|
|
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) was founded in 1919 at the post-war Peace Conference in Paris as Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles, it remains the only surviving major creation of the Treaty. The ILO became the first specialized agency of the UN in 1946 and seeks promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labour rights (Sim, 2002). The ILO has a unique tripartite structure with workers and employers participating as equal partners with governments in the work of its governing organs (Swepston, 1994). Its tripartite structure makes the ILO unique amongst world organizations in that employers’ and workers’ organizations have an equal voice with the governments in shaping its policies and programmes (Sheperd, 2002). It remains unique, even though international bodies have increasingly been forced to involve non-governmental bodies in their policy formation processes (Lee, 1994). The ILO was established in a world which was ravaged by war, threatened by revolution and haunted by the misery and poverty of working people. Its aim was to build a social framework for peace and stability within which economic processes could generate prosperity with social justice in the life of workers and in the world of work. Since its inception, it has sought to create this framework through a combination of normative action, institution building and public policies (Swepsten, 1994). Through many social and political struggles, the ILO's message has been embodied in the law and practice of what are today considered the most developed societies (Sheperd, 2002). The initial impetus behind the creation of the ILO was humanitarian, sparked by concern for the condition and exploitation of workers and their families. This recognised the need to protect the fundamental human rights of all workers, to foster a humane society and to avoid destructive forms of international competition (Lee, 1994). These principles are embodied within the Constitution of the ILO. The preamble to the Constitution states that '…universal and long lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social and universal justice.’ Given the wartime setting, governments welcomed the introduction of a body like the ILO to try to prevent popular unrest similar to that caused by the economic devastation of the 1930s. Governments were also nervous about revolution, such a fear was manifested after the Russian Tsar was swept from power by popular uprising (Sheperd, 1994). Hence, the second motivation underlying the creation of the ILO was, primarily, politically grounded. The fear was that without an improvement in their conditions, the workers, whose numbers were increasing rapidly as a result of widespread industrialisation, would create industrial unrest, perhaps even to the extent of revolution (Lee, 1994). It was conjectured that if action was not taken to relieve the inequalities and injustices suffered by workers around the world, the entire social order would be threatened (Swepsten, 1994). Given the influence of Karl Marx's dogma and Lenin's aspirations for Russian communism at the time, the fear was not unreasonable. The Preamble to the ILO's Constitution reflects such a concern. It holds that injustice produces "unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperiled". The third reason for the establishment of the ILO was economically grounded. That is to ensure countries with highly developed social systems are not put at a competitive disadvantage to those without such systems. It was thought that any country adopting social reform would find itself at a disadvantage compared with its competitors, so the ILO was to embrace all countries to level the playing field of increasing international competition (Work Study, 2000). An examination of the ILO's roots draws interesting insights. The reasons for its formation were essentially defensive-to stop something worse, such as revolution, from occurring. Similar fears of war, discord and financial chaos triggered the formation of the UN and its major bodies, the World Bank and the IMF. With the passage of time, the role of the ILO has changed. Fear of revolution no longer drives it. Greater altruism is a major driving force, to further the interests of its tripartite membership and to defend and extend its conventions and standards (Sheperd, 2002). As noted, the ILO holds as its, primary, agenda the maintenance of social peace and improvement of the situation of the world's workers. The framing of conventions and recommendations, which set minimum labour standards, is the main tool with which the ILO work to accomplish such goals (Work Study, 2000). Often called the "International Labor Code," these standards have helped form the basis for many social and labor laws in most of the counties that have gained independence since 1919. The social partners work together in ILO bodies as equal participants in the creation of these international standards (Swepston, 1994). ILO standards concern a wide range of issues including freedom of association, promotion of employment, equal opportunity, working conditions, and industrial relations. The significance of these standards lie in their practical effect. They reflect what is possible now and promote future social and economic progress (Work Study, 2000). Basic human freedoms and rights are central to the instruments adopted by the ILO. The fundamental freedoms are: freedom of association; freedom from forced labour; freedom from discrimination; freedom from child labour. ILO Conventions are open to ratification by member States and once they are ratified they impose legal obligations upon the member State to give effect to the terms of the Convention through national law and practice. In contrast, ILO Recommendations are not open to ratification but give guidance on policy, legislation, and enforcement and usually supplement Conventions, laying down general or technical guidelines or 'best practice' examples to guide the implementation of the Convention (Sim, 2002).
|
