Interaction, Appropriation and Complementarity of ILO Standards on Freedom of Association and Strike Action in Advisory Opinion OC 27/21 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
ILO Convention No. 87 adopts a broad interpretation of freedom of association, contested by the ILO Employers’ Group, which contradicts the long-standing position of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Committee on Freedom of Association that the ri...
Kaydedildi:
| Yayımlandı: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/rdctss, |
|---|---|
| Yazar: | |
| Materyal Türü: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Dil: | Anglais |
| Baskı/Yayın Bilgisi: |
Revue de droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale
2024
|
| Konular: | |
| Online Erişim: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Özet: | ILO Convention No. 87 adopts a broad interpretation of freedom of association, contested by the ILO Employers’ Group, which contradicts the long-standing position of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Committee on Freedom of Association that the right to strike is not recognised in international law. This restrictive approach has given rise to a debate that is still relevant today. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has followed the guidelines and positions of the ILO supervisory bodies, considering that the right to strike is a fundamental right and a « corollary » of freedom of association. The IACHR has « appropriated » this doctrine to interpret the norms of the inter-American system, thus reinforcing the right to freedom of association in a Latin American legal context that is particularly reticent towards strikes and collective bargaining. Advisory Opinion OC 27/21 takes a novel and very timely gender-based approach. |
|---|