The United Nations' International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion on Thursday, finding that a cornerstone labor treaty protects workers' ability to strike. According to reports from Reuters, the 14-judge panel voted 10 to 4 in favor of the ruling, with the court stating that the right to strike is protected under the International Labour Organization's 1948 Freedom of Association treaty. The court was asked in 2023 by the International Labour Organization to settle an internal dispute over whether one of the ILO's conventions gives workers the right to strike. In its 43-page advisory opinion, the ICJ reasoned that strikes are "one of the main activities engaged in and tools used by workers and their organisations to promote their interests and improve conditions of labour." Court president Yuji Iwasawa stated that "the protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the freedom of association," as reported by Reuters. The term "strike" is not explicitly mentioned in the 1948 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, but the ICJ determined that walkout actions fall within the scope of other protective measures.
The convention at issue has been ratified by 158 countries and is incorporated into U.N. labor standards, guidelines from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and international trade agreements. As reported by Reuters, the United States is a member of the ILO but hasn't ratified the convention. During hearings in October, the court in The Hague heard from 18 countries and five international organizations, including the ILO, with a majority of participants favoring the right to strike. International labor law expert Paul van der Heijden noted that the advisory opinion gives workers an important tool when their actions face legal opposition, stating "this decision is important when you go to court." The ruling puts an end to what the ILO described as "a long-standing difference of views" over Convention 87 among employers and workers, with the ILO noting that asking the ICJ to resolve such a disagreement was an "exceptionally rare" move.
Labor unions welcomed the decision with enthusiasm, with Christy Hoffman, general-secretary of UNI Global Union, stating "As any trade unionist will tell you, there is no right to organise without the right to strike!" She emphasized that "the two are inseparable foundations of any functional and fair industrial relations system." Hoffman added "Congratulations to the many advocates who argued the point so brilliantly before the ICJ." However, the court was careful to note that the right to strike may be restricted in some cases. Court president Yuji Iwasawa clarified that "the opinion does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope or conditions for the exercise of that right." The majority of participants favored the right to strike, a protection which is already granted in most European countries. Harold Koh, who represented the International Trade Union Confederation, told the court the case was "about more than legal abstractions" and "will affect the real rights of tens of millions of working people around the world."
Behind the legal dispute lay a heated battle between unions and employer groups at the ILO, which played out in hearings in October 2025. Roberto Suarez Santos, from the International Organisation of Employers, argued that the 1948 convention "neither explicitly nor implicitly covers the right to strike." Santos noted that the rules surrounding industrial action varied widely from country to country -- whether emergency services were excluded, for example -- and warned that "these differences cannot be resolved by simply reading an abstract right to strike into Convention No.87 and trying to impose it on employers, workers and governments." He cautioned that if the ICJ ruled the right to strike was not inherent in the Convention, companies and governments could start to unpick labour deals around the world, with national employer groups contesting the right to strike country by country. This marks the second landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, following last year's ruling that countries could be in violation of international law if they fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change. While the ruling is not legally binding, many local courts view the ICJ's opinions as authoritative, and labour advocates expect it will influence countries that have not recognized employees' right to strike.
