NATURE.- The ILO is the first international body which is not expressly concerned with political questions but its role is limited to the problems of industry and with he conditions under which ordinary men throughout the world work and live. It is an illuminating enterprise of constructive international co-operation and understanding dedicated to the elimination of poverty and injustice. It is a new social experimental institution making the world continuously conscious that the unjust condition of working population may affect the world peace. The only justification of its establishment and the nature of its activities is that it provides a positive and dynamic leadership to the humanity for nobler actions, and is continuously exploring the new horizons of universal peace, co-operation and unity. It is an organisation for peace and social justice. It is firmly committed to the motto that there can be no peace without social justice and no social justice without peace. So is the cardinal principle of its constitution--that, (1). 'Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere', (2). 'universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice'. Therefore, the ILO's meaning, nature and activities centre around three words: (1). Peace, (2). Social Justice and (3). Labour. What the ILO is then? In the words of the ILO itself 'Most simply of nations...created to improve working and living conditions all over the world. But beyond this immediate purpose is the longer range objective of helping to establish an international community of nations in which all people may live in peace and steadily increasing prosperity'. The ILO deals with international labour and social problems as the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation handles questions relating to the earth's food supply and the World Health Organisation works to improve the health of the people living on the planet. While it is an inter-governmental agency, it differs from other diplomatic bodies in one important way, namely, the representation is given to workers and employers beside governmental representatives. The three groups--the ILO's tripartite structure--share in its control, evolution and supervision of the execution of its policies and programmes. These groups are the governments which finance it, the workers, for whose benefit it is created and employers who share the responsibility for the welfare of the workers. Keeping in view its overall objectives and structure the ILO appears like the Ministry of Labour of the UN having the responsibility in the fields of labour conditions, industrial relations, social security and all other aspects of social and economic policies havin a direct bearing on the workers.
AIMS AND PURPOSES: A broad idea of the aims and purposes of the ILO can be understood from the text of the Peace Treaty of 1919. It provided that ILO is being established for 'the well-being, physical and intellectual of industrial wage-earners'. This was being done not as a matter of charity to labour but as a matter of 'supreme international importance'. However, it was recognised that 'differences of climate, habits and customs of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment...that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce...'. Thus, from international point of view the welfare of the wage-earners is the principal aim of the ILO. The objectives of the ILO are clearly enumerated in the Preamble of its Constitution supplemented by Article. 427 of the Peace Treaty of Versailles which has been further supplemented by the Philadelphia Declaration of 1944. These fundamental instruments set out the main ideology of the ILO in the following terms: "Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice; "And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled...". "Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of their own countries...". Following are the conditions for improvement the Preamble declares to be urgently required in various particulars:
Philadelphia Charter 1944: The utility of the ILO as a vehicle for social action and economic reforms was greatly felt during the dark eyes of the World War II. The enlightened public opinion in general and the trade unions in particular attached great significance to the ILO's past achievements and bright future during the difficult period of its existence. 'The ILO has been so useful to all of the three elements composing it--government, employers and workers--that there is an almost unanimous desire for it to continue in existence. The ILO is almost the only League of Nations instrumentality about which it can almost be said'. Much of this usefulness stemmed from the fact that the ILO had become the world's foremost authority on technical aspects of national and international social policies. During the war years the ILO, which was functioning at Montreal, was considering the policies and programmes to be pursued when peace is established. A Conference convened in Philadelphia on April 20, 1944 marked the beginning of a new era in the history of the ILO. The delegations of forty-one States met together to consider the future role, policy and programmes of the ILO. Out of the deliberations of the Conference emerged a document on the re-definition of the ILO's aims and purposes and a wider conception of its responsibilities. This was the Declaration of Philadelphia of 1944 which has been incorporated into the ILO's Constitution. Article. 1 of the Declaration affirmed the fundamental principles on which the Organisation is based and in particular, that:
Article. III sets forth ten specific objectives which the ILO is to further and promote among the nations of the world:
Legal Nature.-
The ILO like other international institutions has a limited field of activity delineated by its 'objects'. It differs from States as a subject of international law in as much as in case of the ILO the problems of sovereignty and jurisdiction cannot be similar to that of States. Any function outside its constitution lies within the powers of the State. As the International Court of Justice has observed referring to the United Nations: "Whereas a State possesses the totality of international rights and duties recognised by international law, the rghts and duties of an entity such as the Organisation must depend upon its purposes and functions as specified or implied in its constituent documents and developed in practice."
Thus no international body including the ILO can over-step its constitutional powers. For instance, the ILO cannot legally exercise the peace enforcement functions of the United Nations Security Council or vice versa. Article. 39 of the Constitution of the ILO confers on it international legal personality and in particular he capacity to contract, to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property; and to institute legal proceedings. Article. 40 grants such privileges and immunities to Director-General and other officers as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the ILO. Member States are legally bound to recognise such personality.
State Sovereignty and the ILO
In the absence of specific treaty obligations to the contrary the activities of the ILO may be treated by the States as solely within their domestic jurisdiction. The preamble to the Constitution of the ILO gives the reason why States--or, at least the greater part of the population--have only to gain from concerted action dependant on the limitation of unrestricted national sovereignty. As the Permanent Court of International Justice emphasised in its Advisory Opinion on the Agriculture Labour (1922) and on the Personal Work of Employers (1926), the question of the scope of such restrictions of State independence has in each case to be answered by refernce to the terms of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation. Within these limits 'the High Contracting Parties must be assumed to have acted deliberately in providing for the cooperation, strictly limited as it is, of the International Labour Organisation in the exercise of their sovereign powers in respect of labour measures--national and international'. However, the limitation imposed upon the sovereignty of member states by the ILO Constitution is not real as the ILO has no coercive power to impose its will upon the member States. In the words of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case of Agriculture Labour (1922), 'no measure can be applied in any country that does not see fit to adopt it'. In the case of Personal Work of Employers the Court observed that the ILO's functions are of 'investigating, examining, considering and recommendatory nature. The Organisation has no legislative power. Each member is free to adopt or to reject any proposal of the Organisation either for national law or, for an international convention'. The ILO is in no sense a supra-natural organisation having powers of binding character upon the States. It is merely a specialised agency having auxiliary and advisory functions in the labour and economic field. Legally a State can use its veto by way of refusing to abide by the proposals of the ILO. Most appropriately it can be described as the unofficial parliament of world labour to deal with labour questions.
Membership
The International Labour Organisation has been inspired by the ideals of universality, humanity and cosmic brotherhood of man without distinction of power, status and occupation. The Constitution of the ILO provides simple rules of procedure regarding admission of a State to the membership of the ILO. It provides that all those states, which were members of the ILO on November 1, 1945, and any original member of the United Nations or the State admitted to the membership of the United Nations, can become members of the ILO, by accepting the obligations of the Constitution of the ILO'. Other States can also become the members of the ILO 'by a vote concurred in by two-thirds of the delegates attending the session including two-thirds of the Government delegates present and voting'. Between 1919-1945 as soon as a State was admitted to the League of Nations it automatically became a member of the ILO. This organic connection in the membership of these two international bodies created difficulty and controversy amongst the States. In 1920, El Salvador became the member of the League of Nations but it refused to be the member of the ILO. In 1926 Brazil and Spain withdrew from the League but wished to remain the member of the ILO. In 1934 the United States became the member of the ILO without becoming the member of the League of Nations. Common membership of the ILO and the League of Nations had created difficulties for the States. After the replacement of the League of Nations by the United Nations, the principal of common and identical membership between the ILO and the United Nations has been discontinued. Accordingly, the membership of the United Nations does not carry with it the membership of the ILO or the vice versa. There were 45 States which were the members of the ILO in 1919. In 1969 during the year of the ILO's fiftieth anniversary there were 118 States as its members. In 1973, with the admission of Bangladesh, the ILO's membership has risen to 119.
Suspension of Membership: The ILO Constitution provides for suspension in the sense of deprivation of a vote in the various bodies of the Organisation when a member is in arrears with its budgetary contributions to an amount equal to the contributions due for the preceding two full years. It must be, however, noted that the suspension does not free a member from its obligations, but merely suspends the exercise of rights and privileges of one kind or the other.
Withdrawal: Like the constitutions of international bodies except UNO, WHO and UNESCO, the Constitution of the ILO contains specific right of the member States to withdraw from the Organisation by giving a notice and it would take effect two years after the receipt of the date of said notice and on the fulfilment of all financial obligations arising out of membership. Since the Second World War five members gave notice of withdrawal but in three cases returned to the ILO. In March 1964 South Africa informed the ILO of its decision to withdraw because of increasing opposition to its policy of apartheid or racial discrimination. Now there are at present only two countries Albania and South Africa who have withdrawn from ILO.
AIMS AND PURPOSES: A broad idea of the aims and purposes of the ILO can be understood from the text of the Peace Treaty of 1919. It provided that ILO is being established for 'the well-being, physical and intellectual of industrial wage-earners'. This was being done not as a matter of charity to labour but as a matter of 'supreme international importance'. However, it was recognised that 'differences of climate, habits and customs of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment...that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce...'. Thus, from international point of view the welfare of the wage-earners is the principal aim of the ILO. The objectives of the ILO are clearly enumerated in the Preamble of its Constitution supplemented by Article. 427 of the Peace Treaty of Versailles which has been further supplemented by the Philadelphia Declaration of 1944. These fundamental instruments set out the main ideology of the ILO in the following terms: "Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice; "And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled...". "Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of their own countries...". Following are the conditions for improvement the Preamble declares to be urgently required in various particulars:
- the regulation of hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week;
- the regulation of labour supply;
- the prevention of unemployment;
- the provision of an adequate living wage;
- the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment;
- the protection of children, young persons, and women;
- provision for old age and injury;
- protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own;
- recognition of the principle of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value;
- recognition of the freedom of association; and
- the organisation of vocational and technical education.
Philadelphia Charter 1944: The utility of the ILO as a vehicle for social action and economic reforms was greatly felt during the dark eyes of the World War II. The enlightened public opinion in general and the trade unions in particular attached great significance to the ILO's past achievements and bright future during the difficult period of its existence. 'The ILO has been so useful to all of the three elements composing it--government, employers and workers--that there is an almost unanimous desire for it to continue in existence. The ILO is almost the only League of Nations instrumentality about which it can almost be said'. Much of this usefulness stemmed from the fact that the ILO had become the world's foremost authority on technical aspects of national and international social policies. During the war years the ILO, which was functioning at Montreal, was considering the policies and programmes to be pursued when peace is established. A Conference convened in Philadelphia on April 20, 1944 marked the beginning of a new era in the history of the ILO. The delegations of forty-one States met together to consider the future role, policy and programmes of the ILO. Out of the deliberations of the Conference emerged a document on the re-definition of the ILO's aims and purposes and a wider conception of its responsibilities. This was the Declaration of Philadelphia of 1944 which has been incorporated into the ILO's Constitution. Article. 1 of the Declaration affirmed the fundamental principles on which the Organisation is based and in particular, that:
- Labour is not commodity;
- Freedom of expression and of association are essential to sustained progress;
- Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere;
- The war against want requires to be carried on with unrelenting vigour within each nation, and by continuous and concerned international effort in which the representatives of workers and employers, enjoying equal status with those of governments, join with them in free discussion and democratic decision with a view to the promotion of the common welfare.
Article. III sets forth ten specific objectives which the ILO is to further and promote among the nations of the world:
- full employment and the raising of standards of living;
- the employment of workers in the occupations in which they can have the satisfaction of giving the fullest measure of their skill and attainments and make their greatest contribution to the common well-being;
- The provision, as a means to the attainmentof this end and under adequate guarantees for all concerned, of facilities for training and the transfer of labour, including mgration for employment and settlement;
- Policies in regard to wages and earnings, hours and other conditions of work calculated to ensure a just share of the fruits of progress to all, and a minimum living wage to all employed and in need of protection;
- The effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining, the co-operation of management and labour in the continuous improvement of productive efficiency, and the collaboration of workers and employers in social and economic measures;
- The extension of social security measures to provide a basic income to all in need of such protection and comprehensive medical care;
- Adequate protection for the life and health of workers in all occupations;
- Provision for child welfare and maternity protection;
- The provision of adequate nutrition, housing and facilities for recreation and culture;
- The assurance of equality of educational and vocational opportunity.
Legal Nature.-
The ILO like other international institutions has a limited field of activity delineated by its 'objects'. It differs from States as a subject of international law in as much as in case of the ILO the problems of sovereignty and jurisdiction cannot be similar to that of States. Any function outside its constitution lies within the powers of the State. As the International Court of Justice has observed referring to the United Nations: "Whereas a State possesses the totality of international rights and duties recognised by international law, the rghts and duties of an entity such as the Organisation must depend upon its purposes and functions as specified or implied in its constituent documents and developed in practice."
Thus no international body including the ILO can over-step its constitutional powers. For instance, the ILO cannot legally exercise the peace enforcement functions of the United Nations Security Council or vice versa. Article. 39 of the Constitution of the ILO confers on it international legal personality and in particular he capacity to contract, to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property; and to institute legal proceedings. Article. 40 grants such privileges and immunities to Director-General and other officers as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the ILO. Member States are legally bound to recognise such personality.
State Sovereignty and the ILO
In the absence of specific treaty obligations to the contrary the activities of the ILO may be treated by the States as solely within their domestic jurisdiction. The preamble to the Constitution of the ILO gives the reason why States--or, at least the greater part of the population--have only to gain from concerted action dependant on the limitation of unrestricted national sovereignty. As the Permanent Court of International Justice emphasised in its Advisory Opinion on the Agriculture Labour (1922) and on the Personal Work of Employers (1926), the question of the scope of such restrictions of State independence has in each case to be answered by refernce to the terms of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation. Within these limits 'the High Contracting Parties must be assumed to have acted deliberately in providing for the cooperation, strictly limited as it is, of the International Labour Organisation in the exercise of their sovereign powers in respect of labour measures--national and international'. However, the limitation imposed upon the sovereignty of member states by the ILO Constitution is not real as the ILO has no coercive power to impose its will upon the member States. In the words of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case of Agriculture Labour (1922), 'no measure can be applied in any country that does not see fit to adopt it'. In the case of Personal Work of Employers the Court observed that the ILO's functions are of 'investigating, examining, considering and recommendatory nature. The Organisation has no legislative power. Each member is free to adopt or to reject any proposal of the Organisation either for national law or, for an international convention'. The ILO is in no sense a supra-natural organisation having powers of binding character upon the States. It is merely a specialised agency having auxiliary and advisory functions in the labour and economic field. Legally a State can use its veto by way of refusing to abide by the proposals of the ILO. Most appropriately it can be described as the unofficial parliament of world labour to deal with labour questions.
Membership
The International Labour Organisation has been inspired by the ideals of universality, humanity and cosmic brotherhood of man without distinction of power, status and occupation. The Constitution of the ILO provides simple rules of procedure regarding admission of a State to the membership of the ILO. It provides that all those states, which were members of the ILO on November 1, 1945, and any original member of the United Nations or the State admitted to the membership of the United Nations, can become members of the ILO, by accepting the obligations of the Constitution of the ILO'. Other States can also become the members of the ILO 'by a vote concurred in by two-thirds of the delegates attending the session including two-thirds of the Government delegates present and voting'. Between 1919-1945 as soon as a State was admitted to the League of Nations it automatically became a member of the ILO. This organic connection in the membership of these two international bodies created difficulty and controversy amongst the States. In 1920, El Salvador became the member of the League of Nations but it refused to be the member of the ILO. In 1926 Brazil and Spain withdrew from the League but wished to remain the member of the ILO. In 1934 the United States became the member of the ILO without becoming the member of the League of Nations. Common membership of the ILO and the League of Nations had created difficulties for the States. After the replacement of the League of Nations by the United Nations, the principal of common and identical membership between the ILO and the United Nations has been discontinued. Accordingly, the membership of the United Nations does not carry with it the membership of the ILO or the vice versa. There were 45 States which were the members of the ILO in 1919. In 1969 during the year of the ILO's fiftieth anniversary there were 118 States as its members. In 1973, with the admission of Bangladesh, the ILO's membership has risen to 119.
Suspension of Membership: The ILO Constitution provides for suspension in the sense of deprivation of a vote in the various bodies of the Organisation when a member is in arrears with its budgetary contributions to an amount equal to the contributions due for the preceding two full years. It must be, however, noted that the suspension does not free a member from its obligations, but merely suspends the exercise of rights and privileges of one kind or the other.
Withdrawal: Like the constitutions of international bodies except UNO, WHO and UNESCO, the Constitution of the ILO contains specific right of the member States to withdraw from the Organisation by giving a notice and it would take effect two years after the receipt of the date of said notice and on the fulfilment of all financial obligations arising out of membership. Since the Second World War five members gave notice of withdrawal but in three cases returned to the ILO. In March 1964 South Africa informed the ILO of its decision to withdraw because of increasing opposition to its policy of apartheid or racial discrimination. Now there are at present only two countries Albania and South Africa who have withdrawn from ILO.
No comments:
Post a Comment