Fundamentos destacados: 139. A la luz de lo anterior, la Corte concluye que, de conformidad con las normas consuetudinarias de interpretación reflejadas en los artículos 31 y 32 del Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados, el derecho de huelga está protegido por el Convenio N.º 87.
140. La conclusión de la Corte de que el derecho de huelga está protegido por el Convenio N.º 87 no implica determinación alguna sobre el contenido preciso, el alcance o las condiciones para el ejercicio de ese derecho.
141. La Corte considera que la cuestión de si “el derecho de huelga de los trabajadores y de sus organizaciones está protegido por el Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (N.º 87)” debe responderse afirmativamente.
[Traducción de LP]
C. Conclusion
139. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, in accordance with the customary rules of interpretation reflected in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the right to strike is protected under Convention No. 87.
140. The Court’s conclusion that the right to strike is protected by Convention No. 87 does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope or conditions for the exercise of that right.
*
141. The Court is of the opinion that the question of whether “the right to strike of workers and their organizations [is] protected under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)” is to be answered in the affirmative.
[Idioma original]
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2026
2026 21 May General List No. 191
21 May 2026
RIGHT TO STRIKE UNDER ILO CONVENTION NO. 87
Jurisdiction and discretion.
Article 65, paragraph 1, of the Statute — Article 96, paragraph 2, of the Charter — Article IX, paragraph 2, of the Agreement between the United Nations and the International Labour Organization (ILO) — ILO authorized to request advisory opinions of the Court — Power of Governing Body to request advisory opinions of the Court — Question submitted to the Court is of a legal nature — Question arises within scope of activities of the ILO — The Court has jurisdiction to give advisory opinion requested.
Discretionary power of the Court to decline to give an advisory opinion — Only “compelling reasons” may lead the Court to refuse to exercise its advisory function — Assertion that dispute between ILO constituents should be resolved using mechanisms specifically provided for within the ILO — Efforts by ILO constituents to resolve the matter — Article 37, paragraph 1, of the ILO Constitution — No need for internal procedures within the ILO to be exhausted before a request for an advisory opinion is made — No compelling reasons for the Court to decline to give opinion requested.
[Continúa…]
