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

6 Int'l Lab. Rts. Case L. 1 (2020)

handle is hein.journals/intlrcl6 and id is 1 raw text is: INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS CASE LAW INTERNATIONAL R L6 2020) 1-2 LABO RIGHTS BRIL 6(2020CASE LAW N IJ H O F F brill.com/ilarc Introduction by the Editorial Team ILO standards are backed by a complex but acclaimed supervisory system in which different monitoring mechanisms can be invoked to exercise pressure on governments that violate conventions they have ratified under the regular and special procedures. The supervisory system of the ILO does not impose binding measures but aims to resolve conflicts using softer methods such as (social) dialogue, recommendations and requests, collaboration, and technical assistance. Three special complaint-based procedures can be invoked when standards are allegedly violated. In this introduction we focus on the regular supervisory system, which consists of periodic reporting obligations for states on measures they have taken to give effect to ratified Conventions under Article 22 of the ILO Constitution. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conven- tions and Recommendations (CEACR)-which comprises twenty eminent ju- rists that conduct a technical legal analysis-examines these reports; its find- ings are included in an annual report sent to the International Labour Conference (ILC). At the ILC in June, the report of the CEACR is examined by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAs). The CAS is a standing body of the ILC mandated to draw conclusions about a selection of observations from the CEACR report. The analysis and the list of cases the CAS reviews is more political than technical and highlights particularly worrisome situations. This edition of ILaRC features cases that have been examined by both the CEACR and the CAS. Professor Klara Boonstra of the Free University of Amsterdam examines a request to the Indian government by the CAS concerning the application of Convention No. 81. The request had to do with allegations that Indian labor inspectors were not allowed to enter designated export processing zones and that the resulting decentralization of power-to a so-called development commissioner-could conflict with certain provisions of Convention No. 81, such as Article 4, which requires a coherent and coordinated inspectorate sys- tem under a single central authority. According to Boonstra, the request of the CAS was not exceptional; it requested the Indian government to ensure that draft legislation is in compliance with the convention, that effective labor in- spections are conducted, that resources are increased, that collaboration is pro- moted, that registers are established, and that (data)information is collected © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2020 1 DOI:10.1163/24056901-00601001

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