An International Seminar hosted by the Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
On 16 October 2025, the Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security hosted an international seminar on The Right to Strike under International Law.
Held shortly after the hearings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on whether ILO Convention No. 87 protects the right to strike, the event brought together leading experts in international and comparative labour law to discuss the historical, legal, and institutional significance of this case.
Below you can access the blog summary, the recording of the discussion, and the edited transcript, which together offer a resource for understanding this crucial moment in international labour law.
A Timely Discussion on the Right to Strike Under International Law
Hosted by the Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security, Osgoode Hall Law School
By Kate Leblanc and Alyssa Gillespie Muzyk, JD Students, Osgoode Hall Law School
On 16 October 2025, the Nathanson Centre hosted a timely and well-attended panel discussion on protections for the right to strike under international law. The event took place shortly after the public hearings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on whether ILO Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association protects the right to strike—a question that goes to the heart of international labour law and the role of the ILO’s supervisory system.
Chaired by Professor Valerio De Stefano, the panel brought together five leading experts in international and comparative labour law—Paapa Danquah, Janice Bellace, Tonia Novitz, Steven Barrett, and Silvana Sciarra—to reflect on the historical, legal, and institutional dimensions of this crucial case. All expressed the hope that the Court will reaffirm what decades of ILO jurisprudence and state practice have recognised: that the right to strike is an integral part of freedom of association and is protected under Convention No. 87.
The discussion opened with a review of how the dispute reached the ICJ. Speakers recalled that, until 2012, there had been a broad consensus within the ILO that Convention 87 protects the right to strike. That consensus broke down when the Employers’ Group within the ILO challenged this interpretation, which resulted in a deadlock that paralysed the ILO’s supervisory system and ultimately led the Governing Body of the ILO to seek an advisory opinion from the Court.
From there, the conversation turned to the origins and interpretation of the Convention itself. Drawing on historical evidence, the panellists highlighted that the drafters of Convention 87, and those who ratified it, understood freedom of association to encompass the right to strike. They noted that as early as 1952, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association affirmed that strikes and union meetings are essential elements of trade union rights.
Building on this, the legal analysis focused on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, particularly the interpretive rules in Articles 31 and 32. The discussion explored how the ordinary meaning of the provisions of Convention 87, read in good faith and in light of subsequent practice, strongly support recognition of the right to strike, and how even the travaux préparatoires point to that conclusion.
Attention then shifted to the Canadian constitutional experience, where the Supreme Court of Canada has drawn on ILO standards in recognising collective bargaining and the right to strike as constitutionally protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The panellists noted that Canada’s engagement with the ILO—both supportive and at times adversarial—illustrates how international labour norms can influence domestic constitutional interpretation.
The discussion concluded by reflecting on the broader implications of the case for judicial dialogue across levels of governance. The panellists emphasised that the right to strike is not only an industrial-relations issue but also a question of democracy and the rule of law, central to how national courts and international bodies interact. Upholding the long-standing jurisprudence of the ILO supervisory bodies, they noted, will be vital to maintaining the credibility of international labour standards and multilateralism itself.
As the global community awaits the ICJ’s advisory opinion, the Nathanson Centre and Osgoode Hall Law School are pleased to share below the recordings and transcript of this event. The discussion offers an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the legal question before the ICJ, the institutional stakes, and the broader democratic significance of the right to strike under international law.
Lire la version française (PDF).
Video Recording
Transcript & Q&A Section
The following transcript provides a condensed and edited account of the presentations and Q&A from the seminar. It is intended as an accessible reference for those engaging with the ICJ proceedings and the broader right to strike debate.
Download the full transcript (PDF)
