Contents

Talk:Member states of the International Labour Organization

	Member states of the International Labour Organization is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on December 5, 2022.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 1, 2021 Peer review Reviewed October 31, 2022 Featured list candidate Promoted
	Afact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 16, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Finland became a member state of the International Labour Organization 100 years ago today?
Current status: Featured list

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations (assessed as Mid-importance). Organized Labour High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}}totalk pages of related articles, and assess.

@Goldsztajn: Nowhere in the cited sources was sovereignty mentioned as a condition of membership. The conditions were that the "State" be a member of the UN, or if not it has to be allowed in by other members (Membership requirements, p. 1). In fact, this section and the sources mentioned two counterexamples to that: Byelorussia and Ukraine were admitted with no issue by virtue of being UN member states despite not being "sovereign". Ghébali, Ago & Valticos 1989, p. 8: "...the ILO Constitution provided only for the admission of 'States', within the meaning generally attributed to the term in international law,...". Adding the word "sovereign" changes the meaning of the requirement considerably and is actually not supported by the sources cited. "Sovereign state" may very well be a reasonable interpretation for "state", but this interpretation is explicitly rejected by the very source cited in the article. DHN (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DHN thanks for brining this to the talk page. There were three non-sovereign state entities admitted to the ILO, the two you mention plus Namibia. All three are dicussed and the specific reasons how their membership occurred. Please read pp107-9 of Ghélbi et. al (it's available on Google Books, search term Danzig) and the mention of the Danzig precedent and Namibia's membership of the ILO. Ghélbi et. al details the Danzig precedent (which established ILO membership requring sovereign status) and gives the reasons for the three exceptions (the first two were already UN members, hence entitled to ILO membership, in Namibia's case it was treated as technically soverign). The quote you cite only reinforces my point - the general meaning attributed in international law to state, is a sovereign state. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn I did read the source you mentioned and nowhere did it mention the word "sovereignty". The implication of adding the word "sovereignty" - that the ILO went against its constitution to admit these members, is explicitly refuted by the source. All these were admitted in accordance with the constitution, as the source took pains to point out. I admit that the conditions are more nuanced than just requiring them being states, but adding the word "sovereign" just adds a condition that isn't there and muddies the matter even further. DHN (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DHN - Ghélbali et. al (p.107) explicitly state that in admiting these states it was in contravention of the Danzig principle, but that political reality overrode the legal interpretation of the constitution ("whatever the legalities of the situation, there were eminently political reasons..."). Does this produce a contradictory outcome? Absolutely. Does that change the constitutional principle of membership for the ILO is state sovereignty? No. You can also have a look at Berhardt's (2014) Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals and International Arbitrations which has a detailed case note of the PCIJ's ruling; analysis of the majority opinion (p.71) includes this: "the court considered the previous practice of Poland and Danzig to be decisive and found that the Free City was not completely free in the conduct of its own affairs (sovereignty)." Consider also pp.22-23, the section titled "The concept of state for the purposes of membership of the ILO", in Osieke's (1985) Constitutional Law and Practice in the International Labour Organization. The sourcing overwhelmingly indicates that the ILO constitution has been interpreted to indicate that only sovereign states can be admitted. I've made some amendments to the paragraph and added further footnotes, let me know if these address your concerns. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the interpretation for the constitution was that it applied to sovereign states due to the Danzig decision, but sovereignty was never explicitly mentioned in the charter. DHN (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]