Once ratified, these Conventions create binding obligations for member states. They must be introduced into national legislation. The ILO has a well-respected supervisory mechanism for monitoring the application of ratified Conventions in national law and practice. Each member country is required to submit to the ILO, reports on measures taken to implement, in law and in practice, the Conventions that it has ratified. This includes an adjudication process, which permits complaints to be made by non-governmental organisations, namely trade unions and employers’ associations. A special procedure exists for investigating alleged infringements of freedom of association by governments, regardless of whether the respective Conventions have been ratified or not. Member States are bound to respect the fundamental principle of freedom of association, by virtue of their membership of the ILO.

The Social Clause
In the context of international trade, a social clause essentially refers to a legal provision in a trade agreement aimed at removing the most extreme forms of labour exploitation in exporting countries. One of the means is through importing countries taking trade measures against them if they fail to observe internationally agreed minimum labour standards. The trade measures may include:

• exclusion from arrangements providing preferential trading status (e.g. US or EU General System of Preferences (GSP) or Most Favoured Nation (MFN) trading status);
• setting up restrictive quotas or other quantitative trade barriers and/or the raising of tariff levels;
• complete restriction on the importation of products originating from the offending country.

While the focus is presently on trade measures, social clause provisions have also been linked to non-trade arrangements. For instance, the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a government agency offering insurance to US companies operating in developing countries, will withdraw its services from projects in countries that do not take steps to adopt and implement laws that extend internationally recognised labour standards. It has also been suggested that social clauses should be added to development aid and loan programmes.

At present, while the ILO actively promotes the ratification and supervision of Conventions, it cannot force compliance or impose financial, commercial or other sanctions; rather it relies on persuasion and peer pressure to encourage States to meet their obligations. Despite this, the ILO has in practice attained an influence that goes beyond legal formality.

The Labour Standards Proposed For Inclusion In The Social Clause
Past discussions concerning the social clause often lacked clarity and included terms such as ‘workers’ rights’, ‘labour rights’, ‘social rights’ or even ‘social dumping’. This has caused confusion over the nature of the labour standards which would be covered by a social clause. It is feared that developed countries will use the social clause to protect their industries from developing country imports. A clearer understanding of what is to be contained in a social clause and its interpretation and application, will allay fears of abuse.

Most proposals for a social clause are based on the seven core ILO Conventions:

• Freedom of association and collective bargaining (Conventions 87 and (98);
• Abolition of forced labour (Convention 29 and 105);
• Prevention of discrimination in employment and equal pay for work of equal value (Conventions 111 and 100);
• Minimum age for the employment of children (Convention 138)

Apart from Convention 138, the above-mentioned Conventions are among the ones with the highest number of ratifications as illustrated in the following table:

ILO Conventions Number of Countries
(Ratifications)
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948, (No.87) 118
Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949, (No. 98) 132
Forced Labour Convention, 1930, (No.29) 140
Prohibition of Forced Labour, 1957 (No.105) 119
Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No.100) 126
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958, (No.111) 122
Minimum Age Convention, 1973 No.138) 50
Source: ILO Report 111 (Part 2), International Labour Conference 1997

The high level of ratification by 1996 suggests that the underlying principles in these Conventions command widespread agreement. In the case of Conventions 29, 87, 98, 111 and 105, practically no country opposes ratification on grounds of principle. The principles of freedom of association, the right to organise, collective bargaining, prohibition of forced labour, non-discrimination in employment and restrictions on child labour, represent fundamental human rights as defined by the International Bill of Human Rights. These rights provide the framework for the determination and implementation of other labour standards. Particularly important are the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Should Labour Standards Be Put On The Agenda Of The WTO
The issue of labour standards as a negotiable matter within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has been contentious ever since the First Ministerial Conference of the Organisation in Singapore in 1996. It was made a subject of further study by the WTO and the ILO. At the Fourth WTO Ministerial meeting at Doha in 2001, the Conference recognised the significance of the core labour standards, but the matter of its negotiability was put on hold.
Many organisations, especially among the trade union movement, want the WTO to take on board the labour issue. Within the African region, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), among others, has been a strong advocate of this position. Besides trade unions, many non-governmental organisations (NGOs), especially those advancing the cause of human and workers’ rights, also advocate this position. These two sets of organisations have bona-fide reasons for wanting a better mechanism for the observance of core labour standards than provided for by ILO. They have the welfare of the workers at heart and they genuinely, but mistakenly, believe that including labour in the WTO will further their cause.
However, these organisations share this platform with some governments and sections of the private sector whose motives are suspect. Those representing corporate interests in the developed countries, want to use the enforcement of labour standards by the WTO, to keep out “cheap imports” from the developing countries, that threaten their industries and jobs. In other words, theirs is a protectionist ploy. In fact, this argument can be used by any high-cost producing country against any low-cost producing country.
But much as the arguments advanced in favour of the social clause may seem genuine, taking the matter of labour standards over to the WTO is not the solution. It is necessary to understand both the characteristics of the WTO, as well as the relationship between labour and capital. Already globalisation has shifted bargaining power in favour of capital and against labour and this is clearly manifested in many countries around the world.
Third World countries can compete in the world market primarily because of their access to “cheap” labour. Like it or not, this is their “comparative” advantage. Give the WTO the power to impose sanctions against them on the grounds that they export products of cheap labour, and the position of the workers in the third world would become even worse than before. They could be without jobs altogether. Also those who advocate taking labour standards to the WTO, misunderstand the nature of the WTO. The WTO is a trade regulating body. Any matter taken to the WTO leads to it being subjected to the requirements of trade, than to the substance of the matter. thus, within the WTO labour issues would become hostage to trade priorities. This would hurt workers, especially those in the South, more than some of the trade unions realise.
Therefore, the issue of taking labour standards to the WTO is not as simple a matter as it might appear at first sight. There is no easy way for the workers to attain their rights. There is no substitute for struggle at the enterprise and national levels.

Conclusions and Way Forward
Labour rights are part of human rights. In other words, they are not negotiable . Understandably, ‘cheap labour’ provides poor countries with a competitive advantage in the global trading system. But that does not mean that labour rights should be trampled upon for the sake of trade. At the same time, they should not be used or be usable, by the industrialised countries as a protectionist ploy, which is what would happen if the matter is taken to the WTO.

The alternative is to strengthen the ILO, not by giving it a power of sanctions, but by providing it with a greater moral leverage. Right now, its membership is tripartite, but this often brings the state and the private sector into an alliance against labour. Labour’s hand within the ILO must be strengthened by bringing in representatives from the NGO sector, that are engaged in issues of justice and human rights. The tripartite structure of the ILO should be changed to a quad structure. The ILO must become what it was created to be – an organ for defending the rights of workers.