THE HAGUE: The right to strike is protected under the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (N0 87), has been ruled by the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ)in a landmark advisory opinion on 21 May 2026.
In a decision by a 10–4 vote, the Court concluded that even though Convention 87 does not explicitly mention the word “strike,” strike action is inherently protected as a legitimate “activity” of workers’ organisations.
The ILO Governing Body requested this advisory opinion to resolve a deadlock between unions (who argue the right is inherent) and employers’ groups (who argue the convention does not provide it).
The IOJ press release says, “The request for an advisory opinion was transmitted to the Court by the Director-General of the International Labour Office by a letter dated 13 November 2023. During the written phase of the proceedings, 31 written statements and 15 written comments on those written statements were filed in the Registry by States and organizations. Subsequently, the United Kingdom withdrew its written statement, and the United States withdrew its written statement and its written comments. The Court held public hearings in the proceedings from 6 to 8 October 2025, during which 18 States and 5 organizations presented oral statements.”
While this ruling is a massive legal and symbolic victory for trade unions globally, ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding. . Furthermore, the judges specified that their opinion does not define the precise scope, content, or conditions under which strikes can be exercised, says the UN News.
International and national labour bodies and unions have welcomed the IOJ verdict. “This verdict is a decisive blow to employers’ offensive who had put in all their efforts for over a decade arguing that the right to strike was not explicitly “written” in Convention 87. The ICJ has now trashed that argument, affirming that strikes are a legitimate “activity” of workers to defend their interests. For the Indian working class this is a shot in the arm, a powerful weapon to challenge the IR Code that, in essence denies the right to strike, says India’s leading national trade union, All India Trade Inion Congress (AITUC) in a press statement.
The statement further says, “AITUC demands immediate ratification of ILO Conventions 87 and 98 by the Indian Parliament without any qualifications that dilute the right to strike. We demand striking off the provisions in the Industrial Relations Code that seek to impose compulsory arbitration and restrict the right to protest and we also demand unconditional release of all trade unionists arrested for organizing strikes and restoration of their service and the service benefits.”
“The ICJ opinion may be “advisory,” but for the Indian working class, it is an exhortation to intensify the struggle. The legal battle is won; now the organisational struggles should intensify. The ICJ verdict has proved that power may oppress but cannot override justice.,” the statement says.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) , the AMWU, and transport worker unions celebrated the ruling as a historic victory. They argue that Australia’s current Fair Work Act imposes excessive red tape on lawful industrial action (such as mandatory secret ballots and notice periods), and they intend to use this ICJ backing to lobby for sweeping reforms to domestic strike laws.
The International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and employer bodies, said the ICJ’s advisory opinion was an exercise in “human rights advocacy” rather than strict treaty interpretation. They maintained that the appropriate venue to interpret ILO conventions is the annual International Labour Conference (ILC), where member states, workers, and employers have tripartite representation.
