|
86th Session
| ||
|
| ||
|
| |
|
Report of the Committee on the Declaration of Principles |
|
Contents
Note: A number of opinions were expressed by the Legal Adviser in the course of the discussion. They may be found in the present report at the following paragraphs: 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 80, 133, 148, 152, 157, 167, 177, 179, 180, 182, 202, 219, 225, 230, 233, 284, 325, 357 and 362.
1. The Committee on the Declaration of Principles was set up by the Conference at its first sitting on 2 June 1998 to consider the seventh item on the agenda, the consideration of a possible Declaration of Principles of the International Labour Organization concerning fundamental rights and its appropriate follow-up mechanisms.
2. At its first sitting, the Committee was composed of 189 members (96 Government members, 34 Employer members and 56 Worker members). To achieve equality of voting strength, each Government member with the right to vote was allotted 119 votes, each Employer member 336 votes and each Worker member 204 votes. The composition of the Committee was modified seven times during the session and the number of votes attributed to each Member was adjusted accordingly.(1)
3. The Committee held 21 sittings.
4. The Committee elected the following Officers:
|
Chairperson/Reporter: |
Mr. M. Moher (Government member, Canada); |
|
Vice-Chairpersons: |
Mr. E. Potter (Employer member, United States); |
|
|
Mr. W. Brett (Worker member, United Kingdom). |
5. Following the election of the Officers, the Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group of governments, noted that the composition of the Officers of the Committee did not reflect the geographical distribution nor the different levels of economic development of the countries represented in the Committee, but his group did not challenge the composition and recognized that the non-governmental groups were quite autonomous. In pledging the support of his group to the work of the Committee, he hoped that the Committee would make all the necessary efforts to address the concerns of this group, and to ensure that its views were reflected, with a view to achieving the necessary consensus. The Chair assured him that his concerns had been carefully noted.
6. The representative of the Secretary-General reminded the Committee that the possibility of a Declaration had been discussed both before and at the 85th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 1997, and that this had been the subject of several discussions informally and at various sessions of the Governing Body since then, and most recently in informal tripartite consultations in April 1998. These various discussions had helped to clarify a number of issues, thus allaying certain misgivings. In the Office's view, the Committee had a more manageable text before it, as a basis for discussions and amendments, with a view to achieving the broadest consensus possible.
7. The Chairperson stated that the task of the Committee was to answer the basic question of whether the Conference could achieve a meaningful Declaration and effective follow-up, which would advance the ILO's mandated responsibility to promote fundamental rights. He reminded the Committee that it had a draft based on a year's intensive, inclusive process, and its task was to strive for the greatest consensus possible. The work of the Committee would be evolutionary and as consultative as necessary and possible. He suggested that to the extent possible the general discussion should first deal with the Declaration, even though some cross references to the follow-up mechanism might be necessary.
8. In providing a framework for their statement, the Employer members referred to what they termed as three defining events in the history of the ILO. These were: the establishment of the ILO after the First World War, and the need for establishing minimum labour standards; the Declaration of Philadelphia of 1944, following the Great Depression and the Second World War, at a time when the legitimacy and the relevancy of the ILO were open to serious question, as today; and the globalization of the world economy in the last ten years. They noted that today's world was increasingly interconnected with the falling of trade barriers. With the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994, there had been substantial pressure to link trade sanctions and core labour standards, which the Employers' group adamantly opposed. They recalled that the Employers' group in the ILO had been among the first to propose a new Declaration addressing fundamental principles, the relevance of which had been confirmed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Singapore in 1996, where the ILO had been recognized as the competent body to address labour standards.
9. If the ILO was to retain its central role in the area of fundamental rights, as derived from the values and principles embedded in the ILO Constitution, the Conference would need to adopt a high-minded and uplifting Declaration of principles with a meaningful follow-up mechanism. This would have to be seen as fair also to countries which had not ratified the fundamental Conventions and to those seeking economic growth and higher standards of living. They reminded the Committee of the challenge and opportunity that it faced, of either adopting a meaningful Declaration with a credible follow-up procedure that would establish the ILO as the primary multilateral organization on social issues in the twenty-first century, or of remaining on the side lines while others, without its expertise and history, took its place.
10. The Employers' approach to the Declaration and its follow-up was based on the following six criteria:
(i) the Declaration should embody fundamental values and principles of the ILO that were inherent in membership of the Organization. It should establish no new legal obligations on Members, but rather reflect policy obligations incurred by virtue of their membership;
(ii) the Declaration should not go beyond the present text of the ILO Constitution in terms of follow-up mechanisms. It should impose no new reporting obligations on member States;
(iii) the Declaration should not impose on member States detailed obligations arising from Conventions they had not freely ratified, nor should it impose on countries which had not ratified the fundamental Conventions the supervisory mechanisms that applied to ratified Conventions;
(iv) the application of the principles of the Declaration should not be concerned with technical and legal matters but only with making an overall policy assessment of whether member States were achieving the goals and objectives of the fundamental principles and values of the ILO;
(v) the Declaration should not result in new complaints based bodies such as the Committee on Freedom of Association;
(vi) no links should be made with questions of international trade, and the follow-up mechanism should be limited to the ILO.
11. The Employer members believed that the title of the draft Declaration was limited in scope. They preferred a title such as "Declaration of principles and values of the International Labour Organization for the 21st century".
12. They supported the directness of the draft language of the Declaration text, feeling that the four principles stated in Points 3.1 to 3.4 put succinctly the overriding principles and values of the ILO that were the sine qua non of social justice. Point 3 needed amendment, to make it clear that it referred to fundamental principles under the ILO Constitution, and not legal obligations arising from ILO Conventions. The most that the ILO Constitution could be construed to mean was that by virtue of membership, all Members -- regardless of whether they had ratified the fundamental Conventions -- should work towards the realization of the principles listed in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4.
13. The Employer members felt that Point 6 was the most problematic one of the Declaration and as part of a statement of the values and principles of the ILO, that should be uplifting, it was a non sequitur. Any link between fundamental labour standards and trade had yet to be established, and the ILO had no competence in trade matters. At the same time, the WTO had no provision for collective condemnation relating to trade. The ILO had therefore repeatedly been asked to include this language in the Declaration, since the issue represented an essential pressure point between trading blocs. Indeed Point 6 was taken verbatim from the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore. The Employers recalled that they were utterly opposed to any linkage between trade and labour standards. Protectionism that relied on trade sanctions to intervene in the internal affairs of countries threatened an open global trading and investment system. For the proponents of Point 6, this could be avoided by the adoption of the Declaration and a meaningful follow-up.
14. The Employer members noted that the proposed follow-up procedures represented a continuum of obligations of member States under the ILO Constitution. They also extended to the obligations of membership under article 19(5), namely that of enacting national legislation with respect to Conventions by the Conference. The annual review concerning non-ratified fundamental Conventions would simply involve the reporting already contemplated under article 19(5)(e) "at appropriate intervals as requested by the Governing Body". The continuum of ILO obligations under the Constitution would be completed with the global report and in the Employers' view this was already done, in a sense, under articles 19 and 22, through general and special surveys. The proposed follow-up required merely a recompilation of information in a new format. In the case of ratifying countries the information would come from the obligation already existing under article 22; in the case of non-ratifying countries the information required would involve article 19. Obtaining such information was important for an organization like the ILO, to enable it to assess and discuss the extent to which its Members were meeting its goals and objectives. Despite all that might be said about duplication, this was all that the global report set out to do.
15. In view of the fact that both reports would seek to assess whether Members were observing the ILO's fundamental principles and values, it was not evident to the Employer members why they needed separate follow-up procedures. Although the Employers' group had no strong objection to the separate track approach of the proposed follow-up mechanism, it felt that serious consideration should be given to consolidating the follow-up at appropriate points. They did, however, take strong exception to the idea of the Committee of Experts playing a primary role in the procedure. The observance of the legal obligations of ratified Conventions should not be mixed up with the observance of the fundamental principles embodied in the Declaration. The basis for evaluation under the follow-up procedures would not be legal rules as may be the case after a country had ratified a fundamental Convention; rather the issue would be whether there had been a policy failure which was so serious that the country's circumstances fell below a basic level to which no civilized nation should fall, regardless of whether or not it had ratified the fundamental Conventions.
16. In concluding, the Employer members stressed that the proposed reaffirmation of the fundamental values and principles of the ILO in the form of a Declaration and follow-up was perhaps the single most important undertaking in which any of the Committee members had ever been engaged. The last time such an opportunity had arisen was 50 years ago. Success in this endeavour would indicate to the world the vitality of the ILO and its capacity to be a critical participant on the world stage.
17. The Worker members said they would follow the Chairperson's request to be succinct at this stage. They stated that the Committee could succeed in adopting a meaningful Declaration, provided it had the political will to do so. Despite much support in principle for the Declaration, many people tended to qualify these statements of support with various negative points. The Worker members reminded the Committee of the important signpost of the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995, when the ILO had been mandated to promote fundamental rights in the labour field; as early as 1994 the Workers' group had proposed work on fundamental standards and follow-up in the form of a mechanism similar to the Committee on Freedom of Association.
18. The Worker members had been sceptical about the need for a Declaration, and agreed with the Employers and the Office report that the Declaration was not required in order to have a follow-up mechanism. Fundamental rights already existed; they would not become fundamental simply because a Declaration termed them fundamental. The point of a Declaration was to make a policy commitment to implement those rights and to strengthen the ILO's supervisory machinery to ensure that countries meet their obligations in promoting and safeguarding these rights. In this respect the Workers had a problem with Point 3, the wording of which seemed to suggest that these rights only became rights when a member ratified the Conventions concerned. This would need to be clarified.
19. For the Worker members, Point 6 was a matter for concern. A number of governments had made it clear that there should be no link between trade and labour standards. They challenged the insistence that an area in which the ILO was not mandated should be included in the Declaration.
20. The Worker members disagreed with the Employers' doubts regarding the value of including the Committee of Experts in the follow-up. That Committee had in fact always examined article 19 reports, and was therefore a natural route for the follow-up mechanism.
21. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, recalled that the position of his group's members had been made clear on several occasions. They attached great importance to the promotion of core labour standards and had made considerable efforts to put forward suggestions and provide feedback in order to assist the Office. They were pleased to note the Office's efforts to incorporate their position. Nevertheless, there were still ten key concerns that needed to be reflected in the draft Declaration:
(i) the Declaration should reaffirm that the ILO was the sole competent international organization mandated to set and deal with labour standards;
(ii) the Declaration and any follow-up should be promotional and not complaints-based;
(iii) any follow-up to the Declaration should not target specific countries nor be used to criticize specific country situations;
(iv) technical assistance and advisory services should be key elements of the Declaration and any follow-up procedures;
(v) the Declaration should include a special reference to employment creation, training, education and provision of information, and eradication of poverty;
(vi) no new supervisory mechanisms should be established, in order to avoid double scrutiny;
(vii) the Declaration and its follow-up should not justify the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes, nor to introduce unilateral or multilateral trade measures;
(viii) there should be a clear statement in the Declaration taking into account the economic, social and cultural circumstances of each country;
(ix) the Declaration and follow-up should be thoroughly discussed and adopted by consensus, in order to carry the necessary moral and political weight; and
(x) the Declaration should focus on principles and not rights.
22. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, noted that Report VII was an excellent basis for discussion as concepts and language had been clarified and it took into account a diversity of positions in a balanced manner; it now had all the required elements. In her view a few key elements were required for the Declaration:
(i) it should constitute a recommitment to the principles and values of the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia which all member States were committed to uphold by virtue of membership;
(ii) it should be based on principles of the Constitution, reflected in the Conventions, but not on specific provisions of Conventions;
(iii) it should promote universal respect for these principles and a commitment to make efforts to ratify the fundamental Conventions. The Office should commit to assist member States in these efforts.
The follow-up mechanism, which is an essential element of the Declaration, should allow the ILO to have more systematic information on the situation in non-ratifying countries, with respect for the objectives of the Declaration. It would also review trends and progress in respect of fundamental rights at global and country levels, and it would constitute a tangible way for the ILO to respond to international recognition of its role in strengthening application of fundamental rights at work. She reaffirmed the IMEC group's views that the Declaration and its follow-up was a promotional instrument and communications tool. It should not duplicate or undermine existing supervisory machinery. Finally, it should be the basis for an effective work programme to assist member States.
23. The Government member of Ethiopia stated that his delegation supported the Declaration and the follow-up mechanism in the annex. He recalled that he had contributed to earlier discussions and to the informal consultations in May 1998. He was pleased to note that some of his suggestions had been integrated into the text. However, more work was required to make the text acceptable to the whole group. In his view, the main objective of the Declaration and follow-up was to reaffirm the competence of the ILO in achieving respect for core labour standards through technical assistance and advisory services. As such, the Declaration was intended as a promotional tool, not as a commitment to any legally binding obligations nor as an excuse for punitive measures. This would require repositioning Point 6 into the operative part of the draft text, and reaffirming the commitment to alleviating poverty and mitigating its effects. His comments on the follow-up mechanism would be limited at this time to noting that its promotional nature should be adequately reflected in the draft text with a view to ensuring that: (i) the objective of the country reports was not only to review compliance but also to assess the country situation in order to provide assistance; and (ii) the main purpose of the global report would not be to judge or criticize States but to assess relevant developments with a view to defining an action plan. He further noted that his own Government had ratified three of the seven core Conventions and submitted others to the legislature. He concluded by stating that the credibility of the Organization should not be questioned by the success or failure of this one important undertaking, but rather by the cumulative relevance and impact of all aspects of its mandate.
24. The Government member of Barbados, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean States, stated that they had no problem with the proposed Declaration as a whole but that some refinements were necessary for the follow-up mechanism. He also wished to express the special significance of fundamental rights, and the commitment of his constituents to the ILO since the Declaration of Philadelphia. He understood the meaning and scope of the obligations that would be accepted under the Declaration to be consonant with the principles and values of the Constitution of the Organization and the Declaration of Philadelphia, and reaffirmed the agreement of the States of the Caribbean to this focus.
25. The Government member of Norway agreed with the statement of the IMEC group and congratulated the Office on the new draft text which he considered to be improved, shorter, and simpler. It would require very few, if any, amendments. He was, however, concerned with respect to the last sentence of operative Point 2.1, which implied that the realization of fundamental human rights depends upon sufficient resources. Freedom of association and freedom from slavery, for example, depended only on political will. In his view, the new title was a vast improvement.
26. The Government member of Lebanon noted that the Declaration would not be a legally binding instrument, but would rather be promotional in nature. She emphasized that there should be no linkage between the contents of the Declaration and the liberalization of trade, and that the Declaration should not give any State the right to take protectionist measures or other action detrimental to the comparative advantage of other countries. The Declaration was based on ILO core Conventions which referred to four categories of principles. In this regard, she raised the question whether the Declaration's principles would extend -- either in the ILO or other forums -- to future core Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference, as for example, the child labour Convention currently under discussion.
27. The Government member of Sudan reaffirmed his Government's commitment to the fundamental human rights of workers contained in the ILO Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia and reflected in the core Conventions. In his view, the Declaration should note explicitly that it did not involve any new responsibilities and should not be taken as a pretext for protectionist measures against certain countries in world trade. He believed the Declaration should be an indicator of economic and social progress, especially to give developing countries an opportunity to measure social progress in the form of promotion of employment, elimination of child labour, alleviation of poverty and enhancement of training that would lead to employment creation. He stressed that the Declaration should clearly set forth that developed countries, especially donors, should have the responsibility vis-à-vis developing countries to make available resources for effective programmes towards social progress and the implementation of fundamental labour standards. Finally, he expressed his Government's view, for later elaboration, that the follow-up mechanism should be within the ambit of article 19 of the Constitution.
28. The Government member of Hungary stated that his Government attached great importance to the adoption of the Declaration, and that in preparing the text, the Office had done well in taking into account the long debates in Geneva and the capitals. A number of difficulties were still apparent as indicated by the square brackets of text, but he hoped that helpful contributions from the various delegations would overcome these differences. He stressed that failure to reach agreement would send a bad signal to the international community, showing that the ILO could not even agree on a minimalist approach. He believed that such a signal would open the door to a number of consequences, including the taking of undesirable trade-related measures.
29. The Government member of Uganda reaffirmed his Government's commitment to ILO standards in general and to fundamental rights in particular, noting that Uganda had ratified three of the core Conventions (on forced labour and collective bargaining), and had instituted a tripartite committee to review labour law with a view to incorporating the principles of the four other core Conventions. Emphasizing support for the Declaration as a whole, he, nevertheless, stressed a few points: (i) the proposed Declaration should be within the existing ILO Constitution. In this regard, he requested clarification of how the proposed Declaration would relate to ILO Conventions; (ii) no new legal obligations could be imposed; (iii) the Declaration should include provision for a dynamic mobilization of resources and technical assistance; and (iv) any Declaration should include stipulations against possible abuse for gaining unfair advantage in international trade.
30. The Government member from Brazil was in favour of the Declaration and the follow-up mechanism. He stated that Point 6 appeared in the text because logic and practicality were not always synonymous, and called upon Committee members to exercise restraint when discussing that point.
31. The Government member of Cyprus regarded the Declaration as a reaffirmation of principles that already existed in the ILO Constitution. She stated that the Conference should adopt the Declaration to send the right signals to ILO constituents and to other forums. The text of the Declaration in her view was quite balanced as drafted, although there was room for improvement. She stressed that, although it might not be easy for all member States to implement the rights enshrined in the core Conventions right away, what was important was a commitment of member States toward that end, and a commitment of the Organization to assist them in implementing them.
32. The Government member of Egypt would have liked to have seen the composition of the Officers of the Conference reflect the necessary balance of industrialized countries and developing countries, but was convinced that the working of the Committee would proceed with the necessary objectivity, and that balance would be taken into account with the election of the rapporteur. He noted that the Egyptian Government had taken part in good faith in all the consultations on the Declaration and follow-up mechanism, with the Office and in previous sessions of the Conference and in the work of the Governing Body. The question he posed was whether the Declaration could yield positive results by improving commitments and putting into effect the standards of seven Conventions without disrupting the necessary balance of interests and priorities among the various partners, both in terms of governments, workers and employers and in the sense of industrialized, rich countries and developing, poor countries.
33. Stressing that the Declaration should promote labour standards and enhance their observation and application, he affirmed the commitment of Egypt to those standards, noting that Egypt had ratified six of the seven fundamental Conventions, with measures being taken in Parliament to ratify the seventh. The efforts of the Egyptian Government transcended the legislative framework, designed as they were to transform the national laws into realities. Consequently, in his view, Egypt was in a better situation than some industrialized countries in terms of commitment to and application of international labour standards.
34. The Government member of Egypt further emphasized that any Declaration should aim at bringing progressive improvement in international labour standards without exerting specific pressure on particular countries. He further stressed that the Declaration should not be created in a vacuum but rather should be based on economic and social realities existing in each society, as confirmed in Part V of the Declaration of Philadelphia. In his view, the Declaration should take into account the gap between societies in terms of economies, level of industrial development, social structures, cultural situations, and struggles against poverty, in particular within the framework of efforts to eliminate poverty.
35. He stated that some opinions expressed, often by the African and Asia and Pacific government groups as well as other developing countries not in those groups, were not fully taken into account in all documents presented by the Office to the Conference, including Report VII, despite clear-cut criteria and modalities for discussion and negotiation. He stated that the Government of Egypt would not be dictated to by the interests of certain governments or by groups of workers or employers in certain industrialized countries. In his view, any Declaration must also reflect the position of developing countries as well as their interests and concerns. If the Declaration was to be promotional in nature, it must be able to mobilize the necessary resources and the right approaches; otherwise, it would become a means of creating arguments rather than an effective instrument of dialogue and cooperation. Therefore, the draft Declaration required changes and amendments to satisfy high expectations and to meet these concerns. In particular, he emphasized that the follow-up mechanism must include aid and technical cooperation programmes to meet the needs of developing countries and mobilize resources to promote social development according to the Programme of Action adopted by the World Summit for Social Development, which mentioned various areas within the competence of the ILO, including work, education, and vocational and technical training, which were of particular importance to developing countries. The draft should stress the role of the ILO, particularly so that at the threshold of the next century, the exclusive mandate of this Organization's competence in international labour standards could be emphasized.
36. The Government member of Egypt observed that balance was necessary in any document of this kind, and accordingly, freedom of discrimination in the workplace should include freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sex, political views, and national extraction. He stressed that the Declaration should address the situation of migrant workers, which presents one of the major violations of human rights in the world today. In addition, he stated that any Declaration must contain stipulations against its exploitation or abuse by protectionist or commercial measures or any other measures including those that call into question the comparative advantage of any country, and the current draft language was not adequate in this respect. No Declaration should impose any new obligations on member States; yet the current draft of the Declaration implied that the seven Conventions were binding, even on non-ratifying countries.
37. With regard to the follow-up mechanism, the Government member of Egypt affirmed that the principles and values of the Declaration must derive from the ILO Constitution. In his view, there was no need to develop new supervisory measures and he doubted that the annual report was useful. If it concerned individual countries, in his view it would constitute double scrutiny, particularly as concerned countries which had ratified Conventions. Rather, he favoured limiting the follow-up to the procedure under article 19 covering non-ratifying countries. In sum, he emphasized that any Declaration must be balanced, equitable and promotional, and should seek social justice and concord in all countries in the light of differences in social and economic development. To do so, he emphasized the need for transparency and mutual respect among all partners.
38. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic hoped that the Committee would achieve positive results in the interests of workers. With regard to the contentious relationship between trade and labour standards, the current draft offered some improvement, as he was opposed to any link between fundamental rights and trade. He stated that the debate on trade should take place in the WTO, where the needs of developing countries should be taken into account. With regard to the follow-up mechanism, article 22 of the Constitution was already tried and tested, in his view, and there was no need to re-examine it. Noting that his Government had ratified six of the seven core labour Conventions, he favoured the use of article 19 reports in the follow-up mechanism.
39. The Government member of India agreed with the statement by the Government member of Japan, made on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group. With reference to Point 1.5 of the Declaration, he felt that the language should be more specific and exact, to reaffirm that the ILO was the sole competent international organization to set and deal with labour standards. He also felt that the Declaration and follow-up should be promotional in nature and not complaints-based. The Declaration and its follow-up should not justify the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes and this point should appear in the operative part of the Declaration. There should also be a clear statement that labour standards were "benchmarks" in the process of development, and should account for differences in culture and economic development. The Declaration should also refer to employment creation, training, education and the eradication of poverty, perhaps in the Preamble. As a non-legally binding reaffirmation of a moral and political commitment, the Declaration should focus on principles and not rights. Finally, the Declaration and any follow-up thereto should be adopted by consensus.
40. The Government member of China agreed with the Asia and Pacific group and wanted to make a few additional general comments. She felt that in the context of globalization, any attempt to encourage protectionism was contrary to all current trends. The WTO Ministerial Conference had affirmed that the ILO was the competent body to set labour standards; the Declaration and its follow-up should promote workers' rights but remove all elements of protectionism. She agreed with the Government member of Egypt that the current text did not reflect the views of the Asia and Pacific group and the developing countries, pointing out that the present title of the draft Declaration was not the one agreed upon by the majority at the November 1997 session of the Governing Body and that the present title added a strong political flavour. A number of people feared any idea of a "social clause"; the Declaration might be considered as an indirect link between standards and trade. If this link was not removed, it might be used as an excuse for trade measures. She added that technical assistance and advice was important to promote fundamental rights, but this should not be linked to implementing standards. Finally, she opposed any new supervisory mechanisms and any forms of double scrutiny.
41. The Government member of Botswana requested an explanation of the implications of Point 3, wondering whether this placed a greater obligation on member States than that contained in the Constitution. Whilst appreciating the objections to the inclusion of trade matters in ILO business, he stressed that the matter had to be examined in the context in which the whole question of labour standards and trade had arisen.
42. The Government member of Mexico, reiterating the position of his country expressed in previous meetings of the Governing Body, supported the adoption of a Declaration of a promotional nature on principles regarding fundamental rights and felt that the existing supervisory procedures could be used to follow up its implementation. It was important to stress the exclusive competence of the ILO in labour matters and that there should be no link between the Declaration and the adoption of trade measures. In this regard, however, neither the drafting of Point 6 nor its separation from the rest of the text through asterisks provided sufficient guarantee against such a link. He added that Mexico, the Americas group and other countries had also made it clear that neither the Declaration nor its follow-up should create new legal obligations nor be legally binding; it should neither be based on a complaints procedure nor constitute an assessment of compliance of national legislation with the provisions of the relevant Conventions. The Declaration and its follow-up mechanism should not replace nor duplicate existing machinery. These ideas should prevail in the elaboration and the wording of the final texts. Finally, he associated himself with the position of the Employers' group concerning the need to reconsider the title of the Declaration.
43. The Government member of Myanmar agreed with the position of the Asia and Pacific group and wished only to make general observations at this stage. If the Declaration were to be successful, it would require the cooperation, on equitable terms, of all the members of the Committee -- otherwise, it would merely constitute a "paper" Declaration.
44. The Government member of Chile believed that the aim of the Declaration was to reaffirm the aims and objectives of the ILO in the light of the new challenges facing the Organization at the end of the century. This Declaration represented an opportunity for the ILO to make its mark; the ILO could clearly not remain on the sidelines at this historic moment. In order for the Declaration to have the appropriate moral and political weight, it should be adopted by consensus. He stressed that the Declaration should not contain any protectionist measures, should be promotional in nature and should have an effective follow-up mechanism.
45. The Government member of Bahrain expressed appreciation for Report VII, which sought to account for all the different views expressed in discussions on the subject to date. He was, however, concerned that, although the historical background in the report took into account all the points made in earlier discussions, the text of the proposed Declaration left out a number of principles mentioned in the report. For example, Point 2.1 did not mention that member States commit themselves to bringing about the objectives of the Organization gradually, in stages, in a progressive manner, with a view to attaining their own economic and social development in accordance with the specific country's conditions. He emphasized the need for the Declaration to mention the important element of progress in the light of levels of development and historical and cultural characteristics of each member State, rather than imposing anything resembling a single, uniform level of protection. He asserted that the draft Declaration should take into account the degree of development and resources available to member States. He further noted that article 19(3) of the ILO Constitution stated that the framing of ILO Conventions should take into account the economic and social conditions of member States. Many had expressed the view that the text should make it clear that the Declaration did not commit member States which had not ratified Conventions to any obligations beyond those mentioned in the Constitution.
46. The Government member of Bahrain noted that while the report said that the Declaration was not aimed at constraining member States to observe obligations arising under Conventions which had not been ratified, the draft did not state explicitly that no new obligations were imposed on States, nor that member States had total freedom when it came to ratifying Conventions. He stressed the need to specify the form and objectives of the assistance to be given by the ILO to member States to help them ratify the core Conventions. He concluded by stating that the text should reflect not only that the draft Declaration would not affect the present system with regard to freedom of association, but also that the proposed Declaration regime should not be affected by the complaints procedure.
47. The Government member of Canada noted the importance of reaffirming the universal commitment to fundamental rights. It was important to focus on the specific objective of the Committee -- the adoption of a Declaration and a follow-up mechanism -- which would promote fundamental principles which all other Members would be committed to upholding. This did not detract in any way from the importance of other economic and social issues, but these were the subject of intensive efforts in other forums, where the ILO had an important part to play. While recognizing that the ILO had a central role to play in economic and social development, he felt that to try to capture the full range of ILO activities in the present document was beyond the scope of the Committee. In his view, there seemed to be general agreement as to the fundamental principles and rights; "fundamental" meant that those principles must be upheld by all ILO Members as universal, not relative; absolute, not conditional; and for now and not the future. He recognized that many member States that were engaged in the critical struggle for development required more assistance, but that development should be sustainable and improve the well-being of all those who worked so hard to contribute to it. Such development should be free from discrimination, restrictions on freedom of association and forced labour, and should protect children from exploitation. He believed that the drafters of the Declaration of Philadelphia had in mind that the fundamental principles in that Declaration were for that time and place, not for some other time or some other circumstances. The needs of countries in difficult economic and social conditions should not be overlooked. The follow-up mechanism was a means of identifying such difficulties and mobilizing all the resources necessary to overcome difficulties that member States may have in attaining these standards. Noting that the current draft was a good one, he, nevertheless, saw some areas for modification: the text should convey that the promotion of fundamental human rights was a universal commitment irrespective of the economic, social or cultural conditions of any member State; with respect to child labour, the existing text should reflect the approach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding the elimination of all exploitative forms of child labour and the commitment to the elimination of all child work that is detrimental to children's well-being, development or education.
48. The Government member of Italy, supporting the statement made earlier for the IMEC group, felt that this was a good text, taking account of all points of view. It was intended to promote the principles already contained in the Declaration of Philadelphia and not to create a binding document but rather to have a renewed commitment to adopt policies in line with ILO principles. Referring to many of the concerns of developing countries mentioned in the general discussion, he noted that the Preamble met these succinctly. However, Point 6 could be included in the Preamble, which was important, and could be based upon paragraph 4 of the Declaration adopted by the trade ministers' meeting at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore. As regards the proposed follow-up, no new mechanism nor obligations were being suggested. The annual global report would basically serve to provide a panorama of the situation regarding fundamental rights, and only thereby perhaps form a basis for more ratifications. The role of the global report would be to bring the Governing Body and the Conference up to date on the situation, as well as to form a basis for further technical support to member States.
49. The Government member of Slovakia noted that his country had ratified all seven core Conventions and expressed support for the Declaration. The Government member of Algeria reaffirmed the position he had adopted on this question since the start. It was based on two fundamental principles, namely that this Declaration should reaffirm the pre-eminence of the ILO as regards international labour standards, and that it should not be used for protectionist or trade purposes.
50. The Government member of South Africa noted that global integration went hand in hand with adherence to international labour standards; however, the comparative advantage of any country should not be called into question. Recalling the agreement in Copenhagen to promote ILO standards, he said the problem was how to translate this commitment into practice for the ILO. He was aware that some felt that this discussion on the Declaration was about the "social clause" in another form. Indeed the relationship between trade and labour standards could not be denied. But the point was that the proposed Declaration could not be used to pursue commercial or protectionist interests which would be counter-productive to the Committee's general endeavours. Noting the progress achieved since the 85th Session of the Conference in narrowing differences of opinion and approach regarding a Declaration, he was concerned that a wide consensus should be forthcoming and that no extreme positions on either side should undermine the goal of the Committee. Regarding the follow-up mechanism, he stated that its basic role was to evaluate the situation and to remedy any failure to achieve fundamental rights.
51. The Government member of Namibia welcomed the draft Declaration as a basis for discussion, stating that more attention was necessary as regards the following: (i) technical assistance to promote fundamental rights; (ii) employment creation, which was integrally related to labour standards, as discussed in Copenhagen; (iii) a credible follow-up mechanism; and (iv) ensuring that the Declaration would not be used to target any particular country. In his view, the global report mentioned in the proposed follow-up would serve to highlight the issues of concern regarding fundamental rights and help to lead the Organization in new directions.
52. The Government member of the Philippines, while expressing support for the principle of a Declaration, noted that a balance had to be found in order to pursue core labour standards without infringing upon the sovereign rights of member States. The draft Preamble provided the rationale for the need to reaffirm those principles and why it was urgent to do so now. He felt that regardless of the relative stage of development of countries, it was desirable to adhere to the core principles noted in the Declaration.
53. The Government member of Poland said that his country was one of the 35 States that had ratified all seven core Conventions, and would like to see such protection extended in other countries, irrespective of the relative level of development. In his view, Report VII was quite acceptable, but he had three basic issues of concern: (i) that the Declaration be promotional in nature; (ii) that it not duplicate existing monitoring procedures or create new ones; and (iii) that it eliminate the possibility of serving as a basis for economic measures against countries not implementing the fundamental principles. The views expressed by the IMEC group could serve as a balanced approach for reaching consensus.
54. The Government member of Mauritius said that the draft Declaration was a promotional document, pursuing principles to which member States had already subscribed in joining the ILO. The obligations arising under it would be those existing under the Constitution. However, it was necessary to deal with the legitimate concerns of developing countries. He wondered whether Point 6 was the best means of achieving this since it was limited in scope and had an economic rather than a labour dimension, thereby falling outside the ILO's main field of activity. Perhaps this issue would be better dealt with in the introduction or the Preamble. He supported the idea of providing technical assistance to member States, to ensure that social development and progress went hand in hand with economic growth, rendering that growth sustainable.
55. The Government member of Switzerland stated that his Government attached great importance to the Declaration since the document would make it possible to refocus ILO activities on the promotion and implementation of fundamental standards. The draft Declaration, in his view, provided a concrete, positive response to the social challenges of globalization, which represented the main task of the ILO at this time. He endorsed what had been said on behalf of the IMEC group, and wished to add a few additional comments: (i) the Declaration could only be meaningful if its implementation was guaranteed by a credible follow-up mechanism which did not impose new obligations on member States; (ii) the spirit of the Declaration should reflect that the principles it reaffirmed must be respected by all member States inherent in their membership in the Organization irrespective of their cultural and economic situations; and (iii) the Declaration and follow-up should apply to all Members of the Organization, as a matter of equity among ILO constituents.
56. The Government member of Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), agreed with the statement of Japan on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group and the statements of Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic and Bahrain. The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council wished the following points to be taken into account: (i) the ILO was the only organization competent to lay down principles and standards in this field; (ii) the Declaration should not impose any new commitments on countries, and there was no need for a follow-up mechanism or a dual mechanism in addition to the mechanisms which already existed -- this was not taken into account properly in the present draft Declaration; (iii) the Declaration should focus on the attainment of its objectives without overlooking the cultures, needs, and specific conditions of member States; (iv) the Declaration and follow-up should not be used for any trade purposes or for criticizing any specific situations in the member States; and (v) the Declaration and any follow-up should be of a promotional nature and should not be complaints-based.
57. The Government member of Saudi Arabia, in reviewing the text of the Declaration, had noticed a change in the statement of principles and some ambiguity which required clarification. He noted, for example: (i) the difference between the title proposed in the report and that decided by the Governing Body in November 1997; (ii) the order of the rights listed in Points 1.4 and 3 was different from that used in the Constitution, the Declaration of Philadelphia and the Copenhagen Social Summit Declaration; (iii) the meaning of "competent and multilateral organizations" in Point 4.3 was unclear; (iv) in the Arabic text, the stipulation in Point 5 that the follow-up included the study by the Governing Body of annual reports presented according to article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution, at convenient periods, would render it devoid of meaning; and (v) the draft Declaration should take into account the difference in levels of economic and social development, as provided for in the Declaration of Philadelphia, and should also take account of the specific conditions and traditions of each country and its culture and beliefs -- which meant the opportunity to develop national systems and institutions according to its social and economic development. He noted with satisfaction the Director-General's statement that the draft Declaration did not impose any new commitments on member States, and that it preserved the freedom of States concerning the ratification of Conventions, and stated that he would have liked to have seen a stipulation to that effect in the draft Declaration.
58. The Government member of the United Kingdom, expressing strong support for the Declaration, noted that its role was not to cover the wider ILO mandate on other economic and social issues. She noted that the principle of a Declaration clearly seemed to enjoy wide support, and that the credibility of the Organization would be damaged if a Declaration were not adopted. At the same time, it should be clear that nothing in the Declaration sought to erode the comparative advantage of developing countries. The point of the follow-up was indeed to identify the difficulties in achieving fundamental rights, and to mobilize the resources and assistance required to help in achieving those fundamental rights.
59. The Government member of Pakistan, in expressing his support and full cooperation for the negotiations ahead, said it was essential that the procedure should be as open and transparent as possible so that no country should feel left out nor have an excuse to use procedural failure to back out. He recalled the rationale that was originally cited for having a Declaration, which included: (i) the Declaration was to be a reaffirmation of the principles contained in the ILO Constitution and the obligations voluntarily accepted by Members; (ii) the Declaration should remove the immunity from ILO supervisory mechanisms that some member States enjoyed because they had not ratified the core Conventions; (iii) the Declaration should be a corollary to the commitments made in the Social Summit; and (iv) the Declaration and its follow-up would be promotional and not complaints-based. Stressing that there was not necessarily a need to reaffirm the constitutional principles, he stated that his Government's concern was not to modify the original contract it had undertaken with the ILO in ratifying the Constitution. From his point of view and that of developing countries like his, the added value of this exercise would be in reaffirming the sole competence of the ILO in setting and dealing with international labour standards and ensuring that the Declaration and its follow-up should not be used for unilateral actions calling into question the comparative advantage of countries, especially low-wage developing countries. He expressed some doubt that the current text reflected this. Improvements to the text would include, in particular, revisions to ensure that the document might claim to be a corollary to the Social Summit Declaration, particularly in respect to the concept of employment. More specifically: (i) he agreed in principle with the Employers regarding the need to change the title; (ii) the most important points were 1.5 and 6; (iii) major changes were needed to Points 3 and 4; (iv) certain preambular and operative points either had little relevance, were factually incorrect or were based on wrong assumptions; and (v) points relating to employment, job creation, poverty alleviation and the development of human resources were required. While emphasizing that he would restrict amendments to issues which were of strategic importance to his country, he was concerned that the Declaration now seemed elevated to the level of being a possible successor or consort to the Declaration of Philadelphia, despite assurances made in the November 1997 session of the Governing Body that the Declaration was simply meant to reaffirm the principles already contained in the Constitution. He concluded by distinguishing his delegation from those who believed that the fate of the ILO hinged upon the draft Declaration. Associating himself with the comments of the Government of Ethiopia, he stated that the ILO has been doing useful work and would have a role as long as people worked for a living.
60. The Government member of Colombia agreed to the proposal to promote and reaffirm the principles enshrined in the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia. As regards the follow-up, this should be promotional in character and based on international cooperation. He was glad to note that the objective of the global report was to establish a plan of action. As regards Point 6 of the Declaration, he felt this should be kept in the main body of the text and that it should be stressed that the Declaration should not be used to undermine the comparative advantage of countries, not only by other States but also by international organizations.
61. The Government member of Nigeria reaffirmed the support and cooperation of the African Government group for the Declaration and its follow-up mechanism. In reiterating the salient points made at the recent OAU meeting in Pretoria, he said: (i) it should be made clear that there should be no provisions in the Declaration allowing for protectionism; (ii) the Declaration should not impose any new legal obligations which would be contrary to international law; and (iii) the ILO should support the initiative by drawing up technical cooperation programmes to promote the principles contained in the Declaration.
62. The Government member of Japan felt that the ILO had made great efforts to reflect the various stages of the discussions on the Declaration during the past few months in moving closer to a consensus. The current draft was not perfect but there would be the opportunity to improve it. He felt that the ILO's credibility was at stake; it could not afford to fail in this mission of adopting a Declaration. However, he wished to point out that it was not enough merely to ratify the seven core Conventions; the principles in those Conventions must be upheld. The key role of the ILO was to promote those principles and it should carry out its work in a well-balanced way. Attention should be given to the various situations existing in each country and new obligations should not be imposed on member States. He felt it important that the Declaration and follow-up should provide for adequate technical assistance to help member States attain the objectives contained in the Declaration.
63. The Government member of Venezuela said that the Declaration should make it clear that international labour standards were within the sole competence of the ILO, within the mandate defined by its Constitution. He also felt it was necessary to adopt a text that took into account the different levels of social and economic development of countries. The Declaration had to be of a political nature without creating further obligations, and free from juridical connotations. Finally, it was important to have a specific clause stating that the Declaration had no link to trade measures.
64. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic associated himself with the comments made by the Government member of Saudi Arabia. He noted that: (i) it was vital that the governments of member States should not be affected by any new obligations; (ii) there should be no link between international labour standards and trade; (iii) provision should be made for technical assistance to member States; and (iv) there should be no new follow-up machinery.
65. The Government member of Cuba was of the opinion that the ILO was the exclusive forum competent in social and labour matters, and that it was important to avoid all linkages with trade measures. With respect to the follow-up mechanism, she felt that there might be some contradiction between article 19 of the Constitution and the proposed mechanism since the former did not provide for the creation of new procedures. She was concerned about the difference between the current draft title and the past wording used.
66. The Government member of the Republic of Korea fully supported the idea of the Declaration, but felt it should take into account the different economic and social conditions prevailing in each country. It should also be accompanied by technical assistance measures to enable member States to ratify and implement fundamental Conventions, but it should not result in the setting up of new supervisory bodies. The ILO Constitution already provided for adequate follow-up procedures.
67. The Government member of Germany stressed that the eyes of the world were on the ILO; both the Social Summit in Copenhagen and the Ministerial Conference in Singapore had mandated the Organization with the promotion of fundamental rights. There were bound to be shortcomings in the guarantee of those rights, but a Declaration underpinning the principles contained in the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia was appropriate and worthy of support. Nonetheless, there would not be much purpose to the Declaration if there were not a follow-up. He felt that no new legal obligations should be imposed; an additional obligation to report was not a legal obligation in this sense, but would give a comprehensive overview of the situation. The Declaration should not be linked to trade relations of a protectionist nature or call into question the comparative advantage of other countries. In his view, Point 6 was not in the appropriate place; he agreed with the Government member of Mauritius that it should rather be in the Preamble.
68. The Government member of Indonesia, associating herself with the first statement made by the representative of the Asia and Pacific group, felt that the title of the Declaration should be changed, Points 3 and 4 should be amended and Point 6 should be in the operative part of the Declaration. She stressed that there should be no link between trade and labour standards.
69. The Government member of Kenya pointed out that since his country had become a Member of the ILO in 1964, it had always upheld ILO principles, witnessed by the fact that it had ratified 46 Conventions including four of the seven core Conventions. He felt that a Declaration would reaffirm the commitment of Members to uphold basic principles. The Declaration should be legally non-binding and promotional in nature in order to encourage member States to make their own voluntary efforts to respect fundamental rights. The Declaration should be adopted by consensus and should explicitly reaffirm the pre-eminence of the ILO in the area of international labour standards. It should not call into question the comparative advantage of low-wage developing countries, and should take into account the various social and economic conditions prevailing in these countries. There should be no linkage between labour standards and international trade; indeed, at the Uruguay Round trade talks the idea of any "social clause" had been firmly rejected.
70. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran shared the views expressed by previous speakers that the Declaration should not be legally binding. In addition, in his view, not only should there be no linkage between labour standards and trade measures of a protectionist nature, but there should be no introduction of trade measures or conditionality of any nature using labour standards as a pretext.
71. The Legal Adviser provided the following clarifications in response to questions that had arisen. The first of those questions concerned the proposed title for the Declaration, regarding which certain Members had noted a perceived contradiction between the title which appeared on the cover of the report and that which appeared in the draft text of the Declaration. The Legal Adviser noted two technical details. The title of the report corresponded to the title of the item which the Governing Body had adopted for use in the agenda of the Conference; that title consequently served to define the general scope of work of the Committee. The second title was simply a proposal, like the rest of the draft text, which could be modified subject to two limitations: first, the title of the text must reflect the content of the Declaration and second, the Committee must deal with fundamental rights and not, for example, the aims and objectives of the ILO.
72. Responding to a question from the Government member of Lebanon, the Legal Adviser indicated that the fact that the Declaration did not contain a list of the fundamental Conventions corresponding to the four categories of rights and principles (a list of which appeared in the report) was deliberate in order not to freeze the situation. In that regard, he noted that one of the questions which could be posed was whether the future Convention on the most extreme forms of child labour would be covered by the Declaration. In his view, that question was of relatively limited import given that the Declaration contemplated the implementation, not of specific provisions of Conventions, but rather of the principles of those Conventions. The effective abolition of child labour appeared in the draft Declaration, and this fundamental right encompassed the elimination of the most extreme forms of child labour. The only question which might be raised, from a practical point of view, would be whether in the framework of future reports which would be requested under the annual follow-up according to article 19, the Governing Body could make a specific request relating to any developments concerning the most extreme forms of child labour.
73. He then addressed a recurring question of terminology surrounding the distinction between values, principles and rights. He remarked that those terms were already used in various international texts with differing connotations, and that many of the terms in the draft Declaration brought with them the problems that their usage could involve. What was important was to use the terms in a coherent and consistent way within the framework of the Declaration text. Thus, as for "values", the intention had been to refer to concepts of moral order which were widely shared, of which three examples were in the Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia: freedom, equality of opportunity, and solidarity. "Principles" could be viewed as the translation or manifestation of those values into action in a concrete context: for example, the principle of freedom of association was a concrete manifestation of freedom. Finally, the concept of "rights" constituted an active acknowledgment in law, of the principles. It was, nevertheless, true that the distinction between "principles" and "rights" was at times delicate and that was why, to avoid difficulties, the two terms "values" and "principles" had been used together in earlier texts.
74. Finally, the Legal Adviser replied to a question raised by the Government member of Botswana as to whether Point 3 of the draft Declaration would expand the constitutional obligations of member States. He stressed that "fundamental rights" did not mean the specific provisions of the Conventions concerned, but their principles. However, he acknowledged that there was a nuance in meaning between the French and English texts of that paragraph. The English text could give the impression that the "fundamental rights" mentioned referred directly to specific provisions of Conventions while the French text more clearly referred to the principles of those Conventions. The Legal Adviser explained the nuance again in reply to a subsequent question by the Government member of Sweden, adding that, during the amendment phase or in the final drafting, it would be possible to establish greater harmony between the texts.
75. The Worker members appreciated the Legal Adviser's explanation of "rights, values and principles", although they remained somewhat perplexed. They were clear that persons involved in forced labour, for example, already had rights as workers; they did not have these rights merely because a particular Convention had been ratified. Many member States seemed to have accepted that there were basic principles although some governments seemed to feel that they did not exist unless a Convention had been ratified. The Declaration, in their view, would embody an overall recognition of workers' rights.
76. The Employer members found the Legal Adviser's clarification extremely useful. They did feel that the English and French versions of the draft Declaration were somewhat different, as exemplified by the phrase in Point 3 mentioned by the Legal Adviser. The English version stated that Members should work in good faith and to the best of their abilities towards the realization of the "fundamental rights contained therein" which might, indeed, give the impression that those rights were obligations in the Conventions. The French version perhaps gave a better impression that those rights were tantamount to goals and objectives. They also referred to the Spanish translation of "freedom of association" -- which differed from the notion contained in the Declaration of Philadelphia and was not consistent with the English text of the draft Declaration. They felt that it was reassuring that there seemed to be a clear consensus for a Declaration. They did not believe that there was a problem with duplication and double jeopardy with respect to the follow-up mechanism; Point 5 could perhaps deal with this matter. They felt that the issue of the title should be dealt with at the end of the discussion.
77. Since most speakers in the general discussion had noted the integral connection between the Declaration and its follow-up, and that it was impossible to decide on a number of problematic points in the Declaration without knowing how these would be followed up, it was decided to deal first with the follow-up and then with the Declaration itself. The Worker members agreed that discussions on the title should take place later.
II. Discussion of the proposed text of the follow-up
78. The Legal Adviser made preliminary remarks about the follow-up mechanism at the beginning of the general discussion on this question. He noted first that the mechanism had a promotional objective, not a supervisory one; supervision was legally possible only under the established procedures of the Organization, and exclusively as concerned ratified Conventions. He stated that, on the basis of that general framework, his remarks would focus on two aspects of the follow-up.
79. As for the first aspect, that is, the annual review, he noted that it was first a question of carrying out a review each year of the situation concerning the four categories of fundamental rights for those countries which had not ratified the fundamental Conventions. The fact that the inclusion of freedom of association had been judged necessary indirectly confirmed the promotional character of the review. While there was already a mechanism on freedom of association, that mechanism was a supervisory mechanism which dealt exclusively with what might be called cases of serious variance from constitutional principles, while the annual review would have a different objective: to provide a general description of the situation in the countries concerned on those questions. The promotional character of the annual review was highlighted by the fact that it came under the general framework of article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution which was based precisely on the premise that " ... if the Member does not obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no further obligation shall rest upon the Member except that it shall report to the Director-General ..." (emphasis added). It was also important to emphasize that the promotional mechanism was not new inasmuch as article 19(5)(e) had already been implemented by the Governing Body to promote in a systematic way the four categories of fundamental rights. In 1995, the Governing Body had decided, without arousing controversy, to use that article to request four-yearly reports for a complete review of each of the categories in turn. The annual review now contemplated was not in principle distinct from that which had been decided in 1995 but differed simply as a matter of method since it would be carried out on an annual basis, and would be more succinct. Finally, it should be stressed that the annual review would not be duplicative as it would replace the four-yearly reports introduced in 1995 for each category of fundamental rights.
80. With regard to the second aspect of the follow-up, the global report, it was based on a single idea: the absence of ratification of a fundamental Convention was not necessarily proof that everything was going badly in the country concerned, just as ratification did not give an absolute guarantee that all was perfect. The global report would aim to offer an overall view for each of the categories of fundamental rights and to evaluate every four years the developments occurring. In the light of those developments, the Organization would be in a better position to set priorities for assistance and promotion. The global report would not involve any new administrative burden since it would be established essentially on the basis of elements already found in reports submitted under articles 19 and 22. The global report likewise would not involve any double scrutiny since it could not revisit the individual situations of each State. As those situations had already been reviewed under established constitutional procedures, they could be considered as res judicata. Far from being a judgement on the attitude of States, the global report would aim at evaluating how effective the action of the ILO had been with regard to fundamental rights, and would allow the implementation of the "concomitant" obligation which the Declaration imposed on the Organization, alongside the commitment of States to promote the fundamental rights, to provide States with all appropriate assistance to that end.
81. The Employer members reaffirmed that the global and annual reports were interconnected. They felt that there should be an introductory clause to the follow-up mechanism which should read as follows:
The overall purpose of the follow-up mechanism should be to review as frequently as may be feasible, the efforts made by Members to implement the fundamental rights, values and principles found under the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia. The two parts of the follow-up mechanism are intended to be complementary, mutually reinforcing, and integrally related.
82. The Employer members had a number of overall comments to make on the follow-up. They felt that in Points 1 and 1.1.1, the word "core" should be replaced with the word "fundamental" to be in line with the Declaration. They suggested that Point 1.1.2 should read as follows:
The review will cover the four principles concerning fundamental rights specified in the Declaration. The existing procedures on freedom of association and the regular constitutionally-based supervisory machinery will not be affected by this annual review, which will not repeat issues taken up in those procedures.
83. The Employer members referred to the alternatives in Point 1.2.3. They felt that the Committee of Experts was not the appropriate body for this purpose. General surveys conducted under article 19 had never actually pronounced on whether national law and practice was in accordance with a particular Convention; they had merely given a policy appreciation. The Office could be assisted by a group of experts appointed by the Governing Body; they suggested that Point 1.2.3 precede Point 1.2.2 and read as follows:
In presenting an introduction to the report and drawing attention to aspects that might call for a more in-depth discussion, the Office may be assisted by a group of experts appointed by the Governing Body.
84. The Employer members felt that the follow-up should not be specific about a four-year period in Point 2.1.1 since the situation might evolve. They also felt that the word "each" in Point 2.1.2 should be replaced in the English version by the word "one" as there was a certain ambiguity in this sentence. They also proposed a new Point 2.1.3 to read as follows:
In presenting an introduction to the report and drawing attention to trends and aspects that might call for more in-depth discussion, the Office may be assisted by a group of experts appointed for this purpose by the Governing Body. The existing procedures on freedom of association and the regular constitutionally-based supervisory machinery will not be affected by this global review, which will not repeat issues taken up in those procedures.
85. The Employer members also had concerns about the square brackets in Point 2.2.1. They wondered what was actually intended by "reliable international sources". They also felt that Point 2.2.2 prejudged what the Governing Body might decide. They suggested that it be replaced by the following:
This report will be submitted for tripartite discussion in the Governing Body, and may be submitted to the ILO Conference in the manner deemed most appropriate by the Governing Body, including as part of the report of the Chairman of the Governing Body, a special sitting or a special committee.
86. The Worker members stressed that the follow-up must be meaningful, effective and credible. In order to guarantee this, the Committee should ensure that it took sufficiently clear decisions on the framework of the follow-up, for the Governing Body to proceed in its work. They agreed with the two points made by the Employer members, namely that the term "fundamental" Conventions was preferable to "core" Conventions and that the word "each" in Point 2.1.2 should be replaced by the word "one". The follow-up mechanism should be composed of two basic elements: the annual review and the global report. In the case of the annual review, the question was who would examine the reports based on article 19 of the Constitution. The Employers had dealt with both reports together and said they should be examined by both the Governing Body and external experts; the Worker members had strong misgivings about this. If the Office was to reassure governments about their doubts, the examination must have integrity and engender confidence. The Governing Body, by its very nature, had political views; the Workers therefore had a strong preference for this review to be undertaken by either the Committee of Experts or some other group of experts; it should not be subject to political analysis. The information should then go to the Governing Body, which might set up committees to make observations on selected cases. This would guarantee a "meaningful" follow-up without going beyond the Constitution. As far as the global report was concerned, the Worker members welcomed the proposal for a general overall review. They disagreed with the Employer members that the reference to "relevant" information gathered on the basis of reliable sources should be deleted. After all, international agencies worked closely together on specific issues, and the ILO had enough expertise to evaluate what information was reliable. The major issue at stake was to have a meaningful discussion which might help member States achieve the objectives contained in the Declaration. The global report should complement the existing supervisory machinery and not undermine it. The Worker members were open to any options that would ensure a high-profile discussion of the report and concrete outputs. They felt that it should be the object of a special sitting of the Conference; indeed, it could be a standing item on the Conference agenda and any matters arising from the subsequent discussion should be submitted to the Governing Body so that the latter could see how best to help Members meet the goals contained in the Declaration.
87. The Government member of Mauritius felt that the proposed follow-up was a good basis for discussion and that there was no point in a Declaration that was not accompanied by a follow-up that was truly effective, meaningful and credible. However, this effectiveness would only be tested over time. He stressed that the annual review should not be too elaborate and technical; this would only obscure proceedings. He suggested adding the word "simple" in Point 5 of the Declaration so that reference could be made to a follow-up that was "meaningful, simple and effective".
88. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, noted that the follow-up, in her view, was an integral part of the Declaration and should be effective and promotional and not duplicate or undermine current supervisory machinery. It should also provide for the formulation of an effective programme of work to assist member States in their efforts to meet the objectives of the Declaration. The IMEC group supported the two-part approach outlined in the annex. The first part, based on article 19, should be reviewed in the Governing Body taking into account the general proposal in Point 1.2.4 for participation by Members outside the Governing Body. There was no need for a separate Committee since the purpose of the exercise was different from that of the regular supervisory mechanisms; the IMEC group supported a review by an independent group of experts appointed specifically for that purpose. Those experts should not be members of the Governing Body. The IMEC group also fully supported the concept of a global report. The purpose of Point 2.1 would be: to review trends and progress at the global and country levels; to communicate the ILO's actions in promoting fundamental rights to the international community; and to result in an effective programme of work to assist member States. The report should draw upon all sources as outlined in this section, and the sentence in square brackets referring to relevant information should be retained. The group believed that the Declaration should become a regular agenda item at the Conference and that there should be a special sitting in the plenary to discuss it. They also thought it essential that there should be some reference to the Governing Body for specific action following this discussion at the Conference, so that the Office might draw up an action programme to assist member States.
89. The Government member of Ethiopia did not consider that Point 1.1.1 of the proposed follow-up was promotional in nature. He suggested adding after the words "to review annually" the following text: "and provide assistance to member States to overcome obstacles they may have encountered in applying principles in the Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia". He also suggested changing "legal basis and examination" to "methods and procedures of examination". He pointed out that reference was made in Point 1.2.1 to article 23 of the Constitution but that this article did not refer to any observations by employers' and workers' organizations. His country preferred the report to be examined by the Committee of Experts. As concerned the global report, he felt that the Office explanation in Report VII was clearer than the actual annex. The global report was not intended to be country- or case-specific, and Point 2.1.1 should be reworded in accordance with the explanation given in Report VII. He suggested that the square bracketed sentence in Point 2.2.1 of the follow-up should be removed and that the report should be an annex to the Director-General's Report submitted to the Conference. He also said that the Governing Body should be able to discuss and decide on the action plan.
90. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, felt that the follow-up should address a number of key concerns that had already been stated. It should be promotional and have technical assistance and cooperation as key elements of the follow-up. It should not be complaints-based, create double scrutiny or criticize specific country situations, and should be adopted together with the Declaration by consensus. He made a number of suggestions by which the follow-up could be based on existing procedures. He suggested changing the questionnaires for article 19 reports, changing the reporting frequency, elaborating on the general survey procedure to serve this purpose and using existing committees to review the reports. He also felt that the title of the follow-up mechanism should conform to the title of the Declaration, and suggested the text: "Follow-up for the Declaration reaffirming the fundamental principles of the ILO Constitution". Furthermore, in the introduction to the annex, it should be specified that: "The purpose of this follow-up shall be to identify areas where technical and other assistance and cooperation are required and it shall not be used to provide a basis for complaints or criticism of specific country situations". As regards Point 1.1.2 concerning the annual review, he felt that the word "rights" should be changed to "principles" and would like to see the word "observing" changed. He preferred the following wording: "with a view to providing necessary assistance that will enable countries to observe fundamental principles and values enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia". He also believed that governments should have an opportunity in the reports to express their needs and priorities for technical assistance. The last three lines of Point 1.2.1 should be deleted from "to be supplemented" until the end, and the following text substituted: "duly taking into account the provisions of article 23 of the Constitution". Regarding the review of annual reports, as envisaged in Point 1.2.2, the point could read: "These reports will be examined in a promotional manner by the Committee of Experts and will be submitted to the Conference Committee on Standards in the form of a general survey in accordance with article 7 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference." He also suggested the deletion of Point 1.2.3 because it envisaged targeting specific countries. With respect to the global report, the members of the group were concerned that it might create double scrutiny. Care should be taken that an issue examined in the Governing Body could not be covered elsewhere, and that the global report would not criticize specific country situations but rather identify needs for technical assistance. He believed that this report would be better referred to as a "global overview" or "global survey", and it should be submitted to the Conference and not be subject to decision. He felt that the words "significant developments" in Point 2.1.1 contradicted the idea of general trends and did not seem promotional in nature. He agreed that the word "each" in Point 2.1.2 should be replaced by "one", and stated that the word "rights" should be replaced by "principles". In reference to Point 2.2.1, he felt that the Director-General should prepare the global overview based on reports submitted by member States on non-ratified Conventions under article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution and on ratified Conventions under article 22 of the Constitution. It should be in line with the promotional nature of the Declaration and not be country-specific. He again expressed the hope that the comments and concerns of his group would be incorporated.
91. The Government member of Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, agreed with the statement made by the Government member of Japan. He felt that the follow-up would create a new machinery for considering reports on non-ratifying countries, in addition to the global report and reports on these same Conventions already being examined by the Committee of Experts. The consequences of this would involve the following. States that had not ratified one or more of the fundamental Conventions would be cited in the annual report, and then in the global report, so it would be examined twice by the Conference on the same subject. The Committee of Experts might receive reports from non-ratifying States at the same time it received the annual and global reports, which meant three reports on the same subject. Countries would also be able to express themselves in the Governing Body as provided in Point 1.2.4. As 139 States had not ratified all these Conventions, this would take a great deal of time. This procedure would amount to a complaints procedure. Also, calling upon members of the Committee of Experts would not only involve much work but also considerable financial costs which might be better used for technical cooperation.
92. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic agreed with the statements made by the two previous speakers. He felt that any new mechanism would complicate matters further, and that the existing follow-up mechanisms on the basis of articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution should be retained. Articles 23 to 34 of the Constitution already provided an adequate system of procedures for complaints. He felt that the annex to the Declaration would create new machinery and that the resources involved might be better used for technical cooperation. He wanted to avoid any double scrutiny and to exclude any new mechanism, relying on the existing machinery based on the ILO Constitution.
93. The Government member of Pakistan associated himself with the Government member of Japan, who had spoken on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group. He had no major problems concerning the annual review but wished to make three points. First, the Committee of Experts was capable of dealing with these reports under article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution. This would avoid the creation of any new supervisory machinery. Second, the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards should deal with these reports in the form of a general survey. Third, he did not agree with the Employer members' suggestion to set up a working party to act as a "filtering mechanism". With respect to the global report, he had some major reservations. The possibility of such a report had not been voiced when the idea of the Declaration was first raised and he was concerned that the report could be used to further protectionist interests. Indeed, it could become a very broad social label. While some governments saw the global report as something promotional, others in his view clearly wished to see this global report become a compendium of country situations. He was concerned that some would consider the global report as providing the "teeth" that some felt the ILO currently lacked, and this might place labour standards in a position that most governments would like to avoid. If technical assistance was the aim of the report, there were other means at the ILO's disposal such as the Governing Body Committee on Technical Cooperation and the multidisciplinary teams. He would like to see the global report dropped as it violated the basic right of every individual or nation not to be subject to double scrutiny.
94. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Government of his own country, felt that the follow-up should be in line with the objectives of the Declaration. It should be promotional in nature and avoid the examination of individual cases. The dual system of reports was acceptable but it should not end up being complaints-based. There should be an additional reference in the text of the follow- up to the effect that countries would be provided the opportunity to let their concerns be known, that an examination should be made of the difficulties countries were encountering, and that appropriate technical assistance should be provided.
95. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the Government of his own country, stressed that the follow-up should be both credible and effective. The follow-up procedures should inform member States and the international community on the situation of countries which had not ratified the fundamental standards. He noted that the French title of the Declaration and the annex used the expression "droits de l'homme" (rights of man), which should be replaced by a gender-neutral term such as "individual" or "human rights" ("droits de la personne" or "droits humains"). The follow-up should make it possible to assess trends in the application of constitutional principles and objectives contained in fundamental Conventions -- both in global and country-specific ways. This information would help the Office better target the constitutional and practical means at its disposal towards attaining the objectives contained in the Declaration. He believed that the present document reflected these points. Concerning the annual report, he supported the involvement of independent experts with credibility and credentials. The focus of discussions in the Governing Body should be on the significant progress -- or lack thereof -- made in the area in question, and the global report should provide information on progress, or lack of progress, in achieving the objectives of the Declaration both at global and country-specific levels. He also felt that those responsible for compiling reports should have access to other information than that gathered on a tripartite basis. He stressed that the global report should be discussed in such a way that it gained a high profile and that the plenary of the International Labour Conference should devote the necessary time to examine it.
96. The Government member of Lebanon stressed that article 19 of the Constitution already provided for a follow-up mechanism, and any follow-up within the framework of the Declaration should be based on this. A group of legal experts could examine the report and take into account efforts made by countries to implement principles contained in the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia, and identify the assistance necessary to improve their capacity. In her view, an annual review would not be necessary because changes in legislation were not likely to take place every year, and besides this provision might contradict article 19 reports. With reference to the promotional and assistance-based vocation of the global report, she wondered what would happen if a country was not able to ratify a particular Convention.
97. The Government member of Finland associated himself with the statement made by the Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group. He felt it was necessary to stress the need for a credible follow-up mechanism. There should be no fears that it would be a sort of legal surveillance.
98. The Government member of the United Kingdom believed that there should be a credible and effective follow-up mechanism to the Declaration; without it, the Declaration would remain "a collection of fine words". The follow-up should be designed to promote the implementation of the Declaration and to strengthen the ILO's supervisory machinery. She felt that the mechanism proposed by the Office fulfilled these criteria. The proposed follow-up procedure under article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution was not new but the proposal was to make more effective use of it. With respect to Point 1.2.3, her country preferred the option proposed in the IMEC statement -- namely, for a number of independent experts to help the Office prepare the report to the Governing Body for discussion in the Governing Body. These experts could be an expansion of the Committee of Experts, and need not only be legal experts. Since the Declaration of Philadelphia also related to development, an expert in development issues, for instance, might be quite appropriate. The United Kingdom also attached great importance to the global report as it would provide an opportunity to generate funds and focus technical cooperation and assistance where it was most needed. Fears had been raised about the issue of double jeopardy. The report should take due account of the efforts made by countries towards meeting their obligations and thus identify the difficulties they faced; this would enable the ILO to target assistance effectively. She felt that the report should be discussed at the highest possible level at the ILO's annual Conference -- preferably in a special sitting -- and this should be pursued at the following November session of the Governing Body to ensure that the ILO's budgetary provision reflected the conclusions of that discussion.
99. The Government member of Egypt felt that the follow-up mechanism should not be used as a tool for condemnation but as a means to identify ways of providing assistance. He felt that the word "mechanism" should be deleted in the title as this implied a supervisory mechanism. The title of the annex should be brought into line with that of the Declaration. Concerning Point 1.1.1, he felt that reference should be made to "providing necessary assistance to enable member States to observe the principles enshrined in the Constitution". Concerning Point 1.2.1, reference should merely be made to the content of article 23. He agreed with some earlier speakers that the reports should be examined in a promotional manner by the Committee of Experts for submission to the Conference and that therefore Points 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 could be deleted. He was of the opinion that the global report might better be termed "overview" or "panorama" to make its objectives clearer. Point 2.1.1 should be reworded to make it clear that the report was purely promotional and global rather than country-specific, and that it would aim at determining areas in which technical assistance was required. He felt that the word "each" in Point 2.1.2 should be changed to "one" and that the text between brackets in Point 2.2.1 were unacceptable, since it sought to reintroduce ideas that had been rejected in earlier discussions. He also advocated the deletion of Point 2.2.2 as the global report should be annexed to the Report of the Director-General to the Conference, and that the Conference should take note of it.
100. The Government member of France, agreeing with the IMEC group's statement, wished to stress that the Declaration and the follow-up were integrally linked since adherence to principles had to be translated into action. The best action in his view would be ratification of Conventions. For those who were not able to do this immediately it was necessary to measure their efforts and to encourage them. This necessarily required reviewing the situation. He was not in favour of following the classic route of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on the Application of Standards since these dealt with ratified Conventions. The proposed follow-up envisaged two categories of reports, based on whether countries had ratified Conventions or not. The global report would provide an overall picture without repeating the technical content of the annual reports, which would be a simple extension of existing reports. The global report would measure progress achieved and note areas for improvement. He recalled that many were concerned to increase technical assistance in this respect, the modalities of which would depend on the Governing Body. He wondered about offering technical assistance regarding particular Conventions at the time of examining the annual reports. Should that alternative be chosen, Point 1.1.1 would have to be amended. He was in favour of the draft follow-up which was light and promotional, respected the sovereignty of individual States and was in conformity with the Constitution.
101. The Government member of the United States, while considering the Declaration to be extremely important and profound, felt it would be meaningless without a follow-up mechanism. At this crucial moment in the ILO's history, it was important to have a credible, meaningful and effective follow-up on which there seemed to be wide agreement between the Workers and Employers and many others. Not succeeding in this area would be unthinkable. He felt that both reports contemplated in the annex were essential. With respect to Point 1.2.3, his Government felt that a group of experts appointed by the Governing Body was the most appropriate alternative. With respect to Point 2.2.1, the brackets should be removed as the Director-General should in fact draw on all relevant information. It was vital that the global report should be conducted on an annual basis at the Conference and that there should be a working group of the Conference to consider the implications of the report. This report should have a significant impact on the ILO's technical assistance programmes. The promotional aspect was essential, but the report would also have to be country-specific. A number of fears had been expressed about double scrutiny, but he saw no basis for these misgivings. The proposed mechanism would not create a new supervisory machinery but would use the existing machinery. He rejected the argument being made about protectionism and the Declaration and follow-up mechanism as sophistry, and said those opposing the effort posed the far greater danger of protectionism because they were threatening to undermine a broad consensus for trade liberalization. In this era of globalization, there was a concern for the rights of workers and for social justice, and in his view the liberalization of trade and labour standards mutually reinforced each other. If this exercise had been about protectionism, he stated categorically that his Government would be opposed to it. The United States was committed to this Declaration and its follow-up, but it must yield meaningful results. The work achieved here would determine to a very great extent the future of the Organization.
102. The Government member of Switzerland, agreeing with the IMEC group's statement, noted that the Declaration and its follow-up were integrally linked. The follow-up needed to be credible in order to improve the image and transparency of the ILO. The follow-up mechanism, based on article 19 reports as well as the global reports, needed to be as democratic as the existing system of the Committee on the Application of Standards. He felt that the Conference should discuss the global report in a special sitting and that the Director-General should then bring it to the attention of the Governing Body, which would decide on measures of support and cooperation for promoting fundamental rights.
103. The Government member of Sweden associated himself with the statement made by the Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group. Without a follow-up there was no need for a Declaration; indeed, if there was not a meaningful and effective follow-up, his country would have to vote against the Declaration. Referring to Part IV in the Declaration of Philadelphia and to the words "international trade" he felt that the proposed Declaration did not contradict this. He felt that the Office text provided a good basis for discussion, and would be glad to rely on the Office's expertise to prepare a new draft more acceptable to all.
104. The Government member of Germany, while affirming his full support for the statement of the IMEC group, noted one divergence from the statement of the United States as to paragraph 2.2.2 of the annex, which had included a suggestion for a special committee of the Conference to be convened to review the global report. Such a development could be logistically difficult for member States with smaller delegations which might find it difficult to staff another Conference committee. Recalling his earlier statement that the purpose of the Declaration and follow-up was to produce as comprehensive a picture as possible of the different ways of guaranteeing fundamental rights in the world, he wondered whether only new article 19 reports from non-ratifying countries would serve that purpose. As an example, he noted that Convention No. 29 had still not been ratified by 29 States; in his view, a report on the state of forced labour in only those 29 countries would not give an accurate picture of forced labour in the world. Second, he explained that although the new procedure would not be based on a system of complaint or appeal, the global report would have to note where, how and to whom assistance should be provided since its purpose was to identify the difficulties in order to address them.
105. The Government member of Uganda stated his support for the proposed follow-up but believed that it should proceed in the context of article 19(5)(e) and be promotional. He noted that no additional responsibility should be added for member States, and that both the annual and four-yearly reports should be examined by the Governing Body and submitted to the Conference for its consideration. He concluded that the Organization should encourage the non-ratifying member States to seek technical assistance on request.
106. The Government member of Belgium, associating himself with the statement of Canada on behalf of the IMEC group, said that the follow-up was the essential corollary to the Declaration and would strengthen its authority. The mechanism should take into account the existing procedural obligations within the ILO, and there should be no duplication or new form of monitoring or control. In his view, the mechanism should allow for the periodic examination of the situation in member States to facilitate the effective assistance of the ILO.
107. The Government member of Brazil recalled his Government's support for the Declaration from the beginning of the process, and its desire for a meaningful and effective mechanism to promote fundamental rights. Towards that end, he believed that it would be necessary to eliminate a number of ambiguities: (i) in Point 1.2.1, he agreed with earlier comments highlighting the imprecision which needed to be resolved; (ii) regarding Point 1.2.3, a clear distinction should be made between the examination of obligations derived from the ratification of Conventions and the non-binding effect of the mechanism being examined here, and he would therefore favour the selection of a rapporteur from the Governing Body; (iii) regarding Point 1.2.4, a certain ambiguity existed as to how countries which were the subject of review would be heard in the Governing Body and what type of measures should be taken to enable Members not part of the Governing Body to take part actively when matters involving them were being considered; (iv) in Point 2.1.1, the word "define" should be replaced with "propose"; (v) regarding Point 2.2.1, the bracketed language raised doubts and was in need of a more careful formulation of what action the Director-General could take. With regard to the global report, the Government member of Brazil stated his preference for a discussion in the Governing Body with a view to proposing specific policies for the Office. The Governing Body had better tools than the Conference for an exercise requiring an in-depth and meaningful discussion. From that discussion, he proposed that the results be submitted to the Conference for discussion in plenary. On a more general note, he stated that the mechanism should assist States in achieving better implementation of fundamental rights, and the text should make this objective clear. He also supported the addition of a specific reference to avoidance of double scrutiny or double jeopardy. In his view, there was still a doubt as to the final significance and uses to which the report would be put, and the text should make clear that the mechanism should focus on assistance and not criticize States.
108. The Government member of Colombia noted that the purpose of the follow-up was to promote the principles in the Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia. She stated that the application of the follow-up should be based on international cooperation and technical assistance, not on complaints or criticisms of member States. The global report should serve exclusively to develop a plan of action to help member States. This action programme should be promotional and extended to apply to ratifying countries as well. In her view, the global report should be subject to the decision of the Conference, without prejudice to the Governing Body acting as a filter. She pointed out that this method would allow participation of all Members of the Organization in establishing the best way of promoting ILO principles, and should be used as the sole basis for producing an action programme for a four- year period. The Government member of Ecuador agreed with the position of Colombia and Mexico on the follow-up, as did the Government member of Panama, speaking on behalf of Central America and the Dominican Republic.
109. The Government member of Sudan raised two points. First, the Declaration should not impose new responsibilities on member States, including responsibilities arising from the follow-up. Second, the Declaration should be promotional and phrased accordingly. In that regard, he observed that there was some overlap in reports applying directly to fundamental rights and he believed that member States' commitments should be channelled through the current follow-up mechanism. To be effective, the reports should be linked to technical information, which should be set out extremely clearly in Point 1.1. Furthermore, he observed that Point 1.1 should make it clear that no country would be subject to double scrutiny and, in that regard, the annual report should go to the Committee of Experts and then the Conference Committee. He did not find it necessary to amend Points 1.2.3 or 1.2.4. As for the global report, it should be of a promotional nature, relating to the development of legislation and setting out problems encountered in the countries concerned. The global report should establish the Organization's responsibility for encouraging countries to respect the fundamental principles and the report should be submitted to the Conference for its assessment. The information in the report should be based on information collected by the ILO through its multidisciplinary teams in all countries. He saw no need for the bracketed references in Points 2.2.1 or 2.2.2. He believed that, in addressing the global report, the Conference should work on the basis of consensus.
110. The Government member of Italy referred to his earlier intervention in which he summarized his opinions regarding the follow-up, and wished to dispel several misunderstandings about which his IMEC colleagues had already given exhaustive explanations. First, the annual follow-up addressed fundamental rights and was to use existing machinery, which he deemed to be more than sufficient. For ratifying countries, there would be nothing new; they would go on through the usual procedures. Naturally, the follow-up mechanism referred to non-ratifying countries, for whom article 19(5)(e) reports had already been used to report to the Director-General and then to the Governing Body. In his view, independent experts could be appointed by the Governing Body in case it needed advice. Second, the global report was to cover all reports both of ratifying and non-ratifying countries. That general picture would by its very nature be promotional, and it should serve to assess the effectiveness of ILO assistance and to inform constituents on how far the assistance could go, and where it needed redirecting or further resources allocated. Indeed, he viewed the global report as a link between the Governing Body and the Conference. Regarding Point 2.2.2, the Conference should examine the report in the full or a part of the plenary.
111. The Government member of the Russian Federation stated that the follow-up was needed to have a complete Declaration. He noted that reaching consensus on the Declaration and follow-up would serve well the purpose of consolidating the rights of workers, which was one of the main aims of the Organization. However, he believed that the mechanism should be based on already existing procedures of the ILO. The global report should give an overall view of general events in progress toward compliance with fundamental rights, but he thought that the apprehensions of negative repercussions should not be disregarded. He suggested that general criteria and rules for drawing up the global report be worked out on the basis of existing procedures under article 19(5)(e). The possibility of using other kinds of information from reliable international sources should be excluded. A rapporteur from the Conference members would, in his view, be expedient. Under Point 2.2.2, which gave a fairly broad range of scenarios or versions, he preferred the possibility of discussing the global report in a special session of the Conference. He concluded that the provisions in practical terms would allow the Organization to play a prominent role and would justify the expectations of working people to better their lives through better working conditions and universal guarantees of social justice.
112. The Government member of India, associating himself with the statement made by Japan on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, mentioned that the information gathered for the annual review should be based on articles 19 and 22 and that the examination of the report should be based on the existing machinery. He recalled that India had always been in favour of the global report, as it had stated in the Governing Body in November 1997. However, he found that the parameters in the current text were completely different than what had been envisaged, which had been a positive approach to assessing and defining needs and programmes and helping the Office to draw inferences and assist in overcoming hurdles. Specifically, as to Point 2.2.1, he stated that the bracketed language went beyond the Constitution and established practice and that the Director-General's Report should be based on reports submitted under articles 19(5)(e) and 22 of the Constitution and the information provided under these reports should suffice. As to Point 2.2.2, the proposed report should be annexed to the Report of the Director-General for submission to the Conference.
113. The Government member of Norway, associating himself with the statement made by Canada on behalf of the IMEC group, noted that the Declaration, while important, would be of little value without a credible and effective follow-up. His delegation accepted the main concept of the follow-up as described in the annex. He found the global report particularly important since it would review trends and progress at both global and country levels. If the global report was to serve as a basis for promotional measures directed at individual member States, it should be discussed in a special sitting of the Conference and sufficient time should be allotted for that discussion. His delegation did not find it equally important to have the report discussed at the Governing Body first.
114. The Government member of the Republic of Korea reiterated his position that there should be no new supervisory mechanism which would give rise to a new burden of reporting by member States. In that regard, his delegation supported the views expressed by the Government member of Japan on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group. The Declaration and follow-up were aimed at promoting and enhancing respect for fundamental principles rather than targeting specific cases for criticism. Amendments to the draft text should be in line with those objectives.
115. The Government member of the Netherlands fully supported the statement of Canada, on behalf of the IMEC group. The purpose of the global report would be to review trends and progress at the global and country levels and to provide a report to the international community to inform it about ILO progress in that regard. He believed the report, which should lead to programmes of action, was needed in order to catalyse global assistance, which could best be done by creating strong political support. In that regard, he recalled the high political profile of the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC), which had resulted in substantial extra-budgetary financial support only once it became operational. He believed the report needed to be reviewed in the Conference at a special sitting.
116. The Government member of South Africa stated that the follow-up was an essential element of the Declaration, and that there must be an effective and meaningful follow-up, to give life to the principles and values enshrined in the solemn Declaration. It was paramount that the follow-up should be based on the Constitution of the ILO and, in particular, article 19(5)(e) for non-ratifying countries and article 22 for ratifying countries. He deemed that the suggestion in Point 1.2.3 of the use of the Committee of Experts for filtering purposes was technically flawed since the Declaration dealt with fundamental principles and values of the ILO rather than Conventions, and the only precedents to date for the Committee of Experts applied to Conventions themselves. Moreover, he believed that the idea of rapporteur(s) selected from Governing Body members could bring into question the impartiality of the process and that the most prudent way to proceed would be to use a group of experts appointed for the purpose by the Governing Body. In his view, the global report was a necessary innovation at the heart of the process since it would serve to assess trends and situations in both non-ratifying and ratifying countries. He foresaw that, for the first time in the history of the ILO, trends on fundamental labour standards would be put in a proper global perspective regardless of ratification of standards. Such an effort should be the subject of a tripartite discussion in the Governing Body and, most importantly, in a special sitting at the Conference. He emphasized that the global report could not be left exclusively to the Governing Body.
117. The Government member of Myanmar supported the Asia and Pacific group fully. He believed that, to be successful, the follow-up must be fair and equitable, and must operate with the consent of all Members. In his view, saying that there must not be double scrutiny was not enough; rather, the text must show ipso facto that there was no double scrutiny. The follow-up must stand the test of time and circumstances, and meet the needs of all Members of the ILO.
118. The Government member of Cuba noted that the follow-up should be of a promotional nature and not be duplicative, but rather should be an important component of existing mechanisms, allowing technical assistance to member States to be more effective, rather than creating other supervisory mechanisms. She associated her delegation with the statements made by Colombia, Mexico and Ecuador in this respect.
119. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that the Declaration was of great importance for his delegation and was a symbolic and necessary step at the end of this twentieth century that had witnessed wars, genocide and social injustice and yet had felt the need to advocate social progress and human values. It was important that the Declaration be adopted by consensus, and the follow-up would need to be compatible with what everyone expected from the Declaration. He considered that, if the Declaration was a promotional instrument designed to reaffirm fundamental principles and rights, the nature of the follow-up would also need to be promotional and this fact should be mentioned explicitly. Similarly, if the global report was a promotional overview and its objective was to assess needs and define priorities for ILO assistance and technical cooperation, those aspects should also be explicitly mentioned in the text. To overcome the concern that many had stated regarding double scrutiny, he noted that the text should state that the global report would not include deliberations of the supervisory bodies which, by definition, were to supervise compliance with ratified Conventions. In his view, if the text were clear and more explicit as to the objectives of the global report and its content, a number of the existing concerns would be answered.
120. The Worker members addressed several specific questions in order to facilitate the adoption of the follow-up. First, as to the question of double jeopardy, they said that the annual review would be through article 19 procedures and should therefore be submitted, in the final instance, to the Governing Body. Conversely, the global report could go directly to Conference discussion, not to the Governing Body. In this way, there would be no double jeopardy factor at the Conference. Second, as to the question of the use of experts, the Worker members noted that three possibilities had been envisaged: an expert committee (which, they noted, had received the support of the Workers, the Asia and Pacific group, and some other governments); the Committee of Experts which would analyse article 19 reports (which had received the support of the IMEC group and some other governments); a direct review prior to a political discussion, without referring to a group of experts, which only the Employer members seemed to favour. The Worker members stated furthermore that they would be willing to accept, in a spirit of compromise, either the option of the Committee of Experts or another group of expert. Third, as to the question of the global report, the Worker members were concerned that a high-profile discussion should be combined with concrete outputs, and to safeguard existing machinery. They suggested that the process would involve putting an item on the agenda of the Conference for a special sitting. The Government member of the United States had proposed a group, or committee, of the Conference but the Government member of Germany had been right to point out the logistical problems this would pose for delegations with only a few members; therefore, perhaps discussion in the plenary was preferable. Special sittings of the Conference took on certain political connotations, and the Worker members were attracted by the suggestion of the Government member of Italy to have a separate part of the plenary to review the global report. A discussion in the Conference was needed so that the outputs of that discussion would help the Governing Body after the Conference session to set priorities and deal with the shortcomings identified by the global report. In other words, unlike the Employer members, the Worker members did not support a pre-Conference discussion at the Governing Body, but rather a scenario in which the Governing Body would afterwards reflect on the discussion of the Conference to establish priorities. They clarified that, nonetheless, they could accept the suggestions of the United States, the IMEC group, Italy and the Netherlands.
121. The Employer members found the discussio