|
GB.270/LILS/5
|
|
Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards |
LILS |
FIFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Standard-setting policy: Ratification and promotion of fundamental ILO Conventions
Contents
I. Obstacles to ratification invoked by member States
III. Conclusions and recommendations
- Summary table of the technical assistance provided by the ILO to the member States in relation to the promotion and ratification of fundamental ILO Conventions (May 1995-October 1997)
1. Since its 264th Session (November 1995), the Committee has examined, at its March sessions, a document relating to the ratification and promotion of fundamental ILO Conventions. In March 1997 a number of Committee members,(1) the Worker members in particular, took the opportunity to ask the Office to further develop its technical assistance in connection with the promotion and ratification of these Conventions. The representative of the Director-General explained that the Office was in the process of analysing the technical assistance being provided by the ILO to member States and other constituents, in the framework of the campaign initiated in May 1995 to promote and ratify fundamental Conventions. The Director-General thus considers it timely to submit to the November session of the Governing Body the present document on the technical assistance provided by the ILO to member States in connection with the promotion and ratification of fundamental Conventions. It should be recalled, however, that the technical assistance the ILO provides in respect of standards is not limited solely to unratified fundamental Conventions, it in fact extends to all international labour standards, a number of which relate to questions closely linked to basic human rights at the workplace. Likewise, this technical assistance goes beyond helping countries to overcome obstacles to ratification, also encompassing the application of the Conventions they have ratified, in due consideration of the comments made by the Organization's supervisory bodies.(2)
2. After enumerating the obstacles to ratification invoked by the countries (I), this document analyses the technical assistance provided by the ILO in conjunction with the campaign to promote and ratify Conventions on fundamental human rights (II) and draws conclusions (III). A summary table of the technical assistance provided by the Office to member States and other constituents in this connection, as well as of the ratifications that have taken place since May 1995, can be found in the appendix. This table also provides a summary of the information available to the ILO on the ratification processes formally under way(3) to date.
I. Obstacles to ratification invoked by member States
3. In the circular letter that it has sent each year since May 1995 to the countries that have not ratified the seven core Conventions, the Director-General asks them to indicate, inter alia, the obstacles to the ratification of these instruments. Over the years, some of the obstacles initially invoked by the countries have disappeared, enabling some of them either to envisage ratification in the near future (Canada), to initiate the ratification procedure (Burkina Faso), or actually to ratify a Convention (Croatia). An examination of countries' replies to this question(4) shows four principal categories of obstacles which often appear in tandem: non-conformity of national legislation and practice with the provisions of fundamental Conventions; the political, economic and social situation; the rigidity of certain instruments; and the cumbersome and sluggish nature of national ratification procedures. It is interesting to note that these obstacles are not specific to the seven core Conventions. It is in fact these same obstacles that member States generally quote in their reports on non-ratified Conventions and Recommendations pursuant to article 19 of the ILO Constitution.
A. Non-conformity of national legislation and practice with the provisions of fundamental Conventions
4. This obstacle is the one countries invoke most frequently (Australia, Austria, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakstan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Panama, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia) to explain the difficulties encountered in the ratification of certain Conventions. This applies both to cases where the legislation (including the Constitution) of member States is not in conformity with certain Articles of the fundamental Conventions, and to cases where legislation or national regulations on specific points stipulated in certain Conventions simply do not exist.(5) It should be noted that this non-conformity is sometimes presumed or invoked a priori as some countries indicate that before deciding on the possible ratification of the instruments in question, they must first carry out an in-depth examination of prevailing legislation to ascertain whether it is in conformity with the requirements of the Conventions, or they take this opportunity to ask the ILO to carry out an evaluation of their legislation in the spheres covered by the fundamental Conventions.
B. Political, economic and social situation
5. This difficulty is often cited by countries (Angola, Burkina Faso, China, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Uganda, Viet Nam) which consider that their political situation (civil war, political unrest), level of economic development (lack of state funds, weakness of the institutional capacity of ministries of labour, transition towards a market economy, size of the informal sector, weakness of national supervisory mechanisms for the application of legislation, poverty) or of social development (illiteracy, social taboos, burden of cultural constraints) do not allow them, at the present time, to apply in a satisfactory manner, Conventions that they have not yet ratified. This conviction is often reinforced by the fact that most of these countries are already having difficulty correctly applying the Conventions that they have ratified. For these and other countries (Bahamas, Barbados, Burundi, Ghana, Latvia, Malaysia, Panama) which declare that their legislation and practice is already in conformity with the spirit -- if not the letter -- of the principles underlying the fundamental Conventions, the problem does not lie so much in the ratification of these Conventions as in their practical application once they have been ratified.
C. Rigidity of certain ILO instruments
6. A number of countries (Australia, China, India, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States) consider some of the fundamental Conventions -- in particular the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) -- to be too rigid, excessively detailed and complex and maintain that they do not sufficiently take into account the national conditions prevailing in each of the ILO member States. The impossibility of making reservations is also invoked as an obstacle to the ratification of fundamental Conventions, and, indeed, to that of ILO Conventions in general. Furthermore, some of these countries specify that the fact that the judicial practice of the ILO's supervisory bodies is constantly evolving, i.e. that it is not definitively established, is a disincentive to ratification.
D. Lengthy and cumbersome ratification procedures
7. For some countries (Barbados, Brazil, Canada, India, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Panama, Portugal, Uganda, United States, Zimbabwe), the ratification of a fundamental ILO Convention, or of any international treaty, implies initiating cumbersome, complex and relatively slow procedures, such as amendments to their Constitutions or fundamental laws or, in the case of certain federal States, consulting and seeking the approval of the constituent states, provinces or cantons if the ILO Convention in question relates to spheres falling within their competence. Changes in political majority also have an impact on the outcome of ratification procedures, as a number of countries have indicated in their communications (Mauritius, Portugal, Romania).
E. Other obstacles invoked
8. Countries give a variety of reasons why they consider ratification inappropriate. Canada, for example, stated that it could not ratify the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) because it essentially targets former colonial powers. However, in its reply(6) to the Director-General's last circular letter, the Canadian Government explained that its position had changed and that it was considering the ratification of that Convention in order to demonstrate the importance it attaches to the Director-General's initiative. Croatia and Madagascar said that as they had already ratified Convention No. 29, the ratification of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) did not seem appropriate to them.(7) The Dominican Republic indicated that it was the social partners, in this case the employers' organizations, which opposed the ratification of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) on the grounds that prevailing national legislation was already in conformity with the Convention. Saint Kitts and Nevis, which has not yet ratified any of the ILO Conventions, cited its very recent membership of the Organization (1996). Slovakia stated that the provisions under its Constitution were more favourable than those of Convention No. 105.(8)
9. Other difficulties are also mentioned. Armenia, for example, stated that before being able to submit the fundamental Conventions to the National Assembly for its approval, it has to have them all translated into Armenian and it lacks the necessary financial means to do so.(9) Experience shows that many other countries share this same obstacle even if they do not specify it in their replies to the Director-General's circular letter. Austria and the Czech Republic stated that they need to finish bringing their national legislation into line with that of the European Union before they can ratify Convention No. 138.
10. In the follow-up letters the Director-General sends to member States on the prospects for the ratification of fundamental Conventions, he reminds them that the Office is at their disposal to help them overcome the obstacles in the way of the ratification of such Conventions. An examination of the correspondence exchanged by the International Labour Standards Department and the field offices also shows that this offer is regularly repeated and relayed to the member States in the field by the regional directors, the area office directors, the multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), and by experts in international labour standards within these teams, on the occasion of personal contact, official correspondence, telephone calls, advisory missions, work-related or other meetings with employers' and workers' organizations. Headquarters as a whole, and not only the International Labour Standards Department, also takes every opportunity to endorse the Director-General's initiative to promote the universal ratification of fundamental ILO Conventions and to reiterate the ILO's readiness to propose its services and provide the necessary technical assistance.
11. The promotion of fundamental human rights at work and thus of the ILO Conventions which relate to them, has always been a part of the programme of cooperation and technical assistance activities carried out by the Bureau for Employers' Activities (ACT/EMP), often in close collaboration with the International Labour Standards Department. ACT/EMP regularly offers training sessions to employers' organizations on international labour standards, including the fundamental ILO Conventions. It also provides technical assistance to its constituents in relation to freedom of association, in particular through the support that it provides for the establishment of free and independent employers' organizations. To take an example, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan and the Palestinian Authority, were all recently provided with this form of assistance. The Bureau for Employers' Activities also contributes to the struggle against discrimination in employment and occupation, by way of technical cooperation projects which aim to integrate women into the economic and social development of countries and to promote the employment of women in private sector activities in Africa and Asia (Bangladesh, India, Lesotho, Mauritania, Pakistan, Philippines, Swaziland), and by publishing brochures containing directives for employers wishing to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment for their staff. Following the adoption in 1996 of a resolution on child labour by the International Organization of Employers (IOE), ACT/EMP is working together with the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) and the IOE to establish directives in this area for employers and their organizations which should be ready for the 86th Session (June 1998) of the International Labour Conference, which is to consider the appropriateness of adopting a new instrument to combat the most abhorrent forms of child labour.
12. The Bureau for Workers' Activities (ACTRAV) has also always contributed to promoting the ratification of international labour standards, including the fundamental ILO Conventions. ACTRAV provides various forms of assistance to ILO constituents in connection with the ratification campaign. Firstly, all worker training and education activities carried out by ACTRAV now include a module on the role of workers in promoting the ratification of fundamental ILO Conventions. Furthermore, ACTRAV organizes or participates in -- financially and/or technically -- a number of meetings (workshops, conferences, seminars, symposia) at the regional, subregional, national and provincial levels on international labour standards, collective bargaining, labour relations, the rights of women workers, rural workers, export processing zones, etc., which all serve as forums to promote the Director-General's initiative targeting fundamental ILO Conventions. The Bureau for Workers' Activities also implements technical cooperation projects which cover the same areas as the fundamental Conventions (freedom of association, child labour, non-discrimination in employment); it finances translation into national languages (Arabic, Amharic, Tigrayan) of its workers' education manuals in order to increase the circulation of information relating to international labour standards, and in particular to the fundamental ILO Conventions; and it provides advisory services to its constituents, notably through the intermediary of the experts in workers' activities who work in the field with the MDTs. Lastly, ACTRAV actively participates in the ILO's activities to combat child labour. This commitment essentially takes the form of close collaboration with the IPEC programme(10) and also other programmes of action relating to such areas as the development of teaching materials, activities to make workers' organizations aware of child labour, support for campaigns conducted by national unions in this sphere, and the setting up of technical cooperation projects aimed at developing national and international trade union strategies to combat child labour.
13. The technical assistance countries request from the ILO in connection with the promotion and ratification of fundamental ILO standards is primarily of two kinds, both of which are logical consequences of the obstacles to ratification described above. They give rise to technical cooperation projects.
A. Legal assistance and technical advisory services
14. This is by far the most frequently requested form of assistance. It can be either formal or informal, or even confidential, be provided in writing or orally. For the countries concerned,(11) it is a matter of clarifying certain provisions in fundamental Conventions,(12) of asking the Office for advice on the conformity of prevailing national legislation with one or more of the Conventions they are considering ratifying, of asking the ILO to formulate comments and provide advice on draft laws and legislative amendments or to prepare draft laws or labour codes, of inviting it to participate in tripartite discussions on the revision of labour legislation, etc.
15. At headquarters, two units are principally concerned with this type of activity and work together with MDT experts in the field in their respective spheres of competence; these are the Labour Law and Labour Relations Branch and the International Labour Standards Department. When it makes comments or prepares draft instruments -- upon the request of governments -- the Labour Law and Labour Relations Branch pays particular attention to fundamental ILO Conventions. Since the launch of the campaign to promote universal ratification of fundamental human rights Conventions, this Branch regularly reviews the ratification prospects indicated by the various countries. The International Labour Standards Department, and also the "standards" experts in the MDTs, develop activities intended to explain and clarify the provisions of the fundamental ILO Conventions in order to clear up any possible misunderstandings relating to the obligations arising from these instruments, and to examine together with governments the conformity of their national legislation and practice with the provisions of the instruments concerned. These activities take the form of national tripartite seminars and of advice and technical assistance, more often than not at the request of member States whose competent bodies are in the process of examining the prospects for the ratification of fundamental ILO Conventions.
B. Promotion of fundamental ILO Conventions
16. This form of assistance has also proved very successful with a number of the Organization's member States.(13) Its aim is to increase the awareness of governments, employers' and workers' organizations, as well as the general public, about the Director-General's initiative to promote the ratification of ILO Conventions on fundamental human rights. It seeks to encourage countries to review their initial position and to consider, at the national level, the appropriateness of ratifying all the fundamental Conventions and, in consequence, how to overcome the presumed and real obstacles to ratification. In concrete terms, this technical assistance consists of:
- organizing and participating in meetings (workshops, colloquiums, seminars, symposia) of a tripartite nature at the national, subregional and regional levels on international labour standards in general and fundamental Conventions in particular. The meetings should be distinguished from those organized systematically to examine the obstacles to the ratification of specific Conventions;
- establishing contacts during the International Labour Conference with the delegations participating in the work of the Committee on the Application of Standards, so as to reiterate the availability of the ILO, make concrete offers of technical assistance, solve technical problems, update the information available to the Office and the delegations on certain points;
- training officials and representatives of employers' and workers' organizations (in respect of the obligations associated with membership of the Organization and with the ratification of ILO Conventions, the ratification procedure for Conventions, the role assigned to occupational organizations in the Constitution) either on the spot or by organizing study visits to headquarters or the Turin Centre;(14)
- providing and disseminating information to officials in the ministries of labour and to national legislators, the social partners, governmental and non-governmental organizations and to the general public;
- e.participating in conferences organized by employers' and workers' organizations, universities, governmental and non-governmental organizations; and
- sending copies of fundamental ILO Conventions and examples of comparative legislation; financing translations of fundamental Conventions into national languages.
C. Technical cooperation projects
17. In some countries the ILO conducts programmes of direct action which aim, among other things, to help them overcome the obstacles to the ratification and effective application of certain fundamental Conventions. The International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour currently being implemented in over 40 countries,(15) is a typical example of this type of assistance. To take an example of one of the numerous other projects, a technical cooperation project is currently under way in Namibia (financed by Norway) on positive action in employment. The activities being provided through this project -- including training, awareness building and the strengthening of institutions -- and also the principal objective of the project -- the adoption of a law on equality in employment -- are directed at clearing away the remnants of apartheid in the employment sphere and facilitating the ratification of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) by Namibia. A further example concerns Pakistan for which the Turin Centre developed, with the support of the rest of the Office -- notably the ILO Office in Islamabad -- a project on the promotion and implementation of human rights (financed by Norway). Two projects have also been financed by the Netherlands and coordinated by the Office of the Special Adviser for Women Workers' Questions. The first relates to training and the dissemination of information on the rights of women workers in nine countries (China, Egypt, El Salvador, Hungary, India, Mali, Suriname, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe), and the other relates to training the personnel of the ILO and of the Organization's constituents about gender equality in the employment sphere and, more generally, about systematically integrating a gender perspective into their respective activities. This project, which has already been implemented in a number of countries (Argentina, Bangladesh, Barbados, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nepal, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, United Republic of Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Uruguay) should, among other objectives, facilitate the ratification and application of the fundamental ILO Conventions of particular relevance to women, namely Conventions Nos. 100 and 111, as well as the success of the projects implemented by ACT/EMP and ACTRAV cited in paragraphs 11 and 12 above. We would also mention the International Programme on More and Better Jobs for Women which is already resulting in requests for technical assistance by certain countries (Burkina Faso, Estonia, Mexico, Pakistan, United Republic of Tanzania, as well as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). All the activities conducted as part of this Programme seek to promote the ratification of the applicable ILO Conventions, namely Conventions Nos. 100 and 111.
III. Conclusions and recommendations
18. Although the ILO did not wait for the campaign to achieve the universal ratification of its fundamental Conventions before promoting these instruments with its member States, it is clear that the campaign launched in May 1995 gave strong impetus to ILO activities in this area and that the technical assistance provided by the Office to various countries to help them to overcome the obstacles to ratification has contributed to its success. Since the beginning of this campaign the ILO has registered over 60 ratifications and confirmations of previous obligations concerning the fundamental Conventions and many countries are currently involved in formal ratification procedures or are in the process of examining or re-examining the appropriateness of ratifying the Organization's seven core Conventions.
19. A review of the technical assistance provided by the Office to the member States in connection with the ratification of the fundamental Conventions shows that this assistance is essentially of a legal nature, in full conformity with its mandate and also with the wishes of the countries requesting its assistance. Up until now the Office has been able to respond to all requests submitted by countries, or is in the process of actively examining, with these countries, how the requested assistance can be made available. However, some of the obstacles to ratification and to the application of the Conventions are not just a matter of simple legal assistance and the solution to these obstacles lies in increasing the level of development of some countries. The Office will, nevertheless, continue to provide these countries with all the technical assistance they request. Likewise, the Office will continue to take initiatives to promote the ratification of fundamental Conventions. Here, by way of example, we would mention the recent initiative taken jointly by the International Labour Standards Department and the ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. In view of the fact that a number of Asian member States -- which have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women -- have not yet ratified the ILO Conventions on that same subject (namely, Conventions Nos. 100 and 111), the International Labour Standards Department and the ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific have decided to conduct a study to identify the reasons why these countries have not yet ratified these instruments and the technical assistance that the ILO could provide them with to overcome these obstacles.
Geneva, 13 October 1997.
Summary table of the technical assistance provided by the ILO to the member States (16) in relation to the promotion and ratification of fundamental ILO Conventions (May 1995-October 1997)
Key to abbreviations and expressions in the table
IPEC: International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour
Ratification announced: Ratification approved by the competent national authority but not yet registered by the ILO
Ratification confirmed: The member State concerned has confirmed that it continues to be bound by a Convention which was applicable to it before its independence or before it became a Member of the ILO (the table therefore includes the confirmations received since the beginning of the campaign, irrespective of the date on which they were registered)
No. 29 -- Forced Labour Convention, 1930
No. 87 -- Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948
No. 98 -- Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949
No. 100 -- Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951
No. 105 -- Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957
No. 111 -- Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
No. 138 -- Minimum Age Convention, 1973
|
Country
|
Technical assistance |
Ratification | |||
|
Legal assistance |
Promotion Information Training |
Technical cooperation |
Fundamental Conventions ratified before the ratification campaign |
Ratifications registered, ratification procedure formally initiated since May 1995 | |
|
| |||||
|
Afghanistan |
|
X |
|
C. 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
South Africa |
X |
X |
IPEC |
None |
C. 29, 87, 98, 105, 111 ratified |
|
Albania |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100 |
C. 105, 111 ratified
|
|
Angola |
|
|
|
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 87, 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Antigua and Barbuda |
X |
X |
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 105, 111, 138 |
C. 100 ratification process initiated |
|
Saudi Arabia |
|
|
|
C. 29, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Argentina |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratified* |
|
Armenia |
X |
X |
|
C. 100, 111 |
|
|
Australia |
|
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Austria |
|
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111, 138 |
|
|
Azerbaijan |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
|
|
Bahamas |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 105 |
|
|
Bahrein |
|
X |
|
C. 29 |
C. 111 ratification process initiated |
|
Bangladesh |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 105, 111 |
C. 100 ratification announced |
|
Barbados |
X |
X |
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Belarus |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
C. 105 ratified* |
|
Belize |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 105 |
C. 111 ratification process initiated |
|
Benin |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Bolivia |
|
X |
IPEC |
C. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratified |
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina |
X |
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
|
|
Botswana |
X |
X |
|
None |
C. 29, 100, 105, 111, 138 ratified |
|
Brazil |
|
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Bulgaria |
X |
|
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
|
|
Burkina Faso |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111 |
C. 105 ratified
|
|
Burundi |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 98, 138 ratifications announced |
|
Cambodia |
X |
|
IPEC |
C. 29 |
|
|
Cameroon |
|
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Canada |
X |
X |
|
C. 87, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Cape Verde |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Central African Republic |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Chile |
|
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 100, 111 |
|
|
China |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 100 |
|
|
Cyprus |
|
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification announced |
|
Colombia |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Comoros |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105 |
|
|
Congo |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87 |
|
|
Korea, Rep. of |
X |
X |
|
None |
|
|
Côte d'Ivoire |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Croatia |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
C. 105 ratified |
|
Denmark |
|
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Djibouti |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105 |
|
|
Dominican Republic |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Egypt |
|
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
El Salvador |
|
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 105 |
C. 29, 111, 138 ratified |
|
United Arab Emirates |
|
X |
|
C. 29 |
C. 100, 105 ratified
|
|
Ecuador |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Eritrea |
X |
X |
|
None |
|
|
Estonia |
|
|
|
C. 87, 98 |
C. 29, 100, 105 ratified
|
|
United States |
X |
|
|
C. 105 |
C. 111 ratification process initiated |
|
Ethiopia |
|
X |
IPEC |
C. 87, 98, 111 |
|
|
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia |
|
|
|
None |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 confirmed |
|
Fiji |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 105 |
C. 87 ratification process initiated |
|
Gabon |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Gambia |
X |
X |
|
Member of the ILO since 1995 |
|
|
Georgia |
X |
X |
|
None |
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111, 138 confirmed |
|
Ghana |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Grenada |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105 |
|
|
Guinea |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Guinea-Bissau |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 87 ratification process initiated |
|
Equatorial Guinea |
X |
X |
|
C. 100, 138 |
C. 29, 87, 98, 105, 111 ratification process initiated |
|
Guyana |
X |
X |
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification announced |
|
Haiti |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Hungary |
|
|
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Solomon Islands |
|
X |
|
C. 29 |
|
|
India |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 100, 111 |
C. 105 ratification process initiated |
|
Indonesia |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 98, 100 |
|
|
Iran, Islamic Rep. of |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Iraq |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111, 138 |
|
|
Ireland |
X |
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 138 |
|
|
Iceland |
|
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Jamaica |
X |
X |
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Japan |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100 |
|
|
Jordan |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 87 ratification postponed temporarily by the Council of Ministers
|
|
Kazakstan |
X |
X |
|
None |
|
|
Kenya |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 98, 105, 138 |
|
|
Kyrgyzstan |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
C. 105 ratification process initiated |
|
Kuwait |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 105, 111 |
|
|
Lao People's Democratic Republic |
X |
X |
|
C. 29 |
C. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111, 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Lesotho |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98 |
|
|
Latvia |
|
|
|
C. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Lebanon |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Liberia |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 105, 111 |
|
|
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111, 138 |
|
|
Lithuania |
|
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Luxembourg |
|
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 138 |
C. 111 ratification process initiated |
|
Madagascar |
|
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 100, 111 |
C. 98 ratification process initiated |
|
Malaysia |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98 |
C. 100, 138 ratified |
|
Malawi |
X |
X |
|
C. 98, 100, 111 |
|
|
Mali |
|
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Morocco |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Mauritius |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 105, 138 |
|
|
Mauritania |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 111 |
C. 105 ratified |
|
Mexico |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 87, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Moldova, Rep. of |
X |
X |
|
C. 105 |
C. 87, 98, 111 confirmed |
|
Mongolia |
|
X |
IPEC |
C. 87, 98, 100, 111 |
|
|
Mozambique |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 100, 105, 111 |
C. 87, 98 ratified |
|
Myanmar |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87 |
|
|
Namibia |
X |
X |
X |
C. 87, 98 |
|
|
Nepal |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 100, 111 |
C. 98, 138 ratified |
|
Nigeria |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105 |
|
|
New Zealand |
|
|
|
C. 29, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Oman |
|
X |
|
None |
|
|
Uganda |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 105 |
|
|
Uzbekistan |
X |
X |
|
None |
|
|
Pakistan |
|
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 105, 111 |
|
|
Panama |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Papua New Guinea |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 105 |
|
|
Paraguay |
|
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Peru |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Philippines |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Portugal |
|
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Qatar |
|
|
|
C. 111 |
|
|
Romania |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
C. 105 ratification process initiated |
|
United Kingdom |
X |
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105 |
|
|
Russian Federation |
X |
X |
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
C. 105 ratification process initiated |
|
Rwanda |
X |
X |
|
C. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111, 138 |
C. 29 ratification process initiated |
|
Saint Kitts and Nevis |
X |
X |
|
Member of the ILO since 1996 |
|
|
Saint Lucia |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |
|
X |
|
Member of the ILO since 1995 |
C. 87, 98 ratification process initiated |
|
Sao Tome and Principe |
X |
X |
|
C. 87, 98, 100, 111 |
|
|
Senegal |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Seychelles |
|
X |
|
C. 28, 87, 105 |
|
|
Sierra Leone |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Singapore |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 105 |
|
|
Slovakia |
|
|
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111 |
C. 105, 138 ratified* |
|
Slovenia |
X |
|
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
C. 105 ratified |
|
Somalia |
|
|
|
C. 29, 105, 111 |
|
|
Sudan |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Sri Lanka |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 98, 100 |
C. 87 ratified
|
|
Switzerland |
X |
|
|
C. 29, 87, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 98 ratification process initiated |
|
Suriname |
|
X |
X |
C. 29, 87, 105 |
C. 98 ratified
|
|
Swaziland |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Syrian Arab Republic |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Tajikistan |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
|
|
Tanzania, United Rep. of |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 29, 98, 105 |
|
|
Chad |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Czech Rep. |
X |
|
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111 |
C. 105 ratified |
|
Thailand |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 105 |
|
|
Togo |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
C. 105 ratification process initiated |
|
Trinidad and Tobago |
X |
X |
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 105, 111 |
C. 100 ratified
|
|
Tunisia |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 138 ratified* |
|
Turkmenistan |
X |
X |
|
None |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 ratified |
|
Turkey |
|
|
IPEC |
C. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
C. 29, 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Ukraine |
X |
X |
X |
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
|
|
Uruguay |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111, 138 |
C. 29 ratified |
|
Viet Nam |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
None |
C. 100, 111 ratified |
|
Yemen |
X |
X |
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 |
|
|
Yugoslavia |
|
|
|
C. 29, 87, 98, 100, 111, 138 |
|
|
Congo, Dem. Rep. of the (former Zaire) |
|
X |
|
C. 29, 98, 100 |
C. 87, 105, 111, 138 ratification process initiated |
|
Zambia |
X |
X |
IPEC |
C. 29, 100, 105, 111, 138 |
C. 87, 98 ratified |
|
Zimbabwe |
X |
X |
IPEC, X |
C. 100 |
C. 98, 111 ratification process initiated |
|
* This country has now ratified all the core Conventions. | |||||
1. GB.268/8/2, paras. 56-75.
2. One of a number of examples is the assistance that was provided to Brazil (in the form of national tripartite technical meetings and training activities), in relation to the application of Convention No. 111.
3. The Office will submit to the 271st Session (March 1998) of the Governing Body, as it does every March, a document on the ratification prospects of fundamental Conventions as indicated by governments.
4. A number of countries to which the Director-General sent circular letters concerning the ratification prospect for the seven core Conventions have not responded to these communications (for further details, please refer to documents GB.268/LILS/7 and GB.268/LILS/7(Add.1)). Of the countries which have replied, not all have stated the obstacles to the ratification of some of the fundamental Conventions.
5. A case in point is Article 1 of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) which states that: "Each Member for which this Convention is in force undertakes to pursue a national policy designed to ensure the effective abolition of child labour ...", and Article 2 of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), which indicates that: "Each Member for which this Convention is in force undertakes to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote (...) equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation ...".
6. See GB.268/LILS/7(Add.1), para. 6.
7. Croatia has subsequently ratified Convention No. 105.
8. Slovakia has since ratified Convention No. 105.
9. The Regional Office for Europe responded positively to the request from the Government for financial assistance.
10. Since 1992, ACTRAV has collaborated in some 102 programmes implemented by IPEC.
11. See the attached table.
12. Pursuant to article 37, paragraph 1, of the ILO Constitution, the International Court of Justice is considered as being the only competent body to give authorized interpretations of international labour Conventions and Recommendations. For this reason, each time its advice is requested -- in relation to the meaning of specific provisions of an international labour Convention or Recommendation -- the ILO always states that it does not have special competence to interpret such instruments.
13. See the attached table.
14. In 1996-97, the Training Centre in Turin gave tripartite courses to persons from the following countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Colombia, Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Ghana, Guinea,Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Mali, Morocco, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.
15. See the attached table.
16. The following countries are not included in the table because they had already ratified the seven ILO core Conventions in May 1995 when the Director-General launched the campaign for the universal ratification of these instruments: Algeria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Italy, Malta, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Venezuela. This does not mean, however, that they have not received any technical assistance from the ILO, simply that the technical assistance provided by the Office has primarily focused on the effective application of the ratified Conventions.