TY  - JOUR
TI  - The Right for Strike in ILO Jurisprudence: Crisis of Recognition?
T2  - 
IS  - 
AB  - The article deals with understanding the right to strike as a human right, which was formed duringthe 20th century, its place among human rights, normative regulation of the right to strike at theinternational and national levels, as well as its role in labor relations and employment law. Thecenterpiece of the article is the study of crisis recognition of the right to strike, caused by theEmployers’ Group’s statements at the International Labour Conference in 2012. At this conferencethe Employers’ Group have declared its refusal to discuss list of countries, selected from the report arising from ratified at conventions, at the Committee on the Application of Standards of theInternational Labour Conference. The statement was motivated by the fact the right to strike is notexpressly recognized in the Convention-87, and the Expert Committee making conclusions about theviolation of the right to strike by some states- ILO members, got beyond its mandate. So was raisedquestion not only on the recognition of the right to strike, which was being developed for decades,but also about the mandate of the Expert Committee as a whole. To understand the scope of themodern recognition of the right to strike, a history of the adoption of the ILO standards concerningthe right to strike, and discussions on the content of standards are investigated. The article analyseshow the interpretation of Convention-87 developed by the ILO supervisory bodies, particularly bythe Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts on application of theconventions and Recommendations; explores the limits of the mandate of the mentioned bodies inthe interpretation of the conventions’ content; the role of Employers’, Workers’ and Governments’groups in the recognition and development of these interpretations. Efforts undertaken inside theILO to overcome this crisis also were explored.
AU  - Elena Gerasimova
AU  - S. Kolganova
UR  - https://law-journal.hse.ru/en/2016--4/198696122.html
PY  - 2016
SP  - 184-197
VL  -