Introduction
On Tuesday, Mexico presented its stance on the right to strike during hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Its intervention was deemed “noteworthy” by organizations like the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) for its strong defense of the right to strike.
Background and Context
The International Court of Justice is considering a request from the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Administrative Council for an advisory opinion on whether the Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, 1948 (No. 87), includes the right to strike.
Although the Court’s opinion, expected in the coming months, won’t be legally binding, it could significantly influence international and national labor law.
Mexico’s Preparation
Mexico’s position was crafted by the Secretariats of Labour and Social Prevision, along with the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs. Legal consultants Carmen Moreno Toscano, Patricia Pérez Galeana, and Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga from the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs played crucial roles.
Reactions from Other Countries
Countries like Brazil, Spain, Indonesia, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Panama, the United Kingdom, and Egypt participated in the hearings. Panama was singled out for its negative stance, rejecting any international recognition of the right to strike.
- Brazil: Supported the right to strike but emphasized the importance of national regulation.
- Spain: Acknowledged the right to strike as part of Convention 87, stressing the need for national regulation.
- Indonesia: Argued that the matter should be resolved within the ILO’s internal framework.
- Mauritius: Supported the right to strike and emphasized the importance of international labor standards.
- Mexico: Strongly defended the right to strike, aligning with international labor conventions.
- Norway: Supported the right to strike as part of Convention 87, highlighting the need for national regulation.
- Panama: Opposed the right to strike, advocating for no international regulation.
- United Kingdom: Recognized the right to strike as part of Convention 87 but stressed the necessity for national regulation.
- Egypt: Suggested seeking a solution through the Vienna Convention without explicitly supporting or opposing the right to strike.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the purpose of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion?
The ILO Administrative Council requested the Court’s opinion on whether the Convention 87 includes the right to strike. The opinion, though not legally binding, can significantly impact international and national labor laws. - Which countries supported the right to strike during the hearings?
Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Norway, and Mauritius acknowledged the right to strike as part of Convention 87 while emphasizing the need for national regulation. - Which countries opposed or remained neutral on the right to strike?
Indonesia argued that the matter should be resolved within the ILO’s internal framework, while Panama explicitly opposed any international regulation of the right to strike. The United Kingdom and Egypt did not explicitly support or oppose the right to strike but stressed the importance of national regulation.
