

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
One Somali labor federation said the ruling "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
Labor leaders around the world cheered Thursday's landmark World Court ruling affirming that the right to strike is protected under international law.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled 10-4 in an advisory opinion—meaning it's not legally binding—that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention of 1948, also known as International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 87.
However, the tribunal also declared that its finding "does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right."
The case originated with a 2023 request by the ILO Governing Body amid disagreement among the agency's three constituencies—governments, workers, and employers—over the right to strike.
"For decades, this issue has generated one of the deepest disputes within the ILO's tripartite structure... creating a deadlock over the interpretation of international labor standards," explained Kenyan labor law expert Ayaga Max Liambilah.
"Workers and trade unions argued that the right to organize becomes ineffective without the ability to strike, viewing strikes as essential tools for collective bargaining and protection of workers' interests," he said. "Employers' organizations, particularly the International Organization of Employers (IOE), maintained that Convention 87 does not expressly include a right to strike and that reading it into the convention creates obligations never explicitly negotiated by states."
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) representative Paapa Danquah told the court during proceedings that “strike action has been our vital tool... to improve labor conditions and to defend our human dignities."
IOE secretary general Roberto Suárez Santos countered that Convention 87 does not explicitly address the right to strike. After the court's decision, he underscored that the tribunal did not rule on the "precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right.”
Unions and workers around the world welcomed the ICJ decision.
“We thank the World Court for this advisory opinion," said ITUC secretary general Luc Triangle, whose organization represents more than 200 million workers in over 160 countries. "The court has confirmed that international law supports the long-standing understanding shared not only by unions, but across large parts of the ILO system for decades."
“This is an important moment for legal certainty, for social justice, and for the credibility of the international labor standards system," he added.
Sonny Matula, president of Federation of Free Workers—a Filipino labor organization—"joyfully and warmly" welcomed the ruling.
"In the Philippines, this is not a foreign concept," he said. "Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution expressly recognizes the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law."
"The strike is labor's last voice when dialogue has failed," Matula added. "Without the right to strike, we can say that freedom of association is like a silent campaign, unheard."
Christy Hoffman, general secretary of the Union Network International (UNI) Global Union, said in a statement that “as any trade unionist will tell you, there is no right to organize without the right to strike!"
"The two are inseparable foundations of any functional and fair industrial relations system," Hoffman asserted. "Congratulations to the many advocates who argued the point so brilliantly before the ICJ, and to the ITUC for its steadfast commitment to this case."
The Federation of Somali Trade Unions (FESTU) issued a statement applauding the ICJ ruling, which it said "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
"It reaffirms with legal certainty that the right to strike is inseparable from freedom of association and constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic labor relations, collective bargaining, and the protection of workers’ dignity, rights, and interests," FESTU continued.
"The court’s opinion has reinforced the legitimacy of the ILO supervisory mechanisms and restored clarity on a matter that for years had been the subject of intense international debate and institutional disagreement," the federation added. "This is a defining moment in the history of the global trade union movement and a major achievement for multilateralism, social justice, and international law."
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO—the largest US labor federation—said that "this decision affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: There is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike."
"When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed," she continued. "The freedom to join a union becomes an empty formality."
"At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one's labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law," Shuler added. "The AFL-CIO commends the International Trade Union Confederation and its legal team for their efforts in this result."
“From the Pacific to the world, this vote is a recognition that those who did the least to fuel this crisis should not be left to carry its heaviest burdens."
Despite efforts by the United States government to block and water down the effort, the United Nations, on Wednesday, in a 141-8 vote, backed a resolution that confirms member states have a legal obligation to address the planetary climate crisis by mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
With nearly two-thirds of the global body voting in favor, the eight countries that voted against the resolution were: Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US, and Yemen. Twenty-eight nations abstained.
The adopted resolution, brought to the UN by the low-lying island nation of Vanuatu, codifies the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, which the ICJ issued last year. As UN News reports:
The resolution calls on all UN Member States to take all possible steps to avoid causing significant damage to the climate and environment, including emissions produced within their borders, and to follow through on their existing climate pledges under the Paris Agreement.
Governments are urged to cooperate in good faith and continuously coordinate efforts to tackle climate change globally and ensure that climate policies safeguard the rights to life, health, and an adequate standard of living.
Rebecca Brown, CEO and president of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), was among those celebrating the vote as a significant win.
"The science is clear: fossil fuels are the principal driver of the climate crisis. The path to climate justice runs through a rapid, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy."
“Today, the UN General Assembly affirmed what the International Court of Justice made clear — that climate action is a legal obligation," Brown said. "With this resolution, countries carry the ICJ’s historic ruling forward as a roadmap for climate action and accountability in the years to come. This resolution demonstrates that multilateralism works, and that the global majority stands resolute in defense of the rule of law, demands meaningful accountability, and real climate action. By acting together, we can prevent further climate harm, in line with science and the law, by speeding up a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, protecting climate-vulnerable communities, and advancing climate justice."
In a statement following the vote, UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the outcome as the passage of the resolution "a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis."
Guterres thanked the leadership of Vanuatu and the broader coalition of island nations and others who led the fight for the resolution and demonstrated "moral clarity" on the issue for all the world to see.
"Those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price. That injustice must end," he said. "The science is clear: fossil fuels are the principal driver of the climate crisis. The path to climate justice runs through a rapid, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy."

As Guterres championed the need for a redoubled effort to supplant fossil fuels with cleaner, more renewable forms of energy, environmental and human rights groups also championed the resolution's passage—especially in the face of opposition from the fossil fuel lobby and governments taking their side, like the US, Russia, Israel, and others.
In February, the Associated Press reported that the Trump administration—which has pulled out of the international Paris Agreement established in 2015 and continues to act overtly in the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which helped bankroll his 2024 campaign—was pushing members at the UN to mount a pressure campaign against Vanuatu to drop the resolution.
While US deputy ambassador to the UN Tammy Bruce claimed this week that the resolution included "inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels," groups like Amnesty International, 350.org, the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN), and many others heralded its passage precisely because of the pressure it rightly places on the oil, gas, and coal industries.
“At a time when fragmentation between nations feels more visible than ever, the UN resolution endorsing the ICJ climate ruling offers a renewed path for international cooperation," said Amnesty's Camile Cortez, a senior climate justice campaigner for Amnesty. "Political and authoritarian choices by some world leaders, like rolling back climate protections or revoking phase-out regulations, have weakened global progress just when we need stronger climate action. Fossil fuel infrastructure alone poses risks for the health and livelihoods of at least 2 billion people globally, roughly a quarter of the world’s population."
"Today, the international community has affirmed that climate justice is not charity but is anchored in accountability."
Fenton Lutunatabua, the Pacific and Caribbean lead for 350.org, said the UN vote represents a "critical next stage" for the ICJ's landmark ruling that "was not meant to sit on a shelf," but instead lead to action in line with international law and the obligations of member states.
"This vote shows the vast majority agreed there is an absolute obligation to stop runaway climate change," said Lutunatabua. "Today, we get closer to that goal, and our children get closer to a safer, more secure future. Our communities also get closer to receiving justice for the suffering the fossil fuel industry has caused, and the havoc wreaked upon our shorelines as we pay with our lives and our pockets to rebuild after yet another cyclone, yet another flood."
PICAN director Dr. Rufino Varea said the victory at the UN on Wednesday "belongs to every community that refused to let their future be written off" by those who have disregarded the damage caused by the climate crisis driven by the fossil fuel industry and broader corporate greed.
“From the Pacific to the world, this vote is a recognition that those who did the least to fuel this crisis should not be left to carry its heaviest burdens," said Varea. "For generations, Pacific peoples have protected our oceans, our lands, and our cultures while facing rising seas, loss, and displacement caused by others. Today, the international community has affirmed that climate justice is not charity but is anchored in accountability. Accountability to frontline communities, to future generations, and to the shared responsibility we hold to protect life, dignity, the environment, and our collective future. This moment belongs to every community that refused to let their future be written off.”
Berlin says it needs to focus on its defense in a separate ICJ case in which Nicaragua accuses Germany of supporting Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
Germany said Wednesday that it will drop its planned intervention in the International Court of Justice genocide against Israel so that it can better focus on its own defense in a separate ICJ case filed by Nicaragua accusing Berlin of enabling Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza via arms sales.
Deputy German Foreign Minister Josef Hinterseher said during a press conference in Berlin that his country "will not intervene" on Israel's side in the South Africa v. Israel genocide case filed at the Hague-based tribunal in December 2023.
This is a marked departure from Germany's January 2024 announcement that it would intervene on behalf of Israel in the case, arguing that the genocide allegation made by South Africa had "no basis whatsoever."
Nearly two dozen nations, most recently the Netherlands, Namibia, and Iceland, have either formally intervened on the side of South Africa or announced their intent to do so. The Herero and Nama peoples of modern-day Namibia suffered a genocide during the region's colonization by Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
A handful of countries including the United States, Hungary, and Fiji have also intervened on behalf of Israel.
In 2024, Nicaragua filed a case against Germany at the ICJ, arguing that the European nation “has not only failed to fulfill its obligation to prevent the genocide committed and being committed against the Palestinian people... but has contributed to the commission of genocide in violation" of the Genocide Convention.
Germany has provided financial, military, diplomatic, and political support to Israel. It also temporarily halted financial contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) based on unsubstantiated Israeli claims that a dozen of its worjers were involved in the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
Unlike Germany, the US and Israel are not members of the ICJ. The US quit the tribunal after it ruled against the Reagan administration in Nicaragua v. United States, a 1984 ruling that determined the US illegally supported Contra terrorists and mined Nicaraguan harbors.
However, under the court's territorial jurisdiction powers, countries that are not members of the court can still be brought before it for crimes committed in member states.
Further complicating matters, Germany is one of numerous countries which have intervened in Gambia v. Myanmar, which the African nation filed at the ICJ in 2019 amid the Burmese junta's ongoing genocide against Rohingya Muslims.
The ICJ has issued several provisional orders in South Africa v. Israel, including directives to prevent genocidal acts and allow aid into the besieged Gaza Strip amid a burgeoning famine. Israel has been accused of ignoring these orders.
The US under the Biden and Trump administrations pressured ICJ members to refrain from intervening on behalf of South Africa. The Trump administration has also sanctioned members of the International Criminal Court (ICC)‚ which in 2024 issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
In Germany, as in several other Western nations, authorities have cracked down on pro-Palestine protests, free expression of support for Palestinian rights, and criticism of Israel. Critics say the persistent framing of German national identity around enduring guilt for the Nazis' wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust is driving overzealous policing of dissent and conflation of pro-Palestinian activism with antisemitism.
This perceived moral burden, say observers, risks stifling legitimate political debate, curtailing free speech, and criminalizing solidarity with Palestinians under the pretext of historical responsibility. This has driven German actions from secretly funding Israel's development of nuclear weapons over half a century ago to brutally assaulting and arresting pro-Palestine protesters—including women, elders, minors, and people with disabilities—after the October 2023 attack.
German police punch an anti-genocide woman in front of the cameras.
[image or embed]
— Antifa_Ultras (@antifa-ultras.bsky.social) October 7, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Amnesty International's latest annual human rights report on Germany notes "excessive use of force by police during peaceful protests by climate activists and supporters of Palestinians’ rights," as well as Berlin's "irresponsible arms transfers" to not only Israel but also Saudi Arabia.