|
GB.274/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
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
1. Following the adoption of a Programme of Action referring to "basic workers' rights" by the Heads of State and Government meeting at the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen (March 1995) the Director-General took the initiative, in May 1995, to launch a campaign to promote fundamental ILO Conventions, the aim of which was the universal ratification of the Organization's seven Conventions considered to be fundamental -- i.e., Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138.(1) Since that date, at each March session of the Governing Body, the Director-General has presented a report on the progress 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. At the beginning of this year, the Director-General sent a fifth circular letter 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. It will be recalled that on 18 June 1998, the International Labour Conference adopted at its 86th Session the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up. This marked a decisive contribution to the objective set out in paragraph 54(b) of the Programme of Action adopted by the Copenhagen Summit which consists of "safeguarding and promoting respect for workers' basic rights" by requesting States parties to the corresponding ILO Conventions to implement them fully and, in the case of those countries that are not States parties, to take into account the principles embodied in these Conventions.
3. Part I of this document summarizes prospects for ratification based on replies received up until 19 February 1999 to the Director-General's fifth letter. Reference is also made to the position of countries that had not provided any information in reply to the last letter from the Director-General but that had indicated their position on previous occasions or at the International Labour Conference in June 1998. As in previous years, information received after 19 February 1999 will be communicated orally to the Committee during the examination of this document. Part II of the document deals with countries that have requested the assistance of the ILO or referred to it and Part III contains concluding remarks.
4. Since the 271st Session of the Governing Body (March 1998), 33 new ratifications of Conventions -- or confirmations of previous commitments -- have been registered, bringing to 116 the number of ratifications since the beginning of the campaign.(2) These 33 new ratifications are broken down as follows: Convention No. 29 was ratified by Oman, Turkey, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Zimbabwe; Convention No. 87 was ratified by Cape Verde, Chile and Indonesia; Convention No. 98 was ratified by Chile, Madagascar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Zimbabwe; Convention No. 100 was ratified by Thailand; Convention No. 105 was ratified by Bahrain, Chile, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Zimbabwe; Convention No. 111 was ratified by the Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka; and Convention No. 138 was ratified by Burkina Faso, Chile, Republic of Korea, United Arab Emirates, Guyana, Hungary, Jordan, Lithuania, Philippines, Portugal, United Republic of Tanzania and Turkey. As of 19 February 1999, replies had been received from 33 countries(3) of the 130 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 136 of the 153 countries that had not ratified all seven fundamental Conventions at the beginning. As a result of ratifications registered since March 1998, Burkina Faso, Chile, Guyana, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation and Turkey are now among the countries that have ratified all the fundamental Conventions.
5. It will be recalled that the objective of the Director-General's initiative launched in May 1995 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, 150 ratifications have been registered to date for Convention No. 29; 124 for Convention No. 87; 141 for Convention No. 98; 138 for Convention No. 100; 136 for Convention No. 105; 132 for Convention No. 111; and 72 for Convention No. 138.
6. To date, 120 of the Organization's 174 member States, that is, over two-thirds, have ratified between five and seven of the seven fundamental ILO Conventions; 45 countries(4) (compared with 23 at the beginning of the campaign) have ratified all seven Conventions; 52 countries(5) have ratified six; and 24 countries(6) have ratified five. By comparison, 15 countries have ratified only one(7) or two(8) fundamental Conventions and four countries have not ratified any (compared to six in 1998). With regard to the latter, it should be emphasized that all these are countries(9) that have only recently joined the ILO.
A. Forced and compulsory labour
1. Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
(a) Position of member States that replied to the Director-General's fifth circular letter
7. Since the 271st Session (March 1998) of the Governing Body, Oman, Turkey, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Zimbabwe have ratified the Convention, bringing the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention to 150.
8. Canada stated that the ratification of the Convention was being considered and requested the Office to provide clarifications on a number of provisions in the Convention submitted by the Government of the Province of Ontario. Gambia pointed out that the seven Conventions were in the process of being examined by the Department of Justice so that it might make comments before they were submitted to the Government and National Assembly. Latvia stated that it had completed its examination of conformity with its legislation and would soon be embarking upon the ratification procedure for Conventions Nos. 29 and 138. The Republic of Moldova mentioned that the ratification procedure for Conventions Nos. 29 and 100 was under way.
9. Malawi explained that economic difficulties had prevented the organization of tripartite consultations to decide whether or not the ratification of Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 105 and 138 was appropriate, and requested financial assistance from the ILO office in Harare (Zimbabwe).(10) Nepal pointed out that it was preparing to embark on the necessary tripartite consultations for the ratification of Conventions Nos. 29, 87 and 105 in order to be able to submit a proposal to the Parliament which would be set up after the general elections in June 1999.
10. Finally, China indicated that conditions were not yet right for the ratification of Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 98 and 105.
(b) Position of member States that did not reply to the Director-General's fifth circular letter
11. According to the most recent information received by the Office: Armenia stated that the Government intended submitting ratification of Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 98, 105 and 138 for approval to the National Assembly in the very near future; Mongolia (also concerning Conventions Nos. 105 and 138) and Rwanda pointed out that the ratification procedure was under way.
12. The Republic of Korea (also concerning Convention No. 105), Mozambique and Saint Kitts and Nevis (also concerning Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138) stated that the possibility of ratification was being examined.
13. Kazakhstan pointed out that ratification of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105 would be considered in 1998 by a tripartite commission. Namibia indicated that before deciding whether or not it was appropriate to ratify Conventions Nos. 29, 100, 105, 111 and 138 it would need to consult the social partners. Eritrea stated that the ratification of the seven Conventions would be examined after the adoption of a new Constitution.
14. The United States mentioned as an obstacle the fact that prison labour tended increasingly to be subcontracted out to private profit-making enterprises as well as to the public authorities; the Philippines mentioned that ratification of Convention No. 29 was not feasible because the legislation in force did not conform to certain provisions in the instrument in question; Sao Tome and Principe stated that the Government did not intend ratifying Conventions Nos. 29, 105 and 138 in the near future; and Viet Nam informed the Office that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 98, 105 and 138 would be examined when the time was right to do so, given that the country was undergoing a period of transition.
2. Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
15. Since March 1998, Bahrain, Chile, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Zimbabwe have ratified the Convention, bringing the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention to 136.
(a) Position of member States that replied to the Director-General's fifth circular letter
16. The positions of China, Gambia, Malawi and Nepal regarding possible ratification of this Convention are set out in the section on Convention No. 29.
17. Bulgaria informed the Director-General that the ratification of Convention No. 105 had been approved by the National Assembly and that the instrument of ratification would be communicated to the Office in the very near future. Togo informed the ILO that the President of the Republic had authorized the ratification of the Convention and that this authorization had appeared in the Official Gazette (thus joining the ranks of the increasing number of countries having ratified all seven fundamental Conventions). However, the Office has still not received the formal instrument of ratification of this Convention.
18. India stated that the ratification process of the Convention was under way since the governments of the states concerned had amended their legislation to bring it in line with the Convention and that the formalities should be complete before the 87th Session (June 1999) of the International Labour Conference.
19. Indonesia stated that ratification of Conventions Nos. 105, 111 and 138 was being actively examined and that it intended ratifying these Conventions over the next few months, as specified in a letter of intent signed by the President of the Republic on 23 December 1998. Madagascar pointed out that the group of experts on international labour standards was at present examining ways to remove the legal obstacles preventing adherence to principles of Convention No. 105.
20. Sri Lanka mentioned that the Attorney-General had submitted to the Government a list of laws and ordinances that had to be amended to conform with the provisions of Article 1 of Convention No. 105. Consequently, the Government felt that the Convention could not be ratified in the near future but pointed out that it would examine the possibility of overcoming these obstacles.
(b) Position of member States that did not reply to the Director-General's fifth circular letter
21. The positions of Armenia, Republic of Korea, Eritrea, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Namibia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sain -Kitts and Nevis and Viet Nam regarding possible future ratification of this Convention are set out in the section on Convention No. 29 (above).
22. According to the latest information available to the Office: Ethiopia stated that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 100 and 105 had been approved by the Parliament; Cambodia pointed out that the Cabinet had approved the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138, which should be submitted to Parliament as soon as possible; Congo confirmed that the Government was ready to submit a file on Conventions Nos. 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138 to Parliament for approval of the ratification; Lao People's Democratic Republic stated that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138 had been submitted to the Government by the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs.
23. Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Democratic Republic of the Congo (this applies also to Conventions Nos. 87, 111 and 138), Japan (concerning also Conventions Nos. 111 and 138), Oman (also concerning Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 100, 111 and 138), Qatar (also concerning Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 100 and 138) and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia stated that the ratification of Convention No. 105 was being considered. Lesotho confirmed that tripartite consultations on the ratification of Conventions Nos. 105 and 138 were under way. Ukraine pointed out that it was considering the ratification of Convention No. 105 once the reform of the relevant legislation had been completed.
24. Myanmar mentioned that Conventions Nos. 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138 would be examined with a view to ratification once the time was right to do so. Malaysia stated that the reasons for which it had denounced the ratification of Convention No. 105 were still valid and it did not envisage ratifying it for the time being. Singapore confirmed that it did not intend ratifying Convention No. 105 (which it denounced in 1979); neither did it intend ratifying Conventions Nos. 87, 100, 111 and 138.
25. 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's 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 was to allow an examination, outside the framework of the General Service that it also carried out under article 19 of the Constitution, of obstacles to the ratification of these fundamental instruments, the prospects for ratification and the difficulties posed by non-ratification.(11) This year, Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 on freedom of association and collective bargaining are the subject of a Special Survey.
26. Some 87 reports were requested on Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, pursuant to article 19 of the ILO Constitution. To date, the ILO has received 44 reports (25 for Convention No. 87 as opposed to 52 requests; and 19 for Convention No. 98, as opposed to 35 requests). Consequently, this document takes into account information regarding the prospects for the ratification of these two instruments as reflected in the 44 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 concerning the conclusions of the Special Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, members of the Committee should refer to the general part of the report of the Committee of Experts which will be submitted to the 87th Session (June 1999) of the International Labour Conference.(12)
1. Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right
to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
27. Since the publication of the previous report, Cape Verde, Chile and Indonesia have ratified this Convention, bringing to 124 the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention.
(a) Position of member States that replied to the Director-General's fifth circular letter
28. The positions of China, Gambia, Malawi and Nepal concerning prospects for the ratification of the Convention are set out in the section on Convention No. 29.
29. Angola pointed out that the Council of Ministers had approved the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 138 and that a proposal for ratification of both these instruments was at present before the National Assembly for approval. Iraq stated that the relevant legislation was in the process of being amended with a view to ratifying the Convention.
30. El Salvador stated that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 was being considered. The Solomon Islands indicated that Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 were being considered and that they had every chance of being ratified by the end of 1999.
31. The Republic of Korea pointed out that the ratification of Convention No. 87 was not possible in the medium term because its legislation did not comply with a number of provisions of the Convention. The United Arab Emirates recalled that the technical committee set up to examine the question of ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 111 had not recommended the ratification of these instruments because the legislation was not in accordance with the provisions of these Conventions. India stated that, although the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 could not be envisaged in the near future, it was in the process of trying to find ways to overcome the obstacles to the ratification of these instruments. Jordan confirmed the report of the ratification of Convention No. 87 whilst pointing out that the matter of deciding upon the appropriate time to ratify this instrument was periodically considered. Thailand mentioned that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 would only be examined once the relevant legislation had been amended.
32. Kenya explained that it was not in a position to ratify Conventions Nos. 87, 100 and 111 at the present time, because of its level of social and economic development and due to the fact that its legislation did not comply with certain provisions in these instruments. Nevertheless, it confirmed that it was committed to reviewing the matter once its legislation had been amended accordingly.
33. Finally, Guinea-Bissau informed the Office that the present authorities were not able to pronounce on prospects for the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 138, given that a new government had been appointed and could not take a decision on the matter until after it had taken up office.
(b) Position of member States that did not reply to the Director-General's fifth circular letter and
of those that submitted a report within the framework of the Special Survey on
freedom of association and collective bargaining
34. The positions of Armenia, Eritrea, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Viet Nam concerning possible future ratification of this Convention are set out in the section on Convention No. 29; the positions of Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Oman, Qatar and Singapore are contained in the section on Convention No. 105.
35. According to the latest information available to the ILO: Kazakhstan pointed out that a draft agreement reached between the Government and employers' associations provided for the ratification of Convention No. 87; Papua New Guinea stated that the National Executive Council had approved the ratification of Convention No. 87; Uzbekistan confirmed that the ratification procedure for Convention No. 87 was under way; and Zimbabwe stated that a proposal for the ratification of Convention No. 87 was at present before the Parliament.
36. Fiji indicated that Conventions Nos. 87, 100, 111 and 138 were to be submitted to the Labour Advisory Board for recommendation. Saudi Arabia informed the Office that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 was being examined by the Government. Georgia stated that the ratification of the Convention was being considered.
37. The Islamic Republic of Iran pointed out that before ratifying Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 138 it had to review its relevant legislation; it was for this reason that it had set up a working group of specialists to examine the matter. Lebanon confirmed that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 138 would be examined once its legislation had been brought in line with the provisions of these instruments. Morocco indicated that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 138 would be envisaged once the draft Labour Code had been adopted. Mauritius stated that before ratifying Conventions Nos. 87, 100 and 111 it would have to complete the reform of its legislation that it had embarked upon with ILO assistance. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines mentioned that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 100, 111 and 138 was being considered. Sudan pointed out that it was in the process of seeing to what extent its legislation was in line with the provisions of Convention No. 87.
38. Bahamas, Bahrain (also concerning Conventions Nos. 98 and 100), the United States (Convention No. 98 is also concerned) and Malaysia explained that their legislation was not in conformity with a number of provisions of the Conventions in question. New Zealand pointed out that it was not planning to ratify Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 138 because its relevant legislation was not in accordance with the provisions of these instruments. Uganda listed the major obstacles to the ratification of Conventions Nos. 87, 100, 111 and 138: the lack of material resources and trained staff; the general public's ignorance of the principles laid down in ILO fundamental Conventions; and problems of logistics and infrastructure.
2. Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
39. Since March 1998, Chile, Madagascar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Zimbabwe have ratified this Convention, bringing to 141 the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention.
(a) Position of member States that replied to the Director-General's fifth circular letter
40. The positions of China and Gambia with regard to the prospects of future ratification of the Convention are indicated in the section on Convention No. 29; those of El Salvador, United Arab Emirates, India and the Solomon Islands are spelled out in the section on Convention No. 87.
41. Switzerland pointed out that the Council of States (higher chamber) and the competent committee of the National Council (lower chamber) of the Parliament had approved the proposal of the Federal Council to ratify Conventions Nos. 98 and 138. It was now up to the plenary of the National Council to decide definitely the ratification of these instruments at its spring session (March 1999). Canada underlined the fact that its federal structure made it somewhat difficult to ratify Conventions Nos. 98 and 138 because not all the legislation in its provinces and territories was fully in conformity with the provisions of these instruments.
(b) Position of member States that did not reply to the Director-General's fifth circular letter and
of those that submitted a report within the framework of the Special Survey on
freedom of association and collective bargaining
42. The positions of Armenia, Eritrea, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Viet Nam regarding possible future ratification of this Convention are set out in the section on Convention No. 29; those of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United States, Islamic Republic of Iran and New Zealand in the section on Convention No. 87; and those of Cambodia, Congo, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Oman and Qatar in the section on Convention No. 105.
43. According to the latest information available to the ILO: Kazakhstan stated its intention of ratifying Convention No. 98; Mauritania informed the Office that draft legislation concerning the ratification of Conventions Nos. 98, 100 and 138 was before the Government; the Seychelles pointed out that the procedure for ratification of Conventions Nos. 98, 100, 105, 111 and 138 was under way; Kuwait explained that it was carrying out consultations with the social partners but that in any event, its legislation would have to be amended before envisaging ratification; Mexico confirmed that the ratification of the Convention was still being considered; finally, Brazil envisaged ratifying Conventions Nos. 98 and 138 after its Constitution had been amended.
1. Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
44. Since the Governing Body's 271st Session in March 1998, Thailand has ratified the Convention, bringing to 138 the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention.
(a) Position of member States that replied to the Director-General's fifth circular letter
45. The positions of Gambia and the Republic of Moldova on the prospects of ratifying the Convention are explained in the section on Convention No. 29; that of Kenya is mentioned in the section on Convention No. 87.
46. South Africa pointed out that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 100 and 138 had just been approved by the social partners and that a proposal along these lines would be submitted in the near future to Parliament. El Salvador pointed out that a proposal for ratification had been submitted to the President of the Republic for transmission to Parliament. The Solomon Islands confirmed that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 100 and 111 was being considered.
(b) Position of member States that did not reply to the Director-General's fifth circular letter
47. The positions of Eritrea, Namibia and Saint Kitts and Nevis on the prospects of ratification of this Convention are contained in the section on Convention No. 29; those of Fiji, Mauritius, Saint Vincent and Grenadines and Uganda in the section on Convention No. 87; those of Mauritania and the Seychelles in the section on Convention No. 98; those of Cambodia, Congo, Ethiopia, Japan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar and Singapore are reflected in the section on Convention No. 105.
48. According to the latest information available to the Office: Antigua and Barbuda informed the Office that the proposal of ratification of the Convention had been submitted to the competent authorities; Papua New Guinea confirmed that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 100, 111 and 138 had been approved by the social partners and that they were to be submitted to the Advisory Council and then to Parliament; the Bahamas pointed out that the body for tripartite consultation had been asked to convene and give its opinion as to whether or not it was appropriate to ratify Conventions Nos. 100, 111 and 138; Belize stated that the Government was in the process of examining whether its legislation was in conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 100, 111 and 138; Liberia mentioned that discussions were under way on whether or not it was appropriate to ratify Conventions Nos. 100 and 138; Pakistan stated that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 100 and 138 was being examined; and the United Republic of Tanzania pointed out that the ratification of Convention No. 100 could be envisaged in the near future.
49. The United States explained that the concept of equal remuneration for work of equal value contained in Convention No. 100 did not correspond to the American concept of equal remuneration for equivalent work. Finally, Suriname stated that it was not in a position to ratify Conventions Nos. 100 and 111.
2. Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Convention, 1958 (No. 111)
50. Since March 1998, the Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka have ratified the Convention, bringing to 132 the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention.
(a) Position of member States that replied to the Director-General's fifth letter
51. The position of Gambia is explained in the section on Convention No. 29; those of the United Arab Emirates and Kenya are contained in the section on Convention No. 87; that of the Solomon Islands is described in the section on Convention No. 100; and that of Indonesia is reflected in the section on Convention No. 105.
52. Ireland informed the Office that as the Government had approved the ratification of Convention No. 111, the formal instrument of ratification would be sent to it in the very near future. Estonia considered that before being able to ratify the Convention, the Parliament would first have to adopt legislation supplementing that at present in force; it was for this reason that the Government had requested experts to make it recommendations. The United Kingdom pointed out that it was examining closely the consequences of the possible ratification of Conventions Nos. 111 and 138.
(b) Position of member States that did not reply to the Director-General's fifth letter
53. The positions of Eritrea, Namibia and Saint Kitts and Nevis concerning prospects of ratification of this Convention are explained in the section on Convention No. 29; those of Fiji, Mauritius, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Uganda in the section on Convention No. 87; that of the Seychelles in the section on Convention No. 98; those of Bahamas, Belize, Papua New Guinea and Suriname in the section on Convention No. 100; those of Cambodia, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Oman and Singapore in the section on Convention No. 105.
54. According to the latest information available to the ILO: the United States pointed out that the proposal for ratification of Convention No. 111 was at present before the Senate for approval; Luxembourg mentioned that the procedure for parliamentary approval of the ratification of Convention No. 111 should be set in motion in the very near future; Zimbabwe indicated that the Government had approved the ratification of Convention No. 111 and that the proposal for ratification should be submitted in the near future to Parliament for approval.
55. Bahrain indicated that Conventions Nos. 111 and 138 had been submitted by the Council of Ministers to its legal service for examination; Kazakhstan confirmed that the ratification of the Convention was being considered; Grenada pointed out that the ratification of Conventions Nos. 111 and 138 would be examined after a new Labour Code had been adopted.
56. Malaysia considered that its policy of racial balance constituted a significant technical obstacle to the ratification of Convention No. 111; Nigeria mentioned that its Constitution was not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention in question; Thailand raised the problem that its law and practice was not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention; the United Republic of Tanzania stated that the ratification of Convention No. 111 was not foreseen for the time being.
1. Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
57. Since the Governing Body's 271st Session in March 1998, Burkina Faso, Chile, Republic of Korea, United Arab Emirates, Guyana, Hungary, Jordan, Lithuania, Portugal, Philippines, United Republic of Tanzania and Turkey have ratified the Convention, bringing to 72 the total number of registered ratifications of this Convention.
(a) Position of member States that replied to the Director-General's fifth letter
58. The positions of Gambia, Malawi and Latvia on the prospects of ratification of the Convention are described in the section on Convention No. 29; those of Angola and Guinea-Bissau are explained in the section on Convention No. 87; those of Canada and Switzerland are mentioned in the section on Convention No. 98; that of South Africa is contained in the section on Convention No. 100; that of Indonesia is explained in the section on Convention No. 105; and that of the United Kingdom is mentioned in the section on Convention No. 111.
59. Ireland, which ratified Convention No. 138 in 1978, mentioned that it was about to send the Office a new declaration raising the minimum age of employment from 15 to 16 years, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 2, of the instrument in question. Senegal informed the Director-General that the National Assembly had approved the bill authorizing the President of the Republic to ratify Convention No. 138 and that the instrument of ratification would be sent to him in the very near future.
60. Benin pointed out that the Government had submitted a proposal of ratification of Convention No. 138 to the National Assembly. China stated that as the legislative body had approved the ratification of the Convention, the formal instrument of ratification should arrive at the Office in the very near future. Colombia confirmed that a proposal to ratify the Convention was at present before the Congress of the Republic. Madagascar mentioned that the bill concerning authorization of the ratification of Convention No. 138 should be submitted at any time now to the National Assembly. The Republic of Moldova confirmed that as the social partners, the ministries and other competent institutions had given the green light, a bill for the ratification of the Convention had been submitted to the Government for approval.
61. The Central African Republic informed the Office that the file concerning ratification of the Convention was at present before the national committee of legal texts which was entrusted with making a preliminary examination of whether or not it was appropriate to ratify the instrument in question. Estonia explained that one of the preconditions for the ratification of the Convention was the adoption of a new law on labour contracts and that discussions were taking place on whether this new legislation should be contained in the Civil Code or in the Labour Code. Paraguay pointed out that the ratification of the Convention was being considered. Sri Lanka stated that it would examine the timeliness of ratifying this Convention after a national tripartite workshop which was scheduled for the end of February 1999 and organized with ILO assistance.
62. Austria informed the Office that a new law adopted in 1998 had removed most of the obstacles to ratification of Convention No. 138; although minor legislative adjustments still had to be made to the relevant legislation, the Minister of Labour had requested that the way should be paved for the ratification procedure. India informed the Director-General that it was planning to adopt federal legislation establishing a minimum age of admission to employment which would be no lower than 14 years. However, given the extent of the informal and unorganized sector in the country, the Government felt that the actual application of this proposal would take some time. It is for this reason that it was not envisaging ratifying the Convention until it was able to apply this provision in a satisfactory way. The Czech Republic mentioned that after examining its legislation, it realized that this legislation would have to be amended to envisage ratification over the next two years. Australia explained that it was unable to ratify Convention No. 138 because certain provisions in its legislation were not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention; it also expressed the hope that it would be able to ratify the Convention concerning the immediate elimination of the worst forms of child labour, due to be adopted by the International Labour Conference at its June 1999 session.
(b) Position of member States that did not reply to the Director-General's fifth circular letter
63. The positions of Armenia, Eritrea, Mongolia, Namibia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Viet Nam regarding the prospects for ratification of this Convention are explained in the section on Convention No. 29; those of Fiji, Islamic Republic of Iran, Lebanon, Morocco, New Zealand, Uganda and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in the section on Convention No. 87; those of Brazil, Mauritania and the Seychelles in the section on Convention No. 98; those of the Bahamas, Belize, Liberia, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea in the section on Convention No. 100; those of Cambodia, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Japan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar and Singapore in the section on Convention No. 105; those of Bahrain and Grenada in the section on Convention No. 111.
64. Burundi and Turkmenistan communicated the instrument of ratification of Convention No. 138 to the ILO but failed to enclose the declaration specifying the minimum age for admission to employment or work within their territory, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
65. According to the latest information available to the ILO: Barbados, Cameroon, Ghana, Panama and Suriname stated that the ratification procedure for the Convention was under way; Bangladesh, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, United States, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Jamaica, Uzbekistan, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Chad pointed out that the ratification of Convention No. 138 was being considered; and Yemen explained that as it had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, its legislation was already in accordance with the provisions of Convention No. 138 and that, consequently, the ratification of this instrument should not cause any problems.
66. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Nigeria and the Syrian Arab Republic confirmed that the ratification of the Convention would be examined after their relative legislation had been amended; Thailand pointed out that the ratification of Convention No. 138 should take place any time now, following the adoption of new legislation raising the minimum age for admission to employment to 15 years.
67. Iceland and Zimbabwe indicated that the social partners were in the process of examining whether or not it was appropriate to ratify the Convention.
68. Ecuador stated that it did not envisage ratifying the Convention although its legislation was in accordance with the provisions of the Convention; Mali and Mexico pointed out that they were not in a position to ratify the Convention, in view of the social and economic conditions prevailing in their respective countries.
II. References to ILO assistance
69. 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. As the Committee had been pleased with this report and had been asked to be kept regularly informed on the subject, the Director-General felt that it was appropriate to submit a new document on this subject at the November 1998 session. Since the publication of this document, the Office has obviously continued to respond to requests for technical assistance and to offer its services. Such technical assistance has taken various forms: legal assistance, missions, workshops/seminars, technical cooperation projects, provision of grants, translations, etc.(13)
70. The following countries referred to technical assistance in their replies to the Director-General's last circular letter: Indonesia described the many different(14) forms that the technical assistance provided by the Office had taken following the signing of a letter of intent between the Indonesian authorities and the ILO in 1998; Kenya referred to the seminars organized by the ILO, especially those concerning Convention No. 87, which enabled it to identify the obstacles to ratification of the Convention in its relevant legislation; Malawi pointed out that due to a lack of resources, it was unable to hold the necessary tripartite consultations to assess whether or not it was appropriate to ratify Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 105 and 138 and requested ILO assistance. The Office responded positively to this request and suggested the organization of a two-day tripartite seminar in March 1999. Sri Lanka referred to a national tripartite workshop on Convention No. 138, organized with ILO assistance.
71. While information on the prospects for the ratification of the fundamental Conventions has been received to date from the majority of member States, the following 17 countries (compared with 20 last year) have still not replied directly to the Director-General's various letters: Afghanistan, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Uzbekistan, Saint Lucia, Somalia, Swaziland,(15) Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan and Yemen. At the request of the Worker members of the Committee (as was the case for the previous reporting period), copies of the Director-General's last circular letter were sent to workers' and employers' organizations in the countries that had failed to reply to the Director-General's four previous circular letters and three of these countries (El Salvador, Gambia, Solomon Islands) for the first time informed the ILO of the position of their Governments regarding the prospects of ratifying all the fundamental Conventions.
72. It is proposed that a report should again be presented to the Governing Body at its 276th Session in November 1999 on technical assistance provided by the ILO to member States during the ratification campaign and, at its 277th Session in March 2000, that a report be presented on the progress made in ratifying the Conventions and on any new information received.
Geneva, 25 February 1999.
1. If the draft Convention concerning the immediate elimination of the worst forms of child labour is finally adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 87th Session (June 1999), this new Convention will most probably constitute one of the ILO Conventions considered fundamental.
2. See annex for the full list of ratifications registered since the start of the campaign.
3. Angola, Australia, Austria, Benin, Bulgaria, Canada, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Madagascar, Malawi, Nepal, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Senegal, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Togo, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom,
4. Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominica, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia.
5. Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Mali, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, 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. (In this case the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -- Serbia and Montenegro -- has still not been recognized in its capacity as ILO Member as being the continuation of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.)
6. Angola, Brazil, Comoros, Djibouti, Estonia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, South Africa, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, United Kingdom.
7. Cambodia, China, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Oman, Solomon Islands, United States.
8. Armenia, Bahrain, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Myanmar, Namibia, Qatar, Singapore, Viet Nam.
9. Eritrea (1993), Gambia (1995), Kazakhstan (1993), Saint Kitts and Nevis (1996).
10. In this connection, see para. 70 below.
11. Following the adoption of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, the Governing Body decided, at its 273rd Session (November 1998), to discontinue the cycle of special reports after the report on freedom of association. The Follow-up contains an annual review of efforts made by countries that have not ratified one or several Conventions concerning the four categories of principles and human rights, in accordance with the Declaration, which will commence in 1999.
12. See ILO: Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, International Labour Conference, 87th Session, Geneva, 1999, Report III (Part 1A), paras. 113-162.
13. For more details, see documents: GB.270/LILS/5 and GB.273/LILS/5.
14. Following the signing of a letter of intent on 23 December 1998 between the Indonesian Government and the ILO concerning the commitment of the Government in question to ratify rapidly all the fundamental ILO Conventions, the Office undertook to provide the necessary technical assistance for the ratification and implementation of these seven Conventions. This assistance is mainly provided by the multidisciplinary team in Manila (SEAPAT), the ILO office in Jakarta, the International Labour Standards Department and the Industrial Relations Department (for the revision of the relevant legislation) and consists mainly of providing explanations on the provisions of the various Conventions and attending meetings with government officials and other officials from different ministerial departments to reply to their questions and allay their fears on the implications for Indonesia of the ratification and application of these instruments. The letter of intent also provided for the setting up of a tripartite task force entrusted with following up the implementation of the agreement signed jointly by the ILO and the Indonesian Government. This task force has already met on a number of occasions together with ILO representatives and has decided, amongst other things, to promote the principles contained in these Conventions amongst the general public. It was therefore agreed to launch an awareness campaign -- not only in Jakarta but also throughout the country -- which would take the form of a series of workshops to be held throughout 1999. A training session of trainers was held from 4 to 5 February 1999 and should be followed by a first series of 14 workshops jointly organized by government representatives and the ILO.
15. It will be recalled that, at its March 1998 session, the representative of the Government of Swaziland, after having regretted that his country had never replied to the various circulars from the Director-General, explained that Swaziland was experiencing a difficult period and that the Government was drafting a new Act respecting industrial relations. He assured the Committee of his Government's intention to report on prospects for ratification of Convention No. 138 as soon as this new legislation had been adopted. See document GB.271/11/2, para. 31.
Ratifications or confirmations of previous commitments
since the start of the campaign for the ratification
of the fundamental Conventions
(May 1995-19 February 1999)
I. Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
South Africa
Botswana
El Salvador
Estonia
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Georgia
Oman
Uzbekistan
Qatar
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Turkmenistan
Turkey
Uruguay
Zimbabwe
II. Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
South Africa
Botswana
Cape Verde
Chile
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Indonesia
Republic of Moldova
Mozambique
Sri Lanka
Turkmenistan
Zambia
III. Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
South Africa
Botswana
Burundi
Chile
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Georgia
Madagascar
Republic of Moldova
Mozambique
Nepal
Uzbekistan
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Suriname
Turkmenistan
Zambia
Zimbabwe
IV. Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
Bangladesh
Botswana
Republic of Korea
Estonia
United Arab Emirates
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Georgia
Lesotho
Malaysia
Nepal
Uzbekistan
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan
Viet Nam
V. Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
South Africa
Albania
Bahrain
Belarus
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Chile
Croatia
United Arab Emirates
Estonia
Georgia
Kyrgyzstan
Mauritania
Uzbekistan
Romania
Russian Federation
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Slovakia
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Turkmenistan
Zimbabwe
VI. Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)
South Africa
Albania
Botswana
Republic of Korea
El Salvador
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Georgia
Lesotho
Republic of Moldova
Uzbekistan
Sri Lanka
Turkmenistan
Viet Nam
VII. Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
Albania
Argentina
Bolivia
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Chile
Cyprus
Republic of Korea
Denmark
United Arab Emirates
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Georgia
Guyana
Hungary
Jordan
Lithuania
Malaysia
Nepal
Philippines
Portugal
San Marino
Slovakia
United Republic of Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Re-issued as Appendix II to GB.274/10/2