The International Labor Organization – Its Relevancy for Human Rights and Its Implications for the US and International Human and Labor Rights Policies

The American human rights community grants an everyday greater role to the International Labor Organization (ILO), seeing it as a vital mechanism in the protection of the basic civil and political rights (Simpson, 1995).

Whether this tendency is justified or not, one thing is for sure: human rights and labor rights are closely interrelated, even overlapping, and ILO's contribution to the protection of labor rights and prevention of social injustice is undeniable. 

Proponents go as far as stating that the ILO mechanism enables the human rights community to hold those that persistently violate human rights accountable and force them to change their policy. This is achievable through the international forum organized through the efforts if the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association, which holds accountable the States that do not adhere to the conventions guaranteeing civil and political rights for their actions (Simpson, 1995). 

How founded these statements are, how the US can improve their foreign labor and human rights foreign policies and what the outcome of their efforts will be remains to be seen. Before going further with this discussion, it is important to review the history and activity of the International Labor Organization, in order to better understand its mechanism.

Brief ILO History

The International Labor Organization was founded in 1919, following the Treaty of Versailles that marked the end of World War I, based on the principle that social justice is a prerequisite for universal, long lasting peace. 

The drafting of the Constitution took place the same year, between January and April, and was performed by the Labour Commission whose chairman was Samuel Gompers, the head of the AFL (American Federation of Labour) in the United States. 

The Commission was formed of representatives from Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, France, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan and represented a tripartite organization, the first to bring together in its executive bodies representatives of the governments, the employers and the workers. 

The Constitution was based on ideas already tested by the International Association for Labour Legislation, formed in 1901, in Basel. The necessity that an international organization deal with labour issues was first advocated in the 19th century by two industrialists from Wales and France, Robert Owen and, respectively, Daniel Legrand.

The forces driving to the creation of the International Labor Organization were the result of humanitarian, security, economical and political considerations. The Preamble reflects the value the Contracting Parties granted to social justice and the need they felt to fight the workers exploitation tendency already obvious in the industrializing nations of that era. The importance of cooperation between nation in order create similar working conditions in the countries competing for the same markets was also acknowledged (Swepston, 2008).

These goals could be accomplished through several improvements, listed by the Preamble, such as:

• Work schedule regulation, including a maximum number of working hours per day and per week; 
• Labor supply regulation, unemployment prevention and minimum living wage provision; 
• Workers' protection against injuries, sicknesses and diseases caused by work conditions or nature; 
• Children, youth and women protection; 
• Old age and injury provisions to protect the interests of the workers employed in foreign countries; 
• Acknowledging that work of equal value should be remunerated equally; 
• Acknowledging the right to free association; 
• Promoting technical and vocational education, etc. 

How ILO Works

ILO's activity is based on tripartism and social dialogue, it is the result of understanding that social and economic progress can only be obtained through the cooperation between the governments and the employers’ and workers’ organizations. 

ILO aims to serve and protect the rights of working men and women, and pursues this goal by bringing the parties together and having them elaborate and implement labor standards, develop work and social protection policies and devise programs. 

The importance of social dialogue is underlined by the structure of the organization itself – workers, employers and governments play equal parts in the deliberations, and their views are closely reflected in the labor standards, programs and policies issued and implemented by ILO.

Tripartism is encouraged within constituents and member States, social dialogue between employers and trade unions being constantly required when it comes to formulating and implementing national policy, no matter if in response to issues of a social, economical, political or other nature.

ILO conducts its activity through three bodies comprising representatives of the governments, of the employers and of the workers, namely The International Labour Conference, the Governing Body and the Office. The work of the last two bodies is supported by tripartite committees that cover all the major industries as well as by experts' committees on management development, vocational training, occupational health and safety, workers' education, industrial relations and special problems of young and female workers. ILO member States participate in periodical regional meetings in order to examine and discuss matters of special interest to the respective regions.

Every member State within the organization is represented at the International Labour Conference that takes place every year by two delegates of the government and by one delegate of the most representative employers and workers' organizations (ILO Constitution, Article 3). Therefore, in Conference plenary and the International Labor Office's Governing Body, governments hold 50% of the votes, while the employers and the workers hold 25% each. 

In the committee of the Conference, each group holds 1/3 of the voting power, having a great influence on the decision-making structures of the organization. ILO is the only sole inter-governmental body where the voting power is not divided between the member governments and where non-governmental organizations play a formal part role in the decisions regarding the policies of the organization (Swepston, 2010). 

International Labor Organization Relevancy to the Discussion of Human and Labor Rights

The organization was established with the purpose to implement international standards and help improve workers' situation. It does so by adopting Conventions that are binding for the countries that ratify them, as well as by issuing Recommendations, treated as declarations or best practice indications. Ever since its creation in 1919, ILO has adopted close to 200 Conventions, which have garnered close to 7,000 member States ratifications and are accompanied by close to 200 Recommendations.

The Constitution of the organization states that "lasting universal peace can only be established if it is based upon social justice", this was the main reason why improvement of the working conditions was considered necessary. The Declaration of Philadelphia emphasizes ILO's activity in the field of human rights, its declared aims foreseeing that: 'all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity.' (Swepston, 2008) 

The organization's effort to set new human rights standards culminated in 1958, when these standards were used as a starting point for the provisions related to human rights in the 1966 Covenants the UN adopted in order to make the Universal Declaration more binding. Other Conventions were adopted later on to develop the concepts established at that time.

The human rights standards considered by the International Labor Organization as fundamental cover four grounds: the freedom of association, including the freedom to organize, and the freedom from discrimination, forced labor and child labor. The organization's ‘core principles' on these subjects were covered in seven Conventions:

• 1930 - Forced Labour (No. 29); 
• 1948 - Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (No. 87); 
• 1949 - Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (No. 98); 
• 1950 - Equal Remuneration (No. 100); 
• 1957 - Abolition of Forced Labor (No. 105); 
• 1958 – Employment and Occupation Discrimination (No. 111); 
• 1973 - Minimum Age (No. 138). 

Except for Convention no. 138 (55 ratifications only), all the others have received more than 120 ratifications, the most ratified (145) being Convention No. 29. This increased the organization's authority tremendously, allowing them to compare with and even exceed UN's ratification rates. The International Labour Conference adopted a new instrument to cover the most intolerable child labor forms in the 1999 session, completing the organization's instruments panoply on the subject of these basic human rights.

But these are just the most important achievements of ILO in the human rights field. Many other standards covered various aspects of these questions. There were, for example, 10 Conventions adopted from 1919 to 1972, covering the admission age for employment in different sectors. 

Also, many standards adopted by ILO promote non-discrimination and focus on the rights of women, workers with families to support, disabled workers, migrant workers, etc. and have broad implications in human rights. The organization adopted standards that cover most of the working life's aspects, many falling within the UN's coverage of these standards (Swepston, 2008). 

The Supervision of ILO Standards

The Organization has a "uniquely thorough and influential supervisory system" (Kluwer, 1995). After the ratification of a Convention, according to article 22 of the organization's Constitution, governments gave the obligation of providing the International Labor Office with periodic reports. 

Article 23(2) imposes the sending of the reports' copies to the major employers and workers' organizations in those countries, which are entitled to make comments on the respective reports. Presently, the government reporting volume has reached 2,000 reports annually and around 300 additional comments made by workers and employers' organizations.

The reports and their corresponding comments are reviewed by a committee of 20 independent experts from all the social and economic systems. Their conclusions are included in an annual report comprising a general report and numerous observations or comments, all accompanied by a numerous direct requests that are sent to the governments directly. 

The comments made by the experts' committee include questions, recommendations for national law and practice amendments, as well as valuable information regarding the situation of each country. The report of the committee is reviewed by the International Labour Conference and discussed by the Application of Standards Committee, a tripartite body that chooses what observations should be discussed, inviting governments to account for their actions.

The ILO standards supervision is mostly represented by the regular revision of the reports, but the organization's Constitution allows the filing of two types of complaints. According to article 24, employers and workers' organizations are entitled to file a complaint when the government in their country has not taken the measures imposed by a ratified Convention. The complaint is investigated by a Governing Body tripartite committee that issues a report covering the issues found and providing improvement recommendations, when necessary. 

According to article 26, complaints can also be filed by other governments that have ratified the Convention in question, by International Labour Conference delegates and by the very Governing Body itself. All complaints are examined by Inquiry Commissions that organize hearings in Geneva, visiting the countries involved for field investigation, and publishing their conclusions in special editions of the organization's Official Bulletin. The way the two types of complaints are solved is followed by the Experts' Committee.

There are special procedures established for complaints regarding the freedom of association. As agreed in 1950 with the UN Economic and Social Council, the Committee on Freedom of Association reviews complaints on constitutional principles violations regarding the right to association and collective bargaining for workers and employers' organizations. This is not dependent on the ratification of any ILO Convention. 

The FFCC (Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association) is the formal procedure that allows the investigation of the same type of complaints, conditioned by the consent of the concerned governments. It's work is similar to that of the Commission of Inquiry. 

It is important to note that FFCC can act even against States that are ILO members, if the countries concerned agree to this – it has already happened on two occasions, one concerning the United States, during the period they withdrew from the organization, and one concerning South Africa, around the end of the 30 years membership exile.

The 5th paragraph of article 19 ensures another prerogative for the organization, that of requesting the member States to report. The provision was introduced in 1946 in order to allow the organization to obtain information regarding ratification objections. It has been mostly used to obtain ‘General Surveys' reports from countries that have refused to ratify Conventions and to obtain suggestions on the Recommendations from all the member countries. 

This provision is very important, since article 23(2) in the Constitution states that employers and workers' organizations can submit their comments in the reports filed according to article 19 as well, which grants NGO's easier access to organization's supervisory possibilities.

These supervisory procedures have been proven very effective compared to those of other similar bodies from the international system. The high reporting rate, the acceptance of the Conference Committee's invitation by all States, and the numerous complaints investigated by the Freedom of Association Committee prove that the procedure enjoys general respect and is very effective in inducing law and practice modifications in the member States. ILO consolidate their supervisory activity by basing their technical cooperation on their standards and by making sure that technical assistance that could go against those standards is never provided.

How Can the US Encourage Human Rights Adherence through the International Labour Organization?

The attention paid to labor standards at an international level has increased constantly throughout the last decade, one aspect being of major importance: while the United States have continuously pressed other countries into adopting these standards, they maintained a rather reserved position themselves, mostly sticking with their internal references. 

Since the Copenhagen Social Summit, the "core labor standards" set by ILO have become an almost universal reference. The discussion on the 'social clause' – the attempts to make the compliance with labor standards a condition in trade privileges - has gained more and more importance. However, 6 of the 8 ILO "core" Conventions have yet to be ratified by the US, despite the fact that they offer the organization's services to its tripartite constituents. It is true that the US did make a request for assistance from this point of view, but a general one, for which the Office requested further specifications. 

While it is true that the US have their own standards, very close to those drafted by ILO, the best way in which they could encourage adherence would be by setting an example themselves. No matter how much pressure the United States apply, no matter if through their government or through their NGOs, there is always the risk for the other countries to have a reaction of the type "why would we do something they refused to do themselves?". 

While, in theory, it should not matter whether the US have ratified certain Conventions or not, as long as they comply with them, the reality remains that their refusal to ratify those Conventions sends a negative message, contrary to what the country has generally tried to send. 

The United States respect their formal obligations as an ILO member, they submit timely reports, they answer requests for information, they participate in the supervision process, and they do a good job advocating the application of the ILO standards by other countries. If they ratified those conventions, they would set the best example, one that will enjoy slightly more credibility than it does now, and, hopefully, bring in better results. 

Another aspect that may negatively influence adherence to ILO standards are the organization's weaknesses, and the US can help minimize, if not completely eliminate them. One of these weaknesses refers to the fact that, while, indeed, the member states assume an obligation to ensure and protect the rights established by the Conventions, the Committee lacks the authority to enforce their compliance. 

The Committee cannot condemn the governments that violate the right or impose any penalties, it basically relies on its power of persuasion and on the assumption that the states in question will observe human rights standards out of shame, out of their need to cooperate with the other member states (Leary, 1992).

The United States can play a major part in eliminating this weakness, as they are one of the most influential and potent members of the organization. Just consider Russia's response to the pressure applied by the United States regarding the situation in Ukraine. 

Although the problems there are far from being solved, the penalties applied by the US and their position in general were probably the most important factors in preventing Russia from invading Ukraine and taking control of the country. Vladimir Putin was afraid of the repercussions and decided to act discretely, trying to make everything look as if the whole country wanted to be reunited with Russia and waited for their intervention. 

The United States can use their influence to determine other countries to ratify ILO Conventions. Their collaboration protocols could be conditioned, up to a certain point, by the adherence to ILO standards. 

Another weakness is the fact that the organization is vulnerable to political and economical influential factors. As an international organization and representative of several states and employers and employees' associations, ILO's deliberations have often been so politicized that taking effective action became almost impossible. 

The best example for this situation was the Cold War period, when the political debate was so aggressive that the United States decided to withdraw from the organization and it took several years for the political issues to be resolved. Ever since, efforts have been made to prevent such problems, but the concern is still high, and often an obstacle that prevents ILO from imposing stronger measures against the states that violate the freedom of association right. 

It is difficult to tell whether the US decision to withdraw from the organization was right at the time, but, nowadays, the country has the strength and the influence to prevent political interests from standing in the way of the organization's purposes and should convince other countries to stay and fight, rather than withdraw. 

So far, the International Labor Organization has proved quite successful at holding various governments accountable, especially due to its ability of investigating and publicizing governmental infractions. The American human rights community has not yet resorted to the ILO supervisory machinery, so, some encouragement from the government in this direction would certainly be useful as well. The actions of the American human rights community would certain draw the attention of and set an example for similar communities in countries where adherence to ILO standards could use some encouragement.

How Can the US Form a Foreign Policy That Responds to the Need for Greater Accountability of Human Rights, and Preserve Its Business Relationships with Non-Compliant Countries Such as China and India?

Starting with the 1960s, when countries started gaining their independence, and with the 1990s, when they relieved themselves from the burden of Communism, their new governments turned to ILO for help in elaborating new labor legislation. Even in countries like China and India, where compliance with ILO standards is still extremely low, these standards are known. 

The United States, while being mostly in compliance with these standards, base their approach on the Bricker Amendment according to which their legislation cannot be revised or renewed starting from international organizations' conventions. While it is understandable why the US legislative process should not be altered by ratifying certain conventions, some conventions could be, and usually are, a good, rational way to bring amendments to some laws. 

Since most other countries in the world abide by ILO standards, and consistent progresses have been made in China and India as well, it would not be difficult for the US to set an example and ask for a leap of faith from their business partners. After all:

Respecting ILO standards can be considered a proof of respecting for internationally-acknowledged human rights and should come naturally for every country claiming its status as a rule-of-law country. Compliance with labor standards is imperative for social economic development, and this is acknowledged more and more in international institutions and in developing countries. 

Then, let us not forget that the United States' foreign policy is significantly influenced by their economic interests, or, more specific, by those of their major players. Almost all the major contributors to the country's budget outsource their production to China and India, having open factories there and performing most of their operations, if not all of them on these lands, using local resources.

The easiest solution for the US to ensure compliance with human rights and labor standards and improve accountability in this field, would be to set a strict code of conduct through its corporations. Let us judge things at a micro level: if an automotive manufacturer opens a factory in China and they comply with ILO standards in all the aspects of their activity, their competitors for the local workforce can either do the same, therefore comply with same standards, or focus on the workforce from another region.

While it is true that not all the American companies activating in China take over the workforce market, they do set new standards, as the people who cannot find a job within their structure will still aspire at the same conditions and, indirectly, force other players on the market to provide them. 

Also, no matter their political interests at a certain point, the authorities in both China and India, as well as those in other developing countries, are interested in drawing investors and creating employment opportunities, and, in order to accomplish this, they are often willing to compromise. 

The risk for the United States to ruin their relationship with these countries is, at this point minimum, because, if adherence to human rights standards is suggested, introduced as a necessity in itself, and not imposed by force, neither the government nor the local authorities will afford to acknowledge upfront that they do not care about the rights and freedoms of the people they supposedly represent. 

So, basically, this is rather a matter of diplomacy, of using all the tools available and setting examples worth following. It is also important to note that, if the United States use this approach, they will also set an example for other countries with interests in the region, and, although not overnight, the changes will be visible and valuable for the Chinese and Indian working population. 

Last, but not least, let us not forget that there are ways, detailed above, in which states that are not ILO members can be held accountable for their actions related to labor rights, and, if things get extreme, the US can discretely but efficiently influence the employers and workers' organizations in China and India to signal any violations of ILO standards. 

In the meantime, it seems things are on the right path, and significant progresses have been made in China, where a review of the country's role and of the rules its follow in the international economy has been conducted. The country acknowledged the need for an approach based on the law to complement that based on rights as a prerequisite for prosperity achievement and maintenance.

China already ratified 23 ILO Conventions, the Convention no. 100, from 1951, regarding Equal Remuneration having been ratified in 1990. The latest discussions ended with the ratification of other "core" conventions, such as the Employment and Occupation Discrimination Convention no. 111, from 1958 the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention No. 182, from 1999 and the Minimum Age Convention No. 138, from 1973 (Swepston, 2008). 

While the United States' influence in the making if these progresses is debatable, it is obvious that the fight to improve accountability for human rights is bound to see some success, and this could be the encouragement the United States needed to press China into ratifying all the important Conventions, and, thus, be easily held accountable for any violation of human and labor rights.

How Will the Application of ILO's Labor Rights Impact the Global Economy?

There is no denial that compliance with ILO standards is an ideal around the world, already accomplished, or easier to accomplish in some countries, and still a far away dream in others. Obviously, if this were to become reality, the influence on the global economy would be tremendous, and there are three major perspectives to be considered here, all directly related to the tripartite nature of ILO itself: that of the employers, that of the workers, and that of the governments. 

Employers' Perspective

While all employers claim to want what is best and strive to offer it to their employees, the truth is that their direct interests are to pay as little as possible, have their employees work for as many hours as possible, and avoid working with disabled or weak people. 

When they have to make concessions, like ensuring a minimum wage, certain levels of insurance, paid vacations and other benefits, they have to recover the costs for these from the products or services they sell, and that would mean higher prices and, implicitly, a costlier lifestyle. 

Luckily, this tendency is counteracted by competition – both manufacturers and service providers have to attract customers one way or another, and they usually do these by lowering prices and/or providing incentives. As soon as there is a competition, chances are that prices will remain under control. 

Workers' Perspective 

Workers have the most to benefit from compliance with ILO standards, as they mean minimum income ensured, fewer working hours, better access to healthcare services and better retirement prospects, they mean working in a better environment, being respected and valued more. 

At the same time, higher wages mean greater purchase power, better access to education and healthcare, while fewer working hours mean more time to spend with one's loved ones, rest and work on other aspects of one's life. 

Obviously, children that would otherwise be exposed to exploitation, disabled people and women subject to discrimination have even more to gain from the compliance with ILO standards. 

Governments' Perspective

Most, if not all of the actions of the governments are financed from the national budget, and employers and workers are the major contributors. Therefore, a safe and natural conclusion would be that what makes workers and employers happy should satisfy governments as well.

Does this really happen? It remains to be seen, because, let us not forget that the compliance with these standards has repercussions not only on the economy of a certain country, but also on that in the countries doing business with the former and in the countries the former has interests in. 

Conclusions

No matter how we look at it or how far from becoming reality the global compliance with ILO standards would be, one thing is for sure: it would be extremely beneficial for the global economy. It would:

• Help homogenize labor markets and fill in the gaps between certain countries; 
• Improve workers' situations in the countries where compliance with ILO standards was limited, if not lacking; 
• Increase people's purchase power; 
• Improve access to education and healthcare; 
• Diminish crime rate, which is usually inversely proportional with access to labor, education and healthcare; 
• Stimulate economical growth and increase the flow of money towards countries' budgets, which, in turn, could be used to stimulate economical growth even further. 

While these are still just predictions, and there is a long way ahead of many countries before turning them to reality, the situation is simple: every step made towards compliance with ILO standards is a step forward, one that should be taken by every country with confidence, and encouraged by the countries that have already taken it by all means.