|
GB.271/LILS/6
| ||
|
| ||
|
Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards |
LILS |
|
| |
SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Standard-setting policy: Ratification and promotion
of fundamental ILO Conventions
Contents
A. Forced and compulsory labour
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
II. References to ILO assistance
Ratifications since the start of the campaign for the ratification of the fundamental Conventions
Table of ratifications and information concerning the ILO's fundamental Conventions as at 12 February 1998
1. During the discussion on the Director-General's Report at the 81st Session of the International Labour Conference in June 1994, a consensus emerged in favour of more intensive promotion of the fundamental social rights. During that session, a resolution was adopted concerning the 75th anniversary of the ILO and its future orientation. In that resolution, the Conference, noting the particular importance of the fundamental ILO Conventions, requested the Director-General to present possible options with a view to reaffirming the Organization's fundamental principles and values. Following on from these discussions and in the light of the conclusions of the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen (March 1995), the Director-General sent a letter, dated 25 May 1995, to all member States that had not ratified all seven of these fundamental Conventions (Nos. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138) asking them to set out their position regarding future ratification of any instrument that had not yet been ratified. Since that date, at each March session of the Governing Body, the Director-General has presented a report on the progress that has been made in the ratification of the fundamental ILO Conventions during the previous year and on the future prospects for the ratification of these instruments, based on information communicated by the member States. In December 1997, the Director-General sent a new circular letter (the fourth) to governments of countries that had not ratified all the fundamental Conventions, asking them to explain their position with regard to these Conventions and in particular to indicate whether or not their position had changed since their previous communication and whether the information given in that communication was still valid.
2. This document in its first part summarizes the replies received up until 12 February 1998. It also takes into account any replies to the third letter received by the Office after 14 March 1997(1) (i.e. after the examination by the Governing Body at its 268th Session of the documents concerning the ratification and promotion of the fundamental ILO Conventions) in cases where the ILO has not received any reply from the countries in question to the Director-General's last circular letter. A certain number of countries have not provided any new information in reply to the last letter from the Director-General, but had indicated their position on previous occasions. Members of the Committee who wish to know the positions of these countries should refer to the relevant documents.(2) As in previous years, information received after 12 February 1998 will be communicated orally to the Committee during the examination of this document. Part II of this document deals with countries that have requested the assistance of the ILO or referred to it.
3. Since the 268th Session of the Governing Body in March 1997, 38 new ratifications (or confirmations of previous commitments by 18 States) have been registered, bringing to 80 the number of new ratifications since the beginning of the campaign.(3) These 38 new ratifications are broken down as follows: Uzbekistan confirmed its previous commitments with regard to Conventions Nos. 29, 98 and 111; Convention No. 29 was ratified by Botswana and Turkmenistan; Convention No. 105 was ratified by Botswana, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; Convention No. 87 was ratified by Botswana and Turkmenistan; Convention No. 98 was ratified by Botswana, Burundi and Turkmenistan; Convention No. 100 was ratified by Bangladesh, Botswana, Republic of Korea, Lesotho, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan and Viet Nam; Convention No. 111 was ratified by Botswana, Turkmenistan and Viet Nam; Convention No. 138 was ratified by Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Cyprus, Denmark, Malaysia, Nepal and Slovakia. As of 12 February 1998, replies had been received from 53 of the 142 countries to which the Director-General's last letter had been sent. Taking into account all the replies received since the beginning of the exercise, the Governing Body and the Office have received information from 128 of the 153 countries that had not ratified all seven fundamental Conventions. As a result of ratifications registered since March 1997, Argentina, Botswana, Cyprus, Denmark, Slovakia and Slovenia are now among the countries that have ratified all the fundamental Conventions.
4. It will be recalled that one of the objectives of the Director-General's initiative is to achieve universal ratification of the ILO's seven fundamental human rights Conventions. Of the 174 ratifications needed for each Convention to achieve this goal, 145 ratifications have been registered to date for Convention No. 29; 121 for Convention No. 87; 137 for Convention No. 98; 136 for Convention No. 100; 130 for Convention No. 105; 130 for Convention No. 111; and 59 for Convention No. 138.
5. To date, 117 of the Organization's 174 member States, that is, over two-thirds, have ratified at least five of the seven fundamental ILO Conventions. Thirty four countries(4) (compared with 23 at the beginning of the campaign) have ratified all seven Conventions; 58 countries(5) have ratified six; 25 countries(6) have ratified five. By comparison, 17 countries have ratified only one(7) or two(8) fundamental Conventions and six countries have not ratified any. With regard to the latter, it should be emphasized that all these are countries that have only recently joined the ILO.(9)
A. Forced and compulsory labour
6. In parallel with the campaign launched in May 1995 by the Director-General, the Governing Body decided at its 264th Session (November 1995), during the discussion on the question of reinforcing the ILO supervisory system, that the special procedure established under article 19 of the ILO Constitution for the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) should be extended to cover the six other ILO instruments relating to fundamental human rights. The purpose of this procedure is to allow an examination, outside the framework of the General Surveys that are also carried out under article 19 of the Constitution, of obstacles to the ratification of these fundamental instruments, the prospects for ratification and difficulties posed by non-ratification. At its November-December 1997 session, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations for the first time applied the Special Survey procedure to the forced labour Conventions.
7. Some 76 reports were requested on Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, pursuant to article 19 of the ILO Constitution. To date, the ILO has received 31 reports (13 for Convention No. 29, as opposed to 30 requests; and 18 for Convention No. 105, as opposed to 46 requests) and two of those reports (those of Cambodia and Togo) were received after the meeting of the Committee of Experts.(10) The present document takes into account information regarding the prospects for the ratification of these two instruments as reflected in the 31 reports and information communicated to the Director-General or the Office during the ratification campaign to the extent that the situation has not changed in the meantime. For more details regarding the conclusions of this Special Survey, members of the Committee should refer to the general part of the Report of the Committee of Experts which will be submitted to the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 1998.(11)
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
8. Since the 268th Session of the Governing Body in March 1997, Uzbekistan has confirmed its previous commitments with regard to this instrument. In addition, Botswana and Turkmenistan have ratified the Convention, bringing the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention to 145. Oman has indicated that it has ratified the Convention but the Office has not to date received the official instrument of ratification. The Director-General has been informed that the Parliament of Turkey on 23 January 1998 approved the ratification of Conventions Nos. 29 and 138, but the ILO has not yet received official confirmation of this from the Government.
9. Mongolia (which sees no obstacle to ratification of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 once the preparatory work has been completed) and Rwanda (which is awaiting approval from the competent authority) indicate that the preliminary work is well advanced and that they should be able to ratify as intended in the very near future. Zimbabwe states that the ratification procedure is under way and should soon be completed (this applies also to Convention No. 105).
10. The following countries stated that they were studying the possibility of ratification: Armenia, Ethiopia, Latvia (this applies also to Convention No. 138), Philippines, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Sao Tome and Principe.
11. Kazakhstan states that ratification of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 will be considered in 1998 by a national tripartite commission. The Government of Namibia indicates that, before deciding whether or not it is the appropriate time to ratify Convention No. 29 (and Conventions Nos. 100, 105, 111 and 138), it will need to consult the social partners. Saint Kitts and Nevis also states that tripartite consultations have been started with a view to examining the possibility of ratifying certain fundamental Conventions.
12. In its report as part of the Special Survey mentioned previously, Canada stated that it wanted to obtain more detailed information (which was provided) from the ILO on certain points relating to prison labour before starting the ratification process. Similarly, the United States indicated that the decision whether or not to ratify Convention No. 29 would depend largely on the replies given by the Committee of Experts to its questions regarding developments in prison labour in the United States and other countries. Prison labour in the United States is characterized by the fact that prisoners in public penal establishments are increasingly employed by private enterprises operating within the prisons and by the fact that the penal establishments themselves are increasingly run by private companies.(12)
13. The Republic of Korea requested the Office to examine the degree to which its legislation conformed to the provisions of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, to enable it to decide whether or not ratification was appropriate. A national tripartite seminar organized with the assistance and participation of the ILO is due to take place in Seoul in the near future and will be examining, among other things, the prospects for the ratification of these two instruments and also of Conventions Nos. 111 and 138.
14. China explains that, although its national legislation and practice are in conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, it will ratify these instruments at what it considers to be the appropriate time in the light of its national priorities. The Government of Viet Nam states that it will ratify Convention No. 29 (and Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 105 and 138) when it considers the time is right to do so, emphasizing that the country only recently (1992) joined the Organization and that its economy is going through a difficult period of transition.
15. The Republic of Moldova considers that ratification of Convention No. 29 serves no purpose, since article 44 of the ILO Constitution expressly prohibits forced labour and the country has already ratified the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105). In this connection, it will be recalled that, as the Committee of Experts has observed on several occasions, the two Conventions are complementary; ratification of one is no substitute for ratification of the other, since the two instruments address different areas and priorities. Convention No. 29 establishes a general prohibition of forced and compulsory labour (only very few exceptions being permitted), while Convention No. 105, a more recent instrument, reinforces the machinery set up to prohibit forced or compulsory labour in certain particular cases. Mozambique indicates that the conditions required for ratification of the Convention have not yet been met, but that it is working actively to achieve this.
Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
16. Since March 1997, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have ratified the Convention, bringing the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention to 130.
17. The positions of China, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe regarding possible future ratification of this Convention are set out in the section on Convention No. 29 (above).
18. Azerbaijan states that the Ministry of Labour is in the process of preparing the recommendation which the Government will make to the National Assembly so that the latter can judge whether this is the right time to ratify the Convention. Chile (where Parliament has also had a proposal submitted to it for the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 138), Kyrgyzstan, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Romania and Togo have indicated that the ratification procedure is under way and should soon be complete.
19. The Governments of Armenia, Bahrain (where Convention No. 105, as well as Conventions Nos. 111 and 138, were submitted to the Council of Ministers which duly submitted the Conventions to the competent legal authorities with a view to determining how far these instruments are in conformity with national legislation and practice), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Japan (Conventions Nos. 105, 111 and 138 are also concerned), Myanmar (this applies also to Conventions Nos. 98, 100, 111 and 138), Nepal, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sri Lanka and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia indicate that ratification of the Convention is being considered. The Russian Federation indicates that, although the replies given by the Office did not entirely clarify the situation with regard to the conformity of the Russian Penal Code with the provisions of Convention No. 105, the question of ratification of the Convention is still being studied. The ILO again contacted the Russian Federation to determine what additional information was required. In the meantime, the Office was informed that, on 13 February 1998, the Duma approved ratification of Convention No. 105.
20. Ukraine states that it intends to bring its legislation into conformity with the new Constitution and the provisions of the Convention before taking the steps needed for ratification of the instrument.
21. Finally, Malaysia and Singapore (both of which ratified and subsequently denounced the Convention) indicated that they did not intend ratifying Convention No. 105. Singapore stated that the Committee of Experts should understand the need to combat subversion and to preserve racial harmony and security. Malaysia confirmed that the profound differences between its position and that of the ILO, which had prompted it to denounce the Convention several years ago, still existed.(13)
Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
22. Since the publication of the previous report, Botswana and Turkmenistan have ratified this Convention, bringing to 121 the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention.
23. The positions of Saint Kitts and Nevis and Viet Nam with regard to the prospects of future ratification of the Convention are indicated in the section on Convention No. 29. That of Chile is explained in the section on Convention No. 105.
24. Angola states that Parliament will shortly have before it a proposal for ratification of Convention No. 87 (and Convention No. 138). Bahrain states that the Ministry of Labour is in the process of examining Convention No. 87 (and Conventions Nos. 98 and 100) with a view to drafting a recommendation for submission to the Council of Ministers. The Government of Brazil indicates that once the current negotiations with the social partners (part of the process of reforming the Brazilian industrial relations system) are finished, it intends to submit a draft constitutional amendment to Parliament with the purpose of bringing current practice into conformity with the terms of the Convention. China indicates that Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 111 are being examined. Fiji indicates that Conventions Nos. 87, 100, 111 and 138 will be submitted to the Labour Advisory Board during the course of the year for the purpose of discussion and drafting a recommendation to the Ministry of Labour. Kazakhstan indicates that, since the social partners have approved the proposal for ratification of the Convention, the ratification process will begin. Papua New Guinea states that the National Tripartite Advisory Council has recommended ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 100, 111 and 138 and these instruments are being examined by the competent authorities with a view to submitting them to Parliament.
25. The United Arab Emirates recall that the technical committee set up to examine the question of ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 111 did not recommend ratification of these instruments. Georgia indicates that no ratification procedure is currently under way with regard to Convention No. 87. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that, since the Islamic Revolution, the country has been engaged in a re-examination of all the legislation, including labour legislation, and that this process takes time. The Government's position on the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 138 will be known once the fundamental principles of those instruments have been examined by the competent bodies. Jordan confirms that ratification of the Convention is still pending. Kenya and Mauritius state that they are in the process of revising all their labour legislation and that only once this process is completed will they be in a position to formulate an opinion on the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 100 and 111. New Zealand states that it does not intend ratifying Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 138 since it is unable to ensure full implementation.
Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention,
1949 (No. 98)
26. Since March 1997, Uzbekistan has confirmed its previous commitments with regard to this instrument. In addition, Botswana, Burundi and Turkmenistan ratified the Convention, bringing to 137 the total number of registered ratifications of this instrument.
27. The positions of Saint Kitts and Nevis and Viet Nam regarding the prospects for the ratification of the Convention are explained in the section on Convention No. 29; those of Chile and Myanmar in the section on Convention No. 105; those of Bahrain, China, Islamic Republic of Iran, New Zealand and United Arab Emirates in the section on Convention No. 87.
28. Switzerland indicates that the document with a view to ratification is in the final stage of drafting by the federal authorities and should be transmitted during the first half of 1998 to the Federal Council,which will then take the political decision whether or not to propose that Parliament approve the Convention.
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
29. Since the Governing Body's 268th Session in March 1997, Uzbekistan has confirmed its previous commitments with regard to this instrument. In addition, Bangladesh, Botswana, the Republic of Korea, Lesotho, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan and Viet Nam have ratified the Convention, bringing to 136 the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention.
30. The position of Saint Kitts and Nevis regarding the prospects of ratifying the Convention is explained in the section on Convention No. 29; that of Myanmar in the section on Convention No. 105; the positions of Bahrain, Fiji, Kenya, Mauritius and Papua New Guinea in the section on Convention No. 87.
31. The Bahamas indicate that the provisions of Conventions Nos. 100, 111 and 138 will be incorporated in a draft law on minimum labour standards. Belize states that a survey must be conducted with a view to determining how far national legislation and practice comply with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 100 and 111. Kazakhstan states that the Convention is being studied by the competent ministry. The Government of Pakistan states that it is actively studying the possibility of ratifying Conventions Nos. 100 and 138. The Republic of Moldova indicates that preparatory work is being done on Conventions Nos. 100 and 138 with a view to submitting these instruments to Parliament during 1998.
32. Finally, Suriname indicates that it is unable to ratify Conventions Nos. 100 and 111.
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention,
1958 (No. 111)
33. Since March 1997, Uzbekistan has confirmed its previous commitments with regard to this instrument. In addition, Botswana, Lesotho, Turkmenistan and Viet Nam have ratified the Convention, bringing to 130 the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention.
34. The positions of the Republic of Korea and Saint Kitts and Nevis are explained in the section on Convention No. 29; those of Bahrain and Myanmar in the section on Convention No. 105; those of China, Fiji, Kenya, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea and United Arab Emirates are explained in the section on Convention No. 87; those of the Bahamas, Belize and Suriname are set out in the section on Convention No. 100.
35. Estonia (which states that the competent tripartite body has recommended ratification of the Convention) and Luxembourg indicate that the ratification procedure is under way but has been delayed by a number of factors.
36. The United Kingdom indicates that Conventions Nos. 111 and 138 are being studied with a view to determining the likely consequences of ratification, and that the conclusions of the study should become available during 1998.
37. Sri Lanka states that, following the national workshop on Convention No. 111 organized with the aid and participation of the ILO, the proposal for ratification was submitted to the Labour Advisory Board before being presented to the Council of Ministers for approval. Once the proposal is approved, the ratification procedure can be formally started.
Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
38. Since the Governing Body's 268th Session in March 1997, Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Cyprus, Denmark, Malaysia, Nepal and Slovakia have ratified the Convention, bringing to 59 the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention. The United Arab Emirates indicate that they will be transmitting to the ILO the declaration specifying the minimum age for admission to employment or work in the very near future.(14)
39. The positions of the Republic of Korea, Latvia, Namibia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Turkey and Viet Nam regarding the prospects for the ratification of the Convention are explained in the section on Convention No. 29; those of Bahrain, Chile, Japan and Myanmar in the section on Convention No. 105; those of Angola, Fiji, Islamic Republic of Iran, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea in the section on Convention No. 87; those of the Bahamas, the Republic of Moldova and Pakistan are given in the section on Convention No. 100; that of the United Kingdom is given in the section on Convention No. 111.
40. Belize indicates that, following a national seminar on the question of child labour, a decision has been taken to conduct research into the situation with regard to child labour in the country with a view to defining the appropriate approach. Côte d'Ivoire states that the proposal to ratify the Convention is being examined. The Government of Mali, which last year had referred to cultural obstacles and difficulties related to underdevelopment, states that it is in the process of developing a national policy for the eradication in the long term of the most intolerable forms of child labour and that it therefore now plans to ratify the Convention. China states that, following an in-depth examination of the provisions of the Convention and of national legislation and practice, the formal ratification procedures have been initiated.
41. A certain number of countries indicate that their parliament has had or will have presented to it a proposal for ratifying the Convention. Brazil states that a parliamentary commission will be set up in the near future to examine a draft constitutional amendment concerning the prohibition of child labour; Colombia states that a Bill with a view to ratifying the Convention is currently being considered by Parliament; the Dominican Republic indicates that the Government intends to include the question of ratification of the Convention on the agenda of the next session of Parliament (February 1998); Estonia indicates that the Convention will be submitted to Parliament for ratification once a Bill on employment contracts has been approved; Hungary states that the Government has prepared a proposal for ratification which should be submitted to Parliament once national legislation has been brought into conformity with the Convention; Portugal indicates that the Government has presented a draft resolution approving ratification of the Convention to Parliament (the resolution in question has already been the subject of a report and an opinion by the Foreign Affairs Committee), and that it expects the resolution to be included on the agenda; Senegal confirms its willingness to ratify the Convention and gives its assurance that the procedure is taking its course; Suriname states that steps have been taken to start the ratification procedure; finally, Chad indicates that the Convention will be submitted once again to the competent authority with a view to ratification.
42. Switzerland states that the document with a view to ratification is in the final phase of drafting by the federal authorities and should be transmitted to the Federal Council (after consultations with all interested parties, including the cantons, workers' and employers' organizations, etc.). The Federal Council will then take the political decision whether or not to propose that Parliament should approve the Convention.
43. The Government of Australia refers to technical obstacles to ratification,(15) but gives its assurance that in general terms the country complies with the spirit of the Convention. Austria indicates that, despite the incorporation in its domestic legal system of the European Directive on the minimum age for admission to employment, certain provisions of national legislation do not comply with the Convention. Ecuador indicates that, although existing legislation complies with the Convention, the level of poverty in the country is such that many children are obliged to work in order to support themselves and their families. The Government therefore created in November 1997 a national committee for the progressive elimination of child labour. Panama confirms that ratification will be envisaged only once the Constitution has been amended to bring it into conformity with this instrument. Peru recalls its position -- i.e. that economic and social conditions in the country do not allow ratification for the time being. Sri Lanka indicates that it has not yet taken the necessary steps to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.
II. References to ILO assistance
44. It will be recalled that in March 1997, when the document on the prospects for the ratification of the fundamental Conventions was examined, certain members of the Committee asked the ILO to enhance the technical assistance provided for the promotion and ratification of these Conventions. The Director-General then decided to present, at the following Governing Body session (November 1997), a document on the technical assistance provided by the ILO to member States for the promotion and ratification of the fundamental Conventions since the beginning of the campaign. Since the publication of that document,(16) the Office has obviously continued to respond to requests for technical assistance and to offer its services. Such technical assistance has taken different forms: legal assistance (Botswana, Cambodia, Republic of Korea, Thailand); missions (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Chad, Republic of Korea, Mauritania, Rwanda); meetings (Cambodia, Republic of Korea, El Salvador, Nepal, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda); technical cooperation projects under the auspices of the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) (Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, Yemen and on the West Bank and Gaza Strip); provision of grants (El Salvador); translations; etc.
45. The following countries referred to technical assistance in their replies to the Director-General's last circular letter: the Republic of Korea emphasizes that it made use of the ILO's legal expertise to examine how far its own legislation is in conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 29, 105, 111 and 138; Kenya recalls that the ILO agreed to send a mission to the country to determine the practical assistance that might be provided for the revision of labour legislation; Latvia indicates that it will not hesitate to inform the ILO as soon as technical assistance is felt to be needed; Mali refers to the positive contribution of IPEC to the establishment of a national policy for eradicating the most intolerable forms of child labour, and indicates that, as a result of this assistance, it can now envisage the possibility of ratifying Convention No. 138; Mauritius emphasizes that the technical assistance provided by the ILO has helped to identify obstacles to the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 100 and 111 and subsequently to undertake an overall re-examination of the relevant legislation; Senegal refers to the significant advance in the procedure for ratifying Convention No. 138 thanks to the technical assistance provided by the Dakar multidisciplinary team; Sri Lanka states that, following a national workshop on Convention No. 111 (September 1997), which was organized with ILO support, the competent authorities have been asked to examine the possibility of ratifying this Convention; Ukraine refers to technical assistance provided by the ILO in drafting its new Labour Code, which, once adopted, should permit ratification of Convention No. 105.
III. Concluding remarks
46. While information on the prospects for the ratification of the fundamental Conventions have been received to date from the majority of member States, the following 24 countries (as opposed to 33 last year) have still not replied directly to the Director-General's various letters: Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Haiti, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liberia, Malawi, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Yugoslavia. However, although they have never replied to the Director-General's circular letters since the start of the campaign, four of these countries have accepted the obligations which derive from ratification of some of these Conventions. The countries in question are: El Salvador (Conventions Nos. 29, 111 and 138); Uzbekistan (Conventions Nos. 29, 98, 100, 105 and 111); Trinidad and Tobago (Convention No. 100); Turkmenistan (Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 98, 100 and 111).
47. At the request of the Worker members of the Committee, copies of the last circular letter were sent to workers' and employers' organizations in the 33 countries that had not replied to the Director-General's three previous circular letters and five of these countries (Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chad, Kenya and Papua New Guinea) for the first time informed the ILO of the position of their Governments regarding the prospects of ratifying all the fundamental Conventions. The replies of three other countries (Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru), which are in fact replies to the third (not to the fourth) circular letter, reached the Office after the March 1997 session.
48. It is proposed that a report should again be presented to the Governing Body at its 274th Session in March 1999 on the progress made in ratifying the Conventions and on any new information received, and, at its 273rd Session in November 1998, on technical assistance provided by the ILO to member States during the ratification campaign. In this respect, it will be noted that the 12th Asian Regional Meeting (December 1997) in its conclusions called for the continuation of the ratification campaign and urged governments, as well as employers' and workers' organizations, to actively consider possible ways for ratifying all these instruments.
Geneva, 19 February 1998.
Ratifications since the start of the campaign for the
ratification of the fundamental Conventions
(25 May 1995-12 February 1998)
I. Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
Botswana
El Salvador
Estonia
Georgia
South Africa
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkmenistan
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
II. Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
Botswana
Republic of Moldova
Mozambique
South Africa
Sri Lanka
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkmenistan
Zambia
III. Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
Botswana
Burundi
Georgia
Republic of Moldova
Mozambique
Nepal
South Africa
Suriname
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Zambia
IV. Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
Bangladesh
Botswana
Estonia
Georgia
Republic of Korea
Lesotho
Malaysia
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
V. Abolition of Forced Labour Convention,
1957 (No. 105)
Albania
Belarus
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Croatia
Czech Republic
Estonia
Georgia
Mauritania
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
VI. Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Convention, 1958 (No. 111)
Albania
Botswana
El Salvador
Georgia
Lesotho
Republic of Moldova
South Africa
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
VII. Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
Argentina
Bolivia
Botswana
Cyprus
Denmark
Georgia
Malaysia
Nepal
San Marino
Slovakia
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Tunisia
Table of ratifications and information concerning
the ILO's fundamental Conventions
as at 12 February 1998
No. 29 -- Forced Labour Convention, 1930
No. 87 -- Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948
No. 98 -- The 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
Explanation of symbols in the table
X Convention ratified.
¤ Formal ratification process already initiated or shortly to be initiated, or communication to the Director-General of an incomplete instrument of ratification or none at all (concerns chiefly Convention No. 138) or non-original copy.
O Steps taken with a view to ratification, without indication of expected date.
* Other (e.g. divergencies between the Convention and national legislation; Convention currently being "studied" or "examined"; ratification considered "unnecessary"; ratification to be examined after adoption of a Constitution, a Labour Code, legislation, etc.; discrepancy between the ILO's information and that given by the Government; preliminary consultation with the social partners).
-- No reply or a reply containing no relevant information.
|
| |||||||
|
Member States |
Forced labour |
Freedom of association |
Equal treatment |
Minimum age | |||
|
|
| ||||||
|
C. 29 |
C. 105 |
C. 87 |
C. 98 |
C. 100 |
C. 111 |
C. 138 | |
|
| |||||||
|
Afghanistan |
-- |
X |
-- |
-- |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Albania |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Algeria |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Angola |
X |
X |
O |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Antigua and Barbuda |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
X |
X |
|
Argentina |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Armenia |
* |
* |
* |
* |
X |
X |
* |
|
Australia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Austria |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Azerbaijan |
X |
O |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Bahamas |
X |
X |
¤ |
X |
O |
O |
O |
|
Bahrain |
X |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Bangladesh |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Barbados |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Belarus |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Belgium |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Belize |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
O |
* |
|
Benin |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Bolivia |
-- |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Botswana |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Brazil |
X |
X |
O |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Bulgaria |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Burkina Faso |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Burundi |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Cambodia |
X |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
|
Cameroon |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Canada |
* |
X |
X |
* |
X |
X |
* |
|
Cape Verde |
X |
X |
O |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Central African Republic |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Chad |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Chile |
X |
¤ |
¤ |
¤ |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
China |
* |
* |
* |
* |
X |
* |
O |
|
Colombia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Comoros |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
-- |
|
Congo |
X |
-- |
X |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Costa Rica |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Côte d'Ivoire |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Croatia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Cuba |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Cyprus |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Czech Republic |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
X |
¤ |
¤ |
X |
X |
¤ |
¤ |
|
Denmark |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Djibouti |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
-- |
|
Dominica |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Dominican Republic |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Ecuador |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Ecuatorial Guinea |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
X |
-- |
X |
|
Egypt |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
El Salvador |
X |
X |
-- |
-- |
-- |
X |
X |
|
Eritrea |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Estonia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
¤ |
|
Ethiopia |
* |
* |
X |
X |
* |
X |
* |
|
Fiji |
X |
X |
O |
X |
O |
O |
O |
|
Finland |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
France |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Gabon |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Gambia |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Georgia |
X |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Germany |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Ghana |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Greece |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Grenada |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
* |
|
Guatemala |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Guinea |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
|
Guinea-Bissau |
X |
X |
¤ |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Guyana |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Haiti |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
|
Honduras |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Hungary |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Iceland |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
India |
X |
O |
* |
* |
X |
X |
* |
|
Indonesia |
X |
* |
* |
X |
X |
* |
O |
|
Iran, Islamic Republic of |
X |
X |
* |
* |
X |
X |
* |
|
Iraq |
X |
X |
O |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Ireland |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
X |
|
Israel |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Italy |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Jamaica |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Japan |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
* |
* |
|
Jordan |
X |
X |
O |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Kazakstan |
O |
O |
O |
O |
-- |
* |
-- |
|
Kenya |
X |
X |
* |
X |
* |
* |
X |
|
Korea, Republic of |
* |
* |
* |
* |
X |
* |
* |
|
Kuwait |
X |
X |
X |
* |
* |
X |
* |
|
Kyrgyzstan |
X |
¤ |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Lao People's Democratic Republic |
X |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O |
|
Latvia |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Lebanon |
X |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Lesotho |
X |
-- |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
|
Liberia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
X |
-- |
|
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya |
X |
X |
-- |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Lithuania |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Luxembourg |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
X |
|
Madagascar |
X |
* |
X |
¤ |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Malawi |
* |
* |
* |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Malaysia |
X |
* |
-- |
X |
X |
* |
X |
|
Mali |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Malta |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Mauritania |
X |
X |
X |
O |
O |
X |
O |
|
Mauritius |
X |
X |
* |
X |
* |
* |
X |
|
Mexico |
X |
X |
X |
* |
X |
X |
* |
|
Moldova, Republic of |
* |
X |
X |
X |
O |
X |
O |
|
Mongolia |
O |
O |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Morocco |
X |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Mozambique |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Myanmar |
X |
* |
X |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Namibia |
* |
* |
X |
X |
* |
* |
* |
|
Nepal |
* |
* |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Netherlands |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
New Zealand |
X |
X |
* |
* |
X |
X |
* |
|
Nicaragua |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Niger |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Nigeria |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
¤ |
|
Norway |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Oman |
¤ |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Pakistan |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
X |
* |
|
Panama |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Papua New Guinea |
X |
X |
* |
X |
* |
* |
* |
|
Paraguay |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Peru |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Philippines |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Poland |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Portugal |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Qatar |
X |
* |
* |
* |
* |
X |
* |
|
Romania |
X |
¤ |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Russian Federation |
X |
O |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Rwanda |
O |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Saint Lucia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
|
Saint Kitts and Nevis |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
San Marino |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Sao Tome and Principe |
* |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Saudi Arabia |
X |
X |
* |
* |
X |
X |
* |
|
Senegal |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Seychelles |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
O |
O |
O |
|
Sierra Leone |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
|
Singapore |
X |
* |
* |
X |
* |
* |
* |
|
Slovakia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Slovenia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Solomon Islands |
X |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Somalia |
X |
X |
-- |
-- |
-- |
X |
-- |
|
South Africa |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
X |
O |
|
Spain |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Sri Lanka |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
O |
* |
|
Sudan |
X |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Suriname |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
* |
O |
|
Swaziland |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
|
Sweden |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Switzerland |
X |
X |
X |
O |
X |
X |
O |
|
Syrian Arab Republic |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Tajikistan |
X |
-- |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Tanzania, United Republic of |
X |
X |
* |
X |
* |
* |
¤ |
|
Thailand |
X |
X |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Togo |
X |
O |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Trinidad and Tobago |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
|
Tunisia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Turkey |
¤ |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Turkmenistan |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
¤ |
|
Uganda |
X |
X |
* |
X |
O |
O |
O |
|
Ukraine |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
United Kingdom |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
* |
* |
|
United Arab Emirates |
X |
X |
* |
* |
X |
* |
¤ |
|
United States |
* |
X |
* |
* |
* |
O |
* |
|
Uruguay |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Uzbekistan |
X |
X |
* |
X |
X |
X |
* |
|
Venezuela |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Viet Nam |
* |
* |
* |
* |
X |
X |
O |
|
Yemen |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
-- |
|
Yugoslavia* |
X |
-- |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Zambia |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Zimbabwe |
O |
O |
O |
O |
X |
O |
O |
|
| |||||||
* This concerns the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since, pursuant to decisions taken by the Governing Body in line with the respective United Nations resolutions, no State is recognized as the continuation of this Member.
1. The countries that replied to the Director-General's third circular letter after the 268th Session of the Governing Body are: Angola, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Guyana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Morocco, Oman, Paraguay, Peru, Slovakia, Togo.
2. Documents GB.264/LILS/5, GB.264/LILS/5(Add.) and GB.264/9/2 (paras. 17-57); GB.265/LILS/6 and GB.265/8/2 (paras. 25-45); GB.268/LILS/7, GB.268/LILS/7(Add.1) and GB.268/8/2 (paras. 18-55).
3. See annex for the full list of ratifications registered since the start of the campaign.
4. Algeria, Argentina, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominica, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Poland, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia.
5. Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Yemen, Yugoslavia.
6. Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Estonia, Granada, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Lesotho, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Africa, Sudan, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.
7. Bahrain, Cambodia, China, Republic of Korea, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Qatar, Solomon Islands, United States, Zimbabwe.
8. Armenia, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Myanmar, Namibia, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam.
9. Eritrea (1993), Gambia (1995), Kazakhstan (1993), Oman (1994), Saint Kitts and Nevis (1996), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1995).
10. The following countries have not sent the reports requested: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Oman, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
11. Report III (Part 1A), paras. 94-125.
12. In this connection, see paras. 112 to 125 of the Report of the Committee of Experts at the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference.
13. See para. 110 of the general part of the Report of the Committee of Experts (Report III, Part 1A, 86th Session of the International Labour Conference, 1998).
14. Apart from the United Arab Emirates, the following countries have communicated to the Office the instrument of ratification of Convention No. 138 (in some cases this was done several years ago), but have not yet sent the associated declaration specifying the minimum age for admission to employment or work within their territories, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention: Afghanistan, Albania, Burkina Faso, Jordan, Lithuania, Philippines, Sao Tome and Principe, United Republic of Tanzania, Turkmenistan. The ILO periodically draws the attention of the Governments concerned to this problem through its multidisciplinary teams.
15. See GB.264/LILS/5, para. 40.
16. Document GB.270/LILS/5.