A recent ICJ advisory confirms that the right to strike is protected under ILO Convention 87, but the opinion is narrow and advisory rather than a binding ruling. This page breaks down what that means for workers today, how it interacts with national laws, and practical steps you can take if you feel your strike rights are at risk. Below you'll find concise FAQs that answer common questions workers and advocates are asking right now.
The ICJ advisory confirms that the right to strike is protected under ILO Convention 87 as part of the freedom of association. While not a binding ruling, the opinion reinforces that striking remains a legitimate tool for workers to defend their interests and press for better terms within the framework of non-violent action and collective bargaining. Note: the advisory is limited in scope and does not set specific content or conditions for every country.
National laws vary. The ICJ advisory reinforces international norms but is non-binding. In many countries, constitutional or labor-law protections already shield the right to strike, while some jurisdictions impose limits (e.g., essential services, notice requirements). Employers and unions should review local statutes alongside the ICJ opinion to understand overlaps, gaps, and potential areas of reform or negotiation.
First, document any restrictions or disciplinary measures and seek legal counsel or union support. Notify employers transparently about planned actions in line with local laws. Engage in peaceful protest and ensure communications with management preserve safety. If rights are violated, file complaints with national labor boards or human rights bodies, and consider seeking advisory input from national labor unions or ILO mechanisms. Always prioritize non-violent, lawful action.
Sectors with essential services often face tighter legal constraints on strikes (healthcare, transportation, energy, public safety). However, the ICJ advisory applies broadly; practical enforcement depends on national laws and sector-specific regulations. Unions in these sectors typically negotiate specific frameworks for industrial action that balance worker rights with public-interest considerations.
The ICJ was asked by the ILO to clarify whether Convention 87 protects the right to strike. The advisory, while non-binding, clarifies that strikes fall within the scope of freedom of association. For the 158 ratifying countries, this guidance encourages alignment of national law with international norms, potentially influencing future legislation, court rulings, and labor policy debates.
The advisory is narrow and non-binding. It does not dictate exact content or the full breadth of the right to strike. It confirms protection under the convention but leaves room for national interpretation and legislative detail. Stakeholders should watch for national court decisions and policy changes that reflect this clarification.
The Trades Union Congress (Ghana) has hailed what it says is a landmark Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirming that the right to strike is protected under international labour law.