"The International Labour Organization (ILO) has a well-oiled supervisory system for obligations under the Constitution and Conventions, but one of the tripartite partners is attempting to change the way the system has worked for over ninety years. This has implications beyond the ILO itself, and may compromise some aspects of settled human rights law. The Employers' Group in the ILO are claiming that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations is interpreting the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention in a way prohibited by the ILO Constitution, and the employers consequently blocked discussion of any cases of individual application of Conventions in the 2012 International Labour Conference. The employers are also claiming a right of the Conference to review and approve or disapprove the findings of the Committee of Experts, which has no basis in the mandates of the two committees. A temporary compromise has been found to allow work to go forward at the 2013 Conference, but this is short term. Behind all this lies a challenge by the employers to the content of the right to strike in international law, and an attempt to separate ILO supervision from the practice in the wider United Nations (UN) system. This article examines the claims of the Employers, finding them misplaced and exaggerated, and contrary to normal international supervisory practice in the ILO and the United Nations, and suggests ways forward."

Support: Paper