About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

5 Int'l Lab. Rts. Case L. 1 (2019)

handle is hein.journals/intlrcl5 and id is 1 raw text is: INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS CASE LAWJOURNAL INTERNATINAL s (219)1-2LA~WonRIGHTs BRILL 5 (2019) 1-2 CASE LAW NIJHOFF brill.com/ilarc Introduction by the Editorial Team ILaRC covers salient cases that deal with fundamental workers' rights. In 1998, the ILO adopted the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work in which it identified four areas of special concern and designated eight corresponding conventions as fundamental. These areas-child labor, forced labor, equal treatment, and freedom of association-provide the framework for the cases examined in this journal. The journal also examines a fifth cat- egory; cases related to occupational safety and health (OSH). Although OSH is not covered by the fundamental principles and rights at work, it is one of the key areas in which international labour standards are relevant. On January 22 this year, the Global Commission on the Future of Work, launched its semi- nal report Work for a Brighter Future in which it delineates a human-centred agenda for the future of work. The agenda proposes three pillars of action and under the second of these argues in favor of a universal labor guarantee. Un- der this proposal, the commission recommends the recognition of health and safety at work as a fundamental principle and right at work. This could very well become an element of a centenary declaration that may be adopted later this year by the International Labour Conference. Although the ILO's norma- tive framework often serves as the legal vantage point for protecting workers' rights, the ILO itself has no binding judicial mechanisms. Nevertheless, funda- mental labor standards are dealt with in a variety of judicial bodies at inter- national, regional, and domestic levels. Several of these institutions-dealing with labor standards-feature in this volume of ILaRC. Elena Sychenko of St. Petersburg State University covers the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision in Ognevenko v. Russia, in which Russian Railways driver Anatoly Ognevenko was dismissed on grounds of hav- ing participated in a prohibited strike. This is the first decision of the ECtHR that acknowledges that a general prohibition of strikes for railway personnel is incompatible with Article n1 of the European Convention: the right to free- dom of assembly and association. Skeptical of the practical implications of the judgment in the Russian Federation, Sychenko explains that it does contribute to improved coherence between the interpretations of United Nations and re- gional human rights bodies. Lucy Vickers of Oxford Brookes University explains in her commentary on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CjEU) decision in Egenberger v. © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 DOI:10.1163/24056901-00501001

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most