TENTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Reports of the Committee on Legal Issues and
International Labour Standards
First report: Legal issues
1. The Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards met on 16 and 17 March 1999 and was chaired by Mr. J.L. Ilabaca (Government, Chile). The Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons were Mr. D. Funes de Rioja and Mr. J.-C. Parrot respectively.
I. Agreement between the International Labour Organization
and the Inter-Parliamentary Union
2. The Committee considered a draft agreement between the International Labour Organization and the Inter-Parliamentary Union.(1)
3. The Employer members, while agreeing with the object and purpose of the Cooperation Agreement with the IPU, wondered whether the reference to "ratification of instruments" in draft Article 4.2(a) was legally correct since, unlike Recommendations, only international labour Conventions were open to ratification. They proposed that the expression "promotion or ratification of instruments" would be more appropriate and consistent with the obligations under the ILO Constitution. The text could still be perfected and this was the meaning of the discussion. The purpose of the proposed changes was not to alter the philosophy underlying the Cooperation Agreement or to delay its adoption, but only to improve minor technical points.
4. The Worker members expressed support for the draft agreement but voiced concern about the risk of further delaying its adoption. They could accept the proposed text as it stood in order to avoid yet another delay in the finalization of the Agreement. The Office paper was a finalized text submitted to the executive organs of both organizations for approval. They proposed that, should there be any change to the text of draft Article 4.2(a), it should read "promotion and ratification of instruments" rather than "promotion or ratification of instruments".
5. The representative of the Government of Germany considered that the question raised by the Employer members did not seem to be of critical importance, and that delay should be avoided, especially if the text had already been extensively negotiated between the two organizations. A possible solution, however, would be to refer to the "parliamentary consideration of instruments", which would cover Recommendations.
6. The representative of the Government of the United States stressed that the proposed language was acceptable, all the more so as the Agreement seemed to have been lengthily negotiated. He noted that Article 4.2(b) contained no reference to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, adopted in June 1998, and that if any changes to the draft text were to be made, an explicit reference to the ILO Declaration of June 1998 should be added.
7. The representative of the Government of France welcomed the idea of concluding a cooperation agreement with the IPU. While the point made about ratification was a legal point to be taken into account, the draft reflected the common action the two organizations could pursue in sensitizing parliaments. He also favoured adding a reference to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. It had not been expressly referred to in the document probably because the negotiations between the ILO and IPU had taken place before its adoption.
8. The Employer members favoured including a reference to the ILO Declaration. The inclusion of such a reference would signal to the IPU the importance that the Director-General attached to the Declaration, and the IPU would thus acknowledge its importance.
9. The Worker members had no objection to a reference to the ILO Declaration being added if no delays would result.
10. The representative of the Government of Sweden agreed with previous speakers that the ILO Declaration had now come into being and was a most vital instrument for the Organization. If it was still possible to amend the text, a reference to the Declaration should certainly be included.
11. The Legal Adviser explained that the Office had no strong views on the proposal made by the Employer members. It made the text more meaningful with respect to international labour Recommendations. On the other hand, since the provision was dealing with subject-areas, rather than precise obligations, it could be accepted as it stood. It was the Office's understanding that minor textual changes could be introduced and agreed upon without causing problems. An explicit reference to the ILO Declaration, however, might represent a problem to the counterpart. Earlier in the negotiations, the IPU had made clear that it could not commit itself to the promotion and implementation of the Declaration, as it was not familiar with its scope and content. The substance of the ILO Declaration of June 1998 was, however, clearly reflected in the wording used in draft Article 4.2(b). If there were objections on the IPU's part, the Office would need to bring the matter back to the Governing Body possibly in June. However, in the light of the Committee's discussion, he proposed that the text be amended by adding the phrase "and referred to in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work," after the words "[...] Philadelphia annexed to it,".
12. The Chairperson noted that there were two proposals regarding draft Article 4.2(a) and added that the Office had already expressed the opinion that the wording "promotion or ratification" would be perfectly acceptable. Moreover, the conjunction "or", in Spanish at least, did not imply exclusion; it could thus be taken to mean promotion and, where applicable, ratification.
13. The representative of the Government of Italy, while not objecting to the proposal made by the Legal Adviser, pointed out that draft Article 4.2(b) in its current version already contained the words "fundamental principles and rights at work", and thus a reference to the Declaration could easily be accommodated by simply referring to "the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work adopted in accordance with the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia".
14. After consultations with the Officers of the Committee and the IPU, the representative of the Director-General (the Deputy Director-General) suggested that there could be a possible consensus on the expression "promotion or ratification" in draft Article 4.2(a), since the word "or" provided the degree of flexibility required. With respect to Article 4.2(b), he noted that, at the time of negotiation, the IPU was not in a position to assess the implications a reference to the Declaration might have. Following consultations with it, there would now be no objection to a reference being included in the Agreement. In order to keep the changes to the subparagraph to a minimum, he suggested that the phrase "and recalled in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work," be added after the words "[...] Philadelphia annexed to it,". The Chairperson noted the Committee's agreement on these two changes.
15. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body approve the text of the Agreement between the International Labour Organization and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, reproduced in the Appendix to this report, and authorize the Director-General (or his representative) to sign it on behalf of the ILO.
II. Consolidation of reforms in the functioning of the
International Labour Conference
16. The Committee considered a document prepared by the Office(2) summarizing the reforms introduced in the functioning of the International Labour Conference in 1996. These reforms had been implemented on a trial basis at the past three sessions of the Conference and had been the subject of certain adjustments. The reforms currently concerned:
(a) the shortening of the Conference by one day;
(b) the reduction in the time-limit for speeches in plenary sitting on the reports of the Chairperson of the Governing Body and the Director-General from ten to five minutes;
(c) the reduction in the duration of the plenary discussion of the reports of the Chairperson of the Governing Body and the Director-General to one calendar week;
(d) the selective free distribution of Conference reports.
17. Some of these reforms would eventually require amendment of the Standing Orders of the Conference. Pending the adoption of these amendments, the Conference had proceeded by suspending the provisions of its Standing Orders which were inconsistent with the reforms, namely article 14, paragraph 6, article 4, paragraph 2, and article 56, paragraph 9. Unless it was considered that the time was ripe to adopt amendments to the Standing Orders, a specific decision would be necessary at the next session of the Conference to continue with the arrangements on a provisional basis.
18. Since the Conference would at its next session (June 1999) have to elect the members of the Governing Body for the period 1999-01, the document also referred to the provision in the Conference Standing Orders concerning the Governing Body elections -- article 52, paragraph 2 -- which did not provide for the possibility of electronic voting in the Government electoral college. If, as in the last Governing Body elections in June 1996, the Government electoral college again decided to vote by electronic means, it would be necessary for the Conference either to amend the above provision or to suspend it under article 76 of the Conference Standing Orders.
19. The Employer members recalled that the experience of the last three years had shown the need for certain adjustments in the reforms. They considered that further experience could still prove necessary and therefore were not of the view that the time was ripe to codify them in the Standing Orders of the Conference. They accordingly favoured the provisional implementation of the reforms by way of a suspension of the provisions concerned.
20. The Worker members agreed with the Employer members that it was premature at this stage to consolidate the reforms in the Standing Orders and thought that the reforms should still be pursued on a trial basis.
21. The representative of the Government of Austria considered that not all the reforms should be taken for granted. While savings had been achieved, the reforms had also significantly increased the workload of both the secretariat and delegations. He referred, for instance, to difficulties encountered by speakers in keeping their speeches within the reduced time-limit if they were to deliver a comprehensive message, or for interpreters to follow the speed of delegates' speeches; further, night and Saturday sessions had become quite common. He wondered whether it was appropriate for the Organization to encourage such working conditions and whether the allocation of an additional day would not help to overcome these problems.
22. The representatives of the Governments of Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States considered that the reforms in question should, for the time being, be maintained on a trial basis following the same arrangements as in previous years. Concerning the time-limit for speeches, the representative of the Government of Egypt stressed that it should only apply to speeches concerning the reports of the Chairperson of the Governing Body and the Director-General, and not to the discussion of Committee reports. The representative of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran considered in this respect that the reference contained in the document to the global report was premature. Only on the basis of experience would it be possible, in his view, to determine whether an exception to the reduced time-limit for speeches would be necessary in respect of the discussion of the global report. He also had doubts as to the proposal in the Office document that the permanent delegation of authority to the Selection Committee be extended to other issues, as this could reduce the authority of the Conference. If this proposal were to be maintained, there would need to be a provision enabling delegates to challenge decisions taken by the Selection Committee on behalf of the Conference.
23. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body propose to the Conference --
(a) that the reform measures adopted at the 86th Session (June 1998) of the Conference be maintained at its 87th Session (June 1999);
(b) that the Officers of the Conference consequently recommend the suspension of articles 4, paragraph 2; 9(a); 14, paragraph 6; and 56, paragraph 9, of the Conference Standing Orders, to the extent necessary to implement the above measures at that session;
(c) that the Officers of the Conference also recommend the suspension of article 52, paragraph 3, of the Conference Standing Orders to the extent necessary to allow the Government electoral college to vote by electronic means.
III. Legal issues relating to the setting in motion of the
Follow-up on the ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work
24. The Committee had before it a paper prepared by the Office(3) concerning the following three aspects relating to the setting in motion of the Follow-up on the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work which, it had been agreed, would be referred to the Committee for consideration.
25. The proposal contained in the Office document concerned the coordination of periods for the reports under article 22 of the Constitution with the cycle of global reports provided for in the Declaration, in particular with regard to the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138). The proposal was to the effect that the reporting cycle under article 22 for Convention No. 138, which had been characterized as a fundamental Convention, be aligned with the reporting cycle for all other fundamental Conventions, i.e. that it be reduced from five to two years, and that the first report under the two-year cycle be requested in 2000 so that it could be available in time for the preparation of the first global report on the effective abolition of child labour, which might take place as early as the year 2002. There was general agreement with the proposals contained in the Office document.
26. The Committee accordingly recommends to the Governing Body that the first report in respect of Convention No. 138, in a two-year reporting cycle, be requested in the year 2000.
27. As stated in the Office paper, the information for the purposes of the annual review referred to in the Follow-up on the Declaration would be obtained through reports requested under article 19, paragraph 5(e), of the Constitution. Since article 7, paragraph 1(b), of the Conference Standing Orders concerning the mandate of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards also referred to reports requested under article 19 of the Constitution, the Office paper contained a proposal for an amendment to article 7, paragraph 1(b), designed to clarify the different procedures to be followed in each case. Although such an amendment was not legally necessary, it was considered appropriate in order to clarify that the annual reports requested in accordance with the Declaration, which were to be discussed by the Governing Body itself, could not be discussed again by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards.
28. The Employer members, while agreeing that the proposed amendment to article 7 was not indispensable, supported it since it would constitute a useful clarification.
29. The Worker members also supported the proposed amendment.
30. The representative of the Government of India agreed to the proposed amendment, but recalled that according to the Annex to the Declaration, the new procedure referred to in the amendment could not and should not be seen as the establishment of a new mechanism.
31. The representatives of the Governments of Italy and the United States agreed with the proposed amendment.
32. The representative of the Government of Mexico, referring to previous discussions concerning the Follow-up on the Declaration, recalled the need to make the purpose of the amendment clear. Any departure from the procedure provided for in article 7 of the Conference Standing Orders was exclusively intended to deal with the Follow-up on the Declaration, which should therefore be specifically mentioned. He suggested that the last sentence of the amendment proposed in the Office paper, which read "where the Governing Body has decided upon a different procedure for its consideration" should be replaced by the following words: "in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work".
33. The Legal Adviser explained that the provision proposed in the Office paper was drafted in general terms, without any specific reference to the Declaration, as was the case with any legal provision dealing with rules of procedure, which had to be general in wording and impersonal. Although, legally, such a specific reference could be made, it would be most unusual to refer to an extraneous document in the Standing Orders. The concerns expressed by the Government of Mexico could be fully reflected in the report of the Committee. In response to a question by the Employer members as to whether the proposal by the Government of Mexico and the wording proposed by the Office meant the same thing, the Legal Adviser explained that the wording in the Office text was more general than the wording proposed by Mexico, as it would theoretically permit the Governing Body to decide upon a different procedure in other cases.
34. The representative of the Government of Germany, while agreeing with the general wording proposed in the Office document, saw no objection to the proposal made by Mexico. He understood the reasons given by the Office, but the Declaration was a unique instrument, which no doubt justified an exception to good legal drafting practices.
35. The Worker members considered that the text proposed by the Office was agreeable to the majority and did not see any reason to depart from the original wording.
36. The Chairperson noted that the Committee was in agreement as to the purpose of the amendment, namely that the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards should not consider the information requested under article 19, paragraph 5 (e), in the framework of the Follow-up on the Declaration, but that there was some disagreement as to the most appropriate wording. He therefore considered, in agreement with the two Vice-Chairpersons, that it was important not to leave open an issue on which there was a clear consensus in substance but some disagreement of a formal nature on a question of detail.
37. After a series of consultations, the representative of the Director-General recalled that there was no precedent in the Standing Orders for inclusion of a specific reference to texts adopted by the Conference, for example the Declaration of Philadelphia. One reason was that texts such as the Philadelphia Declaration or the 1998 Declaration were intended to provide political guidance to the Organization, whereas the Standing Orders were technical instructions providing procedural guidance as to the manner in which the activities of the Organization were to be carried out. He referred to previous discussions clarifying the purpose of the amendment proposed in the Office document, during both the last session of the Governing Body and the tripartite consultations held at the beginning of the year. If the Committee desired to further clarify this purpose, it would be possible to do so, without modifying the proposed amendment, by including a specific reference to the Declaration in the point for decision to be adopted by the Governing Body. That reference would remain in the Record of Decisions of the Governing Body and, as such, could be easily referred to in the interpretation of the amendment to article 7 of the Conference Standing Orders.
38. The Employer members agreed with this Office proposal. The inclusion of a reference to the Declaration in the point for decision could serve, if need be, as an interpretation tool concerning the purpose and scope of the amendment. They also referred to the good will and cooperative spirit which had so far characterized the negotiations pertaining to the Declaration and were confident that such a spirit would continue.
39. The Worker members supported the Office proposal in that it covered all the concerns expressed by the Committee.
40. The representatives of the Governments of Germany, Italy, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Panama, Sweden and the United States agreed with the proposal put forward by the Office. The representative of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran added that the inclusion of the wording in the decision paragraph would make it clear that the different procedure referred to in the proposed amendment could only apply to the four categories of principles and rights referred to in the Declaration.
41. The representative of the Government of Mexico considered that the concerns expressed by his delegation and some other delegations were appropriately covered by the Office proposal and could therefore agree to it in the spirit of good will mentioned by the Employer members.
42. The Committee recommends to the Governing Body that it propose that, in order to enable the Follow-up on the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the International Labour Conference, at its 87th Session (June 1999), amend article 7(1)(b) of its Standing Orders to read as follows:
(b) the information and reports concerning Conventions and Recommendations communicated by Members in accordance with article 19 of the Constitution, except for information requested under paragraph (5)(e) of that article where the Governing Body has decided upon a different procedure for its consideration;
43. The third aspect of the Follow-up which had been submitted to the Committee for consideration concerned the possible regulation, through an amendment to article 12 of the Conference Standing Orders, of the way in which the global report referred to in section III of the Annex to the Declaration would be discussed at the Conference. The proposed amendment was intended to reflect the special nature of the global report already agreed upon as a separate report of the Director-General to the Conference. As such, the provisions concerning the number of times participants could take the floor and the time-limit for speeches on the discussion of the Report of the Director-General referred to in article 12 of the Standing Orders would not apply to the global report.
44. The Employer members considered that an amendment was not appropriate at this stage and that the same purpose could be achieved by means of ad hoc arrangements until such time as sufficient experience had been gained. They had a problem with the text of the proposed amendment in that it made the Selection Committee responsible for fixing the times and the manner in which the global report was to be discussed by the Conference.
45. Considering the special nature of the global report, the Worker members also favoured ad hoc derogations from the Standing Orders rather than an immediate amendment to article 12.
46. The representative of the Government of Japan, on behalf of the Asian and Pacific Government members, saw no reason why the provisions limiting the number of speeches and the time available for them should not apply to the discussion of the global report. On the contrary, if an amendment were to be made to article 12, it should be to the effect that the provisions of article 12, paragraph 3, and that concerning the time-limit for speeches, should also apply to the discussion of the global report.
47. The representatives of the Governments of Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India and Mexico supported the proposal made on behalf of the Asian and Pacific Government members and shared the concerns expressed by the Employer members as to the authority that would be given to the Selection Committee. The representative of the Government of China was of the view that restrictions on the number of speeches and the time-limits were necessary to ensure the smooth running and efficiency of the Conference. The representative of the Government of Egypt feared that the amendment, as drafted, could give rise to different interpretations.
48. The representative of the Government of Panama was not in favour of the proposed amendment.
49. The representative of the Government of Italy considered that the proposed amendment could be further refined and be made more specific as to the modalities for the discussion of the global report by the Conference. He also shared the concerns expressed by the Employer members regarding the role of the Selection Committee.
50. The representative of the Government of the United States concurred with the Worker members that it seemed premature to codify already in the Standing Orders the details of the discussions of the global report by the Conference before the first global report had been discussed. Ad hoc arrangements should be made for the first discussion. The Committee could revert to the possibility of an amendment to the Standing Orders later on the basis of experience. In any event, he could not agree with previous speakers that the restriction to a single speech and a five-minute time-limit should apply to the discussion of the global report. Provision should be made instead for greater flexibility, including the possibility of the right of reply, so that a true debate could take place.
51. The Chairperson noted that while there was no agreement on the proposed amendment, the majority of the Committee favoured the solution for an ad hoc arrangement for the discussion of the first global report by the Conference in June 2000. He proposed that the details of such an arrangement be further discussed at the 276th Session of the Governing Body in November 1999.
52. The Legal Adviser recalled that according to the Annex to the Declaration, the global report was to be submitted to the Conference "as a report of the Director-General" (Declaration, Annex, Part II, B.2). The Reports of the Director-General were governed by the provisions of article 12 of the Standing Orders and the purpose of the proposed additional paragraph 4 was to provide for some flexibility in order not to prejudice the manner in which the discussion of the global report would take place. Referring to the proposal submitted on behalf of the Asian and Pacific Government members, he explained that an amendment was not necessary to achieve their purpose. If nothing was added, the restrictions under article 12 would also apply to the discussion of the global report. In any event, unless an agreement was reached before the June 2000 session of the Conference on a possible amendment to the Standing Orders, the only way to permit the Conference to consider the global report as a separate report of the Director-General would be by means of a suspension of the Standing Orders. In answer to a question by the representative of the Government of the United States, the Legal Adviser stated that the latest date at which the Governing Body could take a decision on the above matters which could be brought to the attention of participants in the Conference would be November 1999, before the dispatch by the Office of the Memorandum on the Conference.
53. The representative of the Government of Germany requested clarification as to the consequences of postponing a decision on the manner in which the global report was to be discussed at the Conference in the year 2000: would it be sufficient for the Governing Body to take a decision in November 1999, or should the Conference confirm such decision before it could embark on the discussion of the global report in June 2000?
54. The representative of the Director-General, after consultation with the Officers, stressed the importance of the matter being decided at the latest in November 1999 so that the ad hoc arrangements could be reflected in the Memorandum on the Conference that would be sent to governments at the beginning of the year 2000. The time available until November would enable the Office to prepare a comprehensive document concerning the modalities for the discussion of the global report taking into account the different views expressed by the members of the Committee, and to conduct consultations with the different groups with a view to finding common ground for the discussion in November.
55. The Employer and Worker members agreed that the matter should be considered in November. This view was supported by the representatives of the Governments of Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Mexico, Panama, Sweden and the United States.
56. In reply to the question raised by the representative of the Government of Germany, the Legal Adviser explained that the Governing Body could only make recommendations concerning the Conference's methods of work. The decision would have to be taken by the Conference itself. In this respect, he drew attention to the fact that if the Governing Body could not reach an agreement on the ad hoc arrangements for the discussion of the global report by the Conference in June 2000, the conditions for the necessary suspension of the Standing Orders under article 76 might probably not be met. Such a suspension was possible only upon the unanimous recommendation of the President and the three Vice-Presidents of the Conference with respect to non-controversial questions. If a consensus were not reached on the ad hoc arrangements, the Governing Body would need to consider recommending an amendment to the Standing Orders in order to implement the arrangements.
57. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body request it to make specific proposals, at the Governing Body's 276th Session (November 1999), as to the manner in which the first global report should be discussed by the Conference in June 2000 on the basis of a paper prepared by the Office.
Geneva, 22 March 1999.
Points for decision:
Cooperation Agreement between
the International Labour Organization
the Inter-Parliamentary Union
Whereas the aim of the International Labour Organization (hereinafter referred to as the "ILO") is to achieve social justice through the improvement of conditions of labour, the protection of workers, and the promotion of democratic principles such as the principle of freedom of association based on tripartite dialogue;
Whereas the purpose of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (hereinafter referred to as the "IPU") is to work for peace and cooperation among peoples and for the firm establishment of representative institutions based on the respect of fundamental human rights;
Whereas the common objectives of the ILO and the IPU are the pursuance of peace and democracy by promoting international cooperation in their respective areas of competence in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and whereas these common goals and objectives can be effectively advanced through cooperation and joint action;
Now therefore, the ILO and the IPU, being desirous of cooperating with each other within the framework of their respective constitutional mandates, have agreed as follows:
1.1. The ILO recognizes that the IPU, as the world organization of national parliaments, by virtue of its character and responsibilities plays an important role in promoting peace, democracy and international cooperation, in furtherance of and in conformity with the purposes for which the ILO was established.
1.2. The IPU recognizes the responsibilities and fields of action of the ILO under its Constitution and undertakes to give active support to the ILO's activities, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the ILO Constitution and with the policies established by the respective governing bodies of the parties.
1.3. The ILO and the IPU agree that the strengthening of cooperative relations between them will facilitate the effective exercise of their mutually complementary activities and therefore undertake to further those relations through the adoption of the practical measures set forth in the following provisions of this Agreement.
Consultations and exchange of information
2.1. The ILO and the IPU shall hold consultations on a regular basis in order to exchange views on matters of common concern. The date and form of such consultations shall be agreed between the parties.
2.2. Each organization shall keep the other appropriately informed of developments in its work and shall arrange for a regular exchange of documents and publications which may be of mutual interest.
3.1. The ILO shall be invited to be represented and to participate as an observer at meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference. The ILO may also, whenever appropriate and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon, be invited to participate in other meetings of the IPU dealing with subjects which fall within the competence, activities and expertise of the ILO.
3.2. The IPU shall be invited to participate in meetings of the International Labour Conference with the status of an official international organization. The IPU may also, whenever appropriate and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon, be invited to participate in meetings organized by the ILO in which the IPU has expressed an interest.
Areas of cooperation
4.1. In order to achieve effective cooperation and liaison between the two organizations, each organization shall designate a senior official to follow the progress of cooperation and to act as a point of contact.
4.2. The ILO and the IPU shall together explore areas for cooperation and shall offer appropriate assistance to each other in support of future joint action, particularly with regard to:
4.3. These joint activities may include, but are not limited to, the holding of joint special meetings or conferences at appropriate intervals on subjects within the competence of the ILO, and of particular relevance and interest to parliaments and parliamentarians, including follow-up action and implementation of relevant ILO activities.
4.4. Each party may ask the other for its assistance in the technical study of matters which are within the latter's field of competence. Any such request shall be examined by the other organization, which, within the framework of its policies, programmes and rules, shall make every effort to give appropriate assistance in such a manner and along such lines as may be agreed upon by the two organizations.
4.5. Each organization shall follow its own procedures in authorizing and financing the conduct of joint activities.
Entry into force, amendments and duration
5.1. This Agreement, having previously been approved by both the Governing Body of the ILO and by the Inter-Parliamentary Council, shall enter into force on the date of its signature by the duly authorized representatives of the parties.
5.2. This Agreement may be amended by mutual consent in accordance with the respective rules and regulations of the parties. Such arrangements shall enter into force one month following notification of consent by both parties.
5.3. Either organization may terminate this Agreement by giving six months' notice in writing to the other organization.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized representatives of the ILO and of the IPU, have signed the present Agreement.
SIGNED this day of ..... at Geneva in two originals each in the English and French languages, both of which are the original and authentic texts.
For the International Labour Organization
For the Inter-Parliamentary Union