Freedom of Association as a Core Labor Right and the ILO

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faina Milman-Sivan
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Labor Right

Freedom of Association as a Core Labor Right and the ILO: Toward a Normative Framework

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faina Milman-Sivan
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
International Labour Organization ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Labor Right

Freedom of association operates as an organizational "meta-norm," appreciated both as an independent value and as a touchstone for the institutional design of the International Labour Organization (ILO). Despite the renewed interest of the ILO in various aspects of the norm, its understanding of freedom of association lacks a comprehensive normative framework. This article presents such a conceptual framework and a critical in-depth analysis of current ILO freedom of association jurisprudence. Freedom of association should be understood in terms of equitable dialogue (ED), a term offered and developed herein, as an understanding that is already partly embedded in ILO jurisprudence.

An Exploratory Study of Trade Union Pluralism in Ghana

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth E. Parku ◽  
Yvonne Ayerki Lamptey
Keyword(s):  
Trade Union ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Trade Union Movement ◽  
Union Movement ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Enterprise Level ◽  
The Government ◽  
Cross Sectional Design

The practice of trade union pluralism at an enterprise level is seen as problematic for both the management of enterprises and the trade union movement. The problems arise from inter-union rivalries, competition and disputes over demarcations of privileges and rights. This article explores the practice of trade union pluralism at the enterprise level in Ghana with the aim of creating awareness of the effect of the practice on the general trade union movement. This qualitative study employed a cross-sectional design and used purposive and snowball sampling methods in selecting the participants. The data was analysed thematically. The findings from the study show that union pluralism is stimulating the decline in general union membership, the breakaway of local unions from the federations, and employers’ classification of workers based on their qualifications once they are employed by organisations, and their assignment to specific unions (automatic membership at enterprise level). It is suggested that employment laws encourage union breakaways, which weakens the unions especially at the enterprise level. It is recommended that the state, labour officials and policy-makers should enforce labour laws, especially regarding freedom of association, and consider revisiting or amending some labour laws to curb their abuse. The government and labour institutions need to work together to operationalise the implementation of legal provisions on freedom of association or consider amending the provisions to curb the existing abuse.

Is There a Right to Free Movement across Borders?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Song
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Right ◽  
Logical Extension

Chapter 6 examines three rights-based arguments for freedom of movement across borders. Three rights-based arguments have been offered in support of freedom of international movement. The first claims that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right in itself. The second adopts a “cantilever” strategy, arguing that freedom of international movement is a logical extension of existing fundamental rights, including the right of domestic free movement and the right to exit one’s country. The third argument is libertarian: international free movement is necessary to respect individual freedom of association and contract. This chapter shows why these arguments fail to justify a general right to free movement across the globe. What is morally required is not a general right of international free movement but an approach that privileges those whose basic human rights are at stake.

FREE EXPRESSION OR EQUAL SPEECH?

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-169
Author(s):  
Teresa M. Bejan
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Classical Liberal ◽  
Freedom Of Thought ◽  
The Right ◽  
Equal Right ◽  
To Receive ◽  
The Ideal

AbstractThe classical liberal doctrine of free expression asserts the priority of speech as an extension of the freedom of thought. Yet its critics argue that freedom of expression, itself, demands the suppression of the so-called “silencing speech” of racists, sexists, and so on, as a threat to the equal expressive rights of others. This essay argues that the claim to free expression must be distinguished from claims to equal speech. The former asserts an equal right to express one’s thoughts without interference; the latter the right to address others, and to receive a hearing and consideration from them, in turn. I explore the theory of equal speech in light of the ancient Athenian practice of isegoria and argue that the equality demanded is not distributive but relational: an equal speaker’s voice should be counted as “on a par” with others. This ideal better captures critics’ concerns about silencing speech than do their appeals to free expression. Insofar as epistemic and status-harms provide grounds for the suppression and exclusion of some speech and speakers, the ideal of equal speech is more closely connected with the freedom of association than of thought. Noticing this draws attention to the continuing—and potentially problematic—importance of exclusion in constituting effective sites of equal speech today.

Accommodating religious institutions: Freedom versus domination?

Ethnicities ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Shorten
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Institutional Autonomy ◽  
Religious Institutions ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Opt Out

What forms of accommodation ought to be extended to religious institutions? Should churches, firms, charities and schools with a religious ethos be permitted to discriminate in ways that would otherwise be illegal? Should they be allowed to opt-out of particular laws so as to enable them to preserve their distinctive characters? This article addresses these questions by defending three claims. First, legal exemptions for religious institutions can potentially be justified by combining two principles: freedom of association and freedom of religion. Second, such exemptions potentially leave members vulnerable to domination. Third, individual non-domination and institutional autonomy can be reconciled under a regime of joint governance.

Legal restrictions on the right of association in political parties and their interpretation in court decisions: comparative legal analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-179
Author(s):  
Andrey Vershinin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Party System ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Political Competition ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Creation

The article examines the issue of exercising the freedom of association in political parties in Russia in a comparative analysis with the leading democratic countries of the world. Modern democracies cannot be imagined without political parties, which are the representors of the interests of their voters in legislative bodies and local government bodies. The development of civil society and the entire political system in the country depends on how the freedom of association in political parties and the access of parties to participate in elections is realized. The development of legislation on political parties in the Russian Federation proceeded unevenly. In the first years after the adoption of the Constitution the legislative body did not introduce strict requirements for parties. The adoption of a special federal law on political parties in 2001 became a turning point in the development of the party system. The author identifies two large blocks of restrictions on the creation of parties. The first is legislative restrictions, the second is the restrictions that arise from the unfair activities of legislative and law enforcement agencies. In this work, legislative restrictions are compared with restrictions in other democracies, as well as based on legal positions developed by the European Court of Human Rights. The author comes to the opinion that some restrictions on the creation of parties are not necessary now, in the meantime they significantly narrow the possibilities of party creation and political competition. First, we are talking about a ban on the creation of regional parties. The Constitutional Court in its legal positions indicated that this restriction is temporary and will be lifted over time. Within the framework of this work, the author will give suggestions on changing the approach to the creation of political parties in Russia, which should affect the emergence of new strong parties at different levels of public authority. The author believes that a system of “controlled multiparty system” has developed in Russia, which is implemented both in changing the legislation on political parties based on the interests of the “party in power” and the practice of the registration body, which prevents the formation of new parties claiming to redistribute the existing distribution of forces. Based on the analysis of the legislation on political parties, law enforcement practice, decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the ECHR and the legislation of foreign countries, the author proposes approaches to reforming the existing party system, which include small cosmetic changes and large-scale changes in approaches to the creation of parties.

Does the Aggravated Sentencing Regime under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 Violate Freedom of Association? A Constitutional and Comparative Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-305
Author(s):  
Delano Cole van der Linde
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Organised Crime ◽  
Gang Member ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Criminal Organisation ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

In terms of section 10(3) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (“POCA”), a court may impose an aggravated sentence on a criminal offender if the offender was a gang member at the time of the commission of a crime. The court is entitled to apply section 10(3) to the sentencing of any common-law or statutory offence, save for the gang-related offences in Chapter 4 of POCA. As aggravated punishment is attached directly to a person’s status as a gang member, one must question whether such aggravated punishment does not violate the right to freedom of association in section 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 18 is an unqualified right and subject only to the limitations clause under section 36 of the Constitution. The purpose of this contribution is to investigate whether the associational freedom guaranteed by the Constitution may be limited in light of considerations under international law (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) as well as foreign law (specifically the United States and Germany). The consensus is, broadly speaking, that persons are nondeserving of associational protection where the conduct connected to such an association is criminal in nature. Increased criminal consequences are justifiable where a person’s unlawful conduct is also connected to their status and activity as a member of a criminal organisation. However, increased criminal consequences based merely on a person’s membership of a criminal organisation, as is the case in terms of section 10(3) of POCA, is considered arbitrary and irrational. The conclusion is that section 10(3) of POCA should be amended so that it applies only to crimes that are related to a convicted person’s gang-related activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document