents will certify that the working and living conditions for seafarers on the ship comply with the Member's national laws implementing the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.
This obligation is established by the new Convention. It can also be seen as related to the more general obligations under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the earlier 1958 High Seas Convention requiring that a flag State exercise effective jurisdiction and control over conditions on ships that fly its flag. The Certificate is considered prima facie evidence of compliance on ships when they enter the port of another Member. Under the Convention port States may exercise discretion to inspect ships for compliance with the Convention. If a ship does not have a Maritime Labour Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance, or where there are other grounds, as specified in the Convention, for doubting whether the ship is in compliance then the ship may be subject to a detailed inspection and may also be detained in the port until the situation is corrected. This means that for the first time there is a clear advantage for ships of countries that ratify the Convention in that in most cases the port State will simply verify the documentation and the ship will not be delayed. Ships of countries that have not ratified the Convention would not have this documentation. Under the Convention these ships cannot or should not be granted more favorable treatment than a ship of a country that has ratified: ships without documentation may be subject to a more detailed inspection of the working and living conditions of the seafarers. The principle of "no more favorable treatment" is a far-reaching concept which has been successfully used elsewhere. We hope that it will have a significant impact.
The Convention also introduces other areas of flexibility to allow countries to be able to ratify it by recognising specific national sectoral circumstances. For instance, a ratifying country has the ability to make a determination, in consultation with shipowners' and seafarers' organizations concerned, that certain details of the Code will not apply to ships below 200 gross tonnage that are not engaged in international voyages. The seafarers would, however, still have to be protected under national laws or regulations or collective agreements or other measures. Any determinations are then reported to the Director-General of the ILO. The Convention adopts a very important approach to national flexibility. Every time it introduces flexibility, which is necessary to meet the varying national circumstances, it also, at the same time, introduces the concepts of transparency, accountability, and oversight. There must be consultation to be able to take advantage of flexibility. Where organizations of employers and workers do not exist at the national level then Members will need to consult the Special Tripartite Committee that is created under Convention if the Member wants to use the exemption or flexibility clauses.
In addition to the consultation requirement the Convention also has number of provisions relating to reports to the ILO and, ultimately, to the ILO's supervisory bodies. We will review the information, and make it available to all Members. What is important as well is that there are many provisions for sending information, including from port state control and enforcement.
This creates this element of publicity and will be linked to the international oversight provided for under Article 22 of the ILO Constitution.
The Special Tripartite Committee of the Governing Body is also an important innovation. It is to be a permanent body that will have the job of providing an ongoing review of the workings of the Convention. This is important for ensuring the relevance of the Convention because shipping is a rapidly changing sector, in terms of the nature of the seafarers' conditions and technological developments. It needs standards that are always up to date. One of the primary functions of this Special Tripartite Committee will be to review the situation and to discuss and propose possible amendments to the detailed provisions in the Code using the accelerated amendment procedure. Amendments will be discussed following a procedure that has been clearly set out, and, if adopted by the Committee, will then be submitted to the International Labour Conference for approval. The ILC will be able to either approve or refer the amendment back to the Committee for reconsideration. This is a special mechanism and that is primarily its task. The ILO's supervisory system will benefit from the examination made by the Special Tripartite Committee in terms of the development of issues, and it will allow the Committee of Experts to have expert advice in certain circumstances, when it is necessary to make a determination regarding a Member's compliance. We think it is going to make the work of the supervisory system more interesting, more pertinent, and more responsive to the real issues of the industry.
Yokota:
You have given me a very comprehensive overview of the special features of this
Convention. It also gives me the impression that it will be a big challenge
to the Expert Committee because we will have to know very well the nature of
whole text, the structure of this Convention. We cannot apply the usual methods
of analysis of the existing ILO Conventions as we have been accustomed to. This
is my last question about the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. Everyone is
eager to see how quickly it will come into force. Is there any plan for the
office to try to encourage governments to look into this text and agree to ratify?
My question is, what is your approach in explaining the nature and the advantages
of this Convention to all ILO Members to adopt it, so that it will come into
force as soon as practicable?
Doumbia-Henry:
This is a very good question. When the Convention was adopted the ILO's Director-General,
Juan Somavia, said, "This is making labour history." Indeed he is
right. There was an enthusiasm and a sense of ownership that this Convention
brought to light. I think that there we have the solution, which is, harness
this enthusiasm and ownership and move it forward to the next stage so that
this Convention can be quickly and widely ratified and enter into force. For
this, we need to continue the partnership that we began with the tripartite
constituents. The Office, on the advice of the Officers of the Conference, has
adopted a strategy that gives us a kind of roadmap in terms of the priority
for the promotion of this Convention. I have called it a multi-partner, multi-level
strategy. This means that we all have to act in partnership, with each partner
having a different role to play, but together we can hopefully play our roles
more effectively. It also recognizes that it is necessary to take action at
different levels; at the national level; at the regional level; and at the international
level. For example, it is important to focus on the shipowner organizations,
so that they can encourage their members to support the Convention at the national
level. The same can be said with respect to the seafarers' organizations. Certainly
we also have to work closely to assist governments at the regional and national
levels. It is very clear that working with Members through the existing ILO
and other regional fora, for example, meetings of the regional Port State Control
MOUs such as the Tokyo MOU and the Paris MOU, will be a very important part
of this process.
We have put together a major promotional package that will include what I would describe as a "Tripartite Road Show". Future ILO meetings will probably include this Convention on the agenda and we will bring a panel of speakers to those meetings made up of the social partners and some of the governments that were the architects of this Convention and instrumental in its development and adoption. The idea is to include the tripartite constituents in explaining and promoting this Convention to the constituents themselves. As part of this major promotional campaign, we are distributing a promotional CD and developing other modern tools and resources to assist governments. The Director-General has committed himself to playing an active role in the campaign for this Convention. He is already promoting that Convention on every occasion and he will be publishing articles in newspapers and other media. We have also received tremendous support from the IMO. The Secretary-General of the IMO has described this Convention as the fourth pillar in the international maritime regulatory regime standing alongside their Conventions on safety, marine pollution and seafarer training. The labour pillar, the social dimension of Decent Work will be the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. Mr. Mitropoulos, the Secretary-General of the IMO, has committed himself to promote this Convention within the framework of the IMO.
I also feel confident that we have the support of the Governments that have really been behind this Convention, as well as the shipowners' and seafarers' organizations. A major campaign over the next couple of years is what is necessary to help Members move to the point where they can easily ratify and effectively implement their obligations. I hope that we should be able within the next three years, possibly a maximum of five years, to achieve the 30 ratifications representing 33 % of the world's gross tonnage that is needed to bring the Convention into force (Note 1).
Yokota:
I am pretty sure, given the enthusiasm expressed in the ILC which adopted it,
that you will be able to achieve the goal that you have just described to us
in a relatively short period of time.
Now, referring to Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention (Revised), 2003, (Convention No. 185), could you please tell us about this Convention 185 and its current status with respect to ratifications?
Doumbia-Henry:
Convention No.185 and its predecessor Convention 108, are two of the four Conventions
not consolidated under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. Convention 185
was adopted in 2003, within less than two years after the September 11 events.
It is now in force and has four ratifications and one provisional application
so far. As its name suggests No. 185 deals with the issue of seafarers' identity
documents. It revises an older ILO maritime instrument, Convention No. 108,
which was not designed to address these new security issues. After September
11th, we recognized that it was important to complement and respond rapidly
to what were then the concerns of the international community on security. It
was important to note that the maritime sector was seen to be soft on the security,
and needed to be a partner in promoting security. The IMO was at the point of
enhancing maritime security by adopting the ISPS amendments to the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). The ILO expedited the revision
of No 108 - it was the first expedited instrument ever adopted in less than
30 months. An additional item was placed exceptionally on the ILC agenda and
this Convention was adopted. The issue of timing was also related to the decision
to deal with this issue outside the process for the Maritime Labour Convention,
2006.
Convention 185 seeks to enhance maritime security while ensuring the protection of the seafarer and their human rights, and enhancing maritime commerce. The Convention provides a mandatory requirement to have a "biometrics identifier" as part of the identity document, as a way to enhance security. After extensive debate the biometrics identifier that was adopted was a fingerprint template. To preserve the human rights of the seafarer, it was agreed that this biometrics identifier had to be in a barcode and not in chip technology. This was very important because the ILO Conventions are also related to the international regime of human rights conventions.
In addition to the biometrics component, the other most significant factor is that it requires the Members that ratify the Convention put in place an entire security infrastructure. Countries must have processes and practices in place that meet the minimum requirements set out in the Convention that ensure they have a complete security chain. The chain begins from the processing of the application to the issuing of the identity document, to its renewal and to its audit, and finally to the monitoring of the identity document at the end. This means that security issues are addressed not only with the card; they are also tied to the integrity of the system that processed and issued the card. An auditing requirement was included in the Convention, in addition to international oversight. The ILO will determine, in reviewing the auditors' reports, whether the system in a country complies with the technical requirements of the Convention. Those countries that meet the requirements of the Convention will be included in a list of countries that are deemed to be in compliance. This is the first time that the ILO will create the list of countries in compliance with technical requirements. This is over and above the Article 22 procedures under the ILO Constitution. They are legal compliance provisions on very technical aspects relating to the biometrics and the security infrastructure that is to be put into place. In addition, one of the important requirements of the Convention is that every Member that ratifies the Convention must have a database of all the security related information for its nationals that are seafarers which must be accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Wherever the seafarer goes, if there is a problem, they can verify the identity of the seafarer.
The ILO, in developing these provisions, which like the Maritime Labour Convention, represent new approaches and ideas for international labour Conventions, was very conscious of the fact that it is also a costly Convention. It was particularly difficult because we were dealing with an area where international technical standards for biometrics had not yet been adopted. The ILO went a number of steps further than the existing standards, and the Governing Body and the Conference adopted the resolution to ensure that the biometrics was "inter-operable". This means that a seafarer traveling from Country A to Country B and then to country C can be identified as the seafarer to whom the identity card was issued, even though Country A may be using one product to take the fingerprint and generate the template from it and Countries B and C may be using quite different products to verify the seafarer's fingerprint against the template on his or her card. The Office developed a technical standard to provide for the inter-operability of the biometrics. In addition to establishing this technical standard for inter-operability of the identity document, the Office has also established a list of vendors that have products which have been tested and found to meet these technical standards. The Office launched a major testing campaign of biometrics vendors that has been extremely successful. The seafarer's identity document is simply that - an identity document. It is not a passport. The Convention provides that the seafarer need not have a passport when she or he arrives in a port for shore leave if they have an identity document. The welfare of the seafarer is the primary concern, based on a customary privilege between maritime nations. We wanted to ensure that the seafarer enjoyed her or his access to shore leave.
Yokota:
It sounds like trying to strike the proper balance between the current need
of the political situation of trying to control criminals sneaking into countries,
but at the same time not to sacrifice the rights and privileges that the seafarers
have enjoyed.
Now, what are the other labour standards issues that the ILO is faced with today, especially in this globalizing economy, globalizing trade union movement, globalizing capital movement and so on? I am sure the tripartite system is producing a lot of good results. But it is already over 80 years old. Do you think the current system of tripartite representation and monitoring is still important and workable in the 21st century globalized world of labour issues?
Doumbia-Henry:
I would say that the founding fathers of the ILO were visionaries. It is hard
to believe that in the world that existed in 1919 they were forward looking
enough to see the need to create an international tripartite organization which
involved governments, employers and workers as the three faces of the State
to discuss issues relating to the world of work, with the goal of promoting
economic and social justice and social peace. The vision of our founders remains
as relevant today as it was then, if not more so, because the challenges are
greater. The impact of globalization, in one way or another, has infiltrated
almost all corners of life in all countries. True social dialogue can effectively
work, we have just demonstrated that in the adoption of the Maritime Labour
Convention. This is one good example of how you can respond to globalization.
We have seen a weakening of the trade union movement in all countries. They
have had a significant loss of membership, but they are still representative
forces and democratic institutions which represent workers as important actors
in the economy. They may not be totally representative of the entire community
and economy in which they exist, but certainly they have a legitimacy that others
do not yet have. I think we need to help them to further develop the potential
of workers organizations as representative,democratic organizations, that have
the expertise and the experience in organizing to defend collective interests.
The basic structure and principles are there, but the context in which they
are operating has changed and now brings important new challenges. Clearly the
workers' organizations, just like the employers' organizations and governments,
have to adapt and adjust to those new challenges. I think that we will see that
they can rise to meet these changes.
Yokota:
Now, I am sure you are observing interesting developments in Japan in connection
with the ILS that have been implemented and applied in Japan. The ILO has been
dealing with a number of labour issues that Japan has been faced with. What
are the significant international labour standards issues that you find are
relevant to labour relations in Japan? In your opinion what topics should be
addressed by the Japanese government, or by the social partners?
Doumbia-Henry:
I will not go into much detail on some aspects of your questions because several
of these issues are currently before the ILO supervisory machinery. I can, however,
comment generally and say that I understand that there are certain concerns
and issues related to public service reform and administrative reform. I think
that these are two of the very important challenges because Japan has ratified
both Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, which deal with freedom of association and
with the right to collective bargaining.
But I am heartened by the fact that there is a continued commitment to encouraging social dialogue. Mr. Koizumi himself made some very concrete suggestions as to ways to continue the dialogue regarding public service reform with the trade unions. I am sure that this dialogue will be productive, and will result in outcomes that are acceptable to both government and the trade unions. I think the public service is an important part of government administration. The government is in this case a public employer and needs to be engaged in social dialogue with the trade unions concerning civil service reform. I am hopeful that there would be some important outcomes which have the potential to resolve other outstanding issues that exist with respect to concerns about freedom of association for some workers.
Yokota:
I am going to raise the last question. What do you expect Japan to contribute
to the work of ILO today and in the future? Particularly if you look at the
Japanese government and its people, what do you expect most out of Japanese
government as well as its social partners and the people to strengthen the work
of the ILO?
Doumbia-Henry:
Japan is a founding member of the ILO and is the second most important contributor
to the ILO programme and budget. Japan is not only a well-respected member of
the ILO, but also an important country in the Asian and Pacific region. Japan
has an important role to play in terms of encouraging other Asian countries
to pursue social policies that are inclusive and that respect the ILO principles
relating to decent work and basic human rights.
Japan has an important technical cooperation programme to assist neighbouring Asian countries. I hope that it will continue to support this programme and, possibly, even expand it, because we have important challenges even in relation to recognition of fundamental human rights. Asia is a region that tends to be relatively low in a comparative analysis of labour standards. There is diversity between the many countries and between the developed and developing countries in Asia. Japan has also an important role to play in Asia and in the ILO in general. This is not only in terms of representing the Asian view, but also in helping the ILO to remain relevant by bringing the issues that should be discussed in the framework of the ILO and by helping the ILO to be as responsive as possible to the changes that are taking place.
I think the ILO has a unique opportunity in a globalized economy. Asia is a center point for many issues, including developments in the textile sector, and in problem issues such as human trafficking. Japan already plays an important role in the ILO and can play an even larger role in the region. For example, Japan is a member of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association. Professor Yokota, you are a member of the Committee of Experts, Japan is represented in the Governing Body and is active in all the important bodies and organs of the ILO. I think it is only right that Japan plays the role that is expected of it and I have no doubt that Japan will continue to support the ILO's mandate and mission to achieve greater social justice.
Yokota:
I totally agree with you, and I would say, you are one of the most important
members at the leadership level of the ILO Secretariat. The work of the Secretariat
is becoming more and more important in facilitating the work of the ILC and
the Governing Body, as well as the Committee of Experts on which I have the
privilege of serving. I am very happy to see that young Japanese are interested
in joining the ILO Secretariat. I know that one of my former students is now
working in your Office. This is another area that Japan can make some modest
contribution by sending good Japanese specialists and professionals to the ILO
Secretariat.
Doumbia-Henry:
I am very proud that I have two Japanese members in my team. These are young
people who have a lot of potential, are extremely bright and diligent. If Japan
would let the ILO benefit from that level of expertise, I think there is a lot
that Japan could continue to contribute in this regard. Japan supports the ILO
in many ways. We have been in Japan for a week and I can say that I feel that
there has been a great deal of complicity and sympathy in concerns. I am very
comforted by the fact that I feel that Japan respects the ILO and international
labour standards. The world of work evolves all the time, and therefore part
of the work of the Committee of Experts is to continue to look at evolving law
and practice to help the countries through dialogue to make adjustments so that
they remain in compliance. It is a dynamic relationship, and I think if it is
seen that way it could probably be very helpful to Japan.
Yokota:
You have been generous in your time, and thank you very much once again for
your detailed and clear explanations. I hope your visit to Japan this time will
be fruitful as well as being enjoyable personally.
Note 1: In June 2006 at the 95th ILC, one major flag State, Liberia, was the first to ratify the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. This means that over 8% of the world's merchant fleet, based on tonnage, is already potentially covered by the Convention.
During
her stay in Japan in April 2006, Ms. Cleopatra Doumbia-Henry,
Director,