International Court of Justice rules the right to strike is protected by key ILO labor treaty by UN News, agencies   21 May 2026   The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that the right to strike is protected under a core International Labour Organization (ILO) convention, in a landmark advisory opinion settling a long-running dispute between workers and employers worldwide.   The 14-judge panel of the International Court of Justice, said the right to strike is protected under the ​International Labour Organization's 1948 Freedom of Association treaty signed ⁠by 158 countries.   "Freedom of association is instrumental in facilitating workers’ organizations to take collective action to further and defend the interests of their members, including through the exercise of the right to strike. Therefore, the Court considers that the protection of the right to strike is in line with the object and purpose of ILO Convention No. 87".   The case was referred to the Court by the ILO’s Governing Body in November 2023, after years of disagreement among the agency’s core constituents – governments, employers and workers – over whether Convention No. 87 protects the right to strike, even though the treaty does not explicitly mention strikes.   At the heart of the dispute was whether the right to organize under Convention No. 87 includes the right of workers and their organizations to take strike action. Workers’ representatives argued that the right to strike is inherent in freedom of association and has long been recognized by ILO supervisory bodies. Employers’ groups claimed that the convention contained no provision to include strike action.   The Court acknowledged that Convention No. 87 “does not contain an explicit reference to the right to strike,” but said the absence of such a provision “does not necessarily mean that the issue is excluded” from the treaty.   The judges found that strike action could fall within the ordinary meaning of workers’ organizations’ “activities” under the Convention, alongside provisions protecting the right of workers and employers to form organizations and defend their interests.   The judges noted that in some cases, the right to strike may be restricted. The opinion “does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope or conditions for the exercise of that right,” court president Yuji Iwasawa said.   The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) representing 191 million workers across 169 countries welcomed the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, confirming that the right to strike is protected under International Labour Organization Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.   "The International Court of Justice has an important constitutional role to play in the institutional governance of the ILO, and the Court has effectively discharged this role making an invaluable contribution to the ILO and multilateralism more broadly.   The Court’s opinion reaffirms decades of consistent international labour jurisprudence and restores legal certainty and credibility within the international labour standards system.   The right to strike is an essential component of freedom of association and a fundamental means through which workers defend their interests, secure decent work and contribute to democratic societies.   The ITUC stresses that today’s opinion is important not only for workers and trade unions, but also for governments and responsible businesses. Legal clarity and predictability on such a critical aspect of international labour law and the ILO standards supervisory system are indispensable for stable industrial relations and effective social dialogue..".   “As any trade unionist will tell you, there is no right to organize without the right to strike!” Christy Hoffman, general-secretary of UNI Global Union, said. “The two are inseparable foundations of any functional and fair industrial relations system.”   Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO—the largest US labor federation—said that “this decision affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: There is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike.”   “When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed.. At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one’s labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law”.   During hearings in October 2025, the court heard from 18 countries and five international organizations, including the ILO, with a number of other countries submitting writing arguments. The majority of participants favored the right to strike, a protection which is already granted in most European countries.   Presenting on behalf of the ITUC at the October ICJ hearings Professor of International Law Harold Hongju Koh from Yale University said: “Simply put, the choice before you is asymmetric. Should this Court answer the advisory question ‘yes,’ you would simply reconfirm what was the settled legal understanding until 2012, when the Employers abruptly abandoned it. … You would strengthen industrial democracy and order by reaffirming a social compact based on peaceful bargaining between employers and workers. But should you rule the other way, Employers will claim that the legality of the right to strike must be decided from country to country, offering multiple positions on interpretive issues regarding other ILO treaties.”   Koh challenged the Employers’ claim that legal recognition of the right to strike would threaten social order. “In real life,” he observed, “the right to strike is a safety valve, a nonviolent bulwark of social peace. Every day, we are served meals and drinks, ride in cars and buses, and work in offices on equipment that is built, prepared, and maintained by committed and conscientious workers. They don’t want to strike; they want to work; to do their jobs for a fair and honest wage. But behind their toil is constant awareness that if their rights are abused, they hold the fundamental right to withhold that work in fellowship with their co-workers.”   In closing, he argued: “your decision here will affect every worker in the world. However you rule, workers will still strike. Will you be the judges who tell them that, under Convention No. 87, they no longer have that right?”   The ILO said its Governing Body is expected to consider the matter at its November session, including any follow-up. The case is only the second time in ILO history that a question concerning interpretation of an international labour convention had been referred, and the first such request to the ICJ since its creation in 1945.   ICJ advisory opinions are not binding judgments, but they carry significant legal and political weight, shaping debates and national and international law. Based in The Hague, the ICJ is the United Nations’ principal judicial organ and is composed of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council.   http://www.icj-cij.org/case/191 http://www.icj-cij.org/multimedia/205741 http://www.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-welcomes-ICJ-confirmation-of-the-right-to-strike http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/10/1166044 http://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/freedom-association-and-protection-right-organize-convention
	United Nations General Assembly backs historic World Court climate crisis ruling by IISD, OHCHR, ICJ, WMO, agencies   May 2026   United Nations General Assembly backs historic World Court climate crisis ruling.   A landmark UN General Assembly resolution adopted on Wednesday is “a powerful affirmation” of international law, climate justice and science, according to UN chief Antonio Guterres.   The Secretary-General said it makes clear Member States’ responsibility to protect their own people from what is an “escalating climate crisis”.   The resolution drawn up by Vanuatu - a Pacific island nation on the frontline of the climate crisis, and several other countries - was adopted after intense discussion with 141 votes in favour, eight against and 28 abstentions. Those voting against were Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US and Yemen.   When the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s principal judicial body, ruled in July 2025 that States have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the decision was hailed as a breakthrough. The UN chief described it simply as “a victory for our planet”.   The Court also ruled that if States breach these obligations, they are legally responsible and may be legally required to stop the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees that it won’t happen again, and make full reparation, depending on the circumstances.   Although the ICJ’s advisory opinions are not binding, they carry significant legal and moral authority – helping to clarify and develop international law by defining States’ legal obligations.   The General Assembly adoption following up on the ruling, sends a strong message that tackling the climate crisis is a legal duty under international law, and not just a political choice. “The world’s highest court has spoken,” responded Mr. Guterres. “Today, the General Assembly has answered.”   What’s in the resolution?   The resolution calls on all UN Member States to take all possible steps to avoid causing significant damage to the climate and environment, including emissions produced within their borders, and to follow through on their existing climate pledges under the Paris Agreement.   Governments are urged to cooperate in good faith and continuously coordinate efforts to tackle climate change globally and ensure that climate policies safeguard the rights to life, health, and an adequate standard of living.   In a statement released after the General Assembly vote, Mr. Guterres declared that those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price, and that the path to climate justice “runs through a rapid, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy.”   The UN Secretary-General noted that renewables have proved to be the cheapest and most secure form of energy and that the goal of keeping global temperature rises to no more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels is still within reach.   http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/05/1167561   15 May 2026   Speech by Mr Iwasawa Yuji, President of the International Court of Justice, at the Seventy-Seventh session of the International Law Commission. (Extract)   “The Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change was rendered on 23 July 2025. The level of participation in these proceedings was unprecedented. Ninety-six States and eleven international organizations presented their views during the oral hearings held in December 2025. The Opinion of the Court was adopted unanimously.   The General Assembly put two questions to the Court. The first concerned the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The second question concerned the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.   In its Advisory Opinion, the Court noted that the consequences of climate change were severe and far-reaching, affecting both natural ecosystems and human populations, and posing an urgent and existential threat.   In examining these consequences, the Court relied on the reports of the IPCC as the best available science on the causes, nature and consequences of climate change.   With regard to the first question relating to the obligations of States in respect of climate change, the Court determined that the most directly relevant applicable law consists of the Charter of the United Nations, the three climate change treaties (namely the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Ozone Layer Convention, the Montreal Protocol, the Biodiversity Convention and the Desertification Convention.   The Court further determined that the customary duty of States to prevent significant harm to the environment and the duty to co-operate for the protection of the environment also form part of the most directly relevant applicable law.   The Court likewise stated that the core human rights treaties and human rights recognized under customary international law form part of the most directly relevant applicable law.   Finally, the Court found that the principles of sustainable development, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, equity, intergenerational equity and the precautionary approach or principle are applicable as guiding principles for the interpretation and application of the most directly relevant legal rules.   The Court rejected the argument that the climate change treaties constitute lex specialis excluding the application of other rules of international law. The Court explained that the climate change treaties set forth binding obligations for States parties to ensure the protection of the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.   It added that these obligations are stringent and notably include an obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive nationally determined contributions which, inter alia, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.   Concerning the obligations of States under customary international law, the Court noted that States are under a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment and that, to this end, due diligence is the required standard of conduct.   The Court further noted that the duty to co-operate for the protection of the environment has a customary character, and it emphasized the importance of co-operation for the protection of the climate system.   The Court considered that the obligations arising from the climate change treaties and State practice in implementing them inform the general customary obligations, just as the general customary obligations provide guidance for the interpretation of the climate change treaties.   The Court further considered that UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), the relevant environmental treaties, the climate change treaties and the relevant obligations under customary international law inform each other and are each relevant to the implementation of the other.   With respect to sea level rise, the Court considered that the provisions of UNCLOS do not require States parties, in the context of physical changes resulting from climate-change related sea level rise, to update their charts or lists of geographical coordinates that show the baselines and outer limit lines of their maritime zones once they have been duly established in conformity with the Convention. The Court also clarified that once a State is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.   The Court then examined the obligations of States under international human rights law. Taking into account the adverse effects of climate change on the enjoyment of human rights, the Court considered that the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system.   The Court next addressed the second question relating to the legal consequences. It underlined that State responsibility for breaches of obligations under the climate change treaties is to be determined by applying the well-established rules on State responsibility under customary international law.   The Court noted that breaches of States’ obligations under the first question might give rise to the entire panoply of legal consequences provided for under the law of State responsibility. These include cessation and non-repetition, as well as reparation, including restitution, compensation and/or satisfaction”.   http://www.icj-cij.org/home   UN experts urge states to support United Nations General Assembly resolution operationalising ICJ Advisory Opinion on climate obligations. (OHCHR)   All states must support a UN General Assembly resolution upholding the 2025 Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate change obligations, UN experts said today, expressing concern about attempts to block discussion of the proposal.   “The timing of the General Assembly resolution is critical,” the experts said, as the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu leads negotiations on the resolution during the second half of May.   The proposal comes amidst new data indicating that the 1.5°C limit on global temperature rise under the Paris Agreement could be exceeded as early as May 2029, and recent cyclones, hurricanes, forest fires and floods across Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and Africa have already caused severe human rights impacts and losses.   “The Advisory Opinion was unanimous in response to a consensus request from the General Assembly,” they recalled. “The Opinion is based on a range of international legally binding sources of international law on how to effectively prevent further climate harm and its devastating impacts on lives, societies and economies.”   “We are gravely concerned about attempts to block the resolution from being considered at the UNGA,” the experts said. “States must comply with their obligations to cooperate in the effective protection of the environment, the climate system and human rights.”   “There is a disturbing pattern of growing obstruction across UN processes against explicit references to fossil fuels and the ICJ Advisory Opinion, including at the Human Rights Council,” they warned.   They noted that States at the UN Climate Conference of November 2025 (COP30) were unable to uphold the legal and scientific standards clarified by the ICJ, or agree on meaningful outcomes on climate mitigation.   “States must not delay “difficult” conversations,” the experts said, calling on countries to step up efforts to find inclusive, meaningful ways to comply with international obligations and effectively protect people from inter-linked planetary crises, growing economic inequality and armed aggression connected with the fossil fuel-based economy.   “We applaud over 80 States from different regions that pointed out the problematic dynamics at COP30 and launched a separate multilateral conference to advance concrete and fair action to transition away from fossil fuels, under the leadership of Colombia and the Netherlands.”   The draft resolution could support a collaborative and inclusive approach to fulfilling States’ obligations to legislate on the fossil fuel phase-out, remove fossil fuel subsidies, document climate harm and respond to reparation claims, the experts said.   These efforts could complement the Paris Agreement’s Loss and Damage Fund, which remains severely underfunded and in need of reform to support affected communities.   “Instead of resorting to adversarial measures, States must see this resolution as something that will benefit them all, through mutual learning and international cooperation on the climate crisis that is spreading across all continents,” they said.   The experts recalled that reparations identified by the ICJ overlap with States’ pre-existing obligations to prevent environmental and human rights harm, conserve and restore ecosystems, and fund effective environmental action in countries most affected by climate change and least responsible for it.   “A UN General Assembly resolution will set the direction for multilateral action towards the effective protection of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, including a safe climate, as a precondition for peace and the enjoyment of all human rights by present and future generations,” they said.   United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk hails landmark ICJ ruling affirming States’ human rights obligations with respect to climate change.   The Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on States’ obligations regarding climate change is a sweeping victory for all those who are fighting to protect a safe climate and planet for all humanity, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Turk said.   “This Opinion by the world’s highest court is an authoritative, clear and indisputable affirmation of the far-ranging impacts of climate change and the broad extent of obligations of States, under human rights law and beyond, to act urgently to stem the damage,” the High Commissioner said. “It is also a testament to the power of the inspiring Pacific Islands students’ movement, and many other activists, whose initiative led Vanuatu and other Pacific Island States to start the process at the UN General Assembly to request this Opinion.”   The Opinion, which was issued on Wednesday, makes clear that human rights law and obligations apply in the context of climate change, and must be taken into full account by States. This includes the human right to life, as well as to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which is foundational for the effective enjoyment of all human rights, according to the Court.   According to the decision, States have a duty “to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment”.   The “failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions - including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies - may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State”, the ICJ added. The legal consequences may require States to cease harmful activities, provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, including through effective regulation of the private sector, and provide reparations for climate harms, the court said.   “The emphasis by the Court on international human rights law sends a powerful message,” Türk said. In its analysis, the Court referenced the work of the UN Human Rights Office and other human rights mechanisms, at international and regional levels.   “Importantly, this landmark legal position affirms the central role of human rights law in addressing the devastating consequences of the climate crisis. It acknowledges the existential character of that crisis and finds that climate harms - despite all their complexities - are actionable under familiar principles of international law. The Court has provided a roadmap for people and Governments to seek the transformative change and accountability we need in the fight against climate change, now and in the future.   “States now urgently need to take meaningful action through legislation, policy change, resource mobilisation and international cooperation, to stop the climate crisis from worsening and open paths towards due reparations for those affected,” the High Commissioner added.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/05/un-experts-welcome-un-general-assembly-resolution-supporting-world-courts http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-experts-urge-states-support-general-assembly-resolution-operationalising http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/02/global-governments-must-use-new-un-general-assembly-resolution-to-turn-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-into-robust-action http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/16/governments-should-support-vanuatus-un-climate-resolution http://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/climate-action-and-accountability-for-survival http://theelders.org/news/climate-and-rule-law-why-states-must-step-now http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/un-resolution-advancing-icj-climate-ruling-by-ralph-regenvanu-2026-05/   http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?14459466/ICJ-advisory-opinion-climate-change http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/global-international-court-of-justices-landmark-opinion-bolsters-fight-for-climate-justice-and-accountability/ http://blog.ucs.org/delta-merner/five-reasons-why-the-icj-climate-advisory-opinion-matters/ http://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/world-s-highest-court-confirms-countries-must-act-to-avert-climate-catastrophe-in-a-once-in-a-generation-legal-decision/ http://earth.org/landmark-moment-for-climate-justice-reactions-pour-in-after-icj-delivers-historic-opinion-on-states-climate-change-obligations/   May 2026   Final text of UN climate resolution released ahead of 20 May vote - Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change   The final text of the United Nations General Assembly resolution responding to the International Court of Justice's 2025 climate Advisory Opinion has been released, marking a pivotal step in the global effort to translate legal consensus into coordinated political action. The resolution is expected to come to a vote on 20 May 2026.   The resolution's objectives are clear. It seeks to give effect to the ICJ's Advisory Opinion by establishing coordinated global follow-up, reaffirming that international law — including human rights law, the law of the sea, and customary international law — applies to State conduct on climate change.   It calls for implementation pathways consistent with the Court's findings, supports continued attention to the rights of present and future generations, and anchors climate cooperation in the legal obligations States already owe one another and to the planet. We call on all states to co-sponsor the resolution and vote yes on 20 May.   http://www.pisfcc.org/news/final-text-of-un-climate-resolution-released-ahead-of-20-may-vote http://www.pisfcc.org/s/Final-UNGA-Resolution-ICJ-AO-CC-30426.pdf http://www.unep.org/championsofearth/index.php/laureates/2025/pacific-island-students-fighting-climate-change http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2026/04/a-un-climate-change-resolution-that-may-shift-climate-accountability-for-decades/   * ICJ Summary: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (7pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf   * ICJ complete advisory: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (140pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf   http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1t/k1tey5ro2w http://www.icj-cij.org/case/187/press-releases Visit the related web page
	View more stories