Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T14:07:46.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Labour Organisation: problems with the supervisory machinery in 1974*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

O.G. de Vries Reilingh
Get access

Extract

The most remarkable event during the 59th session of the International Labour Conference in 1974 was undoubtedly the refusal to adopt the Report of the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. This is all the more noteworthy when one realizes that this has never before happened in the history of the International Labour Organisation.

As a rule the Application Committee Report is adopted without taking a vote, despite the divergent views often expressed when the Report is discussed in the plenary session of the Conference. Only on very rare occasions has a vote been necessary (always resulting in adoption of the Report), while speakers sometimes simply indicated in the plenary discussion that they would abstain. Since the adoption of the Report of the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations is the yearly culmination in the regular supervision of on the implementation of ILO standards, the non-adoption of the Report in 1974 could have serious repercussions in the future for the whole regular supervisory system of the ILO and consequently for the development of international law.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 5 , December 1974 , pp. 167 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The last occassion when a vote was necessary was in 1958. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Forty-second Session, Geneva 1958, p. 493.

2. For instance, in 1961 some Eastern European representatives stated that they could not vote for the Report. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Forty-fifth Session, Geneva 1961, pp. 494, 496, 498, 501 and 503.

In 1971 the Czechoslovak government representative pronounced himself in the same way. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Fifty-sixth Session, Geneva 1971, p. 734.

3. For a thorough analysis of the regular supervisory machinery of the ILO, see: Landy, E.A., The Effectiveness of International Supervision (London: Stevens/Dobbs Ferry N.Y.: Oceana, 1966) 268 pp.Google Scholar and Valticos, N., Droit International du Travail (Paris: Dalloz, 1970) pp. 562–580Google Scholar. For a very short survey, see the present author's “International Labour Organisation: Some recent developments in the supervisory machinery”, 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 273–277.Google Scholar

4. For the text of the Convention: 39 U.N.T.S. p. 56; Stb. 1933 No. 236.

5. Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (Report III – Part 4A) – International Labour Conference, Fifty-ninth Session, Geneva 1974, pp. 88–90.

6. See 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 276.

7. The proposal made by the employers' members of the Committee to include the USSR in the Special List caused considerable confusion in the workers' bench. The Workers' Vice-Chairman stated that the workers' representatives were free to speak and to vote on the inclusion according to their own personal opinions. This statement was attacked by both the workers' representatives of Sierra Leone and Trinidad and Tobago, who were in favour of the inclusion, and the workers' representative of the USSR, who was against the inclusion. The result of the vote was 15, 336 in favour, 4,749 against, with 980 abstentions (when a committee is composed of an unequal number of representatives per group, a system of weighted votes is applied). International Labour Conference – Provisional Record, Fifty-ninth Session, Geneva 1974, pp. 27/25 and 27/27.

8. For the text of Convention No. 105: 320 U.N.T.S. p. 291; Trb. 1957 No. 210.

9. For the text of Convention No. 87: 68 U.N.T.S. p. 18; Stb. 1948 No. J 538.

10. For the text of Convention No. 111: 363 U.N.T.S. p. 31; Trb. 1962 No. 41

11. In 1963 the USSR proposed certain modifications to the rules defining the composition and organization of the Committee of Experts, which were not adopted by the Application Committee. See E.A. Landy, op. cit., p. 194. The same happened in 1971. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Fifty-sixth Session, Geneva 1971, pp. 588 and 589. The fundamental principles, mandate and methods of work of the Committee of Experts can be found in: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (Report III – Part 4 A) – International Labour Conference, Fifty-sixth Session, Geneva 1971, pp. 5–8. The critical attitude of the Eastern European countries towards the Committee of Experts does not mean that they deny the important role of the Committee of Experts. For instance, in 1972 the government representative of the USSR stated: “The coefficient of effectiveness of the ILO and the supervisory bodies was insufficient despite the amount of work accomplished by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. It was necessary to reflect on the reasons for this insufficiency and to attempt to improve the machinery so that the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee might have greater influence”. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Fifty-seventh Session, Geneva 1972, p. 470.

12. International Labour Conference – Provisional Record, Fifty-ninth Session, Geneva 1974, p. 27/27.

13. During the discussion in the Application Committee this thesis was put forward by the Workers' Vice-Chairman and the government representatives of the USSR, Canada, France and Byelorussian SSR. Ibid., pp. 27/26, 27/27 and 27/28.

14. Ibid., pp. 36/1 – 36/12 and 37/1 – 37/16.

15. Ibid., pp. 36/6 and 37/10 – 37/11. The assertion of the Employers' Vice-Chairman that the plenary Conference cannot change the Application Committee's Report is probably wrong according to the rules and practices of the ILO. In 1965 an amendment to include Portugal in the Special List of the Report was adopted by the plenary Conference. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Forty-ninth Session, Geneva 1965, p. 465.

16. The result of the vote was 123 in favour, O against, with 156 abstentions. International Labour Conference – Provisional Record, Fifty-ninth Session, Geneva 1974, p. 37/12.

17. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Forty-first Session, Geneva 1957, p. 657.

18. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Forty-second Session, Geneva 1958, pp. 476, 489, 490 and 493. The result of the vote was 104 in favour, 33 against, with 49 abstentions.

19. In 1960 the government representative of the USSR stated that “the listing of such countries is in itself rather a peculiar sanction against certain States – not only a moral sanction but also a juridical sanction. In effect it is a measure of reproof, a condemnation”. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Forty-fourth Session, Geneva 1960, p. 433.

20. For the text of the Constitution including the pre-war amendments: 15 U.N.T.S. p. 40 (latest amendment in 466 U.N.T.S. p. 324) and Stb. 1948 No. I 283 (latest amendment in Trb. 1974 No. 69).

21. For instance, in 1967 the following text was included in the Report: “This year again, in discussing some of the cases where special problems were found to exist, many members emphasised that the Committee's functions were entirely different from those of a tribunal and that countries were not included in the above list with the intention of inflicting some sort of sanction. The Committee is fully aware of the manifold difficulties with which member States may have to cope in order to give full effect to their international obligations. In accordance with its functions, the Committee merely considers the highlighting of the serious cases to be one of the methods which may contribute to the finding of positive solutions to the problems encountered”. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Fifty-first Session, Geneva 1967, p. 650.

22. More or less fundamental rewording of the non-application criterion took place in 1959, 1965, 1968, 1971 and 1972. Since 1972 the wording of this criterion is as follows: “The Committee examined the application of certain Conventions in various countries and noted with grave concern that in some of them there was continued failure to implement fully the Conventions concerned and that full information should therefore be supplied on the measures taken to ensure such compliance”. International Labour Conference – Provisional Record, Fifty-ninth Session, Geneva 1974, p. 27/7.

23. E.A. Landy, op. cit, p. 171.

24. E.A. Landy, op. cit., p. 172.

25. These cases of progress are mentioned in the annual Reports of the Committee of Experts.

26. This was, for instance, the case with Czechoslovakia in 1971 when it was put on the Special List because of non-application of Convention no. 111 concerning prevention of discrimination. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Fifty-sixth Session, Geneva 1971, pp. 625–628 and 734. On the same matter the Application Committee in its 1974 Report “welcomed the progress achieved with a view to bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention” and stated that “this progress was a testimony to the effectiveness of the procedures of the Committee”. International Labour Conference – Provisional Record, Fifty-ninth Session, Geneva 1974, p. 27/40.

27. See note 13. In the plenary discussion this opinion was expressed by the government representatives of the USSR, Finland, Hungary, Syria, Bulgaria, Romania, Norway (also on behalf of Denmark, Iceland and Sweden) and France and by the workers' representatives of the USSR and Sweden. International Labour Conference – Provisional Record, Fifty-ninth Session, Geneva 1974, pp. 36/6, 37/1, 37/2, 37/3, 37/5, 37/7, 37/14 and 37/15.

28. In 1971 reference was made by the government representative of the USSR and Czechoslovakia and the Workers' Vice-Chairman to the practice that when problems were raised for the first time by the Committee of Experts and explanations were requested, the Committee gave the governments an opportunity to reply. International Labour Conference – Record of Proceedings, Fifty-sixth Session, Geneva 1971, pp. 628, 630 and 734.

29. This argument was used by the government representative of the United States in the 1974 Conference discussion. International Labour Conference – Provisional Record, Fifty-ninth Session, Geneva 1974, p. 36/7.

30. As was stated by the workers' representative of the USSR in the plenary discussion in 1974. Ibid., p. 37/3.

31. In 1973 Burma and Trinidad and Tobago were put on the Special List for non-compliance with Convention No. 87 after only one discussion in the Application Committee. In 1971 the same happened to Nicaragua (Convention No. 17) and Czechoslovakia (Convention No. 111).

32. The Workers' Chairman of the Application Committee was the only speaker who raised the possible desirability to review the content of the non-application criterion next year. International Labour Conference – Provisional Record, Fifty-ninth Session, Geneva 1974, p. 36/5.