Theorizing Emancipatory Transnational Futures of International Labor Law

Abstract

The economic mandate of the “misnamed” International Labour Organization (ILO) has long been “othered” internationally. The ILO's 1944 constitutional annex, the Declaration of Philadelphia, confirms the ILO's “responsibility … to examine and consider all international economic and financial policies and measures in the light of th[e] fundamental objective” of lasting peace on the basis of social justice. After 1945, through decolonization, and prior to the emergence of a Washington consensus-based neoliberal globalization, the ILO enabled some states to mediate the “social” in economic regulation—that is, to adopt free trade economic liberalism promoted transnationally with social redistribution addressed domestically, also referred to as embedded liberalism. States established and harmonized international labor standards through multilateral processes steeped in an organizational tripartism that made workers’ and employers’ representatives ILO institutional actors alongside governments. At least in the global North, the ILO fostered a high degree of normative convergence nationally, regionally, and on shop floors. For the first Director-General, Albert Thomas, the ILO “taught the world to speak something like the same language on social questions.” Its approach has been nuanced, pragmatic, and transnational, taking leadership on issues like social protection that should also have been—but were not—the focus of other international economic institutions.

From Geneva to San José: The ILO standards and the Inter‐American System for the protection of human rights

“…Furthermore, this approach contributes to making universal the interpretation of provisions issued by the ILO; it creates a greater regulatory convergence at global, regional and national levels (Blackett, 2019) and it encourages actors to use a common language to address this type of social issue (Thomas, 1948). This dynamic is part of a growing trend among international judges to participate in exchanges and dialogue (Hansbury, 2016;Lixinski, 2017;Burgorgue-Larsen, 2009;Hennebel and van Waeyenberge, 2012).…”

De Genève à San José: les normes de l'OIT et le système interaméricain de protection des droits humains

“…En outre, cette approche contribue à universaliser l'interprétation des normes issues de l'OIT; elle permet une plus grande convergence normative au niveau mondial, régional et national (Blackett, 2019) et elle encourage les acteurs à employer un langage commun pour traiter ce type d'enjeux sociaux (Thomas, 1947). Cette dynamique s'inscrit dans la tendance grandissante des juges internationaux à échanger et dialoguer (Hansbury, 2016;Lixinski, 2017;Burgorgue-Larsen, 2009;Hennebel et van Waeyenberge, 2012).…”

The Rana Plaza disaster seven years on: Transnational experiments and perhaps a new treaty?

“…Second, would countries that fail to respect existing labour and other human rights instruments do better under a new instrument that calls for remediation in the event of their violation? The proposed treaty only skirts around the more fundamental predicament of transnational labour law, namely that globally generated problems are constantly pushed back down to be resolved at the national level (see Blackett, 2019;Pekdemir, Glasbergen and Cörvers, 2015). The draft treaty relies heavily on domestic legislation for implementation.…”