CIVICUS discusses a recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on the right to strike with Luc Triangle, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), a global organisation that defends workers’ rights through international cooperation between trade unions, campaigning and advocacy with international institutions.

On 21 May, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion resolving a long-running dispute at the International Labour Organization (ILO) over legal protection of the right to strike. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN), the ICJ settles legal disputes between states and gives advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorised UN bodies and specialised agencies. Its ruling makes clear that the right to strike is a fundamental part of workers’ freedom of association and is protected by international law.

What was the ICJ’s advisory opinion, and why does it matter?

The ICJ ruled that the right to strike is protected under ILO Convention No. 87. It reached this conclusion by examining the Convention’s text and purpose, alongside other international human and labour rights instruments and regional legal frameworks. By a clear majority of 10 votes to four, the Court confirmed what trade unions, ILO supervisory bodies and most governments have maintained for decades.

This matters because it restores legal certainty to the ILO’s labour standards system, strengthens confidence in it and reinforces its credibility. Workers cannot exercise freedom of association effectively without the ability to take collective action, including strikes. For over a decade, employers and unions have disputed whether Convention No. 87 protects the right to strike. The Court has now settled the question.

What difference will this make for workers?

The opinion gives workers and trade unions everywhere greater legal certainty that the right to strike is a fundamental labour right protected under international law.

Strikes are often workers’ last resort when dialogue fails. They help workers defend their interests, secure fair wages, improve working conditions and protect democratic freedoms, in the workplace and beyond.

The opinion provides powerful reference points for national courts, governments and labour administrations interpreting labour rights. Within the ILO, employers and governments could face accountability from the supervisory system if their laws or practices impair the right to strike. And trade unions are now able to invoke the opinion when challenging undue restrictions on the right to strike.

What role did civil society play in achieving this?

The outcome reflects years of work by trade unions and civil society organisations worldwide to defend the integrity of international labour standards and human rights law.

The ITUC led the opposition to employers’ regressive interpretation, sought a resolution through social dialogue with governments and ultimately requested that the question be referred to the ICJ. Trade unions consistently argued that the right to strike is inseparable from freedom of association, and that this reading is deeply rooted in international labour law and practice.

The case also showed the strength of collective action across the global labour movement. National trade union centres, global union federations, labour lawyers and experts all contributed evidence, analysis and advocacy.

More broadly, this is a victory for everyone who believes in human and labour rights, the rule of law, multilateralism and social dialogue. It shows that international institutions can give meaningful answers to questions affecting millions of working people.

What needs to happen now?

The Court’s opinion settles the legal question, but implementation now depends on the ILO and its constituents.

The priority now is for governments, employers and workers’ organisations to engage constructively and in good faith in the discussions ahead within the ILO, including at its Governing Body. This should reinforce the Court’s legal clarity and let the ILO supervisory system fully resume its work of applying Convention No. 87, including on the right to strike.

Trade unions will keep using the ruling in their advocacy at national, regional and international levels. Where workers face excessive restrictions on strike action, the opinion gives them a strong, authoritative legal foundation to challenge those restrictions.

Ultimately, the best way to make this opinion effective is through our commitment to freedom of association, collective bargaining, social dialogue and respect for international labour standards. The ruling should end a long legal dispute and mark the start of a stronger, more effective system for protecting workers’ rights worldwide.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.