The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work: A New and More Efficient Form of Regulation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the efficiency of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up as a response to the challenges brought forth by a globalization which, until now, has been mainly understood in economic terms. The International Labour Organization adopted in June 1998 the ILO Declaration to ensure that social progress goes hand in hand with economic growth. In order to maintain the link between the two, the ILO Declaration sets forth the obligation to all members, even if they have not ratified the Conventions recognized as fundamental both outside and inside the ILO Organization, to respect, promote and to implement the principles which are the subject of those Conventions. These include: the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to bargain collectively; the elimination of all forms of forced labour; the effective abolition of child labour; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. In accordance with the Constitution, this obligation to all Members arises from the very fact of membership in the Organization. Thus the Declaration seeks to ensure a minimal universal social basis to certain international rules, independently of differences between States.However, the Declaration presents certain problems with regard to the traditional sources of public international law. First, it resembles a soft law instrument, meaning an instrument that may influence and encourage but which has no obligatory force. Furthermore, this instrument stems from an international organization, which is a secondary subject of public international law in comparison with the sovereign State. Second, the Declaration does not directly address itself to the actors of contemporary globalization such as multinational firms and companies, but also the States. In this respect, how could such an instrument really tackle the inequitable effects of contemporary economic globalization? Did the 1998 ILO declaration give birth to a mouse?In the light of these criticisms, this article describes the circumstances of the negotiations which led to the adoption of the Declaration. The specific context of the time shows how there was a climate of internal ideological tension between the ILO Members regarding what kind of strategy to follow. There was also an institutional necessity for the Organization to act in order to reposition itself on the international chessboard at the end of the XXth century. The adoption of the Declaration constituted the smallest common denominator between the Members. In order to convince its Members, the ILO made use of its constitutional resources – as it has done so in the past. Finally, the legal effects of the Declaration, inside as well as outside the ILO, are examined. Ironically, even though the ILO Declaration is a soft law instrument and was presented to Members as such, it is able to achieve the same results as a hard law instrument would have done in terms of the ratification of fundamental conventions. Moreover, in thinking about the impact beyond the ILO, in setting minimal social standards for all, multinational firms and alike, the ILO Declaration is building a strong public opinion around those rights at work. This, in turn, is surely a way to implement them efficiently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".