Arguments Against The ILO Conventions

732 Words3 Pages

The ILO has created 189 Conventions to date. These conventions are wide in scope, creating standards for various terms and conditions of employment. Examples for such terms and conditions as standards for Night Work, Hours of Work, Unemployment, Minimum Age, Weekly Rest, Holiday Pay, Workmen’s Compensation, and many others. The ILO has eight (8) fundamental conventions. These are C87 or the Convention for Freedom of Association and Protection of the Rights to Organise, C98 or the Right to Organise and Collective Bragaining Convention, C29 or the Forced Labour Convention, C105 or the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, C138 or the Minium Age Convention, C182 or the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, C100 or the Equal Remuneration Convention, and C1111 or the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention. The Governing Body of the ILO perceives these eight aforementioned conventions as covering “subjects considered as fundamental principles and rights at work .” …show more content…

Ratification is needed for these conventions and states may choose to ratify the convention they like and not ratify the conventions they do not like. However, I believe that such an argument against the ILO is in effect an argument against all international organizations as all international treaties are subject to ratification. Does this not say then that to abolish the ILO on the ground of its lack of enforcement power would be ground also to abolish other international organizatons? Despite this lack of enforcement power, I argue that the ILO is still relevant and necessary. The ILO, as the representative and voice of labor in the international level would be the proper party to induce global pressure on non-compliant or labor-abusive nation states or be the body that provides protection to the victims whose abuse is imposed by their own