The fluctuating international context compels states of this region and beyond to recalibrate their labour laws, policies and practices. This is particularly critical at a time of great demographic changes, such as declining and ageing populations in parts of the globe, compromised by a more transactional and conditional world of “quid pro quo”. At the forefront of the context is the relationship between the labour force and related standards to guarantee that “labour is not a commodity” and that the human face at work needs protection in the form of human rights.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) is the key standard-setter, even preceding the birth of the UN and now also a specialized UN agency. It has evolved 192 Conventions, the latest being on biological hazards confronting the health and well-being of workers. These Conventions are complemented by the UN’s own family of human rights standards, especially the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The latter is sometimes clearer than ILO Conventions and helps to reinforce them. The most poignant query today is the right to strike which has proved to be a thorn in the interpretation of ILO Convention Number 87 on Freedom of Association. While some claim that the latter does not cover the right to strike, the ICESCR stipulates explicitly the right to strike and over one hundred countries are parties to this treaty.

Advertisement

The issue of whether Convention Number 87 covers such right is now before the International Court of Justice for clarification. From a more political angle, nondemocracies are often less comfortable with political rights, such as freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as compared with social rights, such as access to........

© The Statesman