The ILO System of International Labour Standards and Monitoring Procedures: Too Complicated to Be Effective?
The article deals with the complexity of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions and Recommendations and of the control procedures for their application as a factor that has a serious negative impact on their effectiveness. An analysis of the Conventions and Recommendations and other measures taken by the ILO is offered with a view to optimizing this system. The prospects for codification of the ILO standards are considered. A conclusion is reached concerning the possibility of gradual codification of the Conventions and Recommendations according to broad thematic classifications with further prospects for the creation of a unified international labour code. Some possible directions for such thematic classifications are proposed.
A separate analysis is made of ILO control procedures, and a judgment is made that these procedures are lacking sufficient coordination and systematization. Proposals are made for simplifying the procedures, for the abrogation of rarely used and secondary procedures, and for a higher level of coherence of the existing procedures in order to make the application of the international labour standards more effective.
With a view to ensuring a follow up of the implementation of the Recommendation, the International Labour Office was instructed to assist constituents in developing national policies and setting up monitoring and implementing mechanisms, as well as to promote good practices at the national and international levels concerning the determination and use of employment relationships. In response to that decision, the International Labour Office, developed in 2007 an Annotated Guide to Recommendation No. 198 using the technical expertise of a group of experts from around the world which presented examples in law and practice on how the various aspects of the Recommendation were being dealt with in many countries in different regions. Over the recent years, there have been increasing developments at the European level regarding the employment relationship in legislation, case law, collective agreements and soft law. In this context, the ILO, and in particular the then Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE) undertook a strategic partnership with the European Labour Law Network (ELLN), a network of independent legal experts from all European Union Member States and European Economic Area countries, in order to produce an updated version of the 2007 annotated Guide with a specific focus on European countries. The European Labour Law Network was established in 2005 on initiative of Professors Guus Heerma van Voss (University of Leiden) and Bernd Waas (University of Frankfurt am Main), the latter being the editor of this Guide. The European Labour Law Network is comprised of non-governmental legal experts from all European Member States and the EEA countries. In December 2007, the European Labour Law Network signed a contract with the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of the European Commission in Brussels (formerly the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities) and, under the name ‘European Network of Legal Experts in the Field of Labour Law, dealing with both individual and collective rights/aspects’, became the European Commission’s official advisory board on issues relating to developments in individual and collective labour law. In this capacity, the Network has been conducting extensive research for the European Commission. Among other things, it produced a Thematic Report on the “Characteristics of the Employment Relationship” in 2009. This guide builds upon up-dated information analysed in that research project. (More information at: http://www.labourlawnetwork.eu). In summer 2013 International Labour Office approached Russian labour law scholars, - associate professors Elena Gerasimova (NRU HSE), Nikita Lyutov (MSAL, NRU HSE) and Daria Chernyaeva (NRU HSE), – with a suggestion to prepare a Russian translation of the Gude and to amend it with materials concerning the CIS countries.
The article deals with an understanding of the right to strike as a human right, which was formed during the 20th century, its place among human rights, normative regulation of the right to strike at the international and national levels, as well as its role in labor relations and employment law. The centerpiece of the article is the study of crisis recognition of the right to strike, caused by the Employers' Group’s statements at the International Labour Conference in 2012. During this conference, the representative of the Employers' Group has notified that they refuse to discuss the list of countries, selected from the report of the Committee of Experts and earlier approved by tripartite partners, not fulfilling obligations arising from ratified Conventions, at the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference,
This statement was motivated by the fact that the right to strike is not expressly recognized in the Convention #87, and the Committee of Experts, when making conclusions about the violation of the right to strike by some states – ILO members, has gone beyond his mandate. This raised the question not only on the recognition of the right to strike, which was developed during decades, but also about the mandate of the Committee of Experts as a whole. To understand the scope of the modern recognition of the right to strike, the history of the adoption of the ILO standards concerning the right to strike, and discussions on the content of standards are investigated. The article analyses how the interpretation of the Convention №87, developed by the ILO supervisory bodies, particularly by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts on application of Conventions and Recommendations; explores limits of the mandate of mentioned bodies in interpretation of the conventions’ content; the role of Employers', Workers’ and Governments” groups in the recognition and development of these interpretations. Efforts undertaken inside the ILO to overcome this crisis are also being explored.
The paper is related to analysis of compensatory function of legal myths using example of legal efficiency and legal effectiveness myths.
The author of the report analyses problems of legal regulation of the phenomena of mobbing and harassment in the Russian legislation, protective measures available under the Russian law and perspectives of the development of the regulation in this field.
The article deals with the issues of Russian labour law compliance to the international labour standards in several crucial issues: discrimination in employment, freedom of association, wages etc.