Research Handbook on Transnational Labour Law
Show Less

Research Handbook on Transnational Labour Law

Edited by Adelle Blackett and Anne Trebilcock

The editors’ substantive introduction and the specially commissioned chapters in the Handbook explore the emergence of transnational labour law as a field, along with its contested contours. The expansion of traditional legal methods, such as treaties, is juxtaposed with the proliferation of contemporary alternatives such as indicators, framework agreements and consumer-led initiatives. Key international and regional institutions are studied for their coverage of such classic topics as freedom of association, equality, and sectoral labour standard-setting, as well as for the space they provide for dialogue. The volume underscores transnational labour law’s capacity to build bridges, including on migration, climate change and development.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 12: Pushback on the right to strike: Resisting the thickening of soft law

Janice R. Bellace


At the 2012 International Labour Conference (ILC), a controversy arose when the Employers’ group in the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) challenged the annual survey presented by ILO Committee of Experts (CEACR). The employers denounced the CEACR opinion not only for stating that ILO Convention No. 87 protects workers’ right to strike, but also arguing that the CEACR had exceeded its mandate by interpreting a Convention. This disagreement led to the first failure of the CAS to examine cases since 1927. Although the implications for the right to strike have been much discussed, the controversy also has troubling implications for the ILO itself; and potentially for the global governance of human rights at work. Because those outside the ILO have sometimes looked to it for guidance in interpreting certain human rights, the Employers’ stance appears to be aimed at preventing the ILO from speaking with one voice. But the implications of the 2012 ILC incident are broader. The Employers’ stance at the 2012 ILC effectively produces a fragmented view of fundamental rights. The Employers’ position — that each nation state can decide what the human right means — does not accord with the prevailing legal view that internationally recognized human rights have a meaning and that member States must cede sovereignty and act in accordance with the international understanding of the right expressed in the Convention or treaty. Rather than a minor skirmish between Employers and Workers, the Employers’ position at the 2012 ILC, if accepted, would undermine the entire post-World War II notion of universal human rights.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.