BRUSSELS, June 23, 2026 — The Advisory Opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice [ICJ] on 21 May 2026 concerning the interpretation of the right to strike under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 [No. 87] marks a watershed moment in the evolution of international labour law. The proceedings originated in a long-standing dispute within the International Labour Organization [ILO] regarding the legal foundations of the right to strike. It offers an authoritative reaffirmation of the normative architecture upon which international labour standards are constructed and clarifies the institutional mechanisms through which those standards evolve and acquire meaning over time.
For the global cooperative movement, the significance of the Opinion extends well beyond the recognition of a particular labour right. The Court’s reasoning illuminates the broader legal framework through which freedom of association, social dialogue, and democratic participation are protected under international law. Equally important, the Opinion confirms the centrality of the ILO Constitution, the interpretative authority of the ILO supervisory system, and the relevance of customary international law in the development of international labour standards. These are matters of profound importance for cooperatives, whose identity and institutional legitimacy are deeply intertwined with the principles of democratic governance, participation, and social justice reflected in international labour law and embodied in the ICA Statement on the Cooperative Identity.
The Judicial Confirmation of the Right to Strike
At the heart of the Advisory Opinion lies the Court’s conclusion that the right to strike is protected under Convention No. 87. Although the Convention does not expressly mention strikes, the Court held that the right is inseparable from workers’ freedom of association and from their ability collectively to defend and promote their occupational, economic, and social interests.
This conclusion represents far more than a textual interpretation of a treaty provision. The Court recognised that freedom of association would be substantially deprived of practical effect if workers were denied access to one of the principal means through which collective interests may be advanced. The right to strike therefore emerges not as an ancillary entitlement but as a necessary corollary of the freedoms guaranteed by Convention No. 87.
Importantly, the Court declined to adopt a narrow or formalistic approach to treaty interpretation. Instead, it situated Convention No. 87 within the broader constitutional, institutional, and historical context of the International Labour Organization. By doing so, the Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of international labour law: labour standards must be interpreted in light of their social purpose and within the institutional framework designed to give them effect.
The Constitutional Foundations of International Labour Law
One of the most consequential aspects of the Opinion is the Court’s reliance upon the Constitution of the International Labour Organization as an essential interpretative source. The Court emphasised that Convention No. 87 cannot be understood in isolation from the constitutional objectives and institutional structure of the Organization that adopted it. This dimension of the Opinion carries particular significance for the cooperative movement. The ILO Constitution has long recognised cooperation as a means of advancing social progress, improving living and working conditions, and promoting economic democracy.
From its inception, the ILO has viewed cooperative enterprise as an institutional mechanism through which social justice and human welfare may be realised. The Court’s reliance on the ILO Constitution therefore reinforces a point of considerable importance: the constitutional recognition of the (international organizations of) cooperators situates cooperative enterprise within the architecture of international labour law and affirms its continuing relevance as a vehicle for advancing decent work.
For the International Cooperative Alliance and its members, this recognition strengthens the legal significance of the principles articulated in the ICA Statement on the Cooperative Identity. Those principles may be understood as expressions of organizational values and contribute to the broader objectives of the international legal order governing work and economic relations.
The Authority of the ILO Supervisory System
A second major contribution of the Opinion concerns the Court’s treatment of the ILO supervisory machinery, particularly the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR).
For several decades, the Committee of Experts has consistently interpreted Convention No. 87 as encompassing protection for the right to strike. Critics of this position argued that the Committee had exceeded its mandate by recognising rights not expressly articulated in treaty texts. The Court rejected this restrictive conception of the supervisory process. Instead, the Court acknowledged that the Committee of Experts performs an indispensable role in clarifying, developing, and ensuring the coherent application of international labour standards. While the Committee’s observations do not possess the binding force of judicial decisions, they carry substantial interpretative authority because they form part of the institutional framework established by the ILO for supervising compliance with international labour obligations. This aspect of the Opinion has implications extending well beyond Convention No. 87. The Committee of Experts is also responsible for examining the implementation of the Promotion of Cooperatives Recommendation, 2002 (No. 193), which remains the principal international instrument guiding governments in the development of legal and policy frameworks supportive of cooperative enterprise.
By affirming the legitimacy and authority of the Committee’s interpretative function, the Court has simultaneously reinforced the institutional mechanisms through which Recommendation No. 193 continues to influence national legal systems and public policy. The Opinion therefore strengthens not only the protection of labour rights but also the supervisory structures that support cooperative development worldwide.
Customary International Law and the Evolution of Labour Rights
The Court’s engagement with customary international law constitutes another notable feature of the Advisory Opinion. In determining whether the right to strike formed part of the protections guaranteed under Convention No. 87, the Court considered the broader legal environment in which the Convention operates, including state practice, national constitutions, legislation, judicial decisions, and other international instruments.
The Court observed that the right to strike enjoys widespread recognition across legal systems and has become a defining feature of modern labour relations. This broader body of international practice reinforced the conclusion that the right to strike constitutes a fundamental element of freedom of association.
The significance of this reasoning extends beyond the specific issue before the Court. It demonstrates that international labour law is not a static body of rules confined to treaty texts. Rather, it evolves through an ongoing interaction between formal legal instruments, institutional practice, and the development of customary international norms.
For the cooperative movement, this is an important insight. The Court’s willingness to acknowledge the dynamic evolution of international law creates space for cooperative principles and practices to continue influencing emerging international standards. As cooperatives increasingly contribute to debates concerning decent work, sustainable development, social inclusion, platform governance, and democratic enterprise, their experiences may help shape the future development of international legal norms in much the same way that labour movements have historically influenced the recognition of workers’ rights.
The International Cooperative Alliance Before the World Court
The importance of the proceedings for the cooperative movement is underscored by the participation of the International Cooperative Alliance before the Court. The ICA was among a very limited number of non-state actors invited to submit observations in the proceedings, reflecting its recognised standing within the international community and the relevance of cooperative perspectives to the issues under consideration. In its written and oral submissions, the ICA argued in favour of recognising the right to strike as an integral component of Convention No. 87 and emphasised the broader importance of freedom of association within democratic societies and economic institutions. Oral arguments were presented on 7 and 8 October 2025 by Professor Hagen Henry, Chair of the ICA Cooperative Law Committee, and Mr. Santosh Kumar, ICA Director of Legislation. The ICA’s participation represented the defence of cooperative interests as well as reflected the movement’s longstanding commitment to advancing social justice, democratic participation, and fundamental rights at work.
Implications for Cooperatives Worldwide
The Advisory Opinion should ultimately be understood as a decision concerning the methods through which international labour law is interpreted, developed, and applied. Its significance lies not only in the recognition of the right to strike but also in its affirmation of the legal foundations upon which international labour standards rest. Three conclusions are of particular importance for cooperatives.
First, the Court reaffirmed the constitutional foundations of the International Labour Organization, including the recognition of cooperation as an instrument for advancing social justice and human welfare. This strengthens the position of cooperatives within the broader framework of international labour governance.
Second, the Court confirmed the authority and legitimacy of the Committee of Experts, whose mandate encompasses the supervision of Recommendation No. 193 and the promotion of enabling environments for cooperative development. The effectiveness of international labour standards depends substantially upon the credibility of this supervisory machinery, and the Court has now provided a powerful endorsement of its role.
Third, the Court recognised that international labour law develops through an interaction of treaty interpretation, institutional practice, and customary international law. This dynamic conception of legal development creates opportunities for cooperative principles, experiences, and institutions to continue contributing to the evolution of international norms.
Taken together, these conclusions reinforce the legal and institutional foundations upon which cooperatives operate throughout the world. They also strengthen the cooperative movement’s longstanding commitment to decent work, democratic governance, social dialogue, and the protection of fundamental rights.
As the international community reflects upon the implications of the Court’s Opinion, cooperatives have good reason to view it as more than a victory for workers’ rights alone. It is also an affirmation of the broader legal order that sustains democratic economic participation, supports cooperative enterprise, and advances the pursuit of a more inclusive, equitable, and socially just global economy.
The workers of the world may indeed unite, but, as the Court has now affirmed, they do so in greater solidarity, and in dignity.
Buy your copy of thecooperator magazine from one of our country-wide vending points or an e-copy on emag.thecooperator.news
-
-
-
-
