The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that the right to strike is protected under a key International Labour Organization (ILO) treaty, UN News reported.

The court's holding settles a long-running interpretive dispute over Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise. The 1948 instrument obliges ratifying states to allow workers and employers to form and join organisations of their own choosing, free from interference by public authorities. It does not expressly mention the right to strike.

What the ICJ decided

By treating industrial action as falling within Convention No. 87's guarantees, the ICJ has converted what had been a supervisory practice of the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association into a judicial determination. The committee had read the right to strike into the convention for decades. Some member states contested that reading. The court's ruling now resolves the question at the level of the UN's principal judicial organ.

The ICJ sits at the Peace Palace in The Hague under Article 92 of the UN Charter. Its jurisdiction over legal questions between states is contentious; its jurisdiction over legal questions referred by UN organs and specialised agencies is advisory.

The treaty's reach

Convention No. 87 entered into force on 4 July 1950. It ranks among the ILO's most widely adopted texts. Disputes over whether industrial action falls within its scope have featured in complaints from governments, employer associations, and trade unions across multiple jurisdictions. These have included recurrent filings before the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The ILO's supervisory machinery has long distinguished the existence of the right from its permissible regulation. Even where the right is recognised, restrictions are tolerated in defined areas — essential services, public-sector roles, and certain phases of collective bargaining — provided they meet the treaty's tests of necessity and proportionality.

What the ruling changes for practitioners

Labour lawyers advising multinational employers should treat the ICJ's determination as the definitive pronouncement on the treaty question. An ICJ interpretation does not formally bind national courts in ratifying states, but the ruling removes much of the legal ambiguity that governments and employers had relied upon to resist strike-related claims under Convention No. 87.

For practitioners in jurisdictions where the right to strike remains constitutionally fragile or statutorily restricted, the opinion offers a new line of argument grounded in treaty obligations rather than domestic law alone. Trade union federations are likely to deploy the holding in collective bargaining, in administrative proceedings, and before national courts asked to interpret Convention No. 87's reach.

What the ruling does not settle

The determination addresses whether the right exists under Convention No. 87. It does not, on the face of UN News's reporting, resolve every question about how the right may be limited. Permissible restrictions — for essential services, during negotiation of certain agreements, or in the public sector — survive the ruling, provided they meet the treaty's standards.

The opinion also leaves untouched other ILO instruments, including Convention No. 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining. Practitioners advising on industrial action should still consult that text, the ILO's supervisory outputs, and the domestic labour code of the relevant jurisdiction.

The unresolved procedural question

UN News did not specify the procedural form of the ICJ's determination or the date on which the court issued it. The court could have acted through an advisory opinion requested by the ILO, or through a contentious judgment between states. The form matters: an advisory opinion speaks to the legal question generally and guides the requesting organ, while a judgment binds only the parties to the dispute.

Either form would carry weight in national proceedings, but an advisory opinion would have the broader systemic effect practitioners typically associate with ICJ determinations on treaty interpretation. The procedural posture, the date of the ruling, and any separate or dissenting opinions will likely become clearer as the court's official records are published.