ILO Home
International Labour Organization corner

International Labour Review, Vol. 137 (1998), No. 2

[index] [library]

International labour standards and human rights:
Approaching the year 2000

Nicolas VALTICOS*

Since the adoption fifty years ago of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 the first international instrument of its kind the relationship between the rights it embodies and the international labour standards2 framed by the ILO has frequently been examined. One point often discussed is the extent to which international labour standards are part of human rights per se, and attention has been drawn to the fact that labour standards were internationally acclaimed a full quarter century and a world war prior to the embodiment of human rights in the Universal Declaration.

René Cassin, the principal author of the Universal Declaration, himself stated in 1950 that the ILO Constitution, which was an integral part of the Treaty of Peace signed at Versailles in 1919, represented the first instance of a contractual foundation for "international law regarding fundamental individual freedoms" (Cassin, 1950, p. 68).

Ten years later, Wilfred Jenks, who for many years personified the ILO and ultimately became Director-General of the International Labour Office, devoted a lively work to the subject of human rights and international labour standards (Jenks, 1960).3

Less than a decade later, in 1968, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Universal Declaration, the Director-General of the ILO submitted a report to both the International Labour Conference and the International Conference on Human Rights convened by the United Nations on the ILO and human rights, in which the author of these pages was involved. The ILO's human rights-related activities were therein analysed in terms of the great objectives of freedom, equality, economic security and dignity (ILO, 1968).

Indeed, all ILO Conventions and Recommendations contribute to promoting and protecting human rights, to varying degrees (Jenks, 1968). Frequently, the relation is very close.

This relationship between international labour standards and human rights has always been of prime concern to the ILO bodies, as demonstrated by the fact that, during its 86th Session in June 1998, the International Labour Conference adopted unopposed the "ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work" and its follow-up (ILO, 1998a).4 It reaffirms, as fundamental rights, freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour, the effective abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. It would not be misplaced to term this Declaration historic, adding as it does a new dimension to the existing instruments for giving effect to the ILO core standards in all spheres relating directly to human rights. The many points of convergence are taken up below.

These two categories of standards share not only the essence of their inspiration and objectives, but parallels even exist in the conditions under which they took shape at the international level, following a major world conflict, and with a view to building a better world. The difference lies in the fact that the system of international labour standards was drawn up at the close of the First World War, in the peace treaties of 1919, while the embodiment of international human rights protection followed the Second World War, first in an ILO Convention in 1948, and later in that year in the Universal Declaration, then subsequent ILO Conventions and the UN International Covenants of 1966.

More than one comparative analysis has been made of the content of numerous labour standards adopted by the ILO and the United Nations International Covenants and Conventions (see, for example, ILO, 1969). There is perhaps reason to wonder what purpose is served by returning to the subject today, so many years on.

The aim is not merely to bring elementary truths to the attention of a new generation of readers though sufficient reason in itself, since these are fundamental concepts of which successive generations may usefully be reminded. However, a particular reason for revisiting the question lies in the fact that certain recent developments and trends, such as the globalization of the economy (Maupain, 1996) and the resulting intensification of competition, and the power of deregulation encouraged by neoliberalism with its potentially deterrent effect on social and development policy, suggest that the time has come to recall certain fundamental truths and underline the values that are at stake. Indeed, it should be clearly understood that international labour standards, as a body, constitute a special category of human rights, and that the structure now in jeopardy in fact represents a broad set of the rights that were painstakingly constructed and consolidated at the cost of two world wars. But, although it may seem that everything has already been said on the subject, it is all to the good that virtually everything should again be brought into question. It is necessary therefore, once more, briefly to review the main elements in the light of today's issues. Such is the purpose of the following pages.

Human rights and individual and collective labour standards

Just as all individuals have their own personality and fate, human rights were originally and still are, basically conceived as individual rights. The same applies, broadly speaking, to labour rights. Hence, the right to life was the first of the rights embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights adopted in Strasbourg in 1950, while hours of work were the subject of the first international labour Convention,5 adopted in Washington in 1919.

None the less, both labour rights and human rights also have a collective dimension. The right to freedom of association features in both of the UN International Covenants, and had already been embodied in one of the most important ILO Conventions.6 Indeed, rights which appear at first sight to be individual, such as hours of work or social security, are in fact meaningful only when exercised in a collective manner.

Indeed, more recent proposals that solely collective rights should be recognized, such as the rights of peoples, the right to development, the rights of mankind, and so on, appear to have gained broad acceptance despite the opposition of a number of traditionalist legal experts. Clashes could conceivably arise between collective and individual rights (Valticos, 1996a), though these are extreme instances which are more in the nature of academic debates.

At this point, a closer look should be taken at the subdivision of human rights into civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, although it should be clear that this distinction has no substantive effect on their relationship with the ILO labour standards.

The subdivision of human rights into civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights

It should be emphasized that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights involved both economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights. It was only with the adoption of the International Covenants some 20 years later (in 1966) by the United Nations General Assembly, following long and arduous discussions, that two separate texts were framed, one relating to civil and political rights and the other to economic, social and cultural rights. This subdivision can only be termed regrettable because, in truth, human rights consist of rights relating to both categories, and no essential difference exists between them. On the contrary, the two categories of rights should be inextricably linked since, just as a person does not live on bread alone, neither does he or she live on fresh air alone.

Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, this division has no logical or legal explanation but, in truth, resides on political disparities between States of different persuasions at the time of their negotiation and adoption. In fact, the two Covenants were signed by a considerable, and similar number of States, and have been widely ratified. As of 1 January 1997, 137 States had ratified the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and 140 States had ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yet it is relevant to examine more closely the relationship between these two categories of rights, on the one hand, and the main spheres covered by international labour standards, on the other.

International labour standards and civil and political rights

Although it might appear that international labour standards emanate from economic and social rights, their impact on human rights has in fact been equally apparent in the sphere of civil and political rights. In particular three major spheres of labour standards the abolition of forced labour, freedom of association and the elimination of discrimination clearly demonstrate the role of ILO standards in this domaine. Since this is widely known, there is no need for a lengthy exposition here. Suffice it to outline the essential points.

In 1930, a first Convention (No. 29) prohibiting forced labour led the way in the protection of individual freedoms, particularly in the colonial territories of the period. Following the Second World War, enquiries were conducted from 1951 onwards by a joint UN-ILO Committee, and subsequently by an ILO Special Committee. A new Convention (No. 105) on the abolition of forced labour was adopted in 1957 to combat particular forms of forced labour that had been identified during the course of the enquiries. These Conventions, widely ratified,7 generated a new spirit of freedom and offered substantial protection against forced labour as a mode of coercion or mobilization of labour, for purposes of economic development or labour discipline, as a reprisal for participating in strikes, or as a form of racial or other discrimination.

Subsequently, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prohibited forced or compulsory labour (Article 8).

Freedom of association was the second major area of worker protection to be taken up by the ILO and corresponding both to the category of political and civil rights and to that of economic and social rights (and which features in both Covenants). Certainly, workers cannot protect their interests in an effective manner unless they can form associations. None the less, opposition from various sources blocked the adoption of an ILO instrument on freedom of association during the inter-war period, and it was not until shortly after the end of the Second World War that the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), was finalized and adopted. It has subsequently been ratified by 120 States over the course of 50 years, providing workers with a basic guarantee and an effective means of protecting their interests. Some 20 years later, provisions relating to freedom of association, of a more general nature, were incorporated in the two UN Covenants, although couched in different terms.8

Over and above the general procedures for monitoring compliance with Conventions, a special mechanism was set up whereby workers' or employers' organizations might submit complaints, even against States that have not ratified Convention No. 87. This is made possible by the fact that freedom of association is embodied in the Preamble of the ILO Constitution. Complaints of this nature have indeed been submitted to the high-level committee which was chaired for many years by Paul Ramadier, former President of France's Council of Ministers, and subsequently by Professor Roberto Ago.

Finally, the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), and the accompanying Recommendation (No. 111), prohibits any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin. A detailed programme specifically to eradicate apartheid, which the ILO naturally condemned, was drawn up in 1964 and subsequently strengthened. The matter of racial discrimination was likewise raised by the United Nations, most prominently in a Declaration of 1963 and a Convention of 1965.

These are the three major spheres in which ILO standards have contributed most extensively to protecting public freedoms (Gernigon, 1982) and civil and political rights. It should also be noted that the scope of this protection is not confined merely to proclaiming the rights in question, but also involves procedures relating to compliance which include both general application mechanisms and special procedures such as, for instance, those set up in connection with freedom of association.

Now it is appropriate to take up the ILO standards which deal with labour issues per se, being the particular concern of the ILO.

International labour standards and economic and social rights

Regarding labour rights specifically, the similarities between international labour standards and human rights are especially apparent in the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and include equal remuneration for men and women (ILO Convention No. 100 and Article 7 of the UN Covenant), occupational safety and health (numerous ILO Conventions and Article 7 of  the Covenant), weekly rest, limitation of hours of work and holidays with pay (several ILO Conventions and Article 7 of the Covenant), the right to social security (several ILO Conventions and Article 9 of the Covenant), maternity protection (several ILO Conventions and Article 10 of the Convention), protection and assistance for children and young persons (several ILO Conventions and Article 10 of the Covenant). There is by now a general awareness of the problem of child labour which, during the earliest years of the ILO's existence (Scelle, 1930, p. 111), prompted Albert Thomas to stress the pre-eminence of the human factor over the economy.9

Overall, it might be said that the international labour Conventions provide, in a more specific and detailed manner, for the practical implementation, at the national level, of the series of principles embodied in more general terms in the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The universal nature of international labour standards and human rights

By definition, the rights embodied in parallel and in greater or lesser detail in the two UN Covenants and in the core international labour standards are universal in nature. The Covenants were adopted by the UN General Assembly and widely ratified, as previously mentioned. In total, ILO Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference have received over 6,500 ratifications, of which those specifically concerning human rights (such as freedom of association, prohibition of forced labour and abolition of all forms of discrimination) have been ratified by some 125 States on average.

However, one should not be satisfied simply with theoretical and statistical information on these instruments. First and foremost, it must be recognized that States which ratify such international instruments frequently fail to implement them, and that action by the supervisory bodies alone, however conscientious and, in some cases, effective it is, cannot ensure full compliance with these instruments. Consequently, one cannot conclude categorically that these standards unquestionably reflect the general feeling and praxis of the world community in this area. This matter requires fuller examination.

The situation is complicated by the fact that regional human rights conventions exist alongside the International Covenants and Conventions. Some were adopted with a view to strengthening them, cases in point being the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, which has been ratified by some 40 States, and the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969, which has been ratified by 25 States. Others cater for particular regional characteristics, such as the more recent African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981, ratified by 51 States.

In addition, notwithstanding the universal nature of the UN and ILO instruments, a marked reticence exists in some regions regarding both social protection norms and human rights principles. Such is the case of several Asian countries, where some authors consider that national or regional cultural values are inviolate, and that the concepts of other, particularly Western, cultures should not be permitted to "pollute" them (see the discussion of these concepts in Sen (1996) and Li (1996)).

In general, such views hold that human rights are "culturally specific", that the community should prevail over individuals and, finally, that rights emanate from national sovereignty. However, such views are not widely held, particularly in connection with human rights. Indeed, were such opinions to prevail, they might ultimately engender absolute power and unaccountable decision-making by national authorities. Individuals should not be left unprotected and defenceless against unbridled government power. Moreover, human rights, and workers' rights, which are protected in the core ILO and UN instruments, have been approved by representatives of States in all regions, including many in Asia, who would certainly not have voted for these instruments if they clashed with regional values.

Such regionalist convictions, which are founded on a hostility to foreign influences, are not unanimously held in Asia or other developing regions. Strictly speaking, they might, to a greater or lesser degree, be more plausible in relation to artistic or cultural values than to those relating to human rights, which involve the most profound values of any civilization and seek to protect the life and dignity of every human being. One must not confound the individual, and entirely appropriate, particularities of different cultures with the fundamental values of human civilization. Arguments based on the cultural traditions of a given country cannot be used to justify the flouting of universal values. Moreover, the fact that Asia is the only continent that has not drawn up a regional human rights instrument suggests that the region does not have any genuinely alternative values to defend in this connection, and that the stance adopted by a number of Asian representatives seeks merely to obtain a delay or exception regarding the application of universal standards (Ramcharan, 1997, pp. 113-116).

This is borne out by the fact that, at the close of the recent ILO meeting (April 1998) on the Asian crisis, eight countries of east and south-east Asia (China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam) emphasized the importance both of sustained economic growth and of the ILO's core standards. It is not obvious that a new way has emerged in the East.

One must look more closely at the role of regional conventions vis-à-vis the international instruments intended for universal application. Sometimes, far from undermining universal human rights standards, regional conventions have served to hasten the application of analogous provisions, particularly when the UN Covenants have been slow to come into force. A case in point is the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950. In other cases, regional conventions have been used to accommodate individual characteristics of a given region or, more generally, to raise the profile of an element to which particular importance is attached, or to institute a regional supervisory mechanism which can operate without conflicting with mechanisms of the international system.

An example of such complementarity is the European Social Charter in relation to ILO Conventions. In 1958 the Council of Europe concluded that, alongside the European Convention on Human Rights, which dealt primarily with civil and political rights, it would be useful to have a counterpart social charter covering social rights. So it convened, jointly with the ILO, a tripartite conference (in the ILO style) to pronounce on a draft drawn up in cooperation with ILO representatives.

It may therefore be concluded that such regional instruments have not hindered the implementation or questioned the validity of universal standards but, on the contrary, have given more rapid effect to the substance of such standards and dealt with specific considerations, without jeopardizing the essence of the universal instruments.

Can human rights and international labour standards be considered to be definitive systems?

The international labour Conventions and Recommendations have been forged during the course of almost eighty years, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted over fifty years ago. It is fair to question whether they offer a comprehensive and consistent body of mutually complementary standards.

To answer unequivocally in the affirmative would fail to allow for the important law of evolving needs and concepts. It is true that the crux of what one today considers to constitute core labour and human rights is contained in ILO standards and in the Covenants and Conventions of the United Nations and in comparable regional instruments. However, conditions and concepts evolve; some standards lose their relevance, and new needs emerge.

It has already been mentioned above that new and sometimes greatly different rights have been claimed, and in some cases formalized recently. Meanwhile, although all the core labour rights have now been recognized, it has been necessary to modify some instruments in order to adapt them to changing circumstances or requirements. This process of modernization will no doubt continue to be required in the future. In short, the International Labour Code as a whole affirms the main rules and fundamental principles, but its details may be modified over time. Just as there is no end to history, so there is no end to human rights.

In early works on the ILO, reference was sometimes made to "Mahaim's dream". He was a Belgian professor who, between 1919 and 1930, played an important role in the founding and early activities of the ILO. He served at one time as Chairman of the Governing Body, and his portrait still hangs at the ILO headquarters, although few now remember him. (But see Mahaim (1921), republished in 1996.) One morning, meeting a colleague, he related that he had had a nightmare that the ILO had adopted Conventions on every imaginable subject and he wondered what there remained to do. As he started into wakefulness, he thought briefly and then said to himself: "But it is not sufficient merely to adopt Conventions, we have to ensure that they are properly applied." In addition, he concluded that it would not be possible to adopt definitive instruments on all matters, since they must frequently be supplemented or updated. However, one should take up Mahaim's immediate reaction to recognize the need to give effect to the Conventions adopted.

Monitoring compliance with international labour standards and human rights

From the first days of the ILO's creation, its founders set up a precise and differentiated mechanism to monitor compliance with the standards to be drawn up by the Organization. Over the years, this supervisory activity10 has been simultaneously expanded and simplified, in order to take account both of the range and the growth of the Organization's activity.

The ILO's supervisory functions are acknowledged to be more highly developed than those of any other organization at the international level, for two reasons. The first is the participation of the non-governmental employers' and workers' organizations. The second arises from the qualities of independence and expertise of the members of the supervisory bodies, who are eminent individuals. A decisive aspect of the independence of these experts (and of the members of the commissions of inquiry, which will be discussed subsequently) is related to fact that they are not appointed by their governments but by the ILO's Governing Body on the recommendation of the Organization's Director-General. Mention has also been made of the active role of the ILO secretariat (Leary, 1992, p. 581).

On the basis of the conclusions of these eminent experts, any discrepancies between the standards and practice that have been detected are discussed with representatives of the States involved before a special tripartite committee (with representatives of government, employers and workers) of the International Labour Conference. Discussions are often heated, such as one particular session regarding freedom of association which finished at 3 o'clock in the morning with a vote recognizing the violation of the Convention in question by a prominent State. None the less, year by year, discrepancies have been reduced, and it has been ascertained that, between 1964 and 1997, following the action of the supervisory bodies, improvements have been made in compliance with the Conventions in 2,164 cases (ILO, 1998b, para. 175).

A special procedure for protecting freedom of association has also been in operation since 1950, and the tripartite committee dealing with freedom of association has examined several hundred cases and carried out numerous inquiries on that subject.

In matters of some importance regarding freedom of association and other labour matters, commissions of inquiry are set up, likewise composed of independent individuals, and they generally make an on-the-spot visit to examine a situation and recommend measures to be taken to give effect to the standards in question (Valticos, 1987). Mention may be made, among the many cases dealt with, of the Portuguese colonial territories in Africa (Angola and Mozambique) prior to their independence, of Japan in connection with an inquiry which became a landmark in the evolution of freedom of association in that country, of Spain in 1967 prior to its return to democracy, of Chile following the events of 1973, of Poland at the time of the Solidarity demonstrations which the Government endeavoured to put down, at which time the ILO representative was able to visit Lech Walesa while he was in detention, and an ILO commission of inquiry drafted proposals in 1984 for resolving the series of problems besetting the country at the time.

The ILO's implementation methods might be summarized as consisting of a given method characterized by tripartite discussions and decisions and the independence of the monitoring bodies combined with a particular spirit whereby situations are objectively examined and solutions sought in the context of the ILO's principles of freedom and progress.

This method has, on occasion and to varying degrees, influenced the work of other international organizations. It has not been and could not be fully replicated, since neither the same institutional basis nor the dynamic influence of tripartism exists elsewhere, although certain rules, such as that of the independence of the supervisory bodies, have been partially imitated, particularly in monitoring compliance with the UN Covenants. For these, supervision has also involved a number of other approaches (Leary, 1992). It is not possible sufficiently to emphasize the importance, at the international level, of methods for monitoring compliance with international human rights instruments and of the pioneering role in the past and the present, of the system introduced by the ILO to boost respect for these rights (Leary, 1992).

The impact of human rights and international labour standards: Progress, problems

It is difficult to assess the precise impact of human rights and international labour standards because they frequently involve areas where the effect of these standards does not lie solely, or even principally, in these legal instruments but also, and primarily, in practice.

It is, however, clear that, while the application of these rules may frequently leave much to be desired and even reveal major shortcomings, overall progress has undeniably been made.

Human rights have now entered the universal consciousness to the extent that any violation sparks a reaction in public opinion similar to that produced by a criminal act or infringement of a moral or legal code. It is true that prominent international human rights bodies may nuance their criticism for political reasons, but their own credibility suffers as a result in the eyes of an increasingly sensitized public. Overall, the identification by international bodies of human rights violations seriously damages the reputation and international credibility of the States responsible.

The same holds for international labour standards. Consequently, freedom of association has been restored in a number of countries with the democratization of authoritarian regimes of the right and left for example in Spain and in Poland; forced labour has been eliminated or reduced with the end of colonialism and of other systems of forced labour mobilization; and the extreme violation of international standards on discrimination in the form of apartheid in South Africa has been eliminated with the early condemnation and subsequent assistance of the ILO.

Problems, frequently serious, certainly still exist, notably unemployment and child labour. Overall, however, in very many cases, the States whose attention has been drawn by the ILO's supervisory bodies to violations of the relevant Conventions which they have ratified have taken the measures necessary to remedy discrepancies. In addition to the specific figures already noted there are the measures taken by States prior to ratifying Conventions to enable them to assume the commitments ensuing from ratification.

A global study, although it dates back some time (ILO, 1976), highlights the importance of the impact of ILO Conventions and Recommendations on the legislation and praxis of States in all regions of the world.

Human rights and international labour standards are related and frequently similar values which are promoted and reinforced by action on both the national and international levels, numerous obstacles notwithstanding. The overall trend is clearly positive, though regression is not unknown. One can foresee another difficult period as a result of the advent of as yet unbridled globalization and economic liberalism (Lee, 1997). Human rights and social protection could be extensively eroded (Dupuy, 1996; Flory, 1997; de Montbrial, 1998). Fundamental human rights and international labour standards, which are today clearly in jeopardy, take on their full significance, once more in the light of a threat, which cannot be discounted, of a lawless world, of new States with no real support, of workers with no genuine protection and, more generally, of men, women and children abandoned to their fate. To confront this danger to social justice proclaimed by the ILO since its creation (Caldera, 1998) and to human rights proclaimed by the infant United Nations adapted forms of standard-setting and a "re-regulation" (Mückenberger, 1996) in place of today's extreme deregulation are evidently in order.

 

References

Caldera, Rafael. 1998. "Statement by the President of the Republic of Venezuela to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference", in ILO: Provisional Record, International Labour Conference, 86th Session, Geneva, 1998, No. 6, pp. 6/1-6/3.

Cassin, René. 1950. "L'homme, sujet de droit international, et la protection des droits de l'homme dans la société universelle", in La technique et les principes du droit public. Etude en l'honneur de Georges Scelle. Paris, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, Vol. 1, pp. 67-91.

Dupuy, René-Jean. 1996. "Le dédoublement du monde", in Revue générale de Droit international public (Paris), Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 313-321.

Flory, Maurice. 1997. "Mondialisation et droit internationale du développement", in Revue générale de Droit international (Paris), Vol. 101, No. 3, pp. 609-633.

Gernigon, Bernard. 1982. "L'Organisation internationale de Travail et les libertés publiques", in Droit social (Paris), No. 5 (May), pp. 425-427.

ILO

Jenks, C. Wilfred

Leary, Virginia. 1992. "Lessons from the experience of the ILO", in Philip Alston (ed.): The United Nations and human rights: A critical appraisal. Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 580-619.

Lee, Eddy. 1997. "Globalization and labour standards: A review of issues", in International Labour Review (Geneva), Vol. 136, No. 2, pp. 173-189.

Li, Xiarong. 1996. "`Asian values' and the universality of human rights", in Report from the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy (College Park, MD), Vol. 16, No. 2 (Spring); http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/li.htm.

Mahaim, Ernest. 1921. "International labour law", in International Labour Review (Geneva), Vol. 1, No. 3 (Mar.), pp. 3-6, and republished in a special retrospective issue of the International Labour Review, Vol. 135 (1996), No. 3-4, pp. 287-290.

Maupain, Francis. 1996. "La protection internationale des travailleurs et la libéralisation du commerce mondial: un lien ou un frein", in Revue générale de droit international public (Paris), Vol. 100, pp. 45-100.

de Montbrial, Thierry. 1998. "Les dangers de la mondialisation", in Le Figaro (Paris), 5 Jan.

Mückenberger, Ulrich. 1996. "Towards a new definition of the employment relationship", in International Labour Review (Geneva), Vol. 135, No. 6, pp. 683-695.

Ramcharan, Bertrand G. 1997. "The universality of human rights", in International Commission of Jurists Review (Geneva), No. 58-59, Dec., pp. 105-117.

Scelle, Georges. 1930. L'Organisation internationale du Travail et le BIT. Paris, éditions Rivière.

Sen, Amartya. 1996. "Our culture, their culture", in The New Republic (Washington, DC), 1 April, pp. 3-14.

Valticos, Nicolas

Copyright © International Labour Organization 1998

 
* Judge of the European Court of Human Rights and President of the Curatorium of the Hague Academy of International Law; former Assistant Director-General of the ILO.

 
1 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December, 1948. The full text is appended to this issue of the International Labour Review.

 
2 "International labour standards" are the rules contained both in the ILO Conventions (which, when ratified, are binding on the States involved) and Recommendations (which offer guidance of a non-binding nature).

 
3 Subsequently, Jenks (1970, p. 6) also drew attention to the ILO's pioneering role in the international protection of human rights.

 
4 The full text of the 1998 Declaration is appended to this issue of the International Labour Review.

 
5 Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1).

 
6 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

 
7 As of 1 June 1998, Convention No. 29 had been ratified by 146 States, and Convention No. 105 by 130 States.

 
8 The difference lies principally in the matter of freedom of association of civil servants.

 
9 In June 1998, the International Labour Conference adopted conclusions regarding new standards in connection with the worst forms of child labour, laying the foundations for a Convention accompanied by a Recommendation in 1999.

 
10 Numerous studies have been devoted to the ILO's supervisory system. See, for example, the excellent study by Leary (1992); see also Valticos (1968, 1996b and 1996c).