International Cooperative Alliance Cooperative Law Committee joins the ICJ proceedings on the Right to Strike
21 Oct 2025
On 8 October 2025, the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), represented by Professor Hagen Henry, Chairperson of the ICA Cooperative Law Committee, and Mr Santosh Kumar Padmanabhan, ICA Legislation Director and Secretary of the Committee, participated in the oral proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The hearings formed part of the ICJ’s advisory proceedings following a request from the International Labour Organization (ILO) for an advisory opinion on a fundamental question:
Does the right to strike fall within the scope of the freedom of association guaranteed under the ILO Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (1948)? The statements made on behalf of the ICA can be viewed from 02:25:25 on the timeline https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k10/k101xno2jz
This request has arisen amidst longstanding debate within the ILO concerning whether Convention 87 protects the right to strike, a debate that has divided employers’ and workers’ representatives for decades. The advisory proceedings, held at the seat of the ICJ, represent a historic opportunity for judicial clarification at the highest international level impacting hundreds of millions of workers and millions of enterprises worldwide.
The ICA’s intervention underscores the significance of the question for the cooperative movement worldwide. As the representative body of more than three million cooperatives representing over one billion members, the ICA has a direct stake in the outcome, given that the recognition or denial of the right to strike has implications far beyond industrial relations, extending to the realms of social justice, cooperative autonomy, and sustainable development
The Nature and Role of the International Court of Justice
The ICJ, established in 1945 as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, adjudicates legal disputes between states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorised international organs and specialised agencies. Its jurisdiction thus encompasses both contentious cases (between states) and advisory proceedings (non-binding but authoritative legal interpretations requested by UN entities).
Advisory opinions carry considerable legal and moral authority. They shape international law, clarify the meaning of conventions, and guide states and organisations in their future conduct. Past advisory opinions have addressed pivotal issues, from the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) to the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius (2019). In its advisory capacity, the Court functions as the interpreter of international legal instruments, ensuring coherence and consistency across the global legal order. It performs a quasi-constitutional function within the UN system, articulating norms that define the boundaries of international governance and human rights protection.
The ICJ’s advisory function is exercised under Article 65 of its Statute and Article 96 of the UN Charter, which permit the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, and other authorised agencies (such as the ILO) to request opinions on legal questions arising within their competence. While these opinions are formally non-binding, they are often treated as authoritative statements of international law, influencing national courts, legislatures, and international institutions.
A recent example that highlights the significance of the ICJ’s advisory function is the Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, delivered on 23 July 2025. In that opinion, the Court expanded the understanding of state responsibility for environmental harm, recognising climate change as a human-rights issue and affirming that states have both individual and collective duties under international law to mitigate climate risks. The opinion deepened the interpretation of sustainable development as a legal principle binding on states and organisations alike. This development provides a compelling parallel to the ILO’s request: just as the climate opinion clarified the scope of state obligations in protecting the environment and future generations, the forthcoming opinion on the right to strike is expected to clarify the scope of workers’ and organisations’ rights under international labour law, with far-reaching implications for global social justice and governance.
The ICJ Advisory Proceedings on the Right to Strike
The oral hearings in October 2025 brought together representatives of more than 40 states, as well as numerous international and regional organisations, to present their observations on the question posed by the ILO. According to the official UN summary of the proceedings, statements were made by governments from all regions among them Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Somalia, Switzerland, South Africa, the UK, Uruguay, Vanuatu among others, as well as by organisations such as the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), the ILO Workers’ and Employers’ Groups, and civil-society actors including the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) and Business Africa. A majority of the participating states and organisations reportedly supported the recognition of the right to strike as an essential component of freedom of association, whereas a minority cautioned against judicial expansion of the Convention, emphasising national discretion and the competence of domestic institutions to regulate industrial action.
The ICA’s participation stood out for its distinctive perspective—linking the right to strike and the freedom of association not only to labour relations but also to the legal identity and social and cultural functions of cooperatives as enterprises pursuing both economic and social objectives.
The ICA’s intervention consisted of two complementary statements delivered on 8 October 2025. An opening presentation by Mr Santosh Kumar Padmanabhan, and the substantive arguments presented by Prof Hagen Henry.
Mr Kumar opened by situating the ICA’s appearance within the broader historical and moral framework of the cooperative movement. He recalled that cooperatives—both formally and informally organised—had from their inception been engines of social justice, promoting equity, dignity, and shared prosperity. Their enduring commitment to human welfare had been recognised by the United Nations General Assembly, which declared 2025 as the International Year of Cooperatives, reaffirming the movement’s contribution to economic, social, and cultural development. He also recalled that 2025 was being marked as the International Year of Peace and Trust, and the International Year of Glaciers Preservation. In his address to the Court, Mr Kumar underlined that the issue at hand, whether the right to strike is protected under Convention 87 was not merely a technical or procedural question, but one that went to the heart of democratic participation and collective autonomy. He observed that while only a minority of participants had argued that the right to strike was excluded from Convention 87, the main concern appeared to revolve around where to draw the boundaries of the right and who should delineate them. The ICA’s position, he stressed, was not to expand the Convention unduly, but to uphold a balanced interpretation that harmonises international norms with national regulation, as envisaged by Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
Prof Henry’s statement represented the core of the ICA’s legal and policy argumentation. Building upon the ICA’s written submission of May 2024 and its subsequent comments in September 2024, he argued that a negative answer to the advisory question—that is, denying that Convention 87 protects the right to strike would adversely affect cooperatives and cooperative law, and thereby limit the capacity of cooperatives to contribute to social justice. He traced the origins of the cooperative identity, enshrined in the ICA’s 1995 Statement on the Cooperative Identity, which defines cooperatives as jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprises that meet their members’ economic, social, and cultural needs. He emphasised that this definition, adopted by millions of cooperatives worldwide and recognised in numerous national, regional, and international instruments, establishes cooperatives as legal entities with a social justice mandate. Among the instruments cited were the ILO Recommendation 193 (2002) on the Promotion of Cooperatives, the UN Guidelines on Cooperatives (2001), the European Council Regulation on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (2003), and the African Union Model Law on Cooperatives (2024). Together, these affirm that states have a legal obligation to reflect the cooperative identity in national legislation, as a matter of equal treatment and good governance. Prof Henry argued that the capacity of cooperatives to fulfill their social justice function depends on the strength of the ILO’s normative system. Weakening the interpretive authority of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations by denying that interpretation is intrinsic to supervision would undermine not only the protection of the right to strike but also the ILO’s ability to assist governments in formulating cooperative laws consistent with international principles. Such a limitation would set a precedent that could curtail the ILO’s influence across all its instruments, including Recommendation 193. He further observed that the right to associate protected under Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) must include the right of associations to pursue their chosen objectives and employ peaceful means to do so, including strike action. Denying that the right to strike is part of freedom of association would thus risk restricting cooperatives’ autonomy and perpetuating discriminatory treatment, such as prohibitions against cooperative activity in certain sectors or the “companisation” of cooperatives through laws that disregard their distinct identity. In closing, Prof. Henry invoked the ICJ’s 2025 Advisory Opinion on Climate Obligations, noting its reinforcement of sustainable development as a principle linking environmental, economic, and social dimensions. He urged the Court to recognize the interdependence between social justice, cooperative action, and sustainable development, as reflected in Articles 55 and 56 of the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). He concluded by expressing gratitude to the Court for allowing the ICA to contribute to this landmark proceeding.
For the ICA and the cooperative movement, participation in the process represents not only a defence of fundamental rights but also an affirmation of the cooperative model as an instrument of global governance and social inclusion. By linking the debate on the right to strike to the cooperative identity, the ICA contributed a distinctive, constructive voice that situates the issue within the broader continuum of democratic participation, social responsibility, and sustainable development. The ICA Cooperative Law Committee’s participation before the International Court of Justice marks a historic engagement of the cooperative movement with international judicial processes. Through the statements of Prof Henry and Mr Kumar Padmanabhan, the ICA articulated a coherent vision of the right to strike as integral to the freedom of association and essential for maintaining the social justice mission of cooperatives worldwide.Their contributions exemplify how cooperatives, as people-centred enterprises, are both beneficiaries and custodians of fundamental rights. In urging the Court to affirm that the right to strike is protected under ILO Convention No. 87, the ICA aligned itself with the broader quest for a just and sustainable global order, one in which economic participation, democratic governance, and social responsibility are inseparable.
Whatever the outcome of the ICJ’s forthcoming advisory opinion, the ICA’s intervention has already enriched international legal discourse, reaffirming the cooperative movement’s enduring role in advancing equity, solidarity, and human dignity within the evolving framework of international law.
