MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379617603 · doi:10.1353/iur.2019.a838253

ILO Standards in the European Court of Human Rights: Ognevenko V Russia

2019· article· en· W4379617603 on OpenAlex
Tonia Novitz

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Union Rights · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsConventionFreedom of associationLawPolitical scienceLegitimacyInternational human rights lawFundamental rightsEuropean unionLabour lawInternational lawConstitutional courtMargin of appreciationSociologyLaw and economicsConstitutionEconomicsPoliticsInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12 | International Union Rights | 26/2 FOCUS | THE ILO AT 100 On the centenary celebrations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), it is timely to address the influence of this venerable institution, not only as regards the labour standards protected under national law, but also on regional organisations. The latter is important, given the significance of regional human rights instruments and their role as a measuring stick for the legitimacy of domestic employment law and its practical application. At one point, Virginia Mantouvalou was able to point towards (and celebrate) an ‘integrated approach’, whereby ILO standards were accepted and applied by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)1, particularly in cases relating to slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour under Article 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as amended), which is more colloquially known as the European Convention on Human Rights (or ECHR). The ECtHR has however been highly selective in its integration of labour standards relating to freedom of association under Article 11 of the ECHR2. In this respect, the judgment of the Court on 20 November 2018 in Application No. 44873/09 Ognevenko v Russia is notable for its ready adoption and application of ILO standards relating to the right to strike, which led to a finding of a breach of Article 11. Freedom of association is, of course, deeply embedded as a constitutional principle within the ILO, being integral to its tripartite structure. Reliance on collective worker and employer organisations for the operation of the ILO was recognised in both the original Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the Declaration of Philadelphia in 1944, as well as the subsequent Declarations of 1998, 2008 and 2019. ILO supervisory bodies such as the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) have asserted that freedom of association also entails a right to strike. Nevertheless, this connection has been challenged by the employers’ group at the ILO, culminating in the infamous ‘walkout’ from the ILO Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2012 when it was alleged that the CEACR exceeded their competence in continuing decades of jurisprudence stating that a right to strike is implicit in ILO Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and the Protection of the Right to Organise3. At the time, the employers’ group stated that their actions should be construed as a challenge to the influence of ILO standards regarding the right to strike in human rights litigation4. Before the Canadian Supreme Court with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the collective complaints procedure before the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) under the European Social Charter, the International Organisation of Employers cited the 2012 employers’ rebellion as a reason to disapply previously established ILO jurisprudence, although ultimately those arguments were unsuccessful5. The ECtHR had to consider comparable submissions (made this time by the UK Government) in Application no 31045/10 National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) v UK, to which the Court responded by stating that recent events at the ILO did not undermine that institution’s standards relating to the right to strike, but in the instant case refused their application (and those established under the European Social Charter) relating to secondary action6. Up until the RMT judgment in 2014, other Chamber judgments had demonstrated an appreciation that a right to strike (and the rights of individual strikers) could be protected under Article 11, notably in various cases against Turkey. While one judgment delivered in favour of the Ukraine appeared anomalous, commentators were able to identify a trend towards recognition of ILO standards7. In 2015, an apparent truce acknowledging the significance of the right to strike was engineered between employer and worker representatives, which was endorsed by governments and the International Labour Office. However, it remained unclear whether the previous deference to ILO jurisprudence on the right to strike would be restored. For example, the judgment of the ECtHR in Application no 2451/16, Association of Academics v Iceland made no mention of ILO standards when upholding the conduct of...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it