ICJ discusses the advisory opinion on ILO Convention 87, which may be used to influence the law of labor and the rights of workers internationally.

The frightening case being examined under international law by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the interpretation of the international working climate as a part of the ILO under the freedom of association in the convention that was signed in 1948, identified as 87. In 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) requested an advisory opinion to shed light on whether the Convention includes the right to strike.

The proceedings, which were opened by ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa, underlined the unusual use of the International Labour Organization (ILO) in the consultative role since 1932. ILO Legal Adviser Tomi Kohiyama emphasized the fact that the Court used the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to interpret the scope of the Convention.

The hearings were characterized by opposing views. According to a claim of Paapa Danquah of the International Trade Union Confederation, a strike is a basic element of the right to freedom of association, which should be recognized by international law. In his turn, the head of the International Organisation of Employers, Roberto Suarez Santos, warned that this might destabilize national labor frameworks through inconsistent judicial interpretation and that ILO consensus is desirable.

The ICJ had 21 countries involved and 31 written statements submitted, and the future advisory opinion, though not legally binding, may have quite an impact on international and domestic labor law, affecting the rights of workers and the liabilities of employers all over the world.

The case highlights the changing role of international courts in legal interpretation, where there is a lineage between world standards and national practices in impounding basic labor rights.